Jump to content
Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Assad forces behind deadly Sarin attack - UN

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

Syria's government was responsible for a deadly chemical attack on a rebel-held town in the north-west of the country on 4 April, a UN report says.

The authors say they are "confident" Damascus used Sarin nerve agent in Khan Sheikhoun, killing more than 80 people.

"Today's report confirms what we have long known to be true," said the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally Russia have repeatedly said the incident was fabricated.

Syria's opposition and Western powers have said it was a Syrian government air strike on the area.

But Damascus and Moscow say an air strike hit a rebel depot full of chemical munitions.

The report findings were issued by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the UN's Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM).

"The panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of Sarin at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017," stated the report, the AFP news agency reports.

Meanwhile, Ms Haley said in a statement: ‎"Time and again, we see independent confirmation of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime. And in spite of these independent reports, we still see some countries trying to protect the regime. That must end now.

"Ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence in this case shows a purposeful disregard for widely agreed international norms.

"The (UN) Security Council must send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons by anyone will not be tolerated, and must fully support the work of the impartial investigators. Countries that fail to do so are no better than the dictators or terrorists who use these terrible weapons."

Syria and Russia are yet to make public comments on the issue.

On Tuesday, Russia vetoed a resolution extending the JIM's mandate - the only official mission investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41771133

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not trust these reports because they have been shown to be partial.

Last "report" from france was built upon "french intelligent sources" I remember actually reading it and face palming when it came to their sources.

All these organs and nations sending out reports and condemnation left and right, they all have their own agenda but LOGIC dictates that assad did not NEED to use chemical weapons.

Logic also dictates that the use of chemical weapons would surely turn the world against you; so in a scenario where mass media is watching every step you make and some western powers are praying for a justification to invade your country, you should not use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, logic also dictates that if indeed there was an actual NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win, why do we not see multiple chemical attacks, made systematically, throughout the entire conflict? 

So please brothers and sisters, should we rely on reports left and right from people/groups/governments with their own agenda or should we rely on our own sense of logic, rational thinking and common sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

I do not trust these reports because they have been shown to be partial.

Last "report" from france was built upon "french intelligent sources" I remember actually reading it and face palming when it came to their sources.

All these organs and nations sending out reports and condemnation left and right, they all have their own agenda but LOGIC dictates that assad did not NEED to use chemical weapons.

Logic also dictates that the use of chemical weapons would surely turn the world against you; so in a scenario where mass media is watching every step you make and some western powers are praying for a justification to invade your country, you should not use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, logic also dictates that if indeed there was an actual NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win, why do we not see multiple chemical attacks, made systematically, throughout the entire conflict? 

So please brothers and sisters, should we rely on reports left and right from people/groups/governments with their own agenda or should we rely on our own sense of logic, rational thinking and common sense?

Yes, so please people of ... do not use logic, do not use common sense, only use irrational thinking, illogical, your unique/peculiar sense.

And human can easily make a division on which side you are on. We human have lack/behind schedule for final battle in human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowing the specific details or evidences provided, I don’t understand how the Syrian state unleashing a chemical attack on people would be of any strategic benefit to them.

Why would they, distracted in the middle of a war to stabilize the country (which is of benefit to them), suddenly unleash senseless killing that would only provoke, inflame, and undo any progress being made?

Doesnt make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the UN report raised some questions about the lack of a ground investigation which should've been carried out to prove completely, we know that the sources on the ground are not reliable particularly because we know people have been tried for terrorism in other countries and are now doctors revealing stories coming out of Idlib. I too question the logical side of things as to why Assad would need to launch CW at a time when the int'l community was becoming more and more accepting of the fact that he would have to be part of Syria's future. That too on a target of no military significance, on the eve of peace talks. It's kind of similar to what happened in Ghouta, where the govt invited UN inspectors in the day before to investigate a CW attack in Khan Al Assal in Aleppo which killed Syrian soldiers, but then somehow foolishly launched this attack the day after in Ghouta. It makes no sense to me. Assad is perfectly capable of this, he may be bad enough, is he stupid or mad enough though? Idk. But if it is true, which no one knows, (ultimately we can argue, depending on our bias but no one knows 100%) then this is pretty shameful tbh! Thing is the UN has reported on crimes in Israel and Saudi Arabia, as an institution it is corrupted by the fact that vetoes by the 5 permanent members prevent any action, but it has certainly condemned even the US for warcrimes in Raqqa, so I wouldn't say it is biased in its condemnation of events. However, the sources it uses to make the report raise some questions, though is this because they're being denied access to Syria? OTH, is it because Idlib is full of Al Qaeda affiliates that would probably kill or kidnap investigators? Idk, its tough to tell. But why the veto by Russia? Don't veto if you have nothing to hide right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you become an apologist, you engage in confirmation bias and selective reasoning. 

14 hours ago, Hassan- said:

He’s using the UN as his source, as if the UN is not corrupt or owned by nato.

Where did you even get that from? You do realise Syria, Iraq and Iran are all members of the UN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I do not trust these reports because they have been shown to be partial.

Last "report" from france was built upon "french intelligent sources" I remember actually reading it and face palming when it came to their sources.

All these organs and nations sending out reports and condemnation left and right, they all have their own agenda but LOGIC dictates that assad did not NEED to use chemical weapons.

Logic also dictates that the use of chemical weapons would surely turn the world against you; so in a scenario where mass media is watching every step you make and some western powers are praying for a justification to invade your country, you should not use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, logic also dictates that if indeed there was an actual NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win, why do we not see multiple chemical attacks, made systematically, throughout the entire conflict? 

So please brothers and sisters, should we rely on reports left and right from people/groups/governments with their own agenda or should we rely on our own sense of logic, rational thinking and common sense?

