Syria Will Allow UN Inspectors

[Leonardo]

The Syrian government has agreed to allow UN inspectors to visit the site of a suspected chemical weapon attack outside Damascus, state media report.

The move came shortly after a senior US official told reporters there was "very little doubt" that a chemical weapon had been used by government forces.

source

Of course, those opposed to the Syrian govt will claim any evidence found which may exonerate that govt of complicity in the attack will have been "planted". And any evidence of rebel complicity will be fobbed off as a "rogue, extremist element".

And so the inspections will not achieve anything inside Syria, but are purely for the International Community's benefit. And the International Community will still pursue the same agenda they have been pursuing for the last coule of years, making their convenient excuses to maintain those agendas.

Nothing will change. What an exercise in futility. And I expect the Syrian govt already know this.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

source

Of course, those opposed to the Syrian govt will claim any evidence found which may exonerate that govt of complicity in the attack will have been "planted". And any evidence of rebel complicity will be fobbed off as a "rogue, extremist element".

And so the inspections will not achieve anything inside Syria, but are purely for the International Community's benefit. And the International Community will still pursue the same agenda they have been pursuing for the last coule of years, making their convenient excuses to maintain those agendas.

Nothing will change. What an exercise in futility. And I expect the Syrian govt already know this.

If airstrikes are used to successfully destroy or disable the chemical weapons sites then THAT would be a real and profitable change for everyone they are being used on - regardless WHO is using them.

[Leonardo]

The facilities where the govt keeps it's stockpiles are likely to be hardened, so destroying them would be difficult. Any stockpiles the rebels have acquired are likely to be hidden or dispersed, so where would the airstrikes target?

What this strategy would accomplish, would be the eradication of the govt stockpiles of WMD's, while leaving the rebel stockpiles relatively intact.

[+and-then]

The facilities where the govt keeps it's stockpiles are likely to be hardened, so destroying them would be difficult. Any stockpiles the rebels have acquired are likely to be hidden or dispersed, so where would the airstrikes target?

What this strategy would accomplish, would be the eradication of the govt stockpiles of WMD's, while leaving the rebel stockpiles relatively intact.

In which case any further use of these weapons would be a dead giveaway as to the perpetrators. Until now there is no solid proof of who has done this. It's a terrible situation and unlikely to get any better unless the weapons themselves are targeted. An imperfect plan is sometimes better than no plan at all. Unfortunately I believe international law makes any party who attempts to destroy WMD responsible for cleaning up the mess afterward. The strikes would need to be very hot. Thermobaric weapons perhaps - like those used on the caves in Tora Bora. Even then there would likely be contamination for years. And of course the west would be liable - even though these mad hatters were the one's keeping the things in the first place. Edited August 25, 2013 by and then

[Leonardo]

So, the inspectors have been shot at and had to return to base. Another attempt to reach the site tomorrow, so I read.

The conspiracy theories are flying about who did the shooting, and the US is trying to pre-empt the UN by claiming that shelling will have rendered the site useless for investigating anyway. The UK is, of course, following to heel behind the US while France is trotting along besides. Russia, meanwhile, is slowly ratcheting up their rhetoric insisting any military action without UN resolution would be a "gross violation of international law."

In other news, Miley Cyrus' antics on stage at the VMA's have the world buzzing. Shocking expose to follow!

[Leonardo]

So, the UN inspectors have spent some time in Muadhamiya, and have collected some samples. It's not being reported what these samples consist of*, but I expect we'll hear in a day or two if there's anything significant.

Meanwhile the United States of Armageddon are still talking up their stance. It has now become a case of "moral obscenities" against the "most vulnerable people in the world". Feeling panicky over what the UN inspectors might find, Mr Kerry?

*I'm not hearing about soil samples or shrapnel from a potential delivery system, but tissue samples are possible as it's being reported the inspectors visited a couple of hospitals in the area.

[Knight Of Shadows]

both sides agreed to stop fire " goverment and rebels "

but when the inspectors were with the rebels on the way to the other spot

the goverment started firing

as to " how " i know .. we hear them every time they fire missiles or cannons from nearby

it's a desperate attempt to make time passes on the false hope of chemcial effects and evidence will go away

[Leonardo]

both sides agreed to stop fire " goverment and rebels "

but when the inspectors were with the rebels on the way to the other spot

the goverment started firing

as to " how " i know .. we hear them every time they fire missiles or cannons from nearby

it's a desperate attempt to make time passes on the false hope of chemcial effects and evidence will go away

Do you have real evidence for the claim highlighted, KoS? Not just your hearing random gunfire?

Because "the rebels" are hardly a cohesive force in respect they comprise of different groups with different agendas.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Leonardo

[Knight Of Shadows]

Do you have real evidence for the claim highlighted, KoS? Not just your hearing random gunfire?

Because "the rebels" are hardly a cohesive force in respect they comprise of different groups with different agendas.

i didn't hear " gunfire " we hear " cannon fire " and missiles launches

and the way this criminal goverment was going .i won't give it benfit of doubt

they're soaked in our blood

[Leonardo]

i didn't hear " gunfire " we hear " cannon fire " and missiles launches

and the way this criminal goverment was going .i won't give it benfit of doubt

they're soaked in our blood

That has become obvious, which is why your claims regarding responsibility for any atrocities should be treated as suspect unless you can supply real evidence to support them. This is not to suggest you are a bad person, or similar, but that you are incontrovertibly compromised by your beliefs.

[Knight Of Shadows]

this is the same claim you making as the goverment

there is no evidence they attack or destroyed any home it was all rebels according to them

then where all those missiles and bombs they launching go ? they're harmless right ? never exploded ?

our words is the evidence

this goverment you trying to justify or give benfit of doubt

denied access of all media to syria ? why ?

not because they're hiding something ?

or because they doing things they don't want the world to see ?

[Leonardo]

Not quite, KoS. What I am saying is that there is no clear evidence which 'side' is responsible. That's quite different to making a stipulation that the lack of evidence only exonerates the govt of committing such an act.

And I am only referring to the use of chemical weapons, not to the general warfare going on.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Leonardo

[Leonardo]

No more to be heard about the site inspection so far, but it's being reported that the UK has drafted a UN resolution which will request "necessary measures be taken to protect civilians" and a condemnation of the "chemical weapons attack by Assad". This is being reported on the BBC news website.

Personally, I think this resolution is a non-starter. There will be much debate about clarifying what "necessary measures" amount to, and there is no way the "condemnation of Assad" will get through unless the US/UK/France have very compelling evidence they have not yet made public.

Still this axis of countries might use the failure of the resolution-making process to justify unilateral action so, in that regards, this loosely termed piece of partisan rhetoric will probably do it's job.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[Mr.United_Nations]

No more to be heard about the site inspection so far, but it's being reported that the UK has drafted a UN resolution which will request "necessary measures be taken to protect civilians" and a condemnation of the "chemical weapons attack by Assad". This is being reported on the BBC news website.

Personally, I think this resolution is a non-starter. There will be much debate about clarifying what "necessary measures" amount to, and there is no way the "condemnation of Assad" will get through unless the US/UK/France have very compelling evidence they have not yet made public.

Still this axis of countries might use the failure of the resolution-making process to justify unilateral action so, in that regards, this loosely termed piece of partisan rhetoric will probably do it's job.

They have found evidence of chemicals were used according the the UN in Syria

[Mr.United_Nations]

"Meanwhile, in a briefing to journalists, joint UN-Arab League envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said: "It does seem clear that some kind of substance was used... that killed a lot of people" on 21 August."

[+and-then]

This situation would be farcical were it not for the poor dead... Obama is telling in advance even where he intends to target and when the strikes will begin. I hope the Assad thugs don't force hundreds of civilians to shelter in obvious targets.

[Knight Of Shadows]

This situation would be farcical were it not for the poor dead... Obama is telling in advance even where he intends to target and when the strikes will begin. I hope the Assad thugs don't force hundreds of civilians to shelter in obvious targets.

already did

military took residence in civilian homes , schools , colleages and all sort of places near civilian areas

[Leonardo]

In another thread, I made a prediction that the US will use the situation in Syria to sideline the UN, as it no longer kowtows to them. This from the BBC today...

Samantha Power said the Security Council was no longer a "viable path" for holding Syria accountable for war crimes.

source

Holding Syria accountable for war crimes means bringing verifiable evidence for the nature and committer of those war crimes before the Security Council. So far, the US, UK and France have talked about evidence, but have presented none.

Will the US hold to it's path and attempt to fracture the UN completely?

[Knight Of Shadows]

In another thread, I made a prediction that the US will use the situation in Syria to sideline the UN, as it no longer kowtows to them. This from the BBC today...

source

Holding Syria accountable for war crimes means bringing verifiable evidence for the nature and committer of those war crimes before the Security Council. So far, the US, UK and France have talked about evidence, but have presented none.

