Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It looks like the right wing was dead wrong yet again and Obama was right to wait for more information before launching a war.

    UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

    Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.
    Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
    Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.
    Later, the commission stressed that it had "not reached conclusive findings" as to their use by any parties.
    "As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," a statement added.
    The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the statement was terse and shows that the UN was taken by surprise at Ms Del Ponte's remarks.
    The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian uprising. It is due to issue its latest report next month.
    'Unsupported' In an interview with Swiss-Italian TV on Sunday, Ms Del Ponte, who serves as a commissioner on the panel, said: "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.


    "According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."
    Sarin, a colourless, odourless gas which can cause respiratory arrest and death, is classed as a weapon of mass destruction and is banned under international law.
    Ms Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did not rule out the possibility that troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad might also have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was needed.
    "I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition," she said.
    Ms Del Ponte gave no details of when or where sarin may have been used.
    However, a member of the main Syrian opposition alliance, the National Coalition, denied rebel fighters had done so.
    "The claim is unsupported," Molham al-Droubi told the Reuters news agency. "There is no objective evidence."
    US officials also said Washington had no information to suggest Syrian rebels had the capability or intention to use Sarin.


    Last week, the US and UK have said their own investigations suggest government forces have used chemical weapons. British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the evidence was quite compelling, but that it would need to be incontrovertible before the case for an international response could be made at the UN.
    On Monday, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said it was deeply concerned by "signs that world public opinion is being prepared for possible military intervention" in Syria.
    On the question of whether chemical weapons had been used, he called for an "end to the politicisation of this issue" and to the "whipping up of an anti-Syrian atmosphere".
    Ms Del Ponte's comments might therefore complicate matters for the US Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his visit to Moscow this week, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.
    If Mr Kerry was hoping to cite fears that the Assad regime was now using chemical warfare as a reason why the Russians should shift their position, that argument will not be so easy to make, our correspondent adds.

    Mutual accusations


    A separate United Nations team was established to look specifically into the issue of chemical weapons.
    It is ready to go to Syria but wants unconditional access with the right to inquire into all credible allegations.
    Both the Syrian government and the rebels have in the past accused each other using chemical weapons.
    The US and the UK have said there is emerging evidence of Syrian government forces having used sarin, with Washington saying it had "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been deployed.
    President Barack Obama called in April for a "vigorous investigation", saying the use of such weapons would be a "game changer" if verified.
    President Assad's government says the claims do not have any credibility, denouncing them as "lies".
    Israeli raids Ms Del Ponte's allegations concerning the use of sarin by rebels came after Israel carried out a series of air strikes on Syrian military targets early on Sunday.


    The Israeli government made no official comment, but security sources said the strikes were aimed at preventing the transfer of advanced Iranian-made missiles to Lebanon's Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah.
    The Syrian government said the Jamraya military research centre, north-west of Damascus, was hit.
    A later statement gave more details, saying military positions in the Jamraya area were struck along with other facilities at Maysaloun, near the Lebanese border, and a military airport at Dimass.
    The statement said there was massive damage at those locations and nearby civilian areas with many people killed or injured. It also denied that the targets had included missiles for Hezbollah.
    Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad said the Israeli air strikes amounted to a "declaration of war" and threatened retaliation.
    The New York Times quotes an unnamed senior Syrian official as saying dozens of elite troops stationed near the presidential palace had been killed. The AFP news agency quoted the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group, as saying 42 soldiers had died and another 100 were unaccounted for.
    Images on state TV showed large areas of rubble with many buildings destroyed or badly damaged.
    Syria said the latest Israeli air strikes hit three locations
    The Arab League condemned the raids and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon expressed concern.
    He said all sides should "exercise maximum calm and restraint" and "act with a sense of responsibility to prevent an escalation of what is already a devastating and highly dangerous conflict".
    Russia's foreign ministry warned that the "further whipping-up of armed confrontation" sharply increased the risk of "pockets of tension" in Syria and Lebanon, and along their shared border.
    UN investigator Carla Del Ponte says there are strong suspicions Syrian rebels have used sarin nerve agent - her commission says it's not conclusive.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

    Comment


    • If you're going to go to war over WMB claims then you'd better damn well be able to prove who used them. Yet the right wing in America never learns and they always want to jump the gun and start a war. Anything to increase the waste in the military budget and to try to make themselves look "tough" even though most of them are chicken hawks who dodged military service when it was their turn. Talk about over compensating.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • AND HALLIBURTON
        'DONT FORGET THEM
        To us, it is the BEAST.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dinner View Post
          It looks like the right wing was dead wrong yet again and Obama was right to wait for more information before launching a war.
          You're hours late to the party and managed to post nearly the exact same post as Danny boy above you. Here's my response to him:
          Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
          Except he still believes that the Syrian government was responsible for the use of such weapons not the rebels: 'No information' Syria rebels used chemical arms
          Which kinda still leaves us with the ad libed red line comment he made earlier. If he actually believes the Syrian government used chemical weapons as his admin is saying, he's boxed himself into a corner where it would have been better to stay the **** away.
          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
            You're hours late to the party and managed to post nearly the exact same post as Danny boy above you. Here's my response to him:
            Which kinda still leaves us with the ad libed red line comment he made earlier. If he actually believes the Syrian government used chemical weapons as his admin is saying, he's boxed himself into a corner where it would have been better to stay the **** away.
            You're article actually doesn't corroborate anything you claim it does.

            The United States has no information that the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons as alleged by a UN rights investigator, a top State Department official said Monday. "We have no information to suggest that they have either the capability or the intent to deploy or use such weapons," the senior official said, adding the US administration was trying to gather as many facts as possible.
            No information does not mean that Obama should act if the Syrian state used chemical weapons. That they are trying to get more information does mean that they aren't sure what actually happened. Therefore Obama can't still believe what you claim.

            The gotcha question for you DD is this: Are you disingenuous or incredibly stupid?
            “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
            "Capitalism ho!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
              Sure, putting a bullet through Bin Laden's brain and helping overthrow Ghaddafi without losing American lives in combat definitely sent a message that Obama is a 'paper tiger'..
              That's after he let the Libyan rebels get routed and nearly annihilated through indecisiveness facilitating months of attrition warfare as well as the infiltration of radicals into the rebel cause. Granted, that didn't cause US deaths, just some nameless brown people. Is that a win for you?
              "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DaShi View Post
                The gotcha question for you DD is this: Are you disingenuous or incredibly stupid?
                yes
                To us, it is the BEAST.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Patroklos View Post
                  That's after he let the Libyan rebels get routed and nearly annihilated through indecisiveness facilitating months of attrition warfare as well as the infiltration of radicals into the rebel cause. Granted, that didn't cause US deaths, just some nameless brown people. Is that a win for you?
                  Remind me exactly why America was morally bound to intervene in Libya? I'm extremely glad they did contribute to the international effort, but giving Obama **** for not leaping in earlier seems a bit rich. We're not exactly talking George Bush senior leaving the Kurds out to dry here.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                    Except he still believes that the Syrian government was responsible for the use of such weapons not the rebels: 'No information' Syria rebels used chemical arms
                    How does your comment even begin to contradict what I said: Obama was right not to start bombing the place because he didn't have enough solid information.
                    "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

                    Comment


                    • I haven't been following this at all closely, but hasn't Assad been indiscriminately murdering his own people since day one, more or less? If so, why would it make a huge difference that he was using gas instead of guns or bombs to do it? Is it against the Geneva Convention to waste civilians without causing property damage?
                      1011 1100
                      Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                      Comment


                      • 1. I agree.... but I would love to see how a country not too far away from there would react to this kind of reasoning.
                        2. I am not sure that what would be replacing Assad would be better for the Syrians or ourselves. That is why I say we need to stay the hell out of there and only offer humanitarian aid to the refugees. Of course I would love to see those protected but I am not sure how we could do that without painting a big human shield invitation on the camps.
                        "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

                        Comment


                        • Assad leaving Syria would be a big benefit to radical Saudis. It would be a temporary benefit to Israel as it would severly disrupt Hezbollah.

                          Looking at it that way, any chance we won't get involved?
                          "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                            Remind me exactly why America was morally bound to intervene in Libya? I'm extremely glad they did contribute to the international effort, but giving Obama **** for not leaping in earlier seems a bit rich. We're not exactly talking George Bush senior leaving the Kurds out to dry here.
                            Because from the beginng he talked the talk about have the rebels back and there was no way he was going to let them fail. So if that the case what did the delay produce besides tens of thousands of dead rebels and extremists filling the power. Vacuum we left. It's just Obama pretending there is some win win win situation and rolling the dice to get it while people die as he minces.

                            We have he same thing here in Syria. I don't think it's a if situation but a when, and if that's the case and we are saying we support the Rebels anyway what is all this indecisiveness buying us besides more dead Syrians?

                            Or if we really aren't going to intervene then we need to but out and let the chips fall as they may because all we are doing now is supporting stalemate, prolonging the war and causing the most casualties possible.
                            "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elok
                              I haven't been following this at all closely, but hasn't Assad been indiscriminately murdering his own people since day one, more or less? If so, why would it make a huge difference that he was using gas instead of guns or bombs to do it? Is it against the Geneva Convention to waste civilians without causing property damage?
                              It's indiscriminate, has horrible long term effects on survivors and with a simple wind change can do horrific damage to civilian populations. It's always a bit ironic when we ban some weapons for being too 'nasty', but when it comes to gas I think it's quite reasonable.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Patroklos View Post
                                Because from the beginng he talked the talk about have the rebels back and there was no way he was going to let them fail.
                                Direct quote please.

                                Originally posted by Patroklos View Post
                                We have he same thing here in Syria. I don't think it's a if situation but a when, and if that's the case and we are saying we support the Rebels anyway what is all this indecisiveness buying us besides more dead Syrians?
                                When has Obama said he had their back and was never going to let them fail?

                                Originally posted by Patroklos View Post
                                Or if we really aren't going to intervene then we need to but out and let the chips fall as they may because all we are doing now is supporting stalemate, prolonging the war and causing the most casualties possible.
                                So you'd rather Obama either gives 100% military backing or doesn't offer any diplomatic or other support at all? Do you favour that black and white approach to all international conflicts?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X