Soldato
Nobody said feelings were hurt but apology accepted.
Someone claims there is evidence and i called them on it.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Someone claims there is evidence and i called them on it.
Somewhat unfortunate sequence of events last night - the US had a fairly trivial fire at one of their nuclear missile silos but as per standard procedure initiated plans incase it wasn't just an accident - slap bang in the middle of the first window for any possible response action against Syria - can't imagine what Russian intelligence, etc. would have been thinking seeing all the nuclear command and control stuff spun up.
Soldato
Well IF he did carry out the attack hes totally fooled people like you into thinking hes innocent hasnt he.
Is that the evidence? A picture of some jihadi looking guys in a bus?
After a quick glance of her twitter, you would think the only guilty parties in this war are the Americans and the rebels, no mention of anything the regime has done at all... mind you not surprising, we know what happens to people who criticize syrian rule.
"
Maram Susli (Arabic: مرام سوسلي), also known as Mimi al-Laham, PartisanGirl, Syrian Girl and Syrian Sister,[1] is a Syrian-Australian YouTuber who does videos on topics such as the Syrian Civil War, conspiracy theories and the Gamergate controversy.[2] Susli believes that 9/11 was an inside job[2] and that the New World Order opposes independent countries, including Syria.[1] In a YouTube video, she referred to evidence posted by Theodore Postol, suggesting that the 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, which killed 74 people, was not the work of the Assad government.[3][4] She also stated videos of ISIS beheadings were fake.[2] She is a contributor to websites such as Infowars.[3]"
Last edited:
Surgical strikes are perfectly feasible, which is exactly what happened last year; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...tary-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html
We'd probably see a repeat of the above, perhaps over a wider area focusing on a larger range of assets - but the mantra is a simple one, "if you use it to deliver chemical weapons, you lose it"
As for altruism, it opens up a second question; Most people agree that the west made serious mistakes previously (2003 invasion) and acted with negligence which did result in the deaths of lots of civilians - I'm not ignorant to it. However - because previous mistakes were made, does that mean we should never ever take part in anything ever again, no matter how bad it is?
Is it legitimate or reasonable, to stand by arms folded and say "nope - we won't do anything because of mistakes we made 15 years ago" when innocent civilians are being blatantly murdered with chemical weapons by their own state? I think that's a difficult pill to swallow, and I think it sends a dangerous message if a state can do this to it's people and get away with it scot free.
To me, it seems very weak and feeble to, in response to crimes such as genocide stand by and not take any action - simply because 15 years ago we made some big mistakes, therefore we're paralysed from taking part in anything ever again, no matter how bad it is, or how many people are exterminated - is that ok with you?
Suppose that in the coming days - we decide that we shouldn't get involved because it's "not our fight" as a result chemical attacks become far more frequent and widespread resulting in many more deaths, and weapons which hardly anyone ever dared use - start to get used regularly. I assume that would sit fine with you?
It's not just 15 years ago though is it, its dozens of black CIA ops that have resulted in the current ****** world we live in today. I still feel Saddam was just a ruse to kill him so he didn't talk, having a ******* live broadcast hanging was a disgusting reality. (Yes i watched it)
We wouldn't be there if we didn't sell them the chemicals and bombs in the first place and we still do it.
15 years ago, 50 - 100 years ago, I get it - the west hasn't been a paragon of "all things good" in the way it claims, in many ways it has a hell of a lot of blood on it's hands - I don't deny it, I accept it's a problem.
But I pose the question again; do previous problems, failings, misjudgements, or incompetence, absolve us of any humanitarian responsibility to help out with a situation such as this, especially considering the potentially grave risks of not acting, and signalling to current and potential aggressors - that you can get away with chemical weapons use against civilians?
How far do you let things escalate? 1k dead, 10k, 50k, 100k, ? at what point do you say "actually, it's time to go in and try to sort this out as a coalition" or should we never ever go in and help under any circumstances ever, no matter how bad the situation is, simply because it's not our problem?
Soldato
You're missing the point, you want to take action against a country without any evidence again, we could learn from our mistakes and wait for some actual evidence.
btw what about yemen and other countries with all whats going on, how come we dont care about them ? infact we supply weapons to saudi scumbag arabia so they can kill people
On the question of evidence - who do you trust? international organisations such as WHO, (who have confirmed it) and countless others? or Russia/Syria who sit there saying "nope, nothing happened, no trace of anything - and you're not even allowed to send investigators" .. ?
On the question of Yemen - I ask you; Is it reasonable to sit back and do nothing - because there are other problems in the world, as though it's somehow only realistic to take care of one problem, provided we're willing to commit to solving all of the worlds problems?
It seems pretty problematic to say "we can't help out at all in Syria because we didn't help out in Yemen first" or words to that effect.
I'm actually not against solving our/someone elses mistakes by intervention, but if the intervention is because we sold them billions of dollars worth of chemical precursor, weapons systems, helping keep these despots in power at times with information, then it's a lost cause frankly because there's still an agenda there somewhere.
If the US flat out said what it's aims were in the region and actually attempts to achieve it without all this other baggage, then i'd be a much less cynical person, but considering SA just bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, i'm going to say it's not happening any time soon.
Same mistakes ever single ******* year for the last century, it can't be total incompetence (Bay of Pigs was perhaps the biggest sign that it might be) so we must just love killing people, indirectly or not.
If the US flat out said what it's aims were in the region and actually attempts to achieve it without all this other baggage, then i'd be a much less cynical person, but considering SA just bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, i'm going to say it's not happening any time soon.
Same mistakes ever single ******* year for the last century, it can't be total incompetence (Bay of Pigs was perhaps the biggest sign that it might be) so we must just love killing people, indirectly or not.
Soldato
source ?
i wasnt aware any chemical weapons experts had been in and examined the site other than the russians
edit also the russians are the ones asking for an enquiry so you just made that bit up
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Yeah it's fake news, no one other then the Russians have visited the area. WHO are demanding access to the site.
Actually the Russian's used their UN VETO to block an investigation, the resolution you're referring too was one they put forward after so they could try and trick people like you into saying things like the above quote.
Soldato
so they did put one forward lol ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,649
Assad wasn't allegedly gassing his own people until we started arming and training people we thought were "moderate" islamists who turned out to be just as scummy as ISIS and Al Qaeda
We caused this ******* mess and now the solution is to drop yet more bombs on yet another war torn country we helped tear apart ?
Let's not forget we still have a civil war on our own doorstep that we also helped create in Ukraine but that goes unreported because it's not part of the current narrative of propaganda
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43727829
These are the most dangerous times we've ever been in since the Cuban missile crisis, is it really worth potentially sparking WW3 over ?
The Russians asked for an enquiry at the UN SC yes, but they specifically wanted to prevent that enquiry from apportion blame to those responsible. So it would just be a rehash of the OPCW investigation as they don't apportion blame either. Instead they wanted the UN SC to apportion blame, which is pointless, as the Russians would likely veto any attempt at blame to Assad.
The reports on the ground i've read seem legitamate that chemicals were used, looks like chlorine. Which, makes sense considering most defenders would be under ground, using a heavier than air agent would be affect/effective. Cities are the graveyard of armies, and assaulting them tends to cause very heavy losses, something Assad cannot afford after 7 years of war.
They did, but Russia vetoed it as it would have the power to find the perpitrators
Soldato
they as in russia, the poster i originally replied to claimed differently
Sorry, should have been more precise. I ment they as in the US, UK and France, proposed a resolution to set up an investigation and that it would have the power to apportion blame to the purpitrator. Russia vetoed it. The Russian backed resolution that would investigate if the weapons had been used, but not the power to apportion blame. Who to blame would be left to the security council, which of course ment any member with veto power could cause an obstruction.
Last edited:
What do you think is the most likely and reasonable explanation?
Assad backed by Russia used chemical weapons? (as per previous incidents)
No chemical weapons were used at all?
Chemical weapons were used by the rebels, or third party?
Based on the information coming out of the region, and previous history - what do you think is going on here?