The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

I have a loved one very likely going if this happens and so you see I have a self interest in no boots on the ground. I wish that I could turn a blind eye to the point you just made but it is the reality of the Syrian Civil War. Hopefully you understand my dilemma I am completely and utterly torn! If the Brits, French, Aussies and others are willing to send troops along with America and the Arab League funds the military action in the event of the above scenario then I would get behind it, albeit,reluctantly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you know a professional soldier and you don't want them to soldier? Surely you must expect that to happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Bells ...agree about the "Jews/media" thread...

@ quinnsong...interesting you bring this up. I think it's not uncommon to lose sight of the young men and women "filling those boots" should there be a need for such deployment. I don't want to see this situation come to that, either. This is a horrible ordeal for the innocent Syrian people who are caught in the crossfire of this civil war, and also for any military who lose their respective lives trying to fight for what is right and good in the world.

It is just very heartbreaking to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

She's not saying that at all.

 

Yes, I do but the fear and ultimate heartbreak of losing my husband is constant because he is an American soldier and it seems we are in a constant state of war.

 

wegs, if something "could be easily construed" - I ask you, could it not just as easily be "misconstrued"?

Is being construed or misconstrued as being "anti-Semitic" in any way better or worse than being construed or misconstrued as being "pro-Semitic"?

In relation to the Title of this Thread - is not the Validity of the information more important than the Source of that information?

When you say "... it helps other posters see where said person is coming from", other Posters do not have any more of an ability to "see" than you or I.
When I "seem to see" or "perceive" something that "could easily be construed or misconstrued" - I Post asking for Clarification because of what I, dmoe, seem to have "seen" or "construed", as you put it.

wegs, you said "If a poster wishes for ppl to view him or her as neutral..."
.
Is not the definition of "neutral", when used as an adjective :

From : - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neutral - Definition of NEUTRAL ; neutral adjective
1. : not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping <a neutral nation>
2. : of or relating to a neutral state or power <neutral territory>

Is there any way that a person that is only open to the viewpoints of only one side of "a political or ideological grouping" neutral?

wegs, I am in no way "anti-Semitic", nor am I any way "pro-Semitic".

I have asked this before - and yes, I know the answer - Is an Iranian or a Syrian a Semite?
Also would you consider someone who was anti-Syrian or anti-Iranian, someone worthy of being construed as "anti-Semitic"?

wegs, you know, for a fact, that some people have biases, prejudices or misconstrued beliefs that they sometimes have a hard time admitting to themselves. Those people can at times externalize or project those weaknesses onto others, for whatever reason.
wegs, you also know, for a fact, that with just a little work, those things can be overcome!

I know exactly who I am, what I am(Short, Bald, Ugly and the Dumbest Man on Earth!), and I know exactly who I am not, what I am not - and exactly where I come from and exactly how I got to where I am!

No matter what "names" other people throw at me or how often they throw them will ever change who or what I actually am.

wegs, if someone repeatedly accused you of being a "bigot" or "racist" or "anti-Semitic" - and then other people "jumped on that bandwagon" and did the same - would that make you a "Racist Bigoted anti-Semitic" in Reality?

wegs, this whole "Farce" thread has been turned into a FARCE by Posters who choose to ATTACK, BELITTLE, BERATE and SHOUT OUT RUDE NAMES, instead of the Posters that prefer to ASK, CLARIFY and HONESTLY and INTELLIGENTLY discuss!

wegs, worry not a bit about dmoe, just relax and spark one up, then take a walk or pet a kitten - just concentrate on the people and things that are great in this World - this "Misconstrued, Racist, Bigoted, Stupid, Supremacist, anti-Semitic, Less Than Human, Air-Wasting, Only Worth Being Called Rude Names, Lowlife" (hope I covered all the bases!) will continue to be the dmoe!

 

Then maybe he should quit.

 

Please lets not derail this thread yet again! DMOE exactly why you are consistently turning this thread into the personal is making me suspect of your intellectual honesty. Why begin mocking Captain Bork when IMO he was expressing his views on Syria(which were informative and reasonable) and from there taking us to sites that we know exist and frankly are ignored because they breed hate and ignorance. Say what you mean, do not throw up smoke screens!

 

@ dmoe;

I hear you...but keep in mind, all we have here are words. If a person posts anti Semitic articles or articles that can be perceived by the majority of readers as such...then, said person shouldn't be taken aback by the reactions of those readers.

I'm sure you're not a bigot, I trust what you're saying here. But, when we post links to sites that are ethnically biased, it's natural for readers to question the attitude of the poster posting it.

On another note/ back on topic...what do you think is a farce? How things have played out in Syria or...? You comment a lot on the thread title, so just asking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL! Were it that easy, you cannot just quit in the middle of your obligation.

 

My friend did. He failed a drug test and went AWOL (went home) for 20 days. When he returned, they gave him a dishonorable discharge.

 

You are a hoot! lol

 

quinnsong, thank him for us. It might not be much, my words... but to me, your husband's willingness to accept the risks of serving in the military, is really remarkable. He's quite selfless and I appreciate his service.

 

It depends on whether the Syrians have learned new things in deployment. A poor weapon can do a great deal of damage with the right application.

Probably. Without reading further in the thread, I haven't seen any connection to Assad's regime than the radio intercepts. Frankly, sarin rounds can be got or made.

I'm interested to see how that's so. If tissue samples are being used to identify the gas, how would HE affect them? Regarding the previous attacks, I've seen some articles on Syria's culpability, but this evidence isn't public either - I agree with you naturally that the Israelis are good, but not mythical.

Well, they did produce a report on an attack in March 2013 at a town called Khan-al-Assal. The report isn't available (at least not to the public and possibly to other governmental agencies), but then again neither are the American or French reports (at least not to the public). The Russians say it wasn't military grade, which is about the argument line you'd expect them to take if they're arguing the sarin was home-made, and that RDX was used as an explosive agent for distribution on impact. A CBS article argues that the sarin was "cottage-industry" produced rather than industrially. So it's not at all impossible that the rebels made some themselves. They also claim the reason the UN team was in the area at all was to investigate the earlier attack. Finally, assuming that the Syrians did in fact use RDX because they had a stock lying around, it would be curious to have used rockets near Aleppo and mortars (not helis and aircraft as you earlier alleged) in the Ghouta attack (this attack, that is). The BBC reported that the rebels themselves used sarin earlier as well. Both sides may well have used it. There's another report that the Turks caught rebels sneaking sarin into Syria, but it hasn't been picked up by the major institutions and is probably false.

Never heard of McClatchky news; still, I don't think they could invent the report itself. Had you not heard of this Russian report when you posted?

How do you know it will have degraded? Chemical stablizers are added to sarin used in warheads, but my impression is that their half-life is fairly long. Correction: about five hours, apparently. That might put it within range of a delay of a few days being useful to let the evidence degrade: yet, sarin samples were recovered from tissues collected by the Russians, so I'm not sure about that.

I brought it up because it reflects the state of modern credulity about WMD use and construction. I'm surprised that you do believe it; personally, I'm about 65:35 on it.

Well, if all parties (Russians, Americans) are to be believed, then both sides need to be interfered with. Obama would have a much harder job with Islamist forces in Syria than with the Syrians themselves, of course, but if they've used sarin themselves, they couldn't be overlooked.

Yes and no. Assad does have WMDs. The rebels may too. Who used them here? The Syrians are very suspicious, but then again it's also suspicious that mortars were used for delivery when Assad has aircraft and rockets. You're big on the word "fret" - we can indeed investigate further. Is justice delayed a few weeks justice denied? Will Assad 'get away' in the meantime? What will happen if we take a little time for further investigation?

True. His opposition is now largely comprised of religious fascists, however. I don't know what the intent of the attack was: if Syrian, to intimidate, and if not, to incriminate. That should be a saying.

I think I just said: investigate. One could at least wait until the UN samples were back. The question is also: how far are we going to go?

I was very surprised when you linked this in, so surprised that I went to the link and checked it. You seem to be implying that I thought the US had carried out the bombings, somehow. This was not my point at all: rather, I was impressed that someone actually had pictures and was looking for suspicious backpacks and bags. In the succeeding post, I suggested that Jones had unwittingly identified security personnel. As in: they were not actually involved, but were on scene to provide security. If you care to pursue this line of inquiry, could you cite directly from those posts indicating where I thought the Americans had done it themselves, which is what you're accusing me of above? If I may offer in amused rebuttal, you seem much more familiar with Jones' conspiracy line than I.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then so be it. I'd just like someone to come out and publically admit that, no matter what occurs, the West will be blamed by Islamists (and other political opportunists). I'm cheered, though, that you've come around to indirectly admitting such individuals exist.

Question: what were the political allegiances of the district struck?

How about two or three weeks to be sure, before we run in and kill a couple thousand, or ten thousand if Obama does put "boots on the ground"?

Now imagine my mirth at finding you misrepresented me again.

Oh, just supposition, like you do to me.

If I were to be truly mean, I could just pitch it on basis that you don't read French. Yet, as you surely also know, that's not my style, so I read it. It does mention a Syrian heli attack, but other than that largely gives that which we know: that he has sarin, and that Alawite personnel are in charge of it. You could say it establishes precedent, though, sure: but not on the list of chemical warhead types are mortars, which were used in the Ghouta attack. Again, wouldn't be hard to slap together, but why didn't he just use rockets? The French report does allege air attack, but I haven't seen this from any of the eyewitness reports.

EDIT: actually, that last sentence is wrong: the French allege conventional aerial attack only, unless I've missed something. So for the time being, that's still a no.

How many deliberate surface misrepresentations can you cram into one sentence? This is a record. Rather than fisk you, I have simply corrected your infantile sentence below:

I left in the "my my" for free, short bus. Do you think it helps your case, doing this? You're a lawyer, aren't you? Aren't there some kinds of rules on ethical conduct for lawyers?

...good God, I just realized the complete naivety of that last sentence.

Wait: is this "you" you or "we" you?

Oh so this is "you" you. Not "we" you. Ok.

I guess you could write him about the Blackwater types if you're really so inclined. You know, you should probably check your references a little more carefully from now on. Just a suggestion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, back to the main point: the case is growing somewhat stronger but not conclusive for the Ghouta attack being the work of the Syrians (Assad). Your links do raise some new questions. I'll try to compose a better breakdown of the evidence so far... if I ever get the time.

The fellow with the high school education is criticising my use of the English language? Ok.

 

IMO that's a perfectly respectable opinion- you have something very real and tangible at stake, and you don't want to see yours or others' loved ones being put at unnecessary risk of harm. We don't want to see a scenario where air strikes lead to the necessity for troops on the ground where there otherwise wouldn't have been such a need. The only rationale I can offer to counter your concerns is that the problem will likely be even worse in the future if action isn't taken now.

Obviously I lean towards some form of strong deterrent against Assad's actions and against the assistance he's receiving from his foreign backers, and not to allow him to position himself as the only force in the region who can stand against Al Qaeda. If you read the Iranian and Hezbollah media justifications for this war, they essentially view Syria as a playground where they're free to kill and torture as they please with the excuse of needing its backing in a future war against Israel, much as Pakistan supported the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan (and continues to support them) with the excuse that they were needed to fight India.

Personally, I'd be happy with virtually anyone intervening against Assad and his allies, as long as it comes in the interest of saving Syrian lives from tyranny and oppression. It's perfectly fine not to want to participate in a fight even on humanitarian grounds; the real issue is how one would judge those who are willing to try, or how one judges those who don't want to participate in a fight and are forced to defend themselves when it comes to them regardless (i.e. the neighbouring countries Assad is threatening to hit).

 

Firstly, I encourage you to read the thread or check the news, because a lot more evidence has been made available. I posted an audio link of former Iranian president Rafsanjani saying Assad was responsible, and the Iranian media tried very hard and unsuccessfully to suppress the comment from public view (I wonder why they would do that when they've been so generously providing scholars like DMOE with valuable non-Zionist truthiness?).

Are you so sure about that? From what I've read it's no simple matter to make rounds from volatile chemicals such as sarin, let alone in large enough quantities to accomplish what Assad did in Damascus at the exact same time he was shelling the shit out of it. These aren't munitions you can stockpile on your shelves for weeks or months until you need them.

 

Someone should be calling Russia out on its claims that rebels used sarin in the past. They still haven't provided any proof to other nations or to the UN, I'd like to see how they went about making their "determination". Allegations of rebel possession and usage of chemical weapons are not to be made in jest, and top level Russian officials knowingly lying on behalf of a mass murderer should carry severe consequences.

 

Rocket surgeon

Well, I have to admit, that's much stronger evidence.

Edit: Actually... I had a look at the launcher system. If it's this one here:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- then actually it's really common, apparently:

Look, have I got the wrong rocket system here? I only found this 107mm. If that's the same 107mm, how the hell can the BND think it's characteristic of the Syrian army? I don't doubt they have some: it's cheap, and cheap arms spells good. But it's a cert that the Syrian rebels have them too: it's like Coke for insurgencies. The Afghan insurgents have them, apparently.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...ntensify-rocket-attacks-into-Lebanon/(page)/3

Never thought I'd quote Daily Kos, but...

The max stated range of the Chinese 107mm system is apparently 5 km.

But... the easternmost targets hit in the map above(i.e. Duma, Jisrayn) are more than 5 miles outside the area controlled by the Syrian regime. The airfields - Al Mazzah or Dummar - are even further away, although because of the mobile nature of the platform, i.e. truck mounted), it's not necessary to fire them from there. Still, that's a bit too far.

****

The Syrians had this to say about the delay in the CBS article:

Guh. People lie. Did they only get it Saturday? Who knows.

 

That's weird.

 

Some of those are dying to try to bring theocracy. It's not all one or the other and the balance of reports suggests that Islamists make up the majority of the rebels. Or are you talking civilian casualties alone, distinct?