• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Syria and UN Security Council Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.
seayakin said:
I'm trying to understand why China and Russia would block the Security Council Decision to sanction Syria see Russia and China Block U.N. Action on Crisis in Syria.

It doesn't seem they would offend anyone in the Arab world since the Arab league has already spoken out against Syria and Syria doesn't have any natural resources they are particularly interested in so the only thing I can think of is that China and Russia don't want to set a precedence whereby the UN Security Council could sanction either of them.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, as talked about in the WSJ article, Russia is primarily seeking to maintain an important weapons client and ally in the region.

China just doesn't want to draw any personal parallels about totalitarian states oppressing their people.

Although, they do have a point about it not being the best strategy to just repeat a ME strategy that has not always worked. As Wolfman noted:

Wolfman said:
And in other cases, China may vote to veto not because it opposes action, but because it opposes the particular actions being proposed. Just as the U.S. will do sometimes, also. China has a tendency to point towards the massive mess that the U.S. has made out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and suggest that continuing to follow similar policies might not be the best idea. In cases where there are resolutions regarding external issues, China may veto...but will also tend to offer alternative solutions. It is therefore willing to get involved...just not to get involved in the way that Americans want.

North Korea is a good example of this...China vetoed several UN resolutions against North Korea, but then proposed and brokered a UN resolution to enforce sanctions on N. Korea that was passed by the full Security Council. The simple act of vetoing does not implicitly mean that they advocate non-involvement; it could mean simply that they oppose the particular kind of involvement being proposed.
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
Sure.

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.
Click to expand...

So it is shady armed gangs in Syrian army uniforms using tanks, artillery, mortars, and rockets that are killing civilians in Homs?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Syrian-Troops-Pound-Homs-as-Russia-Warns-Against-Intervention-138931079.html

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said government forces used tanks, rockets and mortars Wednesday to subdue resistance in Homs, killing at least 50 people and heavily damaging more than 20 buildings in a number of the city's rebel-held districts. Homs is under the fifth day of a relentless offensive that activists say has killed hundreds of people.
Click to expand...

I get that you want to use an article by a known conspiracy theorist to support your own conspiracy theories so you can continue your personal hatred and blame of everything that happens in the world on the "evil Western Culture," but the rest of us have real and serious issues to deal with back in Reality Land.
 
HoverBoarder quoting Voice of America said:
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said ...
Click to expand...


Nothing changed since early January when I first posted this essential article:

Aisling Byrne said:
[...] Claims of "massacres", "campaigns of rape targeting women and girls in predominantly Sunni towns" [10] "torture" and even "child-rape" [11] are reported by the international press based largely on two sources - the British-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights and the Local Co-ordination Committees (LCCs) - with minimal additional checking or verification.

Hiding behind the rubric - "we are not able to verify these statistics" - the lack of integrity in reporting by the Western mainstream media has been starkly apparent since the onset of events in Syria. A decade after the Iraq war, it would seem that no lessons from 2003 - from the demonization of Saddam Hussein and his purported weapons of mass destruction - have been learnt.

Of the three main sources for all data on numbers of protesters killed and numbers of people attending demonstrations - the pillars of the narrative - all are part of the "regime change" alliance.

The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, in particular, is reportedly funded through a Dubai-based fund with pooled (and therefore deniable) Western-Gulf money (Saudi Arabia alone has, according to Elliot Abrams [12] allocated US$130 billion to "palliate the masses" of the Arab Spring).

What appears to be a nondescript British-based organization, the Observatory has been pivotal in sustaining the narrative of the mass killing of thousands of peaceful protesters using inflated figures, "facts", and often exaggerated claims of "massacres" and even recently "genocide".

Although it claims to be based in its director's house [13], the Observatory has been described as the "front office" of a large media propaganda set-up run by the Syrian opposition and its backers. The Russian Foreign Ministry [14] stated starkly:
The agenda of the [Syrian] transitional council [is] composed in London by the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights ... It is also there where pictures of 'horror' in Syria are made to stir up hatred towards Assad's regime.​

The Observatory is not legally registered either as a company or charity in the United Kingdom, but operates informally; it has no office, no staff and its director is reportedly awash with funding.

It receives its information, it says, from a network of "activists" inside Syria; its English-language website is a single page with al-Jazeera instead hosting a minute-by-minute live blog page for it since the outset of protests. [15]

The second, the LCCs, are [...]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Syria and UN security council decision

Doesn't sound like Ba'athists. More like Al-Qaeda crazies or mercenaries posing as such.
 
Last edited:
Russia is just supporting an ally and trying to keep the US from encroaching its geopolitical sphere of influence. I mean the US supported South Korea and South Vietnam despite that both of these countries governments (but especially the South Korean government) slaughtered countless civilians and political opponents, despite having more than enough influence to stop it.

Then again if i remember how the world works again, it goes something like: It's never wrong when the good guys do it.
 
Arcade22 said:
I mean the US supported South Korea and South Vietnam despite that both of these countries governments (but especially the South Korean government) slaughtered countless civilians and political opponents, despite having more than enough influence to stop it.
Click to expand...

Containment of communism.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Won't you be able to keep up the pretence of being confused any longer?
Click to expand...

It's not a pretense. I really don't see how supporting the communist invasion of South Korea, then invading South Korea, then supporting the communist invasion of South Vietnam, then supporting an utterly brutal communist insurgency in Cambodia, then invading North Vietnam, can reasonably be construed as anything other than a particularly odious form of inverventionism.
 
Virus said:
Containment of communism.
Click to expand...

Yes executing hundred of thousands of unarmed and defenseless civilians over pits is containment of communism, just like shooting into huge crowds of protesters with heavy machine guns is riot control.
188094b20cc67847c1.gif
 
Arcade22 said:
Yes executing hundred of thousands of unarmed and defenseless civilians over pits is containment of communism, just like shooting into huge crowds of protesters with heavy machine guns is riot control.
188094b20cc67847c1.gif
Click to expand...
Once again, what was acceptable 50 or 100 years ago no longer is. Would you likewise excuse China if they sent some ships to Africa, rounded up a bunch of people, and sent them back to China for sale as slaves?

Hey, Europe and the US did it! Who are we to criticize China for doing the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom