[Godstud]

The US goes from America First, to suddenly giving a shit about 40 Syrians? I don't buy it.

[Zamuel]

The US goes from America First, to suddenly giving a shit about 40 Syrians? I don't buy it.

You shouldn't ... that's a bogus concept, especially with Trump at the wheel. 40 Syrians got nuthin to do with it.

This action is about the use of chemical weapons. It cannot be tolerated, anywhere by anyone. If it is, that's justification for someone else to do it ... And then, someone else. It's a horror that the world has done it's best to eradicate and will do it's best to prevent. Serious reprisal for it is essential.

Zam

[annatar1914]

You shouldn't ... that's a bogus concept, especially with Trump at the wheel. 40 Syrians got nuthin to do with it.

This action is about the use of chemical weapons. It cannot be tolerated, anywhere by anyone. If it is, that's justification for someone else to do it ... And then, someone else. It's a horror that the world has done it's best to eradicate and will do it's best to prevent. Serious reprisal for it is essential.

Zam

The United States has the largest Chemical Warfare stocks in the world, we should start with getting rid of that. Russia already got rid of theirs years ago, other countries have started to also. Would be nice if we practiced a little of what we pretend to believe in.

[Zamuel]

The United States has the largest Chemical Warfare stocks in the world, we should start with getting rid of that. Russia already got rid of theirs years ago, other countries have started to also. Would be nice if we practiced a little of what we pretend to believe in.

Yes it would ...

Zam

[Cartertonian]

I expect the 'far right' are big fans of Assad. He's exactly the sort of 'might is right', strongman bully they admire and respect.

And unfortunately, as others have commented, many ME countries appear to need strongmen bullies to keep them in order.

We just don't need such people in Western democracies.

[Albert]

I expect the 'far right' are big fans of Assad. He's exactly the sort of 'might is right', strongman bully they admire and respect.

And unfortunately, as others have commented, many ME countries appear to need strongmen bullies to keep them in order.

We just don't need such people in Western democracies.

Pure racism!

[noir]

Far right and far left strange bed fellows

More interesting is the far right and far left convergence, for their ideology and tactics continued through other channels converging in Syria.

Far left

[Heisenberg]

This action is about the use of chemical weapons. It cannot be tolerated, anywhere by anyone.

Bullshit. The US - and the UK - cheerfully backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, in which he as many as 50,000 people were killed by chemical weapons, including up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.

The US was also caught using white phosphorus as an offensive weapon in Fallujah during the Iraq War, having previously lied about it. Their subsequent defence was essentially "it's not technically a chemical weapon if used in a certain way" (i.e. not as an offensive weapon) which is - how to put this? - not exactly encouraging. They also used white phosphorus-loaded munitions extensively in Mosul in the 2016-17 offensive. In this case, they claimed that there was no risk of civilian casualties, even though they were using the weapons on a densely-populated urban area filled with civilians!

Finally, the US and UK have done nothing when confronted with allegations of chemical weapons use by "rebels" in Syria - including the exact same group (Jaysh al-Islam) that just so happened to be in Douma at the time of the alleged attack last week.

It seems that chemical weapons can never be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, unless we like the people using them.

[Zamuel]

:lol: Bullshit. The US - and the UK - cheerfully backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, in which he as many as 50,000 people were killed by chemical weapons, including up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.

Regrettable events that unfortunately remained unreported for quite some time I think. I would note that discovery resulted in strong pressures being applied and Iraq (supposedly) destroying their stock of Gas weapons (mostly artillery shells.)

The US was also caught using white phosphorus as an offensive weapon in Fallujah during the Iraq War, having previously lied about it. Their subsequent defence was essentially "it's not technically a chemical weapon if used in a certain way" (i.e. not as an offensive weapon) which is - how to put this? - not exactly encouraging.

A typical military style response. White phosphorus is not a gas or chemically reactive weapon. It's an incendiary ... it burns. It's not intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but is handy to interdict areas and paths, also to protect flanks. There are no treaties regarding it's use. There is a "convention" (non signatory) that suggests it not be used around civilians. It's also used extensively in illumination and smoke munitions, these are excepted from the recommendation about use near civilians.

http://www.weaponslaw.org/weapons/white-phosphorus-munitions
munitions containing WP can fall within the ambit of the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). The Protocol defines incendiary weapons

It seems that chemical weapons can never be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, unless we like the people using them.

It seems you don't know much about weapons (chemical or otherwise) and are deficient in your comprehension of military communications.

Noemon edit: Rule 2 Violation

Zam

[Heisenberg]

Regrettable events...

That's certainly one way of describing a years-long series of events, in which the US was directly involved, that caused more than 1,000 times more deaths from chemical weapons than the supposedly "unacceptable" alleged and, as yet, unproven use of chemical weapons in Syria.

...that unfortunately remained unreported for quite some time I think. I would note that discovery resulted in strong pressures being applied and Iraq (supposedly) destroying their stock of Gas weapons (mostly artillery shells.)

Not quite:

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

Oh, and Halabja happened in 1988 - by which point the US had known Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons for five years.

The official US response - after having previously denounced the reports as Iranian lies - was: "Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned," but the US issued no threats and no demands against Iraq, and continued to support Iraq until the conclusion of the war.

A typical military style response. White phosphorus is not a gas or chemically reactive weapon. It's an incendiary ... it burns. It's not intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but is handy to interdict areas and paths, also to protect flanks.

Yes, that is my point. It is not supposed to be used as an offensive weapon. And yet, the US military was forced to admit having used it as such in the battle of Fallujah, having previously lied about it. This suggests they knew such use was legally and morally questionable.

There are no treaties regarding it's use. There is a "convention" (non signatory) that suggests it not be used around civilians.

False. It is governed by the Protocol on Incendiary Weapons, which specifically prohibits their use around civilians, and WP's status under the Chemical Weapons Convention is iffy at best, since it is a highly toxic chemical that can directly cause death (which, if you had read your own source, you would be aware of).

Of course, conveniently for the Battle of Fallujah, the US did not sign up to the Incendiary Weapons convention until 2009, and even then, basically reserved the right to use incendiary weapons whenever it liked, including against civilians. However, the US not being a signatory to a treaty does not mean that the treaty does not exist.

I also note that you apparently have nothing to say about the lack of any western military action against the various "rebel" groups that have allegedly used chemical weapons themselves.

[annatar1914]

More interesting is the far right and far left convergence, for their ideology and tactics continued through other channels converging in Syria.

Far left

The intersection is with the Left's ideology of Anti-Imperialism, at least with the Old Left, as when the Soviet Union aided Argentina during the Falklands/Malvinas war in the 1980's. Argentina then was ruled by a Fascistic military government. Nationalists can expect to support and be supported by genuine Leftists who oppose the Globalist Elites.

[One Degree]

How can someone believe ‘human rights’ are the belief system to surpass all others while simultaneously rejecting peaceful secession?

If you think about this contradiction it will help explain why the ‘right’ would not support intervention in Syria.
The ‘right’ believes human rights are determined on a different level than the left does. They support autonomy/states rights over universal human rights. It is logical they respect Syria’s autonomy even if rejecting the government.

[Zamuel]

I don't much care for your disguised Urls or your Russian troll farm sources that fail to quote or cite their "secret CIA documents." So I'm not going to bother addressing them. But here's a quote from a wide open, undisguised URL ... one you used yourself. I guess you missed this part.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_04/Incendiary#Sidebar2

Reservation
The United States of America, with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 - In a fixed position opposite enemy occupied buildings in a concentrated residential area a commander requires artillery to displace enemy forces feinting an attack. If he calls in High Explosives (the "alternative weapons referred to by the protocol), civilians are going to die. So instead he calls for "willie pete." The "Hot Zone" laid down by the white phosphorus prevents the enemy from attacking but doesn't "blow up" civilian residents. It is used to "minimize collateral damage." It may start a few fires, but civilians can escape that much more readily than HE explosives.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2

the US not being a signatory to a treaty does not mean that the treaty does not exist.

This is a section of a "protocol," part of a "convention," it is not a "treaty."

I also note that you apparently have nothing to say about the lack of any western military action against the various "rebel" groups that have allegedly used chemical weapons themselves.

Nope, no evidence of any such attacks provided by the Russian trolls making accusations, no substantiated casualties ... Lots of BS though.

Zam

[annatar1914]

I don't much care for your disguised Urls or your Russian troll farm sources that fail to quote or cite their "secret CIA documents." So I'm not going to bother addressing them. But here's a quote from a wide open, undisguised URL ... one you used yourself. I guess you missed this part.


Noemon Edit: Rule 2 - In a fixed position opposite enemy occupied buildings in a concentrated residential area a commander requires artillery to displace enemy forces feinting an attack. If he calls in High Explosives (the "alternative weapons referred to by the protocol), civilians are going to die. So instead he calls for "willie pete." The "Hot Zone" laid down by the white phosphorus prevents the enemy from attacking but doesn't "blow up" civilian residents. It is used to "minimize collateral damage." It may start a few fires, but civilians can escape that much more readily than HE explosives.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2


This is a section of a "protocol," part of a "convention," it is not a "treaty."


Nope, no evidence of any such attacks provided by the Russian trolls making accusations, no substantiated casualties ... Lots of BS though.

Zam

So anything that disrupts your narrative picture comes from ''russian trolls'' and all information from Russian sources is automatically false?

Sounds like a ''Western troll shill laboring for the narrative painted by the Western political establishment to me''... If I were so inclined to be the sort that resorts to ad hominem when confronted with the facts irregardless of who says them or where they come from...

Even you, after all a broken clock is right at least twice a day

[Zamuel]

So anything that disrupts your narrative picture comes from ''russian trolls'' and all information from Russian sources is automatically false?

I do view Russian sources skeptically, there are some good ones. Purported "Magazines" that make allegations, reference secret undisclosed documents, and fail to reference sources ... I just ignore. Especially when they're cited by Jr. Birdmen ...

And unfortunately, as others have commented, many ME countries appear to need strongmen bullies to keep them in order.

I wonder if it isn't more of an "undeveloped" countries thing. We see the same phenomena is South and Central America, and in SE. Asia.

We just don't need such people in Western democracies.

Generally no ... but we do see them in both the extremist right and left. Is there a correlation?

Zam

[Thomasmariel]

I don't believe in any intervention, because I don't believe in militarism period, or nationalism

[Zamuel]

I don't believe in any intervention, because I don't believe in militarism period, or nationalism

So, are you against them then? or indifferent?

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either, but I'm not against them.

[Heisenberg]

Dismissing Foreign Policy magazine, a 50-year-old US-based publication founded by Harvard political scientists, as a "Russian troll farm" is absurd. But not unexpected in an era where even the President of the United States yells "fake news" at critical sources.

And yes, the Protocol on Incendiary Weapons is, in fact, a treaty. Yet another swing and a miss.

[Thomasmariel]

So, are you against them then? or indifferent?

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either, but I'm not against them.

I support the absence of contradiction

[Zamuel]

I support the absence of contradiction

I don't have a context to relate that to ... I'll just put you down as a nihilist.

And yes, the Protocol on Incendiary Weapons is, in fact, a treaty. Yet another swing and a miss.

Then I suppose you can provide a date when it was ratified by congress? No? You are aware treaties require ratification?

The protocol is part of a larger agreement - a "Convention" - Come on back when you figure it out ... Next.

Zam