Lets us please keep on topic The Iran, Lame Duck and H CH debate now has its very own thread. Carry on!
All perpetrators of such disgustful crimes should be persecuted, but not selectively. These who used poisons on really large scale should be persecuted first. I don't believe neither in selective justice nor in selective use of evidence. But is it justice to throw bombs over innocent people? It is impossible to launch a missile on such abstract thing as "Assad's regime"? Bombs will fall on children, mothers, fathers, bakers ... Missiles will hit schools, hospitals, houses, kindergartens. Someone should really calm down and start thinking.
As this looks like a "free for all" I would add my two (bitter) cents: Western public opinion (the voters that politicians care a lot about) understands little to nothing about the issues or even who the participants are, so that has left our "opinion poll driven" policy makers clueless. The handling of the current crysys with a request for "support votes" from congress/parliament was an eye opener for me, wow! some "leaders"!. I have a strong suspicion western agencies and Mossad had a lot to do with the initial Syrian revolt, though they have long since lost the capability to influence events, so a truly independent investigation is likely to turn up some strange looking skeletons. Despite the horror of the act gas is really a side issue, the current actions aimed at taking it out of the picure are a good thing but far from decisive, rememder Rwanda, those guys used machetes,it doesn't take WMDs to commit atrocities, the real issue is the "dogs of war" are loose. One key player is Turkey, historically it has controlled the area for some hubreds of years, and currently it's the main destination of refugees, but it llooks ike the the "superpowers" are ignoring them, not wise at all. Modern tech, acting as force multiplier, has made "denial" tactics hugely more effective than it ever was historically, weapons capable of inlicting massive damage are available to even small groups, putting that genie back in the bottle is not possible. As a consequence we must rethink our strategies, small groups of determined fanatics are as much of a threat as nation states, we are probably better off leaving an unfriendly dictator in place than creating a power void where such fanatics will prosper.
Note that the UN inspectors do not anywhere in the report explicitly lay the blame for carrying out the attack at the door of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. No it is not... Where does it say Assads butchers launched these rockets? Libya had stockpiles of this rocket...I'll leave others to say what happened to Libya's weapons and stockpiles...where exactly are they? The rebels are capable of launching artillery rockets... I am on the side that Assads butchers did indeed do so...I won't though go into military action on the basis of suposition...There is nothing in that report that states Assads Butchers did the deed...The assumption is there...as to the calibre of rocket used...Good stuff...But as to Syria being only Middle east country with these rockets I'd query that one...We don't even know if the new Russian Anti air missile has been delivered as many bloggers say...Conjecture... I for one still want proof...That report says a chem attack was launched...we all know that...that report points out the munitons used..and the fact Syria has been suppled with such...That report does not say they could be ovrun at any stage or that other mid east countries have had this rocket. I do know, the monitoring systems of the west are capable of detecting the voice and launch commands...and I do know apart from Israel no one else picked such up...
If you want "proof" or assignment of blame, you will not find it in the UN report. The purpose of this mission was not assignment of blame or proving of guilt or innocence. The mission was only in Syria to "prove" that a chemical attack did, in fact, take place - which the mission did prove and document. Now, it is up to the UN to decide what the next step should be.
Interesting, LJAd. What else would you call it? The UN Secretary General calls it a War Crime. Somebody is guilty if a crime is committed, aren't they?
As usual 2 things are mixed: 1) the use of CW in the Syrian Civil War 2) the killing of civilians . About 2 : the killing of civilians is inevitable,regrettable and legal : it is collateral damage About 1 : There is a treaty signed by most countries,banning the use of CW. The 2 fighting parties in the Syrian Civil war have not signed this treaty,and thus are NOT bound by this treaty . Several of the countries who signed the treaty ,have used CW (US in Vietnam) or were looking the other side when one of their allies was using CW(Saddam against Iran and the Kurds): thus,their indignation is only hypocrisy . As there is no crime (in case 1 and 2) there is no guilt. The UN secretary general has no authority at all (moral or legal) ,and,if he had any decency,he should keep his mouth shut : where was the SG of the UNO,when Saddam was killing ,intentionally thousands of Kurds ? :when the UNO was created,it was a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION : a gathering of mainly dictators,who were murdering and torturing their opponents :from Mexico to Argentine,SA,KMT China, the SU,etc. And,now, 68 years later,the SG of the UNO,is the SG of an organization with members as Iran,Saoudi Arabia,SyriaSudan,Kongo,Ruanda,etc,etc,etc. Thus,when he is talking about war crimes,he remembers me the retired madame of a brothel who is pontificating about morality in society.
Suspicion ->Investigation-> Proof -> Guilt The proof is missing here to say "Guilt". There were similar instances in the past where perpetrators were well known and yet the UN Secretary General wasn't so eloquent. Quod licit Jovi ... PS: @LJAD: Great post. Let me add that morality of whores is much higher because these ladies mean no harm, quite the opposite. PS2: @scipio: Presumption of innocence??? EDIT3: Removed this smiley =>
Nice point. Should be "had not" and "were not bound by the treaty". But from now on, having signed the Treaty, the Syrian Regime will beheld to account if it uses Chemical Weapons. Some progress at least. Then Guilt will no longer be notional provided reasonable proof is shown. I suppose the reference to the US using CW in Vietnam is "agent orange". Just curious but I know it defoliated trees - did it kill and maim?
The Troodos...or Ayios Nik station as we knew it didn't pick any transmissions up that supposedly Israel did...Simply because the transmissions do not exist.. For John Kerry to state that USA has information that the UK Jic does not possess.. points to only one means of intercept..And John Kerry knows full well that Ayios Nik did not pick up any transmissions...From a shared station...notianally British but shared information access from Brits to Yanks... No transmissions were picked up which explains British JIC being quiet on this...So Kerry is happy to go with Israeli monitoring which pales into insignificance as he well knows to our shared monitoring site which no one on this planet can match in Troodos has been for many years and is so today. Kerry is playing dangerous games with our intelligence capabilities...Doing a Blair...making the available information which he knows not to be true, in the way Israel supposedly monitored..fit the crime.. Assads lot in my view did the deed...but I am not ever again going to be fooled by jumped up politicians with their own case to make...not that I was before either.. Kerry is a lying ass.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-path Not quite conclusive but highly suggestive.
Scipio...I'll give that article to a Royal Artillery expert who has been trained specifically in target aquisiton and intelligence from way back in Ireland to present day...I'd be more interested in his evaluation than that article...From my own limited morter detection and single round detection azimuths in urban area training that report leaves out lots.
Kerry has always been known for his flip-flopping on issues...I guess old habits are hard to break. He used to be a dove, but now he's a hawk.
I would agree that just because the UN secretary general says there has been a war crime that it doesn't automatically mean there has been such and lacking that it's not really accurate to talk about guilt. That said your point 2 is questionable. As you state there will be civilian casualties in a war and the conventions of war recognize that fact and it doesn't automatically mean that a war crime has been committed. However military forces are suppose to minimize civilian casualties to the best of their abilitty and it is clear that in Syria just the opposite has happened, i.e. they have been deliberately targeted. That is a war crime. If the targeting is due to religious affiliation it may even constitute crmies against humanity. By the way under international "law" some conventions can be enforced even if the participants were not signators to those conventions. You also may not like it but the SG of the UN does have some moral authority, it would be better if applied more consistently I agree but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Furthermore the UN is not and was not a Crimianl Organization in spite of your claims.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/21/watchdog-receives-more-details-syria-chemical-weapons-program-from-damascus/ Interesting that Putin has manipulated Syria to list their CW for eventual destruction. What's the catch? I can't help but think that there is so much more here. It must help Putin internationally and at home, while it shows up Obama and Kerry. Something the Politburo in Moscow relishes with an unparalleled zeal. I like your comments, Urgh, about the British response. I do not want U.S. or Coalition boots on the ground in Syria. If there was not enough proof for our English friends then there is not enough for me. I am just saying. If there is a case out there then the Secretary of State and The President better come up with more proof. A very interesting diplomatic boondoggle at best. Now on to Nairobi and Somalia. Dang.
There is no proof that the wounded/killed civilians were targeted deliberately,unless you can produce an order(signed by Assad/the chief of the rebels) to target intentionally civilians . The UN have no moral authority (BTW:such thing does not exist) thus the SG of the UN can't have a moral authority . And,yes : the UNO was a criminal organization at its foundation : how do you call an organization where the very big majority of its members are dictatorships ? If in 1930 the majority of the members of the Rotary of Chicago were maffiosi,how would you call the Rotary of Chicago ? Were China,the SU,Ethiopia,Liberia,Saoedi Arabia,Argentine,etc democracies? How can the SG of the UNO have a parcel of moral authority,while a by khadafi controlled Libya was member of the Human Rights Commission ? if Al Capone or Stalin had received the Nobel Price for Peace,would the Nobel Price for Peace have any moral authority?
You are wrong as to what is necessary to prove that civilians have been targeted and indeed what is necessary to prove war crimes have been committed. There is plenty of evidence to that effect already and indeed likely enough to "prove" it in an international court or to any reasonable individual. You may not like it but clearly the concept of "moral authority" does exist and the UN and SG have it to varying extents. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. You have embeded at least two and arguably three fallacious assumptions in the above: 1) That becasue the majority of an organization can be described as beloning to a specfic group that the organization can also be described as belonging to that group 2) That dictartorships are illegal. 3) That the "very big majority" of the UN either at it's formation or now were/are dictatorships. At least when I looked at the current list that was far from clear. That would very much depend on what the organization did wouldn't it? Irrelevant That certainly diminished the moral authority of said commission and the UN as a whole at the time and for a time afterwards. It doesn't mean that they didn't still have some even at the time. Well they gave it to Arafat didn't they? Then of course there is the question of whether or not a thing like the Peace prize can be considered to have any moral authority. Naming him one of the winners certainly impacted the prestige of the design and called the moral authority of the committe into question.
