why is the u.s. suddenly crying about the use of chemical weapons?

[DogOnPorch]

Hey now, I won't take anyone questioning Putin's honesty and openness. When he says Russia had nothing to do with Alexander Litvinenko's sudden radiation poisoning, I believe himmm, ahhhh, haaaa haaaa. Uh, I almost said it with a straight face. GH doesn't understand that's how Putin deals with his own Edward Snowdens. American officials just complain about theirs.

Litvinenko was a well known Polonium abuser...c'mon.

[Argus]

I said clearly that IF evidence exists that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians then he is a criminal and should be apprehended and tried for his crimes.

No I don't believe that military action will accomplish anything except more damage to the people of Syria.

So in other words you believe in doing nothing. Go ahead, just say it. We all know it anyway.

[Guest American Woman]

My point was that the USA stands for justice, or so we are told, and in my view would be a big backer of something like the ICC, which was born out of the Nuremberg Trials and how they were carried out. Once you sign up and ratify it then you become accountable to those international laws.

The US has specific objections to the ICC as it stands, and thus has not signed on. It has nothing to do with not standing for justice. The U.S. would be a fool to sign on, IMO.

Then your immunity from being tried at the ICC no longer exists. The USA would then be accountable for its actions and people like Bush, Cheney, Obama and many others would be doing face time in front of the judges at the ICC.

Yet no Canadian PM's have been tried, so what makes you think Bush, Cheny, and - for the love of God - Obama should be? It's this type of thinking that keeps me from supporting the U.S. signing on. IMO, the U.S. best stay out of it.

An example is Iraq where the first Gulf War, Hussein marched his guys across into Kuwait. The USA responded with the coalition of the willing to kick the Iraqi army out. Round 2 and the only aggressor was the USA.

This is what's so ridiculous. No. The U.S. wasn't the only aggressor. Once again. Canada was very much involved.

Not to mention the USA did not care if Iraq was actively attacking Iran for a decade, with their help on BOTH sides. So there are many inconsistencies in how this international law is viewed by some nations, specifically the USA.

That's your take on it. Another reason why the U.S. is smart not to have given up its soverienty by joining the ICC.

Funny we see Putin being called names because he pulled the wild card out and vetoed any resolution against Syria. Kind of like how the USA goes to bat for Israel and has many motions against it vetoed.

Are you comparing Israel's actions to Syria's?

So, it's a severe half ass and at times hypocritical approach to how international law is adhered to by a nation like the USA.

Speaking of "severe half ass and at time hypocritical,' that applies to the UN as well as many in the holier-than-thou crowd that criticize anything and everything some nations do - while completely ignoring the horrors going on in other parts of the world.

[Rue]

I applaud the US for trying to do the right thing but with due respect to Obamaand Kerry who I like I think they were out manipulated by two sociopaths who are laughing at them right now.

I believe sociopaths like Assad and Putin therefore see Obama as an insecure weakling and someone so afraid to be unpopular they can play him.

Assad has never once in his history of power in Syria ever stuck to anything he said he would. It has never happened with him. He has now been directly linked to the gassings through his brother who ordered them and for other mass murders in his country.

Putin ordered the mass murder of innocent Chechnyans and came to power managing mass murder of Afghanis and his own citizens.

These are two cold blooded sociopaths. People like this you do not sign treaties with.

With due respect I believe this latest attempt at diplomacy is a crock. Its another Neville Chamberlain holding a peace in our time piece of paper.

Obama may be well intentioned on this one but he has been miserably flip floppy and he let his own congress bull dog him.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

For those on this forum now trying to present Putin as a reasonable broker you need

to wake up and find out what he has done.

Ask yourself this, does a stable man who feels secure about himself order the mass murder of

Russian citizens and Chechnyans?

Where were you when he ordered an invasion of Georgia and threatened a war with the Ukraine

and radiation poisoned its leader?

Hmmmmm?

How do you portray a man who is so insecure he needs to pass a law ridiculing gays as a reasonable man?

Oh wait, I know, he's a great man because he orders the imprisonment of teeny bopper pubescent girls because

they twerked him on stage. Right.

Your selective view of Putin and his agenda is no different than Neville Chamberlain coming back from Berlin

telling England what a nice fella Hitler was.

Get real.

Next Installment: Bashir Assad-A Misunderstood Teddy Bear

[Rue]

the arabs, lead by saudi and qatar don't like assad because he's a shia, like those who rule iran. they want these guys gone as much as israel does.

you didn't know that?

it's interesting watching israel, saudi and qatar in the same bed. actually, the new(old) military rulers of egypt have recently crawled back into the bed as well.

Bud I lose track of your nonsensical comments. To start with Assad is an Alawite. Alawites are not Shiites. It is also inaccurate to say they are on offshoot of Shiites. They are not. How about you go find out what being an Alawite is.

Iran supports Assad not because he is a Shiite but because he is anti Sunni Muslim.

You are also past the point of blithering absurdity if you think Israel has an alliance with Saudi Arabia and Qatar let alone

any Arab nation. The only alliance Israel has is with the US.

Think before you talk. Many of the Syrian rebel groups are extremist Sunni groups that hate Israel as much as they do

Iran. Israel's primary concern is survival. It is threatened no matter who takes power in Syria extreme Sunni or extreme Alawite so your ridiculous attempt to once again simplify a complex conflict in the Middle East by creating a black and white paradigm is

simply a reflection of your inability to understand the fractured ever changing formations of political interests in its nations that

may or many not coincide with one another through shared interests with the US.

Israel is no ally of Turkey and yet they both find themselves equally concerned about the spill over of refugees into Lebanon and Turkey. Same can be said for Jordan and Israel.

Bud you are in no position to lecture anyone on the Middle East. Your analysis over and over again renders you an absurd

arm chair analyst relying on selective bites from web sites.

[bud]

Bud I lose track of your nonsensical comments. To start with Assad is an Alawite. Alawites are not Shiites.

ah. rue.

why do you even bother?

The Alawites, also known as Alawis (ʿAlawīyyah Arabic: علوية‎) are a prominent mystical religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam.

Link

[sharkman]

I applaud the US for trying to do the right thing but with due respect to Obamaand Kerry who I like I think they were out manipulated by two sociopaths who are laughing at them right now.

I believe sociopaths like Assad and Putin therefore see Obama as an insecure weakling and someone so afraid to be unpopular they can play him.

Assad has never once in his history of power in Syria ever stuck to anything he said he would. It has never happened with him. He has now been directly linked to the gassings through his brother who ordered them and for other mass murders in his country.

Putin ordered the mass murder of innocent Chechnyans and came to power managing mass murder of Afghanis and his own citizens.

These are two cold blooded sociopaths. People like this you do not sign treaties with.

With due respect I believe this latest attempt at diplomacy is a crock. Its another Neville Chamberlain holding a peace in our time piece of paper.

Obama may be well intentioned on this one but he has been miserably flip floppy and he let his own congress bull dog him.

What he said.

And don't forget about the treaty in our time for North Korea and the peace master himself, one Jimmy Carter. What is it with some politicians who think tyrants will abide by a treaty they sign, when the evidence a kindergardener could find on the internet would be enough to convict. Well, as long as simpletons are willing to strike a bargain with these murderers, they'll get hosed.

I wonder how badly Assad will make Obama look a few years from now.

Edited September 16, 2013 by sharkman

[Rue]

ah. rue.

why do you even bother?

The Alawites, also known as Alawis (ʿAlawīyyah Arabic: علوية‎) are a prominent mystical religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam.

Link

Why do you Bud? You again show how you rely on removing headlines from Wikepedia to bluff your way through life posing and pretending to understand religions you know nothing about.

While Alwaites may have originated from a sect of Shiite Islam they do not follow Shiite Islam in any way.

Do yourself a favour Bud run along and play while I explain.

I repeat again Alawites are not Shiites, nor do they follow Shiite Islam. They broke away from Islam.

Therefore it is inaccurate to infer say because they broke off from a sect of Shiite Islam they are Shiite. Bullshit.

This is why some of us not Bud of course, try go past the first few sentences in Wikepedia when we pose as theological experts.

What I know directly from listening to Alawites (usually a good idea when you want to pretend you are an expert on them) is that they believe Ali, a son in law of the Prophet Mohammed was the actual divine one not Muhammed.

So necessarily they are not Muslims.

They broke away from Shiite Islam it is believed in the 9th century and their first leader was Ibyn Nusar who taught them about what Ali said not Muhammed. That is why they are called Alawites (followers of Ali).

To be a Muslim you can only follow the teachings of Muhammed.

The Alawites as they have explained to me is considered part ofa trilogy only instead of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit its Ali, God and the equivalent of what we call the holy spirit or essence. However you would need to better have that explained by an Alawite.

