EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 86
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On August 29 2013 14:40 zezamer wrote: Somewhere between hundreds of thousand and couple millions each just sounds like more gdp to me, what's wrong with that? | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
At the end of the day, someone will have to fight the Islamists who will inevitably turn on the Syrians. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
1. John Kerry's announcement of four days' delay has been revealed to have been a hoax: The UN inspections team did not request access to the site at Ghouta until Saturday, and were granted access the day following. 2. As has been stated ad nauseum, official statements that a four-day delay directly implicates the Syrian Army of manipulation and clearance of vital evidence is non sequitur. Sarin use could not be covered up, nor would the passing of a week fundamentally affect the ability of the team to conduct on-site interviews. 3. As the United States had not conducted any local investigations, and has announced the results of the UN investigation to be irrelevant, since such an investigation could not establish the fundamental question of culpability, one can only assume that their own profound "certainty" as to the unstated nature of the attacks committed, and the parties responsible for their use, is based on knowledge from esoteric contacts and sources. Obama's promised "report" prior to the commission of actual bombing should clarify the strength of their case, which I can only presume to be as feeble as the PR push has been on selective evidence and facts. 4. The same "red line" set by Obama had already been crossed over three months ago, when a similar diplomatic offensive was launched. Then came the unfortunately obstructive statements by Carla del Ponte casting suspicion on the rebel forces. The matter was quickly dropped and never heard of again. The British offensive to seek legitimacy in UN sanction has been frustrated by a push-back on the side of the UN, where the inspectors have not been withdrawn. Syrian cooperation with UN inspectors was the principle demand of the State Department last week, yet when the inspectors have begun their work this week, suddenly their efforts were declared to be irrelevant, all the while the fictitious "delay" of their obtaining access is repeatedly cited to adduce the burdens of the Syrian government's guilt. That the State Department publicly announced that it had no idea why Assad would launch a chemical attack against his own interest, and that he was anyhow guilty even if it had been a rogue operation, is not so much a failure of intelligence to ask the essential "cui bono?", as it is symptomatic of the clumsiness of the propaganda campaign waged thus far. The campaign has apparently put out sufficient innuendo and rousing declarative rhetoric to produce a great effect upon the convictions of this forum. Yet in the international scene, the coalition-building is faltering. The Arab league is against attack. Most European nations outside of Britain and France have politely shaken the dust from their feet. Obama's attempts to reconcile internationalism with American volition are floundering, and in the past two days, the horns seem to have been drawn in somewhat. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On August 29 2013 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." And you're calling other people "conspiracy theorists" ? Lmfao. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
[SuNdae]
Finland323 Posts
| ||
|
oranget
Slovakia22 Posts
| ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5600 Posts
On August 29 2013 14:37 Roe wrote: Kind of a strange thing, to hold Assad responsible regardless of whether he had control or not. I don't think any president would want the death toll in Iraq on their hands, or the bombing in vietnam, or anything down the long list. But they don't want another Rwanda either... Those comparisons, even if it is tempting to compare with the invasion of Iraq, are ultimately only strawmen unless they are backed up with more than just suggestions about greed and imperialism. I hope and believe that the rebells could put in place a better, more legitimate gouvernment than the Alawite clan that is presently ruling with an iron fist. But I do think that Nato should waite for the UN report before striking. It is the only logical thing to do if you use the chemical weapons as the reason to strike against Assad. | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
On August 29 2013 19:01 Elroi wrote: But they don't want another Rwanda either... Those comparisons, even if it is tempting to compare with the invasion of Iraq, are ultimately only strawmen unless they are backed up with more than just suggestions about greed and imperialism. I hope and believe that the rebells could put in place a better, more legitimate gouvernment than the Alawite clan that is presently ruling with an iron fist. But I do think that Nato should waite for the UN report before striking. It is the only logical thing to do if you use the chemical weapons as the reason to strike against Assad. I dont think rebel factions backed by jihadi and radical islamic elements are going to make things better. | ||
|
oranget
Slovakia22 Posts
On August 29 2013 19:01 Elroi wrote: But they don't want another Rwanda either... Those comparisons, even if it is tempting to compare with the invasion of Iraq, are ultimately only strawmen. I hope and believe that the rebells could put in place a better, more legitimate gouvernment than the Alawite clan that is presently ruling with an iron fist. do you really think that ''rebels'' could put in place better government than assad ? then go watch some videos where this ''rebels'' kills innocent people,on youtobue is many of them and who are leaders of this so called rebels hm? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 29 2013 17:55 koreasilver wrote: Hey Moltke, could you share some of your sources for your post? I'm not asking because I don't believe you but because I would like to read up on this myself and also share sources to some people I know. I was out in the Far East for a month and a half so all this Syria stuff has been hitting me for the past two days and I'm way behind with the information. The funny thing is how while much contrarian information appears in the mainstream, they are tucked into such corners of small print and understatement that it might as well be a kind of self-indulgent censorship. In any case, as for the admitted date of the UN request, and other things, here are some things which you can read and draw your own conclusions. Doubts as to the Obama Administration's justification for citing Syria prevarication as a legitimate casus belli can so reasoned: Here is a transcript of John Kerry's speech regarding the rationale behind taking military action: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/read-the-full-transcript-kerrys-speech-on-syria-chemical-weapons-and-the-need-to-respond/ At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world. I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story. Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systemically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons. In fact, the regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late, and it’s too late to be credible. Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators — together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods — only further weakens the regime’s credibility. Apart from Kerry's failure to mention the likely possibility that the sniper fire which peppered the investigation team was not the responsibility of the Syrian government (he already knows!), there are several things his statement failed to explain: There are no plausible means by which the Syrian government could cover up the basic facts of a nerve agent attack, by shelling or other unspecified means: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/science/not-easy-to-hide-a-chemical-attack-experts-say.html?from=global.home Furthermore, the alleged four-day "delays" which implicated the Syrian government were equally misleading: http://www.accuracy.org/release/un-admits-it-didnt-ask-for-access-in-syria-until-saturday/, making Kerry's claim both disingenuous and irrelevant. The final piece of common sense which needs to be put together is to contrast the sense of urgency manifested by the US government about weapons inspections prior to the 24th, and its attitude today, as it attempts to pressure the UN to break off the investigations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syria-wants-un-weapons-inspectors-to-stay-longer-move-could-forestall-us-military-strike/2013/08/28/69855348-1008-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html From this it is reasonable to infer that the weapons inspections in Syria, recalling similar circumstances in 2003, had been regarded in Washington as a tool to be exploited for the generation of a casus belli, and nothing more. Furthermore, while most agree that some kind of chemical attack took place, I am as of yet unaware of any declarations by the American or Allied governments as to the specific types of weapons used. Therefore while an investigation would not establish the fact of chemical warfare, it could plausibly uncover evidence as to whether the type of attack unleashed was plausibly compatible with government use of military grade weaponry. The doubts expressed in the aforementioned article that Sarin or Tabun was the chemical in question has been echoed by several other sources, including Paula Vanninen of the Finnish Institute for the Verification of Chemical Weapons: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013821215836835335.html The conclusions is that while some alleged victims show partial symptoms of exposure to nerve agent warfare (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&), others are displaying symptoms of exposure to pulmonary agents. The former head of the the Chem Bio Warfare Project at Stockholm has cast further doubts that some kind of nerve attack was actually used: http://www.the-trench.org/apparently-major-chemical-weapons-attack-near-damascus-reported/, noting the lack of secondary exposure and other necessary symptoms. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
http-://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAP7Vu0-3R4 I would rather not embed it here, just remove the first - from the link. WARNING, this is EXTREMELY graphic content, and that's an understatement. But it should be made clear that no one in their right minds would/should ever be lending any kind of support to this kind of people. And for the record (I'm looking at you DeepElemBlues), no, I'm not talking about Muslims in general, I've personally never had any problems with any Muslims in my entire life. I'm talking about people willing to do this kind of thing and the people that support these acts, there's children watching ffs. Once again, extremely graphic, but not something that you won't find on the internet otherwise. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
HeartOfTheSwarm
Niue585 Posts
The above is a blog about weapons used in Syria. There is also an analysis on chemical weapons and who probably used them. Russia sends warships to the Mediterranean source(Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the eastern Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, as Western powers prepare for military action over last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. | ||
|
forestry
95 Posts
On August 29 2013 19:37 HeatEXTEND wrote: Just to get this whole "These people are freedom fighters" idea out of everyone's heads (no pun intended...), http-://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAP7Vu0-3R4 I would rather not embed it here, just remove the first - from the link. WARNING, this is EXTREMELY graphic content, and that's an understatement. But it should be made clear that no one in their right minds would/should ever be lending any kind of support to this kind of people. And for the record (I'm looking at you DeepElemBlues), no, I'm not talking about Muslims in general, I've personally never had any problems with any Muslims in my entire life. I'm talking about people willing to do this kind of thing and the people that support these acts, there's children watching ffs. Once again, extremely graphic, but not something that you won't find on the internet otherwise. What did they do? Why they did slew them? | ||
|
[SuNdae]
Finland323 Posts
It is said in the video (at least in the subtitles, I don't speak arabic) that the man had "officer's numbers on his telephone", I guess that implicates they worked with Assad's troops. As gruesome as that video is, it's not the worst done by either side in the war. There's no good guys over there and there's no chance any of this has a happy ending for the people of Syria. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 29 2013 20:43 HeartOfTheSwarm wrote: Brown Moses Blog The above is a blog about weapons used in Syria. There is also an analysis on chemical weapons and who probably used them. source If the Israeli "information" is to be taken at face value, that the missiles were fired from "mountain ranges" west of Damascus, presumably the anti-Lebanon mountains, how could short-ranged rocket artillery like the alleged Falaq-2 strike as far as Ghouta on the eastern reaches of the city? A look at the map says the claim does not make sense. | ||
| ||