Will the US hold to it's path and attempt to fracture the UN completely?

when exactly you would admit war crimes

when 10 millions are dead ?

it surprises me how people set up excuses . no offense

but only a blind person cannot see there is war crimes against civilians by government in syria

a blind person .. or a person who intentionally don't wanna see it

and i hope you're not eaither ones

[Leonardo]

when exactly you would admit war crimes

when 10 millions are dead ?

it surprises me how people set up excuses . no offense

but only a blind person cannot see there is war crimes against civilians by government in syria

a blind person .. or a person who intentionally don't wanna see it

and i hope you're not eaither ones

Russia has said it will join in serious action against whomever can be shown to have committed war crimes (this is referring to the chemical weapons attacks) to the UN. That, the UN, is the proper channel through which the US, UK and France should be pursuing any intervention - but they are sidelining the UN because they cannot (or will not) bring evidence to the UN table.

[+and-then]

Russia has said it will join in serious action against whomever can be shown to have committed war crimes (this is referring to the chemical weapons attacks) to the UN. That, the UN, is the proper channel through which the US, UK and France should be pursuing any intervention - but they are sidelining the UN because they cannot (or will not) bring evidence to the UN table.

Ghouta was shelled continuously for 96 hours after the chemical incident. No dispute of that. State department has said that the rate of fire during this time was accelerated for the entire duration. Assuming one believes the report, why would Assad's people do this? And I doubt that any evidence would be acceptable - either to Russia or to those here who have decided they know that the rebels did this atrocity. I have no idea who launched them. I understand the logic that the rebels would have be benefitted more than Assad but I also do not dismiss the real possibility that he would be willing to take this risk - primarily because he had gotten away with it at least a couple of times already. He looks to have been correct in his assessment (if he did use them). The one aspect of all of this that is consistently overlooked - intentionally I think - is Russia's ABSOLUTE CULPABILITY for arming and even encouraging Assad in this effort. It's only the US that everyone is denouncing. Does this seem just to you?

[Leonardo]

G20: Syria policy cannot be left to United Nations says Cameron

Relying on the UN to act over Syria would be tantamount to "contracting out foreign policy and morality" to a Russian veto, David Cameron has said.

Speaking at the G20 summit in St Petersburg, the prime minister said the international community could not be hamstrung by a likely Russian veto.

source

I honestly do not believe what this creep is saying. The very reason the UN exists is so that one nation, or group of nations, with an agenda that is in conflict with many others, most weaker, cannot "rule the roost" and simply do what they want. It [the UN] acts as a brake to imperialist ambitions such as we see from the US/UK/France agenda.

Now this weasel wants to revert to tribalism, persecution of minorities and a "Big Brother world"?

and then,

Assuming one believes the report, why would Assad's people do this?

Perhaps they feared the rebels had chemical weapons, and were trying to obliterate them [the weapons]? I am not suggesting the Assad regime is altruistic, or even 'good', but to simply assume they launched this chemical attack without evidence, when there are other just-as-feasible possibilities, and launch military action on the basis of that unjustified assumption is an act of evil.

It has been said many times - the US and UK and France say they have evidence the Assad regime was responsible - so present that evidence. That they appear so unwilling, or incapable, of doing so only increases the suspicion they are lying.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

source

I honestly do not believe what this creep is saying. The very reason the UN exists is so that one nation, or group of nations, with an agenda that is in conflict with many others, most weaker, cannot "rule the roost" and simply do what they want. It [the UN] acts as a brake to imperialist ambitions such as we see from the US/UK/France agenda.

Now this weasel wants to revert to tribalism, persecution of minorities and a "Big Brother world"?

and then,

Perhaps they feared the rebels had chemical weapons, and were trying to obliterate them [the weapons]? I am not suggesting the Assad regime is altruistic, or even 'good', but to simply assume they launched this chemical attack without evidence, when there are other just-as-feasible possibilities, and launch military action on the basis of that unjustified assumption is an act of evil.

It has been said many times - the US and UK and France say they have evidence the Assad regime was responsible - so present that evidence. That they appear so unwilling, or incapable, of doing so only increases the suspicion they are lying.

I agree that the evidence should be presented. Once this has been done it will be interesting to watch the reactions of all parties. Sources and methods will probably have to be brought into the open and that can be very dangerous for our operatives but in this case it should probably be done. The sad thing is that nothing is going to change the minds on either side to any substantial degree.