Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[lomatopo]

Somebody get a fire extinguisher for Mr, Kerry's pants, they're on fire!

The White House’s Syria secrets

By Dana Milbank, Published: September 5

John Kerry was making his “beyond a reasonable doubt” case against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday when he gave lawmakers a bit of faulty intelligence. “Just today, before coming in here, I read an e-mail to me about a general, the minister of defense, former minister or assistant minister, I forget which, who has just defected and is now in Turkey,” the secretary of state testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “And there are other defections that we are hearing about because of the potential that we might take action.”

A few minutes later, Kerry revised his account: This official-sounding “e-mail” was actually a Reuters news account about a former defense minister based on a claim by the Syrian opposition. “Reuters has now said the Syrian government is saying the defection has not taken place,” Kerry said. “So who knows whether it has or hasn’t?”

Who knows?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-on-syria-whos-got-a-secret/2013/09/04/9cc5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html

[Sing_Sling]

How'd we get into this mess?

Someone made a foolish remark about red lines that can not be crossed.

True words - what a fool he was to do that

He can't move the presidential palace there though, can he?

alt=whistling.gif width=19 height=18>

So, you reckon he'll lob a missile on Assad's head, whilst he quietly asleep in the palace?

Surgical strikes to wipe out Assad and his top brass - would that b too difficult given the technology the US has? Pinpoint accuracy . . .

[Sing_Sling]

Ah yes, the old "military advisor" role. Now where have we heard that one before? So much for no boots on the ground. alt=whistling.gif width=19 height=18>

U.S. considers wider training of Syrian rebels

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is considering a plan to use U.S. military trainers to help increase the capabilities of the Syrian rebels, in a move that would greatly expand the current CIA training being done quietly in Jordan, U.S. officials told the Associated Press on Thursday. Any training would take place outside Syria, and one possible location would be Jordan.

The talk of expanded military training comes as President Obama appears to have achieved little headway against a wall of skepticism on Capitol Hill.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130906_U_S__considers_wider_training_of_Syrian_rebels.html#sXm2rOsXmO8Keefq.99

Shit, here we go again

[Ulysses G.]

I'm having my doubts about that video. Not that I'm a ghoul for such stuff, but I can't find any copies online that aren't the "blackout" version, which doesn't actually show the killings, and therefore isn't totally convincing evidence of any. It could all have just been staged. If someone has found something different, please share it.

Supposedly, the New York Times has the original version and they are the ones that blacked it out and released it. There might not be an uncensored version.

[Chicog]

I think Obama has given Assad all the time he needs to move his chemical weapons into schools, mosques and densely populated areas.......what a nice guy Obama is.....wonder if there's anything else he needs to let Assad know about?

He can't move the presidential palace there though, can he?

So, you reckon he'll lob a missile on Assad's head, whilst he quietly asleep in the palace?

Seriously, you think he's sleeping in a palace?!

Bunker more like.

Remember, the stated aim is to "send a message".

[mania]

Remember, the stated aim is to "send a message".

Considering how broke we the people of the USA are perhaps an email would be more fiscally responsible?

Edited September 6, 2013 by mania

[uptheos]

Remember, the stated aim is to "send a message".

Considering how broke we the people of the USA are perhaps an email would be more fiscally responsible?

I think Obama has already tried the "you naughty man Mr Assad, we don't like you", approach by letter.

[mania]

Remember, the stated aim is to "send a message".

Considering how broke we the people of the USA are perhaps an email would be more fiscally responsible?

I think Obama has already tried the "you naughty man Mr Assad, we don't like you", approach by letter.

Well all done then

[Chicog]

I'm having my doubts about that video. Not that I'm a ghoul for such stuff, but I can't find any copies online that aren't the "blackout" version, which doesn't actually show the killings, and therefore isn't totally convincing evidence of any. It could all have just been staged. If someone has found something different, please share it.

Perhaps you need to learn to search in Arabic.

[Robby nz]

Publicus

Assad is a tyrant dictator who has been mass slaughtering the people of Syria for more than two years now so that he and his small corrupt and cruel gang of oligarchs can retain power and control the wealth of the country. Assad is a mass murderer, a merciless tyrant.

So you say Publicus.

You have been very keen all through this topic to see the US start once again lobbing missiles at another country in this instance which poses no direct threat to them.

They have armed and trained the rebels, acts which have surely caused more deaths and now they want to go in and cause even more.

Assad is indeed a tyrant but tell us, what sort of a government will Syria end up with if the US manage to kill off Assad as they did Saddam and Gaddafi.

I am wondering how you think the Syrian people will be better off.

I read that there are already parts of Syria that have been taken over by the rebels and are subjected to Shiite law.

Do you really think that is what the Syrian people want?

[Publicus]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

Religion in the United States has nothing to do with this specifically. Trying to introduce religion to this equation is an inapplicable and solicitous complication that does not exist.

The Obama administration and the Pentagon are very clear about Syria, comprehensively, thoroughly, strategically.

Trying to say otherwise is false.

Actually, The US Has A Strategy In Syria — And It's Starting To Work

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2dwEUEuTx

Edited September 6, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Putin defends international law?!

width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif>

The only thing funnier than the notion of Putin defending international law is the US bombing another country because they have (allegedly) started using chemical weapons.

Actually, what is funnier even is that Russia comes out of this looking like the more responsible nuclear power - AGAIN - by not bombing another country that happens to be Muslim and run by brown people

Putin, the butcher of Chechnya looks responsible?

Putin, leader of the worst host of the International Olympic Games in Sochi looks responsible?

Putin, principal sponsor and defender of Assad the butcher looks responsible?

Not in this world.

Your first point is quite sad, isn't it. Imagine the US looking worse than Russia for their war crimes in Iraq, Vietnam etc . . . Chechnya was nothing compared to the carnage the US has wreaked upon others since WWII . . . and if we're going to discuss chemical weapons like napalm/white phosphorous etc... in Iraq, Japan and Vietnam . . .

Here's a quick quiz: Which superpower has used both nuclear weapons and chemical weapons in a conflict?

Your other points are puerile to the extreme. We are talking about death and destruction . . . and you mention Russia being a bad host of the Olympics . . . Seriously? This is the level your 'debate' has sunk to?

You like inundating those opposed to your views with ream and reams of links, quotes, citations etc . . . well, here's one for you:

Russia supplied Syria with chemical weapons . . . who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

Do you really want to get into a factual discussion about arms exports and condemn Russia as opposed to the US?

nationalism is one thing but jingoism and xenophobia are quite a different kettle of fish.

Hypocrisy sucks, doesn't it

(Not yours, rather your country's)

Now I've seen what OTT really means.

I'd rather people who think like this just say "thank you" for winning the Cold War against totalitarian communism and continued going about their daily business.

Edit to note I had to delete a quote because of excessive quotes to one post.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

He also said that he did not set down a red line. Very few Americans or foreigners are buying it.

[NeverSure]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

Religion in the United States has nothing to do with this specifically. Trying to introduce religion to this equation is an inapplicable and solicitous complication that does not exist.

The Obama administration and the Pentagon are very clear about Syria, comprehensively, thoroughly, strategically.

Trying to say otherwise is false.

Actually, The US Has A Strategy In Syria — And It's Starting To Work

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2dwEUEuTx

First, prove to me who it was that set off those chemical weapons.

Next, convince me that the terrorist infiltrated rebels are better than Assad and would stabilize Syria ala Iraq, Libya, etc.

Next, convince me why the US and only the US "needs" to interfere. Humanitarian? See my first question. See my second question.

[Publicus]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

Religion in the United States has nothing to do with this specifically. Trying to introduce religion to this equation is an inapplicable and solicitous complication that does not exist.

The Obama administration and the Pentagon are very clear about Syria, comprehensively, thoroughly, strategically.

Trying to say otherwise is false.

Actually, The US Has A Strategy In Syria — And It's Starting To Work

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2dwEUEuTx

First, prove to me who it was that set off those chemical weapons.

Next, convince me that the terrorist infiltrated rebels are better than Assad and would stabilize Syria ala Iraq, Libya, etc.

Next, convince me why the US and only the US "needs" to interfere. Humanitarian? See my first question. See my second question.

1) See the U.S. Intelligence Report and the French Intelligence Report (also British Intelligence).

2) From the quoted article:

The less obvious, and more long-term, part of the plan involves providing vetted parts of the opposition with advanced weaponry, training them with Western advisors, and curbing the funding for jihadist groups.

The Institute of The Study of War's Liz O'Bagy, who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that moderate rebel groups "have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France."

Last week Weiss reported that Saudi Arabia has been working closely with Jordan, the U.S., U.K., and France to "set up and run an undisclosed joint operations center in Jordan to train vetted Syrian rebels in tactical warfare methods, intelligence, counterintelligence, and weapons application."

3) The presidents of the United States and France respectively are willing to act.

I would add that the world's indifference is astounding and ominous.

U.S. troops have not faced chemical gas warfare or biological warfare because of the 100 year norm against their use. Allowing Assad to do this free of charge would endanger U.S. troops everywhere and anywhere both now and in the foreseeable future. This is a serious consideration.

Back in Desert Storm, aka Gulf War I, Prez G.H.W. Bush straight out told Saddam Hussein that if he used chemical weapons he seriously risked a nuclear response against him by the United States. That's a nuclear response. What could get more serious?

This is the most serious of serious matters yet the world is ignoring it.

A grave mistake.

Which is the imperative for the U.S. to act

Edited September 6, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

1- No of course not

2- Maybe- Maybe not,,,But who could call killing innocents skating free? Because no matter what is claimed innocents will die.

If you mean just military wise....

Syria alone could inflict damages on a US ship & none can say they cannot with 100% certainty.

They could have decent stock of anti-ship missiles & have subs + coastal defense for delivery

Now add Russia....Say Russia gets so disgusted they park their ships between the US ships & shore?

Still worth it?

Now add Iran

Too many maybes for sticking the US in where it does not belong.

What the heck is the upside? Besides spending millions more they do not have?

If they spend even one reluctant US military life on this it will not end well.

Because it is obvious at this point the military is as reluctant as the US citizenry

over this show of stupidity foisted on the US by an ignorant excuse for a president

OK, now we're back to the "can" the US pull this off. The US has stealth submarines that the opponent can't even see. They are nuclear powered and have multiple attack capabilities. Neither Russia nor China nor anyone else wants to have ships in the water with those around.

The opponents have subs which aren't stealth, and the US has destroyers designed to detect them and take them out. There are also other multiple anti-sub weapons including planes.

The US believes it can shoot down any missiles fired at it, including anti-ship missiles.

This wouldn't all happen in the water. The US has stealth bombers which can penetrate unseen and inflict enormous damage with 80 individually GPS guided bombs per plane. It has stealth fighters and stealth drones. You can't hit what you can't see.

The US has a high level of capability to destroy anti-aircraft and anti-ship installations. In fact, that's usually job 1. This is why the US rules the air in all recent wars. This is partly why the US can declare a "no fly" zone in places like Iraq and Afghan and so on, against Russian built equipment.

If the US didn't think it could pull this off, it wouldn't be debating it. The debate isn't about "can we," but rather all about "should we."

No, it shouldn't.

Peace.

China has the J-20 which is a stealth aircraft, Russia has the T-50 which is also a stealth aircraft and China has a brand-new submarine which is suspected of having stealth abilities.

Yeah, one of each.

In fact the following is a pretty self-embarrassing wish list by Beijing:

The technology China wants in order to catch up with Western militaries

http://chinhdangvu.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-technology-china-wants-in-order-to.html

Edited September 6, 2013 by Publicus

[hawker9000]

I'm having my doubts about that video. Not that I'm a ghoul for such stuff, but I can't find any copies online that aren't the "blackout" version, which doesn't actually show the killings, and therefore isn't totally convincing evidence of any. It could all have just been staged. If someone has found something different, please share it.

Perhaps you need to learn to search in Arabic.

Well then I might as well have the NSA searching for me...

[lannarebirth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US2zHtB0Vho

Edited September 6, 2013 by lannarebirth

[mania]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US2zHtB0Vho

Very good, Not sure why the player did not show up in your post

[Scott]

Off-topic, nonsensical, inflammatory, combative posts and replies have been deleted. Stay on topic.

If you have nothing to add to the TOPIC of this THREAD. Then cease posting.

[Publicus]

Religion in the United States has nothing to do with this specifically. Trying to introduce religion to this equation is an inapplicable and solicitous complication that does not exist.

The Obama administration and the Pentagon are very clear about Syria, comprehensively, thoroughly, strategically.

Trying to say otherwise is false.

Actually, The US Has A Strategy In Syria — And It's Starting To Work

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2dwEUEuTx

First, prove to me who it was that set off those chemical weapons.

Next, convince me that the terrorist infiltrated rebels are better than Assad and would stabilize Syria ala Iraq, Libya, etc.

Next, convince me why the US and only the US "needs" to interfere. Humanitarian? See my first question. See my second question.

1) See the U.S. Intelligence Report and the French Intelligence Report (also British Intelligence).

2) From the quoted article:

The less obvious, and more long-term, part of the plan involves providing vetted parts of the opposition with advanced weaponry, training them with Western advisors, and curbing the funding for jihadist groups.

The Institute of The Study of War's Liz O'Bagy, who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that moderate rebel groups "have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France."

Last week Weiss reported that Saudi Arabia has been working closely with Jordan, the U.S., U.K., and France to "set up and run an undisclosed joint operations center in Jordan to train vetted Syrian rebels in tactical warfare methods, intelligence, counterintelligence, and weapons application."

3) The presidents of the United States and France respectively are willing to act.

I would add that the world's indifference is astounding and ominous.

U.S. troops have not faced chemical gas warfare or biological warfare because of the 100 year norm against their use. Allowing Assad to do this free of charge would endanger U.S. troops everywhere and anywhere both now and in the foreseeable future. This is a serious consideration.

Back in Desert Storm, aka Gulf War I, Prez G.H.W. Bush straight out told Saddam Hussein that if he used chemical weapons he seriously risked a nuclear response against him by the United States. That's a nuclear response. What could get more serious?

This is the most serious of serious matters yet the world is ignoring it.

A grave mistake.

Which is the imperative for the U.S. to act

Let's see. Would those be the same countries who told us that Saddam had WMD's? Would those be the same countries that left the current mess in Iraq after all of the loss of life and money?

The findings of French Intelligence and the commitment by Prez Hollande to participate in a military response obviously and clearly - unmistakably - verifies and confirms he factuality and actuality of the situation on the ground in Syria.

You may remember French Intelligence before the Iraq War of Dumbya Bush said there were no WMDs in Iraq and voted against invasion at the Security Council.

So many here conveniently overlook and ignore the new additional factors that confirm and verify the truth of the present situation, in contrast to that of the neocon's Gulf War.

Neville Chamberlain stuck his head in the sand too and we saw the grotesque consequences.

[Publicus]

I'm having my doubts about that video. Not that I'm a ghoul for such stuff, but I can't find any copies online that aren't the "blackout" version, which doesn't actually show the killings, and therefore isn't totally convincing evidence of any. It could all have just been staged. If someone has found something different, please share it.

Perhaps you need to learn to search in Arabic.

Well then I might as well have the NSA searching for me...

Apologies, but I'd have to say you're not THAT important.

[Publicus]

Ah yes, the old "military advisor" role. Now where have we heard that one before? So much for no boots on the ground.

U.S. considers wider training of Syrian rebels

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is considering a plan to use U.S. military trainers to help increase the capabilities of the Syrian rebels, in a move that would greatly expand the current CIA training being done quietly in Jordan, U.S. officials told the Associated Press on Thursday. Any training would take place outside Syria, and one possible location would be Jordan.

The talk of expanded military training comes as President Obama appears to have achieved little headway against a wall of skepticism on Capitol Hill.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130906_U_S__considers_wider_training_of_Syrian_rebels.html#sXm2rOsXmO8Keefq.99

We are looking at a combined Western and Arab response to the crisis in Syria by sharing the effort and the responsibility in this crucial battle for Syria. The United States would not be acting alone but with partners that are both Western and Arab.

Many posters here delude themselves by thinking the United States hasn't learned any lessons of the past. They are wrong to think so.

Perhaps the most appalling aspect of opposition to resolving the Syria situation is the mythology, the misinformation, the disinformation, that the only or major component of the rebel forces are al Qaida and/or other Islamic militant groups.

This sloppy and incomplete thinking and belief is at the center of opposition to taking any kind of action at all in Syria, not only the naval and air strikes Prez Obama is currently advocating which would seriously degrade Assad's ability to wage war against his own people.

Most people are under the erroneous impression, or have the fundamentally flawed belief, that there isn't a dime's worth of difference among the rebel groups. This serious intellectual failing, i.e., the failure to accurately and factually learn and know the true situation on the ground, skews and mangles the discussion and the debate.

Intellectually lazy and slothful minds are promoting the mythology that the United States taking action in Syria is literally to support al Qaida and Islamic militants. This reckless and irresponsible myth persists from the time of the Afghan resistance during their fight against the invading former Soviet Union.

This wrongheadedness about who the U.S. supported during the Afghan-Soviet war and the present forces the U.S. and its Western and Arab allies support in Syria constitutes another strategic error based on a sloppy belief in erroneous information held by the intellectually lame and lazy, the easily misinformed.

Those who don't know or fail to recognize distinctions among the forces fighting against Assad do a disservice and an injustice to others engaged in the fight against Islamic extremism, from the Afghan=Soviet war to the present Syrian conflict and the response to it.

The Biggest Myth Of The Syrian War Is That The Rebels Are Dominated By al Qaeda

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards."

O'Bagy's post has been criticized for being biased toward "moderate" rebels — which O'Bagy defines as those who have respected women's and minority rights while calling for a civilian government — nevertheless, jihadist experts agree that the fear of an "al Qaeda takeover" is exaggerated.

"Rebel units are distributed across a broad ideological spectrum, with secular units at one pole and Salafi jihadists at the other, and most falling between the two," according to a new report by experts Jeffrey White, Andrew J. Tabler, and Aaron Y. Zelin of The Washington Institute. "A major differentiation among Islamic units is between those that are Islamic with a national or Syrian agenda and those with a global jihadist mission."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/syrian-rebels-are-not-al-qaeda-2013-9#ixzz2eASk13EC

[Sing_Sling]

The only thing funnier than the notion of Putin defending international law is the US bombing another country because they have (allegedly) started using chemical weapons.

Actually, what is funnier even is that Russia comes out of this looking like the more responsible nuclear power - AGAIN - by not bombing another country that happens to be Muslim and run by brown people

Putin, the butcher of Chechnya looks responsible?

Putin, leader of the worst host of the International Olympic Games in Sochi looks responsible?

Putin, principal sponsor and defender of Assad the butcher looks responsible?

Not in this world.

Your first point is quite sad, isn't it. Imagine the US looking worse than Russia for their war crimes in Iraq, Vietnam etc . . . Chechnya was nothing compared to the carnage the US has wreaked upon others since WWII . . . and if we're going to discuss chemical weapons like napalm/white phosphorous etc... in Iraq, Japan and Vietnam . . .

Here's a quick quiz: Which superpower has used both nuclear weapons and chemical weapons in a conflict?

Your other points are puerile to the extreme. We are talking about death and destruction . . . and you mention Russia being a bad host of the Olympics . . . Seriously? This is the level your 'debate' has sunk to?

You like inundating those opposed to your views with ream and reams of links, quotes, citations etc . . . well, here's one for you:

Russia supplied Syria with chemical weapons . . . who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

Do you really want to get into a factual discussion about arms exports and condemn Russia as opposed to the US?

nationalism is one thing but jingoism and xenophobia are quite a different kettle of fish.

Hypocrisy sucks, doesn't it

(Not yours, rather your country's)

Now I've seen what OTT really means.

I'd rather people who think like this just say "thank you" for winning the Cold War against totalitarian communism and continued going about their daily business.

Edit to note I had to delete a quote because of excessive quotes to one post.

If you have seen it then you can pinpoint it rather than dismissing a whole post . . . and as for thanking , who exactly, for 'winning' the cold war . . . are you serious? This is a comment heard from neo-cons, rednecks and the generally under-educated.

Th point made was that Russia looks like the saner partner in this scenario and you come up with something about him being a bad host for the Olympics to counter the US bombing Syria, destroying Iraq and invading/bombing a number of other countries . . . oh, as well as chemical weapons usage and/or sales in Vietnam, Iraq etc . . .

What was the difference between Iraq using chemical weapons and Syria using them? One side supplied by the US, the other by Russia.

Thanks? Really . . .

[simple1]

@publicus: Your posts appear to ignore the US/NATO recognition that the Al Nusra Front and other smaller Al Qaeda affiliated groups have carried most of the burden and are the most effective fighters combatting the Syrian Army. In recognition of this fact, to assist non affiliated Al Qaeda rebels with strengthening their combat effectiveness, increasing intelligence capability and so on, US/NATO have been training them in Jordon & Turkey. I have read that the US is also encouraging the equivalent of the Sons of Iraq campaign. All to eventually counter Al Qaeda, the regular army & militias in Syria as right now they truly struggle to do so.

On the other hand, in the broader regional strategy, have a read of the Rand Corporation paper, you will quickly recognise some elements have been implemented on how to manipulate Sunni Islamic extremism to achieve US regional goals in countering Iran’s influence and other Islamic radical organisations.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf

[boomerangutang]

I don't think anyone, except perhaps a few folks inside Syrian rebel camps can get an idea of the make-up of the Rebel forces.

Muslim radicals have been known to dress as women sometimes, for H's sake - if it furthers their aims. The M.E. is awash with nefarious cabals - composed of angry men who are well versed in lying and deception. Any hard-core deist is going to want everyone to think exactly like his sect thinks. They've proven it, 1,000 ways, in 1,000 locales. The slightest variation from their mandates, and they foam at the mouth. In the not-too-distant future, there will be groups in the M.E. who will make Al Qaeda and Taliban look tame in comparison.

The rebels and the Assad regime each have less than a modicum of credence - in what they say. Telling the truth, in that part of the world, is considered quaint, naive and silly.

[Publicus]

Publicus

Assad is a tyrant dictator who has been mass slaughtering the people of Syria for more than two years now so that he and his small corrupt and cruel gang of oligarchs can retain power and control the wealth of the country. Assad is a mass murderer, a merciless tyrant.

So you say Publicus.

You have been very keen all through this topic to see the US start once again lobbing missiles at another country in this instance which poses no direct threat to them.

They have armed and trained the rebels, acts which have surely caused more deaths and now they want to go in and cause even more.

Assad is indeed a tyrant but tell us, what sort of a government will Syria end up with if the US manage to kill off Assad as they did Saddam and Gaddafi.

I am wondering how you think the Syrian people will be better off.

I read that there are already parts of Syria that have been taken over by the rebels and are subjected to Shiite law.

Do you really think that is what the Syrian people want?

The Biggest Myth Of The Syrian War Is That The Rebels Are Dominated By al Qaeda

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards."

O'Bagy's post has been criticized for being biased toward "moderate" rebels — which O'Bagy defines as those who have respected women's and minority rights while calling for a civilian government — nevertheless, jihadist experts agree that the fear of an "al Qaeda takeover" is exaggerated.

"Rebel units are distributed across a broad ideological spectrum, with secular units at one pole and Salafi jihadists at the other, and most falling between the two," according to a new report by experts Jeffrey White, Andrew J. Tabler, and Aaron Y. Zelin of The Washington Institute. "A major differentiation among Islamic units is between those that are Islamic with a national or Syrian agenda and those with a global jihadist mission."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2eASk13EC

[midas]

why attack Syria?

Russia is now forced to draw the line, a very hard line in the sand. Syria is much more than losing a strategic port in the Natural Gas rich middle east. It is about losing the entire European region to Middle Eastern and Caspian Energy interests. Russia cannot allow that, this is why they are moving their military assets in place. This is also why resource hungry China cannot have it’s natural gas flow interrupted as well and have sided with the Russians when it comes to Syria.

http://thenewsdoctors.com/why-sryia-its-not-what-you-think-its-not-what-youve-been-told/

[lannarebirth]

Publicus

Assad is a tyrant dictator who has been mass slaughtering the people of Syria for more than two years now so that he and his small corrupt and cruel gang of oligarchs can retain power and control the wealth of the country. Assad is a mass murderer, a merciless tyrant.

So you say Publicus.

You have been very keen all through this topic to see the US start once again lobbing missiles at another country in this instance which poses no direct threat to them.

They have armed and trained the rebels, acts which have surely caused more deaths and now they want to go in and cause even more.

Assad is indeed a tyrant but tell us, what sort of a government will Syria end up with if the US manage to kill off Assad as they did Saddam and Gaddafi.

I am wondering how you think the Syrian people will be better off.

I read that there are already parts of Syria that have been taken over by the rebels and are subjected to Shiite law.

Do you really think that is what the Syrian people want?

The Biggest Myth Of The Syrian War Is That The Rebels Are Dominated By al Qaeda

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards."

O'Bagy's post has been criticized for being biased toward "moderate" rebels — which O'Bagy defines as those who have respected women's and minority rights while calling for a civilian government — nevertheless, jihadist experts agree that the fear of an "al Qaeda takeover" is exaggerated.

"Rebel units are distributed across a broad ideological spectrum, with secular units at one pole and Salafi jihadists at the other, and most falling between the two," according to a new report by experts Jeffrey White, Andrew J. Tabler, and Aaron Y. Zelin of The Washington Institute. "A major differentiation among Islamic units is between those that are Islamic with a national or Syrian agenda and those with a global jihadist mission."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2eASk13EC

I really enjoyed the "Comments" section of that article. All the news that fits, eh?

[Publicus]

@publicus: Your posts appear to ignore the US/NATO recognition that the Al Nusra Front and other smaller Al Qaeda affiliated groups have carried most of the burden and are the most effective fighters combatting the Syrian Army. In recognition of this fact, to assist non affiliated Al Qaeda rebels with strengthening their combat effectiveness, increasing intelligence capability and so on, US/NATO have been training them in Jordon & Turkey. I have read that the US is also encouraging the equivalent of the Sons of Iraq campaign. All to eventually counter Al Qaeda, the regular army & militias in Syria as right now they truly struggle to do so.

On the other hand, in the broader regional strategy, have a read of the Rand Corporation paper, you will quickly recognise some elements have been implemented on how to manipulate Sunni Islamic extremism to achieve US regional goals in countering Iran’s influence and other Islamic radical organisations.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf

Yes, the Pentagon and the Rand Corporation have been intertwined since the early days of the Cold War, back into the 1950s. Daniel Ellsberg who broke the Pentagon Papers had worked at the Rand Corporation which had done a thorough and exhaustive history of the Vietnam War, i.e., the so called Pentagon Papers.

I'll be pleased to read the link you provide as I haven't seen that particular one in respect to the Syria conflict and the tensions and antagonisms throughout the ME broadly and generally, and the U.S.'s evolving and dynamic response to it.

I don't think anyone, except perhaps a few folks inside Syrian rebel camps can get an idea of the make-up of the Rebel forces.

Muslim radicals have been known to dress as women sometimes, for H's sake - if it furthers their aims. The M.E. is awash with nefarious cabals - composed of angry men who are well versed in lying and deception. Any hard-core deist is going to want everyone to think exactly like his sect thinks. They've proven it, 1,000 ways, in 1,000 locales. The slightest variation from their mandates, and they foam at the mouth. In the not-too-distant future, there will be groups in the M.E. who will make Al Qaeda and Taliban look tame in comparison.

The rebels and the Assad regime each have less than a modicum of credence - in what they say. Telling the truth, in that part of the world, is considered quaint, naive and silly.

Agreed it's a cut throat part of the world which failed to produce anything resembling the European Enlightenment so consequently continues to suffer from the ways of the Dark Ages and the ancient world and its attendant primitive attitudes and behaviors.

Unfortunately, this sometimes means we have no choice but to play by their rules. That is most unpleasant to most of us, repugnant to naïve others, but the fact and the reality of the life and Old World ways of that region.