|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On June 15 2013 14:28 lord_nibbler wrote:http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/NATO survey: 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime 20 percent were deemed neutral 10 percent expressed support for the rebels"The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad." "Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels." "The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt.” “What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad."
"The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two
years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said
the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that
were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts."
Not sure how much I trust these numbers. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large majority of people in the country that would rather support Assad than have the fighting continue.
|
The US taking sides in Syria makes as much since as the US taking sides in Bloods vs Crips!
|
On June 15 2013 11:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 10:08 imperator-xy wrote:On June 15 2013 00:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 23:47 Holo82 wrote:On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that? Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all. Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria. It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world. Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations. The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising. If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys. Prediction, Mid of june 2013: Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years. Ok, I read some magazines. Here's one pointing out recent sanctions against an Al Qaeda operative in Iran. For a decade, at least, the US and other nations have said that Iran is either facilitating Al Qaeda on its territory or at least allowing them to operate. Apparently the Sunni and Shia found a common enemy... If you want to fact-check my fact-checking, go right ahead. Try to point out where I am wrong. But what you said so far is contradictory. You say that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation, and its members ARE terrorists, and then try to boisterously claim that it's ridiculous to consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation... The Shia v. Sunni analysis is simplistic, but it does not exactly say anything about the current situation. We do not even yet know what the US and NATO will provide. Nor are there any confirmed links between the rebels and Al Qaeda. So I'll take your bet. Permaban for the person that loses the bet. I win if no US made AA weapons delivered to Syria will be used at JFK within 2 years, you win if the opposite is true. I will only talk about the last part as your other claims already got addressed. Surely it is kind of simplistic when you are 100% sure about this being a Shia vs. Sunni conflict. But you still cannot ignore the fact that leading Sunni clerics have called for Jihad against the Syrian government. You also said that there are no confirmed links between FSA and Al Qaeda. This is just wrong, as Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra is the biggest organization within the FSA. I don't think you can dismiss the rest of what I said as "dealt with", I'd say it pretty much stands. As for the context of the claim you looked at, yes, Al-Nasra is a Sunni extremist group the website of which links to Al Qaeda, but I'm still willing to take that bet I proposed earlier. + Show Spoiler +Your text gives the impression that Al-Nasra is some long-standing group that is allied with Al Qaeda. It's name is revealing: Jabhat al-Nusra li-Ahl al-Sham Min Mujaheddin al Sham fi Sahat al Jihad, which means “Support Front for the People of Syria from the Mujaheddin of Syria in the places of Jihad" P.S. I actually agree with Ignatius' analysis of the situation, but so does Obama. And unless more details were published between when I went to bed last night and this morning, we still do not know whether any actual weapons will be provided to these groups. It could still be a no fly zone or humanitarian aid.
Well, Al Nusra Front was founded as a sub-branch of Iraqi Al Qaeda and they openly declare that their loyalty applies to Al Qaeda's leader al-Zawahiri.
Al Nusra Front exists for about 1,5 years now and they have an astonishing history of car bombings, massacres and executions. Those guys are so dangerous that I cannot understand how you can (directly or indirectly) support them, especially if you see yourself as the world's police.
On June 15 2013 13:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:32 Zarahtra wrote:
I find this timing quite... interesting. Obama's in huge PR mess at home and suddenly a big bad wolf pops out from nowhere. This especially considering that the government is crushing the rebels and they know how much the USA's military especially is waiting for an excuse to go into Syria.
I don't delude myself into thinking that Assad is a saint, but I very much doubt the rebels are any better or that the forces in Syria and countries surrounding it will in time be very happy about US presence in their country.
I think helping the rebels is just going to end up like helping Afghanistan in the cold war, though admittedly now people are more reluctant due to that point in history. Obama isn't in a huge PR mess. The Republicans here in the states are making mountains out of molehills trying to make him look bad, and it isn't working without except with the same Tea Party Conservatives who hated him all a long. The IRS thing has nothing to do with Obama, the director the IRS was appointed by Bush, and he was profiling groups unfairly, and the reason is because after Super Pacs were allowed, Conservative groups created them in mass compared to Liberal groups (since conservatives have the money... take a look at the independent Super Pac spending, the #1 and #2 Super Pacs for Romeny each outspent all Obama Super Pacs combined! http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/independent-expenditures/totals ), and some of those were fraudulent, so conservative groups were scrutinized since many of the fraudulent Super Pacs were using conservative sounding names. Obviously, the Liberal groups should have faced the same scrutiny, as this kind of profiling was unfair, but it had nothing to do with Obama. Benghazi wasn't a cover up, the CIA and intelligence in the United States didn't know where the attack was coming from and when they did, the administration told everyone. No different than when the CIA and intelligence said Iraq has WMD's, and it turns they didn't.Anyway, this big bad wolf didn't pop out of nowhere, Assad use chemical weapons, and we have moral obligation to stop him. You're missing the point with Assad and who succeeds him. In the end the situation could turn out worse, but it could also turn out better. And if it ends up worse, we can change it again. In fact, that is the only way to improve anything. And it actually requires positive thinking, and, gasp... Hope. Or else we're stuck with something terrible, fearful that the unknown is worse. That is an ignorant viewpoint.
Am I misunderstanding you or are you claiming that intelligence information actually indicated that Saddam was in possession of WMDs?
I thought it was common sense that those "proofs" were blatantly faked to be able to justify a war (you cannot really call it justify though, as it still was against international law and it was probably one of the biggest crimes against humanity since WW2).
I just always have that in mind when I read about the US starting another war. For the last war, they blatantly faked a justification to have a proper casus belli.
|
On June 14 2013 22:46 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote:
As to weapons smuggling, despite all the verbal bravado from Hollande and Cameron (and now Obama), nobody wants to see a massive influx of weaponry ending up in the hands of the Al-Nosra front and of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, especially when many jihadist with European passports are reported to be in their ranks. Nobody except other radical Sunni dictatorships in the region. Like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been arming the rebels with western blessings since the start of the conflict. Arming them mostly with light weapons (assault/sniper rifles and RPGs) though. As far as I know, the lethal component of the western military assistance is expected to be much more powerful (wasn't it Cameron who even talked about armored vehicles, a few weeks/months ago?). And thus to represent a much bigger threat of terrorist attack later. Handing out manpads like if they were mere rifles is madness.
I was wondering just how much aid Qatar and SA had been giving the rebels. This report from the Financial Times has it at $3 billion for Quatar
In the shell-blasted areas of rebel-held Syria, few appear to be aware of the vast sums that Qatar has contributed – estimated by rebel and diplomatic sources to be about $1bn, but put by people close to the Qatar government at as much as $3bn.
This figure and source is quoted in the wiki article on foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war which contains a quote from another FT piece saying that
Qatar was offering refugee packages of about $50,000 a year to defectors and family.
It's worth reading the whole of the first FT piece if you have time BTW -the second is pay-walled for me.
On June 15 2013 13:14 BronzeKnee wrote:
Anyway, this big bad wolf didn't pop out of nowhere, Assad use chemical weapons, and we have moral obligation to stop him. You're missing the point with Assad and who succeeds him. In the end the situation could turn out worse, but it could also turn out better. And if it ends up worse, we can change it again.
In fact, that is the only way to improve anything. And it actually requires positive thinking, and, gasp...
Hope.
Or else we're stuck with something terrible, fearful that the unknown is worse. That is an ignorant viewpoint.
That depends. First on whether he used chemical weapons or not .!Which we don't know!. Second on what you mean by calling the stopping of Assad a moral obligation. I assume you would stop short of nuking a city he was in? The point is not facetious, how much death and suffering is too much for the sake of this imperative?
Or there's "Hope". I'm genuinely not sure I've ever seen a stranger use of the word. It's hope to get more deeply involved in a military conflict that is already causing an incredible degree of suffering because not knowing what might have happened if you didn't is, like, a bummer? Surely not knowing the outcome of an action is, if anything, a reason for not taking that action.
How about this. I hope that the people of Syria have the intelligence and the strength to in some way determine their own future rather than being a tool of ourselves and others. The first link to the FT article gives a good indication that this has become a proxy war involving Quatar, SA, Iran, Hezbollah, The Muslim brotherhood and maybe Turkey and Jordan. Other news makes Israel, the U.S., U.K and France also players.
On June 15 2013 14:28 lord_nibbler wrote:http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/NATO survey: 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime 20 percent were deemed neutral 10 percent expressed support for the rebels"The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad." "Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels." "The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt.” “What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad."
This is the only attempt to discover the disposition of the Syrian people that I know of. Thanks for the link. It actually doesn't matter that this poll is almost certain to be inaccurate given the circumstances at it's all we have. If I am to cling to my hope that the Syrian people are worthy of the respect due to humans, I might say next that peace is what's needed so, if nothing else, at least more information can be gathered on subjects such as this.
On June 15 2013 14:18 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 13:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2013 00:32 Zarahtra wrote:
I find this timing quite... interesting. Obama's in huge PR mess at home and suddenly a big bad wolf pops out from nowhere. This especially considering that the government is crushing the rebels and they know how much the USA's military especially is waiting for an excuse to go into Syria.
I don't delude myself into thinking that Assad is a saint, but I very much doubt the rebels are any better or that the forces in Syria and countries surrounding it will in time be very happy about US presence in their country.
I think helping the rebels is just going to end up like helping Afghanistan in the cold war, though admittedly now people are more reluctant due to that point in history. Anyway, this big bad wolf didn't pop out of nowhere, Assad use chemical weapons, and we have moral obligation to stop him. You're missing the point with Assad and who succeeds him. In the end the situation could turn out worse, but it could also turn out better. And if it ends up worse, we can change it again. I was all onboard with your rational explanation why this isnt a wag the dog thing for Obama. What I disagree with is the quoted text. Why is there a moral obligation to stop Assad when he kills hundreds with chemical weapons but not weapon <insert random massacre in the last 10 years in shitty third world countries that dont invovle chemical weapons> ? As to changing situation -- yes, the way the situation Iraq was 'changed' where a brutal dictator was replaced with an incredibly bloody and still continuing civil war.
You don't even need to get into chemical weapons vs. conventional weapons and TBH I wouldn't until you had to, it's a horrible topic. Just stick with the fact. The fact. That we, the citizens that are paying for the guns, have no way to know who used the chemical weapons and no one seems to be interested in telling us. It's a point made pretty early on by Patrick Cockburn, foreign correspondent for The Independent in this interview (starts 12:50).
|
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq?
|
So uh, does the Obama Administration intend to provide any proof for this chemical weapon usage or are we supposed to take their infallible word on this matter and have to trust this trustworthy government who would never lie to its citizenry for personal gain?
Secondly, and perhaps the most important here, why are we once again supporting a group that has pledged allegiance to Al-Queda?
Thirdly, has any of the governments looking into supporting the rebels, you know, asked themselves if the rebels are using chemical weapons as well?
|
On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq?
Unlike guns, chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. They were first extensively used in the first world war leading to mass casualties of both sides. Since then, they have been outlawed by several international conventions and pretty much never used (for example, Nazi Germany developed several chemical weapons but never used them). Here's a summary of the rationale.
Under international law, chemical weapons use is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which Syria has ratified. This means that Syria has broken international law and can be rightfully punished.
Of course, any actual measures are taken by the Security Council and Russia will veto them no matter what...
|
|
|
On June 16 2013 16:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq? Unlike guns, chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. They were first extensively used in the first world war leading to mass casualties of both sides. Since then, they have been outlawed by several international conventions and pretty much never used (for example, Nazi Germany developed several chemical weapons but never used them). Here's a summary of the rationale. Under international law, chemical weapons use is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which Syria has ratified. This means that Syria has broken international law and can be rightfully punished.
I'd like to correct you if I may:
This means the U.S. alleges that Syria has broken international law and, If this allegation proves accurate, can be rightfully punished.
On June 16 2013 16:36 Ghanburighan wrote:
Of course, any actual measures are taken by the Security Council and Russia will veto them no matter what...
I'd imagine Russia would have a harder time vetoing if the U.S. could present actual evidence to back up their claims. (Just to be clear, I believe it's undisputed that chemical have been used. What is in dispute is who used them.)
|
On June 16 2013 18:49 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 16:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq? Unlike guns, chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. They were first extensively used in the first world war leading to mass casualties of both sides. Since then, they have been outlawed by several international conventions and pretty much never used (for example, Nazi Germany developed several chemical weapons but never used them). Here's a summary of the rationale. Under international law, chemical weapons use is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which Syria has ratified. This means that Syria has broken international law and can be rightfully punished. I'd like to correct you if I may: Show nested quote +This means the U.S. alleges that Syria has broken international law and, If this allegation proves accurate, can be rightfully punished. Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 16:36 Ghanburighan wrote:
Of course, any actual measures are taken by the Security Council and Russia will veto them no matter what... I'd imagine Russia would have a harder time vetoing if the U.S. could present actual evidence to back up their claims. (Just to be clear, I believe it's undisputed that chemical have been used. What is in dispute is who used them.)
Correct on all accounts.
|
On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq?
Because weaker nations can use them effectively against armies sent by large, industrialised nations. Cluster bombs are used by NATO countries, so they are OK, even if they blow up children years after any active fighting has ended.
|
United States43035 Posts
On June 17 2013 02:59 Fireflies wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq? Because weaker nations can use them effectively against armies sent by large, industrialised nations. Cluster bombs are used by NATO countries, so they are OK, even if they blow up children years after any active fighting has ended.
Explaining why prohibitions on chemical weapons were introduced immediately following the first world war in which they were primarily used by France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States....
Not everything everywhere has to fit your narrative.
|
On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq?
Because chemical weapons are the most brutal and horrifying ways to kill and cripple massive amounts of human beings in the blink of an eye.
|
UPDATES:
Syrian President Assad warns Europe will 'pay the price' for arming rebels - @AFP
Consideration of no-fly zone in Syria is not currently on NATO's agenda: US ambassador to NATO - @ReutersWorld
Syrian activists report huge explosion in Damascus, between al-Meedan and al-Zahra - @AlArabiya_Eng
At least 60 Syrian regime soldiers reported killed in Aleppo car bomb attack - @AJELive
|
On June 17 2013 04:14 [SuNdae] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq? Because chemical weapons are the most brutal and horrifying ways to kill and cripple massive amounts of human beings in the blink of an eye.
I'd think napalm is worse. And that isn't banned.
|
Guys, cluster bombs are prohibited by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Napalm is prohibited by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Granted, the Cluster Munitions treaty has been around for only a few years and many major players have not signed up yet.
|
Yeah thos Conventions are pretty stupid. If you sign them and use those kinds of weapons, you are breaking the law.
So countries just don't sign them, use them and get upset about countries that signed those contracts and use them.
|
That's hyperbolic imperator-xy. For Chemical weapons and CCW, it's hard to find major players that have not joined. Ratification takes time, so it's not surprising that the biggest countries (that generally have longest ratification processes) have not ratified since 2010.
|
On June 18 2013 11:11 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:14 [SuNdae] wrote:On June 16 2013 08:06 Millitron wrote:
Can anyone tell me why chemical weapons are considered so terrible? They don't spread like bioweapons, and they don't permanently ruin the land like nuclear weapons.
Yeah, they can be indiscriminate, but so can guns. Yes, they hurt pretty bad, but so does getting shot. Yes, they can cause permanent injury, but again, so can being shot.
And better yet, even if a good reason for how bad they supposedly are can be found, is it worth starting another war that will end up just like Iraq? Because chemical weapons are the most brutal and horrifying ways to kill and cripple massive amounts of human beings in the blink of an eye. I'd think napalm is worse. And that isn't banned.
I lied  ignore me
|
Anyone skeptical of the chemical claims should find the Malaysian hacking of a British Security company in January a bit interesting. One of the e-mails published in the data dump quoted in full.
Phil
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
David
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
