Menu
Sister Sites

  • Tillerson Says U.S. to Press Russia Over Syrian Chemical Weapons

    From bloomberg.com

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he’ll use a meeting this week in Moscow to challenge Russia about chemical weapons in Syria, as the Trump administration plans its next moves following a missile strike in retaliation for the Assad government’s use of the banned munitions. Russia “agreed to be the guarantor of the elimination of the chemical weapons, and why Russia has not been able to achieve that is unclear to me,” Tillerson said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” program. Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley all appeared on Sunday talk shows to ... (full story)

So Assad is allowed to kill babies with conventional weapons but not chemical ones? Either there is something hideously wrong with politics or i am too stupid to get a grip.
Quoting ilhaner
So Assad is allowed to kill babies with conventional weapons but not chemical ones? Either there is something hideously wrong with politics or i am too stupid to get a grip.
and your grip is slipping , what about the Americans killing babies or does that not happen
ONE MUST LEARN, DO IT AND IT WILL BE KIND TO YOU
Quoting Aussi
{quote} and your grip is slipping , what about the Americans killing babies or does that not happen
Tu quoque?
Quoting ilhaner
{quote} Tu quoque?
Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). some ones lying , like blair over Iraq
ONE MUST LEARN, DO IT AND IT WILL BE KIND TO YOU
Quoting Aussi
{quote} Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). some ones lying , like blair over Iraq
I am under the impression that you think it's ok for Assad to kill babies with either conventional weapons or WMD because others killed elsewhere? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of USA and others in the first place for remaining silent when Assad killed his own people with conventional weapons.

Did you really have something to add or are you just lonely ?
Quoting ilhaner
{quote} I am under the impression that you think it's ok for Assad to kill babies with either conventional weapons or WMD because others killed elsewhere? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of USA and others in the first place for remaining silent when Assad killed his own people with conventional weapons. Did you really have something to add or are you just lonely ?
well your impression is clearly wrong war is war the Germans and the English used it , and who said assard did it the lying united nations and the media again a pretext to some thing bigger
ONE MUST LEARN, DO IT AND IT WILL BE KIND TO YOU
Quoting Aussi
{quote} well your impression is clearly wrong war is war the Germans and the English used it , and who said assard did it the lying united nations and the media again a pretext to some thing bigger
You are still not getting it, i couldn't care less if Assad did it or not. Folks who take action when Assad allegedly killed his own people with sarin, just watch on the sidelines when said Assad kills his own people with tanks and normal bombs.

Chemical weapons is said to be the red line for these folks. The message they (USA and others) are conveying is, "Assad, kill your own people with normal bombs, don't kill them with Sarin."

The hypocrisy on America and others part is what i am getting at. Why did they just watch when millions of civils, babies died or had to relocate? And why all of a sudden babies became important? Because they were allegedly killed by Sarin? That's why i said something was hideously wrong about politics.

That's it, i don't think i could be more clear if i tried. Hope you will understand this time.
Quoting ilhaner
{quote} You are still not getting it, i couldn't care less if Assad did it or not. Folks who take action when Assad allegedly killed his own people with sarin, just watch on the sidelines when said Assad kills his own people with tanks and normal bombs. Chemical weapons is said to be the red line for these folks. The message they (USA and others) are conveying is, "Assad, kill your own people with normal bombs, don't kill them with Sarin." The hypocrisy on America and others part is what i am getting at. Why did they just watch when millions...
well said
ONE MUST LEARN, DO IT AND IT WILL BE KIND TO YOU
This all assumes Assad did it! There is a stack of available information showing it was most probably NOT Assad.
It does not pass the smell test. Last week the USA leaders stated they were not interested in regime change any more. One week later a gas attack takes place. Assad is winning the war. So it absolutely does not make sense for him to use chemical weapons especially when he knows what would happen. Also he does not have any, they were all removed under Russian supervision. The 2013 attacks that the MSM are pushing as Assad crossed a red line and Obama did nothing is fake news. Obama did nothing in 2013 because it turned out not to be Assad. But it was the American armed, trained and funded rebels and the sarin gas was supplied by Egypt. Now why is a red line not crossed with Egypt. http://goldenrulenews.org/egypt-defends-sarin-gas-program-despite-deaths-of-american-missionaries/
My Inner World Creates My Outer World...
[quote=FxWizard008;9751302]It does not pass the smell test. Last week the USA leaders stated they were not interested in regime change any more. One week later a gas attack takes place. Assad is winning the war. So it absolutely does not make sense for him to use chemical weapons especially when he knows what would happen. (Quote)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU6PtGlqPqE
The issue is that certain forms of weaponry are so dangerous and indiscriminate, that they have been unanimously by world judgement, even in the context of warfare.. been banned. Nuclear weapons fall into that category.
As do Chemical weapons and biological weapons. Because the represent a threat to all humanity. Not just the warring factions.

Elimination of nuclear weapons which are SO apocalyptic has proved impossible..
Indeed because of the "MAD" theory they probably have actually have deterred conflict, and allowed our survival through the Cold War.

However conventional warfare.. through use of explosives which have been used for 500 years, continue. But again not without some attempts to sanction.. eg regarding landmines etc. There is nothing illogical in that.
I accept that there is a element of hypocrisy if viewed in terms of the final results. The dead are dead. War is a dreadful process.
However when certain weapon systems are universally rejected and banned by international opinion ..as with chemical/biological technologies.. I believe that enforcing those boundaries is important.
I comment here on some previous commentators attacks on the the ethics of holding the line on these principals , NOT specifically on the detail of the action taken by the US administration in the defense in this principal in this case.
  • New Comment
  •  Guest
  • | IP X.XXX.207.90
Join FF
  • Story Stats
  • Posted: Apr 9, 2017 2:35pm
  • Submitted by:
     Newsstand
    Category: Low Impact Breaking News
    Comments: 12  /  Views: 3,398