A quick search will show that Syrian rebels have been killing children...in some cases after they are forced to watch their parents being
I have searched the web and found absolutely nothing. Please back up this claim with photographical or video evidence or it's utter bullshit and Assad propaganda.
Assad's airplanes, artillery and SCUDS only have killed and buried thousands of children under the rubble.
I am not going to post war porn. I took down the photo and changed it to a link for a reason.
I don't care if you didn't find anything. I don't care if you believe it or not. I have nothing to prove in this. Your opinion, nor mine, mean a single thing to what is happening.
As for the White House not wanting to give protective gear that's because the main opposition forces today are Islamists led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant aka Al Qaeda in Iraq.
That's not true, Al Qaeda affiliated rebels are but a small fraction of all Syrian rebels. The vast majority are secular and moderate Islamists:
I'm not talking numbers, I'm talking about who is in the lead in the fighting.
Read this article on the break up of the Free Syrian Army and the Islamists.
If you don't act now America, this monster called Assad will not stop until millions of Syrians are killed. This psycho will not stop at massive chemical attacks on a civilian population, he now threatens to take it a step further by destroying the largest dam in Syria, which could lead to the deaths of millions by drowning.
And there's still idiots in this thread that claim Gaddafi was crazier!
font size decrease font size increase font size Print Email
Media Statement
Syrian Coalition
Istanbul, Turkey
September 08, 2013
Assad???s Air Forces have dropped explosive barrels on the Euphrates Dam in Raqqa, endangering the lives of millions of people, and setting a dangerous new precedent, specifically in the eastern provinces.
Such carelessness about the lives of millions of people only demonstrates that Assad is willing to commit genocide against the Syria people; and in this particular case against the people in the eastern provinces such as Deir Ezzor and Raqqa, just to remain in power.
After the use of chemical weapons, Assad has embarked upon another humanitarian disaster, the gravity of which he does not seem to realize. The Euphrates Dam is the largest dam in Syria and is an important source of electricity. If the dam breaks due to the regime???s bombardment, thousands of people, if not millions, could lose their lives in the civilian areas surrounding the dam.
The international community has a duty to act immediately to put an end to this black chapter in the history of Syria. All possible actions must be taken immediately to restrain a tyrant who continues to slaughter innocent civilians and destroy entire neighborhoods just to remain in power.
We ask for Mercy for our martyrs, health for our wounded, and freedom for our detainees.
Long live Syria and its people, free and with honor.
(This statement has been corrected changing Deir Ezzor in title and paragraph 1 to Raqqa)
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
Because that's your responsibility since you're the self-proclaimed world police. You brought this Syria unrest on by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. Break it, you fix it.
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
Because that's your responsibility since you're the self-proclaimed world police. You brought this Syria unrest on by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. Break it, you make it.
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
Like it or not, the world looks to the US to solve these big problems. Whether they should, is a different question. The fact is they do.
I thought the world looked to the UN and NATO to solve the big problems.
Seems to me that a sizable portion of the world would be happier if the US stayed out of other countries period.
The fact is that the US has no more obligation in Syria than any other random country does, and if Obama hadn't put his foot in his mouth, we wouldn't even be considering going in alone. Intervening in a situation like this just to save face is a terrible look.
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
Like it or not, the world looks to the US to solve these big problems. Whether they should, is a different question. The fact is they do.
I thought the world looked to the UN and NATO to solve the big problems.
Seems to me that a sizable portion of the world would be happier if the US stayed out of other countries period.
The fact is that the US has no more obligation in Syria than any other random country does, and if Obama hadn't put his foot in his mouth, we wouldn't even be considering going in alone. Intervening in a situation like this just to save face is a terrible look.
You thought wrong. Especially considering the paralysis that is occuring at the UN. You know about that, right?
As to NATO, I don't know where you got that from. I haven't seen any reports of Syrians asking for NATO support.
The real fact is that someone needs to stand against the use of WMD. It's revealing that you characterize reminding the Syrians not to use WMD (which violates international law and standards) as Obama putting his foot in his mouth.
That's great that you couldn't care less about the illegal use of WMD, but not everyone is amoral.
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
Like it or not, the world looks to the US to solve these big problems. Whether they should, is a different question. The fact is they do.
I thought the world looked to the UN and NATO to solve the big problems.
Seems to me that a sizable portion of the world would be happier if the US stayed out of other countries period.
The fact is that the US has no more obligation in Syria than any other random country does, and if Obama hadn't put his foot in his mouth, we wouldn't even be considering going in alone. Intervening in a situation like this just to save face is a terrible look.
You thought wrong. Especially considering the paralysis that is occuring at the UN. You know about that, right?
As to NATO, I don't know where you got that from. I haven't seen any reports of Syrians asking for NATO support.
The real fact is that someone needs to stand against the use of WMD. It's revealing that you characterize reminding the Syrians not to use WMD (which violates international law and standards) as Obama putting his foot in his mouth.
That's great that you couldn't care less about the illegal use of WMD, but not everyone is amoral.
You misunderstood every single sentence I wrote, impressive.
Rice: "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power" #Syria
what about this?
???U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY TOLD LAVROV HIS COMMENTS ABOUT SYRIA AVERTING U.S. STRIKE BY TURNING OVER CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE RHETORICAL, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD RUSSIA'S LAVROV IN TELEPHONE CALL THAT HIS COMMENTS WERE NOT MEANT TO BE A PROPOSAL, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV OF HIS SERIOUS SKEPTICISM WHEN LAVROV OFFERED TO EXPLORE THE IDEA, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GOING TO "PLAY GAMES" BUT IF THERE WAS A SERIOUS PROPOSAL U.S. WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV THE IDEA WILL NOT BE A REASON TO DELAY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO SECURE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE AGAINST SYRIA
What was Obama's response to the use of white phosphorous in Gaza?
Are you also talking about the white phosphorous that isn't banned under the CWC? The same white phosphorous that is legal to use in some situations, like to illuminate military targets?
Does having no response then (if that's the case) negate our responsibilty to have one now? I don't see how that could be true. It's the same argument that people who invoke Rwanda make, and it's not compelling, IMO.
When used on humans as a weapon, it falls under the definition. Look at pictures of the effects it has on people and see if you don't feel like vomiting your apples and oranges.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
When used on humans as a weapon, it falls under the definition. Look at pictures of the effects it has on people and see if you don't feel like vomiting your apples and oranges.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
There's that "if" word again....
I've also seen the pictures. They're nauseating. I've also seen the pictures of the victims in Syria. Equally nauseating.
Somehow it still gives some people the "why should I care" reaction. Also nauseating.
Comments
I have searched the web and found absolutely nothing. Please back up this claim with photographical or video evidence or it's utter bullshit and Assad propaganda.
Assad's airplanes, artillery and SCUDS only have killed and buried thousands of children under the rubble.
I don't care if you didn't find anything. I don't care if you believe it or not. I have nothing to prove in this. Your opinion, nor mine, mean a single thing to what is happening.
I'm not talking numbers, I'm talking about who is in the lead in the fighting.
Read this article on the break up of the Free Syrian Army and the Islamists.
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/03/the_fragmenting_fsa
And there's still idiots in this thread that claim Gaddafi was crazier!
http://www.etilaf.org/en/newsroom/press-release/item/603-assad-s-bombardment-of-the-euphrates-dam-in-deir-ezzor.html
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong
Because that's your responsibility since you're the self-proclaimed world police. You brought this Syria unrest on by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. Break it, you fix it.
Wrong and wrong, you got anything else?
Like it or not, the world looks to the US to solve these big problems. Whether they should, is a different question. The fact is they do.
That said, if Syria agrees to the Russian proposal, and there is verfication and no foot dragging, I would support it.
I thought the world looked to the UN and NATO to solve the big problems.
Seems to me that a sizable portion of the world would be happier if the US stayed out of other countries period.
The fact is that the US has no more obligation in Syria than any other random country does, and if Obama hadn't put his foot in his mouth, we wouldn't even be considering going in alone. Intervening in a situation like this just to save face is a terrible look.
You thought wrong. Especially considering the paralysis that is occuring at the UN. You know about that, right?
As to NATO, I don't know where you got that from. I haven't seen any reports of Syrians asking for NATO support.
The real fact is that someone needs to stand against the use of WMD. It's revealing that you characterize reminding the Syrians not to use WMD (which violates international law and standards) as Obama putting his foot in his mouth.
That's great that you couldn't care less about the illegal use of WMD, but not everyone is amoral.
You misunderstood every single sentence I wrote, impressive.
Yep, that's what it is.
I sure didn't.
Your amorality is crystal clear.
what about this?
Suggesting Obama may have made a mistake = Amoral.
No, not caring that people are gassed = amoral.
The "why should we care" atttitude you have = amoral.
What was Obama's response to the use of white phosphorous in Gaza?
Are you also talking about the white phosphorous that isn't banned under the CWC? The same white phosphorous that is legal to use in some situations, like to illuminate military targets?
Dunno, but I'm sure it's available somewhere. I do know that Syria has used white phosphorous. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/06/does-this-syria-video-reveal-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/
Does having no response then (if that's the case) negate our responsibilty to have one now? I don't see how that could be true. It's the same argument that people who invoke Rwanda make, and it's not compelling, IMO.
Your whining is hilarious.
Be sure to let us know when and if you ever manage to achieve this, ok?
Right, because your country has never asked us for help.
You guys can't even stop crime in your country without us.
Talk about embarassing.... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/british-prime-minister-asks-american-fighting-crime/story?id=14281037
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
There's that "if" word again....
I've also seen the pictures. They're nauseating. I've also seen the pictures of the victims in Syria. Equally nauseating.
Somehow it still gives some people the "why should I care" reaction. Also nauseating.