Syrian civil war

[Keyrock]

Well, the US is now on the verge of dragging itself into another costly conflict it has NO ****ING BUSINESS taking part in.  I'm sure some a-holes are going to profit from this, it sure won't be the common man.  We'll be footing the bill for this, both in terms of taxpayer dollars and blood.

 

[BruceVC]

Here's another video for you: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/26/320508/clip-shows-takfiri-brutality-in-syria/  *WARNING: Graphic material*

 

Don't have time to write a elaborate post but this is not an attempt on my side to show all the rebels in Syria as bad guys just the fact there is no black and white situation over there. Opposition to Assad isn't a one side force like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan but several different groups scattered all over the country. Some of them are really sick people like the ones in the video. Just imagine the likes of them or a similar group getting a hold on chemical weapons from the regular military,  I can imagine them quite easily using them without any regard towards civilian life. So, without clear evidence I cannot tell who used Chemical weapons against whom.

 

No one is disputing that the rebels don't  have extremists in there midst. No one is saying that there aren't factions within the rebels that have committed atrocities.

 

But lets be clear on something, the West doesn't want to get involved in Syria. Despite what several people on this forum have been saying the West has spent the last 3 years avoiding intervention. This is about the fact that Assad regime used Chemical weapons and there has to be some sort retaliatory strike against them. I can't see this leading to regime change anymore. But there has to some punitive action

[Leferd]

I really like the satiric interpretation of the current situation in Syria written by a fellow called Mr K N Al-Sabah in a letter to Financial Times:

 

A short guide to the Middle East"Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day."

 

Someone needs to diagram this.

[Gorth]

This is about the fact that Assad regime used Chemical weapons and there has to be some sort retaliatory strike against them. I can't see this leading to regime change anymore. But there has to some punitive action

Sorry friend Bruce, but for all the repetition of the message, from Obama "being sure" and the Israeli intelligence services claiming as "fact" it happened, hard evidence is in very short supply. Currently about as convincing a case as Saddams stock piles of WMD ready to deploy.

 

I sat down yesterday, read a number of web site news articles (everything from bbc over al jazeera to fox news, trying not to laugh too hard at the latter) and put a critical view on the sources and question the motivation of each article.

 

Couldn't find a single "agenda-less" claim that it happened. Entirely anecdotal, I know. Still makes me question whether or not somebody is fanning the flames for less obvious reasons.

[Zoraptor]

You really have to split Gulf States into Saudi and Qatar, as one hates the MB and the other is its main patron. Plus, of course, the MB that Assad hates is not (quite) the same MB as in Egypt but the home grown Syrian variety, and Assad now hates Hamas as they've swapped sides, but still likes the other palestinian groups that haven't.

 

It's so complicated that it'd probably be as accurate dropping cooked spaghetti onto a diagram to map the relationships. If it were written as fiction everyone would talk about the massive plot holes and how the author didn't have a clue how to keep his world consistent.

[BruceVC]

 

This is about the fact that Assad regime used Chemical weapons and there has to be some sort retaliatory strike against them. I can't see this leading to regime change anymore. But there has to some punitive action

Sorry friend Bruce, but for all the repetition of the message, from Obama "being sure" and the Israeli intelligence services claiming as "fact" it happened, hard evidence is in very short supply. Currently about as convincing a case as Saddams stock piles of WMD ready to deploy.

 

I sat down yesterday, read a number of web site news articles (everything from bbc over al jazeera to fox news, trying not to laugh too hard at the latter) and put a critical view on the sources and question the motivation of each article.

 

Couldn't find a single "agenda-less" claim that it happened. Entirely anecdotal, I know. Still makes me question whether or not somebody is fanning the flames for less obvious reasons.

 

 

I have to be honest I do get a little worried when someone of the intellectual omnipotence of Gorthfucius disagrees with me, but history has shown us that even oracles have been proven wrong ...

 

There is a major and fundamental difference between the proposed attack on Syria and the invasion of Iraq. Certain countries invaded Iraq as they felt that Saddam had WMD, this was proven incorrect as he dismantled the WMD. But in Syria there is no doubt that they have Chemical weapons and that someone used them  last week against Syrian civilians. The question is really who is responsible for the Chemical weapons attack?

Edited August 29, 2013 by BruceVC

[Blodhemn]

It had completely passed me by that the US is going to revert to its tried and tested bombing diplomacy. Given what's at stake though I don't see how the Syrian leadership would be able to  concede very much. 

Sarcasm? The Obama admin hasn't stopped bombing. There's been more drones strikes under Obama than Bush. That's going to continue no matter who wins the next election, unless the country actually wakes up and votes in a 3rd party candidate, but that's not happening anytime soon.

[Walsingham]

There's no doubt that they HAD chemical weapons in Syria, but there wasn't any doubt in Iraq that they HAD possessed them. If anything this is a weaker case for precisely the reason you mention, Bruce. We don't know if the people we are threatening to bomb are the ones who owned and used them.

 

But the better parallel is that the legal case on Iraq ignored the attorney general's point that military action could be undertaken on humanitarian grounds. This is effectively how David Cameron has been trying to sell it in the UK (in my view). He is arguing that the international community cannot allow anyone to get away with chemical weapons use. 

 

Sadly I fear that all he is doing is sending a signal to every tinpot 'rebel' that if they can acquire and use chemical weapons then there's a good chance the government will get schwacked.

 

Again, I say that the entire way the US and UK are 'protecting' their intelligence sources screams out someone highly placed and believed to be credible within the Syrian top brass. They are probably just wondering how to get him and his family out. But it will still be just the word of one man.

[obyknven]

But the better parallel is that the legal case on Iraq ignored the attorney general's point that military action could be undertaken on humanitarian grounds. This is effectively how David Cameron has been trying to sell it in the UK (in my view). He is arguing that the international community cannot allow anyone to get away with chemical weapons use.

Your " international community" is only 28 states (NATO) from 198 states in the world. NATO (or Europe) <> international community.

Even many NATO members (Italy, Spain, Greece, Norway, Poland etc) don't want this intervention, only 3 states want this (USA, France, UK).

[Oerwinde]

 

This is about the fact that Assad regime used Chemical weapons and there has to be some sort retaliatory strike against them. I can't see this leading to regime change anymore. But there has to some punitive action

Sorry friend Bruce, but for all the repetition of the message, from Obama "being sure" and the Israeli intelligence services claiming as "fact" it happened, hard evidence is in very short supply. Currently about as convincing a case as Saddams stock piles of WMD ready to deploy.

 

I sat down yesterday, read a number of web site news articles (everything from bbc over al jazeera to fox news, trying not to laugh too hard at the latter) and put a critical view on the sources and question the motivation of each article.

 

Couldn't find a single "agenda-less" claim that it happened. Entirely anecdotal, I know. Still makes me question whether or not somebody is fanning the flames for less obvious reasons.

Many Bothans died to get them that information.

[BruceVC]

 

But the better parallel is that the legal case on Iraq ignored the attorney general's point that military action could be undertaken on humanitarian grounds. This is effectively how David Cameron has been trying to sell it in the UK (in my view). He is arguing that the international community cannot allow anyone to get away with chemical weapons use.

Your " international community" is only 28 states (NATO) from 198 states in the world. NATO (or Europe) <> international community.

Even many NATO members (Italy, Spain, Greece, Norway, Poland etc) don't want this intervention, only 3 states want this (USA, France, UK).

 

 

Oby don't you feel embarrassed for the way the Russian government is handling the Syrian crisis?

 

I tell you what, I pull some strings and arrange for you immigrate to South Africa..then you won't have be feel sheepish about your governments decisions?

 

You will like South Africa, we have free press and freedom of speech

 

And we don't mind if you are gay, there is no sexual discrimination over here.

[pmp10]

Sadly I fear that all he is doing is sending a signal to every tinpot 'rebel' that if they can acquire and use chemical weapons then there's a good chance the government will get schwacked.

It's way too late for that.

By now people will insist for a full investigation of every alleged attack.

Those things will take months grounding things down to a stand-still and Assad has the ability to create even more 'incidents'.

It's quite amazing how we embrace UN bureaucracy when we don't want anything to happen.

[BruceVC]

 

Sadly I fear that all he is doing is sending a signal to every tinpot 'rebel' that if they can acquire and use chemical weapons then there's a good chance the government will get schwacked.

 

It's quite amazing how we embrace UN bureaucracy when we don't want anything to happen.

 

 

QFT, this is not directed at Walsie but I am seeing this sentiment in South Africa and globally from people opposed to any kind of attack on Assad

 

Most informed people are well aware that Russia will veto any military action so the UN security council can't be relied on the act against Assad. I believe this will be Russia's decision even if the evidence is irrefutable that Assad is guilty

Edited August 29, 2013 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

So where are the pictures of those mobile chemical factory trucks?

[obyknven]

 

[Malcador]

Why did Assad decide to do this right now, anyway, isn't he winning ?

[Malcador]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-sources-in-spite-of-obamas-assertion-intelligence-on-weapons-use-in-syria-no-slam-dunk/2013/08/29/131c3284-107a-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story_1.html

 

Heh. Take it as you will, though.

[BruceVC]

Why did Assad decide to do this right now, anyway, isn't he winning ?

 

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

[kgambit]

Again, I say that the entire way the US and UK are 'protecting' their intelligence sources screams out someone highly placed and believed to be credible within the Syrian top brass. They are probably just wondering how to get him and his family out. But it will still be just the word of one man.

 

I agree.  That's the one source I could see that the US / UK would be hesitant about revealing publically.  It also is uncomfortably similar to the Iraq WMD justification.

 

 

Why did Assad decide to do this right now, anyway, isn't he winning ?

 

That's the prevailing opinion.  It's possible that the situation is not quite as rosy for Assad on the ground as people think,   The Syrian military may be having trouble coping with multiple battle fronts simultaneously. 

 

http://arabsaga.blogspot.com/2013/07/after-khalidiya-is-assad-winning-syria.html

 

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/07/21/Has-Assad-really-won-the-war-.html

 

Those reports are a month old but If they still represent the state of the conflict then perhaps this isn't such a clear cut situation. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by kgambit

[Malcador]

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

The same day UN inspectors arrive and that's the perfect excuse for the West, already gunning for him, to step in after the requisite videos of dead children and crying adults, etc. Seems a really weird decision to make.

 

Ah well, hope this adventure just costs from the TLAMs.

[obyknven]

Meanwhile UK government published internal legal advice saying that it was legally entitled to launch a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces – even if the UN Security Council blocked such action.

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/08/29/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position.pdf

[BruceVC]

 

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

The same day UN inspectors arrive and that's the perfect excuse for the West, already gunning for him, to step in after the requisite videos of dead children and crying adults, etc. Seems a really weird decision to make.

 

Ah well, hope this adventure just costs from the TLAMs.

 

 

Malc it sounds like you are doubting that Assad is behind the attacks, remember he doesn't care about Canada or the Canadian people. I heard one of his favourite meals is Roast Moose, sorry to upset you but you need to realize he is a bad person

[Malcador]

The world's full of bad people, though.

[BruceVC]

The world's full of bad people, though.

 

True Malc, very true.

[Walsingham]

 

 

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

The same day UN inspectors arrive and that's the perfect excuse for the West, already gunning for him, to step in after the requisite videos of dead children and crying adults, etc. Seems a really weird decision to make.

 

Ah well, hope this adventure just costs from the TLAMs.

 

 

Malc it sounds like you are doubting that Assad is behind the attacks, remember he doesn't care about Canada or the Canadian people. I heard one of his favourite meals is Roast Moose, sorry to upset you but you need to realize he is a bad person

 

 

For the record, I also like roast moose.