kumazan wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
are you freaking kidding me? you know what, lets forget the chemical weapons part for a moment. when exactly did we attack civilians and not terrorist/soliders? with any type of weapon.
So all the Palestinian deaths were terrorists...?
i should have made myself clearer. i never once said that all palestinian deaths are terrorists, but we are not attacking civilians for the sake of killing civilians. we attack terrorist that use civilians as human sheilds.
let me put it in other words: 3 hamas terrorists go into a house in gaza, where they see a family of 5. the terrorists tell them that the IDF is expected to attack in that area( we send out fliers before attacking a pupulated area). now they have 2 options: run away and get shot by hamas, or wait there and hope that the IDF knows civilians are in there and hence wont attack(which happens). wont anyone go for the second one? instead of certin death have possibale death. that is the safest bet, but even the safest bets can go wrong.
palestinian civilians are in fact the victims, but we are not to blame, the diffrent terror cells are the ones doing the crimes.
Edited by acac on 12-09-2013 13:15
ShortsNL wrote:
Really? Ugh. First of all, enough with the sarcastic tone, or I won't bother discussing with you at all. Secondly, you're putting words in my mouth. I do not have the opinion that you're trying to portray me with. Third, your statement is filled with assumpions and implications.
You said what you said. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Your statement led me to think that was your opinion, but apologies if I was mistaken.
ShortsNL wrote:
The civil war did not start with an attack on the Syrian government, or any attack at all for that matter. The civil war was caused by Assad's violent suppression of the civil protests during the Arab Spring.
The Arab Spring. Yeah.
ShortsNL wrote:
The insurgents in Syria are not one united front. The various groups do not share one organization, ideology, goal, or mutual list of allies. You therefore cannot possibly say a 'foreign backed guerilla'. In fact, Assad is backed equally by foreign powers, in the form of Russia and Hezbollah.
How can I not say that? Many countries are openly supporting the insurgents, including Saudi Arabia or Qatar, as well as many Western powers. If you like it better I'll say foreign backed guerrillas next time.
ShortsNL wrote:
Finally, in the face of any angry mass civil protest that spirals out of control, the head of state can make the decision at any point to say 'enough is enough' and resign in order to prevent the massacre from growing further. Assad has not done this and has knowingly continued up to this day.
Huh? Most countries defend itselves when they are under attack. Even if it's an internal attack, just like Republican Spain did until they were defeated, or like the Union did until they defeated the Confederation. Or like Bahrain did until they crushed and massacred the protesters.
And more important. Resigning, and then what? It's not as simple as you are portraying it to be here.
ShortsNL wrote:
Tell me, how big do you consider the odds that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's troops?
ShortsNL wrote:
Also, you are implying that I said the US should intervene with a military strike. I did not, I said nations worldwide should take their responsibility and put a stop to this mess.
It was you who implied that the solution was a military offensive when you said that you understand that the US people doesn't want their military to enter yet another war, but the nations worldwide (who are them? We know the answer in most cases is USA) have to take responsibility. That can only be read as "go to war".
ShortsNL wrote:
For what it's worth, I think the current proposed solution (which does NOT involve a military strike) of Assad handing over all of his chemical weapons is a very good one, but the burden of proof should lie on his side in this case.
Agreed. But all combatent groups involved in the conflict should take part on this (no matter if they fight for or against the Syrian government), not just the Syrian State.
I know we're never gonna agree acac, so I won't go deeply into this. Except to say that the one pulling the trigger always has at least part of the responsibility...
ShortsNL wrote:
The civil war did not start with an attack on the Syrian government, or any attack at all for that matter. The civil war was caused by Assad's violent suppression of the civil protests during the Arab Spring.
The Arab Spring. Yeah.
just to make sure im not misunderstanding you are telling me that the arab spring dosent exist and that the uprisings come from somewhere else/ unreltated to each other or only the syrian civil war is not part of the arab spring? if im rigth in either of them, can you expancd on that?
Atlantius wrote:
I know we're never gonna agree acac, so I won't go deeply into this. Except to say that the one pulling the trigger always has at least part of the responsibility...
true but:
a) its not a reason to put false claims on us.
b)the one puting you between him and the one pullng the trigger's barrel is more to blame.
ShortsNL wrote:
The civil war did not start with an attack on the Syrian government, or any attack at all for that matter. The civil war was caused by Assad's violent suppression of the civil protests during the Arab Spring.
The Arab Spring. Yeah.
just to make sure im not misunderstanding you are telling me that the arab spring dosent exist and that the uprisings come from somewhere else/ unreltated to each other or only the syrian civil war is not part of the arab spring? if im rigth in either of them, can you expancd on that?
To make it clear, the Arab Spring does exist, but it has been greatly manipulated by the media, meaning that most people have a tremendously romanticised view about it. I find it likely that, originally, there were protests in Syria related to the Arab Spring, but the massive foreign intervention on the opositor armed groups means that it is foolish to interpret the Syrian civil war as the Syrian government against its people, but merely as part of an inter-imperialist clash, with Russia and Iran on one side and the USA/NATO and the gulf monarchies on the other.
ShortsNL wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
are you freaking kidding me? you know what, lets forget the chemical weapons part for a moment. when exactly did we attack civilians and not terrorist/soliders? with any type of weapon.
ShortsNL wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
are you freaking kidding me? you know what, lets forget the chemical weapons part for a moment. when exactly did we attack civilians and not terrorist/soliders? with any type of weapon.
I thought you were going to question the chemical weapon part, because the other part seemed to obvious to be questioned. Looks like I was wrong...
kumazan wrote:
To make it clear, the Arab Spring does exist, but it has been greatly manipulated by the media, meaning that most people have a tremendously romanticised view about it. I find it likely that, originally, there were protests in Syria related to the Arab Spring, but the massive foreign intervention on the opositor armed groups means that it is foolish to interpret the Syrian civil war as the Syrian government against its people, but merely as part of an inter-imperialist clash, with Russia and Iran on one side and the USA/NATO and the gulf monarchies on the other.
It was a bit different in Syria though, as far as I know, and if I reckon correctly.
Following the Arab Spring movements, there were some pacific protests in Syria, mostly in cities with a Sunni majority.
But by then Ben Ali and Gaddafi had already or were soon to be brought down, so very quickly Assad sent his snipers to randomly shoot protesters.
He threw the first stone there. As it remained pacific but the Syrian got offended by such a reaction, there were more protests, but then Assad sent his armoured tanks to lead the repression. And violent reactions started, and it evolved into a civil war.
It took almost one year if not more for the various Muslim extremists to become a majority within the rebellion.
Not that I put much much faith into a war, or am willing to see some extremists run the country, but I doubt Assad will accept any negotiation with the opposite side(s) if he still thinks he stands a chance to crush them all or maintain some sort of status quo.
As for the chemical attacks on the 21st of August, there's little doubt over who did them. First they regularly bombed the zone, then the chemical attacks were performed, then the zone was bombed again to force civilians to remain there, while snipers shot people seen trying to collect samples.
Le Monde came with an interesting bit today, about the composition of the gas used that day. Very little amounts of sarin, whereas the Brits got samples with very huge amounts of it. In any case it's said the gas composition is way too complicated to be the work of artisans or amateur chemists.
Edited by Aquarius on 11-09-2013 21:46
ShortsNL wrote:
Regardless of any misbehaviour by Syrian insurgents, any head of state that knowingly engages in a civil war, plummeting the country into poverty, death, economic crisis and the disruption and destruction of civil life, with the sole purpose of protecting his own position of power, is a mad man and should be stopped.
Now when it comes to US citizens not wanting to send their young family members overseas into war, I can completely understand. Even when it comes to the US Government, or any government, one could say they have no responsibility in solving this issue.
But the biggest possible crime against humanity is committed (except for the use of a nuclear device) then nations worldwide should take their responsibility and put a stop to this mess, no matter what.
Remind me who was the first nation to do a nuclear attack (worst crime as you descibed it) on the other state, killing civilists and poisioning the bodies and country for decades? US have zero credibility to speak about anything, as they do what serves them best at any point in their history and they never paid the bill, they just want others to pay.
ShortsNL wrote:
Tell me, how big do you consider the odds that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's troops?
At least 50:50. You simply dont know a shit about it, so please stop implying it as sure thing. Many soldiers left Assads side and joined the "rebels", so it is fairly possible they took some chemical weapons with them or that they assaulted warehouse with them and used them. There are same people on both sides, Syrians. It is not good vs. bad, sides are mixing and both sides are violent.
Aquarius wrote:
In any case it's said the gas composition is way too complicated to be the work of artisans or amateur chemists.
Thing is, there are both amateurs and experts on both sides now, it is not peaceful peasants against evil military forces,like CNN like to serve it.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 12-09-2013 06:21
ShortsNL wrote:
Tell me, how big do you consider the odds that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's troops?
At least 50:50. You simply dont know a shit about it, so please stop implying it as sure thing. Many soldiers left Assads side and joined the "rebels", so it is fairly possible they took some chemical weapons with them or that they assaulted warehouse with them and used them. There are same people on both sides, Syrians. It is not good vs. bad, sides are mixing and both sides are violent.
WMD programs in neo-patrimonial regimes like that of Assad always keep their weapons close to the vest. These programs become pet projects for dictators. This helps to explain why some countries have successful programs, and some don't. Libya spent 33 years and billions of dollars trying to develop nuclear weapons and barely got off the ground. South Africa got nukes in just a few years. Pakistan took decades. France needed only 6.
From the gun, neo-patrimonial regimes keep tight control over their weapons, this means the programs are subject to tampering from people who have no technical or scientific know how (i.e. Politicians). For example, Saddam Hussein gave control of his ill fated nuke program to a cousin. That's how these people do things. Neo-patrimonial regimes have a harder time developing these programs, but once they do they keep it in the family. What this means is that only the most loyal regiments in the regime will be assigned to the weapons. The odds that chemical weapons fell into rebel hands via a defection are slim. These are likely Alawite regiments that believe that their self preservation is tied to Assad winning the war.
Given this slim likelihood that a CW regiment would defect, and the fact that the regime has a significant and acknowledged stockpile of weapons and, more importantly, the capability to deliver these weapons, your 50-50 odds seem a bit silly.
An organic program is not an option for the rebels. This leaves diversion or the black market. The black market is an option but an unlikely one. The black market requires that the stars be aligned in order to work. There would need to be a supply from which to draw. Chemical weapons are subject to international control. Finding a supplier would be difficult, but not impossible. Finding a facilitator who could deliver the weapons would be even more difficult. A dealer has to find a supplier they can work with. Then the Syrians rebels would have to pony up. Money spent on Chemical weapons has to be diverted from the funds that would buy weapons that are actually militarily valuable. Frankly, a shipment of RPG's has much more value in combat than the equivalent nerve gas. Then the rebels would have to buy the delivery devices, then they'd need the training. All of this would have to happen with the world watching, a world very cognizant of the possibility of CW's being used by someone.
Diversion is most likely. CW regiments are some of the best trained and equipped in the Syrian regime. The rebels can barely tie their shoes. The rebels would have to attack a regiment, steal the gas and the delivery devices, then learn how to use it all. And then they'd have to get close enough to use it. Then they'd have to use it on their own people. All while intelligence agencies on both sides in the international divide watch intently.
As someone who does have a level of expertise when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, I'd say it's unlikely that the Syrian rebels used the weapons. Are simply unrealistic.
ShortsNL wrote:
Tell me, how big do you consider the odds that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's troops?
At least 50:50. You simply dont know a shit about it, so please stop implying it as sure thing. Many soldiers left Assads side and joined the "rebels", so it is fairly possible they took some chemical weapons with them or that they assaulted warehouse with them and used them. There are same people on both sides, Syrians. It is not good vs. bad, sides are mixing and both sides are violent.
WMD programs in neo-patrimonial regimes like that of Assad always keep their weapons close to the vest. These programs become pet projects for dictators. This helps to explain why some countries have successful programs, and some don't. Libya spent 33 years and billions of dollars trying to develop nuclear weapons and barely got off the ground. South Africa got nukes in just a few years. Pakistan took decades. France needed only 6.
From the gun, neo-patrimonial regimes keep tight control over their weapons, this means the programs are subject to tampering from people who have no technical or scientific know how (i.e. Politicians). For example, Saddam Hussein gave control of his ill fated nuke program to a cousin. That's how these people do things. Neo-patrimonial regimes have a harder time developing these programs, but once they do they keep it in the family. What this means is that only the most loyal regiments in the regime will be assigned to the weapons. The odds that chemical weapons fell into rebel hands via a defection are slim. These are likely Alawite regiments that believe that their self preservation is tied to Assad winning the war.
Given this slim likelihood that a CW regiment would defect, and the fact that the regime has a significant and acknowledged stockpile of weapons and, more importantly, the capability to deliver these weapons, your 50-50 odds seem a bit silly.
An organic program is not an option for the rebels. This leaves diversion or the black market. The black market is an option but an unlikely one. The black market requires that the stars be aligned in order to work. There would need to be a supply from which to draw. Chemical weapons are subject to international control. Finding a supplier would be difficult, but not impossible. Finding a facilitator who could deliver the weapons would be even more difficult. A dealer has to find a supplier they can work with. Then the Syrians rebels would have to pony up. Money spent on Chemical weapons has to be diverted from the funds that would buy weapons that are actually militarily valuable. Frankly, a shipment of RPG's has much more value in combat than the equivalent nerve gas. Then the rebels would have to buy the delivery devices, then they'd need the training. All of this would have to happen with the world watching, a world very cognizant of the possibility of CW's being used by someone.
Diversion is most likely. CW regiments are some of the best trained and equipped in the Syrian regime. The rebels can barely tie their shoes. The rebels would have to attack a regiment, steal the gas and the delivery devices, then learn how to use it all. And then they'd have to get close enough to use it. Then they'd have to use it on their own people. All while intelligence agencies on both sides in the international divide watch intently.
As someone who does have a level of expertise when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, I'd say it's unlikely that the Syrian rebels used the weapons. Are simply unrealistic.
You have one-sided view based on nothing, same as your goverment. Using the technical language like you are writting some geo-political thesis (i suppose you are either studying international law or work for UN?) is not helping it, till you have facts, Assad did not use the weapons, it is easy. I just say we dont know who used them, so we can just guess. There are money and expertise on both sides.
Also using the chemical weapons does not make any sense for Assad, even more when many foreign observers were present in Syria by that time. If he used them, it is game over for him and he knows it.
Apparently the UN report will be pointing toward a use of those CW by Assad, even though it won't be expressed literally.
There's also that recorded conversation caught by the USA between a regime officer and a lower-rank officer that'd be responsible of the regiment in the era. The first one was panicked and asking why on Earth they decided to use weapons knowing it could cause their loss. Not really the kind of discussion they'd be having if it were the rebels who used them, is it ?
Assad's tactic is to go worse, but step by step. He would have never used CW from day one. They've been used since November 2012 or something in tiny amounts, then it's just gotten worst, until last August.
It seems also established that the rebels, apparently those linked to extremists, have used CW (but what sort is not said) in at least a couple of occasions.
You can't draw a parallel with Iraq. Everyone with half a brain could tell there were no WMD in Iraq, and there was definitely no emergency to invade them to get the weapons, Saddam wasn't using them (of course, since he didn't have any), and wasn't planning to on the short term. The possession of CW by the Syrian regime is well-known, and now they're even accepting that the Russian help them destroy them. What would they destroy if they didn't have any ?
Aquarius wrote:
It seems also established that the rebels, apparently those linked to extremists, have used CW (but what sort is not said) in at least a couple of occasions.
From what I've read, the rebels have committed war crimes, but CW use isn't listed. From a UN report:
The report documents nine mass killings in all, attributing all but one to government forces, but said both government and rebel fighters had committed war crimes including murder, hostage-taking and shelling of civilians.
Aquarius wrote:
Apparently the UN report will be pointing toward a use of those CW by Assad, even though it won't be expressed literally.
There's also that recorded conversation caught by the USA between a regime officer and a lower-rank officer that'd be responsible of the regiment in the era. The first one was panicked and asking why on Earth they decided to use weapons knowing it could cause their loss. Not really the kind of discussion they'd be having if it were the rebels who used them, is it ?
Assad's tactic is to go worse, but step by step. He would have never used CW from day one. They've been used since November 2012 or something in tiny amounts, then it's just gotten worst, until last August.
It seems also established that the rebels, apparently those linked to extremists, have used CW (but what sort is not said) in at least a couple of occasions.
You can't draw a parallel with Iraq. Everyone with half a brain could tell there were no WMD in Iraq, and there was definitely no emergency to invade them to get the weapons, Saddam wasn't using them (of course, since he didn't have any), and wasn't planning to on the short term. The possession of CW by the Syrian regime is well-known, and now they're even accepting that the Russian help them destroy them. What would they destroy if they didn't have any ?
You misunderstood me. I am not saying Assad does not have CW, it is pretty clear he has and he is not denying it. But my comprasion was ,that US use misinformation (CW in Iraq) for their purpose and as the proof to start a "deliberation" war.
ShortsNL wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
are you freaking kidding me? you know what, lets forget the chemical weapons part for a moment. when exactly did we attack civilians and not terrorist/soliders? with any type of weapon.
White phosphorus, though ilegal against civilians, is legal against military targets and for obscurant. hence our use of White phosphorus was legal. not to mention the rockets that hamas used against our civilians that included White phosphorus.
ShortsNL wrote:
Just one short thing, I did not say this:
ShortsNL wrote:
Or over Israel when they used chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians.
I am being misquoted. If you look on the previous page you will see that it was kumazan who wrote this in a reply to me.
I have no knowledge of the ownership or the use of chemical weapons by Israel at all so please don't think I said anything like this.
Acac are you justifying the use of White Phosphorus? Be it military or not and being legal or not it can not be justified.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
acac wrote:
White phosphorus, though ilegal against civilians, is legal against military targets and for obscurant. hence our use of White phosphorus was legal. not to mention the rockets that hamas used against our civilians that included White phosphorus.
