With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

No, world leaders shouldn't be held to account.

What kind of dumb title is that?

In the 2 instances you cite:

Either Russia poisoned Skripal or it didn't

Either Syria used chemical weapons or it didn't.

Theresa May didn't just say she had proof without base. It was confirmed by government scientists and independently confirmed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

I don't think Emmanuel Macron pulled it out of his a*s either.

The undertone here is you don't trust them and think it's all a game solely to "destabilize the world geopolitical system."

What more "proof" would you like? Something tells me you could run the test yourself and you'd disagree with the results.

jetero wrote:

No, world leaders shouldn't be held to account.

What kind of dumb title is that?

In the 2 instances you cite:

Either Russia poisoned Skripal or it didn't

Either Syria used chemical weapons or it didn't.

Theresa May didn't just say she had proof without base. It was confirmed by government scientists and independently confirmed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

I don't think Emmanuel Macron pulled it out of his a*s either.

The undertone here is you don't trust them and think it's all a game solely to "destabilize the world geopolitical system."

What more "proof" would you like? Something tells me you could run the test yourself and you'd disagree with the results.

The two bodies you mention have specifically not implicated Russia, as they have said themselves, that isn't their job.

Macron has supplied no evidence yet.

So I take it, it's 1 vote for leaders can say whatever they like with no accountability. I'll mark it on my tally.

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Freakysh wrote:

So I take it, it's 1 vote for leaders can say whatever they like with no accountability. I'll mark it on my tally.

You do that, buddy.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Thanks dutchy, for an ad always assumptive contribution to the boards. If there was ever a user Hall of fame for A-Net, it would be remiss not to have you in the inaugural list.

But I digress. Yes, absolutely, Putin should be held to account, just as Assad should be, no doubt. And if they are guilty, then they get what they deserve.

We just have a slight sticking point. Currently, the Russians did it because may said so. And it looks like Assad did it because Macron said so. Should we leave it at that, or should we insist on some elaboration?

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Thanks dutchy, for an ad always assumptive contribution to the boards. If there was ever a user Hall of fame for A-Net, it would be remiss not to have you in the inaugural list.

But I digress. Yes, absolutely, Putin should be held to account, just as Assad should be, no doubt. And if they are guilty, then they get what they deserve.

We just have a slight sticking point. Currently, the Russians did it because may said so. And it looks like Assad did it because Macron said so. Should we leave it at that, or should we insist on some elaboration?

Don't you think even if these qualifications were untrue, it is small compared to actually killing people and destabilizing countries? So why do you focus on these alleged untruths? You chose to open this thread, you choose these examples, your assertion that it is even a lie.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Thanks dutchy, for an ad always assumptive contribution to the boards. If there was ever a user Hall of fame for A-Net, it would be remiss not to have you in the inaugural list.

But I digress. Yes, absolutely, Putin should be held to account, just as Assad should be, no doubt. And if they are guilty, then they get what they deserve.

We just have a slight sticking point. Currently, the Russians did it because may said so. And it looks like Assad did it because Macron said so. Should we leave it at that, or should we insist on some elaboration?

Don't you think even if these qualifications were untrue, it is small compared to actually killing people and destabilizing countries? So why do you focus on these alleged untruths? You chose to open this thread, you choose these examples, your assertion that it is even a lie.

You are much more eloquent than I am.

You’ll likely be a hash mark (as I am) for “world leaders can do whatever they want.”

The premise is dumb, as you and I have illustrated.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Why would you hold Putin or Assad responsible, but not Bush or Blair for invading Iraq?

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Why would you hold Putin or Assad responsible, but not Bush or Blair for invading Iraq?

Bush got a shoe thrown at him at least. Iraq pt 2 is not something anyone approves of( and those who did initially won't admit to it now), and Bush is still considered a terrible president. He's just now not considered the worst.

Oh, you meant real accountability? He's rich, welcome to the American way. At least he shows some remorse for his past actions.

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

Yup, Assad and Putin should be given the chance to defend themselves in front of the International Crime court, if their home countries make legally binding guarantees that they will be handed over for imprisonment if found guilty.

As long as they are not willing to face a real trial, the have no more right to complain than Trump to claim those women accusing him of sexual assault doesn´t sue them for libel, as he promised to do.

