Well here is the problem with that, Russia and Assad aren't fighting "Islamists"; they are fighting Syrian rebels. Oops. And the there is the fact that this isn't the first time Assad gas used chemical weapons against Syrian children.Common sense tells everybody that a chemical attack which may be somehow attributed to Assad is in the interest of the, hm, islamists. So, such fake attacks have to be expected.
Nobody in the world cares if the hm, islamists use chemical weapons themselves, as they had. But it they claim "this was Assad" Trump bombs Assad. Predictably where will be more of such fake attacks in the future. They have the chemical weapons to kill some victims, they have some actors to make some White Helmets cinema, they have even an Oscar for this.
Ok, special service for you, but only today:Well here is the problem with that, Russia and Assad aren't fighting "Islamists"; they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Indeed, joepistoles beloved rebels have done already several such fake attacks.And the there is the fact that this isn't the first time Assad gas used chemical weapons against Syrian children.
Indeed, it was a quite real aggression, based on nothing but propaganda lies.Trump's attack wasn't fake. It was very real.
Ok, special service for you, but only today:
Nobody in the world cares if joepistoles beloved rebels use chemical weapons themselves, as they had. But it they claim "this was Assad" Trump bombs Assad. Predictably where will be more of such fake attacks in the future. They have the chemical weapons to kill some victims, they have some actors to make some White Helmets cinema, they have even an Oscar for this.
Indeed, joepistoles beloved rebels have done already several such fake attacks.
Indeed, it was a quite real aggression, based on nothing but propaganda lies.
![]()
Nobody ignores it. Even if only 23 of 59 cruise missiles have reached the airbase, and even if they had destroyed only a canteen, 6 old planes which were unable to fly anyway - even a single bomb is, from a legal point of view, a full scale aggression.
And, given that joepistoles beloved rebels will predictably repeat their exercises for the next Oscar nomination, and Assad cannot do anything to prevent them from doing this, there will be more attacks against Syria. Syrians and Russians will prepare themselves for the next attack.
Joepistole's beloved rebels from Daesh have made two of their typical peaceful rebel protests in two Christian (Koptic) churches in Egypt. In Tanta, 25 persons have been killed and more than 70 wounded, in Alexandria 14 killed and 41 wounded.
The bloody dictator Sisi has, after this, send the army to surround all such churches to prevent joepistoles beloved rebels from further peaceful protests against the Christian fundamentalists in these churches.
Joepistole's beloved rebels from Daesh have made two of their typical peaceful rebel protests in two Christian (Koptic) churches in Egypt. In Tanta, 25 persons have been killed and more than 70 wounded, in Alexandria 14 killed and 41 wounded.
The bloody dictator Sisi has, after this, send the army to surround all such churches to prevent joepistoles beloved rebels from further peaceful protests against the Christian fundamentalists in these churches.
Common sense also notices that State terrorism has many benefits for someone like Assad, and is to be expected in the future (as well as having been observed in the past).Common sense tells everybody that a chemical attack which may be somehow attributed to Assad is in the interest of the, hm, islamists. So, such fake attacks have to be expected.
Of course, the usual state terrorism - like imprisoning people who don't pay taxes - give a lot of benefits and is done by all states. Assad is no exception, Putin too.Common sense also notices that State terrorism has many benefits for someone like Assad, and is to be expected in the future (as well as having been observed in the past).
No. This argument relies on what has happened 2013, where the world has learned that Obama's "red line" had the predictable consequence, namely a false flag gas attack. And where the only thing Assad could do to prevent the US aggression was to give up all his chemical weapons - thus, all his deterrent power against Israel. And the next time what could follow was unpredictable, it could be an open US war. How is such a clear and visible danger of US war related with Assad himself being a strongmen or so? It is a question of elementary safety not to do completely stupid things.Against this we have the odd argument that somehow these tactics don't make any sense for Assad, ostensibly because of his desire to maintain a good public image or the like. This argument relies on the assumption that Assad is not a strongman in Russian-backed control of a terrorist State - because if he is, not only the acts but the timings make perfect sense.
Of course, the usual state terrorism - like imprisoning people who don't pay taxes - give a lot of benefits and is done by all states. Assad is no exception, Putin too.
Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay tax that would fund wars and slavery, was jailed for it in 1846.All countries don't throw people in jail for not paying their taxes. The US doesn't do it.
That was 1847 and it was a local poll tax. It wasn't a state or federal tax and it wasn't used to find any wars. He was illegally arrested. Facts matter Comrade.Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay tax that would fund wars and slavery, was jailed for it in 1846.
Maybe they actually don't, that's a purely pragmatic question. They can if they want.
Don't be silly.Of course, the usual state terrorism - like imprisoning people who don't pay taxes - give a lot of benefits and is done by all states. Assad is no exception, Putin too.
Gas attacks by Assad began before Obama's "red line" maneuver, and continued after briefly - until Putin stepped in, apparently to prevent what he saw as likely in US politics, namely Congressional authorization of US assault. Obama deserves credit for that - many Syrians were spared the worst of Assad's tactics for a while, without the US doing harm of its own. After he was forced to get rid of the nerve gas and gear, he was limited to chlorine derivatives now and then for three or four years - unwieldy and less useful for State terrorism.No. This argument relies on what has happened 2013, where the world has learned that Obama's "red line" had the predictable consequence, namely a false flag gas attack. And where the only thing Assad could do to prevent the US aggression was to give up all his chemical weapons - thus, all his deterrent power against Israel.
There's been nothing stupid about Assad's State terrorism so far. He uses it to keep power, just as Saddam did (and Putin, to a lesser and more easily obscured degree), and Shah Pahlavi, and the various strongmen in the 'stans, and innumerable others all over the world. And he employs it well - good timing, good targets, etc. His torture prisons were well known for their reliability and effectiveness, for example.Wake up and learn that politicians all over the world cannot afford doing completely stupid things,
I have not cared about such earlier attempts for false flag propaganda, but this is, of course, plausible. Last but not least, there had to be some informational reason for Obama's stupid "red line" speech, which made a big false flag operation unavoidable.Gas attacks by Assad began before Obama's "red line" maneuver,
Syrians were spared US bombing and Daesh/jihadist rule like it happened in Libya, which would have killed much more people than in Libya (all Alewite and Christian population).many Syrians were spared the worst of Assad's tactics for a while, without the US doing harm of its own.
Ok, if you seriously declare that this is an excuse without credibility, this is a serious argument. Even if without any evidence.Deterrence of Israeli nukes was of course a transparent excuse without credibility.
Yes. About the real state terrorism (inclusive some torture or extralegal killing of various islamists, which I don't know about, but which seems sufficiently plausible) there is nothing stupid. One can reasonably argue that torturing terrorists would allow to give some information which would allow to prevent future attacks. I don't believe, but this is beyond the point.There's been nothing stupid about Assad's State terrorism so far.
I disagree. Everybody is vulnerable to false flag operations. Especially if nobody even cares of presenting any proofs.That of course makes him vulnerable to a false flag operation. But the gain is worth that risk, apparently.
You mistake the role of State terrorism, and the role of the "justifications" for it. Torture, for example, is almost never employed by a State to gain information (and certainly not by Assad) - that is a cover story, a propaganda fable always in obvious conflict with the facts. The conflict is usually so obvious that a reasonable person is forced to notice that it must be intended - that the lie is meant to be seen, and part of the operation of the terror regime.Yes. About the real state terrorism (inclusive some torture or extralegal killing of various islamists, which I don't know about, but which seems sufficiently plausible) there is nothing stupid. One can reasonably argue that torturing terrorists would allow to give some information which would allow to prevent future attacks. I don't believe, but this is beyond the point.
Ok. But don't argue backwards from that to Assad being other than he is. If you are making that bargain, as was made with Saddam and Shah Pahlavi and so many others around the world, make it with your eyes open.But if Assad thinks otherwise, this is not a big problem for me. There are a lot of much more important questions for me. Like the ability for a Christian, or an atheist, to live a peaceful live in Syria.
Assad knows better - as did Saddam, his nearest neighbor in more ways than one.But the use of chemical weapons would be stupid. It would be "worse than a crime... It [would be] a blunder"
Learn to read. My position does not depend on that question. I take what can be used, in principle, for a justification, and reject even this justification.You mistake the role of State terrorism, and the role of the "justifications" for it. Torture, for example, is almost never employed by a State to gain information
I don't argue what he is. I have no base to think he is a peaceful nice guy, and I have also no base to believe the NATO propaganda. What I can say, after seeing some interview, is that he is not stupid, certainly not that stupid as he should be to use chemical weapons.Ok. But don't argue backwards from that to Assad being other than he is.
You mistake the role of State terrorism, and that mistake is:Learn to read. My position does not depend on that question. I take what can be used, in principle, for a justification, and reject even this justification.
It's not a stupid thing for him to do. One of the reasons to believe that he has done it is that it makes sense for him to have done it - just as it made sense for Saddam, and so many others.What I can say, after seeing some interview, is that he is not stupid, certainly not that stupid as he should be to use chemical weapons.
Of course, I know about the role of state terrorism - simply to create fear and terror among the population.You mistake the role of State terrorism, and that mistake is:
1) visible in your positing of something that you think could "in principle" justify torture, in other words be an actual motive (however wrong) for State torture (gathering information);
2) the apparent error behind your thinking that Assad would be "stupid" to engage in such State terrorism as gas attacks with UN observers present.
Above know that it does not matter what they do, their picture in the Western press will be extremely unfavorable. Even if they would bow down to America, it would not help them - too late. So, live with the fact that they don't have to care about this.The point is: it's reasonable to accept Assad as the best option for Syria, given the unholy horrorshow the US created by invading Iraq. I lean that way myself - certainly all US efforts to change Syrian governance should be nonviolent, imho. W&Cheney have all but destroyed the US military's ability to do anyone any good in that part of the world, even wisely and prudently led. But don't close your eyes. Assad's governance is what it is, and it's not pretty. And Putin's alliance with him reflects favorably on neither man.