Londonrake wrote:Robin Hood wrote:Londonrake wrote:So - let me get this straight.
Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?
Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?
"
Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation." Like the US - in South Vietnam?
Definitive? I see nothing other than an informed opinion. But you seem to accept the AI allegations as definitive and presumably, also conclusive?
Well, it's really a matter of your concept of objectivity and a balanced view.
I merely point out that you seem to dismiss the Amnesty International report out of hand on the basis that........... well, I'm not really sure. On the basis that it doesn't fit in with your personal view of the situation?
On the other hand you accept and vociferously promote the mere opinion of one man, who was the Ambassador to Syria over a decade ago and has had a somewhat questionable record since, as being gospel. Have I got it wrong? His view appears to be similar to LBJ's "He's (Assad) a bastard but at least he's our bastard".
Your regarding Amnesty International's report as "allegations" whilst accepting one man's opinion as "Informed" suggests something a bit less than objectivity. Don't you agree?
On what basis does Mr Ford form his opinion? Experience of 10 years ago?
On what basis does he dismiss Amnesty International's report? It looks mostly in the vein of "It seems odd". Most of his opinions seem to emanate from the likes of Sputnik, which is a Russian State controlled broadcast outlet of course.
As an aside. You frequently talk about the righteousness of Russia's being invited into Syria by the government as the justification and legal foundation for their activities (which you clearly admire). However, in the past you have poured scorn on the USA's record in Vietnam and lauded the North Vietnamese war as being justified. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical with regard to your views of the situation in Syria? Just sayin'
Yeh and the allegations against Australia, which alleged crimes against Humanity are ok because that fits in nicely.
Australia does have reasons to feel hard done by though. I use to work in Border protection only a few years ago and I do know what I am talking about.
The detention centres are pretty Spartan, but it was never anyone's intention to have people incarcerated for 4 years. The facilities however are not bad, and probably better living conditions that some Australians have in remote communities, Aboriginal Communities and even among our elderly due to cost of living etc. There are people below the poverty line, even in Australia, which live in worse conditions whereas in a detention centre, all illegals have all the basics and even some luxuries.
And also on a brighter note, they will all be going to USA. Somehow, trump has agreed to take them even after having some altercation with Australian PM, the details of which were leaked from the Oval office which is extremely concerning. trump needs to sack everyone and employ new people from the ground up because there are big issues and that is a security Risk to the globe. only a matter of time before someone gets pissed off.
But as with everything, Australia will just ignore the ICJ and tell them to jam it. That seems to be what everyone does.
When countries get away with massive War crimes, then it becomes a free for all.
And yes, they are hypocritical. A clear example was Vietnam as you rightly pointed out. there was NOTHING at all illegal with America's or Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Nothing at all.
You have spotted the double standards. Well done!
