War in Syria?

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:13 am

What would be the point of Assad using chemicals? What would be the point of the rebels using chemicals? The answer is pretty obvious. Assad knows what would happen and the rebels would like it to happen.
I saw some dodgy looking film of kids being washed down with a big hose who looked pretty normal. There is so much propaganda.

What is very strange the Americans are waiting to get a report from the inspectors before they start bombing. Just completely weird. Is every one just going stand around and let the inspectors walk in and walk out? It is just too bizarre.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:56 am

No fucking evidence but they attack WTF.
WMD again. Fucking May trying to look important. Somebody take her knickers down and give her a good spanking.

Trump orders ‘precision strikes’ on Syria in partnership with UK and France in wake of chemical attack
The president says 'America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria, under no circumstances'

The US, Britain and France have launched a series of military strikes in Syria – ending days of speculation and anxiety as to how the the West would respond to Bashar Al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.

While Syria and their Russian allies had denied chemical weapons were deployed a week ago in the Damascus suburb of Douma, the three Western nations claimed they had proof they had been used against civilians and had no alternative but to act.

Syrian television reported that Syria’s air defences, which are substantial, responded to the attack. After the attack ceased and the early morning skies went dark once more, vehicles with loudspeakers roamed the streets of Damascus blaring nationalist songs.
We are unable to talk these days. The illiteracy of politicians is amazing.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Forty Two » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:22 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:What would be the point of Assad using chemicals? What would be the point of the rebels using chemicals? The answer is pretty obvious. Assad knows what would happen and the rebels would like it to happen.
I saw some dodgy looking film of kids being washed down with a big hose who looked pretty normal. There is so much propaganda.

What is very strange the Americans are waiting to get a report from the inspectors before they start bombing. Just completely weird. Is every one just going stand around and let the inspectors walk in and walk out? It is just too bizarre.
100% agree. I am not convinced there even was a chemical attack, much less who did it. I don't trust the "intelligence community."

Trump is backed into a corner, and I suspect he "relied on intelligence" as his Pentagon officials said last night, and ordered strikes because his opposition is demanding it, and if Trump did not act, then (a) he'd be painted as showing Russia that we will not act that region, and (b) possibly that he's not acting because Putin has his number, as has been the allegations for the last year or so.

I have not seen a shred of evidence made public that demonstrates that probably Assad was behind a chemical attack.

There is also an obvious change in lingo that all the press is using in lock-step. Nobody says "WMD" anymore. People don't support wars over "WMD." Now we only refer to "chemical weapons" and "precursors." Interesting.

Something is rotten here.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Forty Two » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:51 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:No fucking evidence but they attack WTF.
WMD again. Fucking May trying to look important. Somebody take her knickers down and give her a good spanking.

Trump orders ‘precision strikes’ on Syria in partnership with UK and France in wake of chemical attack
The president says 'America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria, under no circumstances'
You know who that is aimed at? Russia. It's a "hey, Russia - we're bombing stuff, but we're not taking over."

The US, Britain and France have launched a series of military strikes in Syria – ending days of speculation and anxiety as to how the the West would respond to Bashar Al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.
"Alleged" use. We are acting on allegations. Only an idiot would use chemical weapons in Assad's situation, and the Assads are not idiots. They were winning the civil war - it was pretty much won. But, there are those who have been working to overthrow the Assad regime that have an incentive to maneuvre things in the direction they're going now.
While Syria and their Russian allies had denied chemical weapons were deployed a week ago in the Damascus suburb of Douma, the three Western nations claimed they had proof they had been used against civilians and had no alternative but to act.
What proof? What proof do they have? Why won't the media ever ask them "what proof?" when they are in press conferences?

