|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 14 2018 11:27 BigFan wrote:
^ I believe they are airstrikes as you mentioned.
It's nice to see that the US and its allies are playing judge, jury and executioner here as usual and no one seems to bat an eye considering that it's incredibly stupid for Assad and Syria to even try something like a chemical attack when they've already claimed victory against the terrorists.
Who do you think launched the chemical attack?
|
Looks like bombings are done for now. Guess we can survey the damage and what the worldwide reaction is.
On April 14 2018 11:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Looks like it's actual airstrikes not just missiles? Damascus hit reportedly. A lot larger response than I expected.... The jets will get fired on by SAMs surely?
I'm sure they did. Although to a large extent the effect of certain more powerful anti-aircraft will be deterrence, keeping the scope of these attacks smaller than they would otherwise be. Syrian govt did report shooting down a certain number of missiles, for that matter.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On April 14 2018 11:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 11:27 BigFan wrote:
^ I believe they are airstrikes as you mentioned.
It's nice to see that the US and its allies are playing judge, jury and executioner here as usual and no one seems to bat an eye considering that it's incredibly stupid for Assad and Syria to even try something like a chemical attack when they've already claimed victory against the terrorists. Who do you think launched the chemical attack?
I don't believe there was a chemical attack at all. Silly, I know? After all, we have complete footage and experts all telling us that it happened so it must've happened.
|
On April 14 2018 11:55 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 11:31 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 11:27 BigFan wrote:
^ I believe they are airstrikes as you mentioned.
It's nice to see that the US and its allies are playing judge, jury and executioner here as usual and no one seems to bat an eye considering that it's incredibly stupid for Assad and Syria to even try something like a chemical attack when they've already claimed victory against the terrorists. Who do you think launched the chemical attack? I don't believe there was a chemical attack at all. Silly, I know? After all, we have complete footage and experts all telling us that it happened so it must've happened.
What I heard on NPR is that the latest chemical weapons attack wasn’t isolated. There had been an sustained uptick in more minor chemical weapons use by Syria over the past several months. This suggests to me that Assad may very well have been responsible for this attack. Plus, I suspect that tonight’s attacks would have been more thorough had the US really been looking for a reason to get more involved in Syria.
|
I still don't understand why you would gas your own citizens on the brink of victory. It just makes zero sense at all.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
^ pretty much.
On April 14 2018 12:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 11:55 BigFan wrote:On April 14 2018 11:31 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 11:27 BigFan wrote:
^ I believe they are airstrikes as you mentioned.
It's nice to see that the US and its allies are playing judge, jury and executioner here as usual and no one seems to bat an eye considering that it's incredibly stupid for Assad and Syria to even try something like a chemical attack when they've already claimed victory against the terrorists. Who do you think launched the chemical attack? I don't believe there was a chemical attack at all. Silly, I know? After all, we have complete footage and experts all telling us that it happened so it must've happened. What I heard on NPR is that the latest chemical weapons attack wasn’t isolated. There had been an sustained uptick in more minor chemical weapons use by Syria over the past several months. This suggests to me that Assad may very well have been responsible for this attack. Plus, I suspect that tonight’s attacks would have been more thorough had the US really been looking for a reason to get more involved in Syria.
I listen to Arabic sources, much more legit and trustable imo. From what they have been saying, it didn't take place and is being used as justification here. Not much else to add unfortunately (too lazy/busy to write more in-depth).
|
I am willing to entertain the idea that it wasn't Assad, but weapons he lost control over. That the entire attack is a work of fiction is extremely far fetched and would require tricking a large number of news sources.
As for gassing his own people, Assad has been very happily bombing them for a while.
|
I don't know how legit and trust able Arabic sources are for Arabic news to be frank. If they all agree then maybe but I'd be very anxious about putting eggs into the basket that al jazeera is trustworthy for syrian news.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
To each his own I guess. I wasn't looking much into trying to convince anyone, just wanted to make a general statement.
|
The chemical weapon strikes of even 5 years ago don't seem to have seen any form of meaningful resolution and the sentiment shifted over the course of 1-2 years from "it was obviously Assad, we need to get there and stop this now!" to "is it more likely that Assad crossed that red line or that someone else provoked it?" among the folks here. I think it not too unreasonable to posit that perhaps these strikes were not executed with a deep desire to bring justice against the instigators of chemical weapon strikes, but rather towards the pursuit of other goals either using it as a false flag or merely opportunistically taking advantage of an existing attack.
And my thoughts are essentially identical to a year ago: it's good that these strikes don't look like they're part of a bigger, deeper effort (a much bigger commitment that would lead to the brink of an ill-advised war) but in the aftermath we're left wondering if it was really a good idea in the first place.
|
I have no problem with skepticism of western intelligence services findings. It isn't like we haven't give everyone cause to doubt. But theories that it is all a hoax should be treated with at least equal skepticism.
|
Seems like this attack was very Tomahawk-heavy after all. Although in the abstract I see a lot about air strikes, the specific attacks and targets tend to focus on the use of cruise missiles.
|
If anything I think the attacks show a need for a final peace treaty to be signed ending the civil war. Simply sitting behind proxies while one side tests the others strength ala Vietnam post paris peace accords isn't good for anyone.
Assad has to be brought to give concessions and acknowledge the issues that lead to this civil war. People are going to have to swallow him staying in power but the worlds sole superpower doesn't just walk away without something to declare victory on.
|
I wonder if we'll ever get accurate info on what we've bombed, the damage done, civilian causalities etc. I can't imagine that that amount of firepower is not going to have a lot of "collateral damage".
|
On April 14 2018 12:20 bo1b wrote:
I still don't understand why you would gas your own citizens on the brink of victory. It just makes zero sense at all.
and about a week after trump says we are going to pull out of syria
On April 14 2018 12:51 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with skepticism of western intelligence services findings. It isn't like we haven't give everyone cause to doubt. But theories that it is all a hoax should be treated with at least equal skepticism.
it is certainly most intelligent to just admit what you don't know, and hold *leanings* one way or another.
hopefully this doesn't escalate into something more global (and more stupid)
|
On April 14 2018 13:57 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder if we'll ever get accurate info on what we've bombed, the damage done, civilian causalities etc. I can't imagine that that amount of firepower is not going to have a lot of "collateral damage".
I imagine very little, actually.
Two days later.
We really just blew up some buildings, outside Russia's supposed "purview". Everyone knew it was coming, and where it was going. No one really loses anything, it does nothing to diminish Assad's tyranny, everyone gets their talking-point. Show is already over, the dog is wagged. Donald is so tough.
|
Wow that's surprising to me if true... all an empty charade.
|
On April 14 2018 13:22 LegalLord wrote:
Seems like this attack was very Tomahawk-heavy after all. Although in the abstract I see a lot about air strikes, the specific attacks and targets tend to focus on the use of cruise missiles.
Yeah reports are the UK planes used 'storm shadow' missiles, which are basically plane-fired cruise missiles. So it might be an airstrike but with a missile with 500km range it's a lot different from actual bombing and much safer for the jets probably.
|
There's no reason to assume Assad is a completely logical agent and wouldn't gas his own citizens, because leaders sometimes aren't logical. That being said the air strikes are sickeningly useless, and the willingness of politicians to line up in support of them is even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
