Cyprus-Forum.com

[MR-from-NG]

This is the reason the UN forces are in Cyprus - Makarios specifically asked them in January of 1964 when the actions of the TCs became clear in inviting Turkey to invade and destroy Cyprus' fledgling democracy ....

“If there is any need for the presence of troops in the island, these must be troops of the United Nations, with the main object of repulsing any foreign intervention,” he declared.

(from the NYTimes)They clearly failed in their role to protect Cyprus and the GCs from Turkish-TC aggression.

See what I mean about being great liars and manipulators? You silly old cow, its not the NY Times saying that, its fucking Maskararios saying it and NY Times printing it. You though try and make it look as if it was a quote from a NY journalist. unfuckingbelievable.

[GreekIslandGirl]

This is the reason the UN forces are in Cyprus - Makarios specifically asked them in January of 1964 when the actions of the TCs became clear in inviting Turkey to invade and destroy Cyprus' fledgling democracy ....

“If there is any need for the presence of troops in the island, these must be troops of the United Nations, with the main object of repulsing any foreign intervention,” he declared.

(from the NYTimes)
They clearly failed in their role to protect Cyprus and the GCs from Turkish-TC aggression.

See what I mean about being great liars and manipulators? You silly old cow, its not the NY Times saying that, its fucking Maskararios saying it and NY Times printing it. You though try and make it look as if it was a quote from a NY journalist. unfuckingbelievable.

You're a complete idiot. Where did I say the NYTimes said that? That was the source of the quote from Makarios.

[Paphitis]

Coalition action in Iraq against DAESH is NOT illegal. That is undeniable

.

I agree.

OK so you agree that coalition action in Iraq is legal. There are ramifications here which extend across border which I will get into.

Coalition action in Syria, is also not illegal. Claims that it is are very sketchy to say the least and without legal basis. What is certain is that the UN Charter has provided legal grounds and a foot to stand on as far as Coalition military involvements in Syria are concerned in the present form of that military action.

I will explain (try to anyway with my limited legal background) ...

Article 2.4 signed in 1945 states that UN Members will not use force against another State. The Coalition has not used force against the State of Syria.

I agree, but aggression is not the point here, it is the legality of breaching another countries sovereign territory. (land,sea or air)

Since you agree that action in Iraq is legal, because the State of Iraq is under attack from an Islamist Group known by us as DAESH, then there is by extension a legal right for Iraq to try and defend itself from this group and that could include Military Action against them in Syria. Since Iraq is not in a position to do this, because they can barely take care of business within their borders, then the Coalition can do it on its behalf under Article 2.4

We know that Iraq is under attack and therefore, it has a right to try and defend itself within its border and even outside of its borders and the Coalition is able to use Article 2.4 and claim it is acting under this Article to defend Iraqi territorial integrity. Of course by default, this limited action is also an unwilling assistance to the Assad Regime because he too is under significant threat from the same group.

It also states that Members must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Well no action thus far has indicated that the coalition does not respect the territorial integrity of Syria. The territory of Syria however, could be subject to partition by International Treaty if Assad remains in power. That means, that Syria will be carved up and other States will be formed with population exchanges.

There is little point in arguing Law because neither of us is a Lawyer! In the moral context and backed by UN legislation, the coalition would not be respecting Syria’s territorial integrity if they do trespass without either consent or UN mandate. The fact that this happens without coalition aircraft being shot down says that there is agreement with the Russians and that flight plans are being filed. Although we know the Russians did this with their SU that was shot down by Turkey, you justified it simply on the grounds that the Russians entered Turkish air space without their consent.

The territories in which we are engaged in combat are no longer under the control of Syria. We recognize Syria's dejure territorial integrity and have no intention of disputing it at this stage.

We certainly do not lodge any Flight Plans with Syria or with Russia. That is something that we could not possibly do under any circumstances. Fact is, Russia is not in a position to threaten our aircraft in any way.

Unfortunately there are many news outlets who are not suitably qualified and yet rush to deem Coalition Military action in Syria as illegal. They should provide a legal explanation against the UN Articles to explain why that is the case but I have not seen a valid argument yet to support the illegal claims.

Also, there are mandated rules by the UN which do not prohibit Military Action through what is termed as "collective-defence" under UN Article 51.

I am fairly pragmatic and to me attacking another country for any reason other than the fact[b] YOU are being attacked is contrary to the UN Charter. Surely, that is what this is intended to provide for ...... ‘If you are attacked you have the right to self defence.’ Therefore an pre-emptive attack on another State is a declaration of war.

Yes that is fairly accurate. Iraq is being attacked. Our initial response was to assist Iraq in defending itself.

We are also attacking this enemy within Syria's borders. We believe we are acting in a legal manner in order to destroy this threat which has been attacking Iraq (and Syria) for some time.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charte ... index.html

Now, the coalition is in the Middle East to assist the Iraqi Government to maintain its territorial integrity against terrorist Islamist Organisations such as DAESH. This terrorist group use Syria as their Spring Board. Therefore, we have expanded our operations into Syria under collective-defence rules. This has now even more credibility since the USA, France and Australia have all been attacked by DAESH on their own territory.

I disagree! Why? Well, the incursions by FOREIGN terrorist elements going to join DAESH, as is all the military support, is provided through Turkey, not from Syria, and Turkey is a member of your coalition.

I take issue with these claims myself particularly the erroneous claim that Turkey is assisting DAESH. We know that this is not the case. Turkey's interests are elsewhere. Turkey is providing material support to the Turkmen Militias, and the FSA who are engaged in war with DAESH. Turkey and DAESH are enemies. we know this. DAESH has even successful attacked Turkey on its own soil.

Now, the fact that there might be Islamist elements in Turkey that might support DAESH, is another matter of ideology which is a battle that will go on for some decades before that is defeated.

Also, the vast majority of DAESH Fighters are in fact Syrian and also Iraqi. But there are up to 10,000 from other countries but this number does vary depending on the source. There are even a few thousand recruited from Western Countries and Russia itself. We are battling an ideology here which is going to be a long drawn out battle which we will win only with the assistance of the Muslim Communities.

Sorry but DAESH is not a Syrian ‘terrorist’ group! The likely hood is that it is funded and supported definitely by the Saudis and by Qatar(?), at least that is what the evidence suggests, again both are members of your coalition.

Again, these claims are extremely erroneous. Saudi Arabia and QATAR are supporting the FSA. There is no evidence to suggest that they are supporting DAESH.

It's all a major Iranian/Russian/Assad fabrication.

The SAUDIS and QATARIs are not denying that they are assisting the FSA either. There mediators were even present at the peace summit on behalf of the FSA.

Please note, that the absence of a UN Security Council resolution does not automatically imply that this action under Article 51 (which is what the Coalition will imply if attacked) makes that action illegal, because the Article itself implies that States do have a right for "collective-defence".

Again .......... you use a piece of legislation contrary to its intent because you claim 'pre-emptive' action is defence. I ask you: in that case the UK would have been acting within the provision of the UN Charter had it decided to bomb Ireland as IRA terrorists were crossing the border into UK territory to carry out murder and acts of terrorism on British citizens (NI) and UK troops?

No this is not pre-emptive. Iraq was under attack for quite some time before the Coalition decided to act. In fact, by the time we acted, DAESH were already in control of a significant proportion of Iraqi Sovereign Territory.

In this context it would suggest that Israel could legitimately nuke Iran as a pre-emptive action because they had decided that against ALL the evidence, Israel decides Iran DOES have a nuclear weapon and are, as such, an existential threat to Israel’s security? I don’t think many would agree ......... although Netanyahu has threatened to do just that!

No I do not believe that Israel has a legal footing to pre-preemptively attack Iran. And if they did, they certainly would not NUKE Iran and the West would never support such action if it did. We would be deeply offended at the thought and prefer mediation.

However, if Israel believed it had intelligence that Iran was going to attack it, then they can act preemptively, but not with NUKES.

Of course, these Articles are written to outline the rules for Military Action of member States against another State. Well DAESH is not a State so that adds an element of ambiguity to the equation. Also, the Coalition is NOT engaged in any Military Action against Syria. So again, there are no legal grounds. This is uncharted territory because in 1945 when these Articles were written, it was not envisaged that the new threats to peace and stability will be from illegal terrorist organisations like DAESH and as a result, the Articles were written for State Vs State military engagements which this is clearly not the case in Syria.

However, there was an ICJ Ruling interpreting the Rights of Nations to invoke individual or collective self defence. Please see the below link. Here the ruling stipulates that the Article does not stipulate the types of aggressors, whether that is a State or a Terrorist Organisation. As a result, let's say there was a terrorist organisation in Cyprus attacking Australia. Well, Australia would have the right to attack that organisation within Cypriot Sovereign territory. That can in itself include Air Strikes and Troops on the Ground (Invasion) as long as there is an intention to respect Sovereign Territorial Integrity after the fact or until the UN takes control and there is a UN invoked settlement to bring peace and stability which also addresses Australia's security concerns with regard to this Terrorist Group (I use this example for illustrative purposes only).

The problem is, as we both are old enough to realise, is that the Law can always be ‘bent’ to suit a given agenda providing you have either loads of money (as an individual) or overwhelming political/military power (as in the case of sovereign States such as the USA or collectively, NATO.) The Law is an ass and from every bit of legislation drawn up there are also a lot of get-out clauses!

Yes the Law can be bent. I don't deny that. The powerful have more sway as do the rich within any legal system over the poor who have less sway shall we say.

It's a legal system, not a justice system unfortunately. Cyprus is still under occupation, illegally.

(I am not religious but: GOD created the Ten Commandments, a simple ‘Thou shalt not .......’ was sufficient. He offered them to Moses who could only carry ten tablets of stone ...... thank goodness he didn’t have Samson with him! But GOD had already made a BIG mistake. He created man and then he created woman out of Adams rib ...... then the big mistake he created Lawyers out of human excrement, the problem being that they went forth and multiplied !!!! )

Yes ok. I agree but that is the system not only in the international arena but the local legal system in Cyprus is EXACTLY the same, just a lot smaller.

Some more interesting reading for you here:
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charte ... index.html

Sorry, but saying that coalition action is illegal does not make it so under the letter of the UN Articles. I had to learn about all this stuff at one time.

Again, you need to look at your clearing house source and do some cross checking over the validity of their erroneous claims which have no legal standing at all.

As I have said before, forget the server of a particular independent news outlet, it is irrelevant, look at the credentials of the author.

Willing to look at the credentials of the author, and even read the articles. But why don't they cite any of the UN Articles to support the claims they are making? I am very willing to listen, but want them to back things up, not just make unsupported claims. So many people are influenced just because it is written in a paper or because they heard it on TV.

In this case, note that the author Prof. Tim Sanderson, gave reference to his sources all 77 of them, he gave dates and referred to events on both sides. I didn’t check his sources but no doubt they in turn would have multiple source references as well. Out of that he came to a conclusion which I tend to agree with. On the other hand you have made many claims against Assad with no evidence to support them.

I am not aware of this particular article so am willing to take your word for it that he might be reliable.

But we also have a lot of evidence against Assad with regard to some very significant War Crimes against civilians in Syria, and it is our intend that he will be held to account for these crimes some time in the future.

You have referred several times to Assad using Sarin gas against his people and dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians. The first claim has been disproved to the extent that there is now a lot of evidence it was the rebel faction that used it, it was supplied by Saudi and transported through Turkey to the rebels, they even have the batch numbers. As for the second claim ...... read the article carefully, yes he used barrel bombs but the civilian casualties occurred because the rebels and the FSA, who the coalition support, were embedded in with the civilian population that they frequently use as human shields (as I previously described) and there is also lots more evidence of rebel/FSA atrocities now coming out as the SAA advances.

Common sense says Assad had no reason at all to set out to deliberately bomb his own people, he has nothing to gain by doing so and everything to lose and, although it sounds callous, there are always civilian casualties in a war, particularly urban warfare!

No such thing has been proven regarding the Saudis. Assad is making accusations. It is our belief that the Sarin Attacks were by Assad Forces in the FSA controlled suburb of Ghouta. This is the assessment of the French, UK and US Governments.

I will have to do more research about the matter which I promise to do.

Also, make no mistake about it! Each member of the Coalition has a team of some of the best International Experts, Lawyers available who would have on behalf of their Governments provided very sound interpretation and advice regarding their legal standing concerning their Military Engagements and as a result they do certainly have a leg to stand on and based on my interpretation and the interpretations of more knowledgeable experts, there is no specific Article that categorically implies that Coalition Action in Syria is illegal which probably explains the lack of formal legal engagements within the UN or ICJ against us.

I am afraid I don’t hold Lawyers or so called ‘experts’ employed by governments, in any great regard. Remember David Kelly? That is what happens when an expert does not support the ‘official’ story and his honesty becomes a embarrassment ..... they commit suicide!

Most of us don't hold them in high regard until we actually need them for something. But yes I get your point.

So all we get is a bunch of hubris from very bias and anti western media outlets, like the ones you like.

Not really anti-western but biased maybe, but that is because they present the other side of the story, the events that the MSM do not cover. We have discussed Journalism limitations and the limitations are because somewhere down the line editorial requirements of the editor, the owner and the share holders, are applied to those employed by the MSM. As the independent outlets do not suffer this limitation they have more freedom to express views contrary to the MSM promulgated propaganda.

Go for it. You can check any side of the story you like and are freely able to do so without hindrance. I do too.

Independent outlets also peddle an agenda too.

Here is another interesting read for you:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-18/i ... ck/6765386

Again, they seem to both agree and disagree, so it is up to the reader to look for further information and to have the ability to come to some rational conclusion as to which opinion is likely to have the highest probability of being the more accurate.

Problem is, that most readers do not look into things in more detail. They swallow what they read hook line and sinker. Most people are either too stupid, are lazy, don't care, are gullible, or are more interested in the Kardashian Story. News outlets know this too, which is why they are catering to the lowest denominator and which is why there are many lower quality gossip style tabloids.

(You have my undivided attention today ........... because it is cold and wet and I have no outstanding jobs to do inside and I get bored very easily.)

Go to the mountains and have some fun in the snow.

[Paphitis]

Not really Syria ............. and appears to be played very low key in the MSM

Iran has accused Saudi-led coalition warplanes of damaging its embassy and injuring staff in an air strike on Yemen's capital, Sanaa.

State media quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying planes had deliberately targeted the site. But some later reports in Iran said missiles had struck only in the vicinity of the embassy. Residents and witnesses in Sanaa reported there was no damage to the main embassy building.

Although the incident may turn out to be less serious than initially feared, the BBC's Arab Affairs Editor Sebastian Usher says the growing row between Saudi Arabia and Iran could derail peace efforts in Syria and Iraq, as well as in Yemen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35251917

This is an act of war under the UN Charter? I think the Iranians will turn the other cheek but if they don't it could trigger a war between the two. This will no doubt give Israel the only excuse they need to attack Iran and that will drag in the US/UK and all the NATO countries. Does not bode well! Let us hope the Iranians are sensible and let the UN deal with it through the UNSC rather than retaliate.

There is already a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, albeit by proxy.

What you don't realize though is that the Status Quo in Syria will change drastically in the coming months if there is a Peace Settlement which we are trying to push.

The Iranian backed Assad regime is on its last legs. The Waring parties are not going to agree to any settlement unless there is a composite administration in Syria.

If Assad stays, then the chances of direct warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran increase (and it may play out in Yemen). A scenario the West is eager to avoid at all cost.

Sanctions against Iran are being relaxed and there is even discussions about normalisation of diplomatic relations with the West. Clearly, there is a lot of potential for things to look up for all involved.

[MR-from-NG]

This is the reason the UN forces are in Cyprus - Makarios specifically asked them in January of 1964 when the actions of the TCs became clear in inviting Turkey to invade and destroy Cyprus' fledgling democracy ....

“If there is any need for the presence of troops in the island, these must be troops of the United Nations, with the main object of repulsing any foreign intervention,” he declared.

(from the NYTimes)
They clearly failed in their role to protect Cyprus and the GCs from Turkish-TC aggression.

See what I mean about being great liars and manipulators? You silly old cow, its not the NY Times saying that, its fucking Maskararios saying it and NY Times printing it. You though try and make it look as if it was a quote from a NY journalist. unfuckingbelievable.

You're a complete idiot. Where did I say the NYTimes said that? That was the source of the quote from Makarios.

Don't bullshit me you silly old cow You know very well what your intentions were in even mentioning the NYT. But hey, you are the worlds best fucking liars so nothing new I guess

[GreekIslandGirl]

This is the reason the UN forces are in Cyprus - Makarios specifically asked them in January of 1964 when the actions of the TCs became clear in inviting Turkey to invade and destroy Cyprus' fledgling democracy ....

“If there is any need for the presence of troops in the island, these must be troops of the United Nations, with the main object of repulsing any foreign intervention,” he declared.

(from the NYTimes)

They clearly failed in their role to protect Cyprus and the GCs from Turkish-TC aggression.

See what I mean about being great liars and manipulators? You silly old cow, its not the NY Times saying that, its fucking Maskararios saying it and NY Times printing it. You though try and make it look as if it was a quote from a NY journalist. unfuckingbelievable.

You're a complete idiot. Where did I say the NYTimes said that? That was the source of the quote from Makarios.

Don't bullshit me you silly old cow You know very well what your intentions were in even mentioning the NYT. But hey, you are the worlds best fucking liars so nothing new I guess

You're really quite a class idiot and frankly not worth the bother I'm giving you. But, since providing reputable sources for quotes and evidence seems to be a general weakness with Turk-TC posters, then it's worth pointing out. I didn't "mention" the NYTimes. I placed it as the SOURCE, after and OUTSIDE the quotation which was attributed to Makarios and which I have highlighted in red for you.

[Tim Drayton]

Any person who openly supports what the entire world considers abhorrent, barbaric , namely the Isis savages, can not reasonable expect a civil debate on his / her disgusting views. Such views you , Pervert, hold and unashamedly express at each given opportunity.

I would most certainly not enter into a civil debate with a child moster, a murderer , or an Isis supporter such as you, Pervert.

You deserve each insult I throw at you and I make no apologies.
Go to hell you low down disgusting piece of shit.

Well said.

There is a recent report of a Daesh thug publicly executing his own mother in Raqqa all because she was trying to persuade him to leave the genocidal gang. This act flies in the face of the shared values of all decent, civilised people of all faiths and none all over the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 01811.html

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

No such thing has been proven regarding the Saudis.(Admission: I was wrong about the source!) Assad is making accusations. It is our belief that the Sarin Attacks were by Assad Forces in the FSA controlled suburb of Ghouta. This is the assessment of the French, UK and US Governments.

You mean the ‘WE’ ?

Ooooop’s ..................... had it not been for getting a daily update from Global Research, I would never have known this ..... and neither would you.

It seems that the US and its partners got it all wrong about Assad using Sarin gas in Ghouta and eleven other sites in Syria! It WAS the Islamic opposition and that includes the FSA! Do you remember Kerry appearing in the MSM spouting irrefutable evidence proof of Assad’s guilt? His Government never produced it of course, because there was none!

How many like you have just accepted what he said? What can only be referred to as deliberate lies? The claim Saddam had WMD’s has also been disproved and day by day more authoritative reports on what led up to the civil war in Ukraine, are also coming to light and in every instance what we have been led to believe is being proved as (let’s say) rather ‘inaccurate’! The ‘WE’ are either liars or grossly incompetent.

What else have they ‘got wrong’ ? (lied about?) ? How much more is required to show that they got it all wrong and would have attacked Assad using this as an excuse had it not been for the diplomatic skills of President Putin?

I am not surprised it has not been reported at all in the MSM!

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) Confirms: Rebels Used Chemical Weapons – not Assad

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) has confirmed the traces of the sarin gas used in Syria are not linked with the Syrian government’s former stockpile of chemical weapons. The report corroborates the Syrian government’s assertions that the faction responsible for the chemical attack, as well as 11 other instances of chemical weapons use, was the Syrian opposition.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/organization-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-opwc-confirms-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/5500017

A respected source: The organisation is based in the Haig and is a recognised international body .......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons

What you don't realize though is that the Status Quo in Syria will change drastically in the coming months if there is a Peace Settlement which we are trying to push.

Oh, but I DO realize! The Staus Quo will change because of the Russian involvement. The coalition are trying to claim it is all their idea .... but I think most people are astute enough to realize that nothing changed UNTIL the Russians took the initiative and the ‘Assad must go!’ claims, as a result have died out.

This is why the result is quite likely NOT to be what the US wants. I posted it before but by your comments, I don’t think you read it? I warned ..... it is a long read, it took me an hour to read through it without claiming that I remembered every word, or checked every link but it convinced me simply because the guy is a specialist, knows far more than I ever will on the subject ........... and I believe is an honest broker.

The paper rubbishes the US claims (The ‘WE’?) that the majority of the Syrian people want to see the back of Assad and is why I believe (once again) that a genuine free vote could well see him back in the driving seat! You won’t read this in the MSM .... as it is far too long and detailed for any normal MSM news outlet.

Quote:

We find little reasonable discussion of either, in western circles, after the Islamist insurrection of 2011. Instead, the wartime discussion descended into caricatures, conditioned by ‘regime-change’ fervour and bloody war, of a bloodthirsty ‘brutal dictator’ mindlessly repressing and slaughtering his own people. None of this helps sensible or principled understandings. Fortunately, there are a range of Syrian and independent sources that allow us to put together a more realistic picture. If we believed most western media reports we would think President Assad had launched repeated and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, including the gassing of children.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-dirty-war-on-syria-bashar-al-assad-and-political-reform/5492661

[Paphitis]

Paphitis:

No such thing has been proven regarding the Saudis.(Admission: I was wrong about the source!) Assad is making accusations. It is our belief that the Sarin Attacks were by Assad Forces in the FSA controlled suburb of Ghouta. This is the assessment of the French, UK and US Governments.

You mean the ‘WE’ ?

Ooooop’s ..................... had it not been for getting a daily update from Global Research, I would never have known this ..... and neither would you.

It seems that the US and its partners got it all wrong about Assad using Sarin gas in Ghouta and eleven other sites in Syria! It WAS the Islamic opposition and that includes the FSA! Do you remember Kerry appearing in the MSM spouting irrefutable evidence proof of Assad’s guilt? His Government never produced it of course, because there was none!

How many like you have just accepted what he said? What can only be referred to as deliberate lies? The claim Saddam had WMD’s has also been disproved and day by day more authoritative reports on what led up to the civil war in Ukraine, are also coming to light and in every instance what we have been led to believe is being proved as (let’s say) rather ‘inaccurate’! The ‘WE’ are either liars or grossly incompetent.

What else have they ‘got wrong’ ? (lied about?) ? How much more is required to show that they got it all wrong and would have attacked Assad using this as an excuse had it not been for the diplomatic skills of President Putin?

I am not surprised it has not been reported at all in the MSM!

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) Confirms: Rebels Used Chemical Weapons – not Assad

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) has confirmed the traces of the sarin gas used in Syria are not linked with the Syrian government’s former stockpile of chemical weapons. The report corroborates the Syrian government’s assertions that the faction responsible for the chemical attack, as well as 11 other instances of chemical weapons use, was the Syrian opposition.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/organization-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-opwc-confirms-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/5500017

A respected source: The organisation is based in the Haig and is a recognised international body .......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons

What you don't realize though is that the Status Quo in Syria will change drastically in the coming months if there is a Peace Settlement which we are trying to push.

Oh, but I DO realize! The Staus Quo will change because of the Russian involvement. The coalition are trying to claim it is all their idea .... but I think most people are astute enough to realize that nothing changed UNTIL the Russians took the initiative and the ‘Assad must go!’ claims, as a result have died out.

This is why the result is quite likely NOT to be what the US wants. I posted it before but by your comments, I don’t think you read it? I warned ..... it is a long read, it took me an hour to read through it without claiming that I remembered every word, or checked every link but it convinced me simply because the guy is a specialist, knows far more than I ever will on the subject ........... and I believe is an honest broker.

The paper rubbishes the US claims (The ‘WE’?) that the majority of the Syrian people want to see the back of Assad and is why I believe (once again) that a genuine free vote could well see him back in the driving seat! You won’t read this in the MSM .... as it is far too long and detailed for any normal MSM news outlet.

Quote:

We find little reasonable discussion of either, in western circles, after the Islamist insurrection of 2011. Instead, the wartime discussion descended into caricatures, conditioned by ‘regime-change’ fervour and bloody war, of a bloodthirsty ‘brutal dictator’ mindlessly repressing and slaughtering his own people. None of this helps sensible or principled understandings. Fortunately, there are a range of Syrian and independent sources that allow us to put together a more realistic picture. If we believed most western media reports we would think President Assad had launched repeated and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, including the gassing of children.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-dirty-war-on-syria-bashar-al-assad-and-political-reform/5492661

Im really sorry RH but it seems that the official report from the UN has clearly identified that it is in fact the pro assad Syrian Armed Forces who launched the sarin Chemical attacks against the rebels. OK for you to not trust the American, French and British statements which Russia claimed to be biased and "one-sided" but this is the conclusion of the UN International Investigation Team which had inspectors and investigators from several countries not just America, France and UK.

Here is the official report:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/s ... gation.pdf

It's a long document but let me summarize a few key points.

The conclusion have identified clear and undisputed evidence that the Sarin Attacks were launched with BM-14 rockets with a range of 10 kms. These rockets were launched from Syrian controlled areas of Damascus, with the site of Mount Qasioun which was bombed a few days earlier by the Israelis because of the huge high grade stockpiles of Sarin Gas held by the Syrians there. Yes, the Israelis had been bombarding Syrian Stockpiles in the area for weeks beforehand. Mount Qasioun, just 8 kms away was held by Assad Forces obviously, with the areas being attacked by the lethal Chemical Agent being in FSA hands.

The BM-14 rockets were manufactured in Russia with no known rockets of this type believed to be in the FSA's possession and nor in the possession of its Saudi and Qatari backers. Why the FSA would be responsible for doing this on their own stronghold held by them but under siege by Syria has me completely stumped to say the least.

The FSA were assisting the UN Inspectors with the investigations.

Whilst the report made a clear effort not to name those responsible, Ban Ki-Moon made a statement saying that the UN had clear evidence that a War Crime had been committed under the Geneva Convention. Ergo, the accusations were specifically directed to the Syrian Armed Forces who are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

These Chemical Attacks are still very much an ongoing issue for us. We have not abandoned this crime and hope that those responsible (Assad) will be held to account. France is very much still leading the way in this area and is mounting several Criminal Cases within the ICJ against Syria.

Here is another interesting video from Al Jazeera interviewing survivors of the Ghouta attacks who are very active in rasing awareness about these crimes.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/s ... 43290.html

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

With all due respect ..................... I’m sorry to have to say this but your evidence is now of no relevance!

Why? Very simple; the OPWC Report is a scientific study by an internationally recognised independent authority, ( I believe they were the people who oversaw the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons?) and above ALL other considerations, the conclusions CAN BE REPLICATED!!!! There is no doubt that the samples are still available so that their findings can be verified/refuted should that be required.

You know as well as I do that all it takes is just one piece of irrefutable evidence to vindicate the accused and for a case to collapse. That is what you have here .......... that single piece if irrefutable evidence. Kerry’s smoking gun was never presented to the Court of Public Opinion as it was a lie and deliberate obfuscation by the US to support their call for war!

I am going on memory but, I seem to remember that the UN Inspectors were requested by Assad? The attack(s) took place in rebel held areas and the inspectors had delayed access to the Ghouta site due to lack of safety as there were rebel snipers active in the area. Then the inspectors were escorted around the site by rebel/FSA escorts (as you have stated) and already there were comments from the Inspectors that there was evidence that the site had been ‘tampered’ with. (i.e. evidence had been moved from one site to another) In other words, they were shown what the rebels wanted them to see. Also it was NOT a scientific study. It was a report that gave an opinion based on what they saw on a very time limited visit and carried out under less than ideal circumstances.

I found this: I remembered reading it sometime after the accusations had been made against Assad. I never saw it reported in any MSM news sheet. Once again, a report where the scenario and the conclusions can be replicated.

The ‘ SAA rocket’ theory was debunked by MIT. (Ignore the source .... concentrate on the report, because once again this will not have been announced by the MSM) The first couple of paragraphs in The MIT Report, (the 2nd Paragraph of the RT report links to the detailed MIT report) highlights the statements Kerry made at the time, all of which now appear to be inaccurate.

https://www.rt.com/news/study-challenges-syria-chemical-attack-681/

I’m really sorry RH but it seems that the official report from the UN has clearly identified that it is in fact the pro Assad Syrian Armed Forces who launched the Sarin Chemical attacks against the rebels. OK for you to not trust the American, French and British statements which Russia claimed to be biased and "one-sided" but this is the conclusion of the UN International Investigation Team which had inspectors and investigators from several countries not just America, France and UK.

It did not do anything of the sort ...... it clearly identified that a chemical attack had taken place and that was all. But we were aware of that anyway.

The UN Report

It's a long document but let me summarize a few key points.

(BTW: I have not read the report and am only going on your key points)

The conclusions have identified clear and undisputed evidence that the Sarin Attacks were launched with BM-14 rockets with a range of 10 kms. These rockets were launched from Syrian controlled areas of Damascus, with the site of Mount Qasioun which was bombed a few days earlier by the Israelis because of the huge high grade stockpiles of Sarin Gas held by the Syrians there. Yes, the Israelis had been bombarding Syrian Stockpiles in the area for weeks beforehand. Mount Qasioun, just 8 kms away was held by Assad Forces obviously, with the areas being attacked by the lethal Chemical Agent being in FSA hands.

See the MIT mathematical and scientific report ........... they clearly refute those claims.

The BM-14 rockets were manufactured in Russia with no known rockets of this type believed to be in the FSA's possession and nor in the possession of its Saudi and Qatari backers. Why the FSA would be responsible for doing this on their own stronghold held by them but under siege by Syria has me completely stumped to say the least.

Indeed why! But that comment could also apply to Assad ......... CUI BONO? Certainly not Assad but the FSA had everything to gain!

The FSA were assisting the UN Inspectors with the investigations.

As I said, the likely perpetrators led the UN Investigators around the site? Don’t you find that just a little bit strange, when the results are supposed to be unbiased?

Whilst the report made a clear effort not to name those responsible, Ban Ki-Moon made a statement saying that the UN had clear evidence that a War Crime had been committed under the Geneva Convention. Ergo, the accusations were specifically directed to the Syrian Armed Forces who are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

Absolutely no doubt that a war crime was committed but Ban Ki-Moon did not direct that accusation at Assad, that was the interpretation ‘WE’ gave to it. In fact, it was the US that insisted that identification of the perpetrator should be excluded from the Inspectors mandate, which is bizarre as the US had already confidently exposed him!

At the time I watched an interview with a rebel who said there was an accident in one of the tunnels and the gas was discharged accidentally underground. Sarin Gas is heavier than air, I believe? This permeated the tunnels and was the cause of the concentrated effect it had in Ghouta because the civilians in rebel areas lived in the basements for safety. Apparently the spread was due to victims being taken to medical centres around the area, thus ‘evidence’ of the gas was widespread but no evidence of rocket attacks.

These Chemical Attacks are still very much an ongoing issue for us. We have not abandoned this crime and hope that those responsible (Assad) will be held to account. France is very much still leading the way in this area and is mounting several Criminal Cases within the ICJ against Syria.

I hope it does go to Court and I feel exaxtly the same about the Bush/Blair claim of Saddam’s WMD! But it won’t because the evidence (like the Iraq WMD evidence) has overwhelmingly refuted the ‘WE’s’ claims. I am no Lawyer but if this incident ever went to the ICC there would be a lot of US/coalition mouth pieces facing long jail time ........... Kerry for one! So, realistically it will never happen.

Here is another interesting video from Al Jazeera interviewing survivors of the Ghouta attacks who are very active in raising awareness about these crimes.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/s%20...%2043290.html

Al-Jazeera I believe is based in QATAR! A sworn enemy of Assad’s regime, so hardly more than a mouthpiece for the coalition and certainly not an independent source of factual evidence! I could post several similar interviews from other ‘survivors’ of the incident but they would be no more independent than the Al Jazeera ‘survivors’ accounts.