ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

dowie said:
well yes probably it will be what he has to say rather than what he will do... as he can't really do anything to stop these missiles despite all the bluster
Click to expand...

They'll have stopped some, as usual. Also, they'll be waiting to see the totality of the damage and get all the info, before retaliating. They are after all, the more responsible side now.
 
Datb0ZbW4AAdPcS.jpg:large


Putin gonna show his balls of Stalinium ?
 
Minusorange said:
https://www.rt.com/news/424094-syria-strike-consequences-antonov/

Uh-oh
Click to expand...

you just quoted the "say" part.. no "do" yet...

some bluster from them is inevitable, they could have reacted to the actual strikes... but it seems when the deconfliction line was called and they were informed of the use of airspace they did..... nothing

Danny75 said:
They'll have stopped some, as usual. Also, they'll be waiting to see the totality of the damage and get all the info, before retaliating. They are after all, the more responsible side now.
Click to expand...

LOL they're the more responsible side... wat? They've used nerve agent on UK soil and now they're supporting a dictator who gassed his own people and blocked a resolution at the UN security council immediately after the event... really responsible
 
dowie said:
LOL they're the more responsible side... wat? They've used nerve agent on UK soil and now they're supporting a dictator who gassed his own people and blocked a resolution at the UN security council immediately after the event... really responsible
Click to expand...

Repeating lies and half-truths* over and over does not make them true.

* Your assertion that they blocked a resolution is one of the starkest examples of a half-truth I've ever seen, because you omit that the US, UK and France blocked the Russian resolution which was not politicized like theirs.
 
Danny75 said:
Repeating lies and half-truths* over and over does not make them true.

* Your assertion that they blocked a resolution is one of the starkest examples of a half-truth I've ever seen, because you omit that the US, UK and France blocked the Russian resolution which was not politicized like theirs.
Click to expand...

Firstly, 'Russia blocked a resolution' is not a half truth. It's a whole truth.

Secondly, here's a list of all the attempted UNSC resolutions on Syria.

Can you show me which one was presented by Russia and blocked by the US, UK, and France? Because all I see here is a bunch of vetoes by Russia and China.
 
Evangelion said:
Firstly, 'Russia blocked a resolution' is not a half truth. It's a whole truth.
Click to expand...

Please man, don't embarrass yourself.


Evangelion said:
Secondly, here's a list of all the attempted UNSC resolutions on Syria.

Can you show me which one was presented by Russia and blocked by the US, UK, and France? Because all I see here is a bunch of vetoes by Russia and China.
Click to expand...

It was all over the news this week, where have you been? I haven't looked at your link.

Rival US and Russian resolutions to determine responsibility for chemical weapons attacks in Syria were defeated at the United Nations on Tuesday. The Security Council also rejected another Russian-drafted resolution that would have welcomed an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of allegations of a weekend chemical attack in the suburbs of Syria's capital.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/v...ion-as-un-rejects-three-separate-drafts-video
Click to expand...
 
Danny75 said:
Please man, don't embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what a half truth is? Which part of 'Russia blocked a UNSC resolution'? is a half truth? The blocking of other resolutions by other countries is an entirely different matter. By your logic, the statement 'the USA and UK blocked a Russian UN resolution proposal' is a half truth.

It was all over the news this week, where have you been?
Click to expand...

OK, let's take a closer look:

"Moscow proposals had been around for a number of months now, but had never gained traction," said Hanna.

He noted that those opposing it believed that the proposed mechanism "would not be independent", as its members would have been appointed by Russia, and that "the body itself would not be able to apportion blame or identify perpetrators".
Click to expand...

(Source).

So the Russian proposal was carefully written to ensure the entire process would be handled by Russia, and nobody would be blamed for the attacks. Well, that explains why it was blocked.

I haven't looked at your link.
Click to expand...

Gee, what a surprise.
 
Evangelion said:
Do you even know what a half truth is? Which part of 'Russia blocked a UNSC resolution'? is a half truth? The blocking of other resolutions by other countries is an entirely different matter. By your logic, the statement 'the USA and UK blocked a Russian UN resolution proposal' is a half truth.



OK, let's take a closer look:



(Source).

So the Russian proposal was carefully written to ensure the entire process would be handled by Russia, and nobody would be blamed for the attacks. Well, that explains why it was blocked.



Gee, what a surprise.
Click to expand...

Okay, go ahead, embarrass yourself.

By the way, regarding that reporter's claim that those opposing the Russian resolution believed the entire process would be handled by Russia - it's a lie.

Straight from the horse's mouth (the UN):

The Council then proceeded to vote on a competing draft submitted by the Russian Federation, also rejecting it, by a recorded vote of 6 in favour (Bolivia, China, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation) to 7 against (France, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Kuwait).

By the terms of that text, the Council would have established a United Nations independent mechanism of investigation, also for an initial period of one year, and urged it to fully ensure a truly impartial, independent, professional and credible way to conduct its investigation. It would have further directed the mechanism to make full use of all credible, verified and corroborated evidence collected by the OPCW fact-finding mission, while also directing it to collect and examine additional information and sources not obtained or prepared by the mission, including all information provided by the Government of Syria and others on the activities of non-State actors.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13288.doc.htm
Click to expand...

As for the OPCW blaming nobody, that is the right way, just like Porton Down identifying the substance in the Skripal case but not assigning blame. The OPCW must not be allowed to become judge and jury (and John Bolton, the threatener of OPCW member's families, will be trying). They must investigate impartially, gather all the facts, and present the facts to the UNSC.
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
Well Trump has now announced strikes on Syria will go ahead

I hope Vlad won't back up what he said on defending Syria and attacking the launch platforms because that will be all out war

USA, France and UK sending the strike at the moment
Click to expand...

Russia won't do anything. Something more interesting will be in the news in a few days and nobody will even be talking about this soon.

Russia would be absolutely mental to attack Cyprus too. I can't ever see that happening.
 
Minusorange said:
I'm eagerly anticipating Russia's response to this though, I want to know what Vlad has to say
Click to expand...

Danny75 said:
They'll have stopped some, as usual. Also, they'll be waiting to see the totality of the damage and get all the info, before retaliating. They are after all, the more responsible side now.
Click to expand...

haha the pro russian/assad comments are hilarious but predictable.
 
dowie said:
some bluster from them is inevitable, they could have reacted to the actual strikes... but it seems when the deconfliction line was called and they were informed of the use of airspace they did..... nothing
Click to expand...

Or the US strikes landed outside of Russian/Syrian intercept zones. Or some missiles got through.

LOL they're the more responsible side... wat?
Click to expand...

Well that is now indubitably true in that:
1) alleged chemical attacks were I) not substantiated II) not investigated and III) war has been launched in the absence of an investigation as per I and II
2) Evidence seems to highlight the staging of chemical attacks, that Russia stated last month were being planned

Absolutely disgraceful behavior. When ISIS or its sister organizations are chopping heads off Christians, you will be happy at that wont you. At least we know where you stand. Like the UK, US and France you are now supporting ISIS... Bravo!

They've used nerve agent on UK soil
Click to expand...

Evidence? Oh that's right you have Theresa May saying this so lap it up.

now they're supporting a dictator who gassed his own people and blocked a resolution at the UN security council immediately after the event... really responsible
Click to expand...

We will stop Assad from killing his own people (allegedly) by killing them before he can kill them. That is in effect what we are doing.

A dictator whom we used to support. Also there is no evidence he gassed them. We only have extremely questionable statements made by the Triumvirate of War Lovers who are now killing hundreds more people.

I suggest you turn the BBC/Sky News off. That's free advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom