# Thoughts on the situation in Syria?



## tacotiklah (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm surprised to see there isn't a thread for this yet.
Latest developments on Syria - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com


Here's a pretty good breakdown of the Russian, Iranian, and Chinese position and why they are backing the Syrian government:
Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by Syria - CNN.com


Sounds like we are pressing towards a third world war here.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Aug 29, 2013)

I usually find myself disagreeing with Russian foriegn policy but "The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade" is fucking spot on.

And we're far from some sort of WWIII sceanario


----------



## xzyryabx (Aug 29, 2013)

The war is coming, like it or not. 

Pretty much the same excuses used last time, and essentially the same geopolitical motives. The excuse again is "ooh, they used WMDs, let's stop this injustice because....freedom...and 'murica". The fact that the evidence is pointing towards the rebels being the ones using the chemical weapons (guess who hey got them from?!) is irrelevant to the West. Just like the Iraqi WMD scare was proven to be bullshit; it's just an excuse to get your foot in the door...then what happens happens. Sheeple are in general idiots, cannot think for themselves and will forget the lessons of the past.

They want Assad out, simple as that. The same way they wanted Qaddafi and Saddam out. Mubarak on the other hand, they wanted to stay (cause he was always their bitch so to speak) , and now look at Egypt! The guy was sentenced to life in prison last year and now his cronies (the Egyptian army) are back in power and he's back in his comfy house with his feet up in he air!

The ultimate goal in all these middle-east conflicts is to surround Israel w/ allies and weak states rather than more powerful cohesive nations so that Israel/US can control the region freely.

This as the start of WWIII is bit far fetched, but who knows....only if Iran and Russia get involved in a serious way, which I doubt.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 29, 2013)

Pretty much what wannabguitarist said.

I don't see this getting into a war like the Iraq war. Maybe a UN police/peace keeping action at some point down the line (think Bosnia), but not a war.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 29, 2013)

The thing that's really surprising me is how much France is flexing their muscles in this:

US, UK, France push for Syria response as UN chemical weapons probe delayed ? RT News



> French President Francoise Hollande said France is ready to punish those behind the chemical massacre in Syria, and said that his government believes Damascus carried out the attack.




Seems like it's boiling down to flexing contests between the west and Asian/middle eastern countries. That said, when people start bringing out chemical weapons against their own people, that's a sign that things are getting way out of control.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Aug 29, 2013)

xzyryabx said:


> Pretty much the same excuses used last time, and essentially the same geopolitical motives. *The excuse again is "ooh, they used WMDs, let's stop this injustice because....freedom...and 'murica". The fact that the evidence is pointing towards the rebels being the ones using the chemical weapons (guess who hey got them from?!) is irrelevant to the West.* Just like the Iraqi WMD scare was proven to be bullshit; it's just an excuse to get your foot in the door...then what happens happens. Sheeple are in general idiots, cannot think for themselves and will forget the lessons of the past.
> 
> They want Assad out, simple as that. The same way they wanted Qaddafi and Saddam out. Mubarak on the other hand, they wanted to stay (cause he was always their bitch so to speak) , and now look at Egypt! The guy was sentenced to life in prison last year and now his cronies (the Egyptian army) are back in power and he's back in his comfy house with his feet up in he air!
> 
> ...


----------



## crg123 (Aug 29, 2013)

@xzyryabx Although I agree with some of what your saying, I can't help but cringe when people use the term *sheeple. *I'm a bit worried about Russia, China and Iran in this situation. I think its disturbing whats happening to the civilians in Syria, but I think that getting in the way of a civil war will never end well, especially with other large super powers backing them.

edit: "The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade" - sad but true... instead of walking softly and carry a big stick we seem to like to take the big stick and wack the fire ant mound with it.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 29, 2013)

crg123 said:


> @xzyryabx Although I agree with some of what your saying, I can't help but cringe when people use the term *sheeple. *I'm a bit worried about Russia, China and Iran in this situation. I think its disturbing whats happening to the civilians in Syria, but I think that getting in the way of a civil war will never end well, especially with other large super powers backing them.
> 
> edit: "The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade" - sad but true... instead of walking softly and carry a big stick we seem to like to take the big stick and wack the fire ant mound with it.




I do have to give Obama some props on this; John McCain won't stop baiting him and using recent events to take political cheap shots on him over this and Obama isn't taking the bait. 

Caution and prudence are the only way to make sure we don't completely screw the pooch on this.


----------



## xzyryabx (Aug 29, 2013)

crg123 said:


> @xzyryabx Although I agree with some of what your saying, I can't help but cringe when people use the term *sheeple. *I'm a bit worried about Russia, China and Iran in this situation. I think its disturbing whats happening to the civilians in Syria, but I think that getting in the way of a civil war will never end well, especially with other large super powers backing them.



Yes, perhaps not the best choice of words, but quite honestly I have become jaded by the gullibility of the masses; most ppl don't/can't understand the context and ramifications of their governments actions (this is in no way limited to the US) and fall for the arguments of the talking heads on TV/radio. same story again and again. 

The latest consensus by the UN inspectors is that the Syrian regime did not commit those chemical attacks (although to be fair the inspections are not over and the final report has not been issued), but since the president is saying they did that (and will probably ignore any UN resolutions to the contrary) is all that most ppl will believe. Same as what happened during the second gulf war.



wannabguitarist said:


>


what?
my point was that they are using the same fear-mongering excuse as last time and most probably ppl will be scared and fall for it.

Relevant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3284-107a-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story_1.html


----------



## wat (Aug 29, 2013)

Syria is where Iraq moved the WMD's before the inspections.


Common knowledge in Iraq, the Iraqi people and anyone in the US millitary who was ever stationed in Iraq and talked to the people there.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 29, 2013)

wannabguitarist said:


> I usually find myself disagreeing with Russian foriegn policy but "The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade" is ....ing spot on.



That's not an unfair assessment. However, this whole situation also proves that the US doesn't need to be directly involved in a conflict for literally tens of thousands of people to be killed. By most estimates, nearly as many people have died in the 2 years since this civil war started than died during the 10 years since the US invaded Iraq. Only a couple outlying estimates have the pace at which people were killed in Iraq outstripping the pace at which people are dying in Syria.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 29, 2013)

Hi, I am Barack Obama. I am a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and to celebrate, I'm gonna freedom bomb the .... outta everyone! Oh, and arm the rebels.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 29, 2013)

No Negotiation: China and Russia Walk Out of UN Security Council Meeting: "This Isn't An Exercise"


----------



## synrgy (Aug 29, 2013)

It's a no-win situation. Action will result in countless deaths of innocents. Inaction will result in countless deaths of innocents. 

In either direction, we have plenty of examples to draw from to reach these conclusions.

Humans..


----------



## mcd (Aug 29, 2013)

my biggest feeling about syria is.

Its a civil war in a country that should have its sovereignty respected. In other words, not our Fvcking problem


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 29, 2013)

"Not our damned problem" is what I think. I've always supported isolationist policies. Murica, the world police, to the rescue again, I guess.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 29, 2013)

And yet it seems now Obama is willing to do the strike solo since Britain backed down


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 29, 2013)

Tyler said:


> And yet it seems now Obama is willing to do the strike solo since Britain backed down



At least he's being out and open about this. He's a con artist who won a ....ing Nobel PEACE Prize and celebrates that by covert wars drone bombing people in the middle east and arming rebels. So much for peace and freedom.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 29, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> At least he's being out and open about this. He's a con artist who won a ....ing Nobel PEACE Prize and celebrates that by covert wars drone bombing people in the middle east and arming rebels. So much for peace and freedom.



The thing is though, from polls 91% of the people have said he should NOT continue on with the strike. The last thing we need is more debt for another war that can't be won. Trying to show Assad a point with more violence isn't going to sit him down

I see a lot of people including 2 time voters who will be wanting to impeach fairly soon if he goes through with this without constitutional consent.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 29, 2013)

Tyler said:


> The thing is though, from polls 91% of the people have said he should NOT continue on with the strike. The last thing we need is more debt for another war that can't be won. Trying to show Assad a point with more violence isn't going to sit him down
> 
> *I see a lot of people including 2 time voters who will be wanting to impeach fairly soon if he goes through with this without constitutional consent.*



BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 


The public doesn't care; they are too distracted by Miley Cyrus' flat-back ass trying to "twerk", not shit that matters. And didn't you know that Obama and Panetta told Congress that they are basically "ceremonial"?





"Our goal would be seeking international approval..."


----------



## Tyler (Aug 29, 2013)

Lets just hope this all sorts its way out man. Definitely not something to push aside


----------



## Quitty (Aug 30, 2013)

well, this war has been coming for a while now and i think it's bigger than US and Syria - it's west vs. everyone else. I don't really buy the ideological BS, i think our governments are more calculated than that.

A culturally-instituted peace can't happen between the west and adept Islamic nations, nor with communist dictators because they're too different - that's behind the 'disagreements' with Korea, China, Russia, Iraq, now Syria. That their governments have this much control over the media only worsens the problem.

And that it keeps revolving around the mediterranean is not because the US wants to control the region, but because it doesn't want Islamic extremists to - Israel is a pain in the ass, but can you imagine the consequences of removing it? 
You'd have an Islamic continent, and that will definitely start a world war.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

Quitty said:


> well, this war has been coming for a while now and i think it's bigger than US and Syria - it's west vs. everyone else. I don't really buy the ideological BS, i think our governments are more calculated than that.
> 
> A culturally-instituted peace can't happen between the west and adept Islamic nations, nor with communist dictators because they're too different - that's behind the 'disagreements' with Korea, China, Russia, Iraq, now Syria. That their governments have this much control over the media only worsens the problem.
> 
> ...



Wait, how would getting rid of Israel in a place where people in the area dislike them start problems?


----------



## Genome (Aug 30, 2013)

Well, MPs have voted against military action here in the UK. Can't remember the last time a vote in Parliament actually reflected the overwhelming popular opinion. A win for democracy today, chaps.

Cameron looks a right idiot now.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 30, 2013)

IMO we should not get directly engaged.


----------



## Quitty (Aug 30, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Wait, how would getting rid of Israel in a place where people in the area dislike them start problems?



You don't see a problem with connecting Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia?..


----------



## neotronic (Aug 30, 2013)

This will not end well if the US attacked without the consent of United Nations Security Council. And I am quite sure, the unsc will not give the consent (because china and russia is member of the unsc and both have veto), which will make any attack illegal according to international law.

The thing is the cold war has never ended. Or actually it did, as it changed from cold to very hot. What is going on, the USA is trying to slowly envelop russia from the south. Just look at the map. Russia doesn't want that to happen. They are still trying to solve the situation diplomaticaly, but i don't know how long they can hold back... That is the reason why there are 2 russian battle cruisers + other reinforcements heading towards Syrian coast right as we speak. 
Iran is giving threats as well as China. Iran is strongest nation in the area having over 70 milion people - they can build army of considerable size. Even without being technologically superior they are not to be ignored bluntly (guess why usa didn't attack iran already). As well for China, they have large army, crazy communists, and they can undermine american economy easily by stopping lending money to the us (they don't want to do that as it would ruin their own ecconomy as well, but in case of war, the rules change quickly). South american states started giving threats as well. I don't know how about you, but i see the third world war comming, unless someone backs off.


----------



## Eladamri (Aug 30, 2013)

Genome said:


> Well, MPs have voted against military action here in the UK. Can't remember the last time a vote in Parliament actually reflected the overwhelming popular opinion. A win for democracy today, chaps.
> 
> Cameron looks a right idiot now.



Yeah I'm very presently surprised. My MP was in Malawi mind, but he did vote against the second gulf war, so I guess he would have been the same way here.


----------



## acrcmb (Aug 30, 2013)

It's worrying to see what's happening it just all feels like it's heading to a boiling point, even if it's not in Syria it'll be somewhere else, that's just human nature you're going go get conflict when you have big countries run by people with egos. Makes me really glad I live in New Zealand, we can basically stay out of it in our little corner of the world, and if worse comes to worse our biodiversity would give us the ability live self suffiecently with no foreign imports while the rest of the world destroys each other, I know that's worst case scenario but it's good to know.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 30, 2013)

It sucks for us Americans who want no part of this bloodshed. If we go to war we have 2 possibilities. 1. everything gets more expensive and more people die out from not being able to survive/more jobs are lost. 2. We go into WW3 and people start wanting to flash how many WMDs they have and a domino effect becomes possible


----------



## asfeir (Aug 30, 2013)

I live in Lebanon which is next to Syria and Israel, and all I can say is that I'm not at all optimistic about what's coming next. Most people I know are sick of all these wars..


----------



## neotronic (Aug 30, 2013)

well, this is interesting turn of events if it is true: » Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

neotronic said:


> This will not end well if the US attacked without the consent of United Nations Security Council. And I am quite sure, the unsc will not give the consent (because china and russia is member of the unsc and both have veto), which will make any attack illegal according to international law.
> 
> The thing is the cold war has never ended. Or actually it did, as it changed from cold to very hot. What is going on, the USA is trying to slowly envelop russia from the south. Just look at the map. Russia doesn't want that to happen. They are still trying to solve the situation diplomaticaly, but i don't know how long they can hold back... That is the reason why there are 2 russian battle cruisers + other reinforcements heading towards Syrian coast right as we speak.
> Iran is giving threats as well as China. Iran is strongest nation in the area having over 70 milion people - they can build army of considerable size. Even without being technologically superior they are not to be ignored bluntly (guess why usa didn't attack iran already). As well for China, they have large army, crazy communists, and they can undermine american economy easily by stopping lending money to the us (they don't want to do that as it would ruin their own ecconomy as well, but in case of war, the rules change quickly). South american states started giving threats as well. I don't know how about you, but i see the third world war comming, unless someone backs off.



Uh... So how about congress?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

Quitty said:


> You don't see a problem with connecting Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia?..



Most of the issues in the Middle East revolve around Israel and the shit they've done to the Palestines, which seems a tad hypocritical considering what happened to them prior.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 30, 2013)

neotronic said:


> well, this is interesting turn of events if it is true: » Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



I hate to be dismissive, but I can't help presume anything coming from Alex Jones is deeply steeped in bullshit.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

synrgy said:


> I hate to be dismissive, but I can't help presume anything coming from Alex Jones is deeply steeped in bullshit.



Really? I feel the same way about the sewerstream news media like CNN, Fox and MSNBC. 

Besides, Alex is Bill Hicks.


----------



## Quitty (Aug 30, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Most of the issues in the Middle East revolve around Israel and the shit they've done to the Palestines, which seems a tad hypocritical considering what happened to them prior.



Well, this is beyond the scope of this discussion so pardon me if i cut it short - 
the Palestinians have been dealt with by Israel in ways that have been simultaneously much worse and far better than you'd imagine. Much of it has been a terrible, egocentric mistake and now Israel has to deal with terrorism as a result.
The human-rights catastrophe in the Gaza strip is pure BS, however, so hypocrisy has very little to do with things.

I also don't really understand what this has to do with Syria, but i'm open to ideas. All i said was that keeping a western country lodged deep in the back end of extremist Islam turf is a US - if not worldwide - interest.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 30, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I feel the same way about the sewerstream news media like CNN, Fox and MSNBC.



I do, too. 

At least they're not quite as 'tin foil' as Mr Jones is, though. I'm not exactly alone in this assessment, either. Look him up on Snopes, some time. 

*Edit* I don't see the comparison between Bill Hicks, brilliant comedian and social commentator, and Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Randy (Aug 30, 2013)

synrgy said:


> *Edit* I don't see the comparison between Bill Hicks, brilliant comedian and social commentator, and Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist.



I'm assuming he's referring to the fact they look a like and they both yell(ed) a lot.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 30, 2013)

We have already spent 12 years playing world police and spending absurd amounts of money we do not have. Just imagine how strong our economy would be right now without all the costs of a decade of war. And now were considering it all over again? This is a civic war in a sovereign nation, we have no business going in and picking a side to fight for.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

synrgy said:


> I do, too.
> 
> At least they're not quite as 'tin foil' as Mr Jones is, though. I'm not exactly alone in this assessment, either. Look him up on Snopes, some time.
> 
> *Edit* I don't see the comparison between Bill Hicks, brilliant comedian and social commentator, and Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist.


Snopes is a joke and I don't trust them at all because they claim fluoride and aspartame is great for you, apparently. 


Randy said:


> I'm assuming he's referring to the fact they look a like and they both yell(ed) a lot.


I'm referring to the laughable theory that Bill is Alex and faked his death. There's a difference between an obvious admitted false flag or questionable assassination of a president and his brother by patsies and an absurd theory.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 30, 2013)

A lot of the times that Alex Jones' site posts something about the Syrian civil war that is counter to the main stream media I have tried to see where the story originated and I always end up at something that sites news organizations run by the Syrian state, the state of Iran, or by Hezbollah's news/propoganda agency.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

Overtone said:


> A lot of the times that Alex Jones' site posts something about the Syrian civil war that is counter to the main stream media I have tried to see where the story originated and I always end up at something that sites news organizations run by the Syrian state, the state of Iran, or by Hezbollah's news/propoganda agency.



A lot of his intel is from someone that lives in Syria.


----------



## xzyryabx (Aug 30, 2013)

The US should go back to its pre-WWII stance of being non-interventionist and concentrate on the woes we have in this country........ing New Orleans drowned and is still a mess in many areas 7 years later and Detroit looks like a post-apocalyptic disaster. What a ....ing joke. Corporations have bought this country and it's politicians and dictate foreign policy for their own good.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Aug 30, 2013)

Its times like these that I love living in a country tucked away on the other side of the world with apparently few desirable resources. Except hot chicks and sunshine, the 2 most desirable resources if you ask me


----------



## anunnaki (Aug 30, 2013)

My take on it - It's the same situation as Iraq and Lybia - America's using the cover story of wanting to liberate the people from their evil dictator to ensure that Syria continues to sell their oil in US Dollars. Gadaffi wanted to sell his oil for gold which would have been terrible for the dollar, Saddam wanted to sell oil for euros which also would have been bad for the dollar, I believe Assad was also looking to sell oil in a different currency. These wars are all about keeping the value of the Dollar up, not about protecting innocent civilians or whatever they'll have you believe. There are plenty of countries with terrible situations that America doesn't want to liberate, but that's because they don't have oil.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 30, 2013)

synrgy said:


> I hate to be dismissive, but I can't help presume anything coming from Alex Jones is deeply steeped in bullshit.



That's because anything coming from Alex Jones *IS* deeply steeped in bullshit.


----------



## Eric Christian (Aug 30, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> 
> The public doesn't care; they are too distracted by Miley Cyrus' flat-back ass trying to "twerk", not shit that matters. And didn't you know that Obama and Panetta told Congress that they are basically "ceremonial"?
> ...




This is like someone handing you a big steaming turd in the shape of a Baby Ruth bar and telling you with a straight face that yes in fact it is a real Baby Ruth bar and go ahead and eat it right now yum yum... 

Actually its funny you mention Miley Ray Cyrus because I could literally find a parallel in this situation in Syria. That is, claiming something is one thing when its clearly another. On one hand, Hannah Montana is impersonating a fully grown woman with no tits and ass and we're all supposed to be impressed and/or shocked whilst on the other hand Obama is side stepping the Congress and the Constitution by fabricating yet another excuse to take down the leader of a sovereign country just like he did in Libya. 

Military people correct me if I'm wrong here cause I'm not some expert on Nerve Agents but doesn't the military grade VX and Sarin linger in the area for weeks as it decomposes and is still plenty toxic to anyone who came to help? That said, I watched all the videos where paramedics and first responders were coming to the aid of the victims and I didn't see a single person with any chemical protective garments, gloves or gas masks.  What gives?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> This is like someone handing you a big steaming turd in the shape of a Baby Ruth bar and telling you with a straight face that yes in fact it is a real Baby Ruth bar and go ahead and eat it right now yum yum...
> 
> Actually its funny you mention Miley Ray Cyrus because I could literally find a parallel in this situation in Syria. That is, claiming something is one thing when its clearly another. On one hand, Hannah Montana is impersonating a fully grown woman with no tits and ass and we're all supposed to be impressed and/or shocked whilst on the other hand Obama is side stepping the Congress and the Constitution by fabricating yet another excuse to take down the leader of a sovereign country just like he did in Libya.
> 
> Military people correct me if I'm wrong here cause I'm not some expert on Nerve Agents but doesn't the military grade VX and Sarin linger in the area for weeks as it decomposes and is still plenty toxic to anyone who came to help? That said, I watched all the videos where paramedics and first responders were coming to the aid of the victims and I didn't see a single person with any chemical protective garments, gloves or gas masks.  What gives?


Well, DU is obviously just fine, so who cares about something so trivial. /facetious


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 30, 2013)

ITT: People can't talk about a tragedy taking place in another country without the conversation steering automatically towards potential US involvement. 

We talk about how blind Americans are to what's going on in the world, but when something like this comes up, the default response is "How is this going to affect us?" Because, you know, it isn't important or tragic if it doesn't affect us.

"What do you think of the Syrian Situation?" "THE US DOESN'T NEED ANOTHER WAR!"

"What do you think about the potential use of chemical weapons?" "LIES PROPOGATED BY THE US GOVERNMENT TO START ANOTHER WAR!"

This might sound strange, but not everything has to be about the US. I'm sure we could agree that someone needs to tell the government that, but it seems someone needs to tell its detractors that as well. When a tragedy comes up and instead of talking about its causes, its consequences, or its possible solutions, all anyone can do is turn the spotlight away from the problem and back onto the US, it's pretty obvious BOTH sides of the debate need to just.... well, get over themselves, really.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> ITT: People can't talk about a tragedy taking place in another country without the conversation steering automatically towards potential US involvement.
> 
> We talk about how blind Americans are to what's going on in the world, but when something like this comes up, the default response is "How is this going to affect us?" Because, you know, it isn't important or tragic if it doesn't affect us.
> 
> ...



Except the US actually has done this before. Like when we overthrew the Iranian government through covert CIA tactics. 

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Aug 31, 2013)

Did a couple hours of heavy researching on the history of Syria, the events leading up to the war, the course of the war, the belligerents, and finally the allegations of chemical warfare and civilian massacre.

I did my best to try to find out where the information is coming from and finding credible sources. Was very hard to do the latter.


"Who started it" is a complex question, I think more complex than some people realize. Based on who I've talked to (in the US) about this, there's a notion that the Syrian rebels are innocent in all of this and that the Syrian government is 'evil.'
Well, now that the country is in a state of civil war, it's really unfair to say that the Syrian government is the evil one, seeing as though both sides are launching offensives, [inadvertently] killing civilians, and ultimately refusing to end fighting despite all the discussion and proposition of cease-fires etc.
I think you gotta remember that this is civil war and not 'big bad Assad picking on protesters' anymore, and that the rules in war are different. Both sides are responsible for the killing of civilians, but that's what happens in a war. Neither side is trying to outright murder civilians at this point.
The attitude is probably different in other parts of the world, but that's my take on the attitude I picked up from other people in my area.

As for the chemical weapons and massacres and alleged evidence that side A or B used them, it's really difficult to say who did what.
Every US, French, or British study of the chemical warfare says the Syrian Army did it, but, naturally, every Russian study says the FSA and/or its allies are responsible. Granted, the pro-rebel side has done many more studies, from what I understand, for whatever it's worth.
Same goes for the civilian massacres, namely the events that took place in Houla.
The UN wanted to do studies, many of which were refused by the Syrian government. I don't know all to much about the studies that were allowed aside from the fact that no conclusion has yet been reached.
If you ask me I think the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons, seeing as though more credible evidence says so (eye-witness, etc), and that their military hasn't hesitated to use other banned and condemned forms of weaponry against the rebels before.
That being said, I think it's likely that some of the anti-Assad regimes (namely the Al-Nusra Front, given their history) are guilty of using chemical and/or biological weapons as well.

I'm a little surprised the conflict hasn't escalated internationally sooner, to be honest.
Turkey has been doing so much for the rebels already. It's really odd to think that the Syrian government hasn't retaliated all that much given what Turkey has been doing for and providing the FSA and its allies.

As for the US and France, I think any reason that the they give for getting involved in the conflict is nonsense, and it's not the west's place to get involved in the conflict.


On another note, as a history major whose focus is partially military conflicts and diplomacy, this conflict is extremely interesting and I think others should really read up on the Syrian history and events leading up to the war.
I found the Kurds involvement particularly interesting.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 31, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Except the US actually has done this before. Like when we overthrew the Iranian government through covert CIA tactics.
> 
> 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Except I wasn't saying the US has never done anything like this before. I was pointing out that most people seem incapable of discussing the situation in Syria without connecting it with the US, as if it's only important if they do. You're pretty much confirming that.


----------



## Choop (Aug 31, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Except I wasn't saying the US has never done anything like this before. I was pointing out that most people seem incapable of discussing the situation in Syria without connecting it with the US, as if it's only important if they do. You're pretty much confirming that.



I think the fact that the US is potentially getting involved and is directly opposed to two of the other major superpowers (3? if you count Iran) in the world over the situation is kind of a big deal, too. I don't think many of the users here (if any) are consciously trying to take the focus away from the Syria situation...many of the users here live in the US and it's probably the first reaction to have for it all to be directly relatable. US involvement is what's in the news; it's what's on many peoples' minds.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 31, 2013)

Choop said:


> I think the fact that the US is potentially getting involved and is directly opposed to two of the other major superpowers (3? if you count Iran) in the world over the situation is kind of a big deal, too. I don't think many of the users here (if any) are consciously trying to take the focus away from the Syria situation...many of the users here live in the US and it's probably the first reaction to have for it all to be directly relatable. US involvement is what's in the news; it's what's on many peoples' minds.




Fair enough, I suppose.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 31, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> When a tragedy comes up and instead of talking about its causes, its consequences, or its possible solutions, all anyone can do is turn the spotlight away from the problem and back onto the US.


 
Analyzing causes and consequences and developing potential solutions all require actual thought. I doubt most people are ready to put in that kind of work when knee jerk (over)reactions are so much easier.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 31, 2013)

Paneta says "defend this nation". When the fuc.k were we in direct threat? Our nation must be in direct threat of an attack to bypass Congressional approval for military action. I love how politicians can just stretch the constitution any which way they like these days to suit their needs.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 31, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Paneta says "defend this nation". When the fuc.k were we in direct threat? Our nation must be in direct threat of an attack to bypass Congressional approval for military action. I love how politicians can just stretch the constitution any which way they like these days to suit their needs.



Paneta calls congress ceremonial and that, "our goal would be to seek international approval." To that, I say... "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!"


----------



## vansinn (Aug 31, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> This might sound strange, but not everything has to be about the US. I'm sure we could agree that someone needs to tell the government that, but it seems someone needs to tell its detractors that as well. When a tragedy comes up and instead of talking about its causes, its consequences, or its possible solutions, all anyone can do is turn the spotlight away from the problem and back onto the US, it's pretty obvious BOTH sides of the debate need to just.... well, get over themselves, really.



I can pretty much relate to this.

I'm not going to add too many of my views on the discussion about what's going on in Syria.
However, I do find the following short list of info and articles very interesting and useful:

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.pdf

Pepe Escobar: Asia Times Online :: Obama set for holy Tomahawk war

Pepe Escobar: Asia Times Online :: Operation Tomahawk with cheese

Toni Gosling: From 'Free' West to fascist fire-starters in 60 yrs: Where did we go so wrong? ? RT Op-Edge

Spengler: Asia Times Online :: World learns to manage without the US

While some of those do touch on the US, note how other countries/regions are referred, and how especially Gosling and Spengler discuss failed policies.


The way I read the geo-political situation, America has, along with other countries, simply fallen victim to how the huge international, or predominantly western, banking elite, to a fair degree in association with the military complexes in various countries, wants to arrange our world.

Do note how aggressive Cameron (and Haque) have been driving for British participation in a Syria intervention.
Hollande (of France) is perhaps mostly in it due to France' interests in Africa, and for the arms sales.

My readings seems to reveal that Syria isn't about whether or not Assad did use WMD's; rather, it's about Isreal's, or rather the Zionist's, projection for the region.

Syria is wanted broken up into 3-4 enclaves:
The northern part, along with a part of Iraq, to be a new Kurdish enclave (so Erdogain gets rid of this issue).
The rest split between Shia's and Shiite's and another I fail to remember.

Of course there's the problem with the pipeline between Iran, Libya and Syria, which is not wanted.

And the western banking elite cannot deal with an Arab/muslim region the sees bank interests as an abomination.
What the IMF is essentially doing to the wast is creating a modern form of slavery: Financial slavery.
Such schemes cannot be implemented in the Middle East, the way they look at interests.

For a more in-depth understanding on Syrian internals, click into Syrian Girl's utube channel: SyrianGirlpartisan's channel - YouTube
Her family was part of the government, so she has a lot of inside info, as seen from, well.. a Syrian's point of view.


----------



## will_shred (Aug 31, 2013)

I see a lot of people swearing that it was the FSA/rebels who used the chemical weapons. Question for you, why were none of Assad's troops killed in these attacks and only civilians?


----------



## possumkiller (Aug 31, 2013)

Maybe they will let me back in the army and I can have a decent job again...


----------



## TheDeathOfMusic (Aug 31, 2013)

Surely I can't be the only one hoping for a nuclear holocaust so we can just ....ing start over?


----------



## vansinn (Sep 1, 2013)

will_shred said:


> I see a lot of people swearing that it was the FSA/rebels who used the chemical weapons. Question for you, why were none of Assad's troops killed in these attacks and only civilians?



Because this would be an outright declaration of war.
Civilian casualties are merely collateral damage.
Moreover, civilian casualties, and especially children, weights in a lot better when displayed on mainstream media.

Note how some of the videos of this latest attack, released on youtube several hours before the attack was claimed to have taken place, shows a white puffy "poison" cloud? Those types of gas are colorless and (at least nearly) invisible. However, the white cloud makes for a good photo shoot for the gazing audience.

It all stinks. Why on earth would Assad stage a chemical attack just 15 Km from where the UN inspectors are already situated - and with his full acknowledgement?
It's been said by many observers that whatever someone might think of him, he's most certainly not stupid.

And notice how the UN inspectors are only mandated to look for evidence pertaining to _if_ chemical attacks took place, not _by whom_ - the later was vetoed..
Anything else than finding out both set of truths is completely rectal, and simply shows how corrupt and staged this whole shebang has been implemented.

Even considering the complexity of the whole middle eastern situation, and as such, the Syrian one, what's going on in general terms is as transparent as a barely eighteen in a wet T-shirt competition.
I'd say a few decently bright high school student having taken part in school plays could've written a decently better screen play.

EDIT: Just checked the latest reports off the alternative media:
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/31/321478/obama-decides-us-should-attack-syria/

Note how Obama says we'll bomb even without a UN mandate..

Then followed http://presstv.com/detail/2013/09/01/321538/obama-postpones-wwiii-till-next-week/
And here's probably why: http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/30/321260/syria-militants-use-saudisupplied-gas/

The House of Saud and the UAE are big time sponsors of what's going on, and much of this involves age-old hatred between sunni and shiite muslim fractions, with those farther-east Arab regions being predominantly sunnis, and a good part of the troubled-in-question region, including Iran, mostly Shiites.


----------



## necronile (Sep 1, 2013)

vansinn said:


> I can pretty much relate to this.
> 
> I'm not going to add too many of my views on the discussion about what's going on in Syria.
> However, I do find the following short list of info and articles very interesting and useful:
> ...



Entered first page,saw ''Association of Arab-American University''
closed it.
I assume this document is pretty biased...


----------



## Quitty (Sep 1, 2013)

necronile said:


> Entered first page,saw ''Association of Arab-American University''
> closed it.
> I assume this document is pretty biased...



Biased?! Heavens, no!

It's just that annoying Zionist, umm, projection. 
For the region.

Yeah.


----------



## Ckackley (Sep 1, 2013)

The Middle East has been in a constant state of war for thousands of years. Anyone in the West who thinks they can change that in ANY way at this point is crazy. All we've done is make things worse. All the way back to the Crusades. We had bored Knights rampaging Europe out of boredom so the church creates a Holy War to give them something to do. All of this time later we're still stuck in a Christian -vs- Muslim mind set.
Western powers have set up arbitrary country borders, splitting tribes and taking ancestral lands away from people. The creation of Israel was important, but slipping it smack in the middle of a continent at war to gain a political/military advantage was insane. 
I despise war, but the only way to solve the problems is to carpet bomb the entire region into a parking lot, set up solar panels and produce enough electricity to fuel the world. That's not fair, and it's also not going to happen. The other option is for all the other countries to GTFO and take care of themselves for a while. Let the people that live there figure things out and make their own choices the same way all of the western powers did. It's not up to the U.S. to decide how the world should be run. We're one of the youngest countries on the planet. We've been around as a country for a blink of an eye historically speaking. Who the hell are we to tell other countries what to do? 
As far as chemical weapons ? We spread Agent Orange all over Vietnam and no one stepped in to stop us. Rumors abound that we used various chemical ballistic weapons in Iraq. So it's alright for us , but not for anyone else ? I love my country, but we are a bunch of self righteous pricks.


----------



## Murmel (Sep 1, 2013)

^
White phosphorus seems to have been used on several occasions by both the "good" and the "bad" guys. I honestly had no idea about this, but I guess when the "good" guys use CW it doesn't attract as much attention.

White phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though I don't quite understand if it's illegal or not.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 1, 2013)

Ckackley said:


> As far as chemical weapons ? We spread Agent Orange all over Vietnam and no one stepped in to stop us.


 
Yes, but agent orange is not a chemical weapon in the same way that mustard gas or sarin is, it is an herbicide/defoliant used to clear jungle vegetation so we could build air strips, military bases, move equipment, etc. While it causes problems for those exposed to it, human contact with agent orange was unintentional, much like the civilian casualties that accompany war. It wasn't deployed as a chemical weapon against people.



Ckackley said:


> Rumors abound that we used various chemical ballistic weapons in Iraq. So it's alright for us , but not for anyone else ? I love my country, but we are a bunch of self righteous pricks.


 
I would advise caution here. I've heard rumors that Jesus will return on such and such date to reclaim the world that didn't come true, rumors that Satan will rule the earth, rumors that our politicians are aliens from a planet near Alpha Centauri, etc. I don't have the facts to prove them, so I don't buy into them. I would advise you to do likewise with rumors of US chemical attacks until we have the facts necessary to prove such rumors true. At that point, feel free to fire away, but not until then.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm surprised at the amount of assumptions of near-world-war being thrown around here, especially considering most opinionated nations are saying they'll stay out of it, or do what they can to prevent it. And for those still wondering why the French joined the 'let's get in there team', it might be that they enjoyed their stay from 1923-1946, and wouldn't mind heading over there to see what the 'new guys' have done with the place.

The BBC has a Syrian Overview page on its website which has reminded me of a few things that I'd forgotten about the last few years, including how this particular civil war started.



> From the BBC page:
> In 2011-12 security forces used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to try to crush anti-government street protests inspired by the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. These protests rapidly took on a more formal nature when the opposition began to organise political and military wings for a long uprising against the Baath government. As 2012 wore on, the stand-off escalated into civil war, with defections from the governing elite signalling the steady collapse of central authority.
> 
> 
> ...


I realise the BBC isn't as credible a source as Alex Jones' Infowars, but it's broken a story or two in its time and I'm willing to trust it just this once. 

Based on that little write-up there, the two major sides that now seem to be fighting in Syria are the military of a government that reacted violently to Arab Sping-style protests, and the members of a radical militia tied to al-Qaeda who are recruiting and using civilians as troops. Why people outside Syria are taking sides ideologically is a bit beyond me, as it almost looks like one side is Stormtroopers from Star Wars and the other Orcs from Lord of the Rings. The only 'good guys' are the civilians, and as we've seen in the last ten years of war (or three thousand years, whatever) is that bringing more armies to the table doesn't decelerate casualites. 

Just a quick, pedantic note to Ckackley:


> It's not up to the U.S. to decide how the world should be run. We're one of the youngest countries on the planet. We've been around as a country for a blink of an eye historically speaking.


One of the youngest cultures, sure. But many borders have been re-arranged since WWII, and so many systems of government toppled in so many countries, that the US is actually one of the oldest these days. Hell, Australia's one of the oldest now, and it's only been a federation since 1901. That BBC article specifically mentions the way the Ottoman empire was divided up after WWII, and how Syria fit into that picture. It's easy to say that the Middle East has been at war for thousands of years, but such a statement suggests there were't many years of stability for many regions for long periods of time. If we're generalising that much, then 'Europe' was at war for thousands of years, a situation that has been on hold since WWII, a mere 70 years ago. Most of us consider war in Europe between Europeans to be over, so why can't this happen in the Middle East?


----------



## synrgy (Sep 1, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> But many borders have been re-arranged since WWII, and so many systems of government toppled in so many countries, that the US is actually one of the oldest these days.



Egypt (North-Sudan included) (3150-3500 B.C) 
India (3000 B.C) 
Ethiopia (Eritrea included)(2500-3000 B.C) 
China (2000 B.C) 
San Marino (301 AD) 
France (486 AD) 
Bulgaria (632 AD) 
Japan (650 AD) 
Scotland (843 AD) 
Turkey (900 AD) 
England (927 AD) 
Denmark (950 AD) 
Portugal (1143 AD) 
Andorra (1278 AD) 
Switzerland (1291 AD)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 1, 2013)

synrgy said:


> Egypt (North-Sudan included) (3150-3500 B.C) *Egyptian Republic declared: 1953 AD (New Revolution: 2011 AD)*
> India (3000 B.C) *Indian Republic formed: 1950 AD*
> Ethiopia (Eritrea included)(2500-3000 B.C) *Sovereignty gained: 1944 AD, current Constitution: 1995 AD*
> China (2000 B.C) *People's Republic of China proclaimed: 1949 AD*
> ...



Ammended for accuracy, assuming Estabon meant the countries as their governments exist more or less in their current form, not how long they've been populated or when a government of _any_ sort was established there. I'm going off of his mention of borders changing post-WW2, but I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth.

At any rate, there are 196 countries in the world (depending on who's counting ), so 15 out of 196 being older would still make the US "one of the oldest," as Estabon said.


Sometimes I have waaaay too much free time at work...


----------



## Xaios (Sep 1, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Sometimes I have waaaay too much free time at work...



Well hey, at least you're educating _someone_.


----------



## leonardo7 (Sep 2, 2013)

Is this legit?

Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began - Daily Record


----------



## hairychris (Sep 2, 2013)

Murmel said:


> ^
> White phosphorus seems to have been used on several occasions by both the "good" and the "bad" guys. I honestly had no idea about this, but I guess when the "good" guys use CW it doesn't attract as much attention.
> 
> White phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



It depends on how it's used. Against people it's illegal, to confuse IR targeting it's legal. Problem is that it becomes very difficult to police.

As for Syria:

People are saying that it's all about the US. It's not, obviously. However, if the US starts bombing people all of a sudden it *does* become about the US, projection of Western power where it isn't wanted, blah blah blah.

Bombing, therefore, would be a bad idea without international approval. Unilateral bombing against own govts advice... *really bad idea*. I'm glad that our lot (UK) are fighting each other and haven't voted to follow the US's lead no matter what they do. UK has been cutting military budget and can't afford to get involved in a 3rd war.

I have no doubt that nasty things are going on. On both sides, probably. Assad is not a pleasant bloke, but the west have been supporting his family's rule for decades. Remember that.

The US Government, who are *not seen to negotiate in good faith in that part of the world*, will be sticking their cocks in another wasps' nest by getting involved. Throwing in the support of Saudia Arabia, the ongoing Sunni/Shiite conflict, that any retaliation may be towards Israel (seen as US's best buddy) and the shit that this will provoke. Also, bombing these types of conflict without a ground forces component never works. Bombing breaks shit, it doesn't add any positive value.

Yeah. Don't do it. 

Another thing to think about. All those fundamentalist Christian Zionists who are pro-war? yeah, they want to bring the end of the world. Ignore those ....tards, mm?


----------



## Quitty (Sep 2, 2013)

hairychris said:


> It depends on how it's used. Against people it's illegal, to confuse IR targeting it's legal. Problem is that it becomes very difficult to police.
> 
> As for Syria:
> 
> ...



Spot on.
And i actually haven't considered non-Israeli zionists, i guess they do exist.

Sometimes i just want to let the Sunns and Shiite have their war. With all the time i spent involved with these people i never quite got what the bloody argument was about, but i'm pretty sure if i ever found out, i'd be sorely disappointed.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 2, 2013)

Quitty said:


> Spot on.
> And i actually haven't considered non-Israeli zionists, i guess they do exist.
> 
> Sometimes i just want to let the Sunns and Shiite have their war. With all the time i spent involved with these people i never quite got what the bloody argument was about, but i'm pretty sure if i ever found out, i'd be sorely disappointed.



Seriously dude, they have some political influence in the US on the Christian Conservative right - the loony part of the Republican party included. It's the whole "god calling the Jews back to the holy land before the apocalypse can happen" thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously weird stuff, and if you factor it in to US's foreign relations it's scary too. Some of these guys *WANT* a full-scale meltdown in the middle east (although may not out and out admit it, a few do!), and they have a powerful lobby.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 2, 2013)

Couldn't find this in the English version of Der Spiegel, so this is in German:
Syrien: BND fängt Beleg für Giftgaseinsatz durch Assad-Regime ab - SPIEGEL ONLINE

I could easily translate it, but not being a registered translator, I could make errors.
I will, however, relay a few interesting key points..

It says that German intelligence BND has seen evidence that Assad did the deed.
It says he launched several small rockets (107 mm, or maybe it's the canisters) with gas.
And that the BND should've intercepted a phone conversation with a Hezbollah official, who should have stated that Assad had snapped from stress, and thus made this grave error.
Of course, the phone conversation was secret intel..

Now, the comments about those small rockets is the interesting part, because this blog: Talk:Alleged Chemical Attack, August 21, 2013 - A Closer Look On Syria - which is made by a Syrian living in France, reverse-engineers videos of small rocket launches.
The vids themselves aren't too interesting; rather, it's that he has identified the launch sites, distance to target, angles of flight etc.., and shows the launches took place not in Assad controlled territory, but in rebel controlled territory.

Difficult to make anything out of it; but very interesting with the similarity in descriptions of those rockets - just with quite opposite directions..

And then NATO Secretary General Anders Fock Rasmussen's statements: For individual allies to decide their response to Syria ? NATO chief ? RT News that ...he had seen concrete evidence that made him convinced &#8220;not only that a chemical attack had taken place, but&#8230; also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible.&#8221;
But of course: ...stated that he could not discuss evidence presented to him thus far. &#8220;I do not comment on intelligence reports,&#8221; he affirmed.

WTF! stating almost sure intel, but not commenting on intel..
This is how he's always been mixing non/semi-facts with applied factual fictional semi-truth.
I hate this hybrid of a weasel and a snake, and if it wasn't for being married to a dancing lady and not generally being known for other directions (other than light pink lipstick preferences), I'd assume he'd be rubbing his snake skin in carnuba wax.
Sorry 'bout my rants, but he's done so much damage to the otherwise good face my country used to enjoy mostly world wide.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 2, 2013)

Horrible things happen in the world every day that don't make headlines. Thousands of innocent people suffer torture at the hands of really evil people. We rarely take notice, let alone get involved. We aren't the world police, and while it would be great if we could stamp out this sort of thing and save the world, we can't. This sort of evil will happen regardless of our involvement. Trying to stop it is a waste of time. 

And I don't believe the West is pushing for involvement in this out of the goodness of their own hearts. If we were such angels, we wouldn't sell weapons to these people in the first place. Our hands are as bloody as theirs. There is an ulterior motive to getting involved. I'm not politically aware enough to tell you what it is, but I'm betting it's there. 

It saddens me that people are suffering out there, but I do not think military action is the way forward. More civilians will die than troops. 

Also, it ....ing annoys me that the U.S seems to think that it can do whatever it wants in matters like this. Their attitude towards this whole event basically comes across like this:

U.S: YO IMA THROW DOWN DUDE

UN: Chill a bit while we figure thi-

U.S IM TELLIN YA MAN IMA THROW DOWN


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 3, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Ammended for accuracy, assuming Estabon meant the countries as their governments exist more or less in their current form, not how long they've been populated or when a government of _any_ sort was established there. I'm going off of his mention of borders changing post-WW2, but I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth.
> 
> At any rate, there are 196 countries in the world (depending on who's counting ), so 15 out of 196 being older would still make the US "one of the oldest," as Estabon said.
> 
> ...



Thanks dude, you nailed it! This is why I should be paying people smarter than I am to make the points I'm trying to make. If only I had money...

In a stupid aside, we have an election in Australia on Saturday, and our two party leaders had a minor argument through the media the other day because one of them described the situation in Syria as "baddies versus baddies", and the other said that kind of immature approach to foreign policy shows what a shit leader he'd be. Unfortunately, I think the first guy explained it in the only way most Australians would understand it, which says a lot about how much our country gives a stuff about the rest of the planet. 

I think when Vansinn highlighted General Rasmussen's statements of 'evidence' shows why the world can't get involved in Syria just yet. A lot of people, both within and outside Syria, are presenting all kinds of evidence to indict one of the two sides. This either means that one side is doing a great job of deceiving us, and falsifying evidence, or both sides can be held accountable for atrocities. Either way, there's no truly clear-cut side to take, unless enough people with enough firepower went in and threatened to fight both sides unless they sat down and negotiated peacefully. And the chances of that happening are...?


----------



## flexkill (Sep 3, 2013)

Why must the USA be the hammer for every fvcking thing that happens in the world? I think what happened is terrible, the people killed by the gas, but we are so fvcked up right now how can we keep policing the world? The old adage that you can't help others until you help yourself keeps coming to mind. This can not keep going on this way....can it? I want justice and all that shit but for fvcks sake man....this country is in the shitter at the moment... when do we "fix" ourselves? Jesus it just keeps turning doesn't it!

This is just fvcking ridiculous!!! The human life has 0 value to so many people it is sickening.


----------



## TheDeathOfMusic (Sep 3, 2013)

American logic:

"People are dying! What do we do?!"
"KILL MORE OF THEM"


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 3, 2013)

flexkill said:


> Why must the USA be the hammer for every fvcking thing that happens in the world? I think what happened is terrible, the people killed by the gas, but we are so fvcked up right now how can we keep policing the world? The old adage that you can't help others until you help yourself keeps coming to mind. This can not keep going on this way....can it? I want justice and all that shit but for fvcks sake man....this country is in the shitter at the moment... when do we "fix" ourselves? Jesus it just keeps turning doesn't it!
> 
> This is just fvcking ridiculous!!! The human life has 0 value to so many people it is sickening.



Just imagine... when the culling begins, the ....s that don't value life are probably going to be the only ones left! Lovely thought, isn't it?


