Slashdot Mirror

Russia said they dismantled the Syrian chemical weapons program.

They did. The OPCW (the group tasked with verifying chemical weapons claims and enforcing the chemical weapons treaty) verified that Syria and Russia removed its chemical weapons.

But here we are with chemicals floating around all over the place ...

Be careful not to conflate the multiple US/NATO claims (Novichok nerve agent in the UK spy case).

The chemical weapon used in the claimed Douma attack was chlorine. Every country on the planet has significant quantities of chlorine. Chlorine is used in many industrial processes, in swimming pools, and in most every city and town on the planet which has a water treatment plant has enough chlorine to make a chemical weapon. And industrial chlorine is easy to "weaponize" -- and it's pretty safe to do to (as opposed to nerve agent, for example).

Also note, in 2016 Amnesty International bluntly stated, "Syria: armed opposition group committing war crimes in Aleppo - new evidence. The Aleppo Conquest armed groups may have used chemical weapons, as well as ‘hell cannon’ gas canister munitions."

So do you believe those civilians were killed by poison gas from Syrian Government or was it propaganda devised as a smokescreen for Western aggression against a poor, mus-understood Russia?

I want evidence the video is actually real.

In 2016 Amnesty International bluntly stated, "Syria: armed opposition group committing war crimes in Aleppo - new evidence. The Aleppo Conquest armed groups may have used chemical weapons, as well as ‘hell cannon’ gas canister munitions."

Russia says that the video was faked and they blame the UK and our proxy rebel forces. The US and UK have a track record of lying through their teeth about chemical weapons (e.g. Iraq) and and the US routinely makes up wild, moralistic propaganda claims (e.g. Nurse Nayirah), so it's clear no one should believe them.

At this point no reasonable, thinking person should be sure of anything.

Syria and Russia are demanding that independent, third-party investigators be sent to investigate the site and chemical weapons claims. The US refused, at one time falsely claimed that Russia was refusing the inspectors (they may have backtracked from that position by now), and either way, Trump's illegal attacks on Syria render that position moot.

The chemical weapons treaty mandates protocols and procedures when someone claims a chemical attack. Like it or not, Russia is following that. Currently, the independent, third-party experts from the OPCW are on the scene in Syria.

My guess is that in a week or so they'll issue a finding that there is no evidence of an attack and US/NATO mass media will ridicule the findings, scream cover-up, and then bury the story. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Yes I chose to watch it and now after watching it I think that there should have been some responsibility taken to remove it.

You learned the wrong lesson from watching the beheading. What you should have taken away is a critical opinion of those who would support execution and practice it. If you found the execution offensive, you should have been motivated to some political action, such as writing to your local representive informing him/her of the event and what policy you want them to support in the future, and sending some of your money to groups that would help to stop similar events from happening again.

Next thing you know Youtube will allow rape videos to be submitted or torture videos. Is that what we want as a society?

Yes (if we replace YouTube with something more appropriate for videos of serious crimes and major events like LiveLeak--YouTube is more the place for funny cat videos and angry ranting). It's evidence of the crime--evidence that, once published, the criminal can't suppress or delete. The Dnepropetovsk maniacs got prosecuted because they were stupid enough to document their actions. They are still in prison. Two are there for life. One for another 2 years. (And trust me that you probably don't want to see their crime in action.)

Not in a society that I live in.

Kill yourself then. Better yet, why don't you get involved with Amnesty International, the military, your local politicians, or whatever group you personally believe best supports your wishes? Even a little donation can help a lot.

Does it change anything if it's published? Fuck no.

It shows/reminds us what kind of people they are. It (should) spur us into some kind of action.

Does it make us less human and desensitize us to future events?

Nope. It should horrify you enough that you go do something. That horror and that caring is you being human.

Does it make me want to rip the heads off the assholes who did it? More than ever.

Oh OK. Your method of doing something is impotent whining.

Some things are better left to the knowledge that they happened and leave it at that.

There is some merit to this POV, but I would honestly rather be able to personally see what I want for myself. I'd argue that, as long as the video adds to the discussion of current events, it should be publicly available in places that discuss current events if the owners of those places wish to host it.

Now, crawl back under your rock now while the adults talk fuckstick.

Slashdotters who live in glass houses...

A little suggestion: give some cash to Amnesty International. Alternatively, go join the military and "rip the heads off the assholes who did it".

are also complaining that the christmas crotch bomber was not caught. damned if you do, damned if you don't

Uh...no. Those complaining about this are generally people like me. The ones who know the underwear bomber was a moron who fucking succeed in his plot, as in, managed to get the explosive in the plane AND managed to light them. And the only one he managed to harm was himself, as he set his pants on fire.

