ISIL War in Iraq and Syria II

[Infidel144]

it should also be pointed out though that iran was fairy secular even before the US helped a dictator take power.

Which dictator was that?

[Vanoi]

Did you read the last part of that quote where Mattis says that that aid groups and others had provided evidence that connected Assad to the attacks. Second time no one has actually read that article.

And stop mentioning Yemen. People have been starved out in besieged areas in Syria by Assad's government multiple times. Up to 500,000 people have died in Syria. It hasn't even reached 20,000 dead in Yemen.

[Aexodus]

But those areas in Syria are rebel areas, it's a civil war. Yemen and Saudi Arabia are two separate countries. Saudi Arabia has no mandate, at least that I know of, to blockade another country.

Did you read the last part of that quote where Mattis says that that aid groups and others had provided evidence that connected Assad to the attacks. Second time no one has actually read that article.

They 'stopped short'

stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit.

Aid groups like who, the White Helmets?

The 2013 Ghouta event, for example, employed home-made rockets of the type favored by insurgents. The White House Memorandum on Khan Sheikhoun seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian White Helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed Sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.

Likewise, these same actors were filmed wearing chemical weapons training suits around the supposed “point of impact” in Khan Sheikhoun, something which makes their testimony (and samples) highly suspect. A training suit offers no protection at all, and these people would all be dead if they had come into contact with real military-grade Sarin.

I would have to seriously call into question the testimony of such a group, one that only functions in rebel areas, incidentally.

The fact that U.N. investigators were in Syria when the chemical weapon event in Khan Sheikhoun occurred in April 2017 makes it highly dubious that Assad would have given the order to use Sarin at that time. Common sense suggests that Assad would have chosen any other time than that to use a banned weapon that he had agreed to destroy and never employ.
Furthermore, he would be placing at risk his patronage from Russia if they turned on him as a war criminal and withdrew their support for him.
Tactically, as a former soldier, it makes no sense to me that anyone would intentionally target civilians and children as the White Helmet reports suggest he did.

So not only does he apparently use chemical warfare when UN Investigators are in the country, and days after a White House declaration that deposing Assad was not a priority, he does it days after Trump announces he wants to pull out of Syria, when he has the war almost won, at little to no tactical advantage.

[Vanoi]

But those areas in Syria are rebel areas, it's a civil war. Yemen and Saudi Arabia are two separate countries. Saudi Arabia has no mandate, at least that I know of, to blockade another country.

You do know Yemen is also in civil war right? The Houthis overthrew the Yemeni government. The Saudis back that government. Houthis are technically rebels.

Aid groups like who, the White Helmets?

And other organizations. Like OPCW.

I would have to seriously call into question the testimony of such a group, one that only functions in rebel areas, incidentally.

You do know the UN investigated the incident?

UN_investigation_of_chemical_weapons_use_in_Ghouta

The inspectors were able to identify several surface-to-surface rockets at the affected sites as 140mm BM-14 rockets originally manufactured in Russia and 330mm rockets probably manufactured in Syria.[20] U.N.

They weren't homeade rockets.

So not only does he apparently use chemical warfare when UN Investigators are in the country, and days after a White House declaration that deposing Assad was not a priority, he does it days after Trump announces he wants to pull out of Syria, when he has the war almost won, at little to no tactical advantage.

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/op...-4-april-2017/

OPCW investigated and found otherwise.

[Aexodus]

Your OPCW link states they didnt identify who was responsible for the attack.

The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks.

[caratacus]

Russia will shoot down US missiles fired at Syria and retaliate against launch sites, says ambassador
Former head of UK's Joint Forces Command warns Moscow risking 'war'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8298941.html

Trump warns Russia on Syria missile threat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43727829
US President Donald Trump has tweeted that Russia should "get ready" for missiles to be fired into Syria, in response to an alleged chemical attack at the weekend

.
The level of rhetoric between Washington and Moscow is getting more and more hostile and creating a potential flash point of tension between both nations in Syria. Having remained relatively calm from constant verbal attacks against the Putin administration. It seems that after the incident in Douma, the Russians are now beginning to use the same hostile rhetoric. The way that a UN investigation was blocked by the Russians was a bad move by them diplomatically and shows the level of mistrust and bad feeling that exists. From this blocking, it is likely that Putin knows that chemical weapons were used in Douma and believes that finding traces by inspectors will give the US the legitimacy they need to take a more active role in deposing Assad.

It is a very poor situation indeed, because both sides are getting to a state that dialogue is completely negative and the actual issue of the presence of chemical weapons, where they came from? who is using them? is now placed into a geo-political rift which mitigates against their elimination through lawful action.

Both sides need to draw back now and take a deep breath before any further escalation. It needs a restraining hand on both, but where is this to come from I wonder?. Certainly not from China, that Country who constantly reminds the World that they are a rising force for good in global politics. And yet when something like this happens remains silent, choosing instead to abstain from any vote on UN investigations, with little comment about the issues involved. Syria really does demonstrate the poor leadership in global politics and the dangers that can result in that.

This type of statement is just not needed now and although I've defended Trump before, this is not the language of a leader of a great and global power such as the US. With power comes responsibility and the abeyance of law and due process and angry rhetoric doesn't form part of that.

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
- Tweeted by Donald Trump

[tgoodenow]

Ya these alleged attacks by Assad are bogus.

What does he stand to gain when he has already won the war?

No one has proven it was him. Coincidentally it happens right when Trump says he wants to withdrawal.

[Vanoi]

Your OPCW link states they didnt identify who was responsible for the attack.

No but the Syrian government are the only people known to have possessed sarin gas. Syrian government denies that there was sarin gas at all involved in the attack even though the OPCW has found different.

[Heathen Hammer]

OPCW just said that Syrian government possessed chemical weapons at some point. Everything else, as it was pointed out earlier, is just conjecture made up to justify Western aggression against Syria, while the recent attacks are an obvious false flag.

[YuriVII]

No but the Syrian government are the only people known to have possessed sarin gas. Syrian government denies that there was sarin gas at all involved in the attack even though the OPCW has found different.

http://www.military.com/video/operat.../2542270451001 -back from '13

[Stario]

OPCW just said that Syrian government possessed chemical weapons at some point. Everything else, as it was pointed out earlier, is just conjecture made up to justify Western aggression against Syria, while the recent attacks are an obvious false flag.

In CKII's terms fabricating a claim. But yeah things are getting serious...some fairly serious threats made by both USA & Russia. I wonder what would happen if the Russians do shoot down US missiles over Syria as they are threatening to do; how will USA retaliate!?

[Aexodus]

No but the Syrian government are the only people known to have possessed sarin gas.

3rd parties getting their hands on Sarin guess isn't really that far fetched. However, while there isn't definitive evidence that the Rebels and ISIS do have Sarin, we know that that they do have chlorine and mustard gas, as do the Kurds. Why is it impossible for them to have sarin too, why is it 100% only Assad has Sarin.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-34286662.html

Turkish MP Eren Erdem has claimed materials to produce deadly sarin gas came from Turkey and arrived in Isis camps in Syria.

“About the shipment, Republic prosecutor of Adana, Mehmet Arıkan, made an operation and the related people were detained. But as far as I understand he was not an influential person in bureaucracy. A week after, another public prosecutor was assigned, took over the indictment and all the detainees were released. And they left Turkey crossing the Syrian border.
“The phone recordings in the indictment showed all the details from how the shipment was going to be made to how it was prepared, from the content of the labs to the source of the materials. Which trucks were going to be used, all dates etc. From A to Z, everything was discussed and recorded. Despite all of this evidence, the suspects were released.
“And the shipment happened,” Erdem added. “Because no one stopped them. That’s why maybe the sarin gas used in Syria is a result of this.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middlee...017-story.html

Islamic State doesn't have the capacity to manufacture the more lethal nerve agents like sarin, Kimball said, but it could attack and seize whatever Syrian authorities refused to turn over.
"There has been a deep concern that the Syrian stockpile might fall into the wrong hands," he said. "We now have to be focused on removing whatever nerve agents in Syria still exist."

On 30 May 2013, Turkish newspapers reported that Turkish security forces had arrested Al-Nusra Front fighters in the southern provinces of Mersin and Adana near the Syrian border and confiscated 2 kg of sarin gas.^[112] The Turkish Ambassador to Moscow later said that tests showed the chemical seized was not sarin, but anti-freeze.^[113] In September six of those arrested in May were charged with attempting to acquire chemicals which could be used to produce sarin; the indictment said that it was "possible to produce sarin gas by combining the materials in proper conditions."^[114]

According to Syria, on 1 June 2013, the Syrian Army seized two cylinders holding the nerve agent sarin in an area controlled by opposition fighters. The Syrian government declared the two cylinders "as abandoned chemical weapons" and told the OPCW that "the items did not belong to" them.^[115] On 14 June 2014, the Joint OPCW-UN Mission confirmed that the cylinders contained sarin.^[115] On 7 July 2014, the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon informed the U.N. Security Council about the findings.^[115]

Again, no culprit was identified in 2013

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=46617872

In March 2013, both sides in the Syrian civil war traded accusations over a gas attack that killed dozens of people, including government soldiers, in Khan al-Assal. An investigation by the United Nations later concluded that sarin nerve gas was used in the attack, but the international body did not identify a culprit.

[conon394]

What does he stand to gain when he has already won the war?

Fear, and quicker end to the war. Gas attacks cannot be avoided and render the kind of shelter one might seek from a conventional attacks moot. Thus pockets of resistance fold and more people negotiate out to smaller pockets elsewhere as happened coincidentally in the latest situation. Impunity. Having complied with the bulk of the agreement brokered by Russia, Assad can claim weak ambiguity especially when the US and the West have such an unclear set of conflicting polices and an unruly mess of proxies with their own interests, and Trump is unlikely to to suddenly have any coherent vision of anything remotely like a strategy. So really why not? Small attacks are effective, dispersed over time and with even the faintest of fig leaves to hid behind add no real risks to Assad.

[Yayattasa]

So Russia, a nuclear power, should attack Israel, also a nuclear power. But good luck to Israel, a nuclear power, in attacking Russia, also a nuclear power.

As much as I dislike militaristic bragging on the internet: Israel can't put a dent on Russia; conversely, Russia can obliterate Israel.

[sumskilz]

As much as I dislike militaristic bragging on the internet: Israel can't put a dent on Russia; conversely, Russia can obliterate Israel.

While the latter is true, most would consider the low estimate of 80 nuclear warheads both enough to make a dent and sufficient deterrence.

[Påsan]

I dont like the current situation, I dont like it at all. This has a bit too high chance of escalating for my taste.

[Vanoi]

3rd parties getting their hands on Sarin guess isn't really that far fetched. However, while there isn't definitive evidence that the Rebels and ISIS do have Sarin, we know that that they do have chlorine and mustard gas, as do the Kurds. Why is it impossible for them to have sarin too, why is it 100% only Assad has Sarin.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-34286662.html


http://www.latimes.com/world/middlee...017-story.html




Again, no culprit was identified in 2013

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=46617872

There has been no evidence that the rebels or IS ever possessed sarin gas. Your own first article mentions a claim with no evidence.

Your second article refers to Syria's stockpiles. Again no evidence the IS has ever taken them and the Syrian government itself denies it's stockpiles were raided.

Your third article is an old story that has since been corrected: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/no-ch...sh-envoy-says/

It was anti-freeze not sarin gas

http://www.military.com/video/operat.../2542270451001 -back from '13

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/no-ch...sh-envoy-says/

It was anti freeze

[Costin_Razvan]

OPCW just said that Syrian government possessed chemical weapons at some point. Everything else, as it was pointed out earlier, is just conjecture made up to justify Western aggression against Syria, while the recent attacks are an obvious false flag.

The OPCW found the Syrian government to be guilty of the chemical attacks last year. it's IN their official report as their conclusion.

http://undocs.org/S/2017/904

On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian ArabRepublic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.

That's what the UN said in their official report to the Security Council about the 2017 attack. Now there wasn't a conclusive answer from the UN about 2013.

Regarding this attack. Yeah OK, we only have evidence Syrian planes bomb Douma right exactly when the Sarin Gas was released. We have the WHO stating it was chemical weapons.

The options on Syria for the US should be to prevent the usage of banned chemical weapons, even if that means blowing up most of Assad's major military airfields, and to stop Turkey from starting a major ground war against the Kurds.

Beyond that? Insanity to escalate further then that.

[dogukan]

I dont think there is much point in debating the gas attack.
If the us wants to fight, thats just an excuse. I am sure everybody up there knows how these things work.
It is naive to talk of it based on gas attack because that leads to an assumption that the fighting will break out over gas.
Fighting will break out because of a strategic purpose one side has as opposed to the other.
Everyone knew why turkey attacked afrin, it wasnt because there were actual attack to turkish soil from there...this is just a more magnified version of that.

[Copperknickers II]

I dont think there is much point in debating the gas attack.
If the us wants to fight, thats just an excuse. I am sure everybody up there knows how these things work.
It is naive to talk of it based on gas attack because that leads to an assumption that the fighting will break out over gas.
Fighting will break out because of a strategic purpose one side has as opposed to the other.
Everyone knew why turkey attacked afrin, it wasnt because there were actual attack to turkish soil from there...this is just a more magnified version of that.

The use of chemical weapons is a serious war crime. It's one of the very few war crimes which is not routinely committed by all sides in all major wars these days. The use of chemical weapons is the key element here, there is absolutely no reason for the US to attack the SAA except for the chemical weapon atrocity, the US war in Syria is with ISIS not Assad. The only reason the US would want to attack Assad is to try and reduce the influence of Russia and Iran and that's impossible without a major regional war, as despite the best efforts of Israel (and various minor skirmishes involving the Americans and non-ISIS forces, most notably those Russian mercenaries) the Shia/Ba'athist faction now have a free and open zone of control stretching from Central Asia and the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean.

I also don't think that there's any real danger of escalation here. The Russians have said they will engage with US targets if their personnel are threatened and that would lead to a major escalation, however the Russians and Americans have a line of communication which allows the Russians to be pre-warned of any strikes on Syrian Regime targets and to get their guys out of there. The same one they used after the last strike, after the last chemical weapons attack. So the exact same will happen this time.

Tempers are flared at the moment because of the Salisbury assassination attempt and its diplomatic fallout but the real likelihood of any conflict occurring is pretty much zero. The US have already killed dozens of Russian soldiers without any consequence in that mercenary fiasco, so Russia is not interested in a fight. Trump has repeatedly stressed the goal of disentangling the US from the Middle East and particularly from the Syria cluster, so he is not interested in a fight either. Neither side is, they just want to play to their domestic audiences with some bellicose rhetoric, during a time of personal problems for both of the two leaders in Washington and in Moscow. Both sides are well aware of this, and the Lindsey Grahams of the world will not get their way.

By the way, can we all just take a moment to thank God that Killary isn't US president right now? Then we really would be in trouble.