----------



## vansinn (Sep 4, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> I think when Vansinn highlighted General Rasmussen's statements of 'evidence' shows why the world can't get involved in Syria just yet. A lot of people, both within and outside Syria, are presenting all kinds of evidence to indict one of the two sides. This either means that one side is doing a great job of deceiving us, and falsifying evidence, or both sides can be held accountable for atrocities. Either way, there's no truly clear-cut side to take, unless enough people with enough firepower went in and threatened to fight both sides unless they sat down and negotiated peacefully. And the chances of that happening are...?



Exactly.
To illustrate the situation pertaining valid documentation and evidence, have a look at: Craig Murray » Blog Archive » The Troodos Conundrum
It's about the ability to intercept communications.
Do read the discussion below; some very valid points are made in various directions.

And this: Yes, the Syrian Rebels DO Have Access to Chemical Weapons | Global Research

At a first glance, you may say sheez, this stuff is already spreading every where; sure (Tomahawks) action is needed..
But read the latter part "The above, of course, is simply speculation. More important is actual evidence of possession and use."

Note in the text how many seemingly high-ranking people says they've seen or witnessed this or that - but there are no evidence to their claims.
Anyone can say such things, which of course doesn't mean it cannot be true, more that without factual evidence, it all remains.. speculation and/or lobbying pressure.

If we assume the referred depots really are left unattended and are being looted, starting to throw Tomahawks will likely make the situation even worse.
The various so-called rebel and freedom fighter factions, trained, funded and weaponized by whichever exact outside groupings, cannot exactly be said to be professionals, and absolutely do not have the unified command structure of, say, western forces.

Moreover, it's been referred in many places that may in those rebel factions have stated things like "when we're done with the west's agenda, we have a big score to settle with Israel, and then the Sauds and UAE."

Does anyone think everyone among those factions will all smile happily to the western forces, as in "we'll fight with you side-by-side, bro"?
Could very well be that many will take their supplied/looted arms and drift into hiding, for a different agenda later on.

Several politicians and high ranking military from both the US and UK have repeatedly said "we don't know who it is we're arming."

Further, until some, say, 15 or years or so ago, Islam wasn't too diversified.
What has happened from all of this intervention is that a whole array of Islamic fractions has been created.

Before Iraq, a specialist in the Middle East in serious language warned against the then impending campaign, saying "don't do it, you simply do not understand this region, their culture, their ways of thinking."
Before Afghanistan, the Soviet general who led their likewise fained attempt, said "don't do it, you cannot win a war in this country."

And now look at how chaotic, vicious, liquid and fractured this region has become.

Of course, the opium production in Afghanistan has risen almost 5000%, and as everyone knows, there's big money into heroin..


----------



## Overtone (Sep 4, 2013)

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> Did a couple hours of heavy researching on the history of Syria, the events leading up to the war, the course of the war, the belligerents, and finally the allegations of chemical warfare and civilian massacre.
> 
> I did my best to try to find out where the information is coming from and finding credible sources. Was very hard to do the latter.
> 
> ...




I commend you for taking time to look into this but I think that even 2 very focused hours of research by someone who is knowledgable about conflict can miss some important info. There is a ruthlessness in the Syrian government's response to dissidence that goes a long way back. For decades it was known that there are spies everywhere and that anybody who is outspoken against the government could end up detained secretly and indefinitely. I know people personally who left Syria and were still afraid that there might be reprisals against them for simply discussing that very topic. The army is extremely loyal to the regime and to this ideology, to the point where murder of a dissident is a de facto course of action. There have been multiple civilian massacres by the army since the start of the war, including in recent events. I have a close friend who lost 3 cousins a few months back when the army executed all the men in a village that was considered sympathetic to the revolution. These guys were not involved in any way... it was enough that they were men and that they lived in the wrong place. There have been mass rapes and mass killings galore since it started. At some point you can no longer make the argument that any person must be viewed as a possible threat and dealt with, and we are well past that point. I agree that various rebel factions have committed their own atrocities, I just think that you haven't reached anywhere close to the heart of it if you think that the regime's actions are not evil and that nobody is intentionally killing civilians.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 4, 2013)

neotronic said:


> well, this is interesting turn of events if it is true: » Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



Well... There's your problem right there. To be honest, if infowars claims something, I'm more inclined to believe the complete opposite.

Seriously, .... Alex Jones.


I think the discussion for the US mainly is going to be if the possibility of saving Syrian lives right now is worth a possible prolonged intervention with future casualities instead. I don't think there's an answer that is objectively better than the other one right now, but I suspect that the global political scene will change quite rapidly again, so an assessment made with today's information might be terribly outdated pretty soon.


----------



## Overtone (Sep 4, 2013)

One thing that's odd is that the conversation is so focused on collateral damage in Syria and the US budget concerns that it overlooks the explicit threat of attacks on Israel and involvement Iran and potentially Russia in the conflict. That would probably be the most precarious situation since the Nuclear Crisis.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 5, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/o...t-questions-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&


----------



## Captain_Awesome (Sep 5, 2013)

Although I have many thoughts on the situation, which perhaps I'll go into another time, right now I'd like to address the current media storm about the 110,000 people now dead in Syria as a direct result of the civil war.

For example, I was watching a 'free speech' programme last night (one where any unpopular opinion is drowned out) and the presenter kept referring to the 100,000 dead at the hands of a ruthless dictator with the count still rising and this is a figure that has been repeatedly quoted in the British newspapers and on the BBC. I wouldn't say that I'm pro-Assad but press bias (in respect to other situations) has to end. 

Almost 50,000 of those dead in the conflict are members of the SAA or are pro-Assad militia (Hezbollah), a further 21,000 + are FSA - or those with shadowy motives who would fight under the banner of the freedom only to suit their own ends. This leaves a further 30,000 - 40,000 civilians dead through the conflict (though it could be more). The more interesting statistic which the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights hasn't confirmed as far I'm aware, is what are the figures for deaths at the hands of the regime and at the hands of the rebels. I've seen some footage of regime atrocities, most recently that of the incendiary bombing of a school but I've also seen plenty offootage of rebel soldiers firing blindly into civilian areas with mortars and home-made cannons.

This isn't a one sided war and it should be reported with more fairness regardless of how evil Assad may or may not be.


----------



## riffer_madness (Sep 5, 2013)

Total imbecilic human morons at the top that need to GO.


----------



## asfeir (Sep 5, 2013)

What someone here said is spot on, we have to look at the biggest picture: the plan is to divide the region into smaller more homogenous countries according to religion. Syria is 80% sunni and the rest are alaoui(close to shiites) and christians. In my country Lebanon, we are 30% christians and around 30/30 shiites and sunni. It seems like the new Islam is not accepting cohabitation and/or the idea of being ruled/governed by someone from another religion. No idea what's next but in my opinion the map isnt staying the same in the Middle-East..


----------



## Captain_Awesome (Sep 6, 2013)

Edit: I can't see the videos, did I do bad? This is a new problem to me. Should I delete the links seeing as the post is just taking up a load of room?

Just a few videos from this morning (nothing graphic)

[liveleak]01a_1378440541[/liveleak]
[liveleak]3d1_1378399792[/liveleak]

I find this final video interesting in conjunction with other footage from the rebels in Syria which would suggest that they have the means to not only create Sarin but also deliver it. I think it's unlikely that the FSA or a terrorist group committed the large scale gas attack in August, however the US government shouldn't claim that it's impossible for them to have used chemical weapons at any point in this war or indeed use any the future when there is evidence to suggest otherwise. My only issue with this video is authenticity. It seems authentic enough but it could very easily have been staged by pro-Assad supporters.

[liveleak]056_1378422619[/liveleak]


----------



## hairychris (Sep 6, 2013)

^ That's one of the problems. The Russians reckon that the chemicals used + delivery method are not the same as the Syrian army. In other words right now we don't know who's weapons they were. Government? False flag? An accident?

And, whatever the case is, massive hypocrisy from the US govt which is business as usual. FWIW I think that the British govt are just as bad, historically, and our leaders also want to get in with the kicking but this was voted down because I have a feeling that some MPs were afraid for their jobs when the next election rolls by.

And what the .... is Kissinger on about? Nope, the UK isn't going to kiss US arse this time, not after what happened in Iraq. He can go and .... himself, anyway.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 6, 2013)

Captain_Awesome said:


> the US government shouldn't claim that it's impossible for them to have used chemical weapons at any point in this war or indeed use any the future



Is the US claiming that? I know they're claiming the Syrian military used them, but I hadn't read that they're claiming it's _impossible_ for the rebels to have used them. To be fair, though, I'm not really keeping very strict tabs on this whole mess.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 6, 2013)

hairychris said:


> ^ That's one of the problems. The Russians reckon that the chemicals used + delivery method are not the same as the Syrian army. In other words right now we don't know who's weapons they were. Government? False flag? An accident?
> 
> And, whatever the case is, massive hypocrisy from the US govt which is business as usual. *FWIW I think that the British govt are just as bad, historically*, and our leaders also want to get in with the kicking but this was voted down because I have a feeling that some MPs were afraid for their jobs when the next election rolls by.
> 
> And what the .... is Kissinger on about? Nope, the UK isn't going to kiss US arse this time, not after what happened in Iraq. He can go and .... himself, anyway.



Eh, The British are worse in that regard. Where do you think American's learned it from?


And Kissinger is a fat .... who thinks he's still important when he and the other old, fat elitist ....s go to Bilderberg meetings every year to discuss foreign policy.


----------



## TheDeathOfMusic (Sep 7, 2013)

Edit: Post screwed up and I don't know how to delete :blush:


----------



## vansinn (Sep 8, 2013)

While we're awaiting either the UN investigation report or the R2P/R2A syntax..

Here's a rundown of a year worth of incidences, media and speculations by Syrian Girl:




Info about claimed preparations to war, by Duff Gordon, a former Nam vet:
PressTV - US deployed nuke force before Syria crisis

I have no way of commenting on this, other than highly disturbing..


----------



## bluediamond (Sep 9, 2013)

Captain_Awesome said:


> Although I have many thoughts on the situation, which perhaps I'll go into another time, right now I'd like to address the current media storm about the 110,000 people now dead in Syria as a direct result of the civil war.
> 
> For example, I was watching a 'free speech' programme last night (one where any unpopular opinion is drowned out) and the presenter kept referring to the 100,000 dead at the hands of a ruthless dictator with the count still rising and this is a figure that has been repeatedly quoted in the British newspapers and on the BBC. I wouldn't say that I'm pro-Assad but press bias (in respect to other situations) has to end.
> 
> ...




Bravo, mate!


----------



## Overtone (Sep 10, 2013)

A friend just linked me to a very disturbing page (actually, he posted it on fb). I won't post the link but you can google "10 things worse than eating a dead man's heart." it is VERY nsfw and graphic, and very upsetting. It makes me cry when i think that people are doing these kinds of things to one another. it brings shame on the entire human race.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Sep 11, 2013)

Overtone said:


> A friend just linked me to a very disturbing page (actually, he posted it on fb). I won't post the link but you can google "10 things worse than eating a dead man's heart." it is VERY nsfw and graphic, and very upsetting. It makes me cry when i think that people are doing these kinds of things to one another. it brings shame on the entire human race.



Yeah, really wish I didn't look that up. I'm feeling more sick now than I did after Obama's speech tonight.....and I know that's contradicting, but I don't know what to believe anymore.

It's savage VS. savage over there. Which one is worse than the other? From the videos I've seen, evil incarnate exists on both sides of that ....ed up situation. Which murderer is less guilty? 

Obama is all too anxious to join in on the bloodbath. 

What REALLY set me off tonight was when he had the balls to say "We do not dismiss threats."....ARE YOU ....ING KIDDING ME?!?!?!

You're now saying that US Intelligence had ZERO previous knowledge on the attacks of Pearl Harbor OR 9-11?! Oh....he must have meant threats from other countries, not the ones our government did to our own people.

It was very obvious after the Marathon Bombing that confusion amongst the masses is the important thing. When the people can't make a decision because there's so much misinformation being spread at lightning speed, we spend more time bickering over the information we have than doing anything else.

I'm honestly looking into another country to live in. I'm highly considering leaving any and all 1st world luxuries behind because it's not worth this shit. From a young age, I lived in cars, tents, went without food and didn't know when I'd eat again...and as a kid, I was happy more often than not. I do not trust what our administration has been doing and is carrying on with. Yeah, I'm a bit of a conspiracy guy, but all that shit will vanish from my life if I got the .... out of here, found a country with no conflict, became entirely self sufficient, no internet, no TV, no eating at restaurants...it's all starting to seem more appealing by the day. 

Where's the island from Lost and anyone who's comin' with me?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 11, 2013)

RevDrucifer said:


> I'm honestly looking into another country to live in.


 
You're in southern Florida man, you are already in another country .

Seriously though, you are right, it's all screwed up.
If we were going to use this as an excuse to attack our enemy, why would we want to have this drawn out process in which we publically debate and collectively decide before acting?
I still think we should stay out of it, but if we are going to get involved then Obama should send a message by playing a dirty bluff.

He should go on live and say we have decided not to act at this time, but we send our last warning and demand to the dude to not use these tactics again or we will strike without warning.
Then, we should wait a couple weeks and just strike without warning anyways  , in a more serious way than anyone anticipated.

If we are always so predictable we'll be manipulated and taken advantage of, and nothing is worse than a fearless enemy.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 11, 2013)

Looks like it's possible the idea of handing over the chems to intl. control is being considered quite seriously, with the Syrian government claimed having stated they will agree to this.
Understandably, as a precursor, they will want to be a member of the whazzitname organization against chemical weapons, which is only fair.

Difficult to see how much is going on behind the (ob)scene..
In any event, Geneva II should be made an absolute part of any deal. Talks, negotiations and valid agreements on the table is the way to end what's going on.


----------



## flexkill (Sep 11, 2013)

20 years ago I used to fear the end of the world as we know it for my childrens children.......Now I fear the end of the world as we know it before the end of the decade.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Sep 11, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You're in southern Florida man, you are already in another country .



 Certainly feels like it at times!


The chemical weapons schtick is a crock of shit. What weapons AREN'T made of chemicals? How many bombs have the US dropped over there already that contain depleted uranium, which will be affecting people for years to come? How many kids have been taken out by US drone strikes? 

How is gas more inhumane than dropping a a mass of bombs or random drone strikes that you can't run from? 

If we're that worried about the PEOPLE in Syria, why aren't we dropping mass amounts of gas masks across the country? That certainly has to be more cost effective than missiles, which cost $700K+ EACH.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 11, 2013)

I ran across this interesting opinion piece yesterday, floating a perspective I hadn't really considered, but am hoping is on-the-money; basically that Obama is working a political 'reverse psychology' strategy:

President Obama&#8217;s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize

Granted, this may be moot with the news unfolding about Syria surrendering their chemical weapon stockpile. I guess we'll see soon enough.


----------



## Tyler (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...from-russia-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&

Personally I feel Putin hit the nail on the head here


----------



## RevDrucifer (Sep 12, 2013)

That's a pretty interesting theory and I don't have an argument against it in the least. It makes total sense from what I can tell. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 12, 2013)

Tyler said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...from-russia-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&
> 
> Personally I feel Putin hit the nail on the head here




Holy shit ..... I never *ever* thought I would agree so thoroughly with anything Putin said (ignoring the religious stuff). 

Bang on. I fully believe any humanitarian/peace keeping effort that doesn't go through the UN is really a war. 

The US has *NO* business whatsoever in Syria.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 12, 2013)

Wonder just how much more will be revealed about all of this:

A document from US intelligence community&#8217;s National Ground Intelligence Center says al-Qaeda in Iraq produced sarin and transferred it to Turkey then to militants in Syria.

U.S. military confirms rebels had sarin


----------



## Jakke (Sep 12, 2013)

vansinn said:


> Wonder just how much more will be revealed about all of this:
> 
> A document from US intelligence community&#8217;s National Ground Intelligence Center says al-Qaeda in Iraq produced sarin and transferred it to Turkey then to militants in Syria.
> 
> U.S. military confirms rebels had sarin



I don't want to poison the well here, but let me remind you that this is from a website on which the headlines also include them being just appaled over how "minors cannot get help with "unwanted same-sex attraction"" (as "gay conversion therapies" are banned as dangerous quackery) and an interview where an author tells us that the US has been quietly controlled by Satan all these years*.

*Because of freemasons, the Illuminati, architects, and Egyptian gods. You know, the usual suspects.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 12, 2013)

Ahh, I actually don't use this site; was linked from somewhere else, so I had no previous exp with their contents - which in these days of mass info in every direction might be called halfways a deadly sin


----------



## Jakke (Sep 12, 2013)

Well, even a blind hen and all that. I would however be a bit cautious.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 13, 2013)

Ahhhh, good old Wing Nut Daily....

And as for Putin, tbh I don't trust a word that comes out of his gob *but* he & his govt are more "honestly" dishonest than the US govt. If that makes sense. Anyway, him making a peacemaker statement was an obvious move, good for political points even if he doesn't necessarily believe what he says (or only believes it because of Russian self-interest).

For the "reverse psychology" piece... Ugh, Congress, collectively, are completely retarded. Pushing a decision like that on them does put their stupidity in the spotlight but is not necessarily a clever thing to do if they jumped the wrong way. Also, without being cynical, leaders historically get increased approval when they commit to military action (Thatcher/Falklands was a prime example, reversed falling opinions and gave her political carte blanche to enact the reforms that she wanted. I won't even mention that chimp Bush II). I'm perfectly comfortable with Obama aiming for the same by laying in to Syria, but he didn't realise quite how strong the opposition to it was domestically. The UK govt getting defeated was another nail in the coffin. At that point, yeah, maybe lumbering Congress with a poisonous decision made sense. I really doubt that the whole situation was pre-planned, too many variables, and whatever the outcome the whole US govt looks clueless.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 14, 2013)

hairychris said:


> Ahhhh, good old Wing Nut Daily....
> 
> And as for Putin, tbh I don't trust a word that comes out of his gob *but* he & his govt are more "honestly" dishonest than the US govt. If that makes sense. Anyway, him making a peacemaker statement was an obvious move, good for political points even if he doesn't necessarily believe what he says (or only believes it because of Russian self-interest).
> 
> For the "reverse psychology" piece... Ugh, Congress, collectively, are completely retarded. Pushing a decision like that on them does put their stupidity in the spotlight but is not necessarily a clever thing to do if they jumped the wrong way. Also, without being cynical, leaders historically get increased approval when they commit to military action (*Thatcher/Falklands was a prime example*, reversed falling opinions and gave her political carte blanche to enact the reforms that she wanted. I won't even mention that chimp Bush II). I'm perfectly comfortable with Obama aiming for the same by laying in to Syria, but he didn't realise quite how strong the opposition to it was domestically. The UK govt getting defeated was another nail in the coffin. At that point, yeah, maybe lumbering Congress with a poisonous decision made sense. I really doubt that the whole situation was pre-planned, too many variables, and whatever the outcome the whole US govt looks clueless.



Uh, I know quite a few British punk bands that entirely disagreed. "Maggie is a ...." I'm pretty sure is a pretty catchy tune by the Exploited. Crass I'm almost sure agreed with them as well.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Sep 15, 2013)

The mental gymnastics at work to commend Obama's actions as some "reverse psychology" covert anti-war scheme are olympic-gold-medal-worthy. Putin is to be commended for his opportunistic chess playing, he also waited for us to sentence Chelsea Manning before announcing Snowden's asylum. He has no claim to any moral legitimacy, however, as his hands are deep in the conflict in Chechnya as well as having supplied arms to the Syrian military. Whatever else can be said of him, he is a shrewd opportunist and has taken this golden chance to put his country on a moral pedestal next to the U.S. in the eyes of at least part of the world.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 15, 2013)

wheresthefbomb said:


> Putin is to be commended for his opportunistic chess playing, he also waited for us to sentence Chelsea Manning before announcing Snowden's asylum. He has no claim to any moral legitimacy, however, as his hands are deep in the conflict in Chechnya as well as having supplied arms to the Syrian military. Whatever else can be said of him, he is a shrewd opportunist and has taken this golden chance to put his country on a moral pedestal next to the U.S. in the eyes of at least part of the world.



While it's true that Putin is being hugely opportunistic, it's a key aspect of politics in this day and age. Did George W Bush not use conflict in Afghanistan opportunistically as an excuse to attack Iraq? Has Obama not politically capitalised on striking down Bin Laden, just as GWB would have if the timing had been right? Timing is everything, and both governments and their opposing parties will use any event to their advantage, whether that event was within anyone's control or not. The only thing I've never seen a political party blame on another party is the weather, but that's only a matter of time I think.

It's also difficult to strike down Putin's having moral legitimacy without having to strike down most major leaders and governments for similar reasons. Mentioning Chelsea Manning in this is extremely relevant, as morals in government are extremely important when it comes to issues such as spying and sentencing. Speaking of sentencing, wasn't Obama going to close Guantanamo Bay? How many people are still being held there without charge? How many high-level decision makers were punished (or even sufficiently implicated) for the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib during the previous administration? Hell, even in Australia we've had three Prime Ministers this year (it's been a weird year) throwing out moral arguments about conflicts in the Middle East and Australia's role in them, knowing that both our major parties have policies in which asylum seekers attempting to flee those same conflicts are imprisoned in off-shore detention centres for years on end while we 'process' their claims for asylum. I think this puts a pretty big hole in Australia's moral legitimacy.

I'm not saying that Putin's is 'better than' or 'morally equal to' most other world leaders. He's a huge bastard, a fact that I'm pretty sure he acknowledges and uses to his advantage. But he wrote a few things in his New York Times article that have strong moral implications regardless of who says them. The phrases themselves are no less relevant by his writing them than if they'd been written by Ghandi or Tinkerbell:



> No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect. The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
> We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement





I understand people's reservations when he cites protecting and enforcing international law. He's broken international laws himself, just as the US did when they attacked Iraq, and when you think about it, even the attack on Bin Laden 'required' entering Pakistan without that government's knowledge: isn't that against international law? Australia has definitely broken international humanitarian laws by our treatment of asylum seekers, so are we likely to be sanctioned? The point is, he's calling for diplomacy, as should all leaders, including the leaders of the rebellions. Diplomacy is an attempt to find the best resolution for all sides in a conflict. If the Syrian government is finally genuinely willing to compromise, they should be given that chance.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Sep 15, 2013)

I understand your point about legitimacy the moral issues raised, I was perhaps a bit too zealous, they do stand regardless of who says them or why. At the same time, I also agree particularly with this statement:



estabon37 said:


> It's also difficult to strike down Putin's having moral legitimacy without having to strike down most major leaders and governments for similar reasons.



I have similar opinions of "most major leaders and governments" as I do Putin, differences are mostly matters of extent in the grand scheme. 

I'm watching Charlie Rose interview Assad right now, it's very interesting, Rose is definitely trying to frame a particular narrative and Assad isn't giving an inch (and, naturally, offering his own slant):


----------



## hairychris (Sep 16, 2013)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Uh, I know quite a few British punk bands that entirely disagreed. "Maggie is a ...." I'm pretty sure is a pretty catchy tune by the Exploited. Crass I'm almost sure agreed with them as well.



I agree with them. As did my parents who were teachers. Irrelevant, though.

She probably would have lost the election after the Falklands had it not happened, or if she'd have won it would not have been with the massive majority that she did end up with. The country as a whole loved it, and loved her as a "war leader".


----------



## vansinn (Sep 16, 2013)

Well.. surprise surprise..
UN has issued Ban Ki-moon's briefing on the gas, and as, I presume, not exactly unexpected, it concludes gas was used several times in the near past.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Statements

Not a word on who did it, and only (IIRC) 38 blood samples taken.
I does seem to hint at geo locations rockets might have come from, though.
I haven't seen any mentioning the full report, but saw a comment about it still being secret.

If the full report caries info saying that Assad is to blame, it's understandable it's kept secret, as it'll 'allow' (though against intl. law) the R2P/R2A as wanted by some.
If it concludes rebels did it, it's secrecy is likewise understandable, though for very different and most troublesome reasons for the R2P/R2A wanters, because this will opens a (now fullly public) can of worms about where from they did get the gas.


----------



## vansinn (Sep 17, 2013)

This seems to be the report: http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

I'm still reading it, so no comments.


----------



## Captain_Awesome (Sep 26, 2013)

vansinn said:


> This seems to be the report: http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf
> 
> I'm still reading it, so no comments.



Thoughts? My initial impression is that if there was indeed a heavy shelling then it's more likely that it would have been committed by the SAA than the FSA. However, it would appear that it was only a small scale attack, though it is possible that there was a large clean up of the streets before the UN inspectors arrived, hence the lack of rocket debris (but this is all said in the report anyway). I have no idea who has access to what kind of rocket or shell type in this conflict, but it does seem peculiar to me that the SAA wouldn't have a standardised shell for the delivery of Sarin gas.

The one thing that I'm really struggling with here is the report on the actual chemical make-up of the gas. If it was a strong form of Sarin then it would most likely be the Syrian government, however if it was a weak concentration then it could have been delivered by a different party.

The inspectors themselves and people more knowledgeable than I probably know who's the blame and it's a shame that no blame will apportioned in the respect that everyone wants to know but perhaps it would be a dangerous move to make.


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 24, 2013)

When this whole thing started as an innocent faction of the population fighting to topple an unjust leader, I was all for intervention to stop Assad from killing his own people...unfortunately, the world's hesitation gave Assad enough time for his lame excuses to turn into a frightening, albeit very real situation.

Since the beginning, Assad referred to the rebels as "terrorists". While that may have once been nonsense, it's now a sad reality. My stance has now changed because of this. As much as I hate to see a guy like Assad stay in power after what he's done, the alternative is actually worse. Islamic Jihadists have hijacked this conflict, and completely changed the dynamic of it. Now, it is in everybody's best interest for Assad to maintain power against these extremists. 

Until the moderates and secularist groups have enough influence to themselves fight against the extremism, I think what's best for Syria and Syrians is for Assad to stay in power...Putin and Assad came out looking like heroes because the West stood by and did nothing.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 24, 2013)

MesaBeno said:


> When this whole thing started as an innocent faction of the population fighting to topple an unjust leader, I was all for intervention to stop Assad from killing his own people...unfortunately, the world's hesitation gave Assad enough time for his lame excuses to turn into a frightening, albeit very real situation.
> 
> Since the beginning, Assad referred to the rebels as "terrorists". While that may have once been nonsense, it's now a sad reality. My stance has now changed because of this. As much as I hate to see a guy like Assad stay in power after what he's done, the alternative is actually worse. Islamic Jihadists have hijacked this conflict, and completely changed the dynamic of it. Now, it is in everybody's best interest for Assad to maintain power against these extremists.
> 
> Until the moderates and secularist groups have enough influence to themselves fight against the extremism, I think what's best for Syria and Syrians is for Assad to stay in power...Putin and Assad came out looking like heroes because the West stood by and did nothing.



Agreed. As soon as I heard about Al Queda being involved with the rebels, I knew that we were heading down a bad road. It seems to be a recurring problem with the Arab Spring, movements that were initiated by moderates to end oppression end up getting co-opted by extremists, only making things worse a lot of the time. And because the West is understandably gun-shy after Iraq, especially given Russia's continued involvement with Syria, the window of opportunity to rectify the situation seems to have passed. At this point, no one wins.


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 27, 2013)

hairychris said:


> Seriously dude, they have some political influence in the US on the Christian Conservative right - the loony part of the Republican party included. It's the whole "god calling the Jews back to the holy land before the apocalypse can happen" thing.
> 
> Christian Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Main reason why Israel exists as it does today is this faction of US Christians who believe Israel needs to be a Jewish land for Jesus to return. It's a case of 2 groups of people cooperating for very different reasons and ultimate goals. But, as Israel will some day learn, "If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas."

And this coming from a cultural Jew who sees value in a Jewish state (mind you, not at the expense and oppression of a different people).


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 27, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Agreed. As soon as I heard about Al Queda being involved with the rebels, I knew that we were heading down a bad road. It seems to be a recurring problem with the Arab Spring, movements that were initiated by moderates to end oppression end up getting co-opted by extremists, only making things worse a lot of the time. And because the West is understandably gun-shy after Iraq, especially given Russia's continued involvement with Syria, the window of opportunity to rectify the situation seems to have passed. At this point, no one wins.



Seems that for every modern/secular/moderate/progressive Muslim, there's 10 other that are by-the-book fundamentalists.


----------

