On May 08 2013 04:31 KwarK wrote: If sarin gas was used then we have to choose between either the tyrannical regime using chemical weapons against the rebels or the rebels, largely jihadists who answer to no central authority and are completely unpredictable, using them to further their own cause. Either way is going to get ugly.
Isn't it the rebels who are suspected of using Sarin gas? Assad's regime was previously suspect of using a chemical weapon, but it was not said to be Sarin.
Which, from an international security standpoint, sucks more balls than if Assad had been using them.
If it was the rebels, which is a toss up at this point. I wonder if Assad has already lost facilities or the Sarin came from outside the borders. We know Assad has it, if the Rebels have it, where from?
I have no facts to back this up, but if the rebels have Sarin it is highly likely that it used to belong to Assad. The rebels are getting most of their weaponry from NATO, and NATO would not of given them Sarin. I suppose the rebels might get support from other islamist groups, but if they had Sarin we would already be talking about it.
It seems that the most likely explanation would be that they took it from Assad, or that people defected from Assad and brought the gas with them.
Nato is involved, as is some EU countries, but so are a great many less reputable countries from around the middle east with less than stellar humanitarian records within their own borders, let alone if it killed some Syrians and furthered political goals.
I don't really understand this part. Sure, the US hasn't done this, but is that really enough reason to be comfortable with the amount of power they have?
No, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of power we have too because it's made a lot of the rest of the world (looking at you, Europe) content to benefit from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share into it.
I don't see where any of those promoted extremism. I'm not really concerned about criticism of how we fought the Soviets, the same way I have no problem with how we firebombed Dresden or Tokyo or dropped the nukes. If it gets your moral compass all in a tizzy that we went balls to the wall to literally keep the planet free it's no skin off my nose.
Dropping the nukes to "saving lives" or even more hilariously "literally keep the planet free" has been debunked many times. .
You better back your conspirational statements up.
I don't really understand this part. Sure, the US hasn't done this, but is that really enough reason to be comfortable with the amount of power they have?
No, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of power we have too because it's made a lot of the rest of the world (looking at you, Europe) content to benefit from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share into it.
I don't see where any of those promoted extremism. I'm not really concerned about criticism of how we fought the Soviets, the same way I have no problem with how we firebombed Dresden or Tokyo or dropped the nukes. If it gets your moral compass all in a tizzy that we went balls to the wall to literally keep the planet free it's no skin off my nose.
Dropping the nukes to "saving lives" or even more hilariously "literally keep the planet free" has been debunked many times. .
You better back your conspirational statements up.
Well you see, Japan was about to surrender (even though the military members of the Japanese cabinet were about to enact a coup and continue the war until the Emperor personally pleaded to the cabinet to surrender).
And the USSR wasn't really a threat the non-communist world (even though the USSR conquered countries and made puppets out of them in every decade from the 1920s to the 1980s. The 1980s were the first time in sixty years that the USSR lost puppets instead of gaining them).
Those are the two most common arguments about how and why the US is evil for dropping the bombs and fighting the USSR.
On May 08 2013 05:37 Roe wrote: Dropping the nukes to "saving lives" or even more hilariously "literally keep the planet free" has been debunked many times.
I'm skeptical of claims that something has been "debunked many times". It seems to me, that if something is debunked, it only takes once. Look at the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth. That was debunked, but only once. Something that has truly been debunked needs no further debunking. Things that are "debunked" multiple times don't seem to be debunked at all.
I don't understand how allowing the USSR to subvert countries into jack-booted Soviet communism is an expression of empathy, but then again, we've devolved into ad hominem territory the instant you clicked "Post," BioNova. Good job.
I'll quote or discuss specifically on any matter you wish, in a non-hatefull manner, which a fair bit better than you can do on your best days.
Allowing USSR to do what you imply, is not a good thing, but neither is emulating their tactics. Something you'll cheer as patriotic if we are referring to death-squads, cointel, military subjigation, however quickly it would be a call to war if committed by 'other' nations.
