The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Is this genocide?

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Robin Hood » Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:27 pm

Paphitis wrote:No really sorry, but an ex Ambassador of Syria is just that - a former assad henchman. And they won't be needing many Ambassadors anymore (maybe only 2 or 3) because no one will have diplomatic ties with this regime apart from a few other criminals that is like pootin. that's why they are all ex Ambassadors. They were made redundant.

By default, they don't have any credibility against anyone because the regime is a criminal regime which has committed gross crimes against humanity.


Read the title again ........ he is an EX UK AMBASSADOR TO SYRIA, SIR PETER FORD a very English name, has credibility. Once again you express an opinion completely unsupported. How can you claim you analyse anything when you can't even read plain simple English
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Londonrake » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:13 pm

So - let me get this straight.

Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?

Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?

"Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation."

Like the US - in South Vietnam? :?
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Robin Hood » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:04 pm

Londonrake wrote:So - let me get this straight.

Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?

Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?

"Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation."

Like the US - in South Vietnam? :?


Definitive? I see nothing other than an informed opinion. But you seem to accept the AI allegations as definitive and presumably, also conclusive? :roll:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Get Real! » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:10 pm

Robin Hood seems to fit the forum ethos very well… he’s an argumentative, opinionated, pompous arsehole who won’t go to bed until he feels he’s scored a win. :)
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 40036
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Londonrake » Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:00 pm

Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:So - let me get this straight.

Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?

Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?

"Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation."

Like the US - in South Vietnam? :?


Definitive? I see nothing other than an informed opinion. But you seem to accept the AI allegations as definitive and presumably, also conclusive? :roll:


Well, it's really a matter of your concept of objectivity and a balanced view.

I merely point out that you seem to dismiss the Amnesty International report out of hand on the basis that........... well, I'm not really sure. On the basis that it doesn't fit in with your personal view of the situation?

On the other hand you accept and vociferously promote the mere opinion of one man, who was the Ambassador to Syria over a decade ago and has had a somewhat questionable record since, as being gospel. Have I got it wrong? His view appears to be similar to LBJ's "He's (Assad) a bastard but at least he's our bastard".

Your regarding Amnesty International's report as "allegations" whilst accepting one man's opinion as "Informed" suggests something a bit less than objectivity. Don't you agree?

On what basis does Mr Ford form his opinion? Experience of 10 years ago? :roll: On what basis does he dismiss Amnesty International's report? It looks mostly in the vein of "It seems odd". Most of his opinions seem to emanate from the likes of Sputnik, which is a Russian State controlled broadcast outlet of course.

As an aside. You frequently talk about the righteousness of Russia's being invited into Syria by the government as the justification and legal foundation for their activities (which you clearly admire). However, in the past you have poured scorn on the USA's record in Vietnam and lauded the North Vietnamese war as being justified. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical with regard to your views of the situation in Syria? Just sayin'
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Londonrake » Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:40 pm

Londonrake wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:So - let me get this straight.

Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?

Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?

"Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation."

Like the US - in South Vietnam? :?


Definitive? I see nothing other than an informed opinion. But you seem to accept the AI allegations as definitive and presumably, also conclusive? :roll:


Well, it's really a matter of your concept of objectivity and a balanced view.

I merely point out that you seem to dismiss the Amnesty International report out of hand on the basis that........... well, I'm not really sure. On the basis that it doesn't fit in with your personal view of the situation?

On the other hand you accept and vociferously promote the mere opinion of one man, who was the Ambassador to Syria over a decade ago and has had a somewhat questionable record since, as being gospel. Have I got it wrong? His view appears to be similar to LBJ's "He's (Assad) a bastard but at least he's our bastard".

Your regarding Amnesty International's report as "allegations" whilst accepting one man's opinion as "Informed" suggests something a bit less than objectivity. Don't you agree?

On what basis does Mr Ford form his opinion? Experience of 10 years ago? :roll: On what basis does he dismiss Amnesty International's report? It looks mostly in the vein of "It seems odd". Most of his opinions seem to emanate from the likes of Sputnik, which is a Russian State controlled broadcast outlet of course. IIRC, you earlier poured scorn on the number of people Amnesty International have interviewed; however, it seems to me that you unquestionably accept Mr Ford's sole, speculative view. Isn't that all a bit less than objective? Questions, questions. :D :wink:

As an aside. You frequently talk about the righteousness of Russia's being invited into Syria by the government as the justification and legal foundation for their activities (which you clearly admire). However, in the past you have poured scorn on the USA's record in Vietnam and lauded the North Vietnamese war as being justified. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical with regard to your views of the situation in Syria? Just sayin'
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Paphitis » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:39 am

Robin Hood wrote:
Paphitis wrote:No really sorry, but an ex Ambassador of Syria is just that - a former assad henchman. And they won't be needing many Ambassadors anymore (maybe only 2 or 3) because no one will have diplomatic ties with this regime apart from a few other criminals that is like pootin. that's why they are all ex Ambassadors. They were made redundant.

By default, they don't have any credibility against anyone because the regime is a criminal regime which has committed gross crimes against humanity.


Read the title again ........ he is an EX UK AMBASSADOR TO SYRIA, SIR PETER FORD a very English name, has credibility. Once again you express an opinion completely unsupported. How can you claim you analyse anything when you can't even read plain simple English


Is that right?

At what did this ex UK Ambassador have to say about war Crimes and Crimes against Humanity?

Selective quoting and 10 second grabs don't work for me. firstly, these officials are not even allowed to go against the Foreign office.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20966
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Paphitis » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:49 am

Londonrake wrote:So - let me get this straight.

Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?

Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?

"Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation."

Like the US - in South Vietnam? :?


yes the very same organisation that has just threatened Australia or accused Australia of crimes against humanity.

In fact the lawyer which intends on trying to prosecute the Australian government at the ICJ is a Greek lawyer.

there is no question that Amnesty International isn't really biased, and generally does try very hard to prosecute and accuse countries that it deems to be violating HR. It regularly chases Western countries, Israel, Saudi Arabia.

but at the other end, North Korea, Turkey, China, Russia and Syria are NOT immune.

And it just so happens that Assad is on the nose and Amnesty International are going after him as well, and not just him. they are after pootin and accusing him of War Crimes.

there is nothing wrong with Amnesty. sometimes they go overboard, but I just don't see any bias.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20966
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Paphitis » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:51 am

Londonrake wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:So - let me get this straight.

Amnesty International, an organisation which has tended to be a pain in the ass to the West for almost half a century, (1977 Nobel Peace Prize. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights 1978) produces a report, based upon research and testimony, into State atrocities in Syria, which shows the degree of ruthlessness employed in the extermination of those deemed a threat and................... it's dismissed out of hand?

Conversely, the opinion (because that's actually all it is) of an ex UK ambassador to Syria (2003 - 2006. 11 years ago) is evidently definitive?

"Russia took the side of the elected government by invitation."

Like the US - in South Vietnam? :?


Definitive? I see nothing other than an informed opinion. But you seem to accept the AI allegations as definitive and presumably, also conclusive? :roll:


Well, it's really a matter of your concept of objectivity and a balanced view.

I merely point out that you seem to dismiss the Amnesty International report out of hand on the basis that........... well, I'm not really sure. On the basis that it doesn't fit in with your personal view of the situation?

On the other hand you accept and vociferously promote the mere opinion of one man, who was the Ambassador to Syria over a decade ago and has had a somewhat questionable record since, as being gospel. Have I got it wrong? His view appears to be similar to LBJ's "He's (Assad) a bastard but at least he's our bastard".

Your regarding Amnesty International's report as "allegations" whilst accepting one man's opinion as "Informed" suggests something a bit less than objectivity. Don't you agree?

On what basis does Mr Ford form his opinion? Experience of 10 years ago? :roll: On what basis does he dismiss Amnesty International's report? It looks mostly in the vein of "It seems odd". Most of his opinions seem to emanate from the likes of Sputnik, which is a Russian State controlled broadcast outlet of course.

As an aside. You frequently talk about the righteousness of Russia's being invited into Syria by the government as the justification and legal foundation for their activities (which you clearly admire). However, in the past you have poured scorn on the USA's record in Vietnam and lauded the North Vietnamese war as being justified. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical with regard to your views of the situation in Syria? Just sayin'


Yeh and the allegations against Australia, which alleged crimes against Humanity are ok because that fits in nicely.

Australia does have reasons to feel hard done by though. I use to work in Border protection only a few years ago and I do know what I am talking about.

The detention centres are pretty Spartan, but it was never anyone's intention to have people incarcerated for 4 years. The facilities however are not bad, and probably better living conditions that some Australians have in remote communities, Aboriginal Communities and even among our elderly due to cost of living etc. There are people below the poverty line, even in Australia, which live in worse conditions whereas in a detention centre, all illegals have all the basics and even some luxuries.

And also on a brighter note, they will all be going to USA. Somehow, trump has agreed to take them even after having some altercation with Australian PM, the details of which were leaked from the Oval office which is extremely concerning. trump needs to sack everyone and employ new people from the ground up because there are big issues and that is a security Risk to the globe. only a matter of time before someone gets pissed off.

But as with everything, Australia will just ignore the ICJ and tell them to jam it. That seems to be what everyone does.

When countries get away with massive War crimes, then it becomes a free for all.

And yes, they are hypocritical. A clear example was Vietnam as you rightly pointed out. there was NOTHING at all illegal with America's or Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Nothing at all.

You have spotted the double standards. Well done!
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20966
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Is this genocide?

Postby Robin Hood » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:16 am

Get Real! wrote:Robin Hood seems to fit the forum ethos very well… he’s an argumentative, opinionated, pompous arsehole who won’t go to bed until he feels he’s scored a win. :)


At least an arsehole has a use ..... which is more than you have. You contribute little of value to any debate. BTW: My posts are mainly very AM ......
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests