The Syrian Civil War Thread

[Gaidin]

Okay, I get, intelligence reports aren't evidence unless they are coming from Russia. Got it.

Intelligence reports aren't evidence period. Evidence has a method of acquisition that suggests a legality. Heathen Hammer hasn't really come to terms with the fact that intelligence acquired from a foreign power is concerned with dependability as the information acquisition tends to be illegal in the country almost by definition if you look at history.

[YuriVII]

From Mintpress News. Claims Syrian rebels told reporters that Bandar al-Saud supplied chemical stockpiles to rebels. Supports the Syrian Army's claim of finding chlorine in Aleppo after chemical attack there. Thus giving more testimony that the Syrian rebels do have access to chemical weapons and the ability use them.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witness...eapons/168135/

Another move by Bandar Al-Saud.

US ally Bandar "Bush" al-Saud threatens to bomb Sochi 2014 in a terrorist attack used by controlled Chechen extreamists via telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ops-Syria.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

US Intelligence Official contradict Obama regime rhetoric:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-offi...eapons/168077/

[Ak1980]

Okay, I get, intelligence reports aren't evidence unless they are coming from Russia. Got it.

Last time the world accept intelligence report as evidence, we got Iraq WMD.

[SonOfOdin]

he idea is to bomb the out of Assad for about a week to send a message to dictators and terrorist groups that if you use chemical weapons then you get punished.

Wouldn't "bombing the out of Assad for about a week" be contradicting this? :

Noone wants to actually oust Assad, they'd rather let things take their natural course, mostly because God knows who or what he'd be replaced by

Bombing the out of Assad would certainly give the rebels a huge boost, and if they win Assad will surely be ousted (I mean, it's sort of their goal, no?). Not that it would be a bad thing, mind you.

Now I'm still on the fence on the issue of American/NATO/Western military intervention, but I'm not too optimistic regarding the future. That is, at least, if Libya is anything to go by.
I have family members working in Libya who used to be massively anti-Gaddafi, but even now they're admitting that Libya was much better off with him than without him. It's a scary place to be living in at the moment, even a group of 4 lunatics with AKs can rob an oil company's offices nowadays! So yeah, I don't think Syria will be paradise without Assad anyway.

[Slydessertfox]

Last time the world accept intelligence report as evidence, we got Iraq WMD.

I was unaware the last time intelligence reports were used as evidence for anything was a decade ago.

[Knight of Heaven]

Last time the world accept intelligence report as evidence, we got Iraq WMD.

Nah the world didnt. Only a selected few. I remember. The coalition actualy invaded iraq, in a blatant disregard of UN resolutions, and will.

I also dont recall the populations of the countries in the coalition, being very happy about it.

[Thorn777]

As soon as we decided to support the anti government forces we should have offered Assad and his inner circle large estates, handsome pensions, and immunity from past offenses if they go quietly into that good night in tropical exile. Then we set up a UN mandate jointly administered by France and the US and work on a transition to a French styled Republic.

Then on the other hand we tell them if they don't take the deal they will be defeated, and they will swing like Saddam.

That's how you stop wars from happening.

At this point we're really going to struggle to have anything short of a blood soaked open ended war that could escalate across the region if we bother to do anything more than shoot cruise missiles at things. Hell, Iraq might blow up in our face.

Im sure they tried that on the dictator who's an eye-surgeon by proffession, never really wanted the office, and bangs one of the hotest MILFS of the middle-east.

However, his faith is tied to that of the Alawi's. Cant take them all with you...

[RoyalNobody]

If Assad really did decide to use chemical weapons the day UN weapons inspectors arrive to search for chemical weapons, then he's already proved he's mad. I'm just wondering what Obama and his French side-kicks think Assads going to do when they start firing missiles into his backyard. Sit on his hands and watch the fireworks? The military intervention being suggested is just going to kill a few Syrian conscripts, destroy a few of Assads toys (who Russia will be happy to sell back), and leave thousands more civilians dead when the madman realises he has nothing to lose. But at least America and France will be able to slap each other on the back and say they didn't set a precedent.

[Condottiere 40K]

Military rule of thumb suggests to go in for close quarter combat when faced with superior enemy artillery.

[magpie]

Well president Obama is still weighing up his options.
He I think is concerned for his political legacy and is fairly savvy regarding public opinion.
The U.S. cititizens are not in a gungho mood for getting involved in Syria despite Mr Kerry's attempt to beat the war drum.
More and more congress wants to be involved in a debate on this issue.
Going back to Mr Kerry and his evidence presented as fact.
First off its far to detailed in some area,s and rather vague and based on supposition in other,s.
Its a mixture which seems to have been dressed up by the PR people. Based on Syrian home vidio,s and Israeli communications intelligence.
Kerry is overplaying his hand in trying to get U.S. public opinion behind him on this proposed adventure.
If this attack goes ahead.
It,s not designed to take out chemical weapon depot,s.
Its target will be Syrian military infrastructure in the hope that the Governments ability to defend itself will be severely reduced.
This Mr Kerry and friends hope will lead to a collapse of the Syrian Government.
Of course its a hell of a gamble from the west,s point of view.
We may get a replacement that is not down on its knee,s in gratitude but hates our western society and political theories and practices.

[Durnaug]

Did the UN inspectors get a chance to visit the other sites of alleged chemical attacks? Do not forget that the original plan was to visit the sites of earlier attacks. This is another reason why the rush to war is a mistake - the inspectors should have been allowed to go to the other sites aswell. Now they flee the country before the beginning of the bombardment.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

I just put Fox NEWS ON.Wow that channel is mad.They are talking about Syria and they are talking about heaven and nobody eating each other unlike Syria.

A attack on Syria may happen in a few hrs according to their commentators.
They are also claiming 80% of Americans do not want to attack Syria and help the rebels.

[Mary The Quene]

I just put Fox NEWS ON.Wow that channel is mad.They are talking about Syria and they are talking about heaven and nobody eating each other unlike Syria.

A attack on Syria may happen in a few hrs according to their commentators.
They are also claiming 80% of Americans do not want to attack Syria and help the rebels.

Oh well, I think that the majorty of citizens in western countries doesn't want it to happen, I've read some newspaper and most of the commentaries from users agree that we shouldn't intervent there

They think if Assad falls that the chaos will become bigger

[Durnaug]

I was unaware the last time intelligence reports were used as evidence for anything was a decade ago.

Well, to be fair to the intelligence community with regards to Iraqi WMDs, they did inform their governments that no credible evidence was available. Unfortunately the politicians spun and lied about the evidence and the risible MSM reported this as fact. The key point is that the so-called "Iraqi WMD" evidence remained classified and so we had to take our politicians word for it. Even Colin Powell now admits he was duped. And this is the key test for our politicians - show us the evidence because last time you went to war based on classified evidence, you lied to us.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Intelligence reports aren't evidence period. Evidence has a method of acquisition that suggests a legality.

Exactly. That is why only the UN mission can provide sufficient evidence.

[Machiavelli25]

The fact that people are still trying to argue that Assad's military wasn't responsible for the attacks is hilarious.

The evidence is staring you right in the face, you don't need to see US/Israeli intelligence reports to realise it.

As to why Assad would order it, well thats pretty obvious too. He has an armed rebellion literally on his doorstep. He's not concerned about political machinations anymore, he's concerned about the guys outside his street who want to murder him and his family.

How can you punished someone without giving the advantage to the enemy? Unless US only send token punishment (1 missile in the dessert), we can be sure that the rebel will try to capitalize and taking advantage of USA attack. If Assad fall what happen then?

I honestly don't care. Whether Assad wins or the rebellion wins isn't the concern, whatever happens happens. Maybe the rebels will turn out to be decent guys. Maybe not. The point is if you use chemical weapons against innocents then the world kicks you in the balls. Thats the message being sent. And one I approve of.

[a tw player]

Does no one else find the whole idea of going in for a quick attack as a "punishment" for using chemical weapons a tad...odd?

I mean, I am in favour of delivering punishment for the regime doing so (I follow the argument of action being a requirment, simply because no action will be used as a precedent in the future regarding chemical weapons, and it shows the west to be weak after all this talk of chemical weapons being that "red line"), however what next?

"Assad, stop using chemical weapons in the future and we won't bomb you again."
"Okay then, but you won't bomb me if I use conventional weapons against these people?"
"Exactly"

Hmm...The whole thing just seems a bit morbid to me.

[Imperial]

Does no one else find the whole idea of going in for a quick attack as a "punishment" for using chemical weapons a tad...odd?

I mean, I am in favour of delivering punishment for the regime doing so (I follow the argument of action being a requirment, simply because no action will be used as a precedent in the future regarding chemical weapons, and it shows the west to be weak after all this talk of chemical weapons being that "red line"), however what next?

"Assad, stop using chemical weapons in the future and we won't bomb you again."
"Okay then, but you won't bomb me if I use conventional weapons against these people?"
"Exactly"

Hmm...The whole thing just seems a bit morbid to me.

If you let him get away with chemical weapons, what are you going to let him get away with next? Nuclear?

[Machiavelli25]

If you let him get away with chemical weapons, what are you going to let him get away with next? Nuclear?

Exactly. There's a line that you can't cross.

Back during Saddam's era, we didn't have this rule about chemical weapons. Now we do.

Maybe in 10 years time we will update the law with rules about conventional weapons. The aim is eventually to discourage people in power from acting like animals. Its a gradual process.

[Jokerstar]

The whole story is ridiculous.

First of all, I'm Syrian and I don't love Bashar Al Assad or his regime, but compared to the alternative (your "freedom fighters") he is a million times better.

Just a few months ago they killed a 15 year of kid for insulting Mohammed, two months ago they decapitated two priests and another Christian citizen for nothing but having a different belief.

If this is your democracy, then you can keep it. That's why right now the majority of the Syrian people are in favour of Assad even though many didn't want him before the war.

Concerning America's sudden urge to intervene: If chemical weapons were used (it is most probably true), I am pretty sure, that the so called rebels did it.

1. The Syrian government wouldn't use them while a few kilometres away from the place UN workers are just arriving. Nowadays you can be sure that every little piece of the war will be filmed at least by a mobile. Just go on liveleak.com they have a seperate section for Syria.

2. Turkish authorities found 2 kilogramms of Sarin with Islamists who were about to go to Syria a few months ago.
Just last week Lebanese authorities found a load of Sarin which was about to be sent to the Syrian "rebels".

3. The legitimate Syrian army wouldn't have a good reason to use chemical weapons as they are winning the war. Just look at the past few months and you will see that they were gaining enormous momentum. Assad was/is winning this war and now America wants to rush in to save their Al Qaida friends like they did in Lybia. And what did they gain from that? A dead ambassador?


And another thing is the typical double standard of US policy. The USA used chemical weapons (white phosphor) in the Iraq war in the city of Fallujah. Furthermore Israel used chemical weapons in Gaza and I didn't see anyone complain about that.


The whole matter is just ridiculous and one last question:

Do you really think that Qatar and Saudi Arabia (a country where a woman was accused of sorcery and thus sentenced to death by decapitation just about half a year ago, or where women aren't allowed to drive) want to support democracy?
But yet these two monarchies are the West's best buddies.