Syrian civil war (16 Viewers)

[X Æ A-12]

Assad as an Alawite right? What would happen to the remaining Alawite or other ethnic or religious minorities in Syria/ the region if the "moderate rebels" win and have chance to expand further?

No fucking shit he wont surrender or step down

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ronn]

Assad as an Alawite right? What would happen to the remaining Alawite or other ethnic or religious minorities in Syria/ the region if the "moderate rebels" win and have chance to expand further?

No fucking shit he wont surrender or step down

Many horrible things but what's your point?

EDIT: him leaving the power does not necessarily mean that rebels will win.

 

[j0ker]

I was wondering if it was confirmed anywhere that the Syrian Army did it, because I see everyone is just going along with that. Wouldn't doubt that it was them, but why use the chemical weapons now when they weren't using them before?

I thought this is the 3rd time or 4th they used them but not on this scale.

Edit.. even worse than I thought

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

 

[X Æ A-12]

Many horrible things but what's your point?

EDIT: him leaving the power does not necessarily mean that rebels will win.

Thats probably why he wont step down and the people saying he should to "avoid further bloodshed" seem to have unreallisticaly optimistic view of the opposition

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I thought this is the 3rd time or 4th they used them but not on this scale.

Edit.. even worse than I thought

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

Okay, I mean after the "red line" was drawn

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Anyone who thinks rebels are on higher moral ground is deluding himself, the only reason assad is demonized in the media is because of geopolitical considerations and it feeds the whole david vs goliath narrative. The truth is war is ugly, and the people who plunged their country into this mess with that knowledge, in my eyes bear all the moral responsibility.

 

[king Ale]

I don't get the praise from the opposition either. Except perhaps they know bombing other countries is popular in general, so they don't wanna be seen opposing it. Look at this clown for example. I bet he's sexually aroused saying these words.
[video=twitter;850426241605926913]https://twitter.com/foreignpolicy77/status/850426241605926913[/video]
But as for reason Assad would do It's too simple to think he has none. First of all he committed so many atrocities that using Sarin to kill another 100 pales comparison. I can't think of any reasons for many of his past actions either because I cannot think like a psychopath. Why did he respond that fiercely to a bunch of protesters in 2011? Why did he use chemical weapons in 2013? Why doesn't he take an immunity deal and go live somewhere else to stop this horror? If Assad didn't do this, then who did? who has the power to manufacture Sarin which has a shelf life of a couple of weeks if it's not pure enough? To me it's much more likely that Assad (or a rogue element in Syrian government) did this rather than the rebels.

It makes no sense. Even for a criminal of his caliber there should be a better reason. He's risking his existence, why would he do that? I'd have understood it if these attacks had killed a lot more people, something that would have been unachievable otherwise (i.e., using non-chemical weapons). His motivation for all the things you mentioned was to stay in power. Using chemical bombs at this point (he's won a lot in the past months against the opposition) works exactly the opposite: it threatens his position.

http://m.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

Besides, do you really think Assad, at this point, makes any decision of his own?

- - - Updated - - -

I was wondering if it was confirmed anywhere that the Syrian Army did it, because I see everyone is just going along with that. Wouldn't doubt that it was them, but why use the chemical weapons now when they weren't using them before?

No confirmation.

 

[Ronn]

Thats probably why he wont step down and the people saying he should to "avoid further bloodshed" seem to have unreallisticaly optimistic view of the opposition

I honestly don't think he gives a shit about anybody but his own and his immediate family. and I'm not suggesting he just leaves and leaves the country to the rebels. I mean he can leave as the head of the state as a part of a larger peace deal.

- - - Updated - - -

It makes no sense. Even for a criminal of his caliber there should be a better reason. He's risking his existence, why would he do that? I'd have understood it if these attacks had killed a lot more people, something that would have been unachievable otherwise (i.e., using non-chemical weapons). His motivation for all the things you mentioned was to stay in power. Using chemical bombs at this point (he's won a lot in the past months against the opposition) works exactly the opposite: it threatens his position.

http://m.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

Besides, do you really think Assad, at this point, makes any decision of his own?

My response is more or less the same. I can't say he definitely did not do it since he has done so many illogical things in the past. I can't get into his head, and I'n not even trying.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who thinks rebels are on higher moral ground is deluding himself, the only reason assad is demonized in the media is because of geopolitical considerations and it feeds the whole david vs goliath narrative. The truth is war is ugly, and the people who plunged their country into this mess with that knowledge, in my eyes bear all the moral responsibility.

Assad is as responsible as ISIS and rebels for this quagmire. no more. no less.

 

[king Ale]

No, to me Assad is the most responsible because of the position he held, because if no one in the world cared about people of Syria, he should have, and because almost half a million of his people have been killed.

People often can't see far past their collective actions, you can call them naive or stupid but they are not as morally responsible as a person who knows what the consequence of bombing people (his people) is and still does it.

 

[Zacheryah]

Please stop with your hubris and constant position changes:

-rebels have already used sarin before
-had it been Hillary who ordered the attacks you would be all up russias ass and its explanation

You are no different than the people you criticize

There really is no reason for the insults. Or do you trow them at me cause your arguments are completely flawed and wrong ?


1) The biggest evidence, is Assads explenation.
- Do you want me to list you a bunch of chemical properties and reactions that easily explain why Assad's explenation is completely impossible ? We can end this all right there.

2) Rebels have never used Sarin before. You have just two debatable exceptions, which quickly explains how you are wrong.

- The Aum Shinrikyo cult over 20 years ago did two attacks with a shitty sarin composition. In total 20 deaths despite an extremely crowded Metro. This was BEFORE the ban on schedule 1 substances went into effect two years later. This cult specialised in the Sarin attacks, yet they managed a very poor casualty rate.
Why ? Cause its Sarin and its hard to use

- Some rebels blew up an old artillery shell. Which can happen again. Amazing radical news : nobody died. Two US soldiers had to get a bit of threatment.
Why ? Cause its Sarin and its hard to use

3) 80+ people died in some shitpants village. No rebel group in the world can use Sarin this effective.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

There really is no reason for the insults. Or do you trow them at me cause your arguments are completely flawed and wrong ?


1) The biggest evidence, is Assads explenation.
- Do you want me to list you a bunch of chemical properties and reactions that easily explain why Assad's explenation is completely impossible ? We can end this all right there.

2) Rebels have never used Sarin before. You have just two debatable exceptions, which quickly explains how you are wrong.

- The Aum Shinrikyo cult over 20 years ago did two attacks with a shitty sarin composition. In total 20 deaths despite an extremely crowded Metro. This was BEFORE the ban on schedule 1 substances went into effect two years later. This cult specialised in the Sarin attacks, yet they managed a very poor casualty rate.
Why ? Cause its Sarin and its hard to use

- Some rebels blew up an old artillery shell. Which can happen again. Amazing radical news : nobody died. Two US soldiers had to get a bit of threatment.
Why ? Cause its Sarin and its hard to use

3) 80+ people died in some shitpants village. No rebel group in the world can use Sarin this effective.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

You are welcome

- - - Updated - - -

No, to me Assad is the most responsible because of the position he held, because if no one in the world cared about people of Syria, he should have, and because almost half a million of his people have been killed.

People often can't see far past their collective actions, you can call them naive or stupid but they are not as morally responsible as a person who knows what the consequence of bombing people (his people) is and still does it.

Who assumes responsibilty of casualties in an assault on a hostage situation? But that is one element, what if the majority of the Syrians want him to stay?

 

[Zacheryah]

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

You are welcome

Another small stream political article. Which is nice, thanks for that. But it neglects the big issue regarding Sarin aside from 1 mention.


- Sarin is an extremely unstable, volatile liquid. It breaks down very quickly, rendering it harmless. We are talking about breaking down in matters of houres. Rendering it useless.
- In order to keep it stable for a while, it has to be kept in a vaccum togheter with its acidic residue. However, this creates 2 insane issues
--- 1) As mentionned in the article, its godlike corrosive. it will leak after not too long
----2) Its very difficult to create a pure Sarin with 'pure residue' that doesnt interact with the Sarin itself, other then blocking its natural breakdown reaction.
-------- No country except Russia and especially the US ever managed to create Sarin with a shelft life over 2 weeks.

- There is a way around the issue of corrosion. You store the final two precursors in a ball, with separated chamber, when the shell or rocket gets fired, they get mixed at extreme speed creating Sarin.
---- This removes the corrosion issue partly (not entirely) but the shelf life remains short as the precursors ALSO break down quick as fuck.



So how does someone actually use this stuff, if its so difficult ??

- A high quality lab makes it. Loads it into balls, loads it into warheads. Product is used within two weeks. Consider it a direct use production facility.
---> the rebels in Iraq that got that Sarin warhead in 2004, simply got one that was WAY older then 2 weeks, so the stuff didnt to much anymore


- US found a way to stabilise Sarin without the residual acid. This requires labs only a few countries have. Only the US has one specialising in Sarin (and probably the UK too).







What is the question you must ask yourself ?


- Knowing the extreme short shelflife of unamerican Sarin gas. Where was this produced, and how did the rebels get it ?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Another small stream political article. Which is nice, thanks for that. But it neglects the big issue regarding Sarin aside from 1 mention.


- Sarin is an extremely unstable, volatile liquid. It breaks down very quickly, rendering it harmless. We are talking about breaking down in matters of houres. Rendering it useless.
- In order to keep it stable for a while, it has to be kept in a vaccum togheter with its acidic residue. However, this creates 2 insane issues
--- 1) As mentionned in the article, its godlike corrosive. it will leak after not too long
----2) Its very difficult to create a pure Sarin with 'pure residue' that doesnt interact with the Sarin itself, other then blocking its natural breakdown reaction.
-------- No country except Russia and especially the US ever managed to create Sarin with a shelft life over 2 weeks.

- There is a way around the issue of corrosion. You store the final two precursors in a ball, with separated chamber, when the shell or rocket gets fired, they get mixed at extreme speed creating Sarin.
---- This removes the corrosion issue partly (not entirely) but the shelf life remains short as the precursors ALSO break down quick as fuck.



So how does someone actually use this stuff, if its so difficult ??

- A high quality lab makes it. Loads it into balls, loads it into warheads. Product is used within two weeks. Consider it a direct use production facility.
---> the rebels in Iraq that got that Sarin warhead in 2004, simply got one that was WAY older then 2 weeks, so the stuff didnt to much anymore


- US found a way to stabilise Sarin without the residual acid. This requires labs only a few countries have. Only the US has one specialising in Sarin (and probably the UK too).







What is the question you must ask yourself ?


- Knowing the extreme short shelflife of unamerican Sarin gas. Where was this produced, and how did the rebels get it ?

Lol pullitzer winning journalist, also I'll take the expertise of an official united nations investigation which actually has evidence over yours. Once again ridiculous hubris.

 

[Zacheryah]

Lol pullitzer winning journalist, also I'll take the expertise of an official united nations investigation which actually has evidence over yours. Once again ridiculous hubris.

Where is the evidence regarding the production and supply of Sarin to rebels ?


I'm very much willing to return to Russia's side. But unless i get an answer to the above, i cant.



The simple truth is this. Only China, Russia and the US could have provided it. Russia and China are on Assad's side.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Where is the evidence regarding the production and supply of Sarin to rebels ?


I'm very much willing to return to Russia's side. But unless i get an answer to the above, i cant.



The simple truth is this. Only China, Russia and the US could have provided it. Russia and China are on Assad's side.

Try the objective rational side. Also your question shows me you have not read the article.

 

[ALC]

To everyone acting like US bombed their people, that's not correct. They bombed the base where Assad operates from. Totally different than bombing citizens. And who else over there would have the capability of making Sarin?

 

[Bjerknes]

I don't care if Assad gasses the whole goddamn decrepit middle east, there is no reason for us to be involved in yet another war escalation. Most likely the attack was a false flag anyway, nobody knows what the hell is going on there with all the pseudo-ISIS and so called "moderate rebels" anyway. If this escalates then Trump is in big trouble, a lot of his hardcore supporters are already turning against him simply because of this. It had better be a flexing of muscles and not anything else. Regardless, it's stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. For some people somehow bombing the $#@! out of a country and killing thousands is less abhorrent than killing a hundred as long as you don't use chemical bombs.

The way democrats are praising Trump for this is so freaking hilarious. These attacks are only to redeem Trump (especially regrading his relationship with Russia). They can't even prove that Assad did that, and why on earth would he? (think about it, is there a single reason explaining the use of chemical weapons killing ~80 people?) If there was one single soul in the US government (this one and the previous) who cared about Syrians, the rebels wouldn't have been funded and armed. Sure, nobody in Russia or Iran gives a damn about Syrians either, but they don't claim to do so either.

It's just more proof the Democrats are insane authoritarians. Assad gassing those folks is like me pulling my pants down in a job interview -- it makes no sense and anyone with half a brain can see that. Total false flag attack by those who want war.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I don't care if Assad gasses the whole goddamn decrepit middle east, there is no reason for us to be involved in yet another war escalation. Most likely the attack was a false flag anyway, nobody knows what the hell is going on there with all the pseudo-ISIS and so called "moderate rebels" anyway. If this escalates then Trump is in big trouble, a lot of his hardcore supporters are already turning against him simply because of this. It had better be a flexing of muscles and not anything else. Regardless, it's stupid.

 

[king Ale]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...ists/reactions-to-us-missile-strike-in-syria/

My only disagreement with her is that I wouldn't call what trump did a reckless act aiming at regime change etc (still better than calling it a warning though). It was a cheap little show that worked well.

And X, I don't know whether the majority want/wanted Assad in power or not, but my intuition tells me that if it was the case, they would have an election. Even if he was democratically elected, nothing would justify what he did to those who opposed him. You know my stand on this. This shouldn't have been started in the first place and the US is to blame for that more than for anything else. But again, in my opinion, what makes Assad more responsible for this situation was his position and the responsibilities that come with such a role. Rebels killed Syrian people and Assad killed his people.

 

[Hængebøffer]

To everyone acting like US bombed their people, that's not correct. They bombed the base where Assad operates from. Totally different than bombing citizens. And who else over there would have the capability of making Sarin?

People here have gone full Turk with their conspiracies. Assad and Putin are disgusting human beings, who'll kill whoever criticize them.