It'll be curious to see if any proof is provided that Assad carried out the attack.
As it stands, I don't believe many disputed that chemical weapons were used.
It'll be curious to see if any proof is provided that Assad carried out the attack.
As it stands, I don't believe many disputed that chemical weapons were used.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,915
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,225
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Yeah, all the dead people, cats, dogs, birds and livestock are pretty sure of that, too... 
B_underguy1
Experimental Member
B_underguy1
Experimental Member
I think the inspectors have been told not to apportion blame, which is suspicious in itself.
My own personal opinion is yes but not by the United States. Use of chemical weapons is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. I think A strike is warranted to show this kind of thing is clearly not ok. But the US should not be the one holding the spear.
The article says they will not explicitly state who was responsible, which makes me extremely skeptical.
This isn't a "leave it up to the viewer" situation. If you have compelling evidence that it was, in fact, Assad's regime that used the chemical weapons, you are damn sure going to come out and say it as explicitly as humanly possible. This is neither the time nor the place for a deft implication of culpability.
An item on the radio today suggests the appeal process has hardly started. It would seem that the courts are upholding appeals against the tax on the grounds that rooms are being counted as bedrooms even though they are smaller than some legally defined overcrowding regulations. people are now being advised to get out their tape measure if they are being penalised for having a large broomcupboard.
That remains to be seen, but the tax has already fallen foul of existing UK regulations on minimum space standard. It would seem the government has tried to squeeze people into spaces too small to fit, and frankly a right to housing should be one of the human rights.
No, it is not.
HRW is an independent, international NGO that is privately funded. Can you disprove their claims that the rebels didn't have access to the kind of weapons used in the attacks?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,637
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 4,951
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
This sort of appeal is legitimate and is around application of the law. The definition of "bedroom" should really be clear in the legislation, but if it isn't the courts will have to sort this out. I gather the dispute has arisen because there is perceived inconsistency between different laws. Of course it needs resolving.
This is not a human rights issue.
I struggle to see how any aspect of this change to the benefits system can be seen as a human rights issue. In effect the changes require people whose housing is subsidised by the state and who have space they do not need to either move or receive less state subsidy. There are all sorts of issues around implementation (is smaller accommodation available? Do people have a special need which requires extra space? How much time have people got to make the change?) but these are all domestic legal issues.
The UN has of course not said that these are human rights issues; rather one of their employees has stated this. There is an absurdity of the UN on the one hand tolerating Assad's mass-murder through inability to agree a resolution while on the other hand being presented as saying that the UK not paying for spare bedrooms for people on benefits is a human rights abuse.
rbkwp
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 80,138
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 45,575
- Points
- 608
- Location
- Auckland (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The New York Times has been reporting.
Deal Reached to Destroy Chemical Arms in Syria
It this actually happens it will be an incredible achievement that the pause button was hit and a deal brokered without a single shot being fired.
Deal Reached to Destroy Chemical Arms in Syria
It this actually happens it will be an incredible achievement that the pause button was hit and a deal brokered without a single shot being fired.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,609
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Let me see if I have figured this out correctly!
1500 people have been gassed in chemical attacks in Syria. Another 100,000 people have died with strong suspicion that Assad has called for some of this to be the result of a deliberate action to kill thousands of civilians.
The UN has not ruled yet on the verdict of guilt or acquittal of Assad for this, but regardless, a civil war of this magnitude should become a concern for the UN.
Several thousand miles away in the UK there is a law the limits the amount that the government (by reducing the number of rooms in a flat that the government will provide assistance) will pay as supplements to those that don't have the funds to pay the high price of flats especially in the cities.
Am I right so far?
The UN has not been able to get its act together as to what to do about Syria. It doesn't really matter what action the UN should take. All that matters is that both Russia and the US can save face over any action the Security Council should take. That veto will prevent either nation from losing face!
Meanwhile, this lady at the UN is ready to pounce on the UK over the severe suffering and mass deaths that have happened as a result of this UK law?
Well not quite like that!
The urgent and dire problem is the number of bedrooms a flat that is paid for or partially paid for by the government a person or family is entitled.
If thousands were dying because the UK wouldn't let people live in vacant but livable flats, there might be reason for the UN to get involved in this controversy.
I suspect this lady has a bee in her bonnet or a burr up her ass about something and is blaming the UK for it.
The UK is a sovereign nation. The UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy. There will be an election coming up. The British people will have an opportunity to elect a government that will change this law to whatever the people want or keep the law as it is.
Millions in the world are refugees with only a tent if that much to live in; millions are hungry and are in desperate need of medical care.
And this lady at the UN wants to move the issue of: How many bedrooms in a "heated and decent to live in" that the government is willing to pay for through giving government assistance; to the front of UN consideration!
I'm having a real problem coming up with how it would look if the Security Council votes to postpone any action on the non-pressing issue about Syria to discuss the much more serious and the very urgent issue of grandma wants three bedrooms instead of two or one.
If I lived in the UK, I might very well be for or maybe against the rule or law. I can't fathom how this could be in anyway or could be remotely be the business of the United Nations! Or Russia, China, France and the US.
You never know!
Perhaps Putin and Obama spent their brief time that had together at the G20 over which flat Grandma should live in with the leaders of France, China and France in attendance.
You never know!:wink:
1500 people have been gassed in chemical attacks in Syria. Another 100,000 people have died with strong suspicion that Assad has called for some of this to be the result of a deliberate action to kill thousands of civilians.
The UN has not ruled yet on the verdict of guilt or acquittal of Assad for this, but regardless, a civil war of this magnitude should become a concern for the UN.
Several thousand miles away in the UK there is a law the limits the amount that the government (by reducing the number of rooms in a flat that the government will provide assistance) will pay as supplements to those that don't have the funds to pay the high price of flats especially in the cities.
Am I right so far?
The UN has not been able to get its act together as to what to do about Syria. It doesn't really matter what action the UN should take. All that matters is that both Russia and the US can save face over any action the Security Council should take. That veto will prevent either nation from losing face!
Meanwhile, this lady at the UN is ready to pounce on the UK over the severe suffering and mass deaths that have happened as a result of this UK law?
Well not quite like that!
The urgent and dire problem is the number of bedrooms a flat that is paid for or partially paid for by the government a person or family is entitled.
If thousands were dying because the UK wouldn't let people live in vacant but livable flats, there might be reason for the UN to get involved in this controversy.
I suspect this lady has a bee in her bonnet or a burr up her ass about something and is blaming the UK for it.
The UK is a sovereign nation. The UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy. There will be an election coming up. The British people will have an opportunity to elect a government that will change this law to whatever the people want or keep the law as it is.
Millions in the world are refugees with only a tent if that much to live in; millions are hungry and are in desperate need of medical care.
And this lady at the UN wants to move the issue of: How many bedrooms in a "heated and decent to live in" that the government is willing to pay for through giving government assistance; to the front of UN consideration!
I'm having a real problem coming up with how it would look if the Security Council votes to postpone any action on the non-pressing issue about Syria to discuss the much more serious and the very urgent issue of grandma wants three bedrooms instead of two or one.
If I lived in the UK, I might very well be for or maybe against the rule or law. I can't fathom how this could be in anyway or could be remotely be the business of the United Nations! Or Russia, China, France and the US.
You never know!
Perhaps Putin and Obama spent their brief time that had together at the G20 over which flat Grandma should live in with the leaders of France, China and France in attendance.
You never know!:wink:
B_underguy1
Experimental Member
I think I've provided adequate documentation to show that HRW is anything but independent.
I'm not going to play prove a negative games with the dishonest.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,637
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 4,951
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
@Freddie53, that strikes me as a reasonable summary.
I'm aware that the UN has achieved much. I thought the resolution is connection with Libya was useful. I'm also aware that there are severe criticisms, for example in relation to the Sri Lankan civil war. I also think there are major issues around the UN's response to Syria.
One sort of problem is around the veto held by some nations. This reflects the "real politik" of a globe where these nations do have enormous power. But there are also overwhelming difficulties when two of the nations with vetoes are Russia and China. Right now Russia remains in occupation of two parts of Georgia, yet the UN is powerless to do anything about this. I don't see an easy solution (for example a UN without Russia and China would be crazy) but I do think we need to be looking for a solution.
The other issue is about the frequent abuse of the UN. The UK's bedroom tax storm is just such an example. It isn't actually a UN statement, rather a statement by someone who works for the UN. However the UN has not responded with the only possible correct action, ie to dismiss the individual who has abused their name. Indeed we are likely to see a corporate cover-up, and it is quite likely that the UN's report (when it appears in the new year) will contain some veiled criticism of this aspect of UK domestic policy. And yes it will do damage to the UK government.
I'm aware that the UN has achieved much. I thought the resolution is connection with Libya was useful. I'm also aware that there are severe criticisms, for example in relation to the Sri Lankan civil war. I also think there are major issues around the UN's response to Syria.
One sort of problem is around the veto held by some nations. This reflects the "real politik" of a globe where these nations do have enormous power. But there are also overwhelming difficulties when two of the nations with vetoes are Russia and China. Right now Russia remains in occupation of two parts of Georgia, yet the UN is powerless to do anything about this. I don't see an easy solution (for example a UN without Russia and China would be crazy) but I do think we need to be looking for a solution.
The other issue is about the frequent abuse of the UN. The UK's bedroom tax storm is just such an example. It isn't actually a UN statement, rather a statement by someone who works for the UN. However the UN has not responded with the only possible correct action, ie to dismiss the individual who has abused their name. Indeed we are likely to see a corporate cover-up, and it is quite likely that the UN's report (when it appears in the new year) will contain some veiled criticism of this aspect of UK domestic policy. And yes it will do damage to the UK government.
B_underguy1
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,915
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,225
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Just wondering... Are you texting in from a phone, or just unable to construct complete sentences? With most of your posts, I'm unable to figure out what you are talking about and wonder if you are a teenager or drunk?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,915
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,225
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Fingers crossed here... I'm hoping for a peaceful solution that is actualized.
B_underguy1
Experimental Member
The chemical weapons issue is only an aside though. And only preempts an outright NATO airstrike for the present.
What do the Syrians get out of it though? Will the US and its lap dogs call off the insurgents? Will Israel agree to stop missile strikes?
Until the western powers stop the slaughter and stop arms shipments and cash to the slaughterers, not much will change.
A.) How do you propose the western powers 'stop the slaughter'?
B.) And given humans have been slaughtering each other since the dawn of time A is impossible.