The Alawites DO NOT follow the five "Pillars" or sacred duties of of Islam because to them these are interpreted as symbols or stories to teach lessons and are not seen as rituals to follow.

Their actual holidays and beliefs fuse the exact same paganism King Constanine mixed to original Christianity to prevent a civil war between Christians and pagans.

While some Alawites compare themselves so a sect of Shiites called the Twelvers they are not part of them, they do not follow their beliefs, nor do they consider themselves the same so to say they follow what the Twelvers do is a crock of pure sheeyit. Its just not true.

Shiites and Sunnis alike do not accept it as a legitimate religion or Muslim. In fact some Alawites may want to call themselves the true Muslims but the Shiites and Sunnis would say they don't follow Muhammed so it would be no different than certain Christians saying they do not believe in Jesus but are the true Christians.

Alawites believe in astrology which Muslims believe is the work of the devil.

Alawites keep many of their beliefs secret.

I repeat again and Bud go run along before you trip on a vowel will you, Alawites are not Muslims.

Calling an Alawite a Muslim is like saying Christians are Jews since they broke off of Judaism.

Bud lite

but definitely not Bud wiser

Edited September 17, 2013 by Rue

[bud]

Why do you Bud? You again show how you rely on removing headlines from Wikepedia to bluff your way through life posing and pretending to understand religions you know nothing about.

While Alwaites may have originated from a sect of Shiite Islam they do not follow Shiite Islam in any way.

rue. you are wrong. alawites are a sect from shiites. they may have their own distinct characteristics, but they are considered a shiite sect, by, well, everyone but you.

there are many different sects in both sunni islam and shiite islam. alawites are a shiite sect.

i'm not sure why you are denying this simple fact, but i guess you have be rue, who, in the face of indisputable facts, will still deny.

here is more:

ʿAlawite, Arabic ʿAlawī, plural ʿAlawīyah, also called Nuṣayrī, plural Nuṣayrīyah, or Namīrī, pluralNamīrīyah, or Ansarī, plural Ansarīyah, any member of a minority sect of Shīʿite Muslims living chiefly in Syria.

Link

more?

What do the Alawites believe?

The major divide in Islam is between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, who initially split over who was supposed to succeed the prophet Muhammad. Alawites identify as Shiite Muslims

Link

[GostHacked]

For those on this forum now trying to present Putin as a reasonable broker you need

to wake up and find out what he has done.

At least Putin makes no apologies about who he is, what he was and what he does for his country. Putin says A and does A. Obama says A, but does B, and sometimes C.

[GostHacked]

The US has specific objections to the ICC as it stands, and thus has not signed on. It has nothing to do with not standing for justice. The U.S. would be a fool to sign on, IMO.

When the USA signs up, then it can be a player and call for others to be brought in front of the ICC.

Yet no Canadian PM's have been tried, so what makes you think Bush, Cheny, and - for the love of God - Obama should be? It's this type of thinking that keeps me from supporting the U.S. signing on. IMO, the U.S. best stay out of it.

Here is the part where I agree that Canadian politicians and former Prime Ministers could be tried for war crimes.

This is what's so ridiculous. No. The U.S. wasn't the only aggressor. Once again. Canada was very much involved.

Canada was not officially involved, we went through this as well multiple times.

That's your take on it. Another reason why the U.S. is smart not to have given up its soverienty by joining the ICC.

So other countries that have signed up have given up their sovereignty?

Are you comparing Israel's actions to Syria's?

Try reading, I mean really reading what I type. What I mentioned was the USA's power to veto any resolution tabled against Israel. So people complaining about Russia using its power to veto to me is misplaced.

Speaking of "severe half ass and at time hypocritical,' that applies to the UN as well as many in the holier-than-thou crowd that criticize anything and everything some nations do - while completely ignoring the horrors going on in other parts of the world.

Don't blame the UN for the USAs follies. The USA will use its power to table something against Syria. Russia will use it's power to slap it down.

Edited September 17, 2013 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

Here is the part where I agree that Canadian politicians and former Prime Ministers could be tried for war crimes.

Except the position of Prime Minister is nothing like POTUS. The Prime Minister is a "first among equals" and is beholden to the wishes of Parliament. In fact, the Commander-in-Chief of our military is the sovereign Her Majesty the Queen, which is delegated to her viceroy the Governor General in her absence. In the United States this position belongs to the POTUS, which is why there are calls for him and his secretaries to be brought before the ICC for war crimes.

[Guest American Woman]

When the USA signs up, then it can be a player and call for others to be brought in front of the ICC.

Who's calling for anyone to be brought up in front of it? That response has absolutely no relevance to the comment you quoted; ie: it has no relevance to what I said.

Here is the part where I agree that Canadian politicians and former Prime Ministers could be tried for war crimes.

Yeah, well, that's not what I said. At any rate, Obama?? As I said, it's this mindset that makes me think the U.S. best stay out.

Canada was not officially involved, we went through this as well multiple times.

We certainly have, and no matter how many times we go through it, it won't change the fact that Canada most definitely was involved in the war. Since when does doing something on the hush-hush minimize the actions? You go on about how the U.S. was involved in Iraq's chemical weapons and fighting against Iran, yet you dismiss Canada's actual involvement in the Iraq war as "not officially." Good grief. How, in the name of God, does that make any difference?

So other countries that have signed up have given up their sovereignty?

Could be.

Try reading, I mean really reading what I type. What I mentioned was the USA's power to veto any resolution tabled against Israel. So people complaining about Russia using its power to veto to me is misplaced.

I did read what you typed. I mean really read it. And my response was in response to what you typed. What you really typed. So I ask again. Are you comparing Israel to Syria? If not, then you can't compare the US's power to veto any resolution tabled against Israel to Russia using it's power to veto any resolution tabled against Syria.

Don't blame the UN for the USAs follies. The USA will use its power to table something against Syria. Russia will use it's power to slap it down.

Again. I never so much as hinted at blaming the UN for anything the US has done. So I suggest you take your own advise. But thank you for pointing out why expecting the UN to do anything about Syria is pointless. It's why the UN, in such a capacity, is useless.

[bud]

[dre]

rue. you are wrong. alawites are a sect from shiites. they may have their own distinct characteristics, but they are considered a shiite sect, by, well, everyone but you.

there are many different sects in both sunni islam and shiite islam. alawites are a shiite sect.

i'm not sure why you are denying this simple fact, but i guess you have be rue, who, in the face of indisputable facts, will still deny.

Not everyone. Some orthodox Shia dont consider Alawites to be Shia and Sunnis do not even consider them to be muslims. Sunnis in Syria challenged the elligibility of Hafiz al-Asad to be president because the constitution says you have to be a muslim. But both Musa Sadr (leader of the Shia Twelvers) and Ayatollah Khomeini endorsed the Alawites as Shia Muslims. Which makes sense because the defining belief that differentiates Sunni from Shia is the idea that Muhammeds successors would come from his bloodline, making Cousin Ali next in line), and this is shared by both Shia and Alawites.

[GostHacked]

Who's calling for anyone to be brought up in front of it? That response has absolutely no relevance to the comment you quoted; ie: it has no relevance to what I said.

So no one is calling for Assad to be held accountable? On the International scale, how do you think that works? That's right, entities like the ICC.

Yeah, well, that's not what I said. At any rate, Obama?? As I said, it's this mindset that makes me think the U.S. best stay out.

Who knows really what you are saying anymore. I see the same frustrations from other posters when dealing with you and your 'understanding' of certain 'things'. I need more 'quotes'.

We certainly have, and no matter how many times we go through it, it won't change the fact that Canada most definitely was involved in the war.

Not officially.

Since when does doing something on the hush-hush minimize the actions? You go on about how the U.S. was involved in Iraq's chemical weapons and fighting against Iran, yet you dismiss Canada's actual involvement in the Iraq war as "not officially." Good grief. How, in the name of God, does that make any difference?

If Canada's leaders were involved in shady stuff, yes indeed charge them, bring them to court, jail them.

I did read what you typed. I mean really read it. And my response was in response to what you typed. What you really typed. So I ask again. Are you comparing Israel to Syria? If not, then you can't compare the US's power to veto any resolution tabled against Israel to Russia using it's power to veto any resolution tabled against Syria.

Sure you read it, but did not understand it. The comparison was between how large nations are able to veto certain resolutions. There was no comparison between Israel and Syria directly. People complained about Russia using it's veto power to protect Syria, while the USA has vetoed resolutions against Israel.

Capice?

Again. I never so much as hinted at blaming the UN for anything the US has done. So I suggest you take your own advise. But thank you for pointing out why expecting the UN to do anything about Syria is pointless. It's why the UN, in such a capacity, is useless.

