Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 12:56PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria.. he has no experience of anything related to conflict other than having watched 1000's of hours worth of stuff on YouTube

That's true journalism!

Source?

My name is URL · 10-09-2013 12:59PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Source?

Listen to the podcast on this page - http://www.newstalk.ie/War-apps--new-technology-being-used-to-detect-gunfire

It's mentioned by a member of the BBC News team towards the end of the interview.

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 12:59PM

Gringo180 wrote: »

And the BBC and Sky are?

I'd trust someone like Reuters over most of these channels.

As for RT, it's just predictable....Rebels carried out the attack etc etc...fake interview with fake rebel whose more than likely a paid actor...Then they go to some guy on Skype in America who hates all things American for "analysis", which is usually just a parroting of their own views.
No-one takes RT seriously....They do a good line in fiction.

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 01:03PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Same story in La Stampa:

http://www.lastampa.it/2013/09/09/esteri/quirico-it-is-madness-to-say-i-knew-it-wasnt-assad-who-used-gas-FjJDJ8oeEI19AZbyKIVBHJ/pagina.html

A quote from that article

“I don’t know if any of this is true and I cannot say for sure that it is true because I have no means of confirming the truth of what was said. I don’t know how reliable this information is and cannot confirm the identity of these people. I am in no position to say for sure whether this conversation is based on real fact or just hearsay and I don’t usually call conversations I have heard through a door, true,” Quirico said.

You call that convincing? I notice how RT conveniently left out this caveat.

He also says:

It is madness to say I knew it wasn’t Assad who used gas,” Quirico added.

In other words, he is saying whoever accused him of saying Assad didn't carry out the attack is mad.

Jonny7 · 10-09-2013 01:09PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria

Odd, wonder where Bowden, Sinab, Pannell and others have been all these years - on a set right?

brimal · 10-09-2013 01:11PM

Human Right's Watch have concluded that the Assad regime is the most likely culprit for the attack.

Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack
(New York) – Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack

I haven't read through it yet, but here's the report - http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_0.pdf

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 01:13PM

Assad agrees to put chemical weapons beyond use

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/syria-accepts-russian-chemical-weapons-proposal-29567800.html

However, Assad agreed last year to have a ceasefire with the opposition, and then broke it after 6 hours.

He agreed to allow UN inspectors inspect site of chemical attack but then blocked them for 5 days while his forces tried to destroy evidence.

He agreed to allow them interview opponents last year and then executed many of these witnesses afterwards.

I don't see Assad being compliant this time around either. Sounds like another attempt to buy more time but not deliver anything meaningful.

Amerika · 10-09-2013 01:48PM

The German newspaper Bild am Sonntag is reporting that the German Foreign Intelligence agency intercepted communications that Assad did not order or approve the sarin gas attack on 21 August – the event responsible for the decision by Obama to use a military deterrent. As leader of the country Assad is ultimately responsible for his military’s actions, but there is growing concern that it was not a sanctioned use of chemical weapons.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/09/201515/intercepts-caught-assad-rejecting.html

Putin saved Obama’s ass with his proposal, and sent a lifeline to avoid humiliation. Funny sometimes how a random chain of events can have so much meaning. John Kerry makes a blunder on the international stage. The US Congress probably won’t even put up the call for military action to a vote at this point. Putin cashes in on Kerry’s blunder and provides an opportunity that Obama will jump at and ultimately take the lion’s share of credit for. The medial will proclaim Obama a tactical genius by stopping the use of chemical weapons without firing a shot, even though the elimination of chemical weapon will be a long and arduous trudge, and probably unverifiable in the end, and civilians will continue to die in Syria, terrorists will continue to pour in, the region will become less stable, and interest will wane. But it’s all good, as the US can stay out of it for the most part and not provide further assistance to those who hate us. And hopefully other nations will take the lead for once to diminish the human toll and suffering in Syria. Any takers?

Tony EH · 10-09-2013 01:50PM

realweirdo wrote: »

A quote from that article

You call that convincing? I notice how RT conveniently left out this caveat.

He also says:

In other words, he is saying whoever accused him of saying Assad didn't carry out the attack is mad.

Did I say anything about convincing?

I simply posted the articles as comparison.

Eggy Baby! · 10-09-2013 02:44PM

sprinkle approx a dozen murdered journalists per year to make sure everything is in line

Yeah that's really politically correct....do you have evidence that those journalists were killed by the government or are you just perpetuating your anti-Russian slant that has become obvious throughout this thread and others?

I mean, come on. Many of those deaths you attribute to Putin's evil iron hand were actually caused by crossfire or were murder/kidnap-murders by Chechen extremist, for god's sake.

And thanks, Tony_EH for that defence of Russian involvement in WW2, although it was off topic- then again, you were lured off-topic by the voraciously pro-American realwierdo. I can only assume that that guy is employed in Intel or Dell considering his love of all things American. Not to mention his bizarre, David Cameron style rants where he states that our views on the American government/ it's foreign policy are irrelevant because we use American brand (not American made!) computers and iPhones.

I love those people who come out with ridiculous diarrhoea such as this because it just makes their position look so pathetic and indefensible and in the end helps us.

And regarding the off-topic tangent this thread went off on regarding Soviet involvement in WW2, Stalingrad, Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Budapest, Seelow Heights etc. were not won by canned pork and boots from lend-lease. They were won by Soviet blood, for Christ's sakes. It's easy for us entitled, peace-generation types to sit back on our armchairs and criticise the greatest defence of a country that ever occurred in the history of mankind, a defence that resulted in millions of death and unquantifiable amounts of destruction and torment.

Nevertheless, Lend-Lease was a factor in the Soviet victory, but it is given far too much credit. Russophobes these days, as during the Cold War, seek to find anything that may seize credit from the Russians for their astounding victory over fascism- a war that they did not ask for. It was a war that was waged in order to exterminate them.

And all our generation does is crap all over their memories. It makes me sick inside.

Now regarding the bizarre pro-American slant of realweirdo. We have a problem with American foreign policy. I use American products etc. because they are made by American people. I don't have a problem with the American people, just with their government and it's behaviour overseas and (occasionally) domestically. I hope that the American people can boycott their sham of a government if it goes ahead with this illegal strike.

Syria has not signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore it under no legal obligation to give up chemical weapons. It's not legally obliged to restrict it's use of chemical weapons because it is not a signatory.

So what guideline should we follow? International law or a speech Obama made some time ago where he made an obscure remark about a "red line" which he later sorta retracted?

But guess what? Some countries don't ratify conventions. The USA has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Should we enforce this convention on them even though they don't want to ratify it? It also doesn't recognise the authority of the ICC.

The American government (i'll just use this term from now on to repel voracious pro-Americans) says that if Syria's apparent (not certain) use of chemical weapons goes unpunished, it will create a culture of impunity.

Maybe. But if we fail to defend international laws and norms against warmongering rogue states like America, we will create an even more dangerous and volatile culture of impunity- we will create a world where international law is only a mere scrap of paper rather than guidelines that must be followed by every country in the world, no fricking exceptions.

(And another bit of info about international law- Israel regularly breaks UN resolutions. I believe it has set a record for the most ignored resolutions from the UN. So if the best buddy of the USA does these things then it can hardly claim to be the best defender of international law.)

So let's just hope that Barack "Ear Lingus" Obama and John "The Chin" Kerry get the egg in their faces that they deserve from this crisis. It will serve as a reminder that international law should reign supreme above all else in order for a more just world.

Sierra Oscar · 10-09-2013 02:56PM

Military intervention is now off the table according to sources on capital hill. It is now looking likely that there will be no vote on the matter.

Rascasse · 10-09-2013 03:01PM

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Syria has not signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore it under no legal obligation to give up chemical weapons. It's not legally obliged to restrict it's use of chemical weapons because it is not a signatory.

This isn't true. Syria is party to the Geneva Protocol forbidding use of chemical weapons. One big hole in the Geneva Protocol is that it is only focussed on use, not production, stockpiling or transfer of chemical weapons, that was the reason for the CWC. Syria's use of chemical weapons is also a war crime and should Assad not end up at the end of a rope I can imagine a referral to the ICC for this (and other acts).

Cork boy 55 · 10-09-2013 04:38PM

A Preliminary Analysis of the Nerve Agent Attack of
August 21, 2013 Against
Unprotected Civilians in the Suburbs of Damascus, Syria
17.477
The Politics and Technology of Weapons of Weapons Systems
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Theodore A. Postol
Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/iraq_syria.pdf

Cork boy 55 · 10-09-2013 04:38PM

Initial Investigation On Potential Chemical Weapons
Found In Syria
By: Richard M. Lloyd
Warhead Technology
Tesla Laboratory Inc.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/Lloyd_warhead.pdf

Cork boy 55 · 10-09-2013 04:48PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The BBC have been using an unemployed bloke from Coventry to verify videos coming out of Syria.. he has no experience of anything related to conflict other than having watched 1000's of hours worth of stuff on YouTube

That's true journalism!

Are you referring to the blogger/journalist "brown moses" Eliot Higgins

My name is URL · 10-09-2013 05:32PM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Are you referring to the blogger/journalist "brown moses" Eliot Higgins

The unemployed bloke working out of his bedroom with zero qualifications in forensic analysis and no real world experience of investigating events in conflict regions, yes.

alastair · 10-09-2013 05:45PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The unemployed bloke working out of his bedroom with zero qualifications in forensic analysis and no real world experience of investigating events in conflict regions, yes.

And your credentials are...?

Fair play to the guy - he's found a niche and established a competency no-one else bothered with.

My name is URL · 10-09-2013 05:52PM

alastair wrote: »

Fair play to the guy - he's found a niche and established a competency no-one else bothered with.

I have nothing against him. I do have something against the fact that the BBC et al are using him to verify videos which end up shaping public opinion.

You honestly see no issue with them availing of the services of an unqualified and inexperienced 'analyst'.. I bet your tune would change if RT were doing the same thing.

Cork boy 55 · 10-09-2013 06:09PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The unemployed bloke working out of his bedroom with zero qualifications in forensic analysis and no real world experience of investigating events in conflict regions, yes.

Well he is not unemployed anymore as he is being paid for work by crowd sourcing
He is a blogger who writes interesting blog post about weapons and equipment
he sees in videos that's about it, and that's all it claims to be
He verifies a lot of what he sees by chatting with experts and others.

Videos are a source of information

He work is of high quality was been quoted and interviewed by dozens of media
outlets and organisations, among them the BBC if you actually read his blog(which you clearly have not) you would see he does not have any biases and in the past has exposed both sides wrong doing.
http://brown-moses.blogspot.ie/
wiki entry about him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins

alastair · 10-09-2013 06:10PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I have nothing against him. I do have something against the fact that the BBC et al are using him to verify videos which end up shaping public opinion.

You honestly see no issue with them availing of the services of an unqualified and inexperienced 'analyst'.. I bet your tune would change if RT were doing the same thing.

As far as I can see the guy is simply identifying weapons based on publicly accessible information, and doesn't have an ideological stake in the conflict - which puts him ahead of RT any day. If he's got the information where others don't, I don't see a problem with journalists calling on his (self-developed) expertise.

bmaxi · 10-09-2013 06:17PM

realweirdo wrote: »

I'd trust someone like Reuters over most of these channels.

As for RT, it's just predictable....Rebels carried out the attack etc etc...fake interview with fake rebel whose more than likely a paid actor...Then they go to some guy on Skype in America who hates all things American for "analysis", which is usually just a parroting of their own views.
No-one takes RT seriously....They do a good line in fiction.

A bit like Sky, CBS, NBC. All these channels, like some newspapers, have an agenda. I don't think RT is any worse than them when it comes to credibility.
Just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Tony EH · 10-09-2013 06:18PM

Rascasse wrote: »

This isn't true. Syria is party to the Geneva Protocol forbidding use of chemical weapons. One big hole in the Geneva Protocol is that it is only focussed on use, not production, stockpiling or transfer of chemical weapons, that was the reason for the CWC. Syria's use of chemical weapons is also a war crime and should Assad not end up at the end of a rope I can imagine a referral to the ICC for this (and other acts).

Actually what Eggy Baby said IS true. Syria is not a signatory to the CWC.

In addition, the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which was ratified by Syria, doesn't state any illegality about using chemical weapons within one's own borders.

So, if Assad did order CW to be used, or if one of his commanders on the ground did on his own steam, there has been no actual crime committed.

Rascasse · 10-09-2013 06:32PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually what Eggy Baby said IS true. Syria is not a signatory to the CWC.

In addition, the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which was ratified by Syria, doesn't state any illegality about using chemical weapons within one's own borders.

So, if Assad did order CW to be used, or if one of his commanders on the ground did on his own steam, there has been no actual crime committed.

Utter nonsense.

Tony EH · 10-09-2013 06:40PM

I had a conversation last week with a chap whose brother was part of CBRN operations in England. He said that only when chemical weapons are used in warfare by a nation, outside of that country's boarders and against another signatory nation, is it considered absolutely illegal and then only when that country, itself, is a signatory to the chemical weapons act. When an agent is used within the boarders on the using nation, it's not.

I cannot vouch for the veracity of those words. But I have no reason to disbelieve this person I was talking to.

In addition, there have been repeated attempts by the UN (who also consider CS gas as a chemical agent) to get aggressive chemical usage made illegal in all circumstances, including domestic use, but it has been voted against on numerous occasions. Continuously by the US and France.

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 07:55PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually what Eggy Baby said IS true. Syria is not a signatory to the CWC.

In addition, the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which was ratified by Syria, doesn't state any illegality about using chemical weapons within one's own borders.

So, if Assad did order CW to be used, or if one of his commanders on the ground did on his own steam, there has been no actual crime committed.

By that rationale, when Hitler gassed the Jews, no actual crime was committed since it was within his own borders. Having said that, the rest of the world didn't really care about the Jews. They only got annoyed with Hitler when he attacked them.

Leaving aside the question of whether what is happening in Syria today is genocide by Assad, the international response to genocide for at least the last century has always been next to nothing, going back to the Armenian genocide. The most common reaction among western electorates is that its none of our business or else there is no strategic value in getting involved.

The reaction of most of the American electorate seems to be, "what's in it for us?"

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 08:09PM

bmaxi wrote: »

A bit like Sky, CBS, NBC. All these channels, like some newspapers, have an agenda. I don't think RT is any worse than them when it comes to credibility.
Just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Not altogether true...Washington Post - brought down Nixon- hardly an example of towing the government line.
New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, which helped bring the Vietnam War to a close.
The Guardian published many wikileaks documents, which was detrimental to US and UK interests.
The Independent in the UK which publishes Robert Fisk, a major critic of UK foreign policy.
George Galloway is on Question Time in the UK every couple of weeks and is all over the airways in the UK including the BBC, more so than politicians who are in favour of intervention.
There are thousands more examples or a platform given to people who oppose UK foreign policy.

I can't imagine RT even criticising Putin. It's just a joke media organisation.

Eggy Baby! · 10-09-2013 09:01PM

By that rationale, when Hitler gassed the Jews, no actual crime was committed since it was within his own borders.

Leaving aside the adherence to Godwin's Law, Hitler didn't kill the Jews with chemical weapons. He killed them with lethal gas, not weaponised gas. The Nazis used a pesticide called Zyklon B. It was not a chemical weapon. They decided to use a gas that just happened to be particularly good at killing humans.

Secondly, gassing people for the purposes of extermination is different to using chemical weaponry in war, period. Exterminating people with gas confers no strategic advantage upon the perpetrators, except, perhaps, terror.

Your rationale is also unsuitable because the CWC didn't exist during WW2. It was a horrendous moral crime, without a doubt, but a legal crime? It would be much harder to answer this.

Utter nonsense.

Like I said- it may be a moral crime, but a legal crime?

The reaction of most of the American electorate seems to be, "what's in it for us?"

Nope. Most would be wary of their government's behaviour post-Iraq, Libya etc. and would distrust intervention.

I can't imagine RT even criticising Putin. It's just a joke media organisation.

http://rt.com/op-edge/russia-gay-rights-sochi-945/

Would you like me to find more? Or would you be bothered to do a simple google search and find this sh*t for yourself?

bmaxi · 10-09-2013 10:35PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Not altogether true...Washington Post - brought down Nixon- hardly an example of towing the government line.
New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, which helped bring the Vietnam War to a close.
The Guardian published many wikileaks documents, which was detrimental to US and UK interests.
The Independent in the UK which publishes Robert Fisk, a major critic of UK foreign policy.
George Galloway is on Question Time in the UK every couple of weeks and is all over the airways in the UK including the BBC, more so than politicians who are in favour of intervention.
There are thousands more examples or a platform given to people who oppose UK foreign policy.

I can't imagine RT even criticising Putin. It's just a joke media organisation.

I don't recall mentioning the Washington Post or the NY Times or even the Guardian. Nixon was forty years ago when there was a little more morality in the media and investigative journalism was more than who's sleeping with whom.
Suffice it to say that in today's world the media is about which mogul owns which channel or newspaper and which political party is in hock to them.
As for George Galloway, I've never really been sure about where he is coming from but he certainly has been a thorn in the flesh of the British establishment. Maybe he's that rare creature, a true Socialist.

realweirdo · 10-09-2013 11:48PM

bmaxi wrote: »

I don't recall mentioning the Washington Post or the NY Times or even the Guardian. Nixon was forty years ago when there was a little more morality in the media and investigative journalism was more than who's sleeping with whom.
Suffice it to say that in today's world the media is about which mogul owns which channel or newspaper and which political party is in hock to them.
As for George Galloway, I've never really been sure about where he is coming from but he certainly has been a thorn in the flesh of the British establishment. Maybe he's that rare creature, a true Socialist.

George Galloway is basically against everything, he's a troll, a shrill, a guy who lauded Saddam Hussein and was outraged when Saddam was overthrown...Now he thinks Assad is the greatest guy who ever lived and as much as said so on Question Time. Assad can do no wrong and everyone is waiting for him to condemn Assad after the recent chemical attack but I suppose we will be waiting.

Reporters without borders who know a lot more about press independence and freedom than you, rank Russian 142nd in the world, more than 100 places behind the UK and below such countries as Nigerian and Ethopia.

RT are just a direct mouthpiece of the kremlin, there is no balance on that station, it's just unashamed 24/7 pro kremlin propaganda..its a joke...I'm willing to take most sources seriously, but using RT as a source I just immediatley turn off as do most people.

Eggy Baby! · 11-09-2013 12:23AM

RT are just a direct mouthpiece of the kremlin, there is no balance on that station, it's just unashamed 24/7 pro kremlin propaganda..its a joke...I'm willing to take most sources seriously, but using RT as a source I just immediatley turn off as do most people.

Did you read the source I supplied you or do you actually give a damn?

Moving on, here's a nice picture which sums up the current situation in Syria:

Steve-Bell-11.09.2013-002.jpg

George Galloway is basically against everything, he's a troll, a shrill

Much like somebody I know....

rank Russian 142nd in the world

Much of that report was based on the assumption that Putin murders journalists due to the high death rate for journalists in that country during the Chechen wars.

Just face it, realweirdo, the nice little cosy war in Syria you want ever so much just isn't going to happen.

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Comments