U.N. probe says Syria, Russia deliberately "obliterated"

>In at least two incidents, the report states, chlorine bombs were dropped by Syrian aircraft in an effort to evacuate residential areas, causing civilian casualties.

>The report from the Commission, which falls under the auspices of the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, also concluded that Syrian government aircraft deliberately bombed a humanitarian aid convoy of the U.N. and Syrian Red Crescent at Orum al-Kubra, in western Aleppo, in September.

>The evidence, Pinheiro said, was irrefutable: “We have established very clearly in the report that the Syrian air force is responsible for these attacks.” He said there was no evidence linking Russia specifically to the attacks on the aid convoy.

>The aerial campaign in Aleppo detailed in the report amounts to war crimes committed, according to its authors.

>The report also pointed to war crimes by opposition groups, which shelled government-controlled western Aleppo, killing and injuring dozens and using civilians as human shields. Both sides, the report said, carried out indiscriminate attacks in densely populated civilian areas.

>Earlier in the week, when the Resolution on Syria was blocked, U.S. Ambassador Haley told the Council that, “investigators spent a year collecting mountains of evidence, speaking to witnesses, and verifying testimony. The conclusion was and remains irrefutably clear: The Assad regime used chemical weapons three times from 2014 to 2015, and ISIS used chemical weapons once.”

>“We will roll up our sleeves and work relentlessly to bridge this inconceivable gap in the Security Council,” France’s Ambassador Francois Delattre told reporters. “We owe it to the victims of these barbaric acts.”

>“What we have seen here in Syria, I never saw that in Rwanda, or in former Yugoslavia, in the Balkans,” added commission member Carla del Ponte.

>After the commission’s report was released on Wednesday, Britain’s Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said it, “shows the depravity of the Assad regime.”

>The report comes as peace talks continue between the Syrian government and the opposition; negotiators in Geneva this week hope to forge an agreement on an agenda brokered by U.N. Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura, to include discussion of elections, the constitution, governance -- and fighting terrorism -- in Syria.

>The report also comes as Russian aircraft mistakenly bombed Syrian fighters who were being trained by the United States, according to reports, as both the U.S. and Russia turn their attention to fighting ISIS.

>An image posted to Twitter by user HadiAlabdallah shows a Syrian boy allegedly injured in a Russian airstrike that hit a school in the town of Ain Jara, west of Aleppo, Jan. 11, 2016.
>The image could not be independently verified.
Go CBS.

Anyway, this was the last thing I saw on the UN report, not sure what to think about it.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201703011051172718-syria-un-veto-expert-analysis/
>"For example," Shoebridge noted, "there are three standards of proof listed in the report, one of which is 'overwhelming evidence' to support the conclusion, the [second] 'strong evidence' and the [third] 'sufficient evidence'; beyond that is 'insufficient evidence'. In each of the three cases" (where investigators said there was evidence to say that the Syrian military was responsible for an attack) "it is that very lowest standard of proof that has been reached."
>In other words, the evidence wasn't sufficiently good to declare that Syria had dropped chlorine to a standard that could be considered 'strong', or 'overwhelming'.

I suppose the strike on the convoy is considered more solid though?

>>117491
>Criticizes CBS
>Posts sputniknews link
Are you serious?

>>117491
>Go CBS.
Quit your blubbering. They have to add that disclaimer because they have an actual degree of journalistic integrity.

Also
>sputnik news
Why would you trust a Russian based media on an issue so sensitive to Russia? Journalists in Russia critical of the government have a bad habit of premature death.
We can argue about details but we have to start with believable sources.

>>117497
>>117498
The assertion being I must think it's gospel? I quoted the segment I found relevant.

The other assertion being CBS is beyond any criticism or 'blubbering'?

>>117498
>we have to start with believable sources.
>The image could not be independently verified.
indeed we do.
and when a picture can't be verified by multiple sources, it isn't a believable source.

and in this case, that sputnik news article seems to be far more believable.
because, you know, it actually looks into the UN report instead of just random misinformation and speculation (aka propaganda) that has been fed to you by media for a few years now.

>>117561
>and when a picture can't be verified by multiple sources, it isn't a believable source.
We know Russia participated in airstrikes in Syria. And a boy had his school destroyed while children were inside by airstrikes.
The MSM typically airs on providing complete information but even given the disclaimer it wouldn't be surprising, considering the circumstances, if Russia were guilty of airstrikes on civilians in Syria.

>and in this case, that sputnik news article seems to be far more believable.
Not when it comes from a state where journalists are forcibly silenced for suggesting the wrong conclusions about issues sensitive to the state.

>because, you know, it actually looks into the UN report
CBS news looked into the UN report. That's why I posted the article.

>instead of just random misinformation and speculation (aka propaganda) that has been fed to you by media for a few years now.
What misinformation?
Any evidence?
Establish the conspiracy.
You surely have something convincing to show me. It shouldn't be difficult to go through all the articles about Russia and point out all these obvious lies.