Haven't read it yet but I bet the usual suspects will be vicky Pollarding for all they're worth.
Thanks:Haven't read it yet but I bet the usual suspects will be vicky Pollarding for all they're worth.
Wait, I'm confused. Did or did not a chemical attack orchestrated by Pro-Government forces take place?Thanks:
9.9 The analyses indicated that the structural damage to the rebar-reinforced concrete terrace at Location 2 was caused by an impacting object with a geometrically symmetric shape and sufficient kinetic energy to cause the observed damage. The analyses indicate that the damage observed on the cylinder found on the roof-top terrace, the aperture, the balcony, the surrounding rooms, the rooms underneath and the structure above, is consistent with the creation of the aperture observed in the terrace by the cylinder found in that location.
9.10 At Location 4, the results of the studies indicated that the shape of the aperture produced in the modulation matched the shape and damage observed by the team. The studies further indicated that, after passing through the ceiling and impacting the floor at lower speed, the cylinder continued an altered trajectory, until reaching the position in which it was found.
9.11 Based on the analysis results of the samples taken by the FFM from the cylinders, their proximity at both locations, as well as the analysis results of the samples mentioned under paragraph 2.6, it is possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine.19
9.12 Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM—witnesses’ testimonies, environmental and biomedical samples analysis results, toxicological and ballistic analyses from experts, additional digital information from witnesses—provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
The FFMs (Fact Finding Mission) job is to find out what happened in accordance with the U.N. mandate. The former JIM apportioned blame. But that was vetoed repeatedly after it found Assad’s govt guilty. The OPCW have had the power since June last year to apportion blame, so they’ll set up an enquiry team and based on the FFMs report apportion blame if they are satisfied.Wait, I'm confused. Did or did not a chemical attack orchestrated by Pro-Government forces take place?
The details are not clear, but from the context the refugees are being moved by the SDF/YPG to territory more firmly under their control.More civilians were evacuated from the last territory held by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria group in eastern Syria Friday, amid a warning by the United Nations about the plight of thousands who have fled the area in recent weeks.
In a statement, the UN cited reports that more than 84 people, two-thirds of them children under the age of five, have died since December on their way to al-Hol camp in northeastern Syria after fleeing the extremist group in Deir el-Zour province.
In the last week alone, the UN said, some 13,000 people have arrived at al-Hol camp.
There is nothing in the story which tells us how the US is responding to this. It should be noted that the above story seems to cover two different sets of refugee camps, so the situation in one is not related to the other.In Moscow, the Russian military said the Syrian government was sending convoys to evacuate a refugee camp in southern Syria where tens of thousands suffer from lack of food and medical supplies.
Col. Gen. Mikhail Mizintsev said the Syrian convoys were heading on Friday to the Rukban camp and urged the U.S. military in the area to secure their safe passage. Russia has accused the U.S. of failing to provide humane conditions in the camp, which is home to about 40,000 people.
Mizintsev said the U.S. military would bear "full responsibility for the safe passage" of convoys through its zone of control.
The Russian military said it will work together with the Syrian army to escort the convoys as they head to temporary accommodation centres for refugees established in several Syrian provinces.
SDF media officials said that more than 1,000 people, including militants, were given safe passage from IS controlled areas. It is not entirely clear whether or not this is related to the figure of 3,000 also given, or whether these are two separate events.The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said on Monday it had evacuated about 3,000 people, including around 200 Islamic State militants, from the group's last enclave in eastern Syria.
The report appears to be bringing fragmentary information together, so it is possible that different incidents are being reported and that these separate incidents are being conducted in different ways. It is not clear whether some militants are being given safe passage to go to either militant controlled areas. However, some IS personnel do appear to be surrendering.An SDF media official who goes by his nom de guerre Ciyager said over 1,000 people, including a number of fighters, evacuated the area controlled by ISIS on Monday through a safe passage that has allowed those wishing to exit a way out. Dozens of men, women and children climbed hills on foot and were later seen getting into small trucks after they were searched by SDF fighters manning the evacuation corridor.
However, there will still be IS cells active across the Syria-Iraq border region, and will present a problem for many years to come.Mostafa Bali, head of the SDF media office, told Reuters that about 1,000 militants may still be inside Baghouz as well as additional civilians, which is holding up the battle to retake the village.
I believe that in a previous report a US military official involved in the area said that a military effort to completely eliminate IS in the region is something that would take decades.The extremist group continues to be a threat, however, with sleeper cells in scattered desert pockets along the porous border between the two countries.
Btw, Syria is an independent state and as I'm aware Syrian government hasn't agreed to US military presence in the country.Two months after declaring all U.S. troops are leaving Syria, President Donald Trump wrote to members of Congress that he now agrees "100%" with keeping a military presence in Syria.
A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives wrote to Trump on Feb. 22, applauding his decision to keep a small residual force in Syria.
Is there a unanimous UNSC Resolution 2249 to defeat IS, AQ etc in Latvia or Estonia? Have the leaders of Latvia and Estonia been so concentrated on their own rebels they let IS take over nearly half their respective country’s?Trump says he agrees '100%' with keeping U.S. troops in Syria
Btw, Syria is an independent state and as I'm aware Syrian government hasn't agreed to US military presence in the country.
Let's mirror the situation.
Imagine that mr.Putin says that he 100% agree to keep some troops in Latvia or Estonia. What would be the reaction?
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
(1) No. But it doesn't matter.(1) ]Is there a unanimous UNSC Resolution 2249 to defeat IS, AQ etc in Latvia or Estonia? (2) Have the leaders of Latvia and Estonia been so concentrated on their own rebels they let IS take over nearly half their respective country’s?
Chalk and apples as usual from you.
We know, Russia invaded Crimea without a U.N. Resolution, but you’re complaining about the US being there which is under a unanimous UN Resolution.(1) No. But it doesn't matter.
Your point is that Russia has a right to go into Estonia and Latvia without a U.N. Resolution then. So war(2) No. But it doesn't matter.
Russia has as part of a unanimous UNSC Resolution.I just have to repeat my point -
Syria is an independent state and as I'm aware Syrian government hasn't agreed to US military presence in the country.
The UNSC resolution authorised actions (including military ones) aganst the terrorists but there is no one word about the right of Washington to keep troops in Syria permanently only because Washington wants it.We know, Russia invaded Crimea without a U.N. Resolution, but you’re complaining about the US being there which is under a unanimous UN Resolution.
Your point is that Russia has a right to go into Estonia and Latvia without a U.N. Resolution then. So war
Russia has as part of a unanimous UNSC Resolution.
As I said, Assad had let enough of his country become occupied by IS because he was concentrating on his rebels and everyone he called ‘terrorists’ (which was pretty much everyone who disagreed with him). Resolution 2249 specifically mentions “... absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), .....”The UNSC resolution authorised actions (including military ones) aganst the terrorists but there is no one word about the right of Washington to keep troops in Syria permanently only because Washington wants it.
Syria is a sovereign state, is it? Do you believe that Syria as a sovereign state has right to agree or disagree with foreign military presence on its soil?
If you believe that Washington has right to ignore Syrian government then why other countries can not follow this example in other corners of the World?
Turkey cannot accept control of a planned safe zone in northern Syria being given to anyone else, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday.
In interview with broadcaster Kanal 24, Erdogan also said that if the United States could not take back the weapons it had given to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia in Syria, it should give them to Turkey.
6,500 have left in the past couple of days including men, with 50,000 of the 60,000 in the camp they are being sent to arriving since December. 2/3 of the 90 who have died transiting to the camp have been babies or infants:Some 400 Islamic State fighters were captured trying to escape Baghouz along with smugglers, the senior SDF commander said. Hundreds of others jihadists surrendered, though it was not yet clear how many, the commander added.
Those surrendering were among more than 2,000 people who left Baghouz on Wednesday in the latest evacuation, transported by trucks to a patch of desert where they are questioned, searched and given food and water.
A group of fully veiled women being evacuated from Baghouz on Wednesday shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Greatest) as they gathered near a checkpoint where the SDF were searching them and one hit a journalist with a can of tuna.
The SDF said about 6,500 people had left the area over the previous two days, including hundreds of men. Most civilian evacuees are headed for the al-Hol displacement camp in northeast Syria.
The International Rescue Committee aid group said that of the 60,000 people in the camp, 50,000 had arrived since December, mostly from the shrinking Islamic State enclave, including 4,000 on Wednesday. Of the 90 people who have died reaching the camp since December, two-thirds were babies or infants, it said.
As I see you failed to address my main point -As I said, Assad had let enough of his country become occupied by IS because he was concentrating on his rebels and everyone he called ‘terrorists’ (which was pretty much everyone who disagreed with him). Resolution 2249 specifically mentions “... absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), .....”
You should remember, that (2118 ) Resolution as well. It’s the one where Assad’s govt agreed to give up and stop using his CW. That also was unanimous and clearly failed according to the unanimously appointed Joint Investigative Mechanism which Russia vetoed repeatedly.
Anyway, like so many unanimous Resolutions it talks about “...beginning with the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, which could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent;”
Then there’s that other unanimous UNSC Resolution, 2254, and its roadmap for peace:
Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 2254 (2015), Endorsing Road Map for Peace Process in Syria, Setting Timetable for Talks | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
The point is, which you seem unable or unwilling to accept, is that there are numerous unanimous UNSC Resolutions on Syria. All signed up to by Russia, all ignored by Assad’s govt. They all talk about recognising the territorial integrity of Syria and all talk about the transitional govt and roadmap(s) for peace. The coalition is there to defeat IS, aNF and AQ, all of which remain in Syria.
As far as I’m aware, the coalition have not invaded part of Syria, held a referendum at the end of an AK and annexed it. They support the SDF which have done/are doing Assad’s dirty work for him. IS, AQ and aNF all remain in Syria, mostly in ostensibly ‘govt controlled’ areas.
Perhaps when Assad actually deals with the SDF and welcomes them into the repeated unanimous UN Resolutions calls for an all inclusive govt, when IS, AQ and aNF in Syria are no longer a threat etc etc you may have a point. Until then, the unanimous UN Resolutions Russia has signed up to appear to stand.
Once again, for the hard of reading, I mentioned sovereignty, it mentions it in all of the unanimous UN Resolutions that Russia has signed up to.As I see you failed to address my main point -
Syria is a sovereign country
and as a soveregn country, it has right not to agree with foreign military presence and thus Washington violates the international law proclaiming its right to keep troops in any country at will. ISIL in fact is eliminated in Syria. So Washington voided any legal ground to keep troops in Syria.
All your considerations, reference to the civil war in Syria, to UNSC resolutions are irrelevant. No one UNSC resolution gives Washington right to keep troops in Syria permanently.
You may argue that we are living in the imperfect World where many countries don't strictly follow the International law and might is right principle still matters. Yes, they are realities. But I would like to ask you and wait for direct clear answer -
Has Washington in this context moral right to demand that others must follow principles that it freely violates?
So you prefer not to answer my question directly - it is your right.Once again, for the hard of reading, I mentioned sovereignty, it mentions it in all of the unanimous UN Resolutions that Russia has signed up to.
Once again 2249 relates to IS, AQ, aNF and any other terrorist organisation on the UN list. IS as a ‘state’ is almost defeated. IS in Iraq and Syria is not defeated and won’t be for a long time. The conditions for IS-2 are ripe in both Iraq and Syria unfortunately.
Once again, read the text of the unanimous ie signed by Russia, ResolutionSo you prefer not to answer my question directly - it is your right.
Wrong, once again I mentioned it, stop lying or as is common with Russia supporting trolls, ‘putting words in my mouth’As I understand the soveregn rights of Syria is something irrelevant from your point of view.
Once again, 2249. Once again, stop lying and ‘putting words in people mouths’Apparently you firmly believe that Washington along with its allies/puppets has unconditional right to keep troops anywhere at will.
So you prefer not to give direct answers to my questions. It is your right to answer or not to answer.Once again, read the text of the unanimous ie signed by Russia, Resolution
Wrong, once again I mentioned it, stop lying or as is common with Russia supporting trolls, ‘putting words in my mouth’
Once again, 2249. Once again, stop lying and ‘putting words in people mouths’