Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria

I don't doubt a chem weapon was set off.

I just don't know who is responsible.
Both sides have a motive. Maybe a third party might have a reason too. Plenty of interest around that area.

All sides will deny anyway.
 
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 article you referenced says that no personnel from Doctors Without Borders are on the ground and so the information is not confirmed first hand by a trusted source. It would have to be quite the conspiracy for it to be contrived, but still it's no more evidence one way or the other than any other source.
 
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.

What parts are 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;)

There is video that shows Kurds helping dying or already dead kurds without protection, so this really doesn't help support your claim. Unless you are willing to say that Saddam using chemical agents on the Kurds never happened.

It's not like these people are given hazmat gear for their entire families just in case a civil war breaks out and chemical weapons are used.
 
Last edited:
The article you referenced says that no personnel from Doctors Without Borders are on the ground and so the information is not confirmed first hand by a trusted source. It would have to be quite the conspiracy for it to be contrived, but still it's no more evidence one way or the other than any other source.
That's why I asked those who consider the footage to be fake whether they believe the medical staff at the hospitals who reported the incident to MSF are lying, or whether MSF are lying about receiving such reports. Either way, I am more inclined to believe medical professionals and independent charities who are in contact with said medical professionals than some random people on the internet.

-

Apparently the US are planning to publish evidence this week, including satellite imagery and information obtained from within Syrian army ranks obtained from Israeli intelligence, and verified by the CIA. (source). Additionally, there was also apparently an intercepted phone call in Syria that proves that Assad's regime were responsible for the attacks in Ghouta last week. (source)

Previously, French reporters working for the newspaper Le Monde, embedded with rebels in the Jobar and Ghouta districts of Damascus earlier in the year, confirmed the use of sarin gas in Syria on a smaller but consistent basis, and also reported that sarin was being used in areas with fewer civilians (source).

It is still not clear whether the attack was directly ordered by Assad as part of a wider strategy or if it was someone overstepping their authority, or that the weapons were either targeted at the wrong area or the amount of sarin used last week was miscalculated. But given that there is evidence of previous sarin attacks, it seems highly unlikely that the regime knew nothing about it at all. The question remains why would Assad ramp up the use of sarin gas, knowing the likely implications. As one US intelligence official said... "We don't know exactly why it happened, we just know it was pretty ****ing stupid."

-

In a somewhat bizarre aside, apparently Israelis are stocking up on gas masks in the event that Syria retaliates against Israel for any foreign intervention that may occur - but Israel are advising orthodox Jews to shave their beards because standard issue gas masks cannot accommodate them.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else think the Syrian 'Rebels' should be called Syrian 'terrorists'?
It depends what you mean by rebels.

If you mean people fighting against Assad because he's killing them indiscriminately, no. If you mean the terrorist groups like Al Qa'ida who form part of the resistance against Assad as part of their idiotic inter-faith and intra-faith holy war and kill equally indiscriminately, yes.
 
Anyone else think the Syrian 'Rebels' should be called Syrian 'terrorists'?

Some of them, yes - but not all of them.

This is why, thus far, support for the rebels has been very limited and is being channeled through certain groups only.
 
Anyone else think the Syrian 'Rebels' should be called Syrian 'terrorists'?

For most of them, yes.
Anybody remember this?
powell-anthrax-vial.jpg

POWELL
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone else think the Syrian 'Rebels' should be called Syrian 'terrorists'?

Not really its a civil war.

If we attack Assad, which seems likely IMHO. And side with the Syrian 'terrorists',What would you call us? British terrorists?
 
This is why, thus far, support for the rebels has been very limited and is being channeled through certain groups only.

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/27/attacking-syria-us-bolsters-al-qaeda-dominated-rebels/

When the US attacks a nation with an ongoing civil war, the underlying assumption has always been that they are backing the rebels, and whatever collection of warlords and military defectors happens to make up that rebellion suddenly becomes the avatar of international democracy. In Afghanistan it was the Northern Alliance, in Libya it was the LNC. In Syria, it’s al-Qaeda.

-------------------------
Indeed, this idea that the US doesn’t expect their attacks to do anything, and is just a military operation with no military goals and an agenda of just really sticking it to Assad, is an excuse that they’ve been forced into simply to avoid admitting that the war risks turning Syria into a foreign-dominated Islamist caliphate with al-Qaeda at the helm.

Edit:
Al Qaeda has a history of manufacturing and using sarin and chlorine gas weapons. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/06/iraq_breaks_up_al_qa.php

Rock solid scientific evidence is needed to verify who did what to whom. An hysterical stampede to another war on trumped up charges is not needed at this time. That Obama foolishly drew a red line with his mouth should not require him, Cameron or anyone else to sink their hands and teeth into another people's blood.
 
Last edited:
Rock solid scientific evidence is needed to verify who did what to whom. An hysterical stampede to another war on trumped up charges is not needed at this time. That Obama foolishly drew a red line with his mouth should not require him, Cameron or anyone else to sink their hands and teeth into another people's blood.

I found this analysis interesting - and sobering. It might also go some way to explain why Assad may not fear the consequences of using chemical weapons, since he knows that any intervention by the US will be bad for the US, and hence he perceived Obama's 'red line' as a bluff - a view strongly reinforced by a complete lack of an international response to previous chemical attacks.

Dotini
Al Qaeda has a history of manufacturing and using sarin and chlorine gas weapons. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...s_up_al_qa.php
There's a link in there to a Turkish newspaper article about members of the al Nusra front (a rebel group known to be operating in Damascus) being found in possession of sarin gas.

It's possible (very likely, even) that both sides are using sarin gas against each other - but if anything, this only supports the humanitarian case for the outside world to intervene in some form or other. Obama has made the use of chemical weapons the trigger for intervention, and as far most people are concerned, that trigger has been pulled, but unfortunately it would appear that the US are only concerned with disrupting the ability of Assad's regime from using such weapons again, while ignoring the very real possibility that the rebels may have/may have already used chemical weapons as well.

There's not going to be a good outcome whether the US (and allies) get involved or not, sadly - all outcomes carry with them some negative consequences.
 
Last edited:
I found this analysis interesting - and sobering. It might also go some way to explain why Assad may not fear the consequences of using chemical weapons, since he knows that any intervention by the US will be bad for the US, and hence he perceived Obama's 'red line' as a bluff - a view strongly reinforced by a complete lack of an international response to previous chemical attacks.


There's a link in there to a Turkish newspaper article about members of the al Nusra front (a rebel group known to be operating in Damascus) being found in possession of sarin gas.

It's possible (very likely, even) that both sides are using sarin gas against each other - but if anything, this only supports the humanitarian case for the outside world to intervene in some form or other. Obama has made the use of chemical weapons the trigger for intervention, and as far most people are concerned, that trigger has been pulled, but unfortunately it would appear that the US are only concerned with disrupting the ability of Assad's regime from using such weapons again, while ignoring the very real possibility that the rebels may have/may have already used chemical weapons as well.

There's not going to be a good outcome whether the US (and allies) get involved or not, sadly.

If both sides are using it then it puts the US in a bind because both red lines have been crossed and there is no real side to support. Finding out yesterday that an alleged group associated with Assad cyberattacked American websites further muddles the situation.
 
There's not going to be a good outcome whether the US (and allies) get involved or not, sadly.

Dotini's good outcome :dopey::

Step One: President Obama comes to his senses, switches sides and supports President Assad and his country's struggle against internal rebellion and foreign intervention.

Step Two:
(a) Extremist Sunni Muslims are pushed east back into Anbar, or adjacent province in Syria.
(b) Kurds are rewarded with an autonomous province adjacent to their territories in Turkey and northern Iraq.
(c) Peace, prosperity and tolerance of minorities return as they were before in remaining provinces.

Step Three: Come springtime, Dotini visits Baalbeck in Lebanon and Krak de Chavalier in Syria.
 
If both sides are using it then it puts the US in a bind because both red lines have been crossed and there is no real side to support. Finding out yesterday that an alleged group associated with Assad cyberattacked American websites further muddles the situation.

The US have (literally) been in a bind since Obama said that the US would intervene if chemical weapons were used in Syria.