Holy crap you are one frustrating poster. Victim of MSM mentality I would assume.

[jacee]

Who's calling for anyone to be brought up in front of it?

The UN:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/world/story/1.1699925

To put things in perspective, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has been calling for the Security Council to refer Assads case to the ICC for "crimes against humanity" since December 2011.

...

In February 2013, months before the chemical warfare reports emerged from Ghouta, a Damascus suburb, Pillay renewed her call to the council, telling them that referring Syria to the ICC "would send a clear message to both the government and the opposition that there will be consequences for their actions."

And I read but can't find an account where Syrians are asking that Adsad's crimes be referred to the ICC.

Justice is a better option than war, imo.

[sharkman]

Well, look at the time line. Dec 2011 was when the "wheels of justice" first started grinding away. Then, over a year later, more calls for justice at the UN. In the mean time, more crimes against humanity had no doubt been taking place. Then after that, you have Assad, starting to use chemical weapons. No doubt more internal calls for justice occurred in the halls of the UN. Then in August, the chemical attack that killed over 1400, including over 300 children.

Now, if the US had not started talking about missile strikes, who else in the entire world was willing to take the lead on military action? And if the US had not focused the world on the issue by making these threats, would Assad have used chemical weapons yet again by now? His past behaviour suggests he well could have.

And I ask you, what kind of justice from the UN is this? They have done nothing about the multiple prior crimes against humanity. Nothing but talk, that is. While hundreds of innocent Syrian children die from WMD attacks. The UN can keep its justice.

[Shady]

For those on this forum now trying to present Putin as a reasonable broker you need

to wake up and find out what he has done.

Ask yourself this, does a stable man who feels secure about himself order the mass murder of

Russian citizens and Chechnyans?

Where were you when he ordered an invasion of Georgia and threatened a war with the Ukraine

and radiation poisoned its leader?

Hmmmmm?

How do you portray a man who is so insecure he needs to pass a law ridiculing gays as a reasonable man?

Oh wait, I know, he's a great man because he orders the imprisonment of teeny bopper pubescent girls because

they twerked him on stage. Right.

Your selective view of Putin and his agenda is no different than Neville Chamberlain coming back from Berlin

telling England what a nice fella Hitler was.

Get real.

Next Installment: Bashir Assad-A Misunderstood Teddy Bear

Exactly. This thread should actually be called "Why is Russia suddenly crying about interfering in other countries."

[dre]

Your selective view of Putin and his agenda is no different than Neville Chamberlain coming back from Berlin

telling England what a nice fella Hitler was.

Godwins law strikes again! Nazi Turrets!

[Guest American Woman]

The UN:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/world/story/1.1699925

To put things in perspective, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has been calling for the Security Council to refer Assads case to the ICC for "crimes against humanity" since December 2011.

...

In February 2013, months before the chemical warfare reports emerged from Ghouta, a Damascus suburb, Pillay renewed her call to the council, telling them that referring Syria to the ICC "would send a clear message to both the government and the opposition that there will be consequences for their actions."

And I read but can't find an account where Syrians are asking that Adsad's crimes be referred to the ICC.

Justice is a better option than war, imo.

I was talking about the U.S., not the UN, since that's what the comment I was responding to was in reference to.

Of course justice is a better option than war, but as I keep pointing out, it's not as if anyone can go up to Assad's residence, knock on his door, slap handcuffs on him when he answers, put him on a plane, and fly off to the Internaional Court. It's nothing but a feel-good solution, IMO.

[guyser]

Of course justice is a better option than war, but as I keep pointing out, it's not as if anyone can go up to Assad's residence, knock on his door, slap handcuffs on him when he answers, put him on a plane, and fly off to the Internaional Court. It's nothing but a feel-good solution, IMO.

Why not?

Its been done before and could well be done again.

[dre]

I was talking about the U.S., not the UN, since that's what the comment I was responding to was in reference to.

Of course justice is a better option than war, but as I keep pointing out, it's not as if anyone can go up to Assad's residence, knock on his door, slap handcuffs on him when he answers, put him on a plane, and fly off to the Internaional Court. It's nothing but a feel-good solution, IMO.

True but he could nabbed at any point for the rest of his life.

[GostHacked]

True but he could nabbed at any point for the rest of his life.

Nabbing him would be an illegal action in of itself. He is still the leader of Syria.