Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

[rijb]

1 hour ago, wisher said:

Enough dead babies in Mosul for the UN Security Council, Russia, and Iran.

Geography much?

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

<snip>
Trump did say earlier on, that there was now going to be a new Syria policy from Washington.  A policy where removing ISIS is more important than removing Assad. I do hope Trump still feels the same way.

 

Trump's base in social media are reported to be extremely unhappy with his policy U Turn with attacking Assad forces.

 

To me it's inconceivable Trump was unaware of the war crimes being committed by Assad's forces, including systematic murder of civilians, including children, when he was seeking election and articulating his views of non interference in the M.E., but excepting Islamist terror groups. One could say the attack on the airfield was cynical opportunism. Have to wait & see what Trump policy, if any, unfolds in the coming weeks regards the Assad dictatorship and it's regularly reported crimes against humanity.

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

fair point but... I doubt there was much intel and I think he personally knows Assad and his crew and he thinks it wasn't him... think about it?  why do it?  on eve of peace talks?  it's madness and as he say's he's lot's of things but not mad

 

most of the rebels are ISIS and this plays right into their grubby evil hands and I'm amazed you are defending Trump as this is just a version of one of his mad 'Tweets' in the early morning but with missiles 

There was lots of intel.  What planes were involved, where they came from, where the bombs exploded, satellite images of all of this.  I think that's a lot of intel.  None of which Ford would be privy to now.  Peace talks have been going on for years and going nowhere.

 

Most of the rebels are Syrians fighting Assad.  Many are with ISIS now, but some Syrians were forced to join as this war has progressed.  I'm not defending Trump.  I'm opposed to Assad. For good reasons.

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Is by today, Syrian Army, Assad or any member of the Syrian government accused and sentenced by any national or international court concerning use of chemical weapons on the Syrian opposition since 2011 going from the FSA up to ISIS ?

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Assad and Russia have been condemned by many Western nations.  As mentioned before, due to Russia, many actions proposed by the US have been vetoed by Russia.  Hmm...wonder why.  Some of these western nations are also proposing charging Russia with crimes against humanity.  For good reasons.

 

Not sure why you are so hard on this.  You do understand what Syria is doing to it's own people is a crime?  I sure hope so.

 

This article explains the complexities of going after Assad, the rebels and ISIS for various crimes:

https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2016/12/12/syria-war-crimes-guide-navigating-legal-minefield

Quote

 

Once there’s an armed conflict, the basics of what you can and can’t do in war are codified by the Geneva Conventions as well as the Rome Statute that founded the International Criminal Court.

A few basics that will sound all too familiar with regards to Syria: it’s a war crime to launch an attack on civilians; it’s a war crime to intentionally attack medical facilities; it’s a war crime to attack peacekeepers or humanitarian workers.

......

The law has clearly not served as much of a deterrent in the Syrian war, but that doesn’t mean wrongdoers won’t eventually be brought to book. It probably won’t be by the International Criminal Court, however.

 

This is because Syria is not a member of the ICC, and without membership it takes UN Security Council referral for investigation – this was attempted in May 2014 but voted down by veto-wielding powers Russia and China.

 

 

Hope this clears things up for you.

[Rob13]

17 hours ago, klikster said:

Seriously? Liquid chemical agent sprayed by helicopters? Have you ever noticed the "donut" shaped rotor wash that 'choppers create? Might kill the entire crew.

 

 A drone might work.

 

Helicopters are used for crop-dusting; wouldn't be too hard to switch out the pesticide for something more lethal. 

[Stargeezr]

Obama could have done this after the last chemical attack,  but he did not, Obama was the President just as

President Trump Is the President,  what a difference!  I read that Obamas hands were tied, Really!  I mean Really!

No the difference is the attitude  and the courage to go through with some sign to say you crossed the red line.

These missles  were  a good sign.

Geezer

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

There was lots of intel.  What planes were involved, where they came from, where the bombs exploded, satellite images of all of this.  I think that's a lot of intel.  None of which Ford would be privy to now.  Peace talks have been going on for years and going nowhere.

