Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, Apr 5, 2016.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    Never mind Western media - Assad is who he is, regardless. There can be no free elections with a strongman and his secret police and his prisons as one of the candidates. The illegitimacy of Western and Russian interference and meddling doesn't change that.
    You have referred to everyone Russia or Syria has attacked as "terrorists". That's your term.
    Of course. And you were warned about that, about the willingness of guys like Trump to use their military in that fashion - kill people wholesale to look tough, to create an image. That was back when you were spreading American fascist propaganda about Clinton being a psychopath, and Trump being a reasonable and isolationist businessman - not that long ago.
    You might want to reconsider the implications of that.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Of course, free elections should include everybody, and if media of another state, like the US, names somebody a war criminal should be completely irrelevant. What should be relevant is only Syrian law.
    Assad anyway knows that using chemical weapons would be stupid. And therefore he does not use them. Those who believe he has really used them believe even into last hospital in Aleppo nonsense.
    I apply it to those who fight, with weapons, the Syrian government. Which is a normal use of the word "terrorist". Even if it makes sense to try to make peace with some of them. Which is what the Russians and Syrians try to do.
    Indeed, you have warned. And I was not impressed. And I'm not that impressed even today, given that Clinton even today wants even more of this http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

    Let's remember, I argued that we have a known war criminal against a crazy unknown, and so the crazy unknown would be a good guess for being less evil. I have never argued that he will not be evil. And it was always clear that winning the elections means nothing - he would have to win against the deep state too. Today it seem clear that the deep state has control over Trump, the danger for the deep state is over. But so what - if Clinton would have won, the situation would have been in no way better.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,943
    Which is irrelevant since Assad lost any claim to sovereignty when he used chemical weapons.
    It is stupid, and he was caught using them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    No, that isn't a normal use of the word "terrorist". It is a propaganda usage.
    You argued from the premises Clinton was a known and crazy evil, and Trump was an unknown and not crazy businessman.

    And that was a silly argument, since Trump was known, and Clinton is not crazy. And now you see that those who told you about Trump were correct, just as before when you found that your evidence of Clinton being crazy was manipulation by propagandists, but as before you do not re-evaluate your presumptions - instead you try to ascribe Trump's predicted and known behavior to crazy evil Clinton pulling deep State strings. You build higher on your silly foundation of ignorant presumptions.
    Comedy.
    Your presumptions about the way rightwing dictators think and hold power are - once again - uninformed.

    Besides: What would be "stupid" about Assad using gas now that Obama is out of the picture? He loses nothing, he gains fear and territory, he wipes out foes without wrecking valuable structures or risking valuable soldiers. He enjoys all the benefits of State terrorism. And if there is some problem with his international image or whatever, he can always count on his image-manipulating allies to cover for him, and his accusers (Trump etc) to lack all credibility.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,539
    Our Civil War was a humanitarian disaster, every civil war is a disaster but we seem to be the only one getting involved (other than Russia in this case).

    More people, not less, are killed when other countries get involved and supply arms to both sides. Kids whose fathers are killed due to the U.S. aren't going to grow up to thank the U.S. either. They tend to grow up and want to blow things up.

    Our military hasn't helped the underlying situation in any conflict they have been involved in for the last 50 years.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Our civil war occurred in a very different era. Millions of Americans didn't flee America because of the American Civil War as they are in Syria. We didn't have airplanes, chemical weapons. Since the Civil War we have been much more efficient and effective killers. We didn't bomb Americans with chemical weapons as Assad has done. So it's wrong to compare the American Civil War with the Syrian civil war.

    So you don't think American troops made a difference in Kosovo or Iraq? I think they have. I wasn't a fan of the Iraq War, but once we got some decent leadership in Washington Iraq and Afghanistan took a turn for the better. Where are those people in Kosovo who want to blow things up?
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,539
    Kosovo is still a troubled place although the US air campaign wasn't a negative thing.

    I don't think we have helped anything in Afghanistan or Iraq. We now have ISIS and more disorder than before.

    The US Civil War is the only one we have had so I didn't have much choice there. Pick a more current one in any other country and my point will be the same.

    Just because we have a military doesn't mean we need to constantly be using it.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    They tracked the aircraft and the flight path of said aircraft, that dropped them, from his controlled airbase.

    How many more excuses and denials are you going to make?

    He's used them before. It follows the same pattern of previous usage. They tracked the flight path of the aircraft that dropped it, it came from his airbase and from his aircraft. I mean really, how much more are you going to deny at this point?

    Dictators rarely act in a rational manner when they feel that their authority is threatened, or when their position is threatened.
     
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Of course they are able to track some aircrafts which have dropped some bombs on Khan Sheikhun. It is not denied at all that there has been an attack on some military and ammunition depot near Khan Sheikhun. No excuse necessary. An ammunition depot is a legitimate military target. And I have never denied that there have been such attacks. The only thing I deny, because it would be extremely stupid to do, is that they have attacked with chemical weapons.
    It follows the same pattern of American propaganda lies. And, predictably, this pattern will continue. As we have had 20 last hospitals in Aleppo, we will have in near future 20 chemical attacks against innocent children. What works once in such a nice way, they will do again.
    Cheap try, not plausible at all. Assads position was much better than before, so there was no reason for him to feel threatened.
    Feel free to think so, but the bombing of Belgrad was the turning point for the Russian elites. They became anti-American again.

    Whatever, I have already accepted that in future I will use some more politically correct word for those terrorists, namely islamists. So, I will no longer name neither Daesh and Al Qaida nor their allies terrorists.
    Satisfied? There has been, btw, a moderate rebel attack in Stockholm, see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/terrorist-truck-attack-in-stockholm.159188/
    Complete nonsense, sorry. Your claimed advantages simply do not exist. The political losses are obvious and overwhelming. If he would openly use chemical weapons, it would be impossible for Putin to support him, and this support i sufficiently important for him.

    So, Assad lost any claim to sovereignty if some hm, sorry, islamists with White Helmets claim that he used chemical weapons? Once this can be done everywhere in the same way, that means there exists no sovereignty in the unipolar US-ruled world. That's why the multipolar world, proposed by Russia and China, becomes more popular among other states too. It is that simple: If you want sovereignty, you have to support the multi-polar world.
    These propaganda lies are not even plausible.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    That doesn't work either.
    Assad has attacked the partisans and rebels against his rule, among which are many non-Islamists, non-terrorists, etc, as well as the terrorists so convenient for justifying whatever tactics become necessary.
    When did they go away?

    Even the narrative that ascribes the gas casualties to the jihadists puts the source of the supply as robbed Syrian stockpiles not destroyed under Obama's maneuvered agreements three years ago. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ative-about-syrian-chemical-incident-question
    That doesn't keep him from using them deniably, now that Obama is gone and the replacement has no interest or credibility, under Putin's supervision and with Putin's support. Why not?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    Why do you think it would be stupid of him to have done it?

    He probably thought no one would do anything about it again.

    They tracked the aircraft from his airbase, the same aircraft which dropped those bombs. And they were bombs, not an ammunition depot as some have stupidly tried to claim.

    There was no evidence of any building being hit in recent days or weeks near where so many people were killed and wounded by a nerve agent. The homes across the street appeared undamaged from the outside. There was no contamination zone near any building. Instead, the contamination area radiated from a hole in a road.
    Assad is a desperate man, who intends to win at all cost. He probably figured no one would do anything about it again. This time he was wrong. But his use of these types of weapons is known. It follows a similar pattern.

    One of the main defenses offered by Mr. Assad’s allies and supporters, in disputing that his forces carried out the strike on Tuesday, is that such an attack would be “a crazy move,” as one Iranian analyst, Mosib Na’imi, told the Russian state-run news site Sputnik. Yet, rather than an inexplicable act, analysts say, it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians.

    For years, at least since it began shelling neighborhoods with artillery in 2012, then bombing them from helicopters and later from jets, the Syrian government has adopted a policy of seeking total victory by making life as miserable as possible for anyone living in areas outside its control.

    Government forces have been herding defeated opponents from across the country into Idlib Province, where the chemical attack occurred. Starved and bombed out of their enclaves, they are bused under lopsided surrender deals to the province, where Qaeda-linked groups maintain a presence the Syrian military uses as an excuse to bomb without regard for the safety of civilians.

    Dr. Monzer Khalil, Idlib Province’s health director, said such extreme tactics aimed to demonstrate the government’s impunity and to demoralize its foes.

    “It makes us feel that we are defeated,” said Dr. Khalil, whose gums bled after he was exposed to scores of chemical victims on Tuesday. “The international community will stay gazing at what’s happening — and observing the explosive barrels falling and rockets bombing the civilians and the hospitals and the civil defense and killing children and medical staff — without doing anything.”

    “Militarily, there is no need,” said Bente Scheller, the Middle East director of the Berlin-based Heinrich Böll Foundation. “But it spreads the message: You are at our mercy. Don’t ask for international law. You see, it doesn’t protect even a child.”


    Of course.

    Evil West, American propaganda, lies.

    This is kind of a common rejoinder from you. Anything you don't agree with must be 'American propaganda lies'.

    Assad has used chemical attacks before. He's used them quite a bit in this conflict. And he isn't the only one. It seems the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict has become quite commonplace.

    He's also dropped bombs on civilians and murdered thousands that way too.

    He had nothing to lose and everything to gain in the long run.

    His use of these weapons in the past garnered no response. Using them again, from a position of safety internationally, but without safety in his own country... The man intends to win this war at all cost. Even if it means using chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians. He isn't winning this war as quickly as he intended to. He didn't and is not quelling the rebellion against his leadership as quickly as he intended to.

    “Assad knows that a large-scale attack against its civilians is a short-term public relations liability but a long-term political asset.”

    That was only reinforced, critics say, by recent statements by American officials that it was time to accept the “political reality” of Mr. Assad’s grip on power.

    By showing it puts no limits on the tactics it uses, Mr. Yazigi wrote, “the regime shows to the world the West’s impotence and weakness.”

    He did not think anything would come of it again. It hadn't in the past and with the West suddenly commenting on keeping him in power, what do you think he had to lose? His sole intent is to maintain his dictatorship. And do you honestly think a dictator as brutal as Assad would blink before using chemical weapons on his enemies and civilians? Are you that naive?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    Does anybody know whether the Tomahawk missiles fired into Syria carried uranium or depleted uranium?

    They sometimes do, for sure, and we know that the US has used uranium loaded weaponry in Syria already: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/

    It would be a bit ironic, in a dark way, if images of gas poisoned children led to the US blowing radioactive and poisonous substances of its own all over populated areas.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Improbable. Uranium makes sense if one wants to hit special hard targets, like tanks or so. To destroy an airbase it makes not much sense.

    Take a look at what the Western media do, and what they have done in 2013, which is what Assad has certainly been aware of. So, he could have been sure that a repetition of this media hype would follow. He knows the Western media are controlled by his enemies, and would use any use of chemical weapons to start a hysterical campaign against him. He knows (as everybody) that Trump is unpredictable.

    Sorry, but to use in such a situation chemical weapons would be completely insane. Feel free to think he is completely amoral or likes to kill people or whatever, not plausible but your choice, but he is not stupid. Else, he would not have survived in this position in this war. And seeing interviews with him is sufficient to understand that he is not completely stupid.

    Instead, for Assads enemies the decision of Trump to throw away the "Assad must go" was, essentially, the ultimate end of their hopes. So, for them to fake a chemical attack makes sense.

    And, again, to clarify: There have been attacks agains an weapon- and ammunition depot. This is a fact acknowledged by the Russians. The second fact is that the claimed symptoms seem similar to those seen in Aleppo, where the same, hm, islamists have used chemical weapons. With these facts, we have two theories: a) the whole chemical attack is completely faked, and the attack on the depot was simply used for timing, so that one can accuse the Syrian army, or b) that inside the depot there were their chemical weapons, and hitting this depot has lead to their escape. IMHO the complete fake theory is more plausible. because it is in much better correspondence with the timing. As the, hm, islamists loosing, as Trumps rejection of "Assad must go", as the European conference have provided strong motivations to do a fake attack.

    PS; The airbase is in use again.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,527
    From Tulsi Gabbard:
    "This administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning," she said in a statement.

    “It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia."

    "There are a number of theories that are out there," Gabbard said during an interview on CNN's "The Situation" when addressing who was behind the attack.

    Gabbard pointed to false intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction used to justify the Iraq War under President George W. Bush as an example of how the intelligence assessments can produce inaccurate information.


    "There are a number of ways that you can point the finger," she said.

    Pressed to specify if Assad was responsible for civilian deaths in Syria, as the U.S. and Western leaders have maintained, Gabbard said that responsibility "goes around."

    "There is responsibility that goes around ... again, my interest is in bringing about peace. Standing here and pointing fingers does not accomplish peace for the Syrian people," she said.

    Asked if she would change her mind if the Pentagon would present her with hard evidence that Assad was behind the chemical attack, the lawmaker replied "no."
    .................................
    and, so we launch 83 millions of dollars worth of missiles, with perhaps less than 1/2 of them hitting the intended target, and kill 10 civilians, 4 of whom were children.

    Reckless and stupid.
    Donald Trump the child killer?!
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,527
    (pardon the rant)
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    It actually does the opposite.

    Because for his enemies to use chemical weapons at this time, knowing they would be caught, would make their position and situation untenable.

    Why are you so against the thought that Assad would do something like this?

    It isn't the first time and frankly, it probably will not be the last time either.

    The bomb craters where the bombs fell kind of proves you wrong.

    Actually it is not more plausible.

    You know, you can only clutch at straws so many times before it becomes a foolish endeavour.

    There is more than enough evidence to show that this was Assad's doing. The radar returns flying to oooh, right where the bombs fell and left craters in the road, and yes, the chemical weapons came from those bombs, kind of points the finger right at Assad.

    Perhaps it's time to stop making up excuses. The man is not above doing something like this, since he has done it repeatedly in the past. Independent organisations have witnessed it, just as foreign Governments have also flagged his use of these weapons.

    The fact that you are so steadfast in believing a brutal dictator intent on retaining power, along side another dictator who is making billions of dollars yearly from this war, kind of says it all really.

    Weren't you the one ranting on and on about how Clinton was the dangerous war hawk, etc, and how Trump would be soooo much better before the election? Reap what you sow. You own him and what he does now.
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,527
    Every president and congress since LBJ drafted me has been a disappointment.
    Why should this one be any different?

    Isn't insanity: Repeating the same mistake over and over, and expecting a different result?

    ..................................
    ZEN phrase:
    If I was disappointed, it was because I expected too much.
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Because it makes no sense. I have, say, no problems with the idea that Russia has supported the Donbass with a lot of Soviet time weapons, instructors, or special forces - because this makes sense, from a military point of view. Using chemical weapons in Syria, instead, makes no sense at all.
    Indeed, once it has worked nicely, it will be repeated. At least as often as the last hospital of Aleppo. Nobody cares if the propaganda makes sense anymore.

    I even make the prediction that the next gas attack by Assad will be made, again, against the "moderate rebels", and not against Daesh. Simply because Daesh has at least some moral values - killing civilians, including women and children, for violating Shariah law in their version, by cutting their heads or otherwise, is ok, but killing them in a fake gas attack claimed to be made by Assad is too much for them.
    Really? Explain. I don't even see any connection.
    Feel free to believe it. joepistole will support you. I don't even care. The basic assumptions are too stupid to believe them.
    My bet was that Clinton was a known war criminal, while Trump was unknown. So 50% he will do what he has claimed (a more reasonable foreign policy), 50% that he will do what the deep state orders, that means, the same as what Clinton wants. 50:50 doing the same as Clinton is not really "soooo much better". Acknowledged that there was some (unreasonable? Maybe) hope, which appeared unjustified. That's all.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    The whole thing doesn't make much sense. One question would be whether all Tomahawk missiles deployed in the region are uranium armed. The targets aren't known in advance, after all.
    As you pointed out, destroying the airbase doesn't seem to have been a priority - at least, not the only priority.
    When did it stop making sense? Because when Assad's stockpile, in 2013, was largely destroyed under pressure from Obama and Putin, it wasn't because it didn't make any sense to Assad to have these weapons. He wanted to keep them, for handling the unruly population of his country.
    You also claimed Clinton was psychopathically and murderously crazy, while Trump was a reasonable businessman inclined to prudence and negotiation.
    And all that was silly. Trump was well known, and well known to be a con man of unstable bullying character with a fascist political ideology. Clinton was well known, and well known to be a policy wonk and diplomacy-oriented bureaucrat, compromising to a fault.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Around 1914 or so, when it became obvious that gas does not give anything reasonable in war. For the neighbors of Israel - which is a nuclear power - it made sense to have chemical weapons simply for having some weapons of mass destruction of civilians, to retaliate against a nuclear attack from Israel. Chemical weapons as the nuclear weapons of the poor man.
    Nonsense.
    She did a lot of war crimes, and she looked psychopathically and murderously crazy in the videos. You could have told me about that strange medical condition with her eyes, which creates this impression of insanity, you haven't. So, today I think she is not an isane, but a quite rational war criminal. Her program was more of the same war crimes, openly. And what she said now, is also more of the same crimes: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

    Before these elections, I have thought that US elections are fake for the stupid, which will be allowed to decide about questions like should be gays allowed to marry or not, or which toilets transvestites have to use. About the relevant questions, they have no saying at all. These elections looked a little bit different, the campaign was at least in part about some relevant question - cold war or peace, support for terrorists or not. I was open for the hypothesis that I was wrong, and that the sheeple may have some saying about these questions too. There was no necessity for doubt. Once the deep state wants war and regime change, it does not matter if Clinton rules or Trump, they have to follow the orders. Those sheeple who have been against the war may now fight Trump - so they will get Pence or Clinton as a replacement, which will continue the war anyway.

    The good news is that if the US attacks one of your airbases with 60 cruise missiles, it is not that problematic, you can use it again the next day. At least if you have Russian protection.
     

Share This Page