Oh so now the main stream media is sacrosanct?
What were you saying about hypocrisy before?
On the support for chemical attacks against Iranians, along with the direct use of chemical weapons in Vietnam, you dismissed because they occurred before the prohibition of chemical weapons.
You did not answer my assertions with regards to the use of depleated Uranium shells along with white phosphorus,
So this is where you avoid the fact they did via Rex Tillerson. I’ve only mentioned him four times so I can understand why you may have missed the point.
So who do you think actually knows what was happening on the ground?So do I have this right that you are now questioning Reuters?
I really don’t think there is much point in arguing with you further. You have already shown a willingness to deny facts when presented to you.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-qatars-gulf-neighbours-should-lift-blockadeShow me one quote from a reputable news source that shows the then Secretary of State condemning or denouncing the actions of the Saudis and I shall relent. I should point out thought that he has since been fired and was well known to disagree with the President and his cabal.
The person to whom I was responding flat out denied what is printed clearly in the article referenced.
My point was that if Qatar were some extremely important ally, then why not come to their immediate aid? Why not make clear in the media that it opposes the actions of the Saudis and their puppet states? You can’t tell me that the US wouldn’t do so if it were Israel.
Yes that’s how laws work. You can’t be prosecuted for acts carried out before they were made illegal. Weird you wouldn’t understand that.
White phosphorus is perfectly legal to use as a masking device fwiw.
But you, like your ilk, are labouring under the false assertion that any person that is against assad using chemical weapons on his citizens must therefore be pro-chemical weapon use by the West.
You do realise that it’s possible to hold the position that Assad has broken international law and needs to be made aware that he can’t continue to do so without censure AND not support the actions of every other nation state through the last century?
What you’re trying to invoke is unashamed whataboutery. It’s a bullshit argument.
Oh I have:I suggest that you read about how the US used them recently in Raqqa.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-qatars-gulf-neighbours-should-lift-blockade
Tillerson adding: “I hope as a sign of good faith they will lift that blockade. That would be a positive development.”
His remarks represent the clearest reproach to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain since the dispute began in June
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/12/08/544948/US-Saudi-Arabia-Rex-Tillerson-
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has warned Saudi Arabia about “the consequences” of its actions in the Middle East.
His warning came Friday during his brief visit to Paris, France, where he commented on Riyadh’s behavior toward Yemen, Qatar and other neighbors.
"With respect to Saudi Arabia's engagement with Qatar, how they're handling the Yemen war that they're engaged in, the Lebanon situation, we would encourage them to be a bit more measured and a bit more thoughtful in those actions to, I think, fully consider the consequences," Tillerson said.
First two in google. You didn’t look very hard did you.
I’ll now enjoy you ‘relenting’.
Oh I have:
The spokesman for the American-led task force that is fighting the militants, Col. Ryan Dillon, said that as a matter of policy he could not discuss the use of specific munitions. But he added that “in accordance with the law of armed conflict, white phosphorus rounds are used for screening, obscuring and marking in a way that fully considers the possible incidental effects on civilians and civilian structures.”
This goes back to the debate on diplomacy doesn’t it.Yes, I can see how the below quote is a clear condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions:
"With respect to Saudi Arabia's engagement with Qatar, how they're handling the Yemen war that they're engaged in, the Lebanon situation, we would encourage them to be a bit more measured and a bit more thoughtful in those actions to, I think, fully consider the consequences”
Especially when he is then quoted as saying:
“It would be wiser [for Qatar] to totally change its (political) orientation”
And how fucking shocked am I that you take the word of ISIS over the Americans.Very kind of you to take the word of the accused.
Ahh ok, sorry though that was for me.
The only reason I can see Is simply money, it was a Saudi lead blockade and they buy a shit ton of military gear from the us. They probably didn’t want to risk that.
The USA jumps to Israel every time so they would this time. But is that because of the history of Israel or money from the military or geographical strategic location ( water access via med ).
While the hypocrisy is clear to everyone, and there is no doubt a proxy war going on that is going to get even more messy, the idea this is all down to a pipe line just doesn’t add up to me. Far too many moving parts to guarantee a desired outcome.
And how fucking shocked am I that you take the word of ISIS over the Americans.
(There’s no question mark as it’s rhetorical.)
Yes:I did no such thing. The accusations were made by human rights organisations.
This goes back to the debate on diplomacy doesn’t it.
But it you truly believe that what is on the record is the same conversation that happens behind closed doors then fair enough.
The fact is that KSA thought they could bully Qatar and quickly found out they didn’t have the support of the US, Germany, France, The U.K., Germany or Canada and wound their neck back in and ended up doing fuck all and right now the Qataris are taking part in mock military operations (games if you will) in Northern Saudi along with Bahrain and the UAE and several others and in a few years no one will ever remember there being a dimplomatic spat in the first place.
*sits back to enjoy you relenting on this point as promised*
Yes:
US-led forces in Syria have been accused of dropping white phosphorous on districts in eastern Raqqa, as it battles to liberate the city from the Islamic State.
Video footage released by Amaq, the news agency run by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil), appears to show the deadly substance falling on the Syrian capital on two separate occasions.
But as I’ve stated, the US didn’t denying using it, they simply confirmed they used it in accordance with international law. You’ve simply decided that doesn’t suit your very obvious agenda.
I already told you who I got my information off.You didn’t meet the criteria that I set out. If you can provide me with one quote that condemns Saudi Arabia then I will indeed relent on this point. The challenge still stands.
I take your argument that discussions behind closed doors may take a different tone, but to trust this would be naive. For all I know he could have been fist bumping MBS behind closed doors.
Did you honestly expect the US to hold their hands up and admit culpability?!?!
What would they be able to say or do to make you think they had acted in accordance with international law?
Yep. Thought so.