EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 410
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22063 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22063 Posts
On April 12 2018 03:50 Starlightsun wrote: Just human rights abuse no. But Chemical weapons attacks, much more likelyIs it common for a bunch of countries to retaliate militarily for human rights abuses such as the one being alleged here? | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
On the other hand we've seen this scenario before. It's certainly getting a little suspicious. . . | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23590 Posts
On April 12 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote: If that is true, Russia shouldn’t have vetoed the UN investigation into the recent attack. But they did. And no one wants a dictators like Assad to start thinking they can use chemical weapons like mustard gas when they want to pour fuel on the fire. I seem to remember a similar path before another middle eastern war. One the same former leading Democrat (Hillary Clinton) also supported, like she does this one. People like to say they learned their lesson from Iraq, but whether it's welcoming Bill Kristol to the Resistance or mindlessly gobbling up US propaganda a lot of folks don't seem any wiser. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23590 Posts
On April 12 2018 04:54 Plansix wrote: Mustard gas isnt a WMD, it is just a weapon on one wants to see return to the battle field. It is very effective, not hard for a nation to created and so horrific we didnt dare use it in the Second World War. No one wants to see weapons like that come back, including France and the UK. Pretty sure the canisters alleged to be used were made by Merck out of Germany in the 80's. We've littered Iraq with enough hazardous material to cause birth defects for generations, and Vietnamese children are STILL getting fucked up from agent orange (as well as US veterans) Pretending this has anything to do with humanitarianism requires a child like naivete. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 12 2018 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Pretty sure the canisters alleged to be used were made by Merck out of Germany in the 80's. We've littered Iraq with enough hazardous material to cause birth defects for generations, and Vietnamese children are STILL getting fucked up from agent orange (as well as US veterans) Pretending this has anything to do with humanitarianism requires a child like naivete. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism. Our armed services is not and likely never could be prepared for mass use chemical weapons like mustard gas. No modern army is. All western nations agreed chemical weapons were to terrible use in 1925. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23590 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote: It has nothing to do with humanitarianism. Our armed services is not and likely never could be prepared for mass use chemical weapons like mustard gas. No modern army is. All western nations agreed chemical weapons were to terrible use to 1925. Yet we used the holy hell out of them long after that. If you're saying they are illegal because they can kick our ass, even when deployed by inferior military forces, that makes sense. Of course bombing the hell out of civilians for it makes exactly 0 sense. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On April 12 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote: If that is true, Russia shouldn’t have vetoed the UN investigation into the recent attack. But they did. And no one wants a dictators like Assad to start thinking they can use chemical weapons like mustard gas when they want to pour fuel on the fire. Using that train of thought why did the US and its satellite states vote no on two Russian proposals to set up mechanisms to hold those responsible for alleged chemical attacks? It takes the most low effort half assed look at the situation in Syria to see through this very desperate attempt at propaganda. Every single narrative falls flat, it isnt even comical, its just so sad to see some of the comments here. 90% of the Syrian population lives in Syrian government controlled territory? I'm sure they love the salafi-wahabi rebels more! Virtually all of the enclaves that have capitulated in the last year were the result of peaceful handovers of territory based on trust of safe passage? Who cares! Assad never (even allegedly) used chemicals weapons when his towns/cities were falling like dominoes, even when the defenses at Damascus and Aleppo were on the verge of complete collapse? Irrelevant! Stockpiles of chemical weapons found left behind by terrorists abandoning cities? Lies! Chemical attacks only happen when islamist rebels are on the verge of complete and utter defeat and bring about a complete standstill of all operations? Naturally! Every single one of these chemical attacks is admitted to being a hoax without even a single shred of evidence months after the news cycle? Mistakes happen! But this one must be true, because Assad is evil. Why think? The blogs/twitter accounts I read say so. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23590 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Actually chemical weapons weren't used in war as a curious twist of fate, including Hitler being adamant against their use, being a "victim" of mustard gas. There truly aren't much moral underpinning against the use of chemical weapons, when other weapons can be as or more deadly and horrific. As to their effectiveness against a modern military, in the UK, a gas mask is part of the personal equipment of every soldier of the army. Old chemical weapons would not be effective at all. Maybe in their first deployment, but after that you're right that modern military are still equipped to handle something like mustard gas There's been a lot of awful takes lately it's hard to properly dispel all of them thoroughly. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
https://www.rt.com/news/421753-syria-ghouta-chemical-provocation/ https://www.rt.com/news/420948-ghouta-false-flag-chemical-attack/ The west are just trying to escalate tensions again since they were obviously losing this proxy war, but what can they gain at this point, since Assad, Russia and Iran have the most control in Syria, they will fight an uphill battle. Russia won't abandon Assad at this point, chances of direct confrontation are higher, but let's see what Trump's missiles will do and what happens after that. UK, France, Sweden, Saudi Arabia and Australia said they would back US in Syria, and Israel obviously has been bombing Syria the whole time. Turkey is an interesting and unpredictable player that could do just about anything at this point. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23590 Posts
On April 12 2018 06:22 Plansix wrote: No one should trust the Breitbart, the Intercept or RT at any time. Why shouldn't people ever trust the reporting of The Intercept? But say they should the NYT? Or did you just pull that out of your ass and won't defend it? + Show Spoiler + Dude, just chill for a bit. You've been providing almost elusively terrible takes on this, getting called out, then waiting (not long enough) until the next terrible take and refutation. Just stop. On April 12 2018 06:33 Plansix wrote: NPR and BBC are fine. EDIT: Got it, another rectal nugget. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On April 12 2018 06:22 Plansix wrote: No one should trust the Breitbart, the Intercept or RT at any time. I trust them just about equally with every other mainstream media with an agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that they predicted that a chemical attack will take place. You could argue that blaming the rebels before the chemical attack is just for Russia and Assad to gas them and "gain some kind of benefit from it" and shifting the blame on the rebels. That could be the case, but since they don't get any benefit after already having control of the region. And with this the US and the west are having a field day on blaming Assad and Russia for "the chemical attack", that's just beyond stupid... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 12 2018 06:34 raga4ka wrote: I trust them just about equally with every other main stream media with an agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that they predicted that a chemical attack will take place. You could argue that blaming the rebels before the chemical attack is just for Russia and Assad to gas them and "gain some kind of benefit from it" and shifting the blame on the rebels. That could be the case, but since they don't get any benefit after already having control of the region. And with this the US and the west are having a field day on blaming Assad and Russia for "the chemical attack", that's just beyond stupid... Their editor does have a secure phone line directly to the Kremlin, so I guess they would know before anyone else. | ||
| ||
