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.
I noticed that both of your recent links sent me to sites that have been known for having anti Israel bias. Ever considered hearing the other side of the story?
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.
I noticed that both of your recent links sent me to sites that have been known for having anti Israel bias. Ever considered hearing the other side of the story?
You are very much welcome to provide your own sources to refute mine.
Or go for the best option: find a reliable, objective, neutral source.
International press agencies such as Reuters, UN reports or other independent agencies for example.
In this case, the Guardian article provided a direct link to the full Human Right's Watch report: https://www.hrw.or.../rain-fire
HRW is about as independent as things can get. Not linked to any government, and doesn't accept any direct or indirect funding whatsoever from governments, instead relying on public donations.
The evidence examined by Human Rights Watch strongly
suggests that the August 21 chemical weapon attacks on
Eastern and Western Ghouta were carried out by government forces.
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.
I noticed that both of your recent links sent me to sites that have been known for having anti Israel bias. Ever considered hearing the other side of the story?
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.
I noticed that both of your recent links sent me to sites that have been known for having anti Israel bias. Ever considered hearing the other side of the story?
Justified bias though. Israel is no Saint.
never claimed we are saints. no one is. but there is no such thing as "justified bias". news are supposed to be impartialed (unless its an op-ed of course).
@ShortsNL & kumazan
the sources provided by by ShortsNL(including HRW) are biased. just because its not funded by a goverment dose not say its not biased. 2 examples of it could be: Breaking the Silence that lives on donations and is known to be anti-israel. or MEMRI that also lives of donations and is know to have a pro-israeli stance.
and going into possible news sources, the way i see it there are 2 options: either follow a news channel/paper/site that is little to no bias like ABC,SKY etc. or keep reading your current sites while also reading our side of the story on ynet(https://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L...83,00.html)
You have no claim to the majority of your land, and have a history of causing conflict with your neighbours. As a Guardian reader, I find their commentary fair and justified. However, we're both entitled to our opinion and I respect yours even if I disagree
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.
Avin. Face it. The "odds" are that the Syrian regime used the CW's. I described to you why. Then instead of attacking my argument, you attacked the language I used because it's too thesis-y
And making sense has nothing to do with it. You are assuming Assad is a rational actor and that the logical processes he uses are the same as yours. His "rational" behavior has precipitated this crisis over the past 2.5 years. His "rational" behavior has made him an international pariah, has contributed to the displacement of some 9 million people, the deaths of over 100,000 and the collapse of civil society and the economy of Syria.
A "rational" leader, when faced with protests like he was in the early days of the Arab spring, might say "Ok lets talk." Instead, he responded with tanks and sniper fire. Is that what you would do? I don't think so.
And there is the possibility that a regiment launched the attack without explicit orders. Even in this case, Assad should be held responsible.
acac wrote:
and going into possible news sources, the way i see it there are 2 options: either follow a news channel/paper/site that is little to no bias like ABC,SKY etc. or keep reading your current sites while also reading our side of the story on ynet(https://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L...83,00.html)
Sorry that made me laugh. Sky is about as political as news comes, and ABC are only slightly better. Even the BBC fails to keep an objective view.
Facts are the only things that are not biased, and there is no reason even Fox News can't present facts.
But what those last few posts say to me is that you can't see the other side, with no unbiased sources posted by yourself. Any issue like this will have two sides, which makes it almost impossible to find objective information on.
jph27 wrote:
You have no claim to the majority of your land, and have a history of causing conflict with your neighbours. As a Guardian reader, I find their commentary fair and justified. However, we're both entitled to our opinion and I respect yours even if I disagree
You British gave them the land so in way this is all your fault
acac wrote:
and going into possible news sources, the way i see it there are 2 options: either follow a news channel/paper/site that is little to no bias like ABC,SKY etc. or keep reading your current sites while also reading our side of the story on ynet(https://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L...83,00.html)
Sorry that made me laugh. Sky is about as political as news comes, and ABC are only slightly better. Even the BBC fails to keep an objective view.
Facts are the only things that are not biased, and there is no reason even Fox News can't present facts.
But what those last few posts say to me is that you can't see the other side, with no unbiased sources posted by yourself. Any issue like this will have two sides, which makes it almost impossible to find objective information on.
I thought Sky was a Newscorp company. Which means Murdoch. In the US, Murdoch means pro-Israel slant.
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.
Hamas definitely used white phosphorus deliberately against non-military targets. But so did Israel. Perhaps not deliberately, but certainly with very little thought to civilian collateral damage. Read the article:
During the offensive, Israel used white phosphorus rounds in densely populated areas, the UN and Human Rights Watch said.
Part of a UN compound burned down after it was hit by chunks of the burning chemical which ignites on contact with air.
Human Rights Watch said Israel "deliberately or recklessly" used white phosphorus shells in violation of the laws of war, causing "needless civilian deaths".
jseadog1 wrote:
WW III seems more likely everyday here in the USA... its a shame, we should just keep our nose out of it Obama..
Don't worry. When half of the Europe decides to turn against Merkel, it's WWI all over again...
WWI was actually caused by Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia
It really should be moved to "Difficult Topics", but as a Hungarian i feel "involved" in this story, so excuse me, but I really have to fix your post.
Spoiler
1.) Yugoslavia did not exist, it was called the Kingdom of Serbia (it was first called Yugoslavia only in 1929)
2.) It was not caused by a state, but by a single man, called Gavrilo Princip, who murdered the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
3.) It's still quite true howewer, that Germany - in a way - made this war happen: Emperor Franz Joseph knew that starting a war against Serbia would cause worldwide effects, so he would never have maked the decision alone: It was Moltke, the Chief of the German General Staff, who "forced" us to start the war, and we ended up paying for it big time in the end (Trianon 1920 -> 2/3 of Hungary was taken away and given to the neighbours)
The murder isn't the direct cause of the war. It was the ultimatum of Austria to Serbia, investigation or war, and the refuse of that, that really caused the war. If Serbia had helped investigating, the war wouldn't have been there. I only know Germany supported them in that, and that they did spread it further out to Belgium and France. That's what gave it the reputation of the trenches.
Selwink wrote:
The murder isn't the direct cause of the war. It was the ultimatum of Austria to Serbia, investigation or war, and the refuse of that, that really caused the war. If Serbia had helped investigating, the war wouldn't have been there. I only know Germany supported them in that, and that they did spread it further out to Belgium and France. That's what gave it the reputation of the trenches.
Nope. The war would have been there anyway. They just would have found a different excuse.
jseadog1 wrote:
WW III seems more likely everyday here in the USA... its a shame, we should just keep our nose out of it Obama..
Don't worry. When half of the Europe decides to turn against Merkel, it's WWI all over again...
WWI was actually caused by Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia
It really should be moved to "Difficult Topics", but as a Hungarian i feel "involved" in this story, so excuse me, but I really have to fix your post.
Spoiler
1.) Yugoslavia did not exist, it was called the Kingdom of Serbia (it was first called Yugoslavia only in 1929)
2.) It was not caused by a state, but by a single man, called Gavrilo Princip, who murdered the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
3.) It's still quite true howewer, that Germany - in a way - made this war happen: Emperor Franz Joseph knew that starting a war against Serbia would cause worldwide effects, so he would never have maked the decision alone: It was Moltke, the Chief of the German General Staff, who "forced" us to start the war, and we ended up paying for it big time in the end (Trianon 1920 -> 2/3 of Hungary was taken away and given to the neighbours)
The murder isn't the direct cause of the war. It was the ultimatum of Austria to Serbia, investigation or war, and the refuse of that, that really caused the war. If Serbia had helped investigating, the war wouldn't have been there. I only know Germany supported them in that, and that they did spread it further out to Belgium and France. That's what gave it the reputation of the trenches.
You are correct, the exact casus belli was the refusal of the ultimatum. We will never know, but I'm convinced that only the murder alone would have provided a big enough reason to start a war, since it was the perfect opportunity for Germany to start a war. If they had waited more (we know a war would have erupted in the following months/years anyways, the preparations were already made), the Russians would have had the time to finish building their railways, so they could mobilize their army way faster.
edit: @kumazan: exactly!
Edited by juszta on 12-09-2013 21:39
Levi4life wrote:
Avin. Face it. The "odds" are that the Syrian regime used the CW's. I described to you why. Then instead of attacking my argument, you attacked the language I used because it's too thesis-y
And making sense has nothing to do with it. You are assuming Assad is a rational actor and that the logical processes he uses are the same as yours. His "rational" behavior has precipitated this crisis over the past 2.5 years. His "rational" behavior has made him an international pariah, has contributed to the displacement of some 9 million people, the deaths of over 100,000 and the collapse of civil society and the economy of Syria.
A "rational" leader, when faced with protests like he was in the early days of the Arab spring, might say "Ok lets talk." Instead, he responded with tanks and sniper fire. Is that what you would do? I don't think so.
And there is the possibility that a regiment launched the attack without explicit orders. Even in this case, Assad should be held responsible.
I really don't like to read this thread...but I have to put in my two cents.
Obviously I would have to agree with Avin here, you can only put the chance at 50/50 at best. It is undeniable that, yes, Assad has CW's in his possession. But the issue at hand is who used them.
Any country who experiences a civil war is likely to result in mass military action, just because as "international policemen" the US government can shape one to believe that yes, Assad needs CW's to put down the protest. But Assad's military, frankly, has nothing to gain from using CW's, they can crush the rebels without them...nor would using them be strategic to their alliance with Russia.
Who has the biggest to gain? al-Qaeda. There is quite a significant percentage of these people well within the rebel group, and guess what, the US is on their side.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
Levi4life wrote:
Avin. Face it. The "odds" are that the Syrian regime used the CW's. I described to you why. Then instead of attacking my argument, you attacked the language I used because it's too thesis-y
And making sense has nothing to do with it. You are assuming Assad is a rational actor and that the logical processes he uses are the same as yours. His "rational" behavior has precipitated this crisis over the past 2.5 years. His "rational" behavior has made him an international pariah, has contributed to the displacement of some 9 million people, the deaths of over 100,000 and the collapse of civil society and the economy of Syria.
A "rational" leader, when faced with protests like he was in the early days of the Arab spring, might say "Ok lets talk." Instead, he responded with tanks and sniper fire. Is that what you would do? I don't think so.
And there is the possibility that a regiment launched the attack without explicit orders. Even in this case, Assad should be held responsible.
I really don't like to read this thread...but I have to put in my two cents.
Obviously I would have to agree with Avin here, you can only put the chance at 50/50 at best. It is undeniable that, yes, Assad has CW's in his possession. But the issue at hand is who used them.
Any country who experiences a civil war is likely to result in mass military action, just because as "international policemen" the US government can shape one to believe that yes, Assad needs CW's to put down the protest. But Assad's military, frankly, has nothing to gain from using CW's, they can crush the rebels without them...nor would using them be strategic to their alliance with Russia.
Who has the biggest to gain? al-Qaeda. There is quite a significant percentage of these people well within the rebel group, and guess what, the US is on their side.
Again, the argument you are trying to make is not "who dun it" but "who, in my paradigm of rationality, would have dun it." I'm not ruling out the option that the rebels could have done it. I'm saying it's more likely that the regime did. The regime has hundreds of tons of chemical agents and the capability to deliver those agents onto a target. Two years ago, the rebels did not have that capability, and developing CW capability takes infrastructure, time and resources that are difficult for non-state actors to attain.
Now to flip the script. If Assad wouldn't use chemical weapons because it's not in his interest to do so, explain to me why Western governments are so keen to blow the shit out of Assad? What is their rationale?
Western intelligence unanimously says that the regime launched the strike. German intelligence says that the strike was not ordered by Assad, but that someone down the line got trigger happy. To me, this is likely what happened.
Again, the argument you are trying to make is not "who dun it" but "who, in my paradigm of rationality, would have dun it."
Well no one can say for sure about the situation.
Two years ago, the rebels did not have that capability, and developing CW capability takes infrastructure, time and resources that are difficult for non-state actors to attain.
What gives you the notion that the chemical weapons had to be developed by the rebels themselves. Easily a link to any terroristic organization could be an easy supply for CW's.
Now to flip the script. If Assad wouldn't use chemical weapons because it's not in his interest to do so, explain to me why Western governments are so keen to blow the shit out of Assad? What is their rationale?
Obviously the UN cannot come up with conclusive proof whether either did it, so the US takes the opportunity to go ahead as policemen of the world and go on with the strike.
Doesn't the US look SO good for so called "encouraging democracy" around the world, overthrowing every regime that exists? THINK: What does Israel want?
What happened in Iraq? And just how many years did it take us to get out? Why? Because we look good trying to instill new governments, and guess what, do any rebels actually thank our efforts in the end!? NO! And to add to that, what does half the rebel group consist of? Al-Qaeda from Iraq!
In the end it comes down to nation-building. The US can uses every hotspot and shape propaganda in such a way that, yes, xxx has violated international law, thus we go blow them up. No one will argue that the US is on a downslope, and with the years that we still remain the No.1 military they are more than keen to use it...gain allies wherever possible.
It's also a pretty well known pattern that republicanism results in more and more power for the central government as the government begins to weaken.
The main point is that there are no good guys in this war at all...the rebels are more of extremeists...but now there is returned chemical evidence, and a country like the US HAS to take a stance.
Edited by 547984 on 12-09-2013 22:47
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
I need to ask you another question, in a very serious tone: Do you believe that Assad is an idiot?
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
547984 wrote:
The main point is that there are no good guys in this war at all...the rebels are more of extremeists...
Nope, the rebels are mainly of two different kinds : democrats (more or less people who'd like to make their country's political system a Western one), and Sunni extremists who're there to conduct their Jihad.
They fight each other, so even should Assad fall, there'd still be a civil war in Syria between those two factions.
547984 wrote:
I need to ask you another question, in a very serious tone: Do you believe that Assad is an idiot?
Define idiot. Assad is educated, maybe he doesn't have an IQ of 220, but neither does he have 50.
He's fighting for his survival and the one of his dictatorial and dynastic regime. He knows how quickly he can go towards always more terror, without getting crushed by an international police force.
Now, it's not because he's not an idiot by that definitions that he acts rationally if you consider rational what you, I, or your next one would do or have done in his situation.
Levi4life wrote:
Now to flip the script. If Assad wouldn't use chemical weapons because it's not in his interest to do so, explain to me why Western governments are so keen to blow the shit out of Assad? What is their rationale?
Assad is an ally, possibly the most valuable, of Iran. An Iran-friendly government in Damasco, such as Assad's, is very important as well for the Iran-Hezbollah relationship, which is, right now, the most credible Shi'a alternative to a Muslim world dominated by the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf, and keeping them happy is important for the Western powers due to that black thing the have in their underground.
Furthermore, Syria is the only Russian ally in in the Middle East, and it hosts their only Naval Base (not technically a naval base, but still important for them) in the Mediterranean Sea.
So, Assad falls, and two geopolitcal enemies of the US/NATO take a blow. Not bad, huh?
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
