The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Anyone with access to 100-years-old technology. Or access to relatively small caches of poison gases in a war-torn region that has seen use of poison gases in the last 40 years. Or access to money enough to buy that. Hell, I'm not even a chemistry major and I have access to knowledge, technology and material enough to produce cyanide gas enough to kill some tens of people. At home.

That's why I say we should be BLOODY sure of who did it before even THINKING of taking any action. And why just dropping some bombs hoping to kill Assad or his generals won't solve anything and just add more civilian casualties.

The only thing that can contain violence and civilian casualties now is the same thing that would have had the same effect 2 years ago. A full-scale invasion by the UN - with international troops forcing into submission anyone who has a weapon, Assad loyalist or insurgent or terrorist or bandit or whomever.

It's either that or let Syria sort it out by itself.

The United Nations is a sham. It's elite command are subsidised by NATO as well as affiliates by the largest in proportion to all other members. However there are some minor dissident elements within it that diverge away from the established narrative to speak the truth. Such is the case with the UN officials that RT interviewed if I recalled correctly that said enough evidence goes to proving the so called rebels did the strike too.

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

[Costa Alegria]

I think his name should make it quite obvious his level of objectivity.

I'm getting him to go beyond shitty rhetoric and asinine conspiracy theories. If he wants to engage with us in a meaningful discussion, he should be prepared to talk on our terms. If not, we can always remind him loudly and often that his opinion is based on a load of unproven bullshit.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

The United Nations is a sham. It's elite command are subsidised by NATO as well as affiliates by the largest in proportion to all other members. However there are some minor dissident elements within it that diverge away from the established narrative to speak the truth. Such is the case with the UN officials that RT interviewed if I recalled correctly that said enough evidence goes to proving the so called rebels did the strike too.

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West. Since when are we so foolish as to brand everything not pro NATO ebil without looking at ourselves?

[Danhanjeedh]

I honestly would love to see such picture.

I just imagine Borat driving up in a dented fishing boat with a toy gun.

In comparison yes it would be something like that

[Farnhamia]

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West. Since when are we so foolish as to brand everything not pro NATO ebil without looking at ourselves?

I'm sorry but you automatically brand everything that is pro-NATO as ebil, so ...

[Trollgaard]

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West. Since when are we so foolish as to brand everything not pro NATO ebil without looking at ourselves?

By definition that which is not pro NATO is evil.

[Rawrckia]

The United Nations is a sham. It's elite command are subsidised by NATO as well as affiliates by the largest in proportion to all other members. However there are some minor dissident elements within it that diverge away from the established narrative to speak the truth. Such is the case with the UN officials that RT interviewed if I recalled correctly that said enough evidence goes to proving the so called rebels did the strike too.

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

Neither of them can really be considered completely reliable.

However, Assad had NO REASON to attack his own city and his own civilians (who mostly support him) that was housing his troops at the same time. He's winning through conventional warfare and NATO and the UN have constantly stated that use of chemical weapons are a "red line" that would cause action to be taken if crossed.

The man isn't an idiot.

[Danhanjeedh]

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West. Since when are we so foolish as to brand everything not pro NATO ebil without looking at ourselves?

By definition that which is not pro NATO is evil.

so the Swiss are evil? cut the crap, both pro and anti west media uses propaganda to strenghten its story. Just compare them on the same subject to see what is actually fact and what is bs.

[Danhanjeedh]

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

Neither of them can really be considered completely reliable.

However, Assad had NO REASON to attack his own city and his own civilians (who mostly support him) that was housing his troops at the same time. He's winning through conventional warfare and NATO and the UN have constantly stated that use of chemical weapons are a "red line" that would cause action to be taken if crossed.

The man isn't an idiot.

agreed.

[Trollgaard]

By definition that which is not pro NATO is evil.

so the Swiss are evil? cut the crap, both pro and anti west media uses propaganda to strenghten its story. Just compare them on the same subject to see what is actually fact and what is bs.

If you're not with us, you're against us.



Channeling a former president for a moment there.

[Imperializt Russia]

What are your arguments for your statement that Assad would possible use the chemical weapons?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-usa-kerry-idUSBRE97P0RJ20130826

The attacks were on a 'rebel-held suburb'. Unless there's any evidence that the attacks were staged by the opposition in order to gain support (which as far as I'm aware there isn't), then a simple tactical analysis would suggest that Assad used them.

A simple tactical analysis, which works on paper, and not an assessment of the wider strategic picture as I've already surmised.
Assad has nothing to gain from launching strikes.

Maybe some of his commanders feel they do, tactically. Arab forces typically have very poor discipline, respect of the chain of command and communication hierarchy. It's perfectly plausible that even if government forces launched the strike, Assad and his higher-level commanders were nothing to do with it.

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

[New Chalcedon]

Russia Today is a sham news network designed as the Kremlin's western-oriented mouthpiece.

Neither of them can really be considered completely reliable.

However, Assad had NO REASON to attack his own city and his own civilians (who mostly support him) that was housing his troops at the same time. He's winning through conventional warfare and NATO and the UN have constantly stated that use of chemical weapons are a "red line" that would cause action to be taken if crossed.

The man isn't an idiot.

If correct, your thesis begs the twin questions: were chemical weapons in fact used, and if so by whom? It's not exactly like nuclear technology, where only a handful of countries have figured out how to weaponise it - chemical weapons are available to a wide range of state and non-state actors.

[Rawrckia]

Neither of them can really be considered completely reliable.

However, Assad had NO REASON to attack his own city and his own civilians (who mostly support him) that was housing his troops at the same time. He's winning through conventional warfare and NATO and the UN have constantly stated that use of chemical weapons are a "red line" that would cause action to be taken if crossed.

The man isn't an idiot.

If correct, your thesis begs the twin questions: were chemical weapons in fact used, and if so by whom? It's not exactly like nuclear technology, where only a handful of countries have figured out how to weaponise it - chemical weapons are available to a wide range of state and non-state actors.

We're fairly certain that chemical arms were used. Recently, even.

And it makes perfect sense for the rebels to use them - kill a few Assad supporters and bring Western hellfire onto the Syrian government.

[Danhanjeedh]

so the Swiss are evil? cut the crap, both pro and anti west media uses propaganda to strenghten its story. Just compare them on the same subject to see what is actually fact and what is bs.

If you're not with us, you're against us.



Channeling a former president for a moment there.

Like a not so famous man once said: Looking at any media is like looking at a chopped down tree, it won't say what actually happend.

[Danhanjeedh]

Neither of them can really be considered completely reliable.

However, Assad had NO REASON to attack his own city and his own civilians (who mostly support him) that was housing his troops at the same time. He's winning through conventional warfare and NATO and the UN have constantly stated that use of chemical weapons are a "red line" that would cause action to be taken if crossed.

The man isn't an idiot.

If correct, your thesis begs the twin questions: were chemical weapons in fact used, and if so by whom? It's not exactly like nuclear technology, where only a handful of countries have figured out how to weaponise it - chemical weapons are available to a wide range of state and non-state actors.

I would blame hippies, just beocuse it are BIOchemical weapons... however becouse hippies aren't involved (i think) i have to blame the rebels, just becouse of the indirect prove that they use/used/wanted to use chemical weapons.

[New Chalcedon]

If correct, your thesis begs the twin questions: were chemical weapons in fact used, and if so by whom? It's not exactly like nuclear technology, where only a handful of countries have figured out how to weaponise it - chemical weapons are available to a wide range of state and non-state actors.

We're fairly certain that chemical arms were used. Recently, even.

And it makes perfect sense for the rebels to use them - kill a few Assad supporters and bring Western hellfire onto the Syrian government.

Ah, now - this is where things get complicated. Ghouta - the place hit by chemical weapons - was not definitely government-held, despite being an exurb of Damascus. Per Al Jazeera (the first source I found was the WSJ, but hey - it's the WSJ ), the government launched an artillery strike on Ghouta the day after the chemical attack(s), apparently intending to kick the rebels out.

Which means that it now makes sense for either party to have used them - the regime to force the rebels out of their only real zone close to the capital, and the rebels to bring down the wrath of the West against the regime.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Neither of them can really be considered completely reliable.

However, Assad had NO REASON to attack his own city and his own civilians (who mostly support him) that was housing his troops at the same time. He's winning through conventional warfare and NATO and the UN have constantly stated that use of chemical weapons are a "red line" that would cause action to be taken if crossed.

The man isn't an idiot.

agreed.

Seconded. Oh, whilst I cannot wait to be in power to withdraw my country from NATO, hopefully in the future. I am sick of these neo imperialist elites.

[Danhanjeedh]

We're fairly certain that chemical arms were used. Recently, even.

And it makes perfect sense for the rebels to use them - kill a few Assad supporters and bring Western hellfire onto the Syrian government.

Ah, now - this is where things get complicated. Ghouta - the place hit by chemical weapons - was not definitely government-held, despite being an exurb of Damascus. Per Al Jazeera (the first source I found was the WSJ, but hey - it's the WSJ ), the government launched an artillery strike on Ghouta the day after the chemical attack(s), apparently intending to kick the rebels out.

Which means that it now makes sense for either party to have used them - the regime to force the rebels out of their only real zone close to the capital, and the rebels to bring down the wrath of the West against the regime.

The sad thing is that we probably will never know since there are no real independant investigators on this.. (only the UN but they aren't investigating about who did it)

[Rawrckia]

We're fairly certain that chemical arms were used. Recently, even.

And it makes perfect sense for the rebels to use them - kill a few Assad supporters and bring Western hellfire onto the Syrian government.

Ah, now - this is where things get complicated. Ghouta - the place hit by chemical weapons - was not definitely government-held, despite being an exurb of Damascus. Per Al Jazeera (the first source I found was the WSJ, but hey - it's the WSJ ), the government launched an artillery strike on Ghouta the day after the chemical attack(s), apparently intending to kick the rebels out.

Which means that it now makes sense for either party to have used them - the regime to force the rebels out of their only real zone close to the capital, and the rebels to bring down the wrath of the West against the regime.

Huh, I didn't know that the government didn't control it. I'll keep note of that for the future.

Regardless though, there's still no reason for Assad to use chemical arms when he is very clearly winning the war through conventional means and knows the UN and NATO are constantly looking over his shoulder to see if he's crossed the "red line".

[Quintanilla]

Things are getting crazy in Damascus.

https://twitter.com/911BUFF

[Yes Im Biop]

Anyone with access to 100-years-old technology.

Sarin gas is not a 100 year old technology.

Or access to relatively small caches of poison gases in a war-torn region that has seen use of poison gases in the last 40 years. Or access to money enough to buy that. Hell, I'm not even a chemistry major and I have access to knowledge, technology and material enough to produce cyanide gas enough to kill some tens of people. At home.

Everyone's a self-proclaimed chemist these days. I'm Walter White, nice to meet you.

That's why I say we should be BLOODY sure of who did it before even THINKING of taking any action. And why just dropping some bombs hoping to kill Assad or his generals won't solve anything and just add more civilian casualties.

The only thing that can contain violence and civilian casualties now is the same thing that would have had the same effect 2 years ago. A full-scale invasion by the UN - with international troops forcing into submission anyone who has a weapon, Assad loyalist or insurgent or terrorist or bandit or whomever.

It's either that or let Syria sort it out by itself.

If you demand CSI levels of evidence then you're effectively giving people a blank cheque to do as they please. It's impossible to be 100% sure on anything in a warzone like Syria.

As for letting Syria "sort itself out" I'd be fine with that but Obama has already made chemical weapons his red line, if he backtracks now then nobody will take his word. On anything.

Mustard Gas is

Anyone with access to Google can find out how to make up to but not limited to
ANfo
THermite
Napalm
Cyanide
Pipe rifles
Pipe Bombs
And apparently Toyota's with 30mm cannons

[Imperializt Russia]

So after the US has bombed Damascus are they going to bomb London????

After all it was The British that sold the weapons to Assad.


http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed

Perhaps if the greed of British chemical companies was curtailed we wouldn't be in this position.

Oh please, the entirety of NATO is guilty of shipping chemical agents to most of the middle east states.
NATO flocked to flood Iraq with chemical weapons when it was cool to do so during the Iran-Iraq war.

Only Sky and other "news" outlets would think it was "news".

Source.

These are some:

http://counterpsyops.com/2012/08/29/nat ... a-algeria/
http://counterpsyops.com/2011/09/08/aft ... a-is-next/
http://counterpsyops.wordpress.com/2011 ... -in-libya/

I shall get the ones on the DGSE too, as well as for Armenia.

Edit: As for Armenia, recent tensions provoked by NATO ally Azerbaijan near the Nargono-Karabakh region have escalated. Thus yes indeed, one should as well conclude things are indeed going to escalate further.

"counterpsyops.wordpress"

No.

I don't even need to read those to know they can have no viable substance.

Let's punish the guilty, which would be the jihadi insurgents.

Everybody seems to be buying into this assumption (at least in the US and UK) that if use of chemical weapons is proved then Assad must be guilty.

Sorry, that's a logical disconnect.

It does seem to be more likely to be Assad (or his generals, at least) who ordered the strike. Not certain, but more likely from what I've heard.

As a general opinion, as long as the strikes only hit military targets, I'm mostly in support of this.

Last time chemical weapons use was established, in May, it was surmised to be rebel activity.
So they have precedent.

Let's punish the guilty, which would be the jihadi insurgents.

Everybody seems to be buying into this assumption (at least in the US and UK) that if use of chemical weapons is proved then Assad must be guilty.

Sorry, that's a logical disconnect.

Well, it's not quite a logical disconnect. The problem is that the Syrian militart has access to chemical weapons. Much more immediate access to them than the rebels, though it gas been reported that caches have been captured by the rebels although no one is sure. However, Occam's razor dictates that this simplest solution is mostly likely the correct one. Given that we already know that the Syrian military has chemical weapons, they are the logical perpetators.

Nevertheless, seeing as Assad has come out saying that his side would never use chemical weapons, even going so far as to state why (that it would cause an international incident), it becomes more likely that the jihadists did it thanks to Napoleons rule (assume ignorance unless malevolence is proven). Be cause of this, without further evidence, assuming either option requires some form if logical disconnect.

You see, there's logical on a paper basis, which is what you are pursuing, then there's a logical basis from reading the situation.

Assad has no need to deploy chemical weapons and knows that it will only bring NATO down upon him.
He has no upsides from using chemical weapons like we have no upsides from intervention.

Its just the pricipe, the US already started a war based on nothing but lies, ofcourse i would take that into my consideration of what the chance is that the US would posses solid proof to blame Assad for the chemical strikes.

Human Rights Activists Agree Chemical Weapons have been used.

That's not what's at debate.
What's at debate is whether or not Assad ordered the strikes.

As to the first: During the Iran-Iraq War, the US not only actively assisted Iraq with developing chemical weapons, they also used their access to the satellite network to co-ordinate the use of them.

France built Iraq' Osriak nuclear reactor.

Italy sold 75,000 artillery shells designed for use with chemical weapons.

Brazil sold Iraq 100 tonnes of mustard gas.

The British Government helped finance a mustard gas factory in Iraq, as well as supplying Hussein with nuclear triggers.

Singapore sold over 4,000 tons of materials for sarin, VX and other nerve gases.



A considered response. If this case, to first determine that that is, in fact, what happened. Second, to blockade the Syrian coastline and impose a no-fly zone to deny Assad's forces air support. Third, to hopefully not lose a single US life in making the conditions ripe for the forces opposing Assad to succeed. And fourth, to keep any antagonizing of Russia, China or other powers interested in Syria to a minimum.

Still not seeing a source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chem ... 0s_program

France built Iraq' Osriak nuclear reactor.

Was that anything to do with a weapons programme, or was it simply for power generation, though?

Osirak was going to be Iraq's quick-fix to acquiring fissile material.
When it was bombed, they built about a hundred Calutrons - the same machines used to enrich Uranium for the Manhattan Project.

What western hypocrites.
100,000 people were killed, and you absolutely do nothing.
But when 200 people are killed by chemical weapon, THEN you intervene?

What the heck?

Chemical weapons are banned under international law. Regular weaponry isn't.

Never stopped European states manufacturing and selling the stuff from the sixties through the eighties.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Things are getting crazy in Damascus.

https://twitter.com/911BUFF

You have to love the Syrian Electronic Army. They defeated another MSM account.

[Divair]

Things are getting crazy in Damascus.

https://twitter.com/911BUFF

Oh no, an explosion. In a country in the middle of a civil war. This is truly newsworthy.

[Costa Alegria]

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West.

Russia Today had a guest which claimed the US would break apart in 2010. Not exactly the sort of media outlet that is entirely trustworthy.