And, I really don't think "sources and methods" warrants a blanket refusal to make public proof. At a certain point, if you're going to ask "the people" to authorize their servants, the government, to bomb and kill people, then you're going to have pull your sources to safety, and disclose how the fuck you know what you say you know. And, there have been too many times in the last 50-100 years where our "intelligence officials" have lied and too many times they just got it wrong. They can't expect blind trust.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Forty Two » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:54 pm

mistermack wrote:I disagree with that assessment.

This has happened before. If it was Assad last time, (which is doubtful) he now knows full well what the result is likely to be.

Just the simplest weighing of the pros and cons would tell him that the gains from a chemical attack are virtually nothing, and the cons are enormous.

Whereas from the rebels point of view, the pros are enormous, and the cons are felt by others, not them. I think that the likelihood of this being down to Assad is close to nil.

He has conventional weapons that will do the same job, with no cons at all.

And anyway, it's fairly doubtful if there ever was a chemical attack.
It's easy to simulate one for the cameras.
There certainly hasn't been a shred of proof of an attack. And your assessment of the pros and cons seems irrefutable. Nobody has bothered to even offer an explanation as to why Assad would do it.

And, when people try to ask that question or raise it as an issue, the mainstream media cuts them off. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... y-12358938

Be careful not to step in the bullshit, folks.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Forty Two » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:03 pm

JimC wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
JimC wrote:The problem is that Assad definitely has access to chemical weapons, whereas one can only say that it is possible that rebel groups may have access. I agree that it would seem counter-productive for Assad to use them, but if he is convinced that the fog of war will prevent definite proof, then he is counting on the reactions of people like you, 42, to restrain military action against him.

Having said that, there would have to be some fairly telling evidence for me to concede that a military strike was justified...
Since all I've said is that there has to be some fairly telling evidence for me to concede that a military strike was justified, what the fuck is with this nonsense that "reactions of people like you, 42..." is what he'll rely upon to restrain military action?

What is it you are saying? You can oppose military action without fairly telling evidence, and that's just fine. It's not the reaction of a person like you that he's counting on? But, me, oh, me - I'm the kind of person who, if I ask for evidence, he's counting on me?

What the fuck?
Not really having a go at you, I'm saying that Assad will count on many people in the West, including you and probably me, opposing a military strike unless there is very compelling evidence. Basically, I'm saying that Assad is smart enough to realise that proof will be difficult to achieve - if he has in fact done the deed (which I think is more likely than not), he has reason to assume he may get away with it...
What did he have to gain by using chemical weapons instead of conventional weapons?

Further, why are we -- the US/UK/France - operating under the assumption that if he bombed them with a chemical weapon rather than a conventional weapon that it means we get to attack Syria? Is that your understanding of the law? If that's the the law, it's a weird one. A dictator gets to attack civilians without repurcussion if he does it with grenades, mortars, missiles, .50 caliber machine guns, and such, but not if he uses a chemical weapon (which aren't generally even more lethal - it's rather difficult to pull of a good chemical attack).

In George Bush's administration, the fact that a brutal dictator who was committing crimes against humanity against his own people didn't attack the US and UK made it illegal to attack Iraq. When there was no UN resolution after the UN had declared that Iraq had to come clean on its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (and precursors) possession, the attack was illegal on that ground too. Here, in Syria, we have a country that has not attacked outside its borders, and has no UN resolution against it authorizing force, and the only basis is an "allegation" that Assad used chemical weapons (but no proof that it actually occurred or that he was behind it, and the "rebels" are just as capable of carrying out such an attack, with at least as good a motive to do it...)

Whatever Assad is "relying on" - you, me or whomever - something is wrong here. I would think that some modicum of proof is in order. Do you really trust the "intelligence" agencies on this?

And what about the old argument about how lots of brutal dictators are out there massacring people all over the world, especially in Africa - but we do nothing -- and here, we find moral imperatives that demand immediate war, without the need of proving the allegatons?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:33 pm

If you've got facebook - https://www.facebook.com/thedeepleft/vi ... lF0xTR_0mQ

Might be the same incident from 42's link above (that I didn't look at).
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by JimC » Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:19 pm

I take the point that no one yet seems to be providing hard evidence, but the situation on the ground might make that difficult to produce. Without such hard evidence, missile strikes are not really justifiable. However, they happened, and if Assad was relying on a reluctance to shoot without good evidence, he sure got that wrong.

Some people here seem to be virtually ruling out the possibility that it was a chemical attack by the regime, just like they seem to rule out a Russian responsibility for the use of a nerve poison in England. Both remain quite possible, IMO, though clearly not proven.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:08 am

JimC wrote:I take the point that no one yet seems to be providing hard evidence, but the situation on the ground might make that difficult to produce. Without such hard evidence, missile strikes are not really justifiable. However, they happened, and if Assad was relying on a reluctance to shoot without good evidence, he sure got that wrong.

Some people here seem to be virtually ruling out the possibility that it was a chemical attack by the regime, just like they seem to rule out a Russian responsibility for the use of a nerve poison in England. Both remain quite possible, IMO, though clearly not proven.
Yeah a lot of people are taking the official western version put out by the UK and USA as gospel. Nobody wants to give an answer to the simple question why.
1) Why would the Russians want to kill a second rate spy in England? 2) Why would Assad launch a gas attack? There is no logic.
The opposite questions make more sense but are bizarre up to a point. 1) Why would the UK want to kill a second rate spy in England? 2) Why would the rebels act out a gas attack?

This has been a golden time for May and the UK. Once again up there with the USA on the world stage. Brexit off the front pages. The UK back into its pseudo role as a world leader. The tories and Brexiteers flag waving. Her position safe for a few weeks. What could not be better?
For Trump also a golden time. Stormy, Mueller and Comey off the front pages. The repub hawks slapping him on the back. His ignorant supporters thinking he is a real hooting shooting president.

They both forget there is a tomorrow and the cold light of day.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

PsychoSerenity
"I" Self-Perceive Recursively
Posts: 7824
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by PsychoSerenity » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:24 am

Just posted this at RatSkep too. The question that I think needs to be answered, as raised by the Syrian representative to the United Nations:
My US, French and British colleagues have claimed that they bombed centres for the production of chemical weapons in Syria. If the governments of these three countries knew the actual location or roll of these production centres they claim to have bombed, why didn't they share that information with the OPCW the fact finding mission present in Damascus before attacking my country?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvzBKcQscBU

I'm not sure if any answer has been given to that.

But one of the targets of the strikes was a building at the Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology. It's a fucking university. Which has apparently been investigated twice by the OPCW in the last year and seemingly not found to have anything contravening the chemical weapons convention.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:35 am

They had to bomb something I suppose. The bombings are a farce.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

PsychoSerenity
"I" Self-Perceive Recursively
Posts: 7824
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by PsychoSerenity » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:48 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:They had to bomb something I suppose. The bombings are a farce.
Yes. And while it might be better that the bombings be a farce than a genuinely serious military escalation, the threat of further escalation still stands. Plus a strong motive for ISIS to carry out false flag attacks, even if they never have before, as they now know that their enemy will be bombed by their other enemy without any investigation if they do.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Tero » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:15 am

The generals only have one solution to every Syria problem: bomb Assad. Kind of like the veterinarian treating horses:
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by pErvinalia » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:18 am

:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: War in Syria?

Post by Joe » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:48 pm

That sums it up. Obama commented on it in this article.
This was the moment the president believes he finally broke with what he calls, derisively, the “Washington playbook.”

“Where am I controversial? When it comes to the use of military power,” he said. “That is the source of the controversy. There’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses. Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions. In the midst of an international challenge like Syria, you get judged harshly if you don’t follow the playbook, even if there are good reasons why it does not apply.”
The article goes into quite a bit of detail about the pressures Obama faced to bomb Syria. I can't see a weak President like Trump standing up to that.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests