Syria Superthread [merged]
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,812
- Points
- 940
I saw nothing in the UK Parliament's voting against contributing forces to a military strike, which precludes their bases being used to support such operations.S.M.A. said:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201398151357659161.html
Assad says no evidence of chemical attack
Syrian president, interviewed by US broadcaster, denies he was behind a chemical weapons attack in Damascus suburbs.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has denied that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people and said evidence was not conclusive that there had been such an attack, CBS reported.
"There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," CBS on Sunday quoted Assad as saying in an interview conducted by Charlie Rose in Damascus.
The US, along with other Western and regional countries, accuse the Assad regime of carrying out a chemical attack in Damascus suburbs on August 21, killing hundreds of people.
Speaking on the CBS Sunday morning show Face the Nation, Rose summarised the answers Assad gave in his first interview with an American television network in the last two years .
Rose said that the Syrian president did not confirm or deny that the regime has chemical weapons.
The US and France are seeking to build an international coalition to launch military strikes against Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack.
Member countries of the European Union also blame the Syrian government for the attack said on Saturday that the world should wait for a report from UN weapons inspectors before any US-led military response.
In another media report on Sunday, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper said Syrian government forces may have used chemical weapons without the personal permission of Assad.
Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.
Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.
Assad says no evidence of chemical attack
Syrian president, interviewed by US broadcaster, denies he was behind a chemical weapons attack in Damascus suburbs.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has denied that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people and said evidence was not conclusive that there had been such an attack, CBS reported.
"There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," CBS on Sunday quoted Assad as saying in an interview conducted by Charlie Rose in Damascus.
The US, along with other Western and regional countries, accuse the Assad regime of carrying out a chemical attack in Damascus suburbs on August 21, killing hundreds of people.
Speaking on the CBS Sunday morning show Face the Nation, Rose summarised the answers Assad gave in his first interview with an American television network in the last two years .
Rose said that the Syrian president did not confirm or deny that the regime has chemical weapons.
The US and France are seeking to build an international coalition to launch military strikes against Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack.
Member countries of the European Union also blame the Syrian government for the attack said on Saturday that the world should wait for a report from UN weapons inspectors before any US-led military response.
In another media report on Sunday, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper said Syrian government forces may have used chemical weapons without the personal permission of Assad.
Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.
Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.
He makes a "just because" statement;
("President Vladmir V. Putin of Russia wants to prevent the United States
from using military force or support from the Security Council to bring down governments it opposes.")
It is no wonder that Hamadi Jebali who resigned as Prime Minister of Tunisia made known in early 2012 that the international
community has to reconsider the mechanism of decision making policy regarding veto action in the Security Council.
A veto decision cannot come to be based solely on such "just because" reasoning by any elected leader.
It is hollow.
In this case, it lacks representation of the predicament of the people of Syria.
Sometimes we need not look too far back to recognize crucial advances to world peace that must be made known
and exercised by the audience it applies to. That audience must include the council itself.
From a single Security Council Resolution (1325) adopted in 2000 we clearly see reason to make
appropriate changes to the veto mechanism.
It lacks representation from those who suffer the greatest.
Where is their voice found in such "just because" statements ?
Info;
Tawakkol Karmen, along with Ellen Johnson Sirleaff and Leymah Gboweee, were the co-recipients of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work.
The Nobel Committee cited Resolution 1325, which states that women and children suffer great harm from war and political instability and that women must have a larger influence and role in peacemaking activities; it also "calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective."Upon announcing the award, the committee chairman Thorbjørn Jaglandd said: "We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society." He later added that the prize was "a very important signal to women all over the world."
("President Vladmir V. Putin of Russia wants to prevent the United States
from using military force or support from the Security Council to bring down governments it opposes.")
It is no wonder that Hamadi Jebali who resigned as Prime Minister of Tunisia made known in early 2012 that the international
community has to reconsider the mechanism of decision making policy regarding veto action in the Security Council.
A veto decision cannot come to be based solely on such "just because" reasoning by any elected leader.
It is hollow.
In this case, it lacks representation of the predicament of the people of Syria.
Sometimes we need not look too far back to recognize crucial advances to world peace that must be made known
and exercised by the audience it applies to. That audience must include the council itself.
From a single Security Council Resolution (1325) adopted in 2000 we clearly see reason to make
appropriate changes to the veto mechanism.
It lacks representation from those who suffer the greatest.
Where is their voice found in such "just because" statements ?
Info;
Tawakkol Karmen, along with Ellen Johnson Sirleaff and Leymah Gboweee, were the co-recipients of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work.
The Nobel Committee cited Resolution 1325, which states that women and children suffer great harm from war and political instability and that women must have a larger influence and role in peacemaking activities; it also "calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective."Upon announcing the award, the committee chairman Thorbjørn Jaglandd said: "We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society." He later added that the prize was "a very important signal to women all over the world."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hmmmm could we kill both sides and then rent the place out to the Palestinians?
- Reaction score
- 4,592
- Points
- 1,160
myself.only said:
I think a lot of them would still want to take on Israel. We'd replace one enemy for another.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
PuckChaser said:
Mmmm we could tell them they could be grateful... or perhaps they need us to deploy Celine Dion and Justin Bieber on a Friendship Tour to convince them?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
An unprecedented diplomatic initiative by Putin or just another ploy to buy time for Assad?