The only crumb of comfort for Obama is that the US are not alone in demanding that something is done to stop either side from using chemical weapons. The least bad option is for the UN to intervene in a peacekeeping capacity, but that will never happen so long as the Russians have a seat at the top table. That Putin is towing the indefensible line that there were no chemical attacks in Syria (even Iran acknowledge the use of chemical weapons in Syria) means that the Russians have abdicated all responsibility and authority on the matter. By drafting a UN resolution aimed at humanitarian/peacekeeping intervention in Syria, the US, UK and others will force Russia to show their true colours - Russia will, of course, veto it and thus demonstrate to the world that, far from merely being reluctant to intervene (as everyone else is), they are simply indifferent to the human suffering in Syria so long as it suits them to be so. Russia run the risk of being permanently sidelined in the UN if they continue to demonstrate such a lack of responsibility.
 
Last edited:
It's possible (very likely, even) that both sides are using sarin gas against each other
Or even on themselves. It's not like it's above Al Qa'ida's principles to use chemical weapons on civilians - particularly if doing so will force a Western intervention...
 
CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria – There is no Evidence
Tony Cartalucci (LD) , - The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.

The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria’s borders.

Wall Street Journal’s article, “U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts,” states:
One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.

Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.

That both Israel and the United States, as far back as 2007 have openly conspired together to overthrow the government of Syria through a carefully engineered sectarian bloodbath, discredits entirely their respective intelligence agencies. This is precisely why an impartial, objective third-party investigation has been called for by the international community and agreed upon by the Syrian government – a third-party investigation the US has now urged to be canceled ahead of its planned military strikes.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.

The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team’s safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.

The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally:

…if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.

The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West’s proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war – especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.

The populations of the West must likewise consider what benefits they have garnered from the last decade of military conquest their leaders have indulged in. Crumbling economies gutted to feed the preservation of special interests and the growing domestic security apparatuses to keep these interests safe from both domestic and foreign dissent are problems that will only grow more acute.

Outside of the West, in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, leaders must consider a future where Western special interests can invade with impunity, without public support, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/28/confirmed-us-claims-against-syria-there-is-no-evidence/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see a single word in that quote that agrees with the headline of it. Rather it seems constructed around the principle that Mossad and the CIA are biased.

That's not a confirmation that there's no evidence. That's an appeal to motive fallacy dressed up as a conspiracy theory. A confirmation that there's no evidence would be evidence that the evidence provided is false or flawed.
 
I know I am watching Syria like a hawk because of what it says in the Bible.

Isaiah 17:1 (KJV) - The burden against Damascus. “Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city, And it will be a ruinous heap.

Damascus I believe is one of the oldest cities on the planet and there is millions of people living there. I pray what we are seeing isn't this and will just blow over and Syria will correct their issues internally.
 
I have little doubt that the US can crush Assad's command and control facilities. What bothers me is the response to the attack. Instead of going after the US, key Syrian military officials have repeatedly stated that all retaliation will be directed at Israel.

Not to mention the 500 Scuds that are supposedly pointed at Israel, ready to go.

Assad is most certainly a war criminal. But I fear that foreign intervention will turn the whole reason into a bloody powder keg and plunge the Middle East into chaos for decades. What will likely happen will be a large-scale war against Israel, because killing Jews is apparently the only thing anyone in the middle east can agree on. Syria and its Hezbollah allies will wage a "holy war" against Israel, bankrolled by Iran. Israel will likely retaliate against Iran and bomb the hell out of the nuclear enrichment sites at Qom and Fordow.

It will be a gigantic bloody mess.
 
It will be a gigantic bloody mess.

It will also be a gigantic racket, as munitions and pharmaceuticals are sold to both sides. Stock exchanges are trading furiously now, so invest wisely.

Perhaps, when it's all done, a great catharsis will have been achieved, and the faces on Mt Rushmore will be replaced by those of Obama, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and Hillary Clinton.
 
Indeed it will.

"Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.
"
 
Non sense news broadcasting center? Just a guess and to be fair, I didn't really read it or try to follow up on the sources.

I'm confident most of us here know the drill and what is going on.
 
Doesn't that mean that Russia is essentially going to abstain in the council vote and leave China all alone to veto whatever?
 


I wonder why he says international norms instead of international law. Maybe has something to do with Syria not signing the agreement to ban chemical weapons?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back