I don't really understand this part. Sure, the US hasn't done this, but is that really enough reason to be comfortable with the amount of power they have?
No, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of power we have too because it's made a lot of the rest of the world (looking at you, Europe) content to benefit from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share into it.
I don't see where any of those promoted extremism. I'm not really concerned about criticism of how we fought the Soviets, the same way I have no problem with how we firebombed Dresden or Tokyo or dropped the nukes. If it gets your moral compass all in a tizzy that we went balls to the wall to literally keep the planet free it's no skin off my nose.
Instability is part of USA's expansionist strategies.
Yes, we obviously wanted to destabilize Vietnam, seeing as how the South Vietnamese government's stability was one of its greatest strengths and all [/sarcasm]
Stability is part of the USA's expansionist strategies, how you manage to come up with the complete opposite conclusion I don't know. USA has as a rule always chosen stability over instability, except for the Arab Spring which is why things are such a mess. Obama should have never tossed Mubarak under the bus, look where we are now because of that. Instability and violence everywhere. Of course from my point of view Arabs bleeding their own strength out against each other instead of spending it against us is pretty tits.
The US tries to cause instability in countries in order to restore them to order with more US-control / influence. The US encourages rebellions in countries it deems ''regimes'' in the hopes that a more US-favorable government would be established in its wake, with complete disregard for loss of human life. After all, its for the greater good, right?
Also, what do you exactly mean by
literally keep the planet free
? I'd like some more clarification on this. It sounds more like you want the US sphere of influence to hang over the planet than other spheres of influence. Otherwise you wouldn't have gotten involved in the Vietnam war or the Italian communist movement. I am not saying other countries don't use intelligence and undermining of stability to further their own interests, but America does so as well, and you aren't any better in that regard.
edit:
No, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of power we have too because it's made a lot of the rest of the world (looking at you, Europe) content to benefit from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share into it.
Could you elaborate on this? In what way has Europe benefited from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share?
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here.
(support for Jonas Savimbi, labeled 'the Abraham Lincoln of Angola' by Reagan, although he littered the country with land mines, once bombed a Red Cross-run factory making artificial legs for victims of those mines...)
The Soviets, the Chinese, the Americans and their Western allies were now all involved in the Congo, providing money, arms and advisors to their chosen factions. In addition, the "Radical" Leftist leaders of the African continent were outraged at the specter of white mercenaries and "Neocolonial" Western powers intervening on behalf of the Leopoldville regime, and openly supported the Stanleyville rebel government. In addition to Massemba-Debat's Marxist "Congo-Brazzaville" People's Republic, these supporters included: Ahmed Ben Bella in newly independent Algeria, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, and Julius Nyerere in the neighboring socialist nation of Tanzania, among others.
By early August 1964 Congolese government forces, with the help of the groups of white mercenaries under their own command, were making headway against the Simba rebellion.
A mercenary fighting for the West in the Congo gives the following account:
It seemed to me we had been taking villages apart, innocent villages of peaceful farming folk who did not want any part of this war, all the way along the track from far down in the south. We would turn up unexpectedly, open fire without warning, race through the place, burning every pathetic shanty and shack to the ground regardless of who might be inside. The idea was to spread the image of our determination and ruthlessness; to terrorise the whole area; to give the rebels an example of what they were in for... It seemed almost certain that the villagers knew nothing about the activities of the rebels... Unsuspecting women were hustling around, carrying water and going about the last of their day's chores. Children were playing in the dust, laughing and shouting to one another. We paused for a few minutes, and then came the order to fire. There was a great crackle of shots from machine guns and our deadly new Belgian rifles. Women screamed and fell. Little children just stood there, dazed, or cartwheeled hideously as bullets slammed into them. Then, as usual, we raced into the place, still firing as we went. Some of us pitched cans of petrol on to the homes before putting a match to them. Others threw phosphorus hand grenades, which turned human beings into blazing inextinguishable torches of fire. For a while, as we raced along, there was bedlam. Shrieks, moans, shrill cries for mercy. And, above all, the throaty, half-crazed bellowing of those commandoes among us who quite obviously utterly loved this sort of thing. Then, as we moved away beyond the village, the comparative silence, the distant, hardly distinguishable cries of the wounded, the acrid smell of burning flesh.
