|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain's Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast, in a sign of increasing preparations for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria.
Two commercial pilots who regularly fly from Larnaca on Monday told the Guardian that they had seen C-130 transport planes from their cockpit windows as well as small formations of fighter jets on their radar screens, which they believe had flown from Europe.
Source
|
On August 27 2013 02:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If you can't see how people who put children into cars to get them past checkpoints and then blew the cars up with the children still inside are responsible for their own actions, then you don't possess the capacity for moral reasoning necessary to have a credible opinion. Yeah America is responsible for the car bombs it was trying to stop. People who sent 2 tons of explosives in the back of a truck to the front of a mosque and blew it up, that's America's responsibility entirely. I strongly disagree with that kind of nonsense.
Would they have occurred without the war? I doubt that. It's a harsh mean of 'self-defence' but it is to be expected in a war.
On August 27 2013 02:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
All of which has jack to do with Syria. If people are willing to allow Bashar al-Assad to go on a course that will end up with more Syrians killed in 3-4 years than Iraqis were killed in Iraq in 10 years because they're still lying about the US and raging against the US, there is a serious problem with their character. You can't even bother to actually investigate whether or not what you're saying is true, and it's manifestly obvious that you proudly hold an unfair standard because of your hatred for the US. Here again we see the US being totally trashed and it's bullshit once again. And not a negative word spoken about the man who is deliberately massacring innocent civilians, of course, it's far more important to let the world know for the 8000th time how awful the United States is. I'm sure it's very comforting to the people in Syria to know how much you want to protect them from those destructive Americans (who haven't destroyed anything in Syria yet) while their own Syrian government turns their neighborhoods into rubble.
Your president made so many bad calls in the last months, I thought he was a civilian. He is weak at global politics. That can happen, if you worry too much about kitchen-allegories. His red line was almost as if he ordered the chemical strike himself. You certainly won't like that opinion. You can't go around saying 'Heh, I don't have a plan and want to postpone a decision so I think of a red line and everyone will be satisfied.' The rebels were probably planning since that very day how they could fake a chemical attack on their own. Don't tell me that's not the case in an RTS forum.
Now with a completely screwed up credibility of US-American politicians in general since 2003 and Intelligence services with a questionable performance, it is your turn to sort a dilemma out. A lucky, definite proof would probably be the only way to save the day.
Going back to you not worrying about the whys and hows. How did it happen, that so much weapons could be transported into Syria? Their military grew over time. But let me guess. That's not US-citizens problems. It's all their fault I suppose. If you have no plan, keep out of that region.
|
On August 27 2013 01:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:
God, I hope we just stay the fuck out of this. I'm tired of stepping into hornet's nests when all we get as a reward is the rest of world whining at us about shit we didn't even do.
Didn't 9/11/2012 teach us anything?
Ten years ago, I'd be all for the US intervening in Syria and putting an end to the genocide going on there. Now, I'm not particularly interested in the US playing the lead good guy. It will be incredibly expensive and taxing to spearhead an intervention effort, at a time when we have plenty of problems that need to be addressed back at home. All that we'd earn for our efforts is the ire of the international community of ingrates. Someone else can deal with this mess. I don't mind lobbing a few missiles into Syria in support of someone else's invasion, but I am not in favor of committing significant American resources.
|
|
|
On August 27 2013 06:36 Perscienter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 02:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If you can't see how people who put children into cars to get them past checkpoints and then blew the cars up with the children still inside are responsible for their own actions, then you don't possess the capacity for moral reasoning necessary to have a credible opinion. Yeah America is responsible for the car bombs it was trying to stop. People who sent 2 tons of explosives in the back of a truck to the front of a mosque and blew it up, that's America's responsibility entirely. I strongly disagree with that kind of nonsense. Would they have occurred without the war? I doubt that. It's a harsh mean of 'self-defence' but it is to be expected in a war.
As I've read him over the last several pages of debate, DEB is a supporter of what ethicists call "The Doctrine of Double Effect" (DDE), originally due to Thomas Aquinas. According to DDE, there is a morally significant difference between the intended effects of one's actions and the unintended, though foreseeable, effects of one's intended actions. In this case the idea would be that even though the U.S. intended to invade Iraq and even though they knew that doing so would (indirectly) cause untold casualties, they didn't want those later deaths to occur and so are (partially, largely, completely) excused of them.
Personally, I find this position absurd, but it has been somewhat popular in conservative and especially some religious traditions.
|
On August 27 2013 06:10 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 04:56 nunez wrote:5 days and too late to be credible... how long did it take for the 9/11 commission to be set up again? i believe it should be "to grant UN investigators access to the site" in your quote, not U.S., stealth. article 2 in un charter: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. so bad manner. discrediting the un investigators potential findings before they've even got a chance to do their job... I don't really see the relevance of the time it took to set up the 9/11 commission care to explain? and on how much days is too larte depends on how long they're able to trace who actually used the chemical weapons. Maybe it needs to be done in a certain amount of time or your chances of finding out will be drastically reduced. That time limit could be less than 5 days I don't know though but maybe someone else here does?
a high ranking us official saying that the delay of the official investigation into alleged aggression that might prompt a western coalition into military action in the middle east invalidates it. the relevance should at least be faintly visible.
|
A friend in the army said the talk on some bases(not official or anything obviously) is that the Us is going to go into Syria/Egypt and people on the bases are like basically ready for it I think.
Just talk of course but I found that kind of interesting
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23844386
The prime minister told Vladimir Putin there was "little doubt" a chemical weapons attack had been carried out by the Syrian regime, Downing Street said.
But Mr Putin told him they had no evidence that an attack had taken place or who was responsible, it said.
At this point I'm still in the "who did it?" camp, but saying there's no evidence there was even an attack in the first place ... wow.
|
On August 27 2013 08:02 a176 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23844386Show nested quote +The prime minister told Vladimir Putin there was "little doubt" a chemical weapons attack had been carried out by the Syrian regime, Downing Street said.
But Mr Putin told him they had no evidence that an attack had taken place or who was responsible, it said. At this point I'm still in the "who did it?" camp, but saying there's no evidence there was even an attack in the first place ... wow.
There actually is no real evidence. All we have is videos and reports from rebel activists, this is why the UN inspectors just visited that place to gather more information.
Real, unquestioned evidence would mean urine and blood samples that prove the use of chemical weapons, which we don't have until now.
I (and probably Putin as well) have no doubt that a chemical weapons attack happened, I'm just saying that factually all we are relying on up until now is some shady (thus not 100% confirmed) information given by mostly rebel activists.
Neutral inspections should take place before any actions are taken.
|
on the only question that matters "who did it?" ...
it is very hard for me to believe assad would be so extremely stupid to have launched such an attack days after letting inspectors into syria that are stationed only some km away.
makes much more sense that those jihaddist rebells want to trigger direct military action from the US and allies. (and giving them a reason to do so by blaming assad)
fucking imperialism
|
i have found it a little annoying how the BBC takes every opportunity to point out how the syrian government's "claims cannot be verified"...
yes, of course it's probably accurate to say the claims are unverified, but is it necessary to say? strikes me as biased reporting. writing "the syrian government responded by claiming..." would be fine. but they have to drive home the suggestion that they are lying. that's not what journalism is about.
|
(Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be "so stupid" as to use chemical weapons close to Damascus, the leader of the country's largest Kurdish group said.
Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), said he doubted the Syrian president would resort to using such weapons when he felt he had the upper hand in the country's civil war.
He suggested last Wednesday's attack, which the opposition says was carried out by government forces and killed hundreds of people, was aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction. Assad has denied his forces used chemical weapons.
"The regime in Syria ... has chemical weapons, but they wouldn't use them around Damascus, 5 km from the (U.N.) committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so," Muslim told Reuters.
At the time of the incident, U.N. experts were already in Syria to investigate three previous alleged chemical attacks dating from months ago.
Source
|
So who are the westerners supposed to prop up, if Assad is the enemy? From what I've gathered, the rebels are mainly salafists and the like, who are way crazier than Assad ever will be. Do secularists/non jihadis have any power at all there?
And what about the West's motives? Whenever they had clear motives, they never failed to act. Ever. The Syrian crisis has been going on since the 'Arab Spring' started. If I remember my timelines correctly, the intervention in Libya started less than two months after the first protests. Quick, efficient, decisive, with a clear motive to remove Gaddafi. They fabricated excuses to invade Iraq and secure that oil, no problem there. Why was Syria left to its own devices for more than two years? I'd say, because there was no clear motive for the West in Syria, similar to the situation in Somalia or Darfur etc. When there's nothing to be gained, no actions are taken, simple enough. So why are they suddenly itching for a fight now?
And how about Assad himself? He was winning lately, wasn't he? He was denying the UN inspectors access for a long time and just as they were on the ground, he goes and uses chemical weapons 30km from where they are? This is way too much to believe. Up until that point, it's a clearcut false flag operation, a lie as easily discernible as the WMDs Bush was claiming were in Iraq.
And yet, he goes on to not allow immediate access to the bombed area in (even vain) hopes of clearing his name. And there were definitely hopes there, that UN mission included the investigator who has claimed that the rebels were responsible for the previous chemical weapons incidents. What the hell? This is a clear sign that he did have something to hide, and given that the Westerners were apparently asking for an excuse to intervene, he had all the motivation in the world to at least try to prove his innocence. Now the situation is flipped again and he does look awfully fishy.
Am I missing anything obvious here?
|
The fall of Assad regime in Syria would weaken Iran, which probably is the next target as far as the US and it's friends are concerned. I don't think they actually care if Syria turns into another Iraq with sectarian violence happening daily. As long as it doesn't have a strong centralized government that is supportive of Iran, it's a win scenario.
|
the opposition using the chemical weapons on their own people is tragic, though it begs the question where they would obtain the launchers, the rockets, the warheads, and most importantly, the payload.
if they were all 'stolen' from assad, it would just mean that in the end, his supposedly 'hidden' stockpile of chemical weapons were ended up being used against him, even though not actually used by him. again, a tragic function of war, something in all honesty i have only ever read in books and seen in movies.
|
Syrian rebel forces have taken control of a strategic town in northern Syria, cutting off government forces' only supply route out of the city of Aleppo, the Syrian Observator for Human Rights has said.
The Britain-based monitoring group said the fall of the town of Khanasir, between Aleppo and Hama, would leave forces of President Bashar al-Assad besieged in Aleppo province.
The rebel advance came amid reports that a prominent Alawite religious leader has been killed in the province of Latakia.
The Observatory said on Monday that it had obtained a photograph showing the execution of Badr Ghazal by hardline rebels.
Some Syrians were sceptical about the purported killing of Ghazal, saying there was still no definitive proof, but the Observatory said rebels from the Nusra Front shot Ghazal after he was kidnapped in the northern suburbs of Latakia earlier this month.
Meanwhile, residents in the central province of Homs said rebels also tried on Monday to retake the strategic town of Talkalakh, 4km from Lebanon's northern border.
Its capture would allow rebels in the Homs countryside to replenish their supplies.
Source
|
TOKYO: North Korea tried to export gas masks to Syria but they were seized in Turkey along with arms and ammunition, a Japanese daily said Tuesday, as the US threatened action over an alleged chemical weapons attack.
A Libyan-registered vessel, identified as Al En Ti Sar, left North Korea for Syria earlier this year with the consignment, the Sankei Shimbun said, quoting unnamed sources from the US military, Japanese and South Korean intelligence.
The US military, which obtained the information, was tracking the ship in coordination with other countries, the daily -- which is known for its North Korea coverage -- said in a detailed report.
The vessel sailed through Dardanelles in Turkey on April 3 and was searched shortly after by Turkish authorities, who had been tipped off by the US.
Turkish officials seized 1,400 rifles and pistols and some 30,000 bullets as well as gas masks apparently for chemical protection, the daily said.
Source
|
On August 27 2013 09:07 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 08:02 a176 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23844386The prime minister told Vladimir Putin there was "little doubt" a chemical weapons attack had been carried out by the Syrian regime, Downing Street said.
But Mr Putin told him they had no evidence that an attack had taken place or who was responsible, it said. At this point I'm still in the "who did it?" camp, but saying there's no evidence there was even an attack in the first place ... wow. There actually is no real evidence. All we have is videos and reports from rebel activists, this is why the UN inspectors just visited that place to gather more information. I (and probably Putin as well) have no doubt that a chemical weapons attack happened, I'm just saying that factually all we are relying on up until now is some shady (thus not 100% confirmed) information given by mostly rebel activists. Neutral inspections should take place before any actions are taken.
you say there is no real evidence, but admit that you have no doubt a chemical weapons attack happened? seems confusing. like, if there is no doubt then there is real evidence
|
Canada5565 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
