ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Tefal said:
Well except for all the bodies pictures videos eye witness reports etc.

Yeah aside from all the evidence there's no evidence.
Click to expand...

You mean that same video looping of someone squirting a water hosepipe over everyone.

There have been many false films of chemical attacks there. Just google them.
 
h4rm0ny said:
My opinion is that it would have to be a genuine question on your part. I don't mean to be facetious - what I'm saying is I don't envisage any plausible scenario where the USA / UK invade Syria for the purpose of preventing tragedies like this. We are right now tolerating mass starvation in Yemen in a famine caused by a regime which we have kept in power and to which we sell the weapons they use to kill these people. If we shake hands with those who kill millions, do you honestly believe that we would ever invade a nation over the killing of a hundred? The only scenarios in which the UK and USA will invade Syria are ones of power and self-interest. In which case, it is not feasible to my mind that we would improve things. I mean the situation there is in large part the fault of US interference. So I regard the question of whether the USA would help matters for altruistic reasons as not merely hypothetical but contradictory. I don't believe your question can be answered in any way that is compatible with the reality of the situation.​
Click to expand...

The problem with conflating two different issues, is that once you do - it invokes a paralysis where it doesn't make sense to do anything, because as you correctly point out - it seems pointless to allow suffering to take place in one part of the world, whilst immediately getting involved militarily in another part - just because chemical weapons - I agree, it makes no real sense.

For me, the problem isn't about invading countries and regime change, we're not really talking about invasions here - more surgical strikes against assets. It's about the risk of inaction when established lines are crossed, specifically the use of chemical weapons, along with the escalation that could occur if there were no consequences for crossing such lines, if we're essentially going to stand by and allow the use of chemical weapons - that could set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.
 
Tefal said:
Well except for all the bodies pictures videos eye witness reports etc.

Yeah aside from all the evidence there's no evidence.


Kinda like how the inspection of Auschwitz found no evidence of genocide, killings or even poor conditions?
Click to expand...

then please do hand over all your evidence that a chemical attack was carried out by assad, you could save the investigating teams a whole bunch of time.
 
I also think, that as a side issue - Russia is playing a game where it's using Assad to push the boundaries of what it can get away with, from it's campaign of mis-information and fake news.

If you look at all that's happened in the last decade, Russia has put an enormous amount of effort into delegitimising western governments, to the point where all of the mis-information and messing around has resulted in the general public, having such a distrust of their own governments, that it's become almost impossible for them to operate or get anything done.

With such low levels of government trust, it's very very difficult to get public support together to take meaningful action on something - even with flagrant acts of things like genocide, or shooting down airliners etc - government trust is so low, our leaders and politicians can barely hang on to leadership, let alone act strongly and decisively on humanitarian issues. I think this is a tactic Russia has been playing all along (non-linear warfare) - and things like this recent use of chemical weapons is the regime using Assad as a puppet to test the waters.

/Just my own thoughts #whocares
 
Screeeech said:
If you look at all that's happened in the last decade, Russia has put an enormous amount of effort into delegitimising western governments, to the point where all of the mis-information and messing around has resulted in the general public, having such a distrust of their own governments, that it's become almost impossible for them to operate or get anything done.
Click to expand...


i think our own governments did a pretty good job of that, putin certainly wasnt needed.

just think back to tony blair and iraq. i dont remember russia having a hand in all that

it just seems be to the same stuff all over again, just believe everything we say and dont ever ask why someone would do this or ask for evidence.
if you dont believe what the government says you must be anti west, you must be a terrorist sympathizer, you must be a conspiracy theorist, oh you're pro-dicatator
 
Screeeech said:
The problem with conflating two different issues, is that once you do - it invokes a paralysis where it doesn't make sense to do anything, because as you correctly point out - it seems pointless to allow suffering to take place in one part of the world, whilst immediately getting involved militarily in another part - just because chemical weapons - I agree, it makes no real sense.

For me, the problem isn't about invading countries and regime change, we're not really talking about invasions here - more surgical strikes against assets. It's about the risk of inaction when established lines are crossed, specifically the use of chemical weapons, along with the escalation that could occur if there were no consequences for crossing such lines, if we're essentially going to stand by and allow the use of chemical weapons - that could set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.
Click to expand...