 

Most of the rebels are Syrians fighting Assad.  Many are with ISIS now, but some Syrians were forced to join as this war has progressed.  I'm not defending Trump.  I'm opposed to Assad. For good reasons.

you did not address the question - why would he do it knowing the international outcry? the answer is he wouldn't 

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

you did not address the question - why would he do it knowing the international outcry? the answer is he wouldn't 

You mean the international outcry from every western nation supporting the bombing?  The ones against it are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea....LOL

[simple1]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

you did not address the question - why would he do it knowing the international outcry? the answer is he wouldn't 

You're making huge assumptions as to the behaviour of Assad. Do you think the torture and murder of children in Assad's prisons has stopped because of international condemnation and threats to replace him?

 

 Considering the Assad dictatorship has carried out crimes against humanity for years, including use of chemical warfare, on a number of occasions, despite repeated condemnation and threats against him personally. Why would his behaviour with the latest mass murder of civilians be any different?

[selftaopath]

On 4/7/2017 at 2:20 PM, Berkshire said:

Interesting.  If these "facts" are true, why do you think Assad's own people wanted him out?

Remember this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/syria-uprising-reform-bashar-al-assad

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

you did not address the question - why would he do it knowing the international outcry? the answer is he wouldn't 

I think you massively overestimate the saviness of world leaders in general. Remember Bush's Iraq war? Pretty stupid.

[boomerangutang]

                   It doesn't bode well for US military might, if they launch 59 state-of-the-art cruise missiles costing around $100 million altogether, and don't do much damage.  

 

                    Usually, when a country launches military strikes, it's also showcasing its weapons.  It happened during the Falkland's battles (Brit Harriers vs French Mirages) and in nearly every other war.  

 

                 If $100 million worth of Tomahawks can't even disable a runway at an air field..........  

 

                   With $100 million, 2,500 homes could be built at $40k each, or 40,000 libraries in Africa.   $100 million for a few potholes in a Syrian airfield?  Oh, and possibly a few out-dated Syrian jets destroyed, all of which will be replaced by state-of-the-art Russian fighter jets.  

[Usernames]

Libya 2.0

[selftaopath]

On 4/7/2017 at 2:21 PM, thaihome said:

 

Though I don't disagree that the removal of Assad will likely lead to even more sectarian violence and civil war in Syria, continuing in undoing two generations of progress in developing a "westernized" country in the middle east (a debatable goal in the first place). It is very unfortunate that Assad in attempting to stay in power turned to  tactics that go beyond norms in warfare, such as they are.

 

In most cases, a leader such as Assad, in face of such opposition, will often sacrifice himself (in comfortable exile) and allow a new face from his faction to negotiate a face savings solution.  Assad and his followers  (or more likely advisors) have forcefully rejected this path and have doggedly pursued ruthless war against his opposition.  

 

To me, this has more the cancelled any good he may have done for the country in the past. If he had resigned 7 years ago in face of what was then non violent protests, there is a very good chance the civil war would not have happened.  Instead, he started shooting the protesters. And here we are. Attempts to list all the good from Assad 8 or more years ago and saying these are reasons to keep him around  is disgenous. 

TH

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-atrocities-civilian-deaths-gas-attack.html

Didn't his Father also kill Syrians who protested? Must be a family tradition. I wonder what his English wife says about all this?

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"To quote one of his phrases as to why Assad should remain in power".

Look, I'ill tell you why Assad should and must stay in power.  The biggest rebel groups have already been called "Islamic fundamentalists" by the media. Yes, rebels like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are dangerous. Why should Assad remain in power ? Because IF he is toppled, the biggest rebel groups will still be there.

We do not wish to see a Syria with groups like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front being there if Assad is removed. Washington's previous intent was to support the rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then bomb any rebels who don't like America and Europe. This is a strategy that I think, is too risky. In other words, Washington might find that bombing the bad rebels after Assad has gone is not something that is easy to do. It's better to help Assad remove the rebels.

Trump did say earlier on, that there was now going to be a new Syria policy from Washington.  A policy where removing ISIS is more important than removing Assad. I do hope Trump still feels the same way.

 

To rephrase the defending team: "I'll tell you why it is OK to drop chemical weapons on children." And this is where some people end up. Defending the indefensible.

[Rob13]

3 hours ago, SheungWan said:

" And this is where some people end up. Defending the indefensible.

Maybe not so much about defending the indefensible as wanting to keep  the US out of it. The US' resources are already stretched too thin, another cluster<deleted> like Iraq is going to make a bad situation in the states  worse. Time the US quits being the world's policeman. There are some other countries in the world with $$$$ and military capabilities, maybe they should step up and let the US pass on this one. It'll never happen though  because presidents like Trump get too much political leverage from starting wars like this, in spite of it  not what's best for their country.

[mettech]

All and all the scenario is being played and let see what china and north korea will say and do not to forget russia and iran this will be a good war scenario for the world to watch at their door step.

[klikster]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                   It doesn't bode well for US military might, if they launch 59 state-of-the-art cruise missiles costing around $100 million altogether, and don't do much damage.  

 

                    Usually, when a country launches military strikes, it's also showcasing its weapons.  It happened during the Falkland's battles (Brit Harriers vs French Mirages) and in nearly every other war.  

 

                 If $100 million worth of Tomahawks can't even disable a runway at an air field..........  

 

                   With $100 million, 2,500 homes could be built at $40k each, or 40,000 libraries in Africa.   $100 million for a few potholes in a Syrian airfield?  Oh, and possibly a few out-dated Syrian jets destroyed, all of which will be replaced by state-of-the-art Russian fighter jets.  

Or -- they could have bought about 40,000,000 bottles of Chang for the expats on TV. -- Duh!

[billd766]

22 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Assad never supported ISIS.

Assad was never condemned by any national or international court for support to any form of terrorism.

In contrast, Assad sr and Jr were one of the only nations in the region who hosted Iraqi refugees since Gulf War 1.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Really? Only Assad sr and jr supported refugees?

 

Have a look here  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

and especially at Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees.

 

Or here for Iraqi refugees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq

 

Again it is Jordan, Lebanon and this time Egypt taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, selftaopath said:

Didn't his Father also kill Syrians who protested? Must be a family tradition. I wonder what his English wife says about all this?

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/syrian-first-lady-asma-alassad-weighs-in-on-syrian-air-strikes/news-story/7e118033306eb0e3a217f482d407df17

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Is by today, Syrian Army, Assad or any member of the Syrian government accused and sentenced by any national or international court concerning use of chemical weapons on the Syrian opposition since 2011 going from the FSA up to ISIS ?




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Deflect to your little heart's content.

 

Quote

According to Virginia Gamba, the cases examined were restricted by the Security council to "the last two years". "the first one was Talmenes- and that happened in 2014 on the 21st of April. The second one was the 16th of March 2015 in Sarmin- and these two were attributed to the Syrian Airforce;

OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCW-UN_Joint_Investigative_Mechanism#The_mission

 

THIRD REPORT OF THE OPCW FACT-FINDING MISSION IN SYRIA

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/netherlands/328666/pdfs/THIRDREPORTOFTHEOPCWFACTFINDINGMISSIONINSYRIA.pdf

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

Some are saying that Assad couldn't have Sarin-ed the area as he had nothing to gain from it. 

Why then has the same Idlib region been heavily bombed by white phosphorus in the past 24 hours? Both by Russian and Syrian jets. According to the Geneva convention white phosphorus falls under the banned chemical weapons (the same as use of Sarin) when not used for just making smoke. Both Putin and Assad don't give a shit about civilian casualties or the Geneva convention. 

 

Further bombing the area should serve to make future investigation meaningless.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Rob13 said:

 

Helicopters are used for crop-dusting; wouldn't be too hard to switch out the pesticide for something more lethal. 

 

In the context of the Syrian conflict, helicopters are used for delivery of chemical weapons (usually Chlorine) - but through dropping barrel bombs rather than spraying the substance.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Rob13 said:

Maybe not so much about defending the indefensible as wanting to keep  the US out of it. The US' resources are already stretched too thin, another cluster**** like Iraq is going to make a bad situation in the states  worse. Time the US quits being the world's policeman. There are some other countries in the world with $$$$ and military capabilities, maybe they should step up and let the US pass on this one. It'll never happen though  because presidents like Trump get too much political leverage from starting wars like this, in spite of it  not what's best for their country.

 

The US gets flak when it does not get involved as well.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                   It doesn't bode well for US military might, if they launch 59 state-of-the-art cruise missiles costing around $100 million altogether, and don't do much damage.  

 

                    Usually, when a country launches military strikes, it's also showcasing its weapons.  It happened during the Falkland's battles (Brit Harriers vs French Mirages) and in nearly every other war.  

 

                 If $100 million worth of Tomahawks can't even disable a runway at an air field..........  

 

                   With $100 million, 2,500 homes could be built at $40k each, or 40,000 libraries in Africa.   $100 million for a few potholes in a Syrian airfield?  Oh, and possibly a few out-dated Syrian jets destroyed, all of which will be replaced by state-of-the-art Russian fighter jets.  

 

If you are basing your damage assessment on Syrian government, Russian sources or various non-military interest groups - that's fine. I'm pretty sure, though, that the US got a good handle on both the expected damage and the actual outcome.

 

 

 

 

[Ijustcashier]

The strike on Syria and other strikes and wars eg Iraq are also vital for weapons testing in real world scenarios. From that they can improve on weapon systems or simple scuttle a system that was not performing in real life.

[Thorgal]

OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCW-UN_Joint_Investigative_Mechanism#The_mission
 
THIRD REPORT OF THE OPCW FACT-FINDING MISSION IN SYRIA
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/netherlands/328666/pdfs/THIRDREPORTOFTHEOPCWFACTFINDINGMISSIONINSYRIA.pdf

Quote from your first link :

"On 7 August 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015) to establish a joint investigation mechanism to identify individuals or entities responsible for use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war."

Did resolution 2235 provide sufficient elements to condemn Assad/Syrian Army/Syrian government by any official court and that resulted in a final verdict where can be concluded that Syrian leadership used chemical against against his own population ?

Till now nothing. Tons of accusations on the MSM and by many political figures. And yet, like I've said, not a single official court verdict.

One of the essential markers of any democracy is "the typical division of branches into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary."
(Quoted from link)

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

The 'judiciary' branch didn't condemned, sentenced or came to a final decisive verdict during to whole Syrian war to prove tjere was actually a crime of use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government/Assad or his syrian army.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Quote from your first link :

"On 7 August 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015) to establish a joint investigation mechanism to identify individuals or entities responsible for use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war."

Did resolution 2235 provide sufficient elements to condemn Assad/Syrian Army/Syrian government by any official court and that resulted in a final verdict where can be concluded that Syrian leadership used chemical against against his own population ?

Till now nothing. Tons of accusations on the MSM and by many political figures. And yet, like I've said, not a single official court verdict.

One of the essential markers of any democracy is "the typical division of branches into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary."
(Quoted from link)

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

The 'judiciary' branch didn't condemned, sentenced or came to a final decisive verdict during to whole Syrian war to prove tjere was actually a crime of use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government/Assad or his syrian army.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

You seemed to have missed the posts showing these cases were sent to the UNSC only to be vetoed by Russia.  You seem to pick and choose only what suits your view.

 

You posts like this are getting old.

[Thorgal]

You seemed to have missed the posts showing these cases were sent to the UNSC only to be vetoed by Russia.  You seem to pick and choose only what suits your view.

 

You posts like this are getting old.

 

Any individual person or association can file a complaint to any court of his country.

 

The court will decide on a national level if the case will be taken or will be dismissed.

 

The complaint can reach a higher court in case that you've encountered a previous dismissal at a lower court.

 

Any national court can also continue for serious crimes on an international level by filing a further complaint to the ICC (International Crime Court).

 

No need to go on the path of the UN(SC) where vetoed resolutions could lead to nowhere.

 

Again, no individual, no association, no political figure ever went to a national or an international court to object or challenge supposedly chemical attacks by the Syrian army...

 

Here's a similar, previous, example of Kurdish victims filing complaint to a French court against the French companies who aided Saddam with fabricating and using chemical and toxic warfare...no need to go to the UN path...

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

 

Quote from your first link :

"On 7 August 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015) to establish a joint investigation mechanism to identify individuals or entities responsible for use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war."

Did resolution 2235 provide sufficient elements to condemn Assad/Syrian Army/Syrian government by any official court and that resulted in a final verdict where can be concluded that Syrian leadership used chemical against against his own population ?

Till now nothing. Tons of accusations on the MSM and by many political figures. And yet, like I've said, not a single official court verdict.

One of the essential markers of any democracy is "the typical division of branches into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary."
(Quoted from link)

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

The 'judiciary' branch didn't condemned, sentenced or came to a final decisive verdict during to whole Syrian war to prove tjere was actually a crime of use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government/Assad or his syrian army.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Cherry-picked quote referring to general statements made in the preamble to the reports are all very fine. My original post contained a direct reference to Syrian armed forces accountability. Jabber on, deflect some more.