Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria

[Touring Mars]

Wait, so the US is going to support rebels who are shown now to be extremist? Boy this will end well.

The US is already supporting the rebels, advisedly or otherwise, by agreeing to supply them with arms. A bigger problem for the US now is Obama's statement that the use of chemical weapons represented a 'red line' that, if crossed, would prompt 'action', widely reckoned to mean a military response of some sort. That line has most definitely been crossed by someone, but it is not totally certain who - i.e. the Russians claim to have evidence that the rebels were responsible in an apparent attempt to discredit Assad.

It's a very difficult situation for the international community to respond to. The indiscriminate use of any weapon capable of mass murder against a largely civilian/non-combatant population is a war crime and the US (as well as the UK and France) are arguably right that this kind of behaviour cannot be ignored - but there are very real dangers in appearing to take sides, and the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) have already appeared to take sides by backing the rebels, despite the fact that the rebels are not a uniform body of well-meaning freedom fighters, but rather are a disparate bunch of groups that include jihadists and other Islamic extremist factions as well as more moderate groups. The use of chemical weapons per se is an issue in itself, but I think a more pressing problem is the indiscriminate nature of the killing being perpetrated by one or more sides in the conflict, and the international community needs to come to a swift agreement on how to stop it in accordance with international law, and hopefully without starting WW3 in the process.

 

[Dennisch]

That is some interesting stuff you posted, mk2lover. Thanks for that.

It does however make the situation a whole lot more difficult to solve.

The US and other countries should only get involved under UN or NATO command. There are now so many parties fighting in Syria that it would be almost impossible to know who is the enemy and who is an ally.

Maybe this should be a case for the Arab League, with support from the UN or NATO.

 

[Dotini]

The use of chemical weapons per se is an issue in itself, but I think a more pressing problem is the indiscriminate nature of the killing being perpetrated by one or more sides in the conflict, and the international community needs to come to a swift agreement on how to stop it in accordance with international law, and hopefully without starting WW3 in the process.

"Hopefully" this is classic British understatement. It would be good if everyone agreed that starting WWIII would not be worth the price of bombing the **** out of Syria in order to slake our moral thirst, or to salve our injured pride of rhetorical red lines being crossed.

I wonder what international law - other than a UN mandate - would sanction the US, UK and France bombing Syria with cruise missiles?

If this were to eventuate, would international law allow Syria, or her allies, to retaliate in self defense against the attackers - say, shooting down the missiles or sinking the ships?

 

[Enemem]

I know labelling it NWO makes me look a little cookie, but there is no doubt that they is a NWO being implemented. If anyone has more than a five minute attentoopn span then I will post links to some interesting videos, that may indicate that I am correct.

If you do think I'm a little cookie, then ask yourself what makes you think that. And you may find that you are followign the MSM line, and I don't blame them for that. They do their best when you consider that the dies are stacked against us.

 

[Touring Mars]

"Hopefully" this is classic British understatement. It would be good if everyone agreed that starting WWIII would not be worth the price of bombing the **** out of Syria in order to slake our moral thirst, or to salve our injured pride of rhetorical red lines being crossed.

I wonder what international law - other than a UN mandate - would sanction the US, UK and France bombing Syria with cruise missiles?

If this were to eventuate, would international law allow Syria, or her allies, to retaliate in self defense against the attackers - say, shooting down the missiles or sinking the ships?

I don't see it as a question of 'slaking our moral thirst', but standing up for/respecting international law and demonstrating that regimes who commit crimes against humanity will face consequences for their actions. This is not to say that any or all types of intervention are justified - or wise - but complete inaction sends out a very dangerous message as well.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has already stated that using chemical weapons is just such a crime against humanity and also that their use constitutes a violation of international law. The UN (or any subset of UN member states as the case may be) would be fully justified legally in intervening in Syria - but first they must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt before 'bombing the Shi'ites of Syria' (i.e. Assad's regime) since the possibility remains that the rebels were responsible, although this looks increasingly unlikely/implausible. The UN, of course, will probably not be able to act as Russia will veto any action against Syria - but other countries can act under the auspices of NATO or the Arab League.

Syria's likely response to any attack is the one thing staying the hand of those who wish to hold Assad to account for his (alleged) war crimes/crimes against humanity, and hence utmost caution would need to apply in any consideration of a military response.

Getting involved at all is extremely risky and could easily have very little in the way of positive outcomes for anyone other than to uphold the value of international law and human rights... both of which are arguably more important considerations than the potentially massive costs involved.

I will post links to some interesting videos

If any of them involve/include David Icke, then don't bother.

 

[VolkswagenX]

If any of them involve/include David Icke, then don't bother.

That and non of that Jonestown (Alex Jones) stuff These 2 are masters of disinfo.

I know labelling it NWO makes me look a little cookie, but there is no doubt that they is a NWO being implemented. If anyone has more than a five minute attentoopn span then I will post links to some interesting videos, that may indicate that I am correct.

If you do think I'm a little cookie, then ask yourself what makes you think that. And you may find that you are followign the MSM line, and I don't blame them for that. They do their best when you consider that the dies are stacked against us.

I'm not saying you're a kook, just saying we should watch out with how we label the corrupt. I don't want anything to do with people who believe the world is run by bavarian death cults or reptelian space aliens lol. The sad truth is that people will do everything for money and thats what all these wars are about. Profit.

 

[Dotini]

Getting involved at all is extremely risky and could easily have very little in the way of positive outcomes for anyone other than to uphold the value of international law and human rights... both of which are arguably more important considerations than the potentially massive costs involved.

If I understand the logical implication of this concluding paragraph, it is that upholding international law and human rights in someone else's country would, in fact, justify an open-ended conflict which could potentially result in massive costs. "Massive" could well mean WW3 and the end of civilization on Earth.

In my selfish opinion, I don't think an ugly civil war in Syria justifies risking WW3. Remember, you Brits used chem weapons both Europe and the Middle East, and you were not held accountable for it. Please do not hold me and mine subject to apocalyptic wars based on placing noble ideals higher than life itself.

 

[Touring Mars]

If I understand the logical implication of this concluding paragraph, it is that upholding international law and human rights in someone else's country would, in fact, justify an open-ended conflict which could potentially result in massive costs. "Massive" could well mean WW3 and the end of civilization on Earth.

In my selfish opinion, I don't think an ugly civil war in Syria justifies risking WW3. Remember, you Brits used chem weapons both Europe and the Middle East, and you were not held accountable for it. Please do not hold me and mine subject to apocalyptic wars based on placing noble ideals higher than life itself.

The implication was more like this: if no-one is willing to enforce international law, there is no international law, and that is possibly the riskiest outcome of all.

By massive costs I meant the lives of military personnel, civilian casualties, and both financial and strategic costs of getting involved in a conflict that was justified initially on the basis of upholding international law.

It is risky to get involved in Syria, but there are risks in not getting involved too. My point is that the decision to take action against a war criminal should arguably not be determined by what those who take action might get out of it, but should be determined by what the war criminals have done.

Also, I'm well aware that both the UK and the US have used chemical weapons in the past, but bringing that up is not really revelant here - atleast we have seen the error of our ways and have signed international agreements to never use them again.

 

[Dennisch]

John Kerry shows that the US has already made up their mind.

This could turn out to be one of the biggest mistakes we will see in our lifetime.

 

[VolkswagenX]

John Kerry shows that the US has already made up their mind.

This could turn out to be one of the biggest mistakes we will see in our lifetime.

Their minds were made up long before the Arab Spring started. This is what General Wesley Clark had to say about this 6 Years ago:

General Wesley Clark:
Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

Non of this has anything to do with defending human rights and upholding International Law.

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[Touring Mars]

You're saying that the decision of the US to involve itself in Syria right now was taken years ago and has nothing to do with the reality of what is happening today? I seriously doubt that. That the Neo-Cons of the Bush era(s) may have envisaged a series of wars in the Middle East is a moot point and is hardly relevant today - there is no evidence that the current series of uprisings in the Middle East is related to that. Nor is there any evidence that the current stance of the US, UK, France, Germany, Turkey (and many other countries) is a post Neo-Con plot where the US and her allies are just waiting for an excuse to go to war in order to execute a pre-planned agenda to overthrow various regimes.

 

[VolkswagenX]

You're saying that the decision of the US to involve itself in Syria right now was taken years ago and has nothing to do with the reality of what is happening today? I seriously doubt that. That the Neo-Cons of the Bush era(s) may have envisaged a series of wars in the Middle East is a moot point and is hardly relevant today - there is no evidence that the current series of uprisings in the Middle East is related to that. Nor is there any evidence that the current stance of the US, UK, France, Germany, Turkey (and many other countries) is a post Neo-Con plot where the US and her allies are just waiting for an excuse to go to war in order to execute a pre-planned agenda to overthrow various regimes.

It is what General Wesley Clark said 6 years ago. To many coincidences if you ask me. CW attack right after the UN comes in to investigate the alligations while the Assad government had no reason to use CW. The US now upping the war retoric right after the Assad government just took controll of a rebel town that was strategically inportant to the rebels?

Nothing about it seems fair and only one side will benifit from an intervention and it won't be Syrians. The only outcome of this will be mass genocide (like its happening now in Libya but non of the human righters care about). All they wan't to investigate is if CM were used while they should be investigating who is using them. But it seems that the US and the Uk have already made their minds up.

Syria is lost Thousands will lose their lives in the name of deMOCKracy and a western central bank will be installed to make sure Syria will lose al of its sovereignty. It's always about regime change and installing a government that favors the west. We've seen it before ,we will see it happening in Syria and Lebanon is probably next (destabilizing has already begun).

 

[VolkswagenX]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/08/25/transparent-hoax-could-lead-to-war/

 

[Dennisch]

I can see Assad being dead or captured before the end of the year. With all the news pouring in, everything points towards Assad using the chemicals, if they are used. I just hope the UN can finish their inspection and be honest about their findings.


I hope that the Syrians also receive the news of the war to come, and that they get the hell out of their cities.

 

[VolkswagenX]

I can see Assad being dead or captured before the end of the year. With all the news pouring in, everything points towards Assad using the chemicals, if they are used. I just hope the UN can finish their inspection and be honest about their findings.


I hope that the Syrians also receive the news of the war to come, and that they get the hell out of their cities.

I have yet to see any solid evidence of Chemical Weapons being used by the Syrian government. News/infotainment is not evidence.

 

[Dennisch]

That is why I hope the the UN can finish their inspection.

 

[VolkswagenX]

That is why I hope the the UN can finish their inspection.

I highly doubt they will be able to And even if they do, and somehow the evidence lead back to the rebels, Assad will still be blamed. War will come, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Dennisch]

I wonder what will happen when it turns out it wasn't Assad. Maybe the world will do a 180 and send all their fundings and troops to assist Assad. And when that is done, the world does another 180 and goes after Assad. Just like we've seen so often in the past.


Just read that even the Arab Liga is confident that it was Assad, and they are calling for the UN to set aside their differences (Russia and China need to get their **** together and join the rest of the UN).

 

[VolkswagenX]

I wonder what will happen when it turns out it wasn't Assad. Maybe the world will do a 180 and send all their fundings and troops to assist Assad. And when that is done, the world does another 180 and goes after Assad. Just like we've seen so often in the past.

A 180 degree turn will not happen (sadly) even if all the evidence would point to the rebels using Chemical Weapons. They will get a slap on the wrist and everybody forgets the thing ever happend and were back to Miley Cyrus acting like a ***** till the next claim of Syrian government crimes against humanity comes in. This proces will be repeated till the west will get its way and bring another round of genocide to the Middle-East.

Just read that even the Arab Liga is confident that it was Assad, and they are calling for the UN to set aside their differences (Russia and China need to get their **** together and join the rest of the UN).

Don't count on the Russians and the Chinese supporting a foreign intervention. Especially after how the Russians got screwed over Libya.


I also would not put to much trust in the Arab Liga wich consist on countries who heavely rely on the Petrodollar. It's no wonder the war rhetoric is aimed at countries who wan't to abandon the Petrodollar like Syria, Iran and Libya before they got rid of Gaddafi.

 

[Rage Racer]

I've heard that the UN inspectors are ordered find out not who used the chemical weapon, but were the chemicals used at all. If it turns out they were, this is Assad who will be blaimed by default, I guess.

 

[VolkswagenX]

I've heard that the UN inspectors are ordered find out not who used the chemical weapon, but were the chemicals used at all. If it turns out they were, this is Assad who will be blaimed by default, I guess.

Exacly what is happening. The decision to go to war with Syria (see the video I posted of General Wesley Clark) has already been made. All that is needed is a trace of any chemicals for the west to go in and bomb them (for peace offcourse) . Also heard something about the Russians having solid evidence that the attack was the work of rebels but I'm waiting for more sources to confirm this.

 

[Rage Racer]

What the Russians (including me) mostly suppose is there was no chemical attack at all. Authenticity of those victims' photos and videos is really questionable.

 

[Spagetti69]

Cameron has already named Assad as the perpetrator on TV. Before any evidence is produced. He's a puppet.

I thought Assad was winning in Syria? Why would he want outside intervention by using Chem weapons?

I smell a rat.

 

[Blitz24]

Cameron has already named Assad as the perpetrator on TV. Before any evidence is produced. He's a puppet.

I thought Assad was winning in Syria? Why would he want outside intervention by using Chem weapons?

I smell a rat.

I don't think Assad did it, that's the thing. I think the rebels are using anything they can to play themselves out as being the ones who were attacked where they very well were the ones who used the weapons.

 

[Spagetti69]

I don't think Assad did it, that's the thing. I think the rebels are using anything they can to play themselves out as being the ones who were attacked where they very well were the ones who used the weapons.

I think the west wants their puppet in Syria as a means to get one step closer to Iran and oil.

God knows who set off chem weapons but that's all we need to (Legitimately) get involved.

Excuse my cynicism in all this but I trust no one.
Weapons of mass destruction etc is hard to forget.

I'm no fan of Assad or the rebels but its not our argument. War is on the cards IMHO and innocent lives will be lost and a fear of escalation.

 

[Blitz24]

I think the west wants their puppet in Syria as a means to get one step closer to Iran and oil.

God knows who set off chem weapons but that's all we need to (Legitimately) get involved.

Excuse my cynicism in all this but I trust no one.
Weapons of mass destruction etc is hard to forget.

I'm no fan of Assad or the rebels but its not our argument. War is on the cards IMHO and innocent lives will be lost and a fear of escalation.

Except for the fact that Iran is looking for any excuse to set off their weapons at Israel. I mean any excuse. The West making any move will set Iran off.

 

[VolkswagenX]

What the Russians (including me) mostly suppose is there was no chemical attack at all. Authenticity of those victims' photos and videos is really questionable.

The videos shown about the chemical attack show people helping the supposed victims without any form of protection wich seems strange with these chemicals being so dangerous and all.. I agree with most Russians

Cameron has already named Assad as the perpetrator on TV. Before any evidence is produced. He's a puppet.

I thought Assad was winning in Syria? Why would he want outside intervention by using Chem weapons?

I smell a rat.

Not just Cameron... If you look at some of my previous posts you can see that some truly believe Assad is an idiot. He has no reason to use Chemical Weapons and the only ones who seem to benefit from these attacks are the rebels the US and its allies. That should be the real question here: who benefits? It seems like a lot of people are smelling the rats.

I don't think Assad did it, that's the thing. I think the rebels are using anything they can to play themselves out as being the ones who were attacked where they very well were the ones who used the weapons.

They have done this before and they will get away with it again

 

[VolkswagenX]

Except for the fact that Iran is looking for any excuse to set off their weapons at Israel. I mean any excuse. The West making any move will set Iran off.

I think Iran is not looking for war with anybody (their track record should be proof enough) but you can really blame them from feeling threathened from the whole situation. They are basically being surrounded with Syria being the only ally they have left in the region.

 

[Touring Mars]

Medecins Sans Frontieres have said that medical staff based in three hospitals that they support in Damascus reported admitting thousands of casualties, hundreds of whom died, in the space of a few hours on the night in question. So, are the doctors in Damascus hospitals lying, or are MSF lying?? I can see why people are skeptical about blaming Assad, but denying that last week's attack happened at all is increasingly indefensible.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera have reported that 11 members of a single Palestinian family were killed in the chemical attacks in Ghouta last week, and that they spotted one of their family members in video footage that appeared online in the aftermath of the attacks.

The videos shown about the chemical attack show people helping the supposed victims without any form of protection wich seems strange with these chemicals being so dangerous and all.. I agree with most Russians

Does it not occur to you that medical staff will attempt to treat dying people, including infants, whether they are protected or not? Also, it is very likely that hospitals in Damascus were not expecting or prepared for a chemical weapons attack on this scale. In some footage I have seen, some people who are treating the injured are wearing gloves, some are not - in any case, there is a massive difference between being at the scene of the release of nerve gas and inhaling the gas, and treating those who have inhaled the gas. Insinuating that the footage is faked because those treating the victims are not doing exactly what you think they ought to be doing is quite ridiculous.