UN team finds no proof on chemical weapons

[bananas]

Source: Agence France-Presse

United Nations investigators have listed a wide range of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Syria, but provided no conclusion on the issue of chemical weapons use.

<snip>

The report does not address the period after July 15, which includes the August 21 suspected chemical attack on civilians near Damascus that sparked international outrage and could still lead to US-led military strikes, despite intense diplomatic efforts to avoid them.

In Wednesday's statement though, the four-member commission led by Brazilian Paulo Sergio Pinheiro insisted on the "need for accountability, both to bring to justice those who used them (chemical weapons, if confirmed) ... and to deter anyone else from using these abhorrent methods of warfare."

<snip>

"Failure to bring about a political settlement has allowed the conflict not only to deepen in its intransigence but also to widen, expanding to new actors and to new, previously unimaginable crimes," the commission said.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/un-team-finds-no-proof-on-chemical-weapons-20130911-2tkv1.html

[bananas]

1. "The report does not address the period after July 15, which includes the August 21 suspected chemic

"The report does not address the period after July 15, which includes the August 21 suspected chemical attack"

Wanted to emphasis this for anyone who didn't read beyond the headline.

[Ghost Dog]

30. Yeah. And the terms of reference of the current UN inspection/inquiry

exclude any possible evidence pointing towards... who really did it.

[sharp_stick]

2. Kind of a reach on that title

as this report has nothing to do with the investigation going on into the alleged chemical attack.

But they gotta sell papers or views I guess so they'll write what they want anyway.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Thanks. I was wondering: "WTF? This can't be THE UN report we've all been waiting for" nt

[bananas]

8. That's what I thought when I saw it. nt

[DallasNE]

17. Yes, A Big Disappointment

And I see this happening all too often here on DU.

Perhaps they need to extend juries to block these articles unless the author corrects the title to something more appropriate. I hope EarlG is listening.

[sharp_stick]

18. Unfortunately that title

was the title of the actual article from an actual "well regarded" news source.

If I understand the rules of LBN the poster can't make any changes to the title of a story.

About all you can do is make note of the stupid title in a reply and hope people actually read the story. This being the internet though it's much easier to jump on the title and pretend to know everything.

[bananas]

20. An LBN article will be locked if it doesn't use the exact same title.

That's the rule for LBN, and threads get locked all the time for violating it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014

Latest Breaking News (Forum): About This Forum

<snip>

Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

<snip>

[Turborama]

25. I have brought this up in the hosts forum

And consensus so far is looking like clarification in parenthesis is allowed when necessary. But clarifications only when necessary, no editorializing.

So, adding (May 15 to July 15) - if that's the period of the investigation - at the end of the headline would be ok, for example.

[DallasNE]

28. This Shouldn't Be A Get Out Of Jail Free Card

Since the article didn't really reveal much that we didn't already know there was little to recommend it for posting other than the highly misleading, indeed shocking title. A prudent person would have refrained from posting this given the rules for posting. But thanks for the link. It looks like this author took advantage of the rule and somewhat used it as a get out of jail free card.

[Turborama]

31. Hello? It won't be locked if you clarify headlines in parenthesis when necessary.

But again, just for clarifying and no editorializing.

As suggested below, you could even update the OP with this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014592192#post27

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. what a crock. "abhorrent methods of warfare."

ALL FUCKING METHODS are abhorrent.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Paron me sir, but do you mind terribly if I perforate you with this lovely piece of shrapnel, propel

led in your direction with the utmost of loving care?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. kaboom still means dead.

and now there are doubts about the evidence photos being doctored for political reasons.

[bananas]

19. Crimes against humanity and war crimes are particularly abhorrent.

Strange as it may seem, we have rules for warfare.
Even on DU, many are enamored with drone strikes even when they kill innocent civilians and American children.
A soldier or commander won't be prosecuted for engaging in warfare if he follows those rules.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. Yeah, the war rules at sea are almost remarkable.

When your right to fight ends, and your duty to save those bobbing around in the shark infested sea begins.

I read that some group was trying to create similar rules for space, but I haven't heard of any progress on them. I suspect that the leaps of technology have made their job more difficult. Plus, while everyone agrees not to use blinding lasers in an armed conflict on the ground, it is highly likely that focused energy beams will be a standard weapon in space. Even ones that blind.

[bananas]

29. Addressing space warfare is an important issue.

PNAC wanted to deploy serious space-based weapons.

I dread the next Republican administration.

[mahannah]

5. Is there a method of warfare that is not abhorrent?

[maxsolomon]

10. dropping Love Bombs

the only method that's never been tried.

[pnwmom]

6. Thanks for the deliberately misleading title.

[bananas]

7. Had to follow LBN rules, unfortunately.

I had the same reaction when I saw it in my newsfeed.

[pnwmom]

9. Okay. Maybe it would have been better off in GD, with a different title.

[bananas]

15. That headline is appearing on news outlets worldwide.

Like everyone else, I thought WTF when I saw the headline.

I thought I was contributing something by emphasizing that it doesn't include the chemical weapons attack.

[SunSeeker]

13. Bullshit title.

Why would you post this knowing you are misleading people into clicking on it?

[bananas]

24. So people would know it doesn't include the August attack.

When I opened google news, I saw that headline on several major news sites.

Like everyone else, I thought WTF?

So now, if someone tries to take out-of-context quotes from that report, you'll know it doesn't include the August attacks.

And you'll know there's probably a lot more, since the interviews were only from May 15 to July 15.

If I could've changed the headline, I would have, but that's against LBN rules.

[grahamhgreen]

14. So, the jury is still out.

[bananas]

16. Yes. nt

[NickB79]

22. The earlier supposed attacks were widely blamed on the rebels

So, this report would actually be a blow to those who claim the latest, largest attack was by the rebels and not the Syrian government.

[progressoid]

26. golly

you've been a member for 8 hours and already know the terminology.

[Tx4obama]

27. It would have been better to have used the Reuters article which has a better headline, see below

Syria war crimes deepen in battle for territory: U.N. report

GENEVA | Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:06am EDT

(Reuters) - Syrian government forces have massacred civilians, bombed hospitals and committed other war crimes in widespread attacks to recapture territory in recent months, U.N. human rights investigators said on Wednesday.

Opposition forces, including Islamist foreign fighters, have committed war crimes including executions, hostage-taking and shelling civilian neighborhoods, they said in their latest report, covering the period of May 15-July 15.

"The perpetrators of these violations and crimes, on all sides, act in defiance of international law. They do not fear accountability. Referral to justice is imperative, " said the U.N. commission of inquiry led by Brazilian Paulo Pinheiro.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE98A0D520130911

[David__77]

32. It's funny that this article ruffles feathers.

So, apparently editorializing is acceptable under certain circumstances, when the "mainstream" media article requires "correction" because it's not mainstreamy enough.