Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

Rate this topic


hasanhh

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
20 hours ago, JermainTaylor said:

If you are more upset now than 7 years of heinous crimes by a tyrannical regime, you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

In comparison to Israel, (the rabid dog in the region) the propagated 'heinous crimes of a tyrannical regime' is nothing.

You'd better pull your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes to see 70 years of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. 

And teach your tongue some manners. 

Edited by ShiaChat Mod
[Mod Note: Quote was shortened in length.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

When any armed conflict comes to a conclusion you have negotiations.

If you did not take significant part in the conflict, i.e. you were not seen to be a player who could cause trouble you don't get invited to the table. Why should anyone want to negotiate with the toothless?

This is America and the West's way of saying 'keep us at the negotiating table because we can show you what problems we can cause'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
7 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Read my comment and then listen to the African American spokesperson (Dana White, I think) in the link you provided. She brings the UN negotiations into the argument.

Edited by Haji 2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

^ when she's asked to show evidence, she says that it is based on 'intelligence' she seems to think this is reasonable enough grounds not to disclose the 'evidence'.

She's asked about the OPCW being on the ground and about to investigate the sites and why the U.S. did not wait, she replies that the Syrians did not allow OPCW access to Douma etc. - completely ignoring the premise of the question that they're about to go in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Lets all wait for the illegal attackers to show us their "proof" that is based on their own sources.

It's like saying: It is true because we said so.

They motivate the breaking of international law by saying that international law was broken.

Edited by IbnSina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If I recall, last year when there was a chemical weapons attack. The route of the aircrafts that made the attack was clearly observed.  Russia stated that the Syrian government didnt use chemical weapons, rather they simply attacked a location that stored chemical weapons. Which thereby resulted in collateral damage and the uncontrolled spread of toxic and lethal chemicals, which indiscriminately killed innocent people. Whether Syria used chemical weapons produced from one of its chemical weapon production facilities, or whether they used regular weapons and simply attacked these chemical storage locations, is irrelevant to...what the outcome was.

If I knew that a storage facility contained chemical weapons, and I shot a missile at it, and that facility blew up, thereby spreading toxic chemicals into the surrounding neighborhood, killing innocent people...then i would see myself just as guilty, as if I had simply used my own chemical weapons to do the same. Especially if I had an alternative means of seizing the facility, such as with ground troops.

 

Here we are a year later. Everything Assad does, can be seen. Its not like he has some sort of stealth plane technology that hides his actions. Given Assads history and his nations chemical weapons program, and his history of producing and using chemical weapons, there is little reason to think that at some point, he wouldnt use chemical weapons, or further little reason to doubt that such actions could be observed by the pentagon.  But further, the events of last April demonstrate a form of carelessness, indiscriminately for his people.

Then you have Russia Initially denying that any chemical weapons were used, but then they turn and say, well actually yes, chemical weapons were used, but it was staged by the UK. Good job Russia.

Just sharing, feel free to respond Haji.

 

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Most highly rated comments from the centre-left UK Guardian newspaper. We have one which questions the Russian narrative and 5 that think the bombing was a bad idea.

guadian.thumb.jpeg.164c5b538d854cc08dee8200bd7e0bf8.jpeg

Edited by Haji 2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

And these are the comments from the right wing, Islamophobic, Daily Mail (had to stitch these together for the first time), so a bot out of order but you'll get the picture:

dm.thumb.jpeg.f25667b5edf27c0213974c7633ae9529.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Now when There is some relief for the Syrians after long time us comes to the act trying to stop false chemical attack when it has the largest arsenal of chemical weapons himself. Was killing millions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam better than a chemical attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

there is little reason to think that at some point, he wouldnt use chemical weapons,

And this would have been the right point to use them? When he is winning the war, isis rebels are on retreat and america said it will pull out of syria?

 

DafyrjRXcAAmfde.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, iCambrian said:

If I recall, last year when there was a chemical weapons attack. The route of the aircrafts that made the attack was clearly observed.  Russia stated that the Syrian government didnt use chemical weapons, rather they simply attacked a location that stored chemical weapons. Which thereby resulted in collateral damage and the uncontrolled spread of toxic and lethal chemicals, which indiscriminately killed innocent people. Whether Syria used chemical weapons produced from one of its chemical weapon production facilities, or whether they used regular weapons and simply attacked these chemical storage locations, is irrelevant to...what the outcome was.

If I knew that a storage facility contained chemical weapons, and I shot a missile at it, and that facility blew up, thereby spreading toxic chemicals into the surrounding neighborhood, killing innocent people...then i would see myself just as guilty, as if I had simply used my own chemical weapons to do the same. Especially if I had an alternative means of seizing the facility, such as with ground troops.

 

Here we are a year later. Everything Assad does, can be seen. Its not like he has some sort of stealth plane technology that hides his actions. Given Assads history and his nations chemical weapons program, and his history of producing and using chemical weapons, there is little reason to think that at some point, he wouldnt use chemical weapons, or further little reason to doubt that such actions could be observed by the pentagon.  But further, the events of last April demonstrate a form of carelessness, indiscriminately for his people.

Then you have Russia Initially denying that any chemical weapons were used, but then they turn and say, well actually yes, chemical weapons were used, but it was staged by the UK. Good job Russia.

Just sharing, feel free to respond Haji.

 

There are a couple of problems with your analysis

1) Motive. As was said before, in the particular case, Assad had no motive to use chemical weapons. The SAA had already taken the area and there was no specific other challenges to his authority when this incident was reported (last Saturday). The last thing Assad would have wanted at that point was to risk foreign intervention. Why would he risk it given that situation ? Noone yet has been able to answer this. Also, the White Helmets(FSA) had all the reason in the world to do something to force foreign interference. A few days before, Trump stated that he was going to pull out of Syria(the most intelligent thing he has said so far in his Presidency). Since the US was the main patron of the FSA, it was extremely important for them that an incidence happened which would force the US to stay, not for Assad. 

2) Evidence. The only 'evidence' were videos from White Helmets (aka Free Syrian Army, the people who are fighting against Assad). Along with this video, there was no video of SAA dropping bombs, planes with SAA insignia, radar signatures, chemical samples that can be traced back to formulas for agents Assad is known to posses. None of that. The evidence was video of adults and kids who were distressed and foaming at the mouth. No names were released of victims, no testimony from anyone besides FSA and their supporters. Isn't that odd ? Those videos could have been staged by two teenagers with a camera and a slight knowledge of special effects. Video itself without corroborating evidence from other sources cannot be relied on, especially know that video editing is very sophisticated and can even be doctored by AI. 

Again, I am not saying Assad didn't do it, but there is no real evidence that he did. Also, as I said in my previous post, this attack by the US / France / UK sets a dangerous international precedent for use of force which will lead to more incidents like this with useless and needless loss of life. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

So it looks like the US backed off after Russias warnings. Limited strikes on a few empty buildings just to save face, with Russia probably being informed beforehand. 

With all the hype in the past week, this is a big failure for the west. Guess Russia must have warned them in private that if they overstepped, Russia would strongly respond. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are a couple of problems with your analysis

1) Motive. As was said before, in the particular case, Assad had no motive to use chemical weapons. The SAA had already taken the area and there was no specific other challenges to his authority when this incident was reported (last Saturday). The last thing Assad would have wanted at that point was to risk foreign intervention. Why would he risk it given that situation ? Noone yet has been able to answer this. Also, the White Helmets(FSA) had all the reason in the world to do something to force foreign interference. A few days before, Trump stated that he was going to pull out of Syria(the most intelligent thing he has said so far in his Presidency). Since the US was the main patron of the FSA, it was extremely important for them that an incidence happened which would force the US to stay, not for Assad. 

2) Evidence. The only 'evidence' were videos from White Helmets (aka Free Syrian Army, the people who are fighting against Assad). Along with this video, there was no video of SAA dropping bombs, planes with SAA insignia, radar signatures, chemical samples that can be traced back to formulas for agents Assad is known to posses. None of that. The evidence was video of adults and kids who were distressed and foaming at the mouth. No names were released of victims, no testimony from anyone besides FSA and their supporters. Isn't that odd ? Those videos could have been staged by two teenagers with a camera and a slight knowledge of special effects. Video itself without corroborating evidence from other sources cannot be relied on, especially know that video editing is very sophisticated and can even be doctored by AI. 

Again, I am not saying Assad didn't do it, but there is no real evidence that he did. Also, as I said in my previous post, this attack by the US / France / UK sets a dangerous international precedent for use of force which will lead to more incidents like this with useless and needless loss of life. 

Any response regarding my words of last years attack?

" Again, I am not saying Assad didn't do it, but there is no real evidence that he did. "

I recall last years attack, and people argued that no clear evidence was provided. Then the pentagon released information of observed routes of Syrian military jets during their attacks. Indicating their attack. Russia claimed that Syria didnt use chemical weapons, rather they just bombed a chemical weapons facility and the toxic chemicals just happened to have spread around and killed innocent people.

Now, if I knew there were a stockpile of chemical weapons, it would be irresponsible of me to blow the place up, knowing that these chemicals could spread. Alternatively, the jets may have just launched chemical weapons.

Also, if I had invested in a chemical weapons program, and I was in the middle of a multi year civil war, i wouldnt necessarily give up on my arsenal which I have invested time, research and finances into, just because some foreign nations said not to.

Either way, you have some form of irresponsibility, and perhaps indifference by the regime. And for the sake of survival, maybe this ruthlessness is considered necessary.

 

 

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Arkon said:

Good ol' "Western Intervention", But if you can't admit Russia is just as bad with it's intentions as the west is, You're being dishonest to yourself.

Salam alaykum

Explain what you mean. What is Russia trying to get out of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IbnSina said:

And this would have been the right point to use them? When he is winning the war, isis rebels are on retreat and america said it will pull out of syria?

 

DafyrjRXcAAmfde.jpg

The single biggest fallacy surrounding the Western narrative. And the best thing about it is that people know this time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 4/14/2018 at 3:33 PM, iCambrian said:

Any response regarding my words of last years attack?

I recall last years attack, and people argued that no clear evidence was provided. Then the pentagon released information of observed routes of Syrian military jets during their attacks. Indicating their attack. Russia claimed that Syria didn't use chemical weapons, rather they just bombed a chemical weapons facility and the toxic chemicals just happened to have spread around and killed innocent people.

Now, if I knew there were a stockpile of chemical weapons, it would be irresponsible of me to blow the place up, knowing that these chemicals could spread. Alternatively, the jets may have just launched chemical weapons.

Also, if I had invested in a chemical weapons program, and I was in the middle of a multi year civil war, i wouldnt necessarily give up on my arsenal which I have invested time, research and finances into, just because some foreign nations said not to.

Either way, you have some form of irresponsibility, and perhaps indifference by the regime. And for the sake of survival, maybe this ruthlessness is considered necessary.

(I commented on some of these points from your last post, but just to reiterate)

1)  pentagon released information of observed routes of Syrian military jets during their attacks. Indicating their attack.

Observed routes during attack doesn't tell you anything, by itself. SAA was flying sorties at the time and hitting targets with conventional bombs. They admitted this. It is a war, btw. There was no evidence presented, either then or now, that these were anything except conventional bombs. 

2) Russia claimed that Syria didn't use chemical weapons, rather they just bombed a chemical weapons facility and the toxic chemicals just happened to have spread around and killed innocent people

The same committee that is investigating now has said all along that both sides have chemical weapons, both Assad and (however many there are now) ABC armed groups fighting in Syria against Assad. Some chemical weapons, like chlorine gas, is very easy to make with the same chemicals that are used to clean swimming pools in the US. When I was in college, I was a pool boy and made chlorine gas by mistake and almost killed myself (but that is another story). Something like sarin is a little more difficult to do but still WWI technology. 

What Russia said at that time was that they hit a chemical weapons cache of some armed group by mistake. They didn't know it was there, obviously those groups don't go around telling people where they store these things. So the Russian explanation may or may not be true, but it is plausible.

3) Also, if I had invested in a chemical weapons program, and I was in the middle of a multi year civil war, i wouldnt necessarily give up on my arsenal which I have invested time, research and finances into, just because some foreign nations said not to.

Assad went to great lengths in 2014 to get rid of his chemical stockpiles and this was verified by several international committees. Didn't do him much good though. Assad doesn't need chemical weapons, he is winning with conventional bombs and artillery. He doesn't need to risk Western Military intervention to kill a few more people. This is not the case with the other armed groups that are in Syria now, including Nusra, ISIS, and Al Qaeda, who have an open border with Turkey directly to their North and have shown to most people's satisfaction that they have no problem whatsoever with killing large numbers of innocent people. 

Frankly, Syria is a big mess now and there isn't much chance of getting good information out of there regarding this incident.  But what I object to is the assumption without evidence that it is Assad, and only Assad who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons. This was assumed by the Western Media last week Saturday before there was one shred of evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
11 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Anyone know anything about the facilities that were attacked?

The Saturday night news said they were buildings called bunkers :party:and were "chemical research" installations. But please note, Syria never produced any chemical weapons but had bought them from the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

image.jpeg

As a note, the news since has described the attacks as the most minimal that could be devised and were a "must" because of how Trump tweeted and ran-at-the-mouth earlier in the week.

The cost of this attack was over $100million for the US.

Edited by hasanhh
COST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

OPINE:

Syria's Response

What Syria should do is file a civil suit with SCOTUS --the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in suits between the US and foreign gov'ts. (IRI successfully won a suit over the downing of its airliner as did other gov'ts for their populace and diplomats that were murdered).

Besides the data points we have on SC, l remember US troops in lraq were subjected to a chlorine gas attack --the agent now claimed after a change-of-story/narrative was needed last week.

Syria completely surrendered its Chemical Weapons in 2014 as multiple international organizations verified --except for those captured by insurgents.

The value of the buildings and whatever else they can legally claim in a US court.

With a good law firm, Syria has a good case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

here's what the syrian's newspaper said:

Syria does not have any real ally when it comes to the real battle, only in words and referring to international law ignored by the criminals. We said this before and we repeat it now. Unless Russia and Iran make a serious move without useless diplomacy, they are not reliable and Syria should deal with them in similar manners without sacrificing itself to save them as it did during 8 years of war between Iran and Iraq and saving the Russian economy by not approving the Qatari gas pipeline.

http://www.syrianews.cc/breaking-us-uk-and-france-attack-syria-commits-war-crime/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

The single biggest fallacy surrounding the Western narrative. And the best thing about it is that people know this time.

 

That is just too hilarious, honestly spoken. At this point of time, in the time of free information, only a absolute fool would accept the narrative given by them in main stream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

We can all confirm that America has nothing to do with humanity. Indeed, America is the great satan.

:(:(

History remembers the use of Nuclear weapons at Japan, Nno one else has done it in any war yet some believe America as champion of human nights.  

Satan is Satan it has nothing do do with humanity off course

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...