By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Syria World War 3 on 08:05 - Apr 22 by Brynmill_Jack
Novichok has been engineered to a "boutique" formula that only acts four hours after initial exposure
It also has the ability to make humans really really ill until they're free to leave hospital. The ability to make the administer invisible to all forms of CCTV cameras, the ability not to infect thousands of other people who have visited the same areas, pubs , restaurants etc. However, even after cleaning down with wet wipes the nerve agent can linger in places and could attack innocent people at any time.
Snitty ain't you. You don't like being challenged.
I've never attempted to be an (the) arbiter. I've just responded to piss-poor arguments, put my thoughts forward and when challenged on these I've attempted to justify my reasoning or source of facts. If you can't cope with that then it's your problem.
As to the links... I think that they are VERY USEFUL. The blogs however, no.
From security Council report:
Umm Hawsh Items 30. - 36f Conclusion after 36f is...
"On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that ISIL is responsible for the use of sulfur mustard at Umm Hawsh on 15 and 16 September 2016. The findings of the Leadership Panel regarding the evidence in this case are based on the information set forth in detail in annex I."
So Umm Hawsh was an ISIL sulphur mustard attack.
Khan Sheikhoun items 37. - 46i. Conclusion after 46i...
"On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. The findings of the Leadership Panel regarding the evidence in this case are based on the information set forth in detail in annex II."
So Khan Sheikhoun was a Sarin attack by the Syrian regime.
So the article I linked claiming that Syria used Sarin in Khan Sheikhoun was correct...thank you.
Edit - added sulphur mustard to ISIL attack
[Post edited 21 Apr 2018 1:31]
"On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. The findings of the Leadership Panel regarding the evidence in this case are based on the information set forth in detail in annex II."
"This is from the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, sent to the UN Security Council on 26 October 2017.This is extraordinarily confident in its judgments. In Paragraph 14 it admits that the OPCW investgating 'mechansm' never actually went to Khan Sheikhoun. It states
‘Based on the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. ‘
The report (in the version seen by me) itself is hard to reference, since its pages are not numbered, and if there is a rational numbering of paragraphs, I cannot decode it. I have numbered the pages by hand for my personal use, but cannot be sure that my numbering would correspond to that of anyone else who printed it out.
So I suggest that you use (if you can) Control F or Command F to search for the passages which I quote.
I find the discussion of the origin and nature of the crater inconclusive and am surprised at the apparent certainty of the un-named ‘experts’ quoted that it was definitely caused by an air-dropped bomb. See if you think the stated information leads inevitably to that conclusion.
Then there is the question of whether aircraft passed close enough to the site of the crater to drop a sarin bomb there. All emphases here and later are mine:
The report says ‘The Mechanism received information as to the operation of SAAF aircraft in the area of Khan Shaykhun indicating that SAAF aircraft may have been in a position to launch aerial bombs in the vicinity. At the same time, however, SAAF flight records and other records provided by the Syrian Arab Republic make no mention of Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. Furthermore, a representative of the SAAF stated to the Mechanism that no SAAF aircraft had attacked Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. - The Mechanism received conflicting information about aircraft deployment in Khan Shaykhun that morning. On 6 and 13 April 2017, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic made public statements that the SAAF bombed Khan Shaykhun with conventional bombs at around 1130 to 1200 hours. Furthermore, the Mechanism obtained original video footage from two separate witnesses that showed four plumes caused by explosives across Khan Shaykhun. The footage was confirmed by forensic analysis to be authentic and to have been filmed in Khan Shaykhun between 0642 and 0652 hours on 4 April 2017.’
I am not sure if I understand this. I would so very much like to see references (the report, in the version I have seen, does not provide these) for the statement that the Syrian government said it had bombed Khan Sheikhoun with conventional weapons on the date of the alleged sarin attack, several hours later than the supposed attack. I don’t recall this. And in any case, does it help much? Also, how was it possible to verify that the video footage was authentic and filmed at the time stated? What techniques were used? This is one of several points at which unidentified experts and witnesses are cited and we are left to take their word for it, as the report seems very willing to do.
But this is, as it were, only a preliminary to the big stuff.
