Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

[Morch]

 

How Is Syria Still Using Chemical Weapons?

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/521883/

[craigt3365]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

He's stuck on seeing this in court instead of focusing on atrocities committed by Assad.  And as you say, ignoring what we post and cherry picking quotes.

[geriatrickid]

10 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

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

 

Rubbish. Obama did not have the support of Congress to do this, nor were the circumstances the same.

 

Heres what needs to be done; The muslim world needs to take responsibility for  putting assad down. Egypt has a large army sitting around doing swfa. The same for Turkey. Let the Saudis, UAW, Jordan, Egypt and its friends in Africa  pout together a peacekeeping force and move against SYria. Iran won't  do a thing. And if the Russiians object, the muslims can  declare jihad.

[geriatrickid]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

And you are surprised?

Reminds me of that Iraqi propaganda minister. He must have been trained at the old  Soviet School for Propaganda. 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Rubbish. Obama did not have the support of Congress to do this, nor were the circumstances the same.

 

Heres what needs to be done; The muslim world needs to take responsibility for  putting assad down. Egypt has a large army sitting around doing swfa. The same for Turkey. Let the Saudis, UAW, Jordan, Egypt and its friends in Africa  pout together a peacekeeping force and move against SYria. Iran won't  do a thing. And if the Russiians object, the muslims can  declare jihad.

 

Egypt's armed forces got their hands full dealing with ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula and keeping tabs on things in Libya.

Turkey is already militarily involved in Syria.

Saudi Arabia is having a backyard war in Yemen.

Jordan's armed forces keep lead on things at home, while fighting ISIS in Iraq on the side.

 

As for Iran wouldn't do a thing, and Muslims declaring Jihad - good luck with that.

 

Problem with the above is that Arab and Muslim countries do not share a unified political agenda, and that they have conflicting interests when it comes to such interventions. The Arab League had a go at mediation on two occasions, nothing came out of it.

 

[craigt3365]

No easy answers!!!

[ilostmypassword]

As one right wing commentator put it: "ISIS finally has an Air Force."

[stevenl]

No easy answers!!!

Agreed, but bombing does not provide one either, can only put things more on edge.

USA has no interest here, except for getting rid of Daesh. Same goes to a large extent for Europe. Therefore, get out.

sent using Tapatalk

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, but bombing does not provide one either, can only put things more on edge.

USA has no interest here, except for getting rid of Daesh. Same goes to a large extent for Europe. Therefore, get out.

sent using Tapatalk
 

 

But alright for Russia to be involved?

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, but bombing does not provide one either, can only put things more on edge.

USA has no interest here, except for getting rid of Daesh. Same goes to a large extent for Europe. Therefore, get out.

sent using Tapatalk
 

Bombing from afar keeps coalition causalities down.  Nothing worse than dead soldiers being splashed across the nightly news.  Russia has the advantage they control the news.  Western nations don't have that luxury.  Luckily.

 

This would be much better if Russia and Iran got out.

[Thorgal]

 
But alright for Russia to be involved?

Yes. Russia had previously experienced radical Islamists infiltration in Afghanistan and on its own soil in Tchechnya.

Russia has actually a 'deja vue' with those same extremist networks who infiltrated in Tchechnya and now in Syria. They use the same underground network channels through Turkey.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, but bombing does not provide one either, can only put things more on edge.

USA has no interest here, except for getting rid of Daesh. Same goes to a large extent for Europe. Therefore, get out.

sent using Tapatalk
 

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But alright for Russia to be involved?

 

If you think stopping Daesh is the number 1 priority, then yes.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

If you think stopping Daesh is the number 1 priority, then yes.

 

If you think that Russia is only attacking Daesh, then I've got a rainbow for sale.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

Yes. Russia had previously experienced radical Islamists infiltration in Afghanistan and on its own soil in Tchechnya.

Russia has actually a 'deja vue' with those same extremist networks who infiltrated in Tchechnya and now in Syria. They use the same underground network channels through Turkey.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Yes, Russia does have experience with Islamists in this area.  They've tried ethnic cleansing there and it hasn't seemed to help much.  Same strategy they used in Afghanistan (failed) and now Syria (failing).  The Afghan invasion in Afghanistan started Al Qaeda.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Quote

Al-Qaeda (/ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ˌælkɑːˈiːdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base", "The Foundation" or "The Fundament" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qæda and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded in 1988^[26] by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,^[27] and several other Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.^[28][29][30]

 

And has created massive problems in Chechnya.  Many from this territory are now foreign fighters in Syria.  Maybe Russia would be best pursuing a different strategy?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Yes. Russia had previously experienced radical Islamists infiltration in Afghanistan and on its own soil in Tchechnya.

Russia has actually a 'deja vue' with those same extremist networks who infiltrated in Tchechnya and now in Syria. They use the same underground network channels through Turkey.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Russia's previous history in either Afghanistan or Chechnya is irrelevant. Are inane deflections on sale this weekend?

[stevenl]

Bombing from afar keeps coalition causalities down.  Nothing worse than dead soldiers being splashed across the nightly news.  Russia has the advantage they control the news.  Western nations don't have that luxury.  Luckily.
 
This would be much better if Russia and Iran got out.

Agreed, but their involvement should not matter to the west.

 
But alright for Russia to be involved?

Who cares about what Russia is doing. Russian involvement should not be a reason for USA and Europe to be involved. Leave them Syria, just as many years ago the west left Afghanistan to the SU.

sent using Tapatalk

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Leave them Syria, just as many years ago the west left Afghanistan to the SU.
 

Is there anything left in Syria for Russia to have?  And yes, the West does care what Russia does in Syria.  Luckily, crimes against humanity are a big thing to Western leaders.  As is the refugee crisis created by Russian bombing.  Stop the bombing, stop the refugee crisis.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, but their involvement should not matter to the west.



Who cares about what Russia is doing. Russian involvement should not be a reason for USA and Europe to be involved. Leave them Syria, just as many years ago the west left Afghanistan to the SU.

sent using Tapatalk
 

 

Yeah, about that....it wouldn't take long for the party line to be changed into "how can you stand on the sidelines?". If you wish to scrap international convention etc. - that's fine, but then this wouldn't apply only to Russia and only to this specific conflict.

 

If I'm getting your reasoning correctly, Russia can go ahead and butcher people wherever and the same argument would stand. Russia isn't in Syria in order to save the World, but because it protects its interests. Somehow, that's legit, while denied to other countries.

 

[Thorgal]

 
Russia's previous history in either Afghanistan or Chechnya is irrelevant. Are inane deflections on sale this weekend?

Latest US intervention in Syria can be seen as an act of war according to International law.

Russian intervention in Syria is embedded with a defensive military pact with sovereign Syrian government. With or without Assad.

Russian intervention is also based on self-defence due to its previous experiences from Afghanistan and Chechnya. See my previous post.

Military opposition in Idlib is in majority Al Nusra, an AQ affiliate. The chemical attack happened at some 100 kms from the Turkish border. Majority of population are actually Turkmen, known to be very loyal to Turkey and less to the Syrian government.

Neutral population or pro-Assad Syrians in the region are killed, chased or taken hostage. The 2013, Al Ghoutta, chemical attack showed victims from Latakia, taken earlier as hostage.

And euh, well known Chechnya foreign Islamists battalions joining the Al Nusra in the region is a known fact.
Even so, jihadi veterans of Afghanistan and their networks are also implicated in the Syrian war.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[stevenl]

 

Yeah, about that....it wouldn't take long for the party line to be changed into "how can you stand on the sidelines?". If you wish to scrap international convention etc. - that's fine, but then this wouldn't apply only to Russia and only to this specific conflict.

