Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Betonov]

Here's an opinion of mine.

Western media and politicians defend the intervention by comparing the non-intervention in Srebrenica in the 90's.
Syria is NOT Srebrenica.

One might say it's worse, which is true. Syrian civil war killed more than a 100 000 people by now. Srebrenicas massacre took ~8000 lives.
But the Bosnian civil war was not really a civil war. It was social engineering. Serbs wanted to make Bosnia all Serb and later anexed into a greater Serbia and so they went on a genocidal campaign. You were executed by being Muslim. Fighter or no fighter, if you were not a Serb you were killed. The world watched intentional slaughter of civilians and did nothing.

Syria is different. One nation, one religion (can't really remember if there's a sunii-shiite issue here also). It's one political group trying to oust the other by any means necessary. There's no intentional slaughter of civilians, just complete disregard for collateral damage by both sides. And if one side wins there will be a slaughter of supporters, but at least they'll be selective. Plus the fact that the rebels will probably commit greater atrocities if they win due to radical elements and sher anger.

Bombing Syria just because the west feels guilty is a sorry excuse.
I don't buy it.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Here's an opinion of mine.

Western media and politicians defend the intervention by comparing the non-intervention in Srebrenica in the 90's.
Syria is NOT Srebrenica.

One might say it's worse, which is true. Syrian civil war killed more than a 100 000 people by now. Srebrenicas massacre took ~8000 lives.
But the Bosnian civil war was not really a civil war. It was social engineering. Serbs wanted to make Bosnia all Serb and later anexed into a greater Serbia and so they went on a genocidal campaign. You were executed by being Muslim. Fighter or no fighter, if you were not a Serb you were killed. The world watched intentional slaughter of civilians and did nothing.

Syria is different. One nation, one religion (can't really remember if there's a sunii-shiite issue here also). It's one political group trying to oust the other by any means necessary. There's no intentional slaughter of civilians, just complete disregard for collateral damage by both sides. And if one side wins there will be a slaughter of supporters, but at least they'll be selective. Plus the fact that the rebels will probably commit greater atrocities if they win due to radical elements and sher anger.

Bombing Syria just because the west feels guilty is a sorry excuse.
I don't buy it.

Totally agree!

It's going to get much worse. As before, if we don't support the rebs, including al-Qaida rebels, they will hate us, if we do, they will hate us and tell us to leave when they go to killing. In this case the cure is worse than the illness.

Obama is fairly clear, wants a small prick that won't solve a thing, it's stupid, just becoming part of the chaos.

[Wolferz]

Well, something must be done to cover up the evidence of our government's meddling in Syrian affairs.

It's just another domino to kick over because the last one in the string didn't knock it down.

World conquest for resources is the name of the game and their new world order will follow up on the mantra they planted in Georgia on their guide stones. One way or another they're going to erase a lot of warm bodies.

[MH]

Syria is different. One nation, one religion (can't really remember if there's a sunii-shiite issue here also). It's one political group trying to oust the other by any means necessary. There's no intentional slaughter of civilians, just complete disregard for collateral damage by both sides. And if one side wins there will be a slaughter of supporters, but at least they'll be selective. Plus the fact that the rebels will probably commit greater atrocities if they win due to radical elements and sher anger.

Syria is ruled by Alawite minority elite.
Alawites are sort of Shia while the majority is Sunni.
What going on in Syria right now is continuation of the same conflict that ended up with tenth of thousand dead in matter of weeks when Assad's father dealt with similar situation back in 80s.
Then it all ended up with quick and ruthless resolve...diffrent times.

[Catfish]

So putting the calculus aside shouldn't we stand for the civilians who get gassed to death?

Of course we should.
If civilians were gassed.*
If there is evidence.**
And if gas was used, who used it - Assad, or the rebels? One of Assad's generals? Both? Who do you bomb when it were the rebels, or both sides?

There are thousands of Taliban on the way to Syria, who is not already there is on the way. They (ab)use the rebels and their cause, but sometimes it is hard to differentiate who is who.
All the rebels are against Assad, who is the enemy: For the normal rebels he is the dictator who tortures and uses all the money for him instead for the people; for the Taliban he is a religious traitor with western (and russian) connections.
But he is also the shield for the jewish and christian population, of Syria. And he stands for a more or less stable nation in the Middle East, and a billable politician.
If the rebels win, the west may have to deal with a Taliban government.

Tough choice, which is why i wrote in an earlier thread that an intervention here could indeed be the first humanitarian action when it comes to an invasion. Whatever we do ..
But we are not talking about an invasion, the US government speaks of certain air strikes. Will that really help ?

* Remember we helped Saddam Hussein back then, when he gassed kurdish civilians. A bit implausible to use that reason now, or have we changed ? Now that would be something. And remember we (the west) sold those chemical weapons to lots of nations in the middle East.

**I mean real evidence. I still remember Powell's 'evidence' before the United Nations probaly provided by the CIA, when it came to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I guess Rumsfeld and Cheney are still laughing. Kerry's speech reminded me of that.

I bring this up because what has been said and lied then, is the same which happens now. That is a pattern, if governments lied then as has unfortunately (for them) leaked out, they certainly do the same now. And evidence turns up every day, literally

?????

What exactly did you not understand ?

[tonschk]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

World conquest for resources is the name of the game and their new world order will follow up on the mantra they planted in Georgia on their guide stones. One way or another they're going to erase a lot of warm bodies.

I agree , The CRIMINAL barack obama regime is looking for excuses and telling lies just to sort out another EXCUSE for another criminal US government invasion

[mapuc]

I have lost all track of what is true and not true in this Syrian crisis. As Skybird posted earlier some German "spy-trawler" have detect that Assad has denied his troops to use Chemicals against the civilians.

In other intelligence information, says it is the other way round.

(Shaking my head) what is the truth in all this??

Please keep all the conspiracy out of this thread and stay on topic if you are going to answer my post.(Please)

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have lost all track of what is true and not true in this Syrian crisis. As Skybird posted earlier some German "spy-trawler" have detect that Assad has denied his troops to use Chemicals against the civilians.

In other intelligence information, says it is the other way round.

(Shaking my head) what is the truth in all this??

Please keep all the conspiracy out of this thread and stay on topic if you are going to answer my post.(Please)

Markus

Agreed

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

... As Skybird posted earlier some German "spy-trawler" have detect that Assad has denied his troops to use Chemicals against the civilians.

Right, it was in the german news since this morning, seems they eavesdropped a lot of military radio traffic ..
They say (?) that some brass staff has demanded to use chemical weapons several times, and Assad forbade.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have lost all track of what is true and not true in this Syrian crisis. As Skybird posted earlier some German "spy-trawler" have detect that Assad has denied his troops to use Chemicals against the civilians.

In other intelligence information, says it is the other way round.

(Shaking my head) what is the truth in all this??

Please keep all the conspiracy out of this thread and stay on topic if you are going to answer my post.(Please)

Markus

Simple.

For the last 40 years or so the USA has had this "line in the sand" policy about the use of WMDs (nuclear, biological, chemical). Somebody used chemical weapons against somebody else in Syria, which triggers the line-in-sand policy. The Obama administration goes out and does some massive sabre rattling about things, deploys warships and other assets, etc. However, they didn't get their facts straight beforehand and it turns out that the guys that got the chemical weapons used against them were Al Qaeda militants.

In the meanwhile, the US has called for its allies, who have talked to their parliaments and have said that they weren't going along for the ride this time, remembering Iraq a decade ago. So now the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place in either going it alone and helping out our enemies or reversing course on the line-in-sand policy. At the end of the day the US gets egg on it's face no matter what.

That's it. No New World Order. No crumbling of western democracy. No inside job. Just a combination of botched politics and bad policies, and people are going to die either way because of it. It is horrible, it is deplorable, but sadly it isn't new.

[Skybird]

The US has known that Saddam used and has helped Saddam to get and use chemical weapons in the Iran war. That is at least morally if not also in terminal effect the same like using such weapons oneself.

The red line policy claim, since 40 years, is a lie.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The US has known that Saddam used and has helped Saddam to get and use chemical weapons in the Iran war. That is at least morally if not also in terminal effect the same like using such weapons oneself.

The red line policy claim, since 40 years, is a lie.

The Skybird replies to me! It is like Christmas, except for Skybird who does not celebrate Christmas.

Here's some light reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

I'll highlight the pertinent part.

United States of America -- April 10, 1975

2013
-1975
38

[Skybird]

Posting # 359.

[Takeda Shingen]

Posting No. 985. Also, think before you call somebody a liar. Foolishness. So much foolishness.

[Tchocky]

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.