These mercenaries were trained to never, 'in any circumstances', take prisoners:
Even if men, women and children come running to you... even if they fall on their knees before you, begging for mercy, don't hesitate. Just shoot to kill.
Fearing defeat, the rebels started taking hostages of the local white population in areas under their control. Several hundred hostages were taken to Stanleyville and placed under guard in the Victoria Hotel.
and obviously, the Vietnam war.
Instability is part of USA's expansionist strategies.
You said what he said a couple pages ago. Have everyone debilitate each other so Uncle Sam has no problem taking over.
Anywho, if these claims of sarin prove to be true, how much accountability can we give to the "rebels"? I must say I'm pretty ignorant on how well organized or cohesive they are. Could they just say it wasn't done wit their knowledge or approval, something the syrian government can't as easily say about their own suspected actions?
Anywho, if these claims of sarin prove to be true, how much accountability can we give to the "rebels"? I must say I'm pretty ignorant on how well organized or cohesive they are. Could they just say it wasn't done wit their knowledge or approval, something the syrian government can't as easily say about their own suspected actions?
"We don't have our shit together" is a pretty poor excuse when it comes to alleged chemical weapon use.
The United States and Russia have agreed to push both sides in Syria to find an end to the bloodshed, offering to hold an international conference in search of peace.
In talks which stretched late into the night, US Secretary of State John Kerry met first for more than two hours with President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday and then for a further three with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
"We agreed that Russia and the United States will encourage both the Syria government and opposition groups to find a political solution," Lavrov told reporters at a concluding news conference that ended after midnight.
Hopefully by the end of May the two ministers working together could convene an international conference to build on the Geneva accord agreed by world powers last June for a peaceful solution in Syria, they said.
Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from the UN headquarters in New York, said that the meeting between Kerry and Lavrov was significant because for the first time both countries were on the same page with regards to the political solution for Syria.
But he said they have not yet resolved the fate of President Bashar al-Assad.
On May 06 2013 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Syria will not attack. Assad is trying to stay in power not commit a suicidal move, if a war were to happen Syria would not be fighting Israel alone, they would be fighting Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. No friends of Syria, or Iran for that matter.
Forty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and at least 100 people are missing after airstrikes on military sites outside Damascus on Sunday, the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday, citing medical sources. Syria claimed Israel struck three military facilities Sunday. Israel has not confirmed or denied any strikes.
[Original story, posted at 7:44 a.m. Monday]
U.N. official: There are strong suspicions Syrian rebels used sarin gas
(CNN) -- A U.N. official says there are strong suspicions that Syrian rebel forces have used the deadly nerve agent sarin gas in the country's civil war.
Carla Del Ponte told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.
Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, said the notion isn't surprising, given the infiltration of foreign fighters into the Syrian opposition.
But rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad said rebels don't even have unconventional weapons, nor do they want any.
"In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Almokdad said.
Just to point out, Hezbollah said only 4 were killed in the attack and i trust their numbers more as they have incentive to inflate them.
I see. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Hezbollah said only 4 people were killed in the attack, or that 4 of their fighters were killed, in addition to the Syrian troops. Any links to your story because I had just not heard that one. Not so sure I'd trust Hez's word by default, any more than a major media outlet with an axe to grind unless you're partisian by nature. .
They quoted Al manar on the news but i cant find it now...
It's one thing for Obama to say that we shouldn't be arming al-Qaida aligned rebels, but what is the United States telling its allies in the Middle East with respect to arms shipments? If the U.S. wants to credibly deny arming radical islamists, it needs to be clear about its apparent implicit approval of the actions of its Arab allies.
After all, it was men from those Arab ally nations who were the perpetrators of 9/11. America, are you really OK with the oil sheikh allies in the Middle East arming those who share the same ideology as those who perpetrated 9/11?
Syria's internet and phone service has resumed in the war-torn nation after a two-day blackout left much of the country cut off.
The blackout, which ended on Wednesday, was blamed by state media on a technical fault, but activists and a watchdog accused the regime of deliberating cutting the connection to shield military operations.
Communication networks had been crucial for opposition activists trying to get out videos and information on the two-year conflict that has killed more than 70,000 people.
Data from Google, Akamai Technologies and Renesys, a US firm that tracks global web traffic, showed that internet traffic started flowing to and from Syria shortly 1400 GMT on Wednesday, after stopping just before 1900 GMT on Tuesday.
"Everything looks the same as before the internet came down," said Jim Cowie, chief technology officer at Renesys.
Syrian state news agency SANA quoted the director general of the General Establishment for Communications, Bakr Bakr, as saying internet services and communication between provinces had gone down because of a malfunction in an optic cable.
Report: Israel warns U.S. about Russian arms sale to Assad
Information provided by Israel indicates Syria has been making payments to buy advanced S-300 air defense missile batteries, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Israel warned the United States in recent days that Russia plans to sell advanced ground-to-air missile systems to Syria despite Western pressure on Moscow to hold off on such a move, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
The newspaper said U.S. officials had confirmed they were analyzing the Israeli reports but would not comment on whether they believed the sale of S-300 missile batteries was near.
No comment was immediately available from officials at the Pentagon or U.S. State Department.
The government of Syrian President Bashar Assad has been seeking to purchase the advanced S-300 missile batteries, which can intercept both manned aircraft and guided missiles, from Moscow for many years.
The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12. S-300 deployment time is five minutes. The S-300 missiles are sealed rounds and require no maintenance over their lifetime. An evolved version of the S-300 system is the S-400 (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler), entering limited service in 2004.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have to step down as part of any political solution in Syria.
Kerry made the comments on Thursday in Rome while meeting his Jordanian counterpart, Nasser Judeh, during the third day of talks on the nearly two-year conflict.
He said all sides were working to "effect a transition government by mutual consent of both sides, which clearly means that in our judgement President Assad will not be a component of that transitional government".
Kerry also officially unveiled $100m in additional US humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees, almost half of which will go to help Jordan struggling to cope with a tide of people fleeing the 26-month war.
About 2,000 people are flooding across the border into Jordan every day, and the country now hosts nearly 525,000 refugees, Judeh said at the start of the talks in Rome.
"We have 10 percent of our population today, in the form of Syrian refugees. It is expected to rise to about 20 to 25 percent given the current rates by the end of this year, and possibly to about 40 percent by the middle of 2014," he said.
"No country can cope with the numbers as huge as the numbers I've just described," he said, adding Jordan was very grateful for the help of the international community.
Related to this topic and prolly deserving its own thread(but im too lazy) is the news that turkish+syrian rebel thugs and even some official turkey armymen are operating on syrian refugees that have traveled in turkey, leaving them to rot after they sell their vital organs in the black market. Estimates say about 15k people have being killed so far by these misanthropists.
I feel disgusted, these poor people are also about to get bombed by nato, I feel so sorry for them.
Good thing that the rebels are liberating syria from bad assad, lol.
On May 10 2013 01:56 Steveling wrote: Related to this topic and prolly deserving its own thread(but im too lazy) is the news that turkish+syrian rebel thugs and even some official turkey armymen are operating on syrian refugees that have traveled in turkey, leaving them to rot after they sell their vital organs in the black market. Estimates say about 15k people have being killed so far by these misanthropists.
I feel disgusted, these poor people are also about to get bombed by nato, I feel so sorry for them.
Good thing that the rebels are liberating syria from bad assad, lol.
That's a pretty god damn wild claim to make without a single legit source.
EPT
