So what? Alliances are just like any agreements between two parties. There are going to be certain gains and takes. Countries don't form alliances out of the goodness of one's heart. They entered into it according to each others' own geopolitical calculations. US is arming Kurds and Syrian rebels for its own aims as well. I don't have a problem with nations are doing what they should be doing in order to maximize its geopolitical gains. Personally, I just found it nauseating when one party likes to claim their actions are only for greater good while condemning others doing exact the same thing for nefarious reasons.
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
So what? Alliances are just like any agreements between two parties. There are going to be certain gains and takes. Countries don't form alliances out of the goodness of one's heart. They entered into it according to each others' own geopolitical calculations. US is arming Kurds and Syrian rebels for its own aims as well. I don't have a problem with nations are doing what they should be doing in order to maximize its geopolitical gains. Personally, I just found it nauseating when one party likes to claim their actions are only for greater good while condemning others doing exact the same thing for nefarious reasons.
Jura The idiot
General
Who are responsible for making Syria what it is today regardless the definition of "failed state"? By your logic, any country can funnel "freedom" fighters/terrorists into another country, making it failed, then use that as a pretext to do the real deal INVASION of a sovereign state, a full UN member state. The creation of a failed state is the cover for a war crime. UN charters has made it clear that "armed attack of other members without UN mandate or self-defense is aggression which is a war crime". Other countries being "failed" is non of US, UK and France's business, it is UN's.
Do you know that a legal principle in most of the world including US, UK and France is that "the accuser is responsible to provide evidence, not the accused". That is an invention by the west and adopted by the rest. Are you suggesting the west to break that principle? I hope you realize that more and more people outside western countries are increasingly "against or less agreeing or more resisting" western voices are not really because of the relative downturn of western raw power (economical or military), but rather because west has constantly and more overtly breaking the very principle they created as the foundation of modern international relationship. That is loss of reputation and credibility, the soft power, the influence to people's heart.
Jura The idiot
General
News Of [this] Hour at gazeta.ru right now () links to
U.S. officials: Blood samples show nerve agent, chlorine in Syria gas attack
Apr.12.2018 / 7:17 PM ET
wait 7 pm Eastern Time? here it's 9 pm, but whatever
U.S. officials: Blood samples show nerve agent, chlorine in Syria gas attack
Apr.12.2018 / 7:17 PM ET
wait 7 pm Eastern Time? here it's 9 pm, but whatever
Jura The idiot
General
bajingan
Senior Member
Does people really think that only assad has chemical weapons in syria? When he has absolutely no incentives on using sarin and risk us airstrikes, when he already winning using conventional bombs
the rebels has every reason on using them (and has already proven on using them in the past,) to gain sympathy and invite western airstrikes on assad, in fact zahran alloush leader of jaysh al islam bought 500 kg of sarin transferred them through turkey into syria and paid for by saudi through the local staff of saudi embassy.
the rebels has every reason on using them (and has already proven on using them in the past,) to gain sympathy and invite western airstrikes on assad, in fact zahran alloush leader of jaysh al islam bought 500 kg of sarin transferred them through turkey into syria and paid for by saudi through the local staff of saudi embassy.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
So, Syria is a ‘failed state’ which numerous foreign powers illegally engaged in the conflict on its soil directly or indirectly; foreign powers who have used deadly force in the past to keep Syrian government forces from their area of operation.
Pray tell how Syria is supposed to reasonably prove anything in parts of its territory it could not enter, never mind police and investigate?
That is an unreasonable ask if there ever was one.
Also, you are completely inversion the burden of proof. How would you respond to those who demand America prove 9/11 wasn’t an inside job?
Despite not being a failed state, nor have a foreign sponcered civil war raging, nor have foreign military bases operating on its soil it cannot approach never mind power investigate, the US government could still not convince all the conspiracy theorists that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. But Syria is supposed to be able to prove they didn’t carry out chemical weapons attacks?
What no one who insist Syria used chemical weapons has ever even attempted to explain is why Assad would do this.
Why, if he is willing and able to use chemical weapons on a whim, as the west insists, has he not used chemical weapons on any militarily meaningful target when he was in far more precarious situations earlier in the conflict, when he was suffering significant losses and it looked like he might be driven from power altogether?
There are plenty of examples of isolated Syrian military outposts beseized or even overrun out in the middle of the desert where the use of chemical weapons would have a) produced a significant military result. B) be very difficult for the opposition to prove happened. C) not carried anything like the emotional impact as seeing dead and dying children on TV would bring.
If one was to test western responses to the use of chemical weapons, would it not make far more sense to salami slice it with a limited military application on some IS jihadi beardies that no one in the west would be particularly miss, instead of jumping head first in aybyhe deep end to gas women and children for zero tactical or strategic benefit?
The main reason the west had been deafly silent on motive is because if one were to go down that line of thought, one would very quickly reach the conclusion that it makes absolutely zero sense for Assad to use chemical weapons in the manner he had been accused of doing. Because such use produced zero benefit for him and his forces on the ground, while maximising global (read western) outrage and all but gifts wrap a gold plated pretext for direct military involvement by the west. And always at times when Assad’s forces are winning comprehensively on the battlefield.
It is also striking that for all the claims of ‘proof’ from western leaders, not a shred of anything remotely concrete has been produced.
Contrast that with the reports of signals intercepts revealing Russian casualties days/weeks before the Russian government officially acknowledged it on the recent ill fated attack on US allied rebel forces and something smells seriously fishy.
Where are the ‘smoking gun’ signals intercept for Assad’s gas attacks? Where are the location of Assad’s secret chemical weapons bunkers/factories? Where are the satellite photos of ground crew with protective clothing loading chemical rounds on bombers?
The Russian FM has said the attack was staged, and request an UNSC meeting to discuss this. So you cannot just wave this off as wild ‘conspiracy theories’, since the Russian FM’s counter claim carries just as much official weight as America’s original charge.
Very succinctly put Wolfie. What we are being asked to believe goes way beyond event he simple suspension of disbelief. It is simply a demand from our leaders to be willfully stupid.
Given however we have seen these false flag attacks before, I think it highly likely that Syria and its Allies will have given thought to the likelihood of similar claims arising in the future, especially after last years missile attack by the US.
If it does come to shooting between the sides, I think that Coalition bases on Syrian territory are going to be target of immediate reprisal, rather than Ships in the Med or more distant Airbases.
Less than two weeks ago Putin and Rouhani and Erdogan all met in Ankhara for the latest round of the Astana process discussions.
Now think on this, Putin, Assad and Rouhani would love to see an end to the Coalition bases, but do not really want a new war in the East of the Country against the Kurds
Erdogan is itching to take on the SDF Kurds and kick them away from his borders, but does not want to come to blows with his nominal NATO allies.
On top of this, the Syrian side is nothing if not now battle hardened and the threat of losing men and material, is nothing new and makes any conflict with the Coalition partners, just another battle. Seen through that prism, it merely means that they will simply look at what they gain, against what they lose as a way to measure whether or not they have a victory.
I think the prospect of having Coaltion bases/forces removed from Syria would be regarded as a major victory and one worth paying a "heavy price"
This would also mean btw, that the Syrian side would have a tangible objective and end game and a better chance of preventing/limiting serious escalation. This is not only something that the Coalition does not have, but also far harder to claim, if they start in a more open ended conflict with US Warships and NATO airbases.
I was reading yesterday that Russian Heavy bombers (Cruise Missile Capable) have left their bases in Southern Russia and are presumed to have gone to Iran. If so it makes the assessment regarding Coalition bases in Syria seem more likely
Given however we have seen these false flag attacks before, I think it highly likely that Syria and its Allies will have given thought to the likelihood of similar claims arising in the future, especially after last years missile attack by the US.
If it does come to shooting between the sides, I think that Coalition bases on Syrian territory are going to be target of immediate reprisal, rather than Ships in the Med or more distant Airbases.
Less than two weeks ago Putin and Rouhani and Erdogan all met in Ankhara for the latest round of the Astana process discussions.
Now think on this, Putin, Assad and Rouhani would love to see an end to the Coalition bases, but do not really want a new war in the East of the Country against the Kurds
Erdogan is itching to take on the SDF Kurds and kick them away from his borders, but does not want to come to blows with his nominal NATO allies.
On top of this, the Syrian side is nothing if not now battle hardened and the threat of losing men and material, is nothing new and makes any conflict with the Coalition partners, just another battle. Seen through that prism, it merely means that they will simply look at what they gain, against what they lose as a way to measure whether or not they have a victory.
I think the prospect of having Coaltion bases/forces removed from Syria would be regarded as a major victory and one worth paying a "heavy price"
This would also mean btw, that the Syrian side would have a tangible objective and end game and a better chance of preventing/limiting serious escalation. This is not only something that the Coalition does not have, but also far harder to claim, if they start in a more open ended conflict with US Warships and NATO airbases.
I was reading yesterday that Russian Heavy bombers (Cruise Missile Capable) have left their bases in Southern Russia and are presumed to have gone to Iran. If so it makes the assessment regarding Coalition bases in Syria seem more likely
Jura The idiot
General
noticed as it's News Of [this] Hour at gazeta.ru right now ()
Britain says Russian claim of Syria attack involvement a 'blatant lie'
Russian top brass reports it has proof of UK’s involvement in Douma chemical incident
More:
Britain says Russian claim of Syria attack involvement a 'blatant lie'
of course related to
Russian top brass reports it has proof of UK’s involvement in Douma chemical incident
More:
Jura The idiot
General
I guess you'll like this Analysis: The rationale behind Trump’s Syria missile threat
Updated 2018-04-13 22:56 GMT+8
... goes on below due to size limit