That's what we're fighting idiots. That's what we're inconveniencing massive amounts of people and spending so much money on. Sure, every once in a while, people manage to be successful. It's far more likely that you're going to die in an armed robbery at your nearest gas station. Why don't you make the gas-stations super-secure?

Reasonable people are the ones who are willing to pay the price for the eventual terrorist now and then who is successful, because that is far better than the authority arresting every single moron making a dumbass joke online (sure, it wasn't funny, he's a moron, but the intention was a joke, not a bomb threat). People like us are tired of no longer being able to hang out with our family until boarding the plane because they can't get past the security station without boarding passes. People like us are tired of not being able to carry a bottle of water through the security x-ray machine, but high-energy lithium ion batteries with our laptops are fine. And no, that last one was not a suggestion to prohibit laptops on airplanes. It's to just fucking let me have my liquids.

In other words, I do not expect every single wrongdoer to be caught before he performs his evil actions. That's completely fucking unrealistic. In fact, we're already way past the point of diminishing returns. For every 0.01% extra safety you get, you're giving up a lot of your rights. Fuck...that. I'd rather not be that 0.01% safer.

the real world effect of ubiquitous cameras is its use AGAINST the state. understand you orwell parrotting pseudointellectual twits?

We don't want nor need the government with those cameras for that purpose. We have people with cell phone cameras, and that's enough. Except of course, that you're not allowed to do that

...they were captured on the battlefield engaging in any number of war crimes...

Except they weren't

...but we decided to play nice with them...

Except you didn't

Whilst we're on the subject of Google take a look at the Amnesty International page about them.

This is the country that calls anything that it doesn't like a state secret. You can get the death penalty for leaking a state secret. For example: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?Acti onID=157 They really don't like it if you complain about things like police brutality. That makes you a terrorist. Police brutality is a state secret after all.

So this new law will get you fined if you point out that a corrupt official who is supposed to only earn the equivalent of $10,000 is driving a new Mercedes.

I titled my post "This is China". I am by no means implying that they are the only bad guys on the block. At least one other country has recently passed a law that removes people's right to due process and virtually legalizes torture.

Yes, although I have never been to the US, it has always been my impression that justice there is dependent on the quality of your representation in court.http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?Catego ryID=10410

There have been plenty of instances of innocent people on death row for deeds that they are unlikely to have committed.

On the other hand, if you have sufficient funds (Michael Jackson, O. J. Simpson) you have a very good chance of getting a favourable verdict.

Registrant ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Registrant Name:Mel Herdon
Registrant Organization:Amnesty International UK
Registrant Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk

found it: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/

>Microsoft are evil, not because they dominate the desktop, but because, thanks to them, most people (think they) have no alternative.

Its pretty funny you really look at this argument. Most people define "Evil" as in the serious, cue-the-dramatic-music "EVIL". But here we are defining it as "monopoly over one part of a technology and becuase they act in an unethical corporate manner."

How about spending a few minutes here and seeing what true evil is. Comparitively, who cares about controlling a computer desktop or computer interoperability?

Say, are you entirely free of any clue about Amnesty International? Why don't you provide yourself with a minimum information before you start blasting off? You can start with the Amnesty site, and especially its mandate.

As you are evidently unaware, Amnesty is restricted by its mandate to work on behalf of prisoners of conscience provided that they have not used or advocated violence. This is true even for prisoners who, in addition to their use or advocacy of violence, also advocate views that a government finds unpopular, and even if the violence advocated might be viewed as legitimate resistance against an oppressive regime.

For many years, Amnesty would not work on behalf of Nelson Mandela for precisely this reason, even though he was arguably the most celebrated political prisoner in the world. Mandela advocated "armed struggle" against the apartheid regime, and the ANC was partially organized for this purpose. So Amnesty never "sponsored" him while he was in prison, as they did with numerous other prisoners around the world. (IIRC, Mandela eventually renounced "armed struggle" after he had been released.)

MoThugz, or whatever your name is, slow down, take a deep breath, and avail yourself of a little bit of information. Presenting an argument from a position of ignorance is like trying to box with your hands tied. You'll get beat up badly and look foolish in the process.

On the other hand, when one lives in a place where adultery can be fatal, discretion might be advisable. However since the internet is banned in Afghanistan I'm not sure how PGP would help.

• a) Offensive postings have a negative effect and should be avoided.
• 
  
  b) Merely posting several emails repeatedly will reduce the idea of overwhelming objection to such content policies.