|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 12 2018 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:34 raga4ka wrote: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 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.
Haven't the editors of most major publications had 'direct lines to the white house'?
Don't we know that the CIA had a significant operation infiltrating and manipulating our media, that the Bush administration used the NYT and other major publications to lie us into a war, that our media is practically owned by a handful of major corporations and often just spread blatant mass propaganda (Sinclair)?
You state the idea as if the mere ability to talk on a secure line with Russian officials is some nefarious thing.
I'd wager most major publications have a secure line they've talked to officials from the Kremlin on. What's funny is the interviewer gets called out for trying to get a headline for someone like you to post in a situation like this, and both you and the interviewer are just pretending like we don't notice.
The constant stream of bad takes and half-assed non-arguments is getting really old.
|
this whole chemical attack thing is a fraud. why would assad use chemical weapons on civilians when he has the upper hands on the final part of the syrian war. he was accused of using them when things started to shape on his favor, he was warned, his army was hit, why again? seems pretty odd.
on the other hand, it seems pretty unlikely for americans as well, why would they use it in the same week when their president decided to pull out. if not planned by some upper minds, like cia, american deep state etc, don't think americans will want to stay in this mess for another 10 years, neither for israel, nor to stop iran-russian influence.
russians, they might use it to draw more american troops in, so that american society grows weary of current american policies and push for a greater withdrawal? makes little sense. iranian proxies? don't think so. turkey? nah. both will be handled so hard if global powers find proof. it's only logical for me that rebels used it. but they don't have aircrafts....
maybe, just maybe... assad doesnt care if his bases are targeted, and wanted to kill some rebels and their families without using expensive missiles.
or maybe, americans realized they can't move forwards with the kurds under current conditions, and brought their best buddies, france and uk into this fight to topple down assad. in this case, things will get a lot worse if russia and china hold their promise to defend him.
|
by the way, is there any articles or research about the centcoms political bias, I started to believe current american generals in ME are extreme democrats and do try to shape american policies despite trump's will to reshape it.
|
On April 12 2018 07:14 lastpuritan wrote:
this whole chemical attack thing is a fraud. why would assad use chemical weapons on civilians when he has the upper hands on the final part of the syrian war. he was accused of using them when things started to shape on his favor, he was warned, his army was hit, why again? seems pretty odd.
on the other hand, it seems pretty unlikely for americans as well, why would they use it in the same week when their president decided to pull out. if not planned by some upper minds, like cia, american deep state etc, don't think americans will want to stay in this mess for another 10 years, neither for israel, nor to stop iran-russian influence.
russians, they might use it to draw more american troops in, so that american society grows weary of current american policies and push for a greater withdrawal? makes little sense. iranian proxies? don't think so. turkey? nah. both will be handled so hard if global powers find proof. it's only logical for me that rebels used it. but they don't have aircrafts....
maybe, just maybe... assad doesnt care if his bases are targeted, and wanted to kill some rebels and their families without using expensive missiles.
or maybe, americans realized they can't move forwards with the kurds under current conditions, and brought their best buddies, france and uk into this fight to topple down assad. in this case, things will get a lot worse if russia and china hold their promise to defend him.
I think the main players knew or rather predicted to some extent that a chemical attack will take place. It's impossible to tell which group on what command made the attack, but the way I can see it, it was done with the motivation to bring a firm western response against Assad, as is evident. Trump with his cheesy "Get the hell out of Syria before, and fire and fury against the animal Assad after", also makes me question the timing of this attack and if the US knew beforehand?
|
|
|
Well we did sell WMD's to Iraq so we have pretty good evidence that they were there. Theres a reasonable argument that the US government didn't lie but that it was just wrong and followed faulty intel.
Memeing your way though discussions doesn't get anyone anywhere.
|
On April 12 2018 05:20 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
As if the States needed another reason to bomb Syria. But yeah, we sheeple are just too blind to see the obvious truth while you can see clearly. The matter of fact is, you don't know anymore then we do who did this yet you act as if anybody who disagrees with you opinion is a retard. If random guys on the internet are clever enough to look through your ruse, your ruse is really terrible. And if that is the case, maybe the military intelligence of a dozen nations are able to see through it as well. And if they can, why would they use this as an excuse to escalate it further when they obviously did not care about the escalation of the conflict before? What does the west get out of it? They will send a few missiles into Syria, and leave again because they can't risk a real war. I am sure Macron is giddy at the idea of sending in a few missiles for funsies.
Or maybe all military intelligence is so stupid that they can't tell at all. Who knows. I put my faith rather on the government of the UK, France and the USA, not the dictatorship of Syria. Still, just theories, as are yours.
|
United States43040 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari
|
On April 12 2018 09:22 Broetchenholer wrote:
As if the States needed another reason to bomb Syria. But yeah, we sheeple are just too blind to see the obvious truth while you can see clearly. The matter of fact is, you don't know anymore then we do who did this yet you act as if anybody who disagrees with you opinion is a retard. If random guys on the internet are clever enough to look through your ruse, your ruse is really terrible. And if that is the case, maybe the military intelligence of a dozen nations are able to see through it as well. And if they can, why would they use this as an excuse to escalate it further when they obviously did not care about the escalation of the conflict before? What does the west get out of it? They will send a few missiles into Syria, and leave again because they can't risk a real war. I am sure Macron is giddy at the idea of sending in a few missiles for funsies.
Or maybe all military intelligence is so stupid that they can't tell at all. Who knows. I put my faith rather on the government of the UK, France and the USA, not the dictatorship of Syria. Still, just theories, as are yours.
Even if we believe Assad is responsible, it is still questionable whether sending more bombs into Syria is the correct answer. As for what the west might be seeking in this: regime change to undermine the influence of Iran and Russia in the region. Regime change was the purpose of the invasion of neighboring Iraq, also done under the pretense of punishing unapproved of weapons.
|
On April 12 2018 11:31 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 09:22 Broetchenholer wrote:
As if the States needed another reason to bomb Syria. But yeah, we sheeple are just too blind to see the obvious truth while you can see clearly. The matter of fact is, you don't know anymore then we do who did this yet you act as if anybody who disagrees with you opinion is a retard. If random guys on the internet are clever enough to look through your ruse, your ruse is really terrible. And if that is the case, maybe the military intelligence of a dozen nations are able to see through it as well. And if they can, why would they use this as an excuse to escalate it further when they obviously did not care about the escalation of the conflict before? What does the west get out of it? They will send a few missiles into Syria, and leave again because they can't risk a real war. I am sure Macron is giddy at the idea of sending in a few missiles for funsies.
Or maybe all military intelligence is so stupid that they can't tell at all. Who knows. I put my faith rather on the government of the UK, France and the USA, not the dictatorship of Syria. Still, just theories, as are yours. Even if we believe Assad is responsible, it is still questionable whether sending more bombs into Syria is the correct answer. As for what the west might be seeking in this: regime change to undermine the influence of Iran and Russia in the region. Regime change was the purpose of the invasion of neighboring Iraq, also done under the pretense of punishing unapproved of weapons.
This seems like it should be a default starting point for arguments here. I obviously think the question of dropping bombs to essentially help AQ and in the process inevitably kill civilians, in order to pursue a clear goal of regime change (we'd replace him with the ghost of Hitler incarnate if he swore to promote US interests) for some nebulous justifications is a non-starter, but I'm familiar with some reasons why reasonable people may disagree.
|
On April 12 2018 09:07 Sermokala wrote:Well we did sell WMD's to Iraq so we have pretty good evidence that they were there. Theres a reasonable argument that the US government didn't lie but that it was just wrong and followed faulty intel. Memeing your way though discussions doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Faulty Intel like the UN weapons inspector finding no evidence of chemical weapons?
Interesting to see some people here still believing the official narrative (conspiracy theory that Assad is behind this).
|
i looked into this 2-3 days ago or so and beside USS Donald Cook(Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer) going from Cyprus and anchoring outside syrian waters and russian+syrian warplanes patrolling the syrian coast there wasn't much going on.
in theory you'd need a carrier strike force/group+ Show Spoiler +A carrier strike group[1] (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers or frigates,[2] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet, who is operationally responsible for the area of waters in which the carrier strike group is operating .
now UK is readying submarines(allegedly) and May is asking MP for the go-ahead to war.
i don't know men; it looks bad but not really.
Edit: the more one looks into this the more he realizes it's more of a thing between Netanyahu and Putin and the rest of them(US, UK, Germany) are just in for the ride. http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-israel-us-military-strike-syria-2018-4
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly believes the US will order a military strike Syria in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack on Saturday.
A senior Israeli official told Israel's Channel 10 that in a closed security cabinet discussion on Monday, Netanyahu said he is anticipating a US strike. The Prime Minister's office has not confirmed or issued any comment on the report.
The official told Channel 10 that Netanyahu's comment indicates his support of possible US military retaliation against Syria. all kind of speculations are going on about now but if those two fix their shit there will be no bombing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It always comes back to the same question: if you strike now and take out Assad, what comes next? What is the follow-up strategy here? And no matter how many times that question is asked, the answer ends pretty much at "Assad must go." Which is why if any substantive discussion happens, it ends with "actually let's not start another Iraq/Libya over this." That may change sooner or later, but a lack of a follow-up continues to be the single biggest reason that every past desire to escalate came apart.
The developments in Ghouta over the past month seem to suggest that the fight is all but settled there, though. One of the most important clean-up operations in Syria that is still outstanding.
|
I'm really starting to doubt the recent events. Both the Skripal assassination attempt and the chemical attack in Syria were quite possibly done by people that want the west to mobilize against Russia. If Russia was at fault for the Skripal attack, he wouldn't be alive now.
|
@LL: it'll be split between Israel, Iraq(kurds) and Turkey; they may leave a syrian enclave on the coast similar to the Gaza Strip.
|
On April 12 2018 16:46 LegalLord wrote:
It always comes back to the same question: if you strike now and take out Assad, what comes next? What is the follow-up strategy here? And no matter how many times that question is asked, the answer ends pretty much at "Assad must go." Which is why if any substantive discussion happens, it ends with "actually let's not start another Iraq/Libya over this." That may change sooner or later, but a lack of a follow-up continues to be the single biggest reason that every past desire to escalate came apart.
The developments in Ghouta over the past month seem to suggest that the fight is all but settled there, though. One of the most important clean-up operations in Syria that is still outstanding.
A quasi-flowchart would go something like this:
Assad is out, what happens to the loyalists? If they stay as a unit, not much changes, chaos for decades under a new leader which we have no reason to assume will be any better than Assad. This is the most likely scenario since they control the majority of the country.
If they fall apart, the opposition coalition under Riad Seif get the power in most of the southern 3/4 of the country. Though there would still be smaller groups fighting the coalition for who knows how long.
If that happens, what will the coalition's relationship be with Rojava, will they reach common ground to have an election and keep Syria united? Will they reach common ground to split the northern territory peacefully? Or will they fight eachother over it? Fuck knows.
The chances that taking out Assad would resolve the situation are very slim.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And that doesn't even take into account the insidious nature of how these civil war type conflicts in the Middle East tend to develop: as the conflict grows more vicious, a worldwide stream of Islamists start to join the fray, until the original grievances that led to the civil war are forgotten in a mess of a free-for-all with no end in sight. And unfortunately any form of "coalition" tends to break apart quite quickly once it's no longer about winning the war but rather about ruling,
If there is a better option than a secular dictator in that ethnically disastrous agglomeration of a country, there appears to be a widespread inability to point out such an alternative by those that call for Assad's removal.
|
So France says it has "proof" that Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons attack:
PARIS (Reuters) - France has proof the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack last week and will decide whether to strike back when all the necessary information has been gathered, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday.
France is expected to join the United States and Britain in carrying out air strikes or some other form of attack in response to the use of the weapons but it remains unclear when that might happen or even if it definitely will.
“We have proof that last week, now 10 days ago, that chemical weapons were used, at least with chlorine, and that they were used by the regime of (President) Bashar al-Assad,” Macron said, without giving details on the evidence or how it was acquired.
The attack on the town of Douma on April 7 killed dozens of people, including children.
“Our teams have been working on this all week and we will need to take decisions in due course, when we judge it most useful and effective,” Macron told broadcaster TF1 when asked whether a red line had been crossed.
Source.
As much as it pains me to say, it's probably for the best that someone other than the CIA is taking lead on the investigation. Still, it'd be nice to know what Macron knows. I wonder what they have that is so conclusive. The only thing that really comes to mind would be surveillance showing the subject attack, but I would expect that information to come from the US or Israel, if anyone. Short of that, we're looking at human intelligence, which is less reliable.
|
On April 12 2018 09:22 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:20 zeo wrote: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. As if the States needed another reason to bomb Syria. But yeah, we sheeple are just too blind to see the obvious truth while you can see clearly. The matter of fact is, you don't know anymore then we do who did this yet you act as if anybody who disagrees with you opinion is a retard. If random guys on the internet are clever enough to look through your ruse, your ruse is really terrible. And if that is the case, maybe the military intelligence of a dozen nations are able to see through it as well. And if they can, why would they use this as an excuse to escalate it further when they obviously did not care about the escalation of the conflict before? What does the west get out of it? They will send a few missiles into Syria, and leave again because they can't risk a real war. I am sure Macron is giddy at the idea of sending in a few missiles for funsies. Or maybe all military intelligence is so stupid that they can't tell at all. Who knows. I put my faith rather on the government of the UK, France and the USA, not the dictatorship of Syria. Still, just theories, as are yours.
All of us who are against war would accept a proper investigation. It's you warhawks who accuse Assad without evidence who are standing on shaky ground.
This is the 3rd time Assad has been accused, and every single time, nothing in the story has made any sense, and more importantly, even years afterwards, we still have no proof of Assad being behind either of the attacks.
I don't claim to know what happened, very few on "my side" does. But Assad being responsible is one of the least likely scenarios.
Your blind faith in the ppl in control of the british, french and american governments is terrifying. What have they done to earn the right to be considered arbiters of truth? All 3 leaders have only been in power for around a year each, and neither of them were big-shots in the political scene before they got elected, so it's very puzzling to me how you are so quick to trust their words or judgment.
To me it looks like you're just repeating propaganda. Assad and Russia is bad. France, UK and USA is good. Therefore they must be on the side of truth. Do you really think the world is this black and white? Our own western politicians have lied to us so many times before. What about Iraq?
As for why the other countries are following USA's lead, it's just simply about clique behavior. Allies and spheres follow the interests and agenda of their own group.
Looking at China, they have remained neutral as they typically do, and they say that we shouldn't act or accuse anyone before we have evidence. Although it's a healthy mindset to have, it's a strategy that will distance yourself from the accuser, because by not believing someone outright, you're saying that you think there's a chance that they're lying or making a mistake. China is a relentless party-pooper, but they do this out of principle. If the UK or France had that level of principles when it comes to US antics, they wouldn't be as close allies as they are. USA, UK and France are the big 3, the allies of WW1 and WW2. Going against that alliance would break from that heritage, and simply one of them saying: No, we won't help you going into Syria would be a really big deal, and it would be even worse to say, we don't believe that Assad did it. Show us evidence first! It would require extraordinary circumstances before either of them would not go along with USA, officially anyway. I'm sure that if their private opinions are different that they will discuss it behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
