Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

The ameristani State department spokesman back pedals from the ameristani UNSC statement yesterday, when she stated we don't need any stinking UNSC to tell us what we can do, we are the unexceptional, most powerful country in the world, or some such verbal shit:

"
QUESTION: Do you believe that – so a lot of the European officials believe that you can’t really do anything at against the Syrians and the Russians until you’ve got some kind of evidence. What is the U.S. point of view as far as collecting that evidence, and do you believe that evidence would be – we had Russians in at the site yesterday. Do you believe that that is enough evidence to make a move either through the UN or directly?


MS NAUERT: Well, the OPCW, I believe it was just yesterday or earlier today, announced that it would be on the ground gathering evidence. We see the OCPW[2] as the impartial body to be able to collect this kind of evidence. Let me remind you how difficult it is to get. To get to these – first of all, you’re in a war zone. This is a very dangerous environment for anyone to go into. So for these people to be able to go into these environments to collect samples, perhaps through partner organizations that they work with and also themselves – I understand they have their own inspectors who go about doing this – collecting that information and then analyzing that information.


So that’s an important role. They’re the gold standard in collecting this type of information, and we would certainly rely upon them, as we have in other instances, to take a look at that.



QUESTION: So you’re first waiting for the OPCW to come back with something before you can make any kind of --



MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not saying that. The United States Government has its own mechanisms to be able to look into things. Some of these would be intelligence matters that I’m not going to get into. You know full well why. The United States has been sharing information with its allies and partners, as have our allies been sharing information with us. But the OPCW we recognize and are pleased to see that they are able to get to the area or eventually be able to get to the area, we hope as soon as possible, to be able to collect samples.



We have talked about before the Joint Investigative Mechanism that Russia thwarted, and the United Nations today is looking at a vote to come up with a new form of a Joint Investigative Mechanism. And that is something that we would strongly support, because not only do you need that body to investigate what exactly was used, but you need a body to be able to determine who was responsible for it, and that’s exactly what the Joint Investigative Mechanism did.


Now, we do know that some sort of a substance was used, a chemical was used. We’re just not sure at this point today exactly what was used. Okay?
Andrea, go ahead.



QUESTION: Following up on the forensics of this, you know something was used. You don’t know exactly what or by whom. But absent hard evidence, which may take a long time, if ever, is it possible that there would not be some kind of response? Is there a threshold for taking action if it’s clear that some kind of chemical was used, and that there are only certain players who have access to such chemicals?



MS NAUERT: Well, look, we know that only certain players, to use your word, have access to these kinds of chemical weapons. We know that it requires certain kinds of delivery mechanisms to use those types of weapons. Not everyone out there has access to those delivery mechanisms. So we have that information; we’re familiar with it.

I’m not going to get ahead of the President and the White House and what the interagency determines is the best route going forward, but I can tell you that we are in close coordination with our allies and partners on this.



QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But given the pace of phone calls and our own reporting in different capitals, it does seem likely that this will be a multilateral response; if there is a response that it will be different from what happened on April 6, 2017.



MS NAUERT: I can just say –
QUESTION: Is that a fair conclusion?



MS NAUERT: I’m not going to confirm that for you. I think our calls are certainly obvious, that we stand strongly with our allies. We’ve had calls with the French and with the British. We’ve had information sharing and also are in conversations with people, as you would expect. "

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/04/280339.htm

Double standards again. Another "considered" decision by some unexceptional regime leaders.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Double standards again. Another "considered" decision by some unexceptional regime leaders.

You love posting this irrelevant shite, don't you?

If you want to talk about "double standards", how about asking for the OPCW to do it's job while trying to stop the OPCW doing it's job?

Now THAT'S a fucking double standard pal.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Why this time and not before the Salisbury Incident?

Possibly because they have more evidence related to the Salisbury Incident (see the Observer link I posted in that thread).

Congratulations on repeating what has already been posted.

Or are you under the illusion that the Russians and Syria asked for an investigation from a genuine desire to seek the truth, rather than because they wanted to get ahead of it and control it (hence the rejected draft resolution where they wanted to get ahead of it and control it).?

Because if so, don't you wonder why they keep blocking a request for a proper investigation?

Or is this because everybody wants to be mean to poor old Vlad?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

blocking a request for a proper investigation?

Why not to let it handled again "properly" by the poor old Bolton?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Why not to let it handled again "properly" by the poor old Bolton?

Why not stop talking like a primate with a mouthful of banana?

Isn't he the best man who knows how to start the war?





Tony Blair (pictured in London today) today backed Western military action against the Syrian regime over chemical attacks on civilians

Read more: Theresa May, Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron prepare Syria response | Daily Mail Online

Shouldn't the kids cry when the "carers" treat them like this? (anybody seeing red eyes?)



Wondering why the Syrian chemicals always affect only some kids, never adult "rebels"?

BTW, anybody seeing some "upsetting images" in the video?

You are an utter fucking cretin.

WARNING - These images are graphic so I would not recommend opening them. I just hope to maybe shock some sense into the forum fucking imbecile.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=k3DhS_1523389587

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOhOK_1523272053

What is the hypothesis about the fact that the clever Assad risks the outrage of the "international community" by attacking always just the kids of the people who love him and stand for him but never the good "rebels"? (there is surely some explanation...)

The World Health Organization has said an estimated 500 people went to health facilities with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals” after the attack on the rebel-held town of Douma in Syria at the weekend.

“WHO demands immediate unhindered access to the area to provide care to those affected, to assess the health impacts and to deliver a comprehensive public health response,” Peter Salama, the agency’s deputy director general for emergency preparedness and response, said in a statement issued in Geneva.

UN aid agencies do not have access to most of the enclave of eastern Ghouta, including Douma where the alleged attack occurred. The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the attack.

The WHO report adds to mounting evidence of the use of toxic gas in the attack, which killed at least 42 people and has raised the prospect of American airstrikes against forces loyal to the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Medics on the ground in Douma – the last besieged town that was under opposition control in the enclave of eastern Ghouta, near Damascus – reported that hundreds of patients arrived on Saturday night with symptoms of exposure to toxic chemicals.

They said the symptoms, which included frothing at the mouth, suffocation, dilated and constricted pupils, corneal burns, central cyanosis – a blue tinge to the skin – and a chlorine-like odour, were consistent with exposure to an organophosphorus compound. Sarin gas is such a chemical.

The attack appears to have prompted a surrender deal the following day by local rebels. Jaish al-Islam, the dominant opposition group in Douma, agreed to leave the town along with thousands of civilians for northern Syria, after weeks of saying they had no intention of agreeing to a deal that would lead to their forcible exile.

Since then, thousands of the estimated 100,000 people still living in Douma have left on buses heading north. More were expected to leave on Wednesday.

Douma was the last holdout in eastern Ghouta after other rebel groups agreed to leave other parts of the region, which has been under siege for years and was subjected to multiple chemical attacks in the past.

The worst incident was in 2013 when more than 1,000 people died after the Syrian government launched attacks using nerve agents, which nearly prompted a US intervention in the war.

The possibility of western intervention against Assad was heightened on Tuesday after Russia and its western opponents, the US, UK and France, respectively vetoed duelling resolutions at the UN security council over the latest atrocity.

The UN high commissioner for human rights said the world must react to the use of chemical weapons or risk dire consequences. “After decades when we thought we had successfully outlawed the use of chemical and biological weapons, the world is sitting idly by while their use is becoming normalised in Syria,” said Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein. “This collective shrug to yet another possible use of one of the most ghastly weapons ever devised by man is incredibly dangerous.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...k-symptoms-who

FFS seems to be a war of words between an idiot and a moron.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defying Russian warnings against U.S. military strikes in Syria, President Donald Trump said Wednesday that missiles “will be coming” in response to Syria’s suspected chemical attack that killed at least 40 people.

“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria,” Trump tweeted. “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’ You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”

Trump did not detail what a strike would look like, or whether these would be U.S. missiles. The tweet came as Trump administration officials have consulted with global allies on a possible joint military response to Syria’s alleged poison gas attack. Trump canceled a foreign trip in order to manage a crisis that is testing his vow to stand up to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The tweet drew a quick response from Russia’s Foreign Ministry. Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Facebook that “smart” missiles would destroy any evidence of a suspected chemical weapons attack.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ng_136774.html

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The World Health Organization has said

Based on what evidence, their own or investigation from unnamed individuals?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

UN aid agencies do not have access to most of the enclave of eastern Ghouta, including Douma where the alleged attack occurred.

But they already have the facts to legalise their assertions?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Medics on the ground in Douma

Is this another UN agency or any tom dick or 'arry with a white handkerchief on their face?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The worst incident was in 2013 when more than 1,000 people died after the Syrian government launched attacks using nerve agents

Unproven allegations.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The UN high commissioner for human rights

Armed with what evidence from a responsible source?

All supposition as usual from MSM, thus far. Another unproven post from 'arry based on unproven assertions. But let's not wait for proven facts prior to naming the culprit. Haven't we just witnessed in Salisbury a similar fake incident?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

while trying to stop the OPCW doing it's job

How is asking for an independent OPCW inspection team stopping them from performing their job? It's what one does to "clarify" and obtain the factual proof, as enshrined in the OPCW charter/internationally accepted rules based procedures.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Based on what evidence, their own or investigation from unnamed individuals?

The rebels who wear white helmets probably, and perhaps that guy who observes the situation in Syria from his living room in England.

OhOh simply won't believe it if it's not on RT.

He will accept any bullshit they publish without so much as a quizzical look.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

OhOh simply won't believe it if it's not on RT.

I quote from many sites. Russian propaganda it may or may not be. It is at least sourced from named Russians of authority and the power to do things, not like your BBC propaganda source.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I quote from many sites. Russian propaganda it may or may not be. It is at least sourced from named Russians of authority and the power to do things, not like your BBC propaganda source.

State media controlled by a corrupt, murderous ex-KGB thug = Not Propaganda

Taxpayer funded, independent (by law) media that frequently gets up the governments nose = Propaganda.


Aalllllllllllllrighty then.....

Well, it has now been reported that the WHO got their information from outside Syria - some town I'd never heard of before somewhere in Turkey.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Well, it has now been reported that the WHO got their information from outside Syria - some town I'd never heard of before somewhere in Turkey.

So what? Have you heard of "electronic communications"?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Taxpayer funded, independent (by law) media that frequently gets up the governments nose = Propaganda.

Corporation independent...