Eggy Baby! wrote: »
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.
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
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.
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
realweirdo wrote: » Poland was part of the German Reich at the time.
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.
Customary international law bans the use of chemical weapons in all armed conflicts.
realweirdo wrote: » So do you accept now that Assad forces carried out the chemical weapons attack?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bumper234 wrote: » The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
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.
Godge wrote: » This is the bit, not in quotations, which was his conclusion.
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.
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?
realweirdo wrote: » Relax pal... HRW have concluded evidence STRONGLY suggests Assad was behind the attack.
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.
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.
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.....