I don't think "surgical strikes against assets" are feasible. For one, making Chlorine gas is pretty easy and uses commonly available materials. Sarin isn't that hard. Do you really think it's possible? Besides, the same applies - it doesn't make a difference. There is not a scenario, to my mind, in which the West takes military action against other nations for reasons of altruism. It demonstrably would not happen because we are so willing to ignore our own far greater crimes. You're asking "should we" for something I am certain cannot happen with the way things are. Also, would you accept it the other way around? If Syrian jets flew over Israel and blew up a factory where they made White Phosphorus (legal, but not as a weapon which Israel has used it as), would you expect Israel or the USA to be cool with that? If Iran torpedoed a few of our nuclear subs or bombed nuclear silos in the USA, what do you think would happen? Your question is yes or no, where the yes cannot exist.
 
Screeeech said:
As for the question of evidence and who you choose to believe, that's up to you - but I think you'd be pretty naive (and stupid) to believe anything the Syrian army says whatsoever, it's not like they're renowned for being a bastion of truth, there's enough good documented evidence that shows them lying through their teeth time and time again.

From a military perspective, any response would probably be geared towards taking out assets, such as suspected chemical weapons caches, airfields, aircraft, hardware used to deliver chemical weapons etc, basically things that can be used to deliver chemical weapons would be targeted, rather than taking on infantry - probably using tomahawk cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anything that comes out of that region, just like I don't believe the lies that come out from our own government time & again

I certainly don't think we should be risking confrontation with Russia over all of this though, hasn't enough blood been spilled already due to our meddling ?

In the last 10 years we've had a hand in destroying Iraq, Libya and Syria... for what ?

Every year we send millions in aid to Israel so that they can continue their oppression of Palestinians

We allow Saudi Arabia to run a dictatorship under the guise of a monarchy because they let us use their airfields and have lots of oil for us

We send aid to India who have their own ******* space program ffs

The world is a ****** up place just like our leaders moral compasses, they're all snakes

You think if there was a civil war in the UK the government wouldn't resort to dirty tactics in order to win ? It's war, it's ugly feigning outrage over use of chemical weapons whilst it's perfectly acceptable to attack hospitals and cities with precision guided bombs or open up a M230 Chain Gun on a van full of journalist is just laughable

But please, show me a war where no innocents died because that's the message you're sending that you expect war to be clean and only the fighters get hurt which is as far from reality as is possible
 
Screeeech said:
If you look at all that's happened in the last decade, Russia has put an enormous amount of effort into delegitimising western governments, to the point where all of the mis-information and messing around has resulted in the general public, having such a distrust of their own governments, that it's become almost impossible for them to operate or get anything done.
Click to expand...

If I were to list the top ten reasons I don't trust my government, I highly doubt Russia would be on it.
 
Tefal said:
Cause it works they haven't been able to take the town for days one big attack including chlorine which they've been using regularly and they surrender
Click to expand...

Nope.

Douma being part of Ghouta, the rebels/terrorists already surrendered and was being bussed out. Only the rebels in Douma was holding out.

They was holding out because they had over 4000+ hostages that they held in underground prisons and that they paraded in cages many years ago, used as human shields and was using them as bargaining chips in the negotiations.

Only two weeks ago, they released a video to show some of them underground as a proof of life video.

These hostages come from many backgrounds, due to the war, all likely had family members in the SSA. No one is going to gas their own families.

There was no chemical attack by the SSA. It served absolutely no tactical sense, while on strategic table, it's insanely bad for them.

The negotiations with the rebels was working, they didn't need to launch an chemical attack that would also hurt civilians and the hostages.

There is no evidence that the SSA did this, there has been no interdependent inspectors on the ground.

The only thing there is that some video by the "White Hats" which is a group that work closely with terrorist groups like ISIL, AL-Qaeda, FSA and all the other rebel groups.

These White Hats have been shown in photos and video of waving ISIL black flags, equipped with weapons, attending executions and taking snapchats with the fighters, holding the heads of decapitated heads of innocents. A lot of them are the fighters themselves switching roles for the camera.

Their leader is banned from visiting the US, that should be setting alarm bells.

You know an other group that had high production videos? ISIL. White Hats are no different. They are fake, even their name is fake. The Syria Civil Defence, that name was stolen by the real Syria Civil Defence that are doing real rescue work.

Can you honestly say, you support the word of these people to support the bombing of Syria and possible risking Russia getting involved?

Especially after the last so called "chemical attack by Assad" that resulted in Trump bombing some empty air field. That only a few months ago, Gen Mattis admits that there was no evidence that Assed used Sarin Gas

I bet if I go back year or two from in people posts here, like yours, I bet you was fully supportive of bombing the crap out of them.

You know who have used chemical weapons? ISIS, least 52 times.

So who did the attack? These people did the attack.

p6q6PX9.png

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/983669506936418304

The below video is the Russian Military Police turning up to inspect the area, do you notice how normal it is there? How many people are walking around? In the area that got hit by a suspected chemical attack?

No one is wearing PPE, no Gas Masks, nothing. Chemical weapons in whatever form they are used in can be trapped or soak into every day objects, only to be released when moved.

From what I can learn, Sarin Gas can last for a few weeks while Chlorine Gas when exposed to the air, can last 7+ minutes according to this report if it's correct.


I'm not a chemical warfare expert, but that isn't normal, that entire area would be sealed off by now and hazmat suit galore, because who knows what gas or chemicals could had been used.


Point is am not going to trust some dodgy video from the White Hats that are best buddies with head chopping religious fanatics and proceed to bomb a country to bits on their word.

Independent investigation by different groups and bodies before any sort of action.
 
IronWarrior said:
I'm not a chemical warfare expert, but that isn't normal, that entire area would be sealed off by now and hazmat suit galore, because who knows what gas or chemicals could had been used.
Click to expand...

Depends - if it was something like chlorine gas and they knew it was than it disperses fairly quickly if it was something else then all bets are off. Problem is you are seeing what you want to see - but it could be anything from them knowing there was no chemical weapons through to simply not having access to CBRN equipment any time soon and some of the nastier stuff it doesn't matter if you are semi-prepared as equipment not of the right level for it is sometimes pretty much as useless as having no equipment at all.

There are too many shades of grey here and not enough black and white regardless of which side you err towards.

That and with the number of people around and have been going in and out if there was something nasty still active a lot more would probably be dropping dead or showing some kind of symptoms long before the RMP got there. Though I agree about the potential for undisturbed surface contamination, etc.
 
Pretty much a standard advisory in this case as there is the potential of military action - AFAIK no actual NOTAMs have been published.
 
Rroff said:
Depends - if it was something like chlorine gas and they knew it was than it disperses fairly quickly if it was something else then all bets are off. Problem is you are seeing what you want to see - but it could be anything from them knowing there was no chemical weapons through to simply not having access to CBRN equipment any time soon and some of the nastier stuff it doesn't matter if you are semi-prepared as equipment not of the right level for it is sometimes pretty much as useless as having no equipment at all.

There are too many shades of grey here and not enough black and white regardless of which side you err towards.

That and with the number of people around and have been going in and out if there was something nasty still active a lot more would probably be dropping dead or showing some kind of symptoms long before the RMP got there. Though I agree about the potential for undisturbed surface contamination, etc.
Click to expand...

Which is why we need Independent investigation by different groups and bodies before any sort of action, like you said, too many shades of grey, no one knows what has really happened there.



 
Amnesia said:
because we ask why would assad do that when he is winning the war and he has everything to lose and nothing to gain from it you call us pro dictators ?
how about you provide some proof that he did the chemical attack rather than childish insults
Click to expand...
I am sorry that stating people are pro dictatorship insulted you and hurt people's feelings.

Amnesia said:
then please do hand over all your evidence that a chemical attack was carried out by assad, you could save the investigating teams a whole bunch of time.
Click to expand...

Woah woah, look at these childish insults! Tut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom