Russia Complicit in the gassing of Syrians?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by joepistole, Apr 7, 2017.


Is Russia complicit or incompetent in the gassing of Syrians?

  1. Complicit

    3 vote(s)
  2. Incompetent

    0 vote(s)
  3. Both

    4 vote(s)
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No. Not "simply". To the purpose. Sophisticatedly.

    But it is becoming more and more clear exactly why you don't see fascism:
    Of course it is. It's completely standard, run-of-the-mill insurrection-suppression. Carrot and stick, is the Western term.
    But that leaves the real Assad, who keeps gas handy and a fully operational system of black site and torture prisons. Who doesn't "want" to create fear and terror, but definitely knows how to at need.
    Sure. So? Lots of people don't care what the Western press thinks of them. That doesn't redeem them.
    And the people of Syria will know that as well. If they had any doubts, they can recall being gassed with Western observers right there - no protection from that direction.
    CNN has been looking for a chance to do that for weeks now. They had a good thing going with that guy - sold a lot of cornflakes, as they say.

    The rest of them are signed on to the bothsides program, and Trump's been stretching them thin - they need to say something good about him, for "balance" and "objectivity" and "journalism" and "bothsides", asap, and this is their first chance in a while.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Best make sure, first, that Trump really does listen to his generals. Because the mere presence of a possible counterattack is not something I would count on to discourage Trump if he's feeling dissed and unsupervised, and the communication saved a fair number of Russian lives and trouble in an essentially trivial matter of domestic US politics. To the point that it looks like Russian cooperation, not just tolerance.

    You really want to hang a war trigger on the moods and domestic political needs of this American President? Putin doesn't. He's got plans.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Who is the boss in Syria? Assad? Or some other group behind the scene? Or the bad uncontrollable system as a whole?

    1. Role of Syrian regime in using cruel means against the uprising cannot be questioned.

    2. Role of US in fermenting and supporting rebels also cannot be questioned.

    3. CNN etc can create huge propaganda in any direction, so media fairness can be questioned.

    4. Is Assad a good guy or bad guy ? Well his early day in power speaks volumes about his good intentions for Syrians. His lethal approach towards uprising does not gel with his early days, so its prudent to ask if he is guided or forced by some powerful group or such groups are working on their own.

    Its almost over in Syria...not that problem is resolved but any chances of normalcy are over. Trump and Putin will ensure at least 5 years moratorium on peace (not on civil unrest)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    What the application of gas by Saddam Hussein has to do with carrot and stick is unclear. The situation is a completely different one. Hussein has been supported in this war by the US, and nobody else has supportied Iran. So, the Iran as well as the Kurd had been fair game. Even then, your wiki mentions "the use of chemical weapons was done for good measure to assure no survivors were possible". So, even in this case there was the attempt to hide it. With stupid firing a few chemical shells into a town with a lot of citizens, killing only some 80 or so of them, hiding it would be impossible.
    The real Assad is simply unknown. And I don't even look for such things even if I see them. Focus on personal qualities is a typical for propaganda, so it is a good idea to stay away of such things.
    To reach this effect, there would be no need to use chemical weapons. Standard legal weapons would be completely sufficient. So, not plausible at all. (Beyond the fact that Assad is, for the reasons explained, not interested in such things.)
    LOL. Why I'm not surprised of your reaction at all? Its all so predictable ....
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    That's not the question. The only question is if he is less or more evil than Al Qaeda or Daesh. For Alewites and Christians as well as other non-wahabi people, inclusive atheists, the answer is clear, they want to survive and continue to follow their own religious belief, so Assad is less evil for them.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Looks that I have to correct myself, I have found, in the German NATO press, again an open attack against one of the Trump team. Because of some comparison of Assad with Hitler, which was criticized as politically incorrect because, you know, the Holocaust is incomparable with anything, not even the horrible Assad gas attacks.

    Looks like a consequence of some statements by Mattis, which suggest that fighting the IS (instead of Assad) remains priority.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Oh, I see why they attack Sean Spicer. He was too open about the aims of the US: To destabilize Syria.

    Ok, sounds like a Freudian error - he tried to correct it, into a quite meaningless "destabilize the conflict there". But it is a correct description of the US policy in Syria.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Few things would work better. That's why Saddam used them, after all.
    I can't think for you. The link was to Saddam employing both amnesties and gas attacks to put down insurrection.

    Maybe if you remember that the reference was to the use of amnesty by Assad, and why your assumption that these amnesties conflicted with his use of terrorist tactics (gas, torture, etc) made no sense, your confusion will clear up.
    The real Assad is known to keep gas handy that is (as you said) no good for modern war, apparently use it, and maintain torture prisons.
    The US also supported Iran, as did other countries. The US also made overtures and provided some support to the Kurds.–Iraq_War
    Hussein knew very well it was impossible to hide - he wanted a veneer of diplomatic deniability, not concealment. He certainly wanted to make sure other Kurds and all his enemies knew about the gas - that was kind of the point.
    Assad, likewise, wants his capability of terrorism to be known to potential targets. That's the whole point of doing it.

    Again - none of this means Assad gassed anyone. What it means is that thinking it would be stupid or uncharacteristic of him to have done so, exactly as we see happened, is mistaken.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You have confused yourself by using the propaganda term "politically incorrect". Spicer was not "politically incorrect", but wildly disconnected from reality.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Ok, I see your point. But, sorry, the role as of the gas attacks, as of the amnesty is quite different.

    In the Syrian case, all the fighters have an alternative to the amnesty, transfer to Idlib. Compare with "The decree was declared most likely because Baghdad believed the peshmerga had finally been defeated" of wiki. It is one thing to present yourself as a nice guy to prevent a resurgence after winning the war - kill them all, but after this make peace with the survivors. This makes some sense. And another thing to use amnesty in the hope that those who have yet weapons, and have yet possibilities to continue fighting, may lay down their weapons. And to combine this with horror attacks at the same time. Which makes no sense.

    Then, your wiki claims the gas "attack is considered separate from the al-Anfal campaign and was one of the last attacks by the Iraqis during the Iran–Iraq War", that means, part of a gas attack in a war. So, your claimed combination is rejected even by your own source.
    No, it is not known if he yet keeps some gas hidden.
    Not without reason they have been named Empire of Chaos.
    The quote "to assure no survivors were possible" suggests something different, but that's not that important. The point is anyway that the actual claimed attack would have been impossible to hide, because it did not even do what Hussein's attack tried, and what could have given that result.

    I know that if criminals know they will not be punished, they do their crimes demonstratively, and like it if people know about it. The case of German SWAT teams regularly beating those arrested in their homes is a particular example of this. But we have no such case here. How Trump will react to an open chemical attack was completely unpredictable, given that his whole foreign policy is unpredictable. So, the "we can do this" meme also does not make sense here.

    Why this? Was there any use of chemical weapons by Hitler on some battlefield?
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    But that does make sense. It's standard operating procedure, for guys like Saddam, or Assad, or any of the dozens of such strongmen past and present.
    No logic visible. What are you talking about?
    How Trump would react was pretty well known, and therefore largely irrelevant. Assad - if that was his doing, as is quite possible - would have made his point anyway.
    Irrelevant. Spicer's comment was wildly disconnected from reality.
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Not at all. Assad throwing chemical weapons would make sense only if he would know Trump would not react. My point was Trump's reaction was unpredictable, so that this assumption makes no sense. But if it was known that Trump will react in the way he actually has reacted, it makes even less sense for Assad to throw chemical weapons.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Uh, no. He knows Trump's limits, Putin's had his back, he can deny whatever, he has no serious worries about an occasional demonstration like that.

    Which is why it would appeal as a false flag, also - it's plausible. The biggest problem would be getting and handling the gas - that stuff is not easy or cheap to deal with, even in peaceful and controlled settings:
    btw: notice that the Japanese medical people were handling the hundreds of victims with bare hands, etc.
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    If Sarin is really used, I would also guess some government is behind this. Why one may think this is a a problem is beyond me. The terrorists have all government support they need - Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, USA, ...
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Hey, he's your man. You guys elected him.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Delivery or manufacture, handling and storage and deployment, in the middle of a civil war, in a war zone. Not at all easy, or safe. And unlike Assad, they must keep it secret and know in advance they can.
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    For special forces no problem at all. Produce and store it in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, the border with Turkey is in their control, the territory up to Khan Sheikhun too. And, no, it is Assad who must keep it secret, because Assad has signed a convention forbidding them, the terrorists have not signed anything, and the Western press would not care at all if they have and use it.
    Even if one believes that "Russian influence" nonsense - why should Russia care if they are so stupid to tell in the open their real aims - destabilizing Syria?

    Those Russian commentators who argued that Clinton may be better for Russia were afraid that Trumps new policy could really have a chance to make America great again. If Trump simply repeats Obama's politics, he is not dangerous for Russia. Obama's politics have failed 8 years, they will fail 4 more years too.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    In which case the secrecy in which it has been kept would point to Assad.

    But even Assad only has to keep it deniable, not truly secret - that would be his preference, even. As with Saddam, he gains by fostering the fear of it - we saw Saddam actually refusing to confirm he had no gas or nukes, when he had in fact destroyed them. He also gains by demonstrating his impunity in using it, as he just did (if that was him).
    But then the false flag doesn't work.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Up to now, it is not even known if Assad has kept some. If he has, for whatever reasons, he has to do it in secrecy, given that he claims to have none. So, I don't get your point.
    Why this? They work, nicely, as we have seen. The Western press does not care if joepistole's comrades use chemical weapons, except if they claim that Assad was it.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    so you are making progress... well done... using video is much better yes?

    Took you a while but then who's to say....?

Share This Page