Trump says "big price to pay" for Syria chemical attack

[Odysseus123]

31 minutes ago, rosst said:

I like most people on this forum are towards the end of our lives and we look at our legacy to history and we wonder what we as individuals have done wrong to create this toxic monster that is being controlled by the wealthy elite and compliant Governments. 

I find it difficult to sift any truth or any right in this world. 

Even our major religions are seriously compromised. 

Our biggest loss is honesty in the media, I am unable to believe any news source any more. 

I feel exactly the same way and could not have put it any better.

 

When I wake up and scroll through the news my main thought is "Who are we at war with today?Eurasia,Eastasia or Oceania?Oops I forgot I am,by birth,Oceanic....gotta beat the big drum!"

 

We are at the mercy of media resources way beyond our control.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Odysseus123

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, JemJem said:

I am not buying this 'Syrian-regime chemical attack' thing. Well, maybe I should say that I am giving it a very little chance.

 

It is more likely that American or Israeli or Turkish secret services (and their proxies) are behind this. The aim, of course, is to get the US (or the NATO forces overall) to attack the Syrian regime in a significant manner; possibly more so than the attack last year.

 

I am not a fan of Assad, but his regime shouldn't be allowed to be destroyed or even weakened. In Syria, there is, even now, a large number of Sunni extremists ready to commit massacres against the non-Sunni people there. Not just the non-Sunnis of course; in such a scenario, Kurds and even Assad-supporting Sunnis would also be at a major risk.

Why do people insist on offering feeble excuses for Syrian atrocities and then attempt to blame countries that have no  involvement? Let's look at your claims;

The gas was delivered from a barrel bomb dropped by Syrian Air Force helicopters.

- Turkish Secret Service: Has no motive to use gas. Erdogan may be a brutal despot, but he would not use gas, not even against the  Kurds. The Turkish military would refuse to carry out such an order anyway.

- USA; There is nothing to gain for the USA.  The military doesn't want to be there despite assumptions and claims by  people in TVF who say otherwise. As long as ISIL is defeated, that's all the USA  cares about. If it wanted a regime change, one cruise missile could take out Assad.

- Israel: An attack on  civilians deep inside Israel has no appeal to Israel.It would have been a very high risk operation with no positive outcome potential.  If anything, Israel prefers the Assad regime over ISIL.  

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Why do people insist on offering feeble excuses for Syrian atrocities and then attempt to blame countries that have no  involvement? Let's look at your claims;

The gas was delivered from a barrel bomb dropped by Syrian Air Force helicopters.

- Turkish Secret Service: Has no motive to use gas. Erdogan may be a brutal despot, but he would not use gas, not even against the  Kurds. The Turkish military would refuse to carry out such an order anyway.

- USA; There is nothing to gain for the USA.  The military doesn't want to be there despite assumptions and claims by  people in TVF who say otherwise. As long as ISIL is defeated, that's all the USA  cares about. If it wanted a regime change, one cruise missile could take out Assad.

- Israel: An attack on  civilians deep inside Israel has no appeal to Israel.It would have been a very high risk operation with no positive outcome potential.  If anything, Israel prefers the Assad regime over ISIL.  

- The Turkish military would refuse such an order? You base that on what, your instincts? I would say they would execute such an order, even if only to avoid being thrown in jail. And he hates the Kurds enough to do anything. Now did Turkey do it? Don't think so.

- As you say, they want to defeat Daesh. As long as that is not the case, US military does want to be there. Now did USAdo it? Don't think so.

- As for Israel, there hatred for Iran, one of Assad's key allies, if big enough to do anything. Now did Israel do it? Don't think so.

[FritsSikkink]

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

- USA; There is nothing to gain for the USA.  The military doesn't want to be there despite assumptions and claims by  people in TVF who say otherwise. As long as ISIL is defeated, that's all the USA  cares about. If it wanted a regime change, one cruise missile could take out Assad.

The USA wants control over the pipeline and will do anything to get it.

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Why do people insist on offering feeble excuses for Syrian atrocities and then attempt to blame countries that have no  involvement? Let's look at your claims;

The gas was delivered from a barrel bomb dropped by Syrian Air Force helicopters.

- Turkish Secret Service: Has no motive to use gas. Erdogan may be a brutal despot, but he would not use gas, not even against the  Kurds. The Turkish military would refuse to carry out such an order anyway.

- USA; There is nothing to gain for the USA.  The military doesn't want to be there despite assumptions and claims by  people in TVF who say otherwise. As long as ISIL is defeated, that's all the USA  cares about. If it wanted a regime change, one cruise missile could take out Assad.

- Israel: An attack on  civilians deep inside Israel has no appeal to Israel.It would have been a very high risk operation with no positive outcome potential.  If anything, Israel prefers the Assad regime over ISIL.  

 

All the details of this incident are currently 'alleged'.

[Morch]

On 4/10/2018 at 2:39 AM, JemJem said:

I am not buying this 'Syrian-regime chemical attack' thing. Well, maybe I should say that I am giving it a very little chance.

 

It is more likely that American or Israeli or Turkish secret services (and their proxies) are behind this. The aim, of course, is to get the US (or the NATO forces overall) to attack the Syrian regime in a significant manner; possibly more so than the attack last year.

 

I am not a fan of Assad, but his regime shouldn't be allowed to be destroyed or even weakened. In Syria, there is, even now, a large number of Sunni extremists ready to commit massacres against the non-Sunni people there. Not just the non-Sunnis of course; in such a scenario, Kurds and even Assad-supporting Sunnis would also be at a major risk.

 

I think it's far-fetched assuming a US, Israeli or Turkish secret service is able to pull off something of the sort, and scope, right inside Assad's turf. As for "proxies" you' have to demonstrate that rebels in questions are, in fact, any of the mentioned party's "proxies" (rather dubious). Rebel groups could have been behind this without foreign support or outside motivations. There were unverified reports alleging the attack was made using barrel bombs dropped from helicopters. If correct, it pretty much rules out all candidates but Assad's forces.

[Morch]

On 4/10/2018 at 5:11 AM, rosst said:

I like most people on this forum are towards the end of our lives and we look at our legacy to history and we wonder what we as individuals have done wrong to create this toxic monster that is being controlled by the wealthy elite and compliant Governments. 

I find it difficult to sift any truth or any right in this world. 

Even our major religions are seriously compromised. 

Our biggest loss is honesty in the media, I am unable to believe any news source any more. 

 

As far as I recall, there was a survey not that long ago, and forum demographics were a bit surprising regarding age groups. Doubt "most" members are "toward the end of their lives" (whatever that stands for). The rants about "we" and presumed shared guilt of some incoherent but infinite evil aren't particularly compelling as well. Another observation worth making is that such generalized pseudo-nihilistic views regarding media are ultimately directed Westwards. While Western media does have its flaws, still of a different quality than state-sponsored outlets prevalent elsewhere, propaganda "alt media" sources, and most independent blogs.

[Morch]

23 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

The USA wants control over the pipeline and will do anything to get it.

 

Assuming your premise applies - how do current events promote such a goal? If the US wanted Assad out of the way that bad, he'd be six feet under or facing a trial. There was ample opportunity to oust him with less complications and under more favorable circumstances.

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

There was ample opportunity to oust him with less complications and under more favorable circumstances.

 

 

Like when?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Like when?

 

Before the Russian military intervention became a factor. Before the tide of the Syrian Civil War turned in Assad's favor. Don't see how a supposed "fake" chemical attack every now and then, falls in line with a well planned anti-Assad campaign. If there was such, it would have been more focused and more sustained.

 

I'm not denying the possibility that some of the chemical attacks over the years could have been carried out by Assad's opposition (whether military goals oriented or aimed at affecting an outside reaction). I'm not denying that some may have been accidents (like hitting depots etc.). A wholesale denial of Assad's forces using chemical weapons, though, is bogus.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Like when?

 

2012

Quote

 

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'

 

Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced

 

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

 

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

 

[FritsSikkink]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Before the Russian military intervention became a factor. Before the tide of the Syrian Civil War turned in Assad's favor. Don't see how a supposed "fake" chemical attack every now and then, falls in line with a well planned anti-Assad campaign. If there was such, it would have been more focused and more sustained.

 

I'm not denying the possibility that some of the chemical attacks over the years could have been carried out by Assad's opposition (whether military goals oriented or aimed at affecting an outside reaction). I'm not denying that some may have been accidents (like hitting depots etc.). A wholesale denial of Assad's forces using chemical weapons, though, is bogus.

Assad's position was never in trouble, he lost a lot of terrain but had enough power to stay where he was. Why would he stage a chemical attack while he is winning the war? That would be very stupid. For the opposition it would be very handy as then they can get more support to oust him. There is no proof and the Western world is crying for action just like with the "chemical" attack in the UK before there has been a proper investigation. Nice way for them to move the attention from their own failed local politics to a common enemy. Has happened time after time in history.

[FritsSikkink]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

 

2012

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

 

Nice read, that would have mend though that the western world got rid of Assad but still didn't have control over the government. This is what they need like in Afghanistan and Iraq to control the nations resources (in this case a pipeline) 

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think it's far-fetched assuming a US, Israeli or Turkish secret service is able to pull off something of the sort, and scope, right inside Assad's turf. As for "proxies" you' have to demonstrate that rebels in questions are, in fact, any of the mentioned party's "proxies" (rather dubious). Rebel groups could have been behind this without foreign support or outside motivations. There were unverified reports alleging the attack was made using barrel bombs dropped from helicopters. If correct, it pretty much rules out all candidates but Assad's forces.

 

If it was chlorine (as is being alleged), there would have had to have been a whole fleet of helicopters dropping barrel bombs in order to have 'achieved' a few deaths.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Assad's position was never in trouble, he lost a lot of terrain but had enough power to stay where he was. Why would he stage a chemical attack while he is winning the war? That would be very stupid. For the opposition it would be very handy as then they can get more support to oust him. There is no proof and the Western world is crying for action just like with the "chemical" attack in the UK before there has been a proper investigation. Nice way for them to move the attention from their own failed local politics to a common enemy. Has happened time after time in history.

 

You saying that Assad's position was "never in trouble" does not make it so. Up until the Russian military intervention, Assad's position was not quite secure. Case in point - if Assad wasn't in dire trouble, Russia wouldn't have gotten itself involved to the extent it did. And had the US been truly willing to do "anything", getting him out of the way or out of power was much easier back then - this was your original point and further query.

 

There seems to be an overall assumption (genuine or otherwise) by some posters that certain leaders are infallible, never miscalculate or that their decision making is based solely on a single facet of the situation. This is more often applied to leaders who oppose the West (example - Putin, Kim, Assad). The application of the same to Western leaders is done in a negative context (ie nefarious well laid plans). Using such attacks to divert attention from local political woes is a reasonable comment only if it cuts both ways. Somehow, this fails to be applied to non-Western leaders.

 

Assad's take on things could be somewhat different than assumed - (a) Russia's got his back, previous US response was not all that harsh, and coupled with Trump's statements about an upcoming withdrawal from Syria - he could have reached the conclusion that he could get away with it.  (b) As for "winning the war" - the area in question was held by rebels for years. Recent negotiations and agreements saw many of the civilians evacuated, but not so with regard to rebel forces. Their surrender was accepted the day after the chemical attack. Closing the chapter on this one is no small thing, considering the location. Also sends a message to rebels in other areas. (c) The tripartite summit held by Russia, Iran and Turkey discussing Syria's future did not include Assad. A high profile chemical attack could also serve as a signal of independence and relevance.

 

I am not claiming the above is a true account of things, just pointing out that there are valid alternatives to the wholesale denials and their accompanying reasoning.

,

As for the the rebels being behind it - not discounting the possibility. They certainly had motive. Regarding means, depends on whether some of the details reported are correct. Don't know that getting more "support to oust" Assad is relevant - these rebel forces are not and were not in a position to do so, nor is it clear that they are directly supported by Western countries. How and what "support" they could get ain't too clear.

 

The wholesale "there is no proof" is pretty much a hallmark, perhaps would be better to moderate such claims. They also seem rather ridiculous when coupled with unsubstantiated conspiracy and blag flag claims. And please, spare the nonsense about "investigations" - can investigators be assured full access? Full transparency? Any authority? Is potential evidence intact?

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Nice read, that would have mend though that the western world got rid of Assad but still didn't have control over the government. This is what they need like in Afghanistan and Iraq to control the nations resources (in this case a pipeline) 

 

Constructing, maintaining and operating such a pipeline in a country experiencing an ongoing civil war is a laughable prospect.

[Rimmer]

A couple of posts have been removed

[Morch]

59 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

If it was chlorine (as is being alleged), there would have had to have been a whole fleet of helicopters dropping barrel bombs in order to have 'achieved' a few deaths.

 

Allow me to doubt your expertise on this or that the claim accurately corresponds to previous attacks. As for a "fleet of helicopters" - even if that was the case, Assad's still got a bunch of them.

[CharlesSwann]

I've seen no speculation by the western media or politicians that the chemical attack was perpetrated by the rebels. That's bizarre consering the logic of the possibility is inescapable.

 

The only way the rebels can topple Assad is by bringing down the wrath of the world upon him, and a false-flag chemical weapon attack is a pretty easy way to do that. Is it impossible that the rebels had some of this stuff and detonated it on the ground? Killing a few of their own as a last ditch attempt to oust Assad would be an easy calculation for them - their refusal to surrender is already tantamount to suicide.

 

I don't know what happened any more than anyone else. But the fact that the possibility is not even being mentioned by the west has to be significant. In fact, it stinks to high heaven. Of course, if it transpired that the rebels did this, then they are finished, and the west's whole ignominious involvement in Syria is also finished. Naturally therefore the west is piling everything into the accusation that Assad has done this - simply to save face. What a sorry saga this whole war is.

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You saying that Assad's position was "never in trouble" does not make it so. Up until the Russian military intervention, Assad's position was not quite secure. Case in point - if Assad wasn't in dire trouble, Russia wouldn't have gotten itself involved to the extent it did. And had the US been truly willing to do "anything", getting him out of the way or out of power was much easier back then - this was your original point and further query.

 

There seems to be an overall assumption (genuine or otherwise) by some posters that certain leaders are infallible, never miscalculate or that their decision making is based solely on a single facet of the situation. This is more often applied to leaders who oppose the West (example - Putin, Kim, Assad). The application of the same to Western leaders is done in a negative context (ie nefarious well laid plans). Using such attacks to divert attention from local political woes is a reasonable comment only if it cuts both ways. Somehow, this fails to be applied to non-Western leaders.

 

Assad's take on things could be somewhat different than assumed - (a) Russia's got his back, previous US response was not all that harsh, and coupled with Trump's statements about an upcoming withdrawal from Syria - he could have reached the conclusion that he could get away with it.  (b) As for "winning the war" - the area in question was held by rebels for years. Recent negotiations and agreements saw many of the civilians evacuated, but not so with regard to rebel forces. Their surrender was accepted the day after the chemical attack. Closing the chapter on this one is no small thing, considering the location. Also sends a message to rebels in other areas. (c) The tripartite summit held by Russia, Iran and Turkey discussing Syria's future did not include Assad. A high profile chemical attack could also serve as a signal of independence and relevance.

 

I am not claiming the above is a true account of things, just pointing out that there are valid alternatives to the wholesale denials and their accompanying reasoning.

,

As for the the rebels being behind it - not discounting the possibility. They certainly had motive. Regarding means, depends on whether some of the details reported are correct. Don't know that getting more "support to oust" Assad is relevant - these rebel forces are not and were not in a position to do so, nor is it clear that they are directly supported by Western countries. How and what "support" they could get ain't too clear.

 

The wholesale "there is no proof" is pretty much a hallmark, perhaps would be better to moderate such claims. They also seem rather ridiculous when coupled with unsubstantiated conspiracy and blag flag claims. And please, spare the nonsense about "investigations" - can investigators be assured full access? Full transparency? Any authority? Is potential evidence intact?

"nor is it clear that they are directly supported by Western countries."

Maybe not for you, but they are directly supported for years already. 

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

I've seen no speculation by the western media or politicians that the chemical attack was perpetrated by the rebels. That's bizarre consering the logic of the possibility is inescapable.

 

The only way the rebels can topple Assad is by bringing down the wrath of the world upon him, and a false-flag chemical weapon attack is a pretty easy way to do that. Is it impossible that the rebels had some of this stuff and detonated it on the ground? Killing a few of their own as a last ditch attempt to oust Assad would be an easy calculation for them - their refusal to surrender is already tantamount to suicide.

 

I don't know what happened any more than anyone else. But the fact that the possibility is not even being mentioned by the west has to be significant. In fact, it stinks to high heaven. Of course, if it transpired that the rebels did this, then they are finished, and the west's whole ignominious involvement in Syria is also finished. Naturally therefore the west is piling everything into the accusation that Assad has done this - simply to save face. What a sorry saga this whole war is.

 

How does the rebels surrendering the day after the attack play into your "account"?

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

"nor is it clear that they are directly supported by Western countries."

Maybe not for you, but they are directly supported for years already. 

 

Instead of posting vague statements, perhaps you could support this with fact. As in, are the rebels in the area in question supported by Western countries? That there was support for some rebel groups (by no means all) is not denied. The lumping together of all rebels being the same is.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

How does the rebels surrendering the day after the attack play into your "account"?

 

They were already negotiating their surrender before the chemical incident, because they were about to be annihilated.

[Khun Han]

Just heard on Manchester local radio that the airport has been advised of the possibilty of missiles in the air over the Syrian region in the next seventy two hours. Have the OPCW even started their on-the-ground investigation yet?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

They were already negotiating their surrender before the chemical incident, because they were about to be annihilated.

 

Addressed already in an earlier post. There was a first agreement reached, mid march, involving the surrender and evacuation of about 100,000 people from neighboring towns. That already happened before the chemical attack. Douma was the last town controlled by the rebels, and negotiations with the group holding it either dragged on or stalled. Some reports cite rebels carried an attack during negotiations, others that they refused some terms. One way or another, the negotiations were derailed. Then came the attack, followed by the rebels' surrender.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Eastern_Ghouta#History (last two paragraphs provide most details with relevant links).

 

 

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Addressed already in an earlier post. There was a first agreement reached, mid march, involving the surrender and evacuation of about 100,000 people from neighboring towns. That already happened before the chemical attack. Douma was the last town controlled by the rebels, and negotiations with the group holding it either dragged on or stalled. Some reports cite rebels carried an attack during negotiations, others that they refused some terms. One way or another, the negotiations were derailed. Then came the attack, followed by the rebels' surrender.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Eastern_Ghouta#History (last two paragraphs provide most details with relevant links).

 

 

Hmmm..

 

Tip a can of Mortein on 'em I say.

 

But wait..hark!Cups ear..no further sound of chemical attack..

 

Unbelievable,The Western press would never lie.However I believe that they speak the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth.I would be devastated if any of you would gainsay me on this issue..

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

Just heard on Manchester local radio that the airport has been advised of the possibilty of missiles in the air over the Syrian region in the next seventy two hours. Have the OPCW even started their on-the-ground investigation yet?

 

Eurocontrol warns airlines of possible missile strikes into Syria

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-airspace/eurocontrol-warns-airlines-of-possible-missile-strikes-into-syria-idUSKBN1HI01E

 

I think it's just a routine heads up in case something does go down. Should think they would be more worried about communication and navigation systems being jammed and such - which could effect a wider area then that directly under attack.

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Addressed already in an earlier post. There was a first agreement reached, mid march, involving the surrender and evacuation of about 100,000 people from neighboring towns. That already happened before the chemical attack. Douma was the last town controlled by the rebels, and negotiations with the group holding it either dragged on or stalled. Some reports cite rebels carried an attack during negotiations, others that they refused some terms. One way or another, the negotiations were derailed. Then came the attack, followed by the rebels' surrender.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Eastern_Ghouta#History (last two paragraphs provide most details with relevant links).

 

 

 

You are trying to create a false narrative. The rebels were beaten in Douma. Negotiations hadn't stalled, they were close to conclusion. The idea that Russia or Syria would be crazy enough to cross the international community's stated red line for military intervention, just to quicken the rebels' surrender, is so absurd it belongs in another universe.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Odysseus123 said:

Hmmm..

 

Tip a can of Mortein on 'em I say.

 

But wait..hark!Cups ear..no further sound of chemical attack..

 

Unbelievable,The Western press would never lie.However I believe that they speak the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth.I would be devastated if any of you would gainsay me on this issue..

 

No one said Western press never lies or gets things wrong. But some on here appear to think that with regard to what passes for its counterparts or "alternatives".

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Eurocontrol warns airlines of possible missile strikes into Syria

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-airspace/eurocontrol-warns-airlines-of-possible-missile-strikes-into-syria-idUSKBN1HI01E

 

I think it's just a routine heads up in case something does go down. Should think they would be more worried about communication and navigation systems being jammed and such - which could effect a wider area then that directly under attack.

 

The 'next seventy two hours' part of it seems a bit more pressing though.