Calgary Herald link
Calgary Herald link
On the "Red Line"
It was not Mr. Obama that made that line. It was established by our forefathers who had firsthand terrifying experiences
from the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
They recognized right away the dangers to the innocent of future generations. They agreed upon, friend and foe alike, on
measures including mechanisms that were subsequently set in place prior to the population explosion.
The last of those mechanisms is the ultimatum. It is obvious that something must be done.
War is the final word of its definition. The theory is clear;
"Do something or we shoot !" It must be understood then, "Do nothing, we shoot !".
It is also clear that when it comes to this point, world leaders suddenly realize the tack in their shoe
must be dealt with immediately.
Mr Obama (in reality) is correcting a wrong that previous administrations and the whole world
overlooked and allowed to happen.
The initiative he has taken is what should have been done at that time. It could very well have been made by
most any other nation.
As we all become aware of the possible consequences of the ultimatum,
we must align ourselves once again, but this time in a direction
to finally extinguish forever the use of these types of weapons from human history.
We'll get there.
I second Mr. Ban ki-Moon statement; "Give peace a chance ".
It was not Mr. Obama that made that line. It was established by our forefathers who had firsthand terrifying experiences
from the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
They recognized right away the dangers to the innocent of future generations. They agreed upon, friend and foe alike, on
measures including mechanisms that were subsequently set in place prior to the population explosion.
The last of those mechanisms is the ultimatum. It is obvious that something must be done.
War is the final word of its definition. The theory is clear;
"Do something or we shoot !" It must be understood then, "Do nothing, we shoot !".
It is also clear that when it comes to this point, world leaders suddenly realize the tack in their shoe
must be dealt with immediately.
Mr Obama (in reality) is correcting a wrong that previous administrations and the whole world
overlooked and allowed to happen.
The initiative he has taken is what should have been done at that time. It could very well have been made by
most any other nation.
As we all become aware of the possible consequences of the ultimatum,
we must align ourselves once again, but this time in a direction
to finally extinguish forever the use of these types of weapons from human history.
We'll get there.
I second Mr. Ban ki-Moon statement; "Give peace a chance ".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
In the meantime, many Russians- save for perhaps all those Russian military advisors embedded in Syrian units- are leaving Syria in government-chartered planes ahead of the possible strike.
S.M.A. said:
Which ever it is, it has bought time for both Assad and Obama. However, the cynic in me says that the "international community" cannot guarantee that all the Syrian chemical weapons will be collected and turned over to international control, perhaps because the possibility exists that one or more people somewhere down the chain will keep some back just in case. Now I have no idea of the extent of the regime's stocks and chemical weapons are fairly inefficient in that a fair number are required to achieve a militarily significant result. That, also, is dependent upon weather to a fairly large extent. In other words, the amount to be hidden might be large enough to show up in any physical count to verify numbers against records thaT would be out more than a few rounds.
Perhaps the offer provides a face saving device for both Assad and Obama. If Assad refuses, the momentum for a strike may be increased, while if he accepts, the opposite seems to occur. All Obama has to do in the meantime is jut his chin out and make a few emotional speeches while he waits for events to unfold.
- Reaction score
- 3,959
- Points
- 1,260
Initial response, via wire service Twitter feed ....S.M.A. said:
Time will tell ....
Also, some alleged details about the Saudi's contribution to the fight ....
That said, the Assyrian Int'l News Agency isn't exactly pro-opposition in its editorial selection rubric....
"Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack"
"Video Shows Syrian Rebels Executing Bound Government Soldiers"
Finally, a bit more info from Russian media to dirty up the information sand box....
nn1988
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Old Sweat said:
Just like how he declared and talked about chemical weapons represented a "red line" in Syria a year ago? It has been blatently crossed, regardless of which side was responsible; Al-Qaeda; The rebels or Assad. He should probably draw an invisible line this time so we can't tell if it has been crossed. Whatever happened to the CIA arming the rebels which was authorized by the White House this June. Good or not, in the future he should say nothing at all.
Quoting Clifford D. May from the National Post (Make Assad Pay): "It is not helpful to continually insist- against overwhelming evidence- that the "tide of war is receding," and to repeat ad nauseam how "war weary" the West has become. Assad is not war weary. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei is not war weary. Al-Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri is not war weary".
- Reaction score
- 5,754
- Points
- 1,260
S.M.A. said:
So Vladimir Putin is, all of a sudden, the voice of "reason" and "moderation" in this mess?
The US has two choices:
1. Bomb Syria, maybe just a little bomb, as Secretary Kerry suggests, maybe more ~ no matter, it will backfire, this is the Middle East, after all, and President Obama will be branded as a warmonger, but a "strong" warmonger so that's OK; or
2. Stand down and wait and see ~ no matter, it will backfire, this is the Middle East, after all, and President Obama will be branded as a weak kneed vacillator.
In either event Russia comes off looking "reasonable" and "helpful," and China will smile quietly from the rear row, having invested nothing and risked nothing.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
What are we facing in the WEST? Is this what we too could be facing in our future?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1378767064#rUYREsjryDGMiGVy.01
As E.R.C. points out, these barbaric acts are what is defining the spread of this madness throughout that Region.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1378767064#rUYREsjryDGMiGVy.01
As E.R.C. points out, these barbaric acts are what is defining the spread of this madness throughout that Region.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
It's interesting that the US press is currently playing up the fact that the Russians took advantage of an off the cuff remark made by Sec. State John Kerry to develop the proposal to put Syria's CW assets under international control. And it seems that everyone and their dog is jumping on this band wagon.
Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html?hpid=z1
Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html?hpid=z1
Similar threads
