Poisoned Russian spy.

[felix]

22 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Evidence that the Ruskies dun it here:

 

http://observer.com/2018/04/british-spies-have-evidence-that-russia-poisoned-sergei-skripal/

 

Intercepted transcript with a quote from Independence Day:-:"The package has been delivered "....

[JamboX2]

14 minutes ago, jake said:

We have already said no more.

 

What action should we take and who is we anyway.

 

Are nuclear weapons any better than chemical weapons?

Are there acceptable methods of killing people ?

Not a dig jambo btw.

 

Whataboutery Jake.

 

Chemical weapons being used is a breach of international law. It's barely comparable to nuclear weapons as well. 

 

It's indiscriminate warfare which targets civilians over soldiers.

 

The UN should be acting here. The UN Security Council should take a tough line. But the Russians are blocking attempts to have a full and un-impeded investigation and are consistently watering down actions to investigate this properly.

 

Assad will win this war in Syria. However it's imperative that the UN be allowed to investigate this properly and bring the perpetrators to justice. Syria claims it's a false flag and Russia says no one has used chemical weapons. If that's the case why oppose an investigation?

[JamboX2]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You answered your own question.    The UN is practically obsolete and powerless as Russia is abusing it's position as a permanent member of the security council.     If Russia continues to make a mockery of the UN while it is directly involved in major international law infractions then it wont be long before there are moves made to institute a replacement for the UN.

 

It's not obsolete imo. But it lacks strong leadership and certain members are not treating it with respect.

 

Sadly the Bush administration has helped undermine the Security Council. Which now hampers action here and now. As does a belligerent idiot in Trump.

 

The UN needs it's members to be open to adhering to diplomatic norms. Which at present is missing.

 

Replacing it won't work as any successor will be purposefully weaker for nations now to agree to it. Reverting to pre-2003 global norms in diplomacy and foreign affairs would help!

[jake]

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Whataboutery Jake.

 

Chemical weapons being used is a breach of international law. It's barely comparable to nuclear weapons as well. 

 

It's indiscriminate warfare which targets civilians over soldiers.

 

The UN should be acting here. The UN Security Council should take a tough line. But the Russians are blocking attempts to have a full and un-impeded investigation and are consistently watering down actions to investigate this properly.

 

Assad will win this war in Syria. However it's imperative that the UN be allowed to investigate this properly and bring the perpetrators to justice. Syria claims it's a false flag and Russia says no one has used chemical weapons. If that's the case why oppose an investigation?

I was under the impression Russia had asked for independent investigation after the recent attack.

Also the ones previously blamed on Assad had not been proven after UN investigation and forgive me I forget which one it was shown to be western backed "rebels".

 

I quote rebels but that would be to suggest they were Syrians rebelling against Assad.

They are not.

 

[Space Mackerel]

44 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

You can add this to Sandy Hook , 9\11 and the moon landings , any others ? 

 

5 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Whataboutery Jake.

 

Chemical weapons being used is a breach of international law. It's barely comparable to nuclear weapons as well. 

 

It's indiscriminate warfare which targets civilians over soldiers.

 

The UN should be acting here. The UN Security Council should take a tough line. But the Russians are blocking attempts to have a full and un-impeded investigation and are consistently watering down actions to investigate this properly.

 

Assad will win this war in Syria. However it's imperative that the UN be allowed to investigate this properly and bring the perpetrators to justice. Syria claims it's a false flag and Russia says no one has used chemical weapons. If that's the case why oppose an investigation?

 

 The USA blocked the Security Council into the IDF  shootings in Gaza the other week.

 

But that’s whatabootery too I guess. 

 

 

 

 

 

[jake]

6 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Whataboutery Jake.

 

Chemical weapons being used is a breach of international law. It's barely comparable to nuclear weapons as well. 

 

It's indiscriminate warfare which targets civilians over soldiers.

 

The UN should be acting here. The UN Security Council should take a tough line. But the Russians are blocking attempts to have a full and un-impeded investigation and are consistently watering down actions to investigate this properly.

 

Assad will win this war in Syria. However it's imperative that the UN be allowed to investigate this properly and bring the perpetrators to justice. Syria claims it's a false flag and Russia says no one has used chemical weapons. If that's the case why oppose an investigation?

Also it's not a What about jambo.

To talk about moral ways of killing was not taking sides just a wee side question.

 

Uly I know off topic .

[jake]

31 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You answered your own question.    The UN is practically obsolete and powerless as Russia is abusing it's position as a permanent member of the security council.     If Russia continues to make a mockery of the UN while it is directly involved in major international law infractions then it wont be long before there are moves made to institute a replacement for the UN.

International law being broken I can assure you is not the exclusive practice of Russia.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2016/10/12/how-us-violates-international-law-plain-sight

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, jake said:

International law being broken I can assure you is not the exclusive practice of Russia.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2016/10/12/how-us-violates-international-law-plain-sight

 

You cant mention that, the zoomers on here will have a melt down doing any critical thinking. 

[jake]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You cant mention that, the zoomers on here will have a melt down doing any critical thinking. 

Rise above the name calling Space.

We have the truth on our side.

 

Lol now that will have the coffee beer juice splattered on the screens.

?

[JamboX2]

12 minutes ago, jake said:

I was under the impression Russia had asked for independent investigation after the recent attack.

Also the ones previously blamed on Assad had not been proven after UN investigation and forgive me I forget which one it was shown to be western backed "rebels".

 

I quote rebels but that would be to suggest they were Syrians rebelling against Assad.

They are not.

 

 

The West called for an independent UN led commission which would have full access to the site of the attack. The bodies too. It would then be allowed to review, assess and identify the chemicals used, their source and take appropriate steps to name those it believed responsible based on their findings.

 

Russia proposed a investigation partly led by the Syrian government, not be fully independent nor be able to do any of the in-depth analysis and investigatory work required to identify who is most likely to have done it.

 

Read articles in the press on the UNSC meetings this week. Russia has thwarted a proper investigation.

[JamboX2]

10 minutes ago, jake said:

International law being broken I can assure you is not the exclusive practice of Russia.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2016/10/12/how-us-violates-international-law-plain-sight

 

Again whataboutery. One wrong doesn't negate another.

Edited April 12, 2018 by JamboX2

[jake]

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Again whataboutery. One wrong doesn't negate another.

I'm not suggesting it does.

But you cannot ignore the hypocrisy.

And you cannot view Syria alone .

 

Victorian stated that as a member of the security council the Russians broke international law with impunity.

They are not the only ones.

I'm not condoning Russia .

[Space Mackerel]

13 minutes ago, jake said:

Rise above the name calling Space.

We have the truth on our side.

 

Lol now that will have the coffee beer juice splattered on the screens.

?

 

I like to call it facts pal. 

 

I tend to ignore the trolls and Google experts these days. It’s seriously worrying that they can’t take the words on board of a ex senior diplomat from that area of the world. 

[jake]

19 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The West called for an independent UN led commission which would have full access to the site of the attack. The bodies too. It would then be allowed to review, assess and identify the chemicals used, their source and take appropriate steps to name those it believed responsible based on their findings.

 

Russia proposed a investigation partly led by the Syrian government, not be fully independent nor be able to do any of the in-depth analysis and investigatory work required to identify who is most likely to have done it.

 

Read articles in the press on the UNSC meetings this week. Russia has thwarted a proper investigation.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/three-unsc-resolutions-on-syria-chemical-attack-fail-russia-calls-for-investigators-to-be-sent-in-4426863.html

 

Not quite as you report it.

The experts in the field were on their way with the promise of Russian protection.

That's now stalled because of the threat of US led military strikes.

Although the US and allies welcomed the investigation they wanted others involved.

This was vetoed.

The Russian proposals could not be considered for veto.

China abstained.

 

It does seem to me that in a position of strength on the ground in Syria that it would make no sense to invite western intervention.

 

 

 

[jake]

13 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I like to call it facts pal. 

 

I tend to ignore the trolls and Google experts these days. It’s seriously worrying that they can’t take the words on board of a ex senior diplomat from that area of the world. 

I used truth to be nippy.

[Space Mackerel]

22 minutes ago, jake said:

I used truth to be nippy.

Lol.

 

Mind you, there’s this too from a while back.

 

 

 

[JamboX2]

32 minutes ago, jake said:

https://www.firstpost.com/world/three-unsc-resolutions-on-syria-chemical-attack-fail-russia-calls-for-investigators-to-be-sent-in-4426863.html

 

Not quite as you report it.

The experts in the field were on their way with the promise of Russian protection.

That's now stalled because of the threat of US led military strikes.

Although the US and allies welcomed the investigation they wanted others involved.

This was vetoed.

The Russian proposals could not be considered for veto.

China abstained.

 

It does seem to me that in a position of strength on the ground in Syria that it would make no sense to invite western intervention.

 

 

 

 

It's not western intervention if it's a UN commission proposed by most UNSC members - including the non-permanent members. 

 

The current group is the OPCW who were sent on behalf of the UN. No attack has happened (nor likely for a week) so why are they being delayed? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/russia-hits-back-over-syria-chemical-attack-with-call-for-un-inquiry
 

That link gives a very good summary of the current group. Not being delayed by the threat of strikes but delaying strikes occurring at all.

 

Also summarises the differences at the UNSC - when it's 12 v 2 + 1 abstention against you you'd think that you'd maybe have lost the argument.

 

Why they wish to refuse the investigators to use their evidence to identify a guilty party is not quite a transparent proposal. Wouldn't you agree?

[JamboX2]

57 minutes ago, jake said:

I'm not suggesting it does.

But you cannot ignore the hypocrisy.

And you cannot view Syria alone .

 

Victorian stated that as a member of the security council the Russians broke international law with impunity.

They are not the only ones.

I'm not condoning Russia .

 

You can view Syria as a special case. There's been an impunity in the use of chemical weapons to win a war and terrorize civilians. 

 

Frankly that is another level of abuse from say Yemen because it's explicitly been outlawed since 1925 and the impact of gas in WW1.

 

Each time Assad uses this in future his foreign assets in the West should be seized. If he continues then bomb a barracks. Again  flatten a radar base. Again, crater a runway. Degrade his capabilities to make war to deter his excesses in this war.

[Space Mackerel]

Then there's this belter, twice Trump had threatened to pull out and surprise surprise, every time, gassing 

 

https://www.corbettreport.com/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-an-open-source-investigation/

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

On 4/11/2018 at 21:50, Hunky Dory said:

There’s no way that the MSM are swallowing that “statement” from Yulia Skripal?

 

This whole thing stinks.

 

Why would the US nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it was already winning the war? Doesn't add up, doesn't make any sense.

 

If only we'd join the dots, we'd see that it was clearly the White Helmets creating a fake explosion in a TV studio somewhere. 

[shaun.lawson]

7 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

Out of interest, at what point do we say no more on the use of these weapons?

 

Purely philosophically, I do not understand this.

 

Syria is a war of annihilation. What is the difference between a child being blown to pieces by a barrel bomb or being slaughtered by a chemical weapon? None that I can see. They're dead. They've been murdered by mass murdering *******s. 

 

Further: in both Gulf Wars, we used depleted uranium. Depleted uranium poisons the water supply and causes cancer (rates of which went up 700% in Iraq after our first Gulf War). When asked about this, then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said that "British lives would be at risk if such weapons were banned".  

 

We also used cluster bombs, which kill indiscriminately and leave landmines which kill and maim children for years afterwards. And like Israel does in Gaza, the US used white phosphorus in Iraq. Exposure to white phosphorus is, needless to say, not pleasant - and as indiscriminate as it's possible to conceive of. 

 

Our mass murdering weapons good, their mass murdering weapons bad? It's nonsense. Offensive nonsense too, if we so much as scratch the surface. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

7 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

You answered your own question.    The UN is practically obsolete and powerless as Russia is abusing it's position as a permanent member of the security council.     If Russia continues to make a mockery of the UN while it is directly involved in major international law infractions then it wont be long before there are moves made to institute a replacement for the UN.

 

It is not the job of the UN Security Council to establish peace, love, milk and honey for all. It is the job of the UN Security Council to maintain some semblance of global stability and not allow dramas to turn into crises; disasters to turn into catastrophes.

 

International relations being what they've always been (the embodiment of the worst, most self-interested aspects of human nature), the only way of achieving this is through designated global policemen, who can essentially do as they please.

 

If I were to reform the Security Council, I'd expand its permanent membership to better reflect the economic and geopolitical realities not of 1945, but 2018, by adding Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, and Nigeria. I'd also raise the veto threshold for substantive resolutions from one to two. Not, in practice, that this would change very much.

 

Where the UN does change very much and is the very opposite of "obsolete" is in its immense efforts in peacekeeping, health, refugee support, aid and international development. The UNSC represents only a fraction of what the UN does. It is not and will never be the latter's fault that nation states will always behave so ruthlessly whenever they have the chance to profit from human misery. 

[Ibrahim Tall]

52 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

It is not the job of the UN Security Council to establish peace, love, milk and honey for all. It is the job of the UN Security Council to maintain some semblance of global stability and not allow dramas to turn into crises; disasters to turn into catastrophes.

 

International relations being what they've always been (the embodiment of the worst, most self-interested aspects of human nature), the only way of achieving this is through designated global policemen, who can essentially do as they please.

 

If I were to reform the Security Council, I'd expand its permanent membership to better reflect the economic and geopolitical realities not of 1945, but 2018, by adding Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, and Nigeria. I'd also raise the veto threshold for substantive resolutions from one to two. Not, in practice, that this would change very much.

 

Where the UN does change very much and is the very opposite of "obsolete" is in its immense efforts in peacekeeping, health, refugee support, aid and international development. The UNSC represents only a fraction of what the UN does. It is not and will never be the latter's fault that nation states will always behave so ruthlessly whenever they have the chance to profit from human misery. 

 

Nigeria? The endemically corrupt almost failed state that’s unable to secure its own borders should be on the UN Security Council?

I do agree in regards to the others.

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

Nigeria? The endemically corrupt almost failed state that’s unable to secure its own borders should be on the UN Security Council?

I do agree in regards to the others.

 

Included them purely because, with 1.7bn Muslims in the world, there has to be a Muslim country on the UNSC. But on second thoughts, you're right. Scrap them and replace them with Indonesia. 

 

South Africa and South Korea would be next on my list, I think.

Edited April 13, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Space Mackerel]

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Why would the US nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it was already winning the war? Doesn't add up, doesn't make any sense.

 

If only we'd join the dots, we'd see that it was clearly the White Helmets creating a fake explosion in a TV studio somewhere. 

They dropped the two nukes as they estimated the loss of US lives and casualties invading Japan at around half a million personnel.

 

Plus it saved a few bob too. 

[felix]

19 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

They dropped the two nukes as they estimated the loss of US lives and casualties invading Japan at around half a million personnel.

 

Plus it saved a few bob too. 

Hiroshima didn't have much to do with saving lives or even ending the war - more to do with the US throwing it's weight about and  kicking off  the Cold War.

Was about to suggest Hiroshima was off topic for this thread but gadzooks - here we go again ! 

[Space Mackerel]

3 minutes ago, felix said:

Hiroshima didn't have much to do with saving lives or even ending the war - more to do with the US throwing it's weight about and  kicking off  the Cold War.

Was about to suggest Hiroshima was off topic for this thread but gadzooks - here we go again ! 

 

Im pretty sure the Japanese offered an unconditional surrender straight after the 2nd one went off. 

[Sharpie]

It is my memory of the Atom bomb drops on Japan was done because fighting was still going on in a number of the Pacific islands that had been occupied by the Japanese for years and were well prepared for defence.  Britain was still involved with the Japanese in Burma, and one must give grudging rspect to the Japanese soldiers of the day who had never learned the word surrender.  It was my understanding although quite young that the action was taken to impress on the Japanese population that the war had now reached their own doorstep, and it did achieve its purpose because war came to an end soon after.

 

just to confirm the Japanese soldiers loyalty, on numerous occasions many many years after the end of hostilities there were Japanese soldiers still at their posts on some of the islands who had not been told the war was ove, and they remained at their post.

[jake]

12 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Purely philosophically, I do not understand this.

 

Syria is a war of annihilation. What is the difference between a child being blown to pieces by a barrel bomb or being slaughtered by a chemical weapon? None that I can see. They're dead. They've been murdered by mass murdering *******s. 

 

Further: in both Gulf Wars, we used depleted uranium. Depleted uranium poisons the water supply and causes cancer (rates of which went up 700% in Iraq after our first Gulf War). When asked about this, then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said that "British lives would be at risk if such weapons were banned".  

 

We also used cluster bombs, which kill indiscriminately and leave landmines which kill and maim children for years afterwards. And like Israel does in Gaza, the US used white phosphorus in Iraq. Exposure to white phosphorus is, needless to say, not pleasant - and as indiscriminate as it's possible to conceive of. 

 

Our mass murdering weapons good, their mass murdering weapons bad? It's nonsense. Offensive nonsense too, if we so much as scratch the surface. 

Good post

[Cade]

The Japanese were already deep in peace talks with the USA when the yanks dropped the bombs.

 

The yanks simply wanted to see how they'd work in practice.

 

One plutonium, one uranium. Live fire tests on live targets.

[jake]

1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

It is my memory of the Atom bomb drops on Japan was done because fighting was still going on in a number of the Pacific islands that had been occupied by the Japanese for years and were well prepared for defence.  Britain was still involved with the Japanese in Burma, and one must give grudging rspect to the Japanese soldiers of the day who had never learned the word surrender.  It was my understanding although quite young that the action was taken to impress on the Japanese population that the war had now reached their own doorstep, and it did achieve its purpose because war came to an end soon after.

 

just to confirm the Japanese soldiers loyalty, on numerous occasions many many years after the end of hostilities there were Japanese soldiers still at their posts on some of the islands who had not been told the war was ove, and they remained at their post.

Japanese training did involve a spiritual side Bob and this aspect was regarded as most important.

Their bayonet was their samurai sword .

 

[jake]

43 minutes ago, Cade said:

The Japanese were already deep in peace talks with the USA when the yanks dropped the bombs.

 

The yanks simply wanted to see how they'd work in practice.

 

One plutonium, one uranium. Live fire tests on live targets.

It's hard to disagree with your take on it.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

6 minutes ago, jake said:

It's hard to disagree with your take on it.

Accept to say its the deranged ramblings of someone who hasn't a *******  clue about what they're splaffing about.

 

What a cesspit JKB is these days.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

10 minutes ago, jake said:

Japanese training did involve a spiritual side Bob and this aspect was regarded as most important.

Their bayonet was their samurai sword .

 

 

It was pretty spiritual. If you label brutality a la Nanking an example of spirituality manifesting itself.

[Victorian]

Another reimagination of the truth.    The Japanese,   of to be more exact the Emperor of Japan,    were/was nowhere close to surrender and a subsequent post-war peace settlement.     The only way to quickly curtail the war was to sicken and horrify the Japanese nation into taking a course of action that was the most diabolically alien thing to them.     

 

The only 'peace talks' they were involved in did not include an unconditional surrender and likely clean end to the fighting.

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

Accept to say its the deranged ramblings of someone who hasn't a *******  clue about what they're splaffing about.

 

What a cesspit JKB is these days.

 

You seem upset?

Its entirely possible that the US wanted to see what this new fangled weapon did in real life compared to desert tests. After all, it did shape the last century and global geo political power struggles.

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Another reimagination of the truth.    The Japanese,   of to be more exact the Emperor of Japan,    were/was nowhere close to surrender and a subsequent post-war peace settlement.     The only way to quickly curtail the war was to sicken and horrify the Japanese nation into taking a course of action that was the most diabolically alien thing to them.     

 

The only 'peace talks' they were involved in did not include an unconditional surrender and likely clean end to the fighting.

 

 

Theres some people on here obviously skipped basic History lessons at school.

[jake]

10 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

It was pretty spiritual. If you label brutality a la Nanking an example of spirituality manifesting itself.

That's how they saw their training.

I am not excusing the Japanese criminality .

[Trapper John McIntyre]

11 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Another reimagination of the truth.    The Japanese,   of to be more exact the Emperor of Japan,    were/was nowhere close to surrender and a subsequent post-war peace settlement.     The only way to quickly curtail the war was to sicken and horrify the Japanese nation into taking a course of action that was the most diabolically alien thing to them.     

 

The only 'peace talks' they were involved in did not include an unconditional surrender and likely clean end to the fighting.

 

Near the truth, Vic. There was too much obfuscation going on in the Japanese government. Hirohito was an empty vessel. Completely lacking in empathy and common sense. 

 

A projected 1,000,000 allied casualties and who knows how many Japanese civilian and military ones certainly focussed Truman's mind somewhat if the Allies invaded Japan. The death toll alone on Okinawa was foretaste as to what would come. Plus how many Allied POW's and civilians?

 

Still dropping the bombs was the wrong thing to do according to some. If they'd been in Changi or on a certain railway at the time you just wonder what they're attitude would have been.

 

[Sharpie]

I may be wrong but it is my iunderstanding that Americas knowledge of the Atomi bomb was largely widened by the capture of German scientists who were pretty close to giving the ability of Atom warfare to Hitler.  I am not sure how much testing they had done, but I am pretty sure a large part of the motive was to save lives as has been stated correctly by others the Americans were taking heavy losses in the Pacific during their island jumping route to mainland Japan.  I am quite convinced that the action of bombing Japan saved many allied lives, and funny enough despite the devastation of the A bombs a lot of Japanese lives.  With bombing as it was in Europe and Britain for six years, the general public had little sympathy for what two bombs done when people in places like |London saw what thousands of bombs could do over six years.

I am not sure  that situation has any resemblance to any attack on Syria in the year 2018, the Syrian situation is a revolution over a Dictator who is receiving help by a major ally, and is receiving threats from a major critic.  |Neither of these although somehow Trump manages to claim that he is by launching missiles at Syria saving America from danger, I think that is a bit grandiose, and would consider that it is a humanitarian action more palatable, and hard to say referring to a Trump cpmment but more believable.

[Space Mackerel]

30 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

Near the truth, Vic. There was too much obfuscation going on in the Japanese government. Hirohito was an empty vessel. Completely lacking in empathy and common sense. 

 

A projected 1,000,000 allied casualties and who knows how many Japanese civilian and military ones certainly focussed Truman's mind somewhat if the Allies invaded Japan. The death toll alone on Okinawa was foretaste as to what would come. Plus how many Allied POW's and civilians?

 

Still dropping the bombs was the wrong thing to do according to some. If they'd been in Changi or on a certain railway at the time you just wonder what they're attitude would have been.

 

 

Jeez, you’ve actually made a decent contribution to a thread. Have a cigar! 

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

I may be wrong but it is my iunderstanding that Americas knowledge of the Atomi bomb was largely widened by the capture of German scientists who were pretty close to giving the ability of Atom warfare to Hitler.  I am not sure how much testing they had done, but I am pretty sure a large part of the motive was to save lives as has been stated correctly by others the Americans were taking heavy losses in the Pacific during their island jumping route to mainland Japan.  I am quite convinced that the action of bombing Japan saved many allied lives, and funny enough despite the devastation of the A bombs a lot of Japanese lives.  With bombing as it was in Europe and Britain for six years, the general public had little sympathy for what two bombs done when people in places like |London saw what thousands of bombs could do over six years.

I am not sure  that situation has any resemblance to any attack on Syria in the year 2018, the Syrian situation is a revolution over a Dictator who is receiving help by a major ally, and is receiving threats from a major critic.  |Neither of these although somehow Trump manages to claim that he is by launching missiles at Syria saving America from danger, I think that is a bit grandiose, and would consider that it is a humanitarian action more palatable, and hard to say referring to a Trump cpmment but more believable.

 

You do know that Trump indicated he was going to pull out of Syria as the Ruskies and Assad had basically won the war in Syria now the other week? 

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-syria/trump-seeks-syria-pullout-as-advisers-warn-of-hard-work-ahead-idUKKCN1HA2EC

 

Why would Assad go and do that then? Unless he felt like he could do carte blanche but I doubt it till the Western Forces were completely withdrawn, well,  to their bases that ring fence the region again. 

[Victorian]

Assad's use of chemical weapons has something in common with America's use of the bombs on Japan.    Perversely.

 

Some analysis is saying that,   in the urban theatres we have seen,    they have learned that conventional bombing does not permanently displace people from areas they want to advance into without having to pick their way house to house.     But chemical weapons more often do permanently clear areas.    People do not return.      

 

Similar motives and tactics.     Much less legitimacy and massively less acceptable in the modern day of so-called enlightenment.

[Space Mackerel]

Just now, Victorian said:

Assad's use of chemical weapons has something in common with America's use of the bombs on Japan.    Perversely.

 

Some analysis is saying that,   in the urban theatres we have seen,    they have learned that conventional bombing does not permanently displace people from areas they want to advance into without having to pick their way house to house.     But chemical weapons more often do permanently clear areas.    People do not return.      

 

Similar motives and tactics.     Much less legitimacy and massively less acceptable in the modern day of so-called enlightenment.

 

That’s maybe one reason, but you do understand that most people die from the shock wave of a conventional HE explosive, rather than the fragmentation that most people assume. 

[Victorian]

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

That’s maybe one reason, but you do understand that most people die from the shock wave of a conventional HE explosive, rather than the fragmentation that most people assume. 

 

I'm not talking about deaths from actual bombs.   I'm talking about survivors being temporarily displaced but returning.    It's being said that the chemical weapons are seen as having much more success in permanently clearing areas of survivors.

[Space Mackerel]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I'm not talking about deaths from actual bombs.   I'm talking about survivors being temporarily displaced but returning.    It's being said that the chemical weapons are seen as having much more success in permanently clearing areas of survivors.

 

I just agreed with you, try and read my post. 

Chlorine gas will displace like it did during WW1, it’s not persistent, as is hangs about, unlike a certain nerve agent that’s been in the press, funnily enough just before this happened. You have 2 types of chemical and biological weapons, persistent and non-persistent. It’s quite self explanatory as to what their effects are over a time period once they are utilised. 

The British public need to “gen up” to coin a phrase on what’s what. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[Sharpie]

18 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You do know that Trump indicated he was going to pull out of Syria as the Ruskies and Assad had basically won the war in Syria now the other week? 

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-syria/trump-seeks-syria-pullout-as-advisers-warn-of-hard-work-ahead-idUKKCN1HA2EC

 

Why would Assad go and do that then? Unless he felt like he could do carte blanche but I doubt it till the Western Forces were completely withdrawn, well,  to their bases that ring fence the region again. 

 

I do know that Trump was trumpeting that U.S. troops would be removed from Syria as ISIS had as he promised been defeated.  I cannot in all honesty say that I saw or heard anything that Trump conceded that Russia and Hassan had won. I accept that I get my news from MSNBC and CNN, so it may be different than your sources.

I have not read your link and do not intend to so cannot really comment on your second point.

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I just agreed with you, try and read my post. 

Chlorine gas will displace, it’s not persistent unlike a certain nerve agent that’s been in the press, funnily enough just before this happened.

The British public need to “gen up” to coin a phrase on what’s what. 

 

I read and understood your post but you went meandering away to shock waves and fragmentation for some reason.

 

We know thd basics regarding the different natures of chlorine and nerve agents but do the neighbourhood of downtown Damascus?      Nerve agent has been used before,  sometimes in conjunction with chlorine.    Perhaps people see another chlorine cannister attack and associate it with the possibility of worse... and stay clear.

[Space Mackerel]

5 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

I do know that Trump was trumpeting that U.S. troops would be removed from Syria as ISIS had as he promised been defeated.  I cannot in all honesty say that I saw or heard anything that Trump conceded that Russia and Hassan had won. I accept that I get my news from MSNBC and CNN, so it may be different than your sources.

I have not read your link and do not intend to so cannot really comment on your second point.

 

 

With all this info at a click of the button and you won’t spend 1 min reading an article from Reuters UK? 

What about a link from NY Times then? 

[Space Mackerel]

16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I read and understood your post but you went meandering away to shock waves and fragmentation for some reason.

 

We know thd basics regarding the different natures of chlorine and nerve agents but do the neighbourhood of downtown Damascus?      Nerve agent has been used before,  sometimes in conjunction with chlorine.    Perhaps people see another chlorine cannister attack and associate it with the possibility of worse... and stay clear.

 

 

Times this by 10 for an average laser guided bomb nowadays and tell me if “you feel safe” 

The shock waves destroy your internal organs.

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Space Mackerel