TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Yep, unfortunately.Either way, its now looking increasingly more likely that further conflict is on the way.
Yep, unfortunately.
It's like the modern version of The Great Game.
My underlying sense is that the alleged chemical attack in Syria never actually happened.
The media have gone very quiet over this. And for the US/UK/Fra to attack an apparent chemical weapons laboratory was simply wreckless.
Fortunately they have appeared to have notified everyone in advance so there was no casualties and also no chemical weapons.
What is their game and is there any accountability for bombing sovereign nations on false pretentions?
Perhaps North Korea has taken centre stage?
For now, an attack still seems the most plausible explanation:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/syria-chemical-attack-the-evidence
A regime which uses chemical weapons on its own citizens has lost its sovereignty, and there is no doubt that this regime in the past has done so.
What accountability was there for those actions?
Thanks for that. But that is just a summary of of the 'evidence' for and against the allegation of the recent attack, being an attack using chemical weapons. Even if evidence is found that CW were used, there is no conclusive proof who carried it out.
"In the past, investigators from the OPCW have been successful in confirming the use of toxic substances, but have not always drawn conclusions about who was to blame. But, time and again, there is at least some evidence that points towards the Assad regime – even if it’s not always definitive."
I'm not condoning the Assad regime, and for previous attacks and accepting the OPCW has found 'sufficient' evidence to blame Assad, then he should be held to account to international law.
But the US/UK/Fra attacks, appear to me, based on very flimsy evidence, were rushed, and in turn, targeting a suspected CW laboratory was simply reckless.
Not only that, the rethoric used at the UN seemed more for the cause of threatening the integrity of Russia as much as Syria.
The Syrians denied the OPCW access to the site.
Why did Russia veto an independent UN investigation into the attack? As things stand, Russia's level of credibility and integrity on this issue is in negative territory.
Obviously he hasn't been held to account. If of course his regime was responsible?How held to account was Assad for the previous attacks?
It would appear that they were not satisfied with the 'attribution' clause... There is strong indicators and pointers blaming his regime, but it appears nothing definitive.
Of course the Russians were not satisfied with the attribution clause, because they well know that it will lead directly to their ally or its agents!
How can there be anything definitive, if the Russians veto a UN investigation into establishing the perpetrators? You have circular logic here. No action should take place until it has been established both that chemical weapons were used and by whom - but the Russians veto the investigation into establishing who to attribute the action to... so that knowledge can never be established to your satisfaction... International law may as well not exist, if it held to this standard and so easily frustrated.
Im not disputing that there are under-handed tactics at play, but it is far from clear who is responsible. The Russians proposed an alternative motion for investigation that would allow the UN Sec Gen determine who the investigators would be – the US, UK and Fra voted against, why?
The UN are certain that CW were used in attacks in 2013/2014 and have proof. They are confident the Syrian military is responsible, but do not have definitive proof. Syria denies the allegations (that they carried out the attacks, not that the attacks occurred).
The Russian alternative is a joke and it is a fallacy to present the investigations as in any way equivalent:
"Russia, meanwhile, proposed that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres choose the investigators but that the results be reviewed by Russia for “acceptance” prior to making them public, according to Ms Haley. It also did not contain any clause to assign attribution of the suspected attack."
So you want the UN to establish conclusive evidence as to who carried out the attacks, but you criticize the countries who pushed for an investigation to establish attribution;
The Syrians seem spectacularly unconcerned at allowing independent proof to be established that they are NOT responsible.
You would think if they were innocent, they would be opening all doors to the UN to show this to the world?
They have already opened the doors to the UN OPCW who have confirmed the inoperability of it CW stockpile.
Who to believe? Why set up an investigation with an attribution clause? Why not wait until the investigation is concluded? If it can determine that Syria was responsible, or some other party, then let the investigation conclude that. If it cannot determine who was responsible then that is the conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?