Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[ahinton]

This is quite a good article about the legality of war:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428

It's a brief one that only scratches the surface but, insofar as it goes, it is sound. Perhaps the most significant part of it are the paragraphs that read

"Ultimately though, military interventions in these circumstances are up to governments rather than lawyers.

It is for them to make the case for military intervention by showing that the legal requirements have been met.

In the case of Syria, they will argue that there is an ongoing atrocity, all peaceful means of stopping it have been exhausted, and that targeted military action could achieve the twin goals of ending the atrocity and protecting the civilian population."

Of these, the first could be (and probably is) being interpreted by some as an illustration of the risk that governments might decide to ride roughshod over bona fide legal advice. In such a context, the second therefore looks to suggest the preparedness of some governments to fabricate evidence to make it look as though it is based upon correct legal advice.

The fundamental flaw in the third seems to me to hinge upon the fact that, as has been discussed here lately, it is as yet far from clear who sponsored and perpetrated the sarin attack; arguing that all peaceful means of stopping this "ongoing atrocity" (yes, there have of course been other recent atrocities in Syria but this particularly appalling one seems not yet to have been quite typical of them, so the description "ongoing" seems somewhat less watertight than it might be) have been exhausted might be argued to carry little credibility when most people, not least those whom it is claimed have made such efforts, aren't even certain who was responsible for that attack.

All of this leans towards an argument that the very phrase "the legality of war" qualifies as a contradiction in terms.

[Pabmusic]

...The fundamental flaw in the third seems to me to hinge upon the fact that, as has been discussed here lately, it is as yet far from clear who sponsored and perpetrated the sarin attack; arguing that all peaceful means of stopping this "ongoing atrocity" (yes, there have of course been other recent atrocities in Syria but this particularly appalling one seems not yet to have been quite typical of them, so the description "ongoing" seems somewhat less watertight than it might be) have been exhausted might be argued to carry little credibility when most people, not least those whom it is claimed have made such efforts, aren't even certain who was responsible for that attack.

All of this leans towards an argument that the very phrase "the legality of war" qualifies as a contradiction in terms.

You are quite right about the third point. What is the evidence of who did this? How much will we be told? Will we find the weapons of mass...Oh! sorry. Wrong war.

I share your cynicism about the 'legality' of war, but if this article is right there does seem to be a developing doctrine of 'intervention' in certain circumstances.

[Dave2002]

"Legality" and "rights" are terms which only make sense in some form of social framework. There has to be a sufficiently powerful, and hopefully trusted, body in order to offer any rights within a "legal" framework. Essentially we are talking about social constructs, I think, though ones which are widely accepted within what we might consider to be civilised societies. Legal frameworks don't, unfortunately, always align with other views - such as "moral" ones. It is possible for acts to be illegal within a given framework, but have "moral" justification, and for acts to be legal but manifestly "immoral".

We might consider the better frameworks to be those which we can trust to a greater extent, and which align more closely with some moral values.

[Richard Barrett]

It is possible for acts to be illegal within a given framework, but have "moral" justification, and for acts to be legal but manifestly "immoral".

I think that's clear. But if there's a moral case for military intervention in Syria, what about the moral case for military intervention in Egypt, where the crackdown by the army claimed four times as many lives as the chemical attack (by whoever) in Syria? Regarding Egypt Obama says he doesn't want to take sides. In Syria he is taking the side of al-Qaeda. What kind of morality is that?

[eighthobstruction]

There will be no dossier tomorrow apparently, as tomorrows motion is debated....but there may be documents....

[Richard Barrett]

More morality:

CNN just a couple of months ago confirmed that contractors hired by the Pentagon were in fact training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

As Groucho Marx said: "These are my principles. And if you don't like them - I have others."

[Sydney Grew]

Well that's not very helpful, is it?! Why tell us that you have such an idea only to announce your resolve to keep quiet about it?

Because it's a hint a-hint-on . . .

.
.
.

[eighthobstruction]

Sydney Grew, I'm sure I saw your avatar smile....

[ahinton]

Because it's a hint a-hint-on . . .

.
.
.

But still not a helpful one of the former...

[Serial_Apologist]

Sydney Grew, I'm sure I saw your avatar smile....

Yours didn't!!!

[eighthobstruction]

Never does....

[french frank]

More morality:

CNN just a couple of months ago confirmed that contractors hired by the Pentagon were in fact training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

As Groucho Marx said: "These are my principles. And if you don't like them - I have others."

What is the truth about the controversial Michel Chossudovsky? This all seems very tortuous. What is he saying about Wikileaks? And 9/11? That the US government/CIA have both been in some shadowy way involved in both of those as well as part of their "War on Terror"? I really don't understand what's going on here.

[Richard Barrett]

What is the truth about the controversial Michel Chossudovsky? This all seems very tortuous. What is he saying about Wikileaks? And 9/11? That the US government/CIA have both been in some shadowy way involved in both of those as well as part of their "War on Terror"? I really don't understand what's going on here.

I don't know that much about him - I do know that that he runs an internet forum where various sometimes extreme opinions are aired (sound familiar?), which have sometimes been wrongly attributed to him. I guess it's impossible to know whether there's any truth in what he says about chamical weapons in this interview, but most of the rest of it ranges from uncontroversial to plausible, I think. I just thought it might be an interesting item to add to the discussion here.

[french frank]

I don't know that much about him - I do know that that he runs an internet forum where various sometimes extreme opinions are aired (sound familiar?), which have sometimes been wrongly attributed to him. I guess it's impossible to know whether there's any truth in what he says about chamical weapons in this interview, but most of the rest of it ranges from uncontroversial to plausible, I think. I just thought it might be an interesting item to add to the discussion here.

Yes, indeed, no problem with the link. But once you start delving into these things it starts to get as murky as the netherworld of espionage itself. His internet research site has various stories which are worth following up, though I would be rather cautious about believing them all. I suspect that by the time we get to learn anything, from either side, it's all propaganda.

[Resurrection Man]

No, just spin from the other side. You can read into that article whatever you like ....based on your own preconceptions.