Russia and Syria block chemical weapons inspectors access to the site in Douma

a reply to: Jay-morris


I really get the fact that you hate the West and believe that they are hell bent on starting WW3 because they are evil. I just don't agree with you. OK?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The final report states that a BUK was brought in from Russia the day before MH17 was shot down and then immediately brought back across the border when they realized what they had done. Don't forget that only one side had been shooting down aircraft in the weeks leading up to the tragedy.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: alldaylong

Back to insulting me, eh? To be expected from you, I suppose.

A top Russian diplomat, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, chalked up the delay to a permitting issue. The Associated Press reported that Ryabkov "says the mission wasn't allowed in because it hadn't secured the approval of the U.N. Department for Safety and Security."

However, a U.N. spokesperson told NPR's Michele Kelemen: "The United Nations has provided the necessary clearances for the OPCW team to go about its work in Douma. We have not denied the team any request for it to go to Douma."

You claimed they needed a "permit". from your source it mentions a "permitting issue" - ie the alleged permission of the UN. Permission, not permit.

It should be obvious to anyone that the Russians and Syrians are stalling the OPCW investigation. Saying that its all just down to "paperwork" is just dishonest.

I wish you would actually post quotes when you want to rely on a source.

Is there no end to your idiocy ?

PERMIT. PERMIT. PERMIT.

A senior Russian diplomat has said inspectors from the international chemical weapons watchdog cannot access the site of an alleged chemical attack near the Syrian capital without an appropriate UN permit.

www.independent.ie...

a reply to: Justoneman

Ugh. Iraq didnt stone wall. No WMDs were found. Anything carted off was probably just supporting materials or completely unrelated to chemical weapons production.

The shelf life for the chemical weapons in Iraq expired before the first gulf war. Way before the second gulf war. UN weapon inspectors reported a high success rate before the second war.

We bombed the evidence in Syria. There may be nothing left to clean up.

I dont know if you think I am dumb. I am not.

I am not buying this. It is interesting you compared this to Iraq. If the climate in the US before the Iraq war were present now, we would have invaded Syria already.

I am glad they failed at selling this potential cluster muck.

[

a reply to: alldaylong


More insults from you, how charming.

So you have now managed to find another article to the one that you previously misrepresented. Well done.

Unfortunately, this latest article does not actually quote what Mr Ryabkov said, whereas your original one did - quoting him as referring to "permitting issues" and referring to permission being waited for from the UN (which the UN denied was the case). Permission. We are not talking about "paperwork" which you keep trying to pass off as the reason for this ridiculous prevarication and delay in letting the OPCW get on with it.

So let's go with what he is actually recorded as having said, shall we, not a bit of sloppy reporting by the Independent.

Do you really have to be so unremmittingly unpleasant in your posts?

a reply to: tadaman

Did we bomb Douma? I must have missed that bit.

We bombed the evidence in Syria. There may be nothing left to clean up.

Clean up, eh? A Freudian slip, perhaps. That is exactly what Russia and Syria seem to be doing.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You see the final report there. Care to provide a quote?

Nobody saw a Russian BUK driving around, except for Bellingcat and his team of PS fakecats. I have no idea how and why you came to that conclusion after reading the intel report.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: alldaylong


More insults from you, how charming.

So you have now managed to find another article to the one that you previously misrepresented. Well done.

Unfortunately, this latest article does not actually quote what Mr Ryabkov said, whereas your original one did - quoting him as referring to "permitting issues" and referring to permission being waited for from the UN (which the UN denied was the case). Permission. We are not talking about "paperwork" which you keep trying to pass off as the reason for this ridiculous prevarication and delay in letting the OPCW get on with it.

So let's go with what he is actually recorded as having said, shall we, not a bit of sloppy reporting by the Independent.

Do you really have to be so unremmittingly unpleasant in your posts?

Oh dear God. You just don't understand do you?

If " Permits " have not been issued there of course going to be " Permitting " issues.

How plain does it have to be for you?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

That is not the final report. The JIT published their findings in September of 2016. What you linked to is from 2015. The JIT identified a BUK in separatist held territory as the weapon used in this incident.

From the JIT's presentation:

Based on the results of the criminal investigation it can be concluded that flight MH17 was shot down on 17 July 2014 by a missile of the 9M38 series, launched by a BUK-TELAR. This is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the OVV of 13 October 2015. The BUK-TELAR was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently also taken back to the Russian Federation.

Source

a reply to: alldaylong


He was talking about permission from the UN, not some stamped bit of cardboard. What sort of permit are you talking about, a permit to do what, exactly?

Is there some local law that says chemical weapons inspectors have to have a permit?

The point is that you have tried to pass off the delay as being due to "paperwork" which simply doesn't wash.

Do try to be civil, I know that it may go against the grain for you, but do please try.

a reply to: alldaylong


And - who is meant to be issuing these "permits" which you talk of?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

•• The Russian and the Ukrainian armed forces did have the capacity and potential to hit a civil aircraft at cruising altitude. However, they did not have the intention. There were no indications that they were engaged in activities (such as preparations) targeting civil aviation.
•• There were no indications that the Separatists had the capacity to hit civil air traffic at cruising altitude. Moreover, there were no indications that they would target civil air traffic or that they were engaged in activities with this objective in mind.
Prior to the crash, the MIVD and the AIVD did not possess any information that indicated that one or more of the three actors involved in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine displayed a combination of military resources, possibilities or the intention to shoot down a civil aeroplane at cruising altitude. The AIVD and the MIVD did not receive any information from partner services either that explicitly or implicitly pointed to a risk to civil aviation above Eastern Ukraine. Based on its findings, the Committee shares the assessment made by the MIVD and the AIVD: the available information did not reveal a specific threat to civil air traffic flying over the area.

english.ctivd.nl...

The JIT findings are highly suspicious due to Ukrainian secret service involvement. Furthermore, they are not supported by the Dutch intel report.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The goal of the Dutch intel report was to determine whether anyone should be culpable for having commercial airliners still flying over Ukraine.

They found that no one was at fault because at that time there was no way anticipate that a plane would be shot down. At the time MH17 was shot down there was no intelligence to indicate the separatists had a BUK. Which is understandable since it only arrived the day of the attack.

If we go with the OVV report then no one is responsible for the attack. I mean they also go into detail about how there would be no reason to believe that Ukraine or Russia would have shot down a commercial airliner.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: alldaylong


And - who is meant to be issuing these "permits" which you talk of?

Permits are issued by The United Nations Department Of Safety And Security which guarantee the safety of The OPCW Inspectors whilst on the ground.

The UN & OPCW work close in hand on such operations as this.

The OPCW has been working in close collaboration with the United Nations Department of Safety and Security to assess the situation and ensure the safety of the team.

www.opcw.org...

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Jay-morris


I really get the fact that you hate the West and believe that they are hell bent on starting WW3 because they are evil. I just don't agree with you. OK?

lol Also what I find annoying if people who cannot distinguish between government and the people!

Have you just swept under the carpet the terrible things the western governments have done over the last few decades,

Responsible for the deaths of thousands if men women and children. Had a huge hand in the rise of terrorism, and to this day, still arming terrorists for their own agenda.

This is ok is it? This is ok because this is the west?

You have ignored my posts, and just called me someone who hates the West and think they are evil.

You are completely brainwashed and conditioned. That much is evident. You cannot see what is in front of You, or you choose to ignore it!

Let's see if they are ever able to get a permit. Seems like stall tactics to me. It was still stupid to launch an attack one day before inspectors were due on site. At least then, had they refused to allow them to inspect the site, then the attack would have more credibility imo.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Um,, you said we had to bomb before things could be cleaned up. Was that a Freudian slip on your part? I dont know.

We bombed without an investigation, or evidence from an investigation. I may have missed it.

a reply to: alldaylong


This from the Director General of the OPCW today:-

Director General of the OPCW - Today's Statement

Quote:

The Team has not yet deployed to Douma. The Syrian and the Russian officials who participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM Team that there were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place.

The UNDSS is working closely with the OPCW to ensure its team's safety. Its the Russians who are stalling.

Your source mentions nothing about any "permit" needing to be issued by the UNDSS. Where are you getting this from?

The delay is because Russia and Syria is citing "pending security issues". Nothing else. Once again, your source does not say what you want it to say. This is getting to be a bit of a pattern here.

a reply to: tadaman

I said what? Where?

Again, we did not bomb Douma.

a reply to: fleabit

Let's see if they are ever able to get a permit. Seems like stall tactics to me

Would you go into a War Zone without your security being assured ?