|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 28 2013 12:27 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 11:50 dsousa wrote:On August 28 2013 11:45 FallDownMarigold wrote: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.
destroy one of Iran's two only allies in the region, sever the link between Iran and Hizbullah and thus weaken them as well, put an aggressively Sunni regime on Iraq's border to keep the Shiites there under some measure of control and put another country that is anti-Iran on Iran's border.
|
On August 28 2013 12:27 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 11:50 dsousa wrote:On August 28 2013 11:45 FallDownMarigold wrote: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.
They remove Iran's greatest ally and a threat to Israel. They reduce Russia's presence, Russia has a huge navy base in Syria.
Among other reasons -+ Show Spoiler +
There are good reasons why the US is so motivated in this case as opposed to dozens of other atrocities that occur each year.
These are not important objectives to the American people, but they are clearly important to the powers that be.
|
The greater is this: Do the rebels have a united front? NO. So is there a group who got hold of some agents and unleashed them?
Does Assad control aspects of his armed forces?
|
On August 28 2013 12:27 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 11:50 dsousa wrote:On August 28 2013 11:45 FallDownMarigold wrote: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.
It's weird. 2 days of cruise missiles would shorten the war's duration immensely, but it will do nothing about the Islamists who will turn on the FSA soon after their victory. Unless, of course, NATO sticks around for the aftermath...
Our politicians suck.
|
You know, sometimes I wonder if people actually believe the labels of 'assad' and 'rebels' as if these things were somehow unified, single willed actors.
It's most plausible and most likely that the chemical attacks were perpetrated by someone within the power structures of Assad's loyalists, but without Assad's consent. As has been repeatedly pointed out, it would be suicidally retarded for him to have signed off on it himself, but that doesn't mean that other people aligned with him couldn't have gone and done it anyway.
The fact that this may have happened puts the man in a tough spot- he can either own up to it being his weapons but used without his permission, in which case he proclaims to the world that his grip on things is not that solid, or he can blame the rebels and be thought to actually be behind it where, in all likelyhood, he probably wasn't.
This is not to say that Assad is a caring and friendly guy, he would probably dearly love to gas the fuck out of all those swineherd shitbags, but to do so would be asking to be quite literally hung drawn and quartered in the not too distant future. The man, like most despots, is in love with power, and gassing civilians is about the quickest way of losing it you could think of.
To propose that somehow western infiltrators somehow managed to both a) secure a large amount of chemical weaponry and b) convincingly deploy it to seem like a major artillery strike is stretching belief beyond the point of sanity. If this is the scenario, it's far more likely to be a faction within the country aligned with neither Assad or the Rebels. That in itself is pretty far fetched though...
|
On August 28 2013 11:25 overt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You are just speaking of 2 sides but the rebels are made out of more factions that also occasionally fight each other.
There are Kurds, Syrian opposition and Mujahideen. I am not sure which rebel group held the suburb that got hit with the chemical attack but the two other factions could gain from the attack, weakening another faction and getting the international community involved against Assad. The Kurds would be unlikely though since they are mainly interested in the norther regions.
It could have been the Syrian government, hoping that Russia's and China's objections would mean no military response from the West.
It could have been a mid-level Syrian officer making a desperate battlefield decision without thinking about larger consequences.
However seeing how western governments are lying hypocrites that don't care about weapons effects on civilian populations (biological and chemical weapon sales to Iraq during Iraq-Iran war by US and UK; opposed UN resolutions on DU ammunition by US, UK, France, Israel) or international law(illegal invasion of Iraq) either and seeing how eager they are now to join the conflict, I guess there is the possibility they were responsible too.
|
On August 28 2013 12:43 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 12:27 Roe wrote:On August 28 2013 11:50 dsousa wrote:On August 28 2013 11:45 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. Among other reasons - + Show Spoiler + There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl.
|
Looks like it was mainly Israeli intelligence intercepting internal communication which led to the international coalition to determine that CW were used by the Assad side.
Source
Edit:
Forget Kosovo, Obama is going after the Desert Fox model of attack.
Source
|
On August 28 2013 12:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The greater is this: Do the rebels have a united front? NO. So is there a group who got hold of some agents and unleashed them?
Does Assad control aspects of his armed forces?
It is definitely a worthy question to ask. Who controls the forces that fight for the regime? Open question, I think. So far I would say the Syrian government, especially the inner circle and the higher level officers themselves, control most of the regime's forces - but that is no guarantee that all of these guys see eye to eye. Maher al-Assad is believed to tightly control the 4th Division, if I was a betting man I'd say that unit is the most likely to go rogue/carry out chemical weapons orders and stubbornly fight to the end, but that still requires cooperation of people in charge of guarding, weaponizing, and transporting chemical bombs or shells or whatever.
As they get increasingly embattled, often separated by swaths of territory mostly under rebel control where they have to blast their way down the highway to move around, rely more on militias and local command structures, foreign fighters and foreign advice (Does Iran play a part in military planning at any level? High, low? If so, how much?), its entirely possible the command and control erodes and regime forces because their own little operations or do things the higher ups didn't want at all.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On August 28 2013 11:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:
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"
I find this the most likely scenario too. Could have even been an accident where no one on Assad's side really meant to use chemical weapons but they accidentally deployed them instead of conventional munition.
|
Or there was a battle the rebels are getting to close for comfort to an area some, forces move chemical shells out and some artillery unit desperately needs shells and stops the truck none the wiser...?
|
|
|
If he's (assuming Assad's coalition launched the missile) willing to poison 500+ people, what's stopping him from doing it again? If noone is going to do something about it now, how many innocent people must be gassed before they do? 1000? 10k? 100k?
|
On August 28 2013 16:00 Sprouter wrote:
If he's (assuming Assad's coalition launched the missile) willing to poison 500+ people, what's stopping him from doing it again? If noone is going to do something about it now, how many innocent people must be gassed before they do? 1000? 10k? 100k?
and based on an assumption, you'd do what; you want they to do what?.
also, i doubt random artillery units have access to nerve gases for exactly that reason; so that kind of accidents would not happen.
|
On August 28 2013 14:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Or there was a battle the rebels are getting to close for comfort to an area some, forces move chemical shells out and some artillery unit desperately needs shells and stops the truck none the wiser...?
I am pretty sure chemical shells are distinctly marked. At least they were in WW1, and i doubt people got stupid enough to not do that since then.
|
|
|
That is a nice video about what most of the world already knew, but many average Americans choose to ignore.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On August 28 2013 16:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 14:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Or there was a battle the rebels are getting to close for comfort to an area some, forces move chemical shells out and some artillery unit desperately needs shells and stops the truck none the wiser...? I am pretty sure chemical shells are distinctly marked. At least they were in WW1, and i doubt people got stupid enough to not do that since then.
There just are maaaaany ways things can go wrong. Error in communication, unit falsely receives command to shell with C-gas. Unit accidentally receives wrong shipment of shells, assumes authorized to use. Units are being told to adopt a "use second" policy, receives false reports of C-gas use by rebels. Shells simply labeled wrong. Local commander goes rogue and fires C-gas against orders. Unit believes to be encircled and cut off from main force, uses C-gas as last ditch effort to break free. Unit attacked by Western weaponry assume Americans entered war, retaliates with C-gas according to Assad's policy. And. So. On.
War, especially a rather low tech civil war, gets pretty messy quickly.
|
I just hope that this time the UK and US fight their wars themselves, without involvement of germany.
|
On August 28 2013 14:30 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 11:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:
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" I find this the most likely scenario too. Could have even been an accident where no one on Assad's side really meant to use chemical weapons but they accidentally deployed them instead of conventional munition.
Not possible. Chemical weapons are kept by a distinct division and access to them is very hard (only specialized people do it) because of its consequences, misuse means not only an explosion but can kill your entire unit or even worse. And they are marked, it's impossible to mistake them.
But we still don't know what chemical was used, all we know is that there are a lot of dead and injured, and haven't heard about the number of SAF or rebels killed/injured by it. I believe we need to know what was used first so we can extend or restrain the options.
Edit: Syrian army is organized not chaotic and they are much better now than they were in the beginning. May not be the best but they definitely have some clear command channel and procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