All three have zero reason not to face trial, in fact they have no reason to not force a trial themselves if they are in fact not guilty. But that is never going to happen, because all three know they aren´t innocent.

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system,

I´d rather think using chemical weapons on their own citizens, as both Putin and Assad have done, is a good way to destabilize the globe.

yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

Well, there are journalists that understand that Governments never reveal sources and methods, especially because sources in Russia turn out to be conveniently dead if they are found out. Even when on foreign soil..

They also understand that dozens of countries privy to those sources and methods agreeing to those allegations would present an unprecedented conspiracy, considering the fact that even much smaller conspiracies leak. Heck, the Russians couldn´t even keep their troops in Eastern Ukraine secret and where even incompetent enough to send tanks that only the Russian army has and ever had.....

There is exactly no reason to believe the Evidence is anything but overwhelming. On top of that in both cases the accused are the only ones having a motive.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Thanks dutchy, for an ad always assumptive contribution to the boards. If there was ever a user Hall of fame for A-Net, it would be remiss not to have you in the inaugural list.

But I digress. Yes, absolutely, Putin should be held to account, just as Assad should be, no doubt. And if they are guilty, then they get what they deserve.

We just have a slight sticking point. Currently, the Russians did it because may said so. And it looks like Assad did it because Macron said so. Should we leave it at that, or should we insist on some elaboration?

Don't you think even if these qualifications were untrue, it is small compared to actually killing people and destabilizing countries? So why do you focus on these alleged untruths? You chose to open this thread, you choose these examples, your assertion that it is even a lie.

They are not small because they are being used for a bigger agenda. Britain and France don't give a shit about Skripal or Assad the dictator. Why do you think Russia and Iran are of such big interest? I'm thinking outside of what is fed to you by the media.

tommy1808 wrote:

. On top of that in both cases the accused are the only ones having a motive.

best regards
Thomas

Do you know how ridiculous you sound.

Assad had the upper hand in his fight to get back his country. He was winning.

So what does he decide to do? Jeopardize it all by using chemical weapons that he knows will totally undermine his position and reverse the progress he's made.

Great motive.

You guys are completely blind to what is happening in the world

Freakysh wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

. On top of that in both cases the accused are the only ones having a motive.

best regards
Thomas

Do you know how ridiculous you sound.

Assad had the upper hand in his fight to get back his country. He was winning.

So what does he decide to do? Jeopardize it all by using chemical weapons that he knows will totally undermine his position and reverse the progress he's made.

Great motive.

Considering that he got away with it last time, he has no reason not to do it again.
It also serves his narrative very much to actually do that, because he knows plenty of people will defend the undefensable and paint him a victim of a conspiracy.

No one needs a pretext to attack him, hence no one has a motive. Well, maybe the Russians have to offer Trump a way to show he doesn't collude with them, without risking to many Russian lives. And "see, I am tough on Putin is a good start to do something about sanction lifting.

The Putin regime has gotten really good in triggering conspiracy theorists.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

. On top of that in both cases the accused are the only ones having a motive.

best regards
Thomas

Do you know how ridiculous you sound.

Assad had the upper hand in his fight to get back his country. He was winning.

So what does he decide to do? Jeopardize it all by using chemical weapons that he knows will totally undermine his position and reverse the progress he's made.

Great motive.

Considering that he got away with it last time, he has no reason not to do it again.
It also serves his narrative very much to actually do that, because he knows plenty of people will defend the undefensable and paint him a victim of a conspiracy.

No one needs a pretext to attack him, hence no one has a motive. Well, maybe the Russians have to offer Trump a way to show he doesn't collude with them, without risking to many Russian lives. And "see, I am tough on Putin is a good start to do something about sanction lifting.

The Putin regime has gotten really good in triggering conspiracy theorists.

Best regards
Thomas

Wow, really?

You're winning, have absolutely no need to use chemical weapons. Then, by using chemical weapons you fully risk everything you've gained in the last twelve months.

Sorry Tommy, you're delusional and clueless.

Sorry, double post.

jetero wrote:

Theresa May didn't just say she had proof without base. It was confirmed by government scientists and independently confirmed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Those scientists did nothing of the sort, Porton Downs even confirmed that they don't know who made it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 86761.html

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/w ... 60b9c6de66

And then there's all the manufactured evidence and downright lies which led to the Second Gulf War, both Bush and Blair should have been hung Mussolini style for those lies.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

Correct.

