Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
he killed more than 1300 and 9000 injured using chemical attack in one day and some people think its not clear he is doing it for a long time but no one care
*** al Assad he is Criminal and terrorist ................
 
Last edited:
wouldn't be the first time america makes up BS either
I don't know why people are so quick to believe the media when it's shown time and time again it's biased crap

america is likely the largest offender when it comes to chemical weapons.
white phosphorus in iraq not so long ago for example but I bet they would still condemn any non western country who used it

ARTICLE 27

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

The US government broke this resoundingly by parading the Guantanamo Bay prisoners before Western television cameras, just as the Iraqis have done on their television.

ARTICLE 31

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

….and….

ARTICLE 32

This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Afghani POWs were repeatedly shown to be forced to kneel for long times in chains on the ground, handcuffed behind their backs, suffering sensory deprivation by being forced to wear earphones and black goggles so they could neither see nor hear. The U.S. explained that this was a valuable interrogation method. We treat our food-animals better than that. A chicken has more rights than a POW held by the USA.

ARTICLE 45

Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention.

Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a Power which is a party to the present Convention.

….and….

ARTICLE 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The U.S. has forcefully transferred its Afghan POWs to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is not a party to the Convention, yet paradoxically claims that they have no rights under the Convention because they are not on Convention members' soil. Such hypocrisy is beyond even the Nazis and Stalinists of WWII.

ARTICLE 87

Canteens shall be installed in every place of internment, except where other suitable facilities are available. Their purpose shall be to enable internees to make purchases, at prices not higher than local market prices, of foodstuffs and articles of everyday use, including soap and tobacco, such as would increase their personal well-being and comfort.

The US government has decided such a facility cannot fit inside the chain-link dog pens prisoners are forced to occupy.

ARTICLE 97

Internees shall be permitted to retain articles of personal use. Monies, cheques, bonds, etc., and valuables in their possession may not be taken from them except in accordance with established procedure. Detailed receipts shall be given therefor.

Yet the "Taliban" POWs have been stripped of all their clothes, papers and possession, even photos of their parents.

ARTICLE 124

Internees shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

All POWs there have been punished by extreme sensory deprivation and long hours of interrogation and separation from their families and each other. The worst punishment of all is the US government denying that they are even covered under the Geneva Convention and thus have no rights whatsoever.

Someday, the US government will invent a new term to call its citizens who are dissenters so as to deny them their Constitutional rights and likewise lock them up without due process to torture them for months to extract information u2018necessary' for state security. It is then that only the government will decide which of its citizens are u2018worthy' of any rights at all.

ARTICLE 125

They shall have permission to read and write, likewise to send and receive letters. Parcels and remittances of money, however, may be withheld from them until the completion of their punishment; such consignments shall meanwhile be entrusted to the Internee Committee, who will hand over to the infirmary the perishable goods contained in the parcels.

The POWs' families have no idea if they are even alive.

Article 127

The transfer of internees shall always be effected humanely. As a general rule, it shall be carried out by rail or other means of transport, and under conditions at least equal to those obtaining for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station. If, as an exceptional measure, such removals have to be effected on foot, they may not take place unless the internees are in a fit state of health, and may not in any case expose them to excessive fatigue.

On their flights to Cuba, POWs were forced wear chains and hoods so they had no idea what was happening to them. That was intentional so they would suffer mental collapse and be more pliable to US interrogators. This goes much farther than exposing them to "excessive fatigue."
Click to expand...
america world police ignoring geneva conventions

aren't america one of the few countries not signed up to the land mine ban thing to?
 
Last edited:
Why doesn't the UN ever do anything about war crimes committed by the likes of Israel? remember when they destroyed that UN building in Gaza?

I can't help but think the UN is corrupt and only to benefit the imperialist war machine.
 
arknor said:
america is likely the largest offender when it comes to chemical weapons.
white phosphorus in iraq not so long ago for example but I bet they would still condemn any non western country who used it
Click to expand...

White phosphorous is a perfectly legal weapon to use and is not prohibited.
 
Xordium said:
White phosphorous is a perfectly legal weapon to use and is not prohibited.
Click to expand...
just as morally wrong as any chemical weapon or napalm
bet america would go ape **** if assad did what they had done to fallujah ;)
In April 2004, during the First Battle of Fallujah, after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California reported that white phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon. Embedded with the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Mortenson described a Marine mortar team using a mixture of white phosphorus and high explosives to shell a cluster of buildings where insurgents had been spotted throughout the week.

In November 2004, during the Second Battle of Fallujah, Washington Post reporters embedded with Task Force 2-2, Regimental Combat Team 7, wrote on November 9, 2004 that "Some artillery guns fired white phosphorus (WP) rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water." Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorus burns.
Click to expand...
don't tell me there were no civilians in fallujah during those times.

It's a warcrime to use napalm against civilians and I'd imagine white phosphorous is the same
one rule for them another for everyone else

look at how the mafia families ran business
look at america if you don't see the similarities you must be blind
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
It's a warcrime to use napalm against civilians and I'd imagine white phosphorous is the same
one rule for them another for everyone else
Click to expand...

Showing your ignorance there again. Napalm's primary purpose is to burn however it is not the primary purpose of WP and is not prohibited.

Same rule for everyone. You just can't see it because you don't understand or haven't bothered to look at what is covered and what is not.

+ I don't know why those two posts were deleted Johno Please said the situation was retarded not you Arknor - you misinterpreted what was said and it appears so did the mod.
 
Xordium said:
Showing your ignorance there again. Napalm's primary purpose is to burn however it is not the primary purpose of WP and is not prohibited.

Same rule for everyone. You just can't see it because you don't understand or haven't bothered to look at what is covered and what is not.

+ I don't know why those two posts were deleted Johno Please said the situation was retarded not you Arknor - you misinterpreted what was said and it appears so did the mod.
Click to expand...
maybe he edited his post before you saw it


In 1980, the United Nations declared that "the gel's use on concentrations of civilians a war crime"
if napalm isn't allowed to be used on civilians then WP shouldn't be allowed in populated areas either as they both do the same thing ;)
it doesn't matter what it's primary purpose is suggested as it melts peoples skin , it was fired to be like an aerosol and create a burning cloud intended to do one thing
White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact.
Click to expand...

anyway guess some of you missed the youtube video from july where assads forces uncovered a rebel chemical weapons base the one that was never shown on any western media


Either side clearly is capable of chemical weapon attacks.
one side is clearly winning.
one is clearly losing.

makes no sense for the people winning to resort to chemical weapons so until there is evidence proving they did I find it more likely it were the rebels.


and as always western media only shows bias and propaganda rather than trying to give an overall picture of the conflict
 
Last edited:
the funny thing is that the US blatantly doesn't want to get involved they would do anything not to have to, they even told Assad exactly what he shouldn't do if he doesn't want them to get involved

but that doesn't stop the same old people banging on and on and on about how they are the big bad guy trying to invade and destabilize every country they can

ridiculous news CBS "news" stories (read twitter rumors) like "US are preparing for a cruise missile strike" instead of the truth of "US may leave a ship that's already in the Mediterranean in the Mediterranean for a bit longer" don't help either

The truth is incredibly important in events like these, to avoid screw ups like invading Iraq was, and people getting saying stupid things on either side of the argument doesn't help, surely the best thing to do right now is get the inspectors in, let them look and not make any rash statements about who did it without any facts (im taking to you Hague and you Russia)
 
Arknor why are you listing something when you are talking about something else.

Moses said:
The most commonly understood definition of a war crime being that laid out in Article 8 of the Rome Statute, and the content of that would mean the use of white phosphorus and napalm would basically constitute a war crime if used in civilian areas (because it'd be hard to argue military necessity and would cause needless destruction).
Click to expand...


That is simply not correct. Again as I replied to Arknor. Its usage would be prohibited if the primary purpose was incendiary and used in a civilian area or if the primary purpose was its toxic properties. However you would be hard pressed to substantiate that when it has a number of purposes, eg incendiary or toxic and others, that may or may not have been the primary purpose. There is a big difference when it comes to the application and the legality. That is why if you look at the CCWC it does not list WP in the Annex for Protocol 3.
 
Moses said:
The most commonly understood definition of a war crime being that laid out in Article 8 of the Rome Statute, and the content of that would mean the use of white phosphorus and napalm would basically constitute a war crime if used in civilian areas (because it'd be hard to argue military necessity and would cause needless destruction).
Click to expand...

except that WP can and has been argued as an instant smoke screen. which iirc it can do without being too great a risk to people/property.
 
Syrian army says it finds chemicals in militants tunnels
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/24/320277/chemicals-found-in-syria-militant-tunnels/


What's the big deal about the death of these Syrian children? they don't care about all the Iraqi children they've murdered.

What they're trying to do is pull at peoples heart strings and get them to support an attack on Syria.

False flag just another 911. Let's hear both sides of the story for once.
 
2nd time they found chemicals for making chemical weapons then (first time uploaded on the july 14th video is in this thread somewhere)
 
Hopefully we won't intervene no matter who did it. Whilst it is distasteful it is better factions in the Middle East are kept busy fighting amongst themselves rather than allowed to reach the level where they hassle us. Divide and conquer and all that. You can't save everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom