• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN: No clear proof of Syria chemical arms use

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A UN team of investigators into rights abuses in Syria has stressed there is no conclusive proof of either side in the conflict using chemical weapons, despite a team member's claims to the contrary."The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict," the commission said in a statement on Monday.
Earlier, Carla del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor and a member of the commission, had told Swiss public broadcaster RSI that "according to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas".
She acknowledged there was "still not irrefutable proof, [but] very strong suspicions, concrete suspicions that sarin gas has been used... by opponents, by rebels, not by government authorities."


Read more @: UN: No clear proof of Syria chemical arms use - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

The UN teams of investigators have said they have no conclusive proof that either side used chemical weapons refuting both Syrian rebels claims that the Syrian gov used weapons and Carla del Ponte's claims that the rebels used chemical weapons.
 
:lol:

Yeah... okay.
 
It's such a ****ed up situation.

As much as I hate Assad... I don't believe these Rebels can be trusted either.

All the while the people that suffer the most as usual on a 21st century battlefield are the innocents.
 
Now.....No Side has used Chem Weapons. :lamo I wonder if this will make this weeks Saturday Nite live show. :lol:
 
It is a good thing we don't have dimwitted cowboy in charge here in the US or else we would have glassed the place based on whatever evidence he wanted to use to justify his war. I swear that boys dogs were talking to him and telling him some crazy things. We must stop the muslims from killing all the muslim targets in the country. Seriously, how are we going to go to war if all the muslims are dead already?
 
Now.....No Side has used Chem Weapons. :lamo I wonder if this will make this weeks Saturday Nite live show. :lol:

You should be nicer to Obama. Given his war track record he might kick everyone's ass before you get the next presidential election. Could you imagine if there were no little crap countries to get into a decade long drawn out war with? The next republican president might have only china or russia to pick from, and they might be a little tougher than Iraq to beat. So let ass kicker Obama take his time. You would nto want him showing you up again like he did in Iraq, libya, afganistan, and with OBL. Let him take a break and gather evidence, and hope hillary doesn't kick their ass so you might have a chance in 2024.
 
You should be nicer to Obama. Given his war track record he might kick everyone's ass before you get the next presidential election. Could you imagine if there were no little crap countries to get into a decade long drawn out war with? The next republican president might have only china or russia to pick from, and they might be a little tougher than Iraq to beat. So let ass kicker Obama take his time. You would nto want him showing you up again like he did in Iraq, libya, afganistan, and with OBL. Let him take a break and gather evidence, and hope hillary doesn't kick their ass so you might have a chance in 2024.

:lamo Be nice to him.....have you been drinking? Are you on drugs? Just say No!

Yeah......lets look at that Iraq. looks Like we still have people there and it is a disaster. Afghanistan.....yep still there and Mostly Under Obama's watch our Military men and women are getting shot in the back. The Taliban have been given an office in Qatar. Obama has released Taliban Prisoners......yet he will walk out and say we won the War. Oh and he locked us into being there for another Decade.

Then Libya.....Obama use an EO. To involve us in that Civil War. Went in with no End game and now has Libya as nothing but a breeding ground for terrorists, thugs criminals, and radicals.

Then he has sent troops to Jordan. Turkey. Has Some Advisors out Hunting Kony and the LRA. Just got down helping the French out with our resources and Equipment in Mali. Can't get rid of AQ which has spread under his term. Plus made deals with the MB in Egypt.

Then gave gobs of money to these Syrian Rebels who most of them have pledged against us. Plus did so while sequester was going down and that lil Failing of his too.
 
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Read more @: UN: No clear proof of Syria chemical arms use - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

The UN teams of investigators have said they have no conclusive proof that either side used chemical weapons refuting both Syrian rebels claims that the Syrian gov used weapons and Carla del Ponte's claims that the rebels used chemical weapons.

Until or unless soil samples, among other on-the-ground measures, are taken, there won't be conclusive evidence. Interviews hint that the anti-Assad forces might have used such weapons (del Ponte's statement), but interviews do not provide the level of evidence required to reach firm conclusions. My guess is that neither party to the conflict is willing to grant the kind of intrusive access that is required to reach a firm conclusion at this point in time.
 
Now.....No Side has used Chem Weapons. :lamo I wonder if this will make this weeks Saturday Nite live show. :lol:

That's not what the UN is saying. The UN is saying that there is no conclusive evidence. That's very different from determining neither party used such weapons.
 
It's such a ****ed up situation.

As much as I hate Assad... I don't believe these Rebels can be trusted either.

All the while the people that suffer the most as usual on a 21st century battlefield are the innocents.

At this point in the conflict, it has become increasingly clear that both parties in the conflict are brutal and that both show disregard for the welfare of civilians. This is par for the course for ethnic conflicts, and the conflict underway is about a repressed majority seeking to topple a ruling minority. It is not a democratic liberal revolution. Indeed, the absence of a coherent and inclusive governing philosophy speaks volumes. That's even before one considers the unsavory elements that the anti-Assad forces have incorporated in their ranks.

In terms of the U.S., the anti-Assad forces have not provided any credible indication that they would adopt policies more compatible with U.S. interests. They have provided no credible indication that they would sever ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, much less be willing to pursue peace with Israel or refrain from destabilizing Lebanon. The lack of coherent governing principles and lack of compelling U.S. interests provide a strong argument that the U.S. should refrain from intervening in the civil war.
 
The DanaRhea solution - Do nothing, and let both sides use their chemical weapons on each other. And then, when there is nobody left in Syria, we just move in and turn the country into Disneyworld Middle East.

I'm Syrias, here. Really. LOL.
 
Last edited:
:lamo Be nice to him.....have you been drinking? Are you on drugs? Just say No!

Yeah......lets look at that Iraq. looks Like we still have people there and it is a disaster. Afghanistan.....yep still there and Mostly Under Obama's watch our Military men and women are getting shot in the back. The Taliban have been given an office in Qatar. Obama has released Taliban Prisoners......yet he will walk out and say we won the War. Oh and he locked us into being there for another Decade.

Then Libya.....Obama use an EO. To involve us in that Civil War. Went in with no End game and now has Libya as nothing but a breeding ground for terrorists, thugs criminals, and radicals.

Then he has sent troops to Jordan. Turkey. Has Some Advisors out Hunting Kony and the LRA. Just got down helping the French out with our resources and Equipment in Mali. Can't get rid of AQ which has spread under his term. Plus made deals with the MB in Egypt.

Then gave gobs of money to these Syrian Rebels who most of them have pledged against us. Plus did so while sequester was going down and that lil Failing of his too.

Excuses excuses, but Obama is still kicking the ass of any republican president in the past half century or more in terms of war. You can comp-lain like you are and try and pretend it wasn't him, but really he is showing you guys how to war. It is going to be even worse when your side gets their butts kicked in war by a girl named hillary.
 
Excuses excuses, but Obama is still kicking the ass of any republican president in the past half century or more in terms of war. You can comp-lain like you are and try and pretend it wasn't him, but really he is showing you guys how to war. It is going to be even worse when your side gets their butts kicked in war by a girl named hillary.

You should remove those Blue Tinted glasses.....his foreign policy has been a failure! :roll:
 
Until or unless soil samples, among other on-the-ground measures, are taken, there won't be conclusive evidence. Interviews hint that the anti-Assad forces might have used such weapons (del Ponte's statement), but interviews do not provide the level of evidence required to reach firm conclusions. My guess is that neither party to the conflict is willing to grant the kind of intrusive access that is required to reach a firm conclusion at this point in time.

MI6 took soil samples back in March.
 
At this point in the conflict, it has become increasingly clear that both parties in the conflict are brutal and that both show disregard for the welfare of civilians. This is par for the course for ethnic conflicts, and the conflict underway is about a repressed majority seeking to topple a ruling minority. It is not a democratic liberal revolution. Indeed, the absence of a coherent and inclusive governing philosophy speaks volumes. That's even before one considers the unsavory elements that the anti-Assad forces have incorporated in their ranks.

In terms of the U.S., the anti-Assad forces have not provided any credible indication that they would adopt policies more compatible with U.S. interests. They have provided no credible indication that they would sever ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, much less be willing to pursue peace with Israel or refrain from destabilizing Lebanon. The lack of coherent governing principles and lack of compelling U.S. interests provide a strong argument that the U.S. should refrain from intervening in the civil war.

First of all, the anti-Assad forces do not have ties to Hezbollah. Assad has ties to Hezbollah. Assad has ties to Russia. Assad has ties to Iran. There's plenty of unsavoury to go around.

Second of all, I don't think it's useful to view the conflict from a perspective of which government is preferable - Assad or the opposition. It's not useful because those aren't the options. The Syria as it was under the Assad regime - prior to the Arab Spring - is over and is never coming back. So it doesn't matter if that option is preferable because it's not an option. The possible outcomes left are not very good. But some are worse than others. We should do what we can to avoid the worse ones.

With all due respect, I find the notion that things will miraculously work out better for US interests if we don't try to influence the outcome to be a bit foolish.
 
:lol:

Yeah... okay.

Because you're an expert with firsthand knowledge, right?

Now.....No Side has used Chem Weapons. :lamo I wonder if this will make this weeks Saturday Nite live show. :lol:

Nobody said that. Why do you think that was the message here?

Rebels say the government did it. Government says rebels did it. Can you prove either way? Would you want to be responsible for accidentally supporting the side that used chemical weapons?
 
Because you're an expert with firsthand knowledge, right?

:doh

Damn. You blew my cover...

No, but MI6 and the Israelis, as well my own country saying chemical weapons were used is enough for me.