And the same thing is playing out here again.

Syria is geographically strategic and important. It decides who controls Europe in the future. Everyone has a stake in the game.

This is not about Assad being an asshole (well not in the way you are being told he is being an asshole). This is about who can get their hands on Syrian soil. It's a high stakes game, hence why we are seeing so much anti Assad and and Putin rhetoric. The US would have bombed Assad out of Syria years ago, but Russia has an interest here, so it's a bit harder since you don't want to go to war with them, it's a bit more delicate.

To suggest this a good guy/bad guy situation here is total bullshit. There's two sides going head to head. Neither give a fuck about the people on the opposing side nor the people of Syria or Iran. It's all a play for future security and power. Don't kid yourselves, the West will do whatever is necessary to position themselves, including lying to us plebs.

tommy1808 wrote:

Yup, Assad and Putin should be given the chance to defend themselves in front of the International Crime court, if their home countries make legally binding guarantees that they will be handed over for imprisonment if found guilty.

There is exactly no reason to believe the Evidence is anything but overwhelming. On top of that in both cases the accused are the only ones having a motive.

best regards
Thomas

By that same token the evidence is absolutly overwhelming that Bush and Blair both lied to start Gulf war Two, do you really expect the US and UK govts to hand over those dickheads for trial, both are responsible for far more death, destruction and general mayhem than Putin or Assad. Pull the blinkers off.

Kiwirob wrote:

[

By that same token the evidence is absolutly overwhelming that Bush and Blair both lied to start Gulf war Two, do you really expect the US and UK govts to hand over those dickheads for trial, both are responsible for far more death, destruction and general mayhem than Putin or Assad. Pull the blinkers off.

I want to see all those Iraqi militants on trial for causing the majority of that death and destruction actually.

Because they are the ones who killed the most people aren't they.

Kiwirob wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Yup, Assad and Putin should be given the chance to defend themselves in front of the International Crime court, if their home countries make legally binding guarantees that they will be handed over for imprisonment if found guilty.

There is exactly no reason to believe the Evidence is anything but overwhelming. On top of that in both cases the accused are the only ones having a motive.

best regards
Thomas

By that same token the evidence is absolutly overwhelming that Bush and Blair both lied to start Gulf war Two, do you really expect the US and UK govts to hand over those dickheads for trial

In a just world Putin and Assad move into cells just next to those too.

Best regards
Thomas

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

[

By that same token the evidence is absolutly overwhelming that Bush and Blair both lied to start Gulf war Two, do you really expect the US and UK govts to hand over those dickheads for trial, both are responsible for far more death, destruction and general mayhem than Putin or Assad. Pull the blinkers off.

I want to see all those Iraqi militants on trial for causing the majority of that death and destruction actually.

Because they are the ones who killed the most people aren't they.

Those militants wouldn’t have existed if Bush and Blair hadn’t invaded Iraq based on a lie. All traces back to those guys.

Kiwirob wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

[

By that same token the evidence is absolutly overwhelming that Bush and Blair both lied to start Gulf war Two, do you really expect the US and UK govts to hand over those dickheads for trial, both are responsible for far more death, destruction and general mayhem than Putin or Assad. Pull the blinkers off.

I want to see all those Iraqi militants on trial for causing the majority of that death and destruction actually.

Because they are the ones who killed the most people aren't they.

Those militants wouldn’t have existed if Bush and Blair hadn’t invaded Iraq based on a lie. All traces back to those guys.

Plus, there is no particular reasons why those couldn't be prosecuted, shall Iraq chose to.

Best regards
Thomas

If I've said it once, I've said it 36 times, social media is the panacea of mankind.

Kiwirob wrote:

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

So should Clinton and the other members of congress that voted for it go to?

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

So should Clinton and the other members of congress that voted for it go to?

The buck stops at the President and in the UK’s case the Prime Minister.

tommy1808 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I want to see all those Iraqi militants on trial for causing the majority of that death and destruction actually.

Because they are the ones who killed the most people aren't they.

Those militants wouldn’t have existed if Bush and Blair hadn’t invaded Iraq based on a lie. All traces back to those guys.

Plus, there is no particular reasons why those couldn't be prosecuted, shall Iraq chose to.

Best regards
Thomas

yeah, no reasons at all.

Clueless

Check out @MarkWeisbrot’s Tweet:

https://twitter.com/MarkWeisbrot/status ... 57056?s=09

Thanks Obama

Thanks main stream media

Thanks America

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Thanks dutchy, for an ad always assumptive contribution to the boards. If there was ever a user Hall of fame for A-Net, it would be remiss not to have you in the inaugural list.

But I digress. Yes, absolutely, Putin should be held to account, just as Assad should be, no doubt. And if they are guilty, then they get what they deserve.

We just have a slight sticking point. Currently, the Russians did it because may said so. And it looks like Assad did it because Macron said so. Should we leave it at that, or should we insist on some elaboration?

Don't you think even if these qualifications were untrue, it is small compared to actually killing people and destabilizing countries? So why do you focus on these alleged untruths? You chose to open this thread, you choose these examples, your assertion that it is even a lie.

They are not small because they are being used for a bigger agenda. Britain and France don't give a shit about Skripal or Assad the dictator. Why do you think Russia and Iran are of such big interest? I'm thinking outside of what is fed to you by the media.

Yup, you think about defending Putin and you do a lousy job if I may add. The other two are better. Russia aint that important, sorry to bring it to you like this.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

They are not small because they are being used for a bigger agenda. Britain and France don't give a shit about Skripal or Assad the dictator. Why do you think Russia and Iran are of such big interest? I'm thinking outside of what is fed to you by the media.

Yup, you think about defending Putin and you do a lousy job if I may add. The other two are better. Russia aint that important, sorry to bring it to you like this.

I don't care about Putin

Just trying to make sense of why all this is happening

It appears you do care about Putin a lot, so I simply don't believe you. Why do you start a thread about this and come with two minor examples and ignore the real killing? I have seen no criticism at the Putin regime at all, none.

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Don't you think even if these qualifications were untrue, it is small compared to actually killing people and destabilizing countries? So why do you focus on these alleged untruths? You chose to open this thread, you choose these examples, your assertion that it is even a lie.

They are not small because they are being used for a bigger agenda. Britain and France don't give a shit about Skripal or Assad the dictator. Why do you think Russia and Iran are of such big interest? I'm thinking outside of what is fed to you by the media.

Yup, you think about defending Putin and you do a lousy job if I may add. The other two are better. Russia aint that important, sorry to bring it to you like this.

I don't care about Putin

Just trying to make sense of why all this is happening

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yup, you think about defending Putin and you do a lousy job if I may add. The other two are better. Russia aint that important, sorry to bring it to you like this.

I don't care about Putin

Just trying to make sense of why all this is happening

It appears you do care about Putin a lot, so I simply don't believe you. Why do you start a thread about this and come with two minor examples and ignore the real killing? I have seen no criticism at the Putin regime at all, none.

Because this forum would then be an echo chamber. There's no need for me to join the attack on Putin on here, it's well covered. My not criticising Putin in here does not equate to me supporting Putin.

Freakysh wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

I don't care about Putin

Just trying to make sense of why all this is happening

It appears you do care about Putin a lot, so I simply don't believe you. Why do you start a thread about this and come with two minor examples and ignore the real killing? I have seen no criticism at the Putin regime at all, none.

Because this forum would then be an echo chamber. There's no need for me to join the attack on Putin on here, it's well covered. My not criticising Putin in here does not equate to me supporting Putin.

If you want to address such a serious question like should leaders be held accountable, you damn well make sure you come up with examples which really need to be addressed, otherwise, you are rightfully laughed at.

World leaders, or countries which they represent, are autonomous. If you want to have them held accountable, the threshold is high, very high. From a moral point of view is the violation of recognized borders, genocide, mass murder, gross violations of human rights. These kinds of things, not falsely accusations. That is just plain stupid. Moreover, because you haven't even proven that they did these petty crimes in the first place.

Dutchy wrote:

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

First, that is yet to be established who kills whom everywhere. For keep forgetting - Russia is in Syria is legitimately, having been invited by legitimate leadership of the country. Western coalition is not - hence any casualties by their strikes should be treated as an aggression and war crimes. BTW, the news have it that British have to do with the most recent "chemical" incident in Syria. They even said they've been on the spot and have a proof.

Dutchy wrote:

If you want to address such a serious question like should leaders be held accountable, you damn well make sure you come up with examples which really need to be addressed, otherwise, you are rightfully laughed at.

World leaders, or countries which they represent, are autonomous. If you want to have them held accountable, the threshold is high, very high. From a moral point of view is the violation of recognized borders, genocide, mass murder, gross violations of human rights. These kinds of things, not falsely accusations. That is just plain stupid. Moreover, because you haven't even proven that they did these petty crimes in the first place.

Huh? What am I reading? Since when Dutchy started caring about proof of anything? Isn't "highly likely" enough any more?

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

First, that is yet to be established who kills whom everywhere. For keep forgetting - Russia is in Syria is legitimately, having been invited by legitimate leadership of the country. Western coalition is not - hence any casualties by their strikes should be treated as an aggression and war crimes. BTW, the news have it that British have to do with the most recent "chemical" incident in Syria. They even said they've been on the spot and have a proof.

This is about a leader killing the people. With barrel bombs and perhaps chemical weapons. This thread has nothing to do with Putin's help in Syrian.

Freakysh wrote:

I don't care about Putin

Just trying to make sense of why all this is happening

If only that were true.... (either statement)

Dutchy wrote:

It appears you do care about Putin a lot, so I simply don't believe you. Why do you start a thread about this and come with two minor examples and ignore the real killing? I have seen no criticism at the Putin regime at all, none.

Freakysh wrote:

Because this forum would then be an echo chamber. There's no need for me to join the attack on Putin on here, it's well covered. My not criticising Putin in here does not equate to me supporting Putin.

Breaking News; this thread itself is just a mirror-image for all the threads casting doubt on Russia, where you undermine so many arguments..
In this case, you are attempting to turn the tables, and it cannot be such a surprise that the same voices are now seeking to return the favor by undermining your argument.

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

I have quoted your OP because the thread title alone is rarely the full story.
I note you have specifically refined your question to talk about "bold statements", "claims", and "comments", but seemingly exclude any actions. This conveniently lets a whole bunch of real criminals off the hook. But I'm sure you have your reasons....

A simplistic analogy would be to argue for my indictment for verbally insulting you in some way, whilst ignoring your response which could be to say very little, just shoot me dead. Am I missing something? It seems a little contrived.

Notwithstanding your very narrow brief;
1) ALL world leaders should be accountable for their actions (& to a lesser extent for their words). Where the leader is merely a figurehead, who requires the support of an independent senate or parliament, where free voting is allowed, then prosecuting the leader alone would be inappropriate. Arguably you should make the entire political machine accountable, and arguably the entire population of the country that assigned them power to act in a certain way.
2) Where the leader is more dictatorial in nature, or controls a political party that is devoid of independent reasoning and/or has been elected by virtue of a flawed or corrupt version of democracy, even then it could be argued that the entire political system is at fault, not just the man at the top. All you can say here is that the ordinary people are less culpable. Unless the population fully acknowledge the corrupt nature of things but support the system anyway.

And now you can have fun trying to work out if I am referring to Russia, the USA, or both?

3) Primarily leaders should be accountable to their own people, but this assumes two basic realities
a) the people are able to make the leaders suffer, by means of free elections, and if appropriate legal action (e.g. impeachment) through a free & independent court
system.
b) the people have access to independent media so that their decision can be an informed one.

A country that feeds it's people a diet of propaganda, and restricts access to world media sources, or handcuffs any political opposition, poses problems.


Taking the case of US President Richard Nixon; his reputation was heavily dented, and after resigning;

Congress had funded Nixon's transition costs, including some salary expenses, though reducing the appropriation from $850,000 to $200,000. With some of his staff still with him, Nixon was at his desk by 7 a.m.—with little to do. His former press secretary, Ron Ziegler, sat with him alone for hours each day

O.K., so it wasn't exactly prison or a firing squad, but it wasn't the golden retirement expected by most retired US Presidents.

In the case of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his reputation was shattered too. After winning a total of three General Elections in charge of the Labour Party, at 43 years of age becoming the youngest Prime Minister since 1812, and in September 1997 receiving a 93% public approval rating, his standing should have been cemented into British history alongside Winston Churchill. But that's not how he is viewed today. Since the Iraq War, Blair has been the subject of war crimes accusations from a variety of sources, most notably at home. Again, it hasn't resulted in any time behind bars, or execution by firing squad, but he has to pick and choose his engagements carefully; he is persona non grata in many UK universities.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

I have quoted your OP because the thread title alone is rarely the full story.
I note you have specifically refined your question to talk about "bold statements", "claims", and "comments", but seemingly exclude any actions. This conveniently lets a whole bunch of real criminals off the hook. But I'm sure you have your reasons....

A simplistic analogy would be to argue for my indictment for verbally insulting you in some way, whilst ignoring your response which could be to say very little, just shoot me dead. Am I missing something? It seems a little contrived.

Notwithstanding your very narrow brief;
1) ALL world leaders should be accountable for their actions (& to a lesser extent for their words). Where the leader is merely a figurehead, who requires the support of an independent senate or parliament, where free voting is allowed, then prosecuting the leader alone would be inappropriate. Arguably you should make the entire political machine accountable, and arguably the entire population of the country that assigned them power to act in a certain way.
2) Where the leader is more dictatorial in nature, or controls a political party that is devoid of independent reasoning and/or has been elected by virtue of a flawed or corrupt version of democracy, even then it could be argued that the entire political system is at fault, not just the man at the top. All you can say here is that the ordinary people are less culpable. Unless the population fully acknowledge the corrupt nature of things but support the system anyway.

And now you can have fun trying to work out if I am referring to Russia, the USA, or both?

3) Primarily leaders should be accountable to their own people, but this assumes two basic realities
a) the people are able to make the leaders suffer, by means of free elections, and if appropriate legal action (e.g. impeachment) through a free & independent court
system.
b) the people have access to independent media so that their decision can be an informed one.

A country that feeds it's people a diet of propaganda, and restricts access to world media sources, or handcuffs any political opposition, poses problems.


Taking the case of US President Richard Nixon; his reputation was heavily dented, and after resigning;

Congress had funded Nixon's transition costs, including some salary expenses, though reducing the appropriation from $850,000 to $200,000. With some of his staff still with him, Nixon was at his desk by 7 a.m.—with little to do. His former press secretary, Ron Ziegler, sat with him alone for hours each day

O.K., so it wasn't exactly prison or a firing squad, but it wasn't the golden retirement expected by most retired US Presidents.

In the case of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his reputation was shattered too. After winning a total of three General Elections in charge of the Labour Party, at 43 years of age becoming the youngest Prime Minister since 1812, and in September 1997 receiving a 93% public approval rating, his standing should have been cemented into British history alongside Winston Churchill. But that's not how he is viewed today. Since the Iraq War, Blair has been the subject of war crimes accusations from a variety of sources, most notably at home. Again, it hasn't resulted in any time behind bars, or execution by firing squad, but he has to pick and choose his engagements carefully; he is persona non grata in many UK universities.

TLDR

Freakysh wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

With recent events seeing leaders come out with bold statements, like the recent claims by Therese May saying the Russians were responsible for the Skripals poisoning, and just now President Macron claiming he has proof the Syrian government is behind chemical attacks in Douma, should they be held to greater account, when ultimately no proof is given, and on most occasions, over time, these claims backtrack or just conveniently disappear from discussion?

It seems these comments are designed purely to destabilise the world geopolitical system, yet these people are never pushed by the media to explain themselves. Why are these comments taken at face value?

I have quoted your OP because the thread title alone is rarely the full story.
I note you have specifically refined your question to talk about "bold statements", "claims", and "comments", but seemingly exclude any actions. This conveniently lets a whole bunch of real criminals off the hook. But I'm sure you have your reasons....

A simplistic analogy would be to argue for my indictment for verbally insulting you in some way, whilst ignoring your response which could be to say very little, just shoot me dead. Am I missing something? It seems a little contrived.

Notwithstanding your very narrow brief;
1) ALL world leaders should be accountable for their actions (& to a lesser extent for their words). Where the leader is merely a figurehead, who requires the support of an independent senate or parliament, where free voting is allowed, then prosecuting the leader alone would be inappropriate. Arguably you should make the entire political machine accountable, and arguably the entire population of the country that assigned them power to act in a certain way.
2) Where the leader is more dictatorial in nature, or controls a political party that is devoid of independent reasoning and/or has been elected by virtue of a flawed or corrupt version of democracy, even then it could be argued that the entire political system is at fault, not just the man at the top. All you can say here is that the ordinary people are less culpable. Unless the population fully acknowledge the corrupt nature of things but support the system anyway.

And now you can have fun trying to work out if I am referring to Russia, the USA, or both?

3) Primarily leaders should be accountable to their own people, but this assumes two basic realities
a) the people are able to make the leaders suffer, by means of free elections, and if appropriate legal action (e.g. impeachment) through a free & independent court
system.
b) the people have access to independent media so that their decision can be an informed one.

A country that feeds it's people a diet of propaganda, and restricts access to world media sources, or handcuffs any political opposition, poses problems.


Taking the case of US President Richard Nixon; his reputation was heavily dented, and after resigning;

Congress had funded Nixon's transition costs, including some salary expenses, though reducing the appropriation from $850,000 to $200,000. With some of his staff still with him, Nixon was at his desk by 7 a.m.—with little to do. His former press secretary, Ron Ziegler, sat with him alone for hours each day

O.K., so it wasn't exactly prison or a firing squad, but it wasn't the golden retirement expected by most retired US Presidents.

In the case of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his reputation was shattered too. After winning a total of three General Elections in charge of the Labour Party, at 43 years of age becoming the youngest Prime Minister since 1812, and in September 1997 receiving a 93% public approval rating, his standing should have been cemented into British history alongside Winston Churchill. But that's not how he is viewed today. Since the Iraq War, Blair has been the subject of war crimes accusations from a variety of sources, most notably at home. Again, it hasn't resulted in any time behind bars, or execution by firing squad, but he has to pick and choose his engagements carefully; he is persona non grata in many UK universities.

TLDR

#Winner

The person who started the thread in the name of dialogue can’t be bothered to read responses.

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

First, that is yet to be established who kills whom everywhere. For keep forgetting - Russia is in Syria is legitimately, having been invited by legitimate leadership of the country. Western coalition is not - hence any casualties by their strikes should be treated as an aggression and war crimes. BTW, the news have it that British have to do with the most recent "chemical" incident in Syria. They even said they've been on the spot and have a proof.

This is about a leader killing the people. With barrel bombs and perhaps chemical weapons. This thread has nothing to do with Putin's help in Syrian.

Who's killing whom in some other country - it's none of your business; legislature, court system, law enforcement in that country is there for that. Not your armed forces, submarines and tomahawks.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes I know, you set up this thread to provoke a reaction. But, Yes, if the crime is big enough, leaders of countries should be held accountable. So Putin should be held accountable for wars he created, Assad should be held accountable for all his regime's war crimes. Excellent topic, poor examples, even if your Russian version is true, it still doesn't justify international accountability, France and UK are all democracies, so they will be held accountable in their parliament. This isn't your Putin's Russia where there is no accountability for your dear leader.

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

And it will always be a case of whataboutism the West is having a go at these guys when they won’t touch the liars who lead us into this in the first place. You can directly link the invasion of Iraq to all of the mess which followed, including the Arab spring movement and Syria.

Kiwirob wrote:

And it will always be a case of whataboutism the West is having a go at these guys when they won’t touch the liars who lead us into this in the first place. You can directly link the invasion of Iraq to all of the mess which followed, including the Arab spring movement and Syria.

of course West won't go after its own "liars". After all - where have you seen a "court" or a "tribunal" appointed by a group of war criminals investigating that very same group of war criminals? Such a tribunal will have to be appointed by someone else. And I do maintain a little hope that this day will come.

jetero wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

I have quoted your OP because the thread title alone is rarely the full story.
I note you have specifically refined your question to talk about "bold statements", "claims", and "comments", but seemingly exclude any actions. This conveniently lets a whole bunch of real criminals off the hook. But I'm sure you have your reasons....

A simplistic analogy would be to argue for my indictment for verbally insulting you in some way, whilst ignoring your response which could be to say very little, just shoot me dead. Am I missing something? It seems a little contrived.

Notwithstanding your very narrow brief;
1) ALL world leaders should be accountable for their actions (& to a lesser extent for their words). Where the leader is merely a figurehead, who requires the support of an independent senate or parliament, where free voting is allowed, then prosecuting the leader alone would be inappropriate. Arguably you should make the entire political machine accountable, and arguably the entire population of the country that assigned them power to act in a certain way.
2) Where the leader is more dictatorial in nature, or controls a political party that is devoid of independent reasoning and/or has been elected by virtue of a flawed or corrupt version of democracy, even then it could be argued that the entire political system is at fault, not just the man at the top. All you can say here is that the ordinary people are less culpable. Unless the population fully acknowledge the corrupt nature of things but support the system anyway.

And now you can have fun trying to work out if I am referring to Russia, the USA, or both?

3) Primarily leaders should be accountable to their own people, but this assumes two basic realities
a) the people are able to make the leaders suffer, by means of free elections, and if appropriate legal action (e.g. impeachment) through a free & independent court
system.
b) the people have access to independent media so that their decision can be an informed one.

A country that feeds it's people a diet of propaganda, and restricts access to world media sources, or handcuffs any political opposition, poses problems.


Taking the case of US President Richard Nixon; his reputation was heavily dented, and after resigning;
O.K., so it wasn't exactly prison or a firing squad, but it wasn't the golden retirement expected by most retired US Presidents.

In the case of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his reputation was shattered too. After winning a total of three General Elections in charge of the Labour Party, at 43 years of age becoming the youngest Prime Minister since 1812, and in September 1997 receiving a 93% public approval rating, his standing should have been cemented into British history alongside Winston Churchill. But that's not how he is viewed today. Since the Iraq War, Blair has been the subject of war crimes accusations from a variety of sources, most notably at home. Again, it hasn't resulted in any time behind bars, or execution by firing squad, but he has to pick and choose his engagements carefully; he is persona non grata in many UK universities.

TLDR

#Winner

The person who started the thread in the name of dialogue can’t be bothered to read responses.

The sheikh was obviously trolling. I read it, but it had so many holes and absurdism that I didn't want to feed the troll.

So, as was appropriate to his post, I posted a counter troll.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

And it will always be a case of whataboutism the West is having a go at these guys when they won’t touch the liars who lead us into this in the first place. You can directly link the invasion of Iraq to all of the mess which followed, including the Arab spring movement and Syria.

They can't see this.

Dutchy, jetero et al are hypocrites

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

First, that is yet to be established who kills whom everywhere. For keep forgetting - Russia is in Syria is legitimately, having been invited by legitimate leadership of the country. Western coalition is not - hence any casualties by their strikes should be treated as an aggression and war crimes. BTW, the news have it that British have to do with the most recent "chemical" incident in Syria. They even said they've been on the spot and have a proof.

This is about a leader killing the people. With barrel bombs and perhaps chemical weapons. This thread has nothing to do with Putin's help in Syrian.

Who's killing whom in some other country - it's none of your business; legislature, court system, law enforcement in that country is there for that. Not your armed forces, submarines and tomahawks.

You have been told many times, it is a cynical point of view, which I could respect somewhat, if - and that is a very big if - you would condemn Putin's regime for meddling in a number of other countries. But you don't, you are a Russian troll defending Putin and are morally very flexible in doing this.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Gulf War Two says bullshit to that theory, both democratically elected leaders and there governments where not held to account for what happened, in fact both govts whitewashed it and continue to whitewash it to this day. Both Blair and Bush should be behind bars for life for the lies they told to start the war with Iraq.

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

And it will always be a case of whataboutism the West is having a go at these guys when they won’t touch the liars who lead us into this in the first place. You can directly link the invasion of Iraq to all of the mess which followed, including the Arab spring movement and Syria.

ISIS is a direct result of a failing Iraqi policy. The Arab spring not so much, unless I am missing something. So show us how the Arab spring, started in Tunisia is the direct result of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Freakysh wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

First I agree, Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this. But secondly, it is still whataboutism. We live in this moment and we need to start somewhere. The Iraq war was 15 years ago. Assad is still killing Syrians today with help of the Putin regime. But good to see that you agree that leaders like Assad and Putin should stand trial for this.

And it will always be a case of whataboutism the West is having a go at these guys when they won’t touch the liars who lead us into this in the first place. You can directly link the invasion of Iraq to all of the mess which followed, including the Arab spring movement and Syria.

They can't see this.

Dutchy, jetero et al are hypocrites

haha, that qualification from your mouth is a compliment for me and Jetero, thanks man!