Look in the area around “early warning ” and “air deployment” for more rather contentious claims and conclusions (in my view) supported by unidentified experts whose views seem remarkably unanimous and helpful to the belief that Syria did it, despite the absence of solid, objective certainties and despite the fact that no independent investigators have ever actually been to the site. Yup. That's still so. Not that, at this distance in time, they could find much.
But on my page 28 (which begins ‘At the request of the Mechanism, the Syrian Arab Republic…’) we move into another very interesting area. This is the known flight path of aircraft which were *close* to Khan Sheikhoun on the day and time of the alleged outrage.
This aircraft (as we know from flight path maps published by the US authorities at the time) was roughly 3 miles away from Khan Sheikhoun.
Another aircraft was 5 miles away.
The report says : ‘As noted in paragraphs 19, 23 and 28 (not numbered in my version, PH) of this annex, the Mechanism obtained information detailing the presence of a Su-22 within 5 km (3 miles) of Khan Shaykhun, as well as information from the pilot of a Su-22 interviewed by the Mechanism that he was within 7 to 9 km (5 miles) of Khan Shaykhun at the relevant time.
But the report sometimes treats 3 miles as the closest the aircraft got to Khan Sheikhoun, and sometimes as the limit within which it was. Confusing?
I am told (I cannot understand it myself, but others may find methods of doing so) this Russian report of a Moscow government briefing (yes, they have an interest in this and it must be taken into account) http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4699218
states that it's just possible that the jet could have tossed the bomb 3 miles ahead if it was travelling directly towards the target at maximum altitude and speed for bomb release, but it would then have had to keep travelling towards the target as its minimurn turn radius is more than a mile and so it would have approached closer to the target. The flight track published by the US government doesn't show any path like this - the jet simply flew in an east-west line south of the town.
'The Mechanism consulted with a weapons expert to ascertain the confluence of distance and altitude from which it may be possible to hit Khan Shaykhun with an aerial bomb. The expert concluded that, depending on a number of variables such as altitude, speed and flight path taken, it would be possible for such an aerial bomb to be deployed on the town from the aforementioned distances. - To date the Mechanism has not found specific information confirming whether or not an SAAF Su-22 operating from Al-Shayrat airbase launched an aerial attack against Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.’
Seems reasonable. How in that case did they reach their confident conclusion that the Syrians did it? Un-named witnesses are cited along with films allegedly recorded at the time on which aircraft sounds have been heard. Since so much weight is given to this evidence, it is frustrating that we are not, in this version, given any details of the sources or of the verification methods used.
For example: ‘The Mechanism collected two original videos filmed by two witnesses from different angles showing several plumes that were confirmed by forensic institutes to have been filmed between 0642 and 0652 hours during the morning of 4 April 2017. Forensic analysis of the videos found that, at a certain point in each video, the sound of an aircraft could be heard in the background along with an explosion.’
I continue to take the view that we lack enough definite first-hand checkable evidence to attribute blame. And I add one thing. If you go to the pages I have numbered 35 and 36, or perhaps search for the terms ‘unusual or inappropriate’. You will then arrive at this astonishing passage (the emphases are very much mine, as before)
'Based on its review of open source material showing first responders in the hours immediately after the incident, the Mechanism observed several methods and procedures that appeared either unusual or inappropriate in the circumstances. In particular, the Mechanism noted that fully equipped hazmat teams appeared at the scene later that afternoon and reported early detection of the presence of sarin, seemingly using a Dräger X-am 7000 ambient air monitor, which was not known to be able to detect sarin. Of further concern to the Mechanism was the relative unprofessionalism by which certain environmental samples appear to have been taken, e.g. sampling from a muddy puddle. - The Mechanism also noted scenes recorded just after the incident at the medical point to the east of Khan Shaykhun, where rescue and decontamination activities filmed shortly after 0700 hours showed rescue personnel hosing down patients with water indiscriminately for extended periods of time. Such video footage also depicted a number of patients not being attended to, and some para-medical interventions that did not seem to make medical sense, such as performing heart compression on a patient facing the ground. - The Mechanism obtained expert analysis on the medical symptoms and response indicated in witness statements and medical records, as well as treatment received at a range of health care facilities, including those in a neighbouring country. - Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analysed. For example, several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours. The Mechanism received the medical records of 247 patients from Khan Shaykhun who were admitted to various health-care facilities, including those of survivors and a number of victims who died from exposure to a 29/33 chemical agent. The admission times of the records range between 0600 and 1600 hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed that in 57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km (75 miles) away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km (18 miles) away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario, or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions. - (****PH Notes, the sarin attack is said to have happened between 6.30 and 7.00 on the morning of 4th April***). An inconsistency was identified in one of the Fact-Finding Mission biomedical results from samples without a chain of custody. In sample number 133 , the blood tested negative for sarin or a sarin-like substance, while the urine sample tested positive for the sarin degradation product isopropyl methylphosphonate. There is currently no explanation regarding the inconsistency. Medical experts consulted by the Mechanism indicated that the combination of the negative result in the blood and the positive result in the urine was impossible. This inconsistency was considered to be most probably the result of cross-contamination in the sampling process. - The Mechanism observed from open sources that treatment of victims from Khan Shaykhun frequently involved oxygen and cortisone therapy. This treatment is not recommended for sarin intoxication, but is mainly for lung damage, as would be caused by either chlorine or vacuum bombs. - Based on consultations with two medical experts, the Mechanism found that the response by rescue workers and medical personnel in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017 had been essentially consistent with the use of sarin on such a scale. While some potentially important irregularities were identified throughout the rescue operation and in medical records, they may be explained by factors such as poor training or the chaotic conditions, or by attempts to inflate the gravity of the situation for depiction in the media. ‘
I reproduce this segment without any comment save one question. Is it fair to say that the rather relaxed and generous treatment of *these* inconsistencies and oddities contrasts with some other parts of the report, in which any evidence tending towards the unproven view that the crater was caused by an air-dropped gas bomb and that Syrian aircraft were over the town at the time, is given ready credence? I am not an expert in these matters. Perhaps I have misread the document. But it still does not seem to me that its confident attribution of blame is justified by the material of the actual document, in this version."
2
Syria World War 3 on 12:41 - Apr 22 with 3575 views
"On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. The findings of the Leadership Panel regarding the evidence in this case are based on the information set forth in detail in annex II."
"This is from the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, sent to the UN Security Council on 26 October 2017.This is extraordinarily confident in its judgments. In Paragraph 14 it admits that the OPCW investgating 'mechansm' never actually went to Khan Sheikhoun. It states
‘Based on the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. ‘
The report (in the version seen by me) itself is hard to reference, since its pages are not numbered, and if there is a rational numbering of paragraphs, I cannot decode it. I have numbered the pages by hand for my personal use, but cannot be sure that my numbering would correspond to that of anyone else who printed it out.
So I suggest that you use (if you can) Control F or Command F to search for the passages which I quote.
I find the discussion of the origin and nature of the crater inconclusive and am surprised at the apparent certainty of the un-named ‘experts’ quoted that it was definitely caused by an air-dropped bomb. See if you think the stated information leads inevitably to that conclusion.
Then there is the question of whether aircraft passed close enough to the site of the crater to drop a sarin bomb there. All emphases here and later are mine:
The report says ‘The Mechanism received information as to the operation of SAAF aircraft in the area of Khan Shaykhun indicating that SAAF aircraft may have been in a position to launch aerial bombs in the vicinity. At the same time, however, SAAF flight records and other records provided by the Syrian Arab Republic make no mention of Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. Furthermore, a representative of the SAAF stated to the Mechanism that no SAAF aircraft had attacked Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. - The Mechanism received conflicting information about aircraft deployment in Khan Shaykhun that morning. On 6 and 13 April 2017, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic made public statements that the SAAF bombed Khan Shaykhun with conventional bombs at around 1130 to 1200 hours. Furthermore, the Mechanism obtained original video footage from two separate witnesses that showed four plumes caused by explosives across Khan Shaykhun. The footage was confirmed by forensic analysis to be authentic and to have been filmed in Khan Shaykhun between 0642 and 0652 hours on 4 April 2017.’
I am not sure if I understand this. I would so very much like to see references (the report, in the version I have seen, does not provide these) for the statement that the Syrian government said it had bombed Khan Sheikhoun with conventional weapons on the date of the alleged sarin attack, several hours later than the supposed attack. I don’t recall this. And in any case, does it help much? Also, how was it possible to verify that the video footage was authentic and filmed at the time stated? What techniques were used? This is one of several points at which unidentified experts and witnesses are cited and we are left to take their word for it, as the report seems very willing to do.
But this is, as it were, only a preliminary to the big stuff.
Look in the area around “early warning ” and “air deployment” for more rather contentious claims and conclusions (in my view) supported by unidentified experts whose views seem remarkably unanimous and helpful to the belief that Syria did it, despite the absence of solid, objective certainties and despite the fact that no independent investigators have ever actually been to the site. Yup. That's still so. Not that, at this distance in time, they could find much.
But on my page 28 (which begins ‘At the request of the Mechanism, the Syrian Arab Republic…’) we move into another very interesting area. This is the known flight path of aircraft which were *close* to Khan Sheikhoun on the day and time of the alleged outrage.
This aircraft (as we know from flight path maps published by the US authorities at the time) was roughly 3 miles away from Khan Sheikhoun.
Another aircraft was 5 miles away.
The report says : ‘As noted in paragraphs 19, 23 and 28 (not numbered in my version, PH) of this annex, the Mechanism obtained information detailing the presence of a Su-22 within 5 km (3 miles) of Khan Shaykhun, as well as information from the pilot of a Su-22 interviewed by the Mechanism that he was within 7 to 9 km (5 miles) of Khan Shaykhun at the relevant time.
But the report sometimes treats 3 miles as the closest the aircraft got to Khan Sheikhoun, and sometimes as the limit within which it was. Confusing?
I am told (I cannot understand it myself, but others may find methods of doing so) this Russian report of a Moscow government briefing (yes, they have an interest in this and it must be taken into account) http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4699218
states that it's just possible that the jet could have tossed the bomb 3 miles ahead if it was travelling directly towards the target at maximum altitude and speed for bomb release, but it would then have had to keep travelling towards the target as its minimurn turn radius is more than a mile and so it would have approached closer to the target. The flight track published by the US government doesn't show any path like this - the jet simply flew in an east-west line south of the town.
'The Mechanism consulted with a weapons expert to ascertain the confluence of distance and altitude from which it may be possible to hit Khan Shaykhun with an aerial bomb. The expert concluded that, depending on a number of variables such as altitude, speed and flight path taken, it would be possible for such an aerial bomb to be deployed on the town from the aforementioned distances. - To date the Mechanism has not found specific information confirming whether or not an SAAF Su-22 operating from Al-Shayrat airbase launched an aerial attack against Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.’
Seems reasonable. How in that case did they reach their confident conclusion that the Syrians did it? Un-named witnesses are cited along with films allegedly recorded at the time on which aircraft sounds have been heard. Since so much weight is given to this evidence, it is frustrating that we are not, in this version, given any details of the sources or of the verification methods used.
For example: ‘The Mechanism collected two original videos filmed by two witnesses from different angles showing several plumes that were confirmed by forensic institutes to have been filmed between 0642 and 0652 hours during the morning of 4 April 2017. Forensic analysis of the videos found that, at a certain point in each video, the sound of an aircraft could be heard in the background along with an explosion.’
I continue to take the view that we lack enough definite first-hand checkable evidence to attribute blame. And I add one thing. If you go to the pages I have numbered 35 and 36, or perhaps search for the terms ‘unusual or inappropriate’. You will then arrive at this astonishing passage (the emphases are very much mine, as before)
'Based on its review of open source material showing first responders in the hours immediately after the incident, the Mechanism observed several methods and procedures that appeared either unusual or inappropriate in the circumstances. In particular, the Mechanism noted that fully equipped hazmat teams appeared at the scene later that afternoon and reported early detection of the presence of sarin, seemingly using a Dräger X-am 7000 ambient air monitor, which was not known to be able to detect sarin. Of further concern to the Mechanism was the relative unprofessionalism by which certain environmental samples appear to have been taken, e.g. sampling from a muddy puddle. - The Mechanism also noted scenes recorded just after the incident at the medical point to the east of Khan Shaykhun, where rescue and decontamination activities filmed shortly after 0700 hours showed rescue personnel hosing down patients with water indiscriminately for extended periods of time. Such video footage also depicted a number of patients not being attended to, and some para-medical interventions that did not seem to make medical sense, such as performing heart compression on a patient facing the ground. - The Mechanism obtained expert analysis on the medical symptoms and response indicated in witness statements and medical records, as well as treatment received at a range of health care facilities, including those in a neighbouring country. - Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analysed. For example, several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours. The Mechanism received the medical records of 247 patients from Khan Shaykhun who were admitted to various health-care facilities, including those of survivors and a number of victims who died from exposure to a 29/33 chemical agent. The admission times of the records range between 0600 and 1600 hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed that in 57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km (75 miles) away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km (18 miles) away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario, or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions. - (****PH Notes, the sarin attack is said to have happened between 6.30 and 7.00 on the morning of 4th April***). An inconsistency was identified in one of the Fact-Finding Mission biomedical results from samples without a chain of custody. In sample number 133 , the blood tested negative for sarin or a sarin-like substance, while the urine sample tested positive for the sarin degradation product isopropyl methylphosphonate. There is currently no explanation regarding the inconsistency. Medical experts consulted by the Mechanism indicated that the combination of the negative result in the blood and the positive result in the urine was impossible. This inconsistency was considered to be most probably the result of cross-contamination in the sampling process. - The Mechanism observed from open sources that treatment of victims from Khan Shaykhun frequently involved oxygen and cortisone therapy. This treatment is not recommended for sarin intoxication, but is mainly for lung damage, as would be caused by either chlorine or vacuum bombs. - Based on consultations with two medical experts, the Mechanism found that the response by rescue workers and medical personnel in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017 had been essentially consistent with the use of sarin on such a scale. While some potentially important irregularities were identified throughout the rescue operation and in medical records, they may be explained by factors such as poor training or the chaotic conditions, or by attempts to inflate the gravity of the situation for depiction in the media. ‘
I reproduce this segment without any comment save one question. Is it fair to say that the rather relaxed and generous treatment of *these* inconsistencies and oddities contrasts with some other parts of the report, in which any evidence tending towards the unproven view that the crater was caused by an air-dropped gas bomb and that Syrian aircraft were over the town at the time, is given ready credence? I am not an expert in these matters. Perhaps I have misread the document. But it still does not seem to me that its confident attribution of blame is justified by the material of the actual document, in this version."
A very well researched piece of work...most people including myself would not normally be bothered to wade through those reports as they tend to waffle a bit.
It is frightening that so much depends on these reports but they are still not conclusive and a bit murky in their methodology.
But still, our point of view is he did it and we must get regime change as a result.
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
Britain justified our action by claiming that Russia vetoed UN Security Council resolutions for chemical inspectors to investigate what happened. These claims are disingenuous.
It‘s true that Russia blocked a proposal to create a new joint UN OPCW investigative mechanism which would have a new and broader mandate to apportion blame for any attack it concluded had happened. But it was actually Syria and Russia who asked for the OPCW fact-finding mission.
This is extremely significant. Had we wanted independent verification on this occasion in Syria surely we ourselves would have demanded the OPCW send a mission to Douma. Yet we conspicuously omitted to ask for it.
Britain and the US claimed on Monday that Russia and Syria are delaying the OPCW. Another dodgy assertion.
Russia has stated that UN bureaucracy is to blame. Those familiar with the UN tell me that this claim is all too credible.
There are also question marks around the veracity of British and American assertions about the bombing raids. The US said it struck three known chemical weapons facilities in Syria — including at Barzeh and Jamraya outside Damascus. Yet the OPCW itself found these sites to have no chemical weapons as recently as last November.
This post has been edited by an administrator
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
Britain justified our action by claiming that Russia vetoed UN Security Council resolutions for chemical inspectors to investigate what happened. These claims are disingenuous.
It‘s true that Russia blocked a proposal to create a new joint UN OPCW investigative mechanism which would have a new and broader mandate to apportion blame for any attack it concluded had happened. But it was actually Syria and Russia who asked for the OPCW fact-finding mission.
This is extremely significant. Had we wanted independent verification on this occasion in Syria surely we ourselves would have demanded the OPCW send a mission to Douma. Yet we conspicuously omitted to ask for it.
Britain and the US claimed on Monday that Russia and Syria are delaying the OPCW. Another dodgy assertion.
Russia has stated that UN bureaucracy is to blame. Those familiar with the UN tell me that this claim is all too credible.
There are also question marks around the veracity of British and American assertions about the bombing raids. The US said it struck three known chemical weapons facilities in Syria — including at Barzeh and Jamraya outside Damascus. Yet the OPCW itself found these sites to have no chemical weapons as recently as last November.
This post has been edited by an administrator
(Hopefully)My last post on this thread as I'm banging my head against the wall.
1. The OPCW is an independent, autonomous international organisation with a working relationship with the United Nations. It DOES NOT APPORTION BLAME
2.The US Draft Resolution wanted a joint UN & OPCW investigation with the ability (if able) to point at the culprit. Russia rejected this as it could then bring about UN sanctions and possibly the International Criminal Court.
3.Russia proposed a joint mission where the Security Council could appotion blame...The same Coucil which Russia (&China) had previously vetoed the publication of numerous investigations culpable "actor" (i.e. Syria did it etc). So the the report would say who they believe did it (if enough evidence) but it might never see the light depending on the veto. (Any of the big 5)
(Same links, put here for the skim reader to pick whichever point that they wish to confirm)
4.Syria only asked for the OPCW to investigate to pre-empt a joint investigation. Syria knew they would not get away without any scrutiny. The US (and the "allies") didn't rush in with any request but took time to draft a resolution which was vetoed.
The OPCW have been there a week and a half and went on site once. At first Russia wouldn't escort them even though it had days before escorted 8000 rebels out of the area. Then there was the mystery shooter...
As to the bombing raids, I know nothing o the individual sites but I include this UN report, dated 4th April! for consideration...
Finally, before any says that I only trust the west... I trust none of the venal, self serving nations! My gripe is that Russia has REPEATEDLY stopped any potential action by the UN by the use of its veto and it looks like they are at it again. Please look up JIM and Russia veto (JIM = Joint Investigative Mechanism)
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
0
Syria World War 3 on 05:15 - Apr 24 with 3226 views
"The UK government has said that its heart “goes out” to relatives of people killed when a Saudi-led air strike bombed a wedding, but that it still refuses to halt arms sales to the country.
Foreign minister Harriet Baldwin said Britain had been told by Saudi Arabia that an investigation would be launched into the incident in the Yemeni civil war, which left 20 people at the wedding party dead including the bride.
But she stood by the UK’s on-going arms trade with Saudi, worth £4.6bn since the start of the Yemen conflict, arguing that the Middle Eastern country has adequate systems to ensure operations comply with international law."
1
Syria World War 3 on 09:06 - Apr 25 with 3053 views
"The UK government has said that its heart “goes out” to relatives of people killed when a Saudi-led air strike bombed a wedding, but that it still refuses to halt arms sales to the country.
Foreign minister Harriet Baldwin said Britain had been told by Saudi Arabia that an investigation would be launched into the incident in the Yemeni civil war, which left 20 people at the wedding party dead including the bride.
But she stood by the UK’s on-going arms trade with Saudi, worth £4.6bn since the start of the Yemen conflict, arguing that the Middle Eastern country has adequate systems to ensure operations comply with international law."
These people are liars, criminals and gangsters for finance. End of. The hypocrisy is so rank it's become parody. How Theresa 'deport them then we'll hear the appeals' May has the temerity to stand up in Parliament and talk about humanitarian concerns is totally beyond me. How the f*ck can she sleep at night? Why does anyone still believe a single thing she utters?
Still, keep voting, paying taxes and buying newspapers folks.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.
3
Syria World War 3 on 16:07 - Apr 25 with 3018 views
These people are liars, criminals and gangsters for finance. End of. The hypocrisy is so rank it's become parody. How Theresa 'deport them then we'll hear the appeals' May has the temerity to stand up in Parliament and talk about humanitarian concerns is totally beyond me. How the f*ck can she sleep at night? Why does anyone still believe a single thing she utters?
Still, keep voting, paying taxes and buying newspapers folks.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