Besides, this latest round of red line crossing is not the first occurrence.

So, for the UN to exclaim that there is no 'conclusive proof of either side in the conflict using chemical weapons' is asinine.
 
First of all, the anti-Assad forces do not have ties to Hezbollah. Assad has ties to Hezbollah. Assad has ties to Russia. Assad has ties to Iran. There's plenty of unsavoury to go around.

Second of all, I don't think it's useful to view the conflict from a perspective of which government is preferable - Assad or the opposition. It's not useful because those aren't the options. The Syria as it was under the Assad regime - prior to the Arab Spring - is over and is never coming back. So it doesn't matter if that option is preferable because it's not an option. The possible outcomes left are not very good. But some are worse than others. We should do what we can to avoid the worse ones.

With all due respect, I find the notion that things will miraculously work out better for US interests if we don't try to influence the outcome to be a bit foolish.

The anti-Assad elements have deployed tougher rhetoric against Israel. They also have incorporated extremists within their ranks. Not surprisingly, Israel urges caution when it comes to plans to increase assistance to the anti-Assad elements.

On the larger point, I'm not suggesting that things will "miraculously work out" for the better for U.S. interests. I am suggesting that U.S. commitments should be based on advancing the nation's interests. There is no credible evidence that the anti-Assad elements would be friendlier toward U.S. interests (and strategic allies) and their repeatedly passing up opportunities to provide outlines of their policy vis-à-vis U.S. interests and allies is striking. Given the nation's finite resources and lack of critical interests at stake, I believe the U.S. should pass on getting more involved in the Syrian civil war.

That's not the same thing as suggesting that the U.S. should back the Assad dictatorship. I am suggesting that based on the evidence to date, one cannot suggest that a regime change is necessarily the least bad option. Too many questions about the nature of the post-Assad governance, the role of Al-Nusra and other extremist elements in such a government, and that government's policy vis-à-vis U.S. interests and strategic allies have not been answered, and the anti-Assad elements have had more than ample time to provide such a framework.

Finally, even as it has a low probability of succeeding in the near-term given the parties' unwillingness to compromise, I do believe the newly agreed U.S.-Russia sponsorship of an international conference is a better approach than intervening in the civil war. The conference would push the parties to the conflict to work out a transitional path forward. Intransigence would be exposed and foreign policy matters could become clearer.
 
Whewww, for a minute there Obama thought he was going to have to make a hard decision.
 
:doh

Damn. You blew my cover...

No, but MI6 and the Israelis, as well my own country saying chemical weapons were used is enough for me.

Besides, this latest round of red line crossing is not the first occurrence.

So, for the UN to exclaim that there is no 'conclusive proof of either side in the conflict using chemical weapons' is asinine.

I interpreted it as meaning they cannot declare WHICH SIDE used them.
 
First of all, the anti-Assad forces do not have ties to Hezbollah. Assad has ties to Hezbollah. Assad has ties to Russia. Assad has ties to Iran. There's plenty of unsavoury to go around.

There's evidence of some terror connection with the rebels. Maybe not Hezbollah per se, but I'm not going to quibble over which terrorists are better.

Second of all, I don't think it's useful to view the conflict from a perspective of which government is preferable - Assad or the opposition. It's not useful because those aren't the options. The Syria as it was under the Assad regime - prior to the Arab Spring - is over and is never coming back. So it doesn't matter if that option is preferable because it's not an option. The possible outcomes left are not very good. But some are worse than others. We should do what we can to avoid the worse ones.

With all due respect, I find the notion that things will miraculously work out better for US interests if we don't try to influence the outcome to be a bit foolish.

I don't think things will miraculously work out better, I just think that there's no good outcome for the United States either way. In other words, it's bad for us no matter who wins. Let them kill each other, and we'll deal with whoever comes out on top.
 
:doh

Damn. You blew my cover...

No, but MI6 and the Israelis, as well my own country saying chemical weapons were used is enough for me.

Besides, this latest round of red line crossing is not the first occurrence.

So, for the UN to exclaim that there is no 'conclusive proof of either side in the conflict using chemical weapons' is asinine.

So just like Iraq?
 
I interpreted it as meaning they cannot declare WHICH SIDE used them.

Does it matter?

The red line has been crossed. End of story.
 
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Read more @: UN: No clear proof of Syria chemical arms use - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

The UN teams of investigators have said they have no conclusive proof that either side used chemical weapons refuting both Syrian rebels claims that the Syrian gov used weapons and Carla del Ponte's claims that the rebels used chemical weapons.

Thankfully we didn't rush in there. Then again, we're already in the area so who's to say we haven't ramped up interventionism and just haven't been told yet.
 
Does it matter?

The red line has been crossed. End of story.

By whom? We should just bomb whoever? Maybe Canada! Someone used chemical weapons in Syria, so let's bomb Canada!
 
Back
Top Bottom