(Reuters) - Gulf-based supporters have sent a 400-ton shipment of arms to Syria's outgunned rebels, one of the biggest to reach them in their two-year-old uprising, opposition sources said on Sunday.
The consignment - mostly ammunition for shoulder-fired weapons and anti-aircraft machine guns - came into northern Syria via the Turkish province of Hatay in the past 24 hours, and was already being handed out, the sources added.
One rebel officer told Reuters the flow of arms bound for rebels had increased since opposition groups accused the government of launching deadly chemical weapons attacks in Damascus on Wednesday.
"Twenty trailers crossed from Turkey and are being distributed to arms depots for several brigades across the north," said rebel official Mohammad Salam, who told Reuters he saw the weapons come over the border.
Syria's conflict, pitting mostly Sunni Muslim insurgents against President Bashar al-Assad, whose Alawite sect follows an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, has ignited sectarian tensions across the region.
Qatar and other Sunni-led Gulf states have backed the insurgents, while Shi'ite power Iran remains one of Assad's main allies.
PARIS -- French President Francois Hollande said Tuesday that his country is prepared to take action against those responsible for gassing people in Syria.
"France is ready to punish those who took the heinous decision to gas innocents" in Syria last week, Hollande said at a conference with France's ambassadors. He did not elaborate.
"I have decided to increase our military support to the National Syrian Coalition," the main Syrian opposition group in exile, he also said.
France, one of Europe's biggest military powers, has not specified what preparation it is taking for any possible international action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
But on Monday Hollande said time is running out for the Syrian regime and airstrikes are a possibility. "Everything will come into play this week," he told Le Parisien newspaper. "There are several options on the table, ranging from strengthening international sanctions to airstrikes to arming the rebels.
Hollande spoke with President Barack Obama on Sunday and told him France, like Britain, would support him in a targeted military intervention, according to the paper.
In a veiled allusion to difficulties in getting any strong action through the Security Council, Hollande said Tuesday that "international law must evolve with the times. It cannot be a pretext to allow mass massacres to be perpetrated." He then went on to invoke France's recognition of "the responsibility to protect civilian populations" that the U.N. General Assembly approved in 2005.
Ultimately, said one French diplomat, the goal of any military action would be to both "dissuade and punish," change the balance of power on the ground in Syria, and even give Assad more reason to eventually come to the negotiating table. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter and because the president has not publicly announced specific plans.
Hollande said the "most appropriate response" should be made to the Syrian regime once "the main part" of the U.N. mission currently on the ground in Syria to collect evidence from last week's attack is finished. A senior diplomat said it could take a "few days" but that a military strike could still happen before the opening of the Group of 20 summit in Russia on Sept. 5.
I never thought that I would agree with Dennis Kucinich on anything, but he says that US intervention in Syria would be tantamount to the US military becoming Al Qaeda's Air Force.
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me.
Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians.
The theory part of your argument is still what makes what you say wrong. Because it's only theory. Which is why chemical weapons being different from "conventional" weapons is complete bullshit. Which is also why all that geneva convention and "rules of war" are all in the same bullshit category.
War itself is basically killing other people. Isn't that in itself a crime against humanity? This is why all the "rules" the UN and others make about war are complete nonsense. When people go to war, and if wars become desperate enough, militaries on both sides will start committing some pretty bad acts. It's impossible to avoid. That's why it's hilarious when western countries and the UN sit there and have their spokesmen/spokeswomen tell the rebels and bashar to "restrain" themselves in combat, as if to suggest that is actually possible to do in a war.
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me.
Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians.
When people go to war, and if wars become desperate enough, militaries on both sides will start committing some pretty bad acts. It's impossible to avoid. That's why it's hilarious when western countries and the UN sit there and have their spokesmen/spokeswomen tell the rebels and bashar to "restrain" themselves in combat, as if to suggest that is actually possible to do in a war.
not sure if this is actually true. look at WW2, that is about as desperate of a military struggle as there was yet no one, once, used chemical weapons.
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me.
Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians.
When people go to war, and if wars become desperate enough, militaries on both sides will start committing some pretty bad acts. It's impossible to avoid. That's why it's hilarious when western countries and the UN sit there and have their spokesmen/spokeswomen tell the rebels and bashar to "restrain" themselves in combat, as if to suggest that is actually possible to do in a war.
not sure if this is actually true. look at WW2, that is about as desperate of a military struggle as there was yet no one, once, used chemical weapons.
The funny (not really) thing is, the Japanese seemed to be really happy with using chemical weapons very happily on civilians when things were far from desperate.
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me.
Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians.
When people go to war, and if wars become desperate enough, militaries on both sides will start committing some pretty bad acts. It's impossible to avoid. That's why it's hilarious when western countries and the UN sit there and have their spokesmen/spokeswomen tell the rebels and bashar to "restrain" themselves in combat, as if to suggest that is actually possible to do in a war.
not sure if this is actually true. look at WW2, that is about as desperate of a military struggle as there was yet no one, once, used chemical weapons.
The funny (not really) thing is, the Japanese seemed to be really happy with using chemical weapons very happily on civilians when things were far from desperate.
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me.
Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians.
When people go to war, and if wars become desperate enough, militaries on both sides will start committing some pretty bad acts. It's impossible to avoid. That's why it's hilarious when western countries and the UN sit there and have their spokesmen/spokeswomen tell the rebels and bashar to "restrain" themselves in combat, as if to suggest that is actually possible to do in a war.
not sure if this is actually true. look at WW2, that is about as desperate of a military struggle as there was yet no one, once, used chemical weapons.
The funny (not really) thing is, the Japanese seemed to be really happy with using chemical weapons very happily on civilians when things were far from desperate.
Yes and? The Germans were happily gassing civilians as well. But the claim that 'if it gets bad enough, people will deploy all weapons including chemical ones' is clearly false. When Japan was defending island-airbases on the way to the homeland, like Okinawa or Iwo Jima, they did not deploy gas. When the Russians were crashing through the German frontier -- and after 3 years of Hitler making it clear that the Eastern front was a 'race war' and that the 'losers' will be exterminated -- the Nazis didnt use gas. Killing defenseless civilians =/= getting 'desperate' in a military sense and launching wmds.
On August 28 2013 11:11 dsousa wrote: Does anyone actually believe that Assad used chemical weapons because he thought it would help his cause?
It makes very little sense for the rebels to have attacked an area they controlled which was primarily filled with their supporters. It also begs the question of how they obtained those weapons. Assad has access to the weapons, would be inclined to attack that area of Damascus, however it doesn't help his cause to get the international community fully involved in Syria. Ultimately it makes little sense for either side.
Hopefully the UN Inspectors will be able to go into the site and offer up some sort of evidence. Until then it's complete conjecture as to who's to blame or what possibly could've motivated either side to use chemical weapons on civilians.
Ya know, it's possible that Assad did not directly issue an order to use chems on civilians. Even if it's ultimately true that Assad's military or supporters did use such weapons, it doesn't necessarily follow that Assad himself wanted it done. For example, it's possible a mid level officer with access to the weapons went ahead and executed the move without conferring with Assad, perhaps in a stupid but desperate final decision during a combat operation. In this case it would be possible that Assad and other higher ups don't know why/how it happened, while remaining true that it was not done by the rebels.
This is in response to some of the "Assad didn't want to use chems, it's a bad move, therefore it necessarily must have been a rebel false flag style operation"
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion.
EPT