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

The UN OHCHR report is here:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx

The documentation is all there:

COISyria_ChemicalWeapons.jpg

Satellite imagery is shown:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/UNOSAT_Satellite_Imagery_1.pdf

 

Here is the full report by the sec-general of the UN:

http://undocs.org/A/68/663

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī 

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. Later on, the UN inspectors plea was taken by the US government for propaganda and they alleged that Iraq has WMD. But Hans Blix and other inspectors did not find that. So, this is credibility of the pro-US departments. UN is a weapon for the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī 

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. Later on, the UN inspectors plea was taken by the US government for propaganda and they alleged that Iraq has WMD. But Hans Blix and other inspectors did not find that. So, this is credibility of the pro-US departments. UN is a weapon for the US. 

The US cooked up all kinds of lies about Iraq, but I don't think the UN ever released a report about WMDs, Blix stated this; "in the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspections, and in February 2003 had provided UNMOVIC with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely have been a very different situation in Iraq."[6]. While it is true that the powers abuse the UN for their own agendas, as an organization itself it has certainly criticized pro-US positions too. The UN is corrupt not because of the organization itself lying, its corrupt because of the whole veto process and how it does not have the power to stop illegal invasions, doesn't have a military force etc. It is also very prone to succumb to pressure, as it did by retracting the report on Israeli apartheid, and the report on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen few years ago. But there are reports on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen and Israel human rights abuses and warcrimes in Gaza. I think if the organization got rid of its veto power, and was heavily armed with nukes too (every nation should get rid of theirs) and had perhaps the most neutral nations, like Switzerland being permanent members of the organization ready to take military action against any aggressor, it would be more effective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The US cooked up all kinds of lies about Iraq, but I don't think the UN ever released a report about WMDs, Blix stated this; "in the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspections, and in February 2003 had provided UNMOVIC with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely have been a very different situation in Iraq."[6]. While it is true that the powers abuse the UN for their own agendas, as an organization itself it has certainly criticized pro-US positions too. The UN is corrupt not because of the organization itself lying, its corrupt because of the whole veto process and how it does not have the power to stop illegal invasions, doesn't have a military force etc. It is also very prone to succumb to pressure, as it did by retracting the report on Israeli apartheid, and the report on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen few years ago. But there are reports on Saudi warcrimes in Yemen and Israel human rights abuses and warcrimes in Gaza. I think if the organization got rid of its veto power, and was heavily armed with nukes too (every nation should get rid of theirs) and had perhaps the most neutral nations, like Switzerland being permanent members of the organization ready to take military action against any aggressor, it would be more effective.

 

That is impossible in a current world where organizations do not have independent existence that they could maintain huge army and nuclear arsenal. However, as you have maintained that they retracted reports on Saudi and Israel's Human rights violation then it could also forge a wrong report for any country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

We'll see but honestly what makes you think that Assad is a good person?

He’s done good and bad things. Not bowing down to US and Israel like how most of the Arab nations have done is why I respect Assad.

3 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Where did you even get that from? 

Are you actually serious with that question? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī 

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. Later on, the UN inspectors plea was taken by the US government for propaganda and they alleged that Iraq has WMD. But Hans Blix and other inspectors did not find that. So, this is credibility of the pro-US departments. UN is a weapon for the US. 

Source?

Edited by Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sindbad05 said:

Man that's book buy it from any online shop

It's funny because you cannot even buy it off amazon. None the less if you claim that it claims that, then it is completely false. Here is the UN report in 2003:

Quote

Iraq’s representative said the Americans and the British continued to attempt to “trump up” facts and evidence, pointing to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, but they had fallen short in convincing the international community.  The inspectors had proved that there were no such weapons and that the allegations were false. 

https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

It's funny because you cannot even buy it off amazon. None the less if you claim that it claims that, then it is completely false. Here is the UN report in 2003:

UN report ? It has no value bro....There are millions of reports by Transparency International and others that dub Iran and other anti-US countries as wrong but that isn't true. Does UN report mentions that it was Bush Administration's fault to allow Saddam to invade Kuwait ? Does it say that the 9/11 was invented event by the US ? otherwise, how could one plane violate air way and hundreds of F-16 flying do not notice it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

UN report ? It has no value bro....There are millions of reports by Transparency International and others that dub Iran and other anti-US countries as wrong but that isn't true. Does UN report mentions that it was Bush Administration's fault to allow Saddam to invade Kuwait ? Does it say that the 9/11 was invented event by the US ? otherwise, how could one plane violate air way and hundreds of F-16 flying do not notice it. 

You literally just claimed this previously:

Quote

During the time of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the UN inspectors alleged Iraq not cooperating and Saddam dubbed them to be US spies. 

I refuted that with the report, in which they explicity state Saddam was cooperating and there were no WMDs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Zayn, Zakariyyaa,  Nooh, Nourrudeen, Nabil, Najib,     
    • Guest kat
       Is Maruchan Instant Lunch shrimp flavor halal or haram? It contains chicken broth, but is that artificial?
    • Salaam Alaykum Brother Know that Allah loves you, otherwise he wouldn't put this thought into your mind. Somebody asked Imam Sadegh that I do a sin over and over again and every single time I feel ashamed of myself. Imam Sadegh said:" Know that Allah loves you so much that he put this feeling into your mind". Brother it's very hard and I understand it. I know how you feel whenever you need it. Try to spend more time with your family and try to find religious friends. They help you in not thinking about your desires. When you said you can avoid doing that for one or two week, I said this guy can avoid doing that forever. My brother,  you are young. Please please please don't pollute your clear heart with these rudimentary instantaneous satisfactions. You deserve more than that. If you are in the position of having a simple marriage, talk with your dad. If not, talk with your dad to find a good religious girl for you and do Mutah till you find a job and change it to permanent marriage. Allah bless you
×