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

Jonny7 · 11-09-2013 09:48AM

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Bit out-dated now, Obama has backed down from immediate strikes and the US/EU is adopting Putin's plan.

We'll see if it's genuine or another stalling tactic.

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.

An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 09:54AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bit out-dated now, Obama has backed down from immediate strikes and the US/EU is adopting Putin's plan.

We'll see if it's genuine or another stalling tactic.

An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country

And that never happens in America right?

*cough* Michael Hastings *cough*

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 10:31AM

realweirdo wrote: »

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.

There's so much wrong with the crap above.

The most obvious being that there was no gassing of Jews on German soil. Poland was selected.

Pro tip: Poland is not in Germany

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 10:34AM

Tony EH wrote: »

There's so much wrong with the crap above.

The most obvious being that there was no gassing of Jews on German soil. Poland was selected.

Pro tip: Poland is not in Germany

Poland was part of the German Reich at the time.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 10:36AM

realweirdo wrote: »

Poland was part of the German Reich at the time.

Poland was an OCCUPIED country at the time.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 10:38AM

realweirdo wrote: »

Poland was part of the German Reich at the time.

No...as Bumper has just pointed out Poland was under wartime occupation by Germany.

It was still Poland.

You really need to start thinking about the content of your posts before you hit the fire button lad, because you're shooting your mouth off a little too much, without any kind of care.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 10:51AM

Tony EH wrote: »

No...as Bumper has just pointed out Poland was under wartime occupation by Germany.

It was still Poland.

You really need to start thinking about the content of your posts before you hit the fire button lad, because you're shooting your mouth off a little too much, without any kind of care.

So do you accept now that Assad forces carried out the chemical weapons attack?

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 10:54AM

In any case your argument that the use of chemical weapons within Syria's own territory is legal is like most of your arguments bogus.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/report-says-analysis-of-arms-used-in-chemical-weapons-attacks-points-to-syria-regime-1.1522552

Customary international law bans the use of chemical weapons in all armed conflicts.

No ifs buts or maybes about it.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 10:55AM

realweirdo wrote: »

So do you accept now that Assad forces carried out the chemical weapons attack?

I personally am still waiting for definitive evidence of this before saying it's ok to commit acts of war against another country.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 10:56AM

realweirdo wrote: »

In any case your argument that the use of chemical weapons within Syria's own territory is legal is like most of your arguments bogus.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/report-says-analysis-of-arms-used-in-chemical-weapons-attacks-points-to-syria-regime-1.1522552

No ifs buts or maybes about it.

Yet when America uses chemical weapons it's ok

Rascasse · 11-09-2013 11:18AM

When was the last time the US used chemical weapons? Agent Orange wasn't intended as a chemical weapon, though arguably it had the effect of a chemical weapon. Did they use them in WW1? If you are referring to DU and white phosphorous they are neither chemical weapons nor banned.

esteve · 11-09-2013 11:25AM

Rascasse wrote: »

When was the last time the US used chemical weapons? Agent Orange wasn't intended as a chemical weapon, though arguably it had the effect of a chemical weapon. Did they use them in WW1? If you are referring to DU and white phosphorous they are neither chemical weapons nor banned.

It doesn't matter what its intention was, its effects are still being felt today, although for some reason it is usually unreported in western media. There was however, a brief documentary by the bbc on this, leaving out massive facts but still touching on the subject. Good ol' Monsanto providing the agent orange in this instance.

Although white phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon, phosphorus is a chemical and its effects are horrendous. The US also sanctioned the use of its very own chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 11:35AM

realweirdo wrote: »

So do you accept now that Assad forces carried out the chemical weapons attack?

My position hasn't changed. I still don't know. No proof has been shown yet. There is stil JUST claims and allegations being touted around. Just because some warmongers keep repeating something doesn't make it a fact.

AND YET...the salient question has still not been answered, or even broached in many quarters...and that is why would Assad launch an attack of this nature when he nothing to gain and everything to lose and why choose that moment, when UN chemical inspectors were less than an hour away?

It really makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of which side of the fence anybody is on.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 11:56AM

Rascasse wrote: »

When was the last time the US used chemical weapons? Agent Orange wasn't intended as a chemical weapon, though arguably it had the effect of a chemical weapon. Did they use them in WW1? If you are referring to DU and white phosphorous they are neither chemical weapons nor banned.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."

Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 11:59AM

bumper234 wrote: »

I personally am still waiting for definitive evidence of this before saying it's ok to commit acts of war against another country.

Human Rights Watch has done the most extensive examination of the evidence and have concluded without a shadow of a doubt it was Assad.

They can hardly be described as propagandists for the military industrial complex.

It's probably inconsequential what you believe anyways.

esteve · 11-09-2013 12:04PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Human Rights Watch has done the most extensive examination of the evidence and have concluded without a shadow of a doubt it was Assad.

They can hardly be described as propagandists for the military industrial complex.

It's probably inconsequential what you believe anyways.

This is getting increasingly irritating. Is english your first language? I looked at this report but nowhere does it say that without a shadow of a doubt it was Assad. It said it was likely to have been him. Serious mate, are you trolling here?

Godge · 11-09-2013 12:05PM

bumper234 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."

Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect.White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

So white phosphorous can be used, according to international law to screen troop movements. The US has admitted to using white phosphorous for screening purposes.

Yet you somehow conclude that the US government appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

I am not saying what is morally right or wrong, I am just pointing out that you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from your own evidence.

you have done this by conflating what Field Artillery magazine said with what the US government said.

esteve · 11-09-2013 12:08PM

Godge wrote: »

So white phosphorous can be used, according to international law to screen troop movements. The US has admitted to using white phosphorous for screening purposes.

Yet you somehow conclude that the US government appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

I am not saying what is morally right or wrong, I am just pointing out that you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from your own evidence.

you have done this by conflating what Field Artillery magazine said with what the US government said.

No, this was reported at the time, as victims were treated with was the effect of white phosphhorus. He is not conculding this, it was concluded by sources on the ground.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:11PM

realweirdo wrote: »

In any case your argument that the use of chemical weapons within Syria's own territory is legal is like most of your arguments bogus.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/report-says-analysis-of-arms-used-in-chemical-weapons-attacks-points-to-syria-regime-1.1522552

No ifs buts or maybes about it.

Under the CWC, it's considered illegal, however, Syria is not a signatory to that convention.

They have, however, signed up to and ratified the 1925 Geneva Protocol on the use of chemical agents. Unfortunately, the law is very unclear about where it comes down on usage, production and storage of the weapons in question. Signatories to the protocol regarded the restrictions as applying only to use against other signed parties. There is actually nothing in the protocols about use within one's own borders, or against non-signatories.

Later conventions made efforts to clarify further the legal restrictions that the signatories had to abide by, but Syria wasn't part of the signing nations of these later conventions and other nations actually withdrew.

The article above is simply wrong.

...and here's another bit of advice for you...instead of just simply jumping on the first bit of information that you like and running with that, try and corroborate, compare and contrast varying information to base your opinions on. Otherwise, you are just simply a mouthpiece for someone elses opinions.

Godge · 11-09-2013 12:15PM

esteve wrote: »

No, this was reported at the time, as victims were treated with was the effect of white phosphhorus. He is not conculding this, it was concluded by sources on the ground.

This is the bit, not in quotations, which was his conclusion.

bumper234 wrote: »

The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:17PM

Rascasse wrote: »

When was the last time the US used chemical weapons? Agent Orange wasn't intended as a chemical weapon, though arguably it had the effect of a chemical weapon. Did they use them in WW1? If you are referring to DU and white phosphorous they are neither chemical weapons nor banned.

Despite having the friendly moniker of a "defoliant", it was still used as part of a "chemical war" programme. It was known that Agent Orange (or HO) and Agent LNX, had detrimental effects on human beings. The US Army, Monsanto and Dow all enough tests done to conclude that when breathed in, the chemicals were extremely dangerous, both in the immediate and the long term.

The US cleverly hid that part of it's use under another guise, but the pretense of it not being a weapon is rather flimsy.

It was known to be a lethal, it was used as a weapon...

...it just wasn't called a weapon in official circles.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:22PM

esteve wrote: »

Although white phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon, phosphorus is a chemical and its effects are horrendous. The US also sanctioned the use of its very own chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war.

The UN has tried to include White Phosphorus (and many other chemical agents, including CS gas) into the list of chemical weapons a number of times, as its effects are just as damaging as others on the list.

Guess who continually gets in the way of that though...

...there are no prizes.

esteve · 11-09-2013 12:25PM

Godge wrote: »

This is the bit, not in quotations, which was his conclusion.

Fair enough, but it appears that there is substantial evidence to support the fact that white phosphorus was used as a chemical weapon in Iraq.

esteve · 11-09-2013 12:28PM

Tony EH wrote: »

The UN has tried to include White Phosphorus (and many other chemical agents, including CS gas) into the list of chemical weapons a number of times, as its effects are just as damaging as others on the list.

Guess who continually gets in the way of that though...

...there are no prizes.

It has to be Russia, they are always blocking the UN, especially when the US are trying to get something passed for the greater good of humanity, to install democratic values in other nations that dont have them, freedom and liberty, blah blah blah

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 12:37PM

esteve wrote: »

This is getting increasingly irritating. Is english your first language? I looked at this report but nowhere does it say that without a shadow of a doubt it was Assad. It said it was likely to have been him. Serious mate, are you trolling here?

Relax pal...
HRW have concluded evidence STRONGLY suggests Assad was behind the attack.

That's good enough for me.

The only ones trolling here are people who keep saying it wasn't Assad, people like you for example...winding people up, offering not a scintilla of evidence to convince anyone it was anyone other than Assad...that to me is trolling.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:38PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

Take from it what you will...

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:43PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Relax pal...
HRW have concluded evidence STRONGLY suggests Assad was behind the attack.

Prosecution evidence STRONGLY SUGGESTED that Kevin from Corrie was a kiddie fiddler a few weeks ago.

But when the

>FACTS<

emerged, it was shown that he was, um, in fact (there's that word again!!!), innocent.

facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts............................ad nauseum.....

Seaneh · 11-09-2013 12:43PM

Godge wrote: »

So white phosphorous can be used, according to international law to screen troop movements. The US has admitted to using white phosphorous for screening purposes.

Yet you somehow conclude that the US government appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

I am not saying what is morally right or wrong, I am just pointing out that you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from your own evidence.

you have done this by conflating what Field Artillery magazine said with what the US government said.

A UN report into Cast Lead (The Goldstone Report) concluded that Israel has purposely used White Phosphorous as a chemical weapon on civilians in densely populated areas of Gaza City.

This is an illegal use of Chemical weapons as defined by the CWC, but rather than the US pushing for punishment against the Israeli's, they are giving them $30 Billion in the next decade in direct aid and countless more in military aid.

esteve · 11-09-2013 12:45PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Relax pal...
HRW have concluded evidence STRONGLY suggests Assad was behind the attack.

That's good enough for me.

The only ones trolling here are people who keep saying it wasn't Assad, people like you for example...winding people up, offering not a scintilla of evidence to convince anyone it was anyone other than Assad...that to me is trolling.

I taught english for several years, I dont want to give you a lesson but there is a difference between strongly suggests and without a shadow of a doubt.

All i have done in this is apporach it logically, and wait for evidence. Check my previous posts, I have said it is likely he was responsible as that is all that has been offered now, likely scenarios. You however have taken whatever you get and made it categorically true, which is just absolutely bizarre. I have never said it wasn't Assad, I've tried to keep this as a logical debate based on facts. Reading some of your posts, logic need not apply.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 12:46PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Prosecution evidence STRONGLY SUGGESTED that Kevin from Corrie was a kiddie fiddler a few weeks ago.

But when the
>FACTS<
emerged, it was shown that he was, um, in fact (there's that word again!!!), innocent.

facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts............................ad nauseum.....

That has got nothing to do with what we are talking about..you're up to your usually muddying the water routine, introducing things that have no relevance.

HRW have carried out an analysis of the situation, far more in depth than you will ever do, and they have formed certain conclusions.

That said, I'd like to see you provide some evidence that the FSA are guilty.

It's either the FSA or Assad forces who did it..no-one else...So let's see some evidence from you, otherwise stop winding people up.

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

Comments