 

If I'm getting your reasoning correctly, Russia can go ahead and butcher people wherever and the same argument would stand. Russia isn't in Syria in order to save the World, but because it protects its interests. Somehow, that's legit, while denied to other countries.

 

You were giving Russian presence as a reason for Western involvement. I think that a very poor reason, plus historically incorrect as well.

 

Now you're talking about international conventions, if those are the reason there should be international presence, not national like ATM.

 

sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Latest US intervention in Syria can be seen as an act of war according to International law.

Russian intervention in Syria is embedded with a defensive military pact with sovereign Syrian government. With or without Assad.

Russian intervention is also based on self-defence due to its previous experiences from Afghanistan and Chechnya. See my previous post.

Military opposition in Idlib is in majority Al Nusra, an AQ affiliate. The chemical attack happened at some 100 kms from the Turkish border. Majority of population are actually Turkmen, known to be very loyal to Turkey and less to the Syrian government.

Neutral population or pro-Assad Syrians in the region are killed, chased or taken hostage. The 2013, Al Ghoutta, chemical attack showed victims from Latakia, taken earlier as hostage.

And euh, well known Chechnya foreign Islamists battalions joining the Al Nusra in the region is a known fact.
Even so, jihadi veterans of Afghanistan and their networks are also implicated in the Syrian war.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

The only relevant bit is Russia's treaties with Syria. Saying that they apply "with or without Assad" is dependent on which alternative government is referred to.

 

The "self defense" argument, based on previous Russian interventions in Afghanistan and Chechnya is inane. See my previous post.

 

That there are veteran Jihadis of those campaigns fighting in Syria does not make it any less so. In accordance with this logic, the Russians have a standing justification to intervene wherever these appear.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Morch

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The only relevant bit is Russia's treaties with Syria. Saying that they apply "with or without Assad" is dependent on which alternative government is referred to.

 

The "self defense" argument, based on previous Russian interventions in Afghanistan and Chechnya is inane. See my previous post.

That there are veteran Jihadis of those campaigns fighting in Syria does not make it any less so. In accordance with this logic, the Russians have a standing justification to intervene wherever these appear.

Amazing how some defiantly try to defend the actions of Russia in Syria. 

 

The net is they are bombing innocent civilians.  Nothing else matters.

 

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You were giving Russian presence as a reason for Western involvement. I think that a very poor reason, plus historically incorrect as well.

 

Now you're talking about international conventions, if those are the reason there should be international presence, not national like ATM.

 

sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

I don't think that I made this argument, exactly. My point is more to do with complaints about Western involvement, which somehow condone/support Russian/Iranian involvement.

 

International intervention, under the hospices of the UN requires a UNSC resolution. Ain't gonna happen. Some members go bonkers when the US uses it's veto right, not that many issues when Russia and the PRC do the same. Go figure.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If you think that Russia is only attacking Daesh, then I've got a rainbow for sale.

I didn't say that.  But they are attacking Daesh. And also the Al-Nusra front. Which is a distinction without a difference.  As for the alleged moderate rebels, I hear both of them are doing fine.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I didn't say that.  But they are attacking Daesh. And also the Al-Nusra front. Which is a distinction without a difference.  As for the alleged moderate rebels, I hear both of them are doing fine.

 

The main criteria seems to be anti-Assad,  rather than level of religious fanaticism. Killing a whole lot of Syrian civilians while at it, too.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

The main criteria seems to be anti-Assad,  rather than level of religious fanaticism. Killing a whole lot of Syrian civilians while at it, too.

And this will stop if Daesh or Al Nusra triumphs? Apart from Sunni fanatics and some Kurds in the Kurdish portion of Syria, there isn't much in the way of serious opposition to Assad.  Instead, of they win, they'll be extending the slaughter to whatever portions of the caliphate they can get their hands on. 

[Andaman Al]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Amazing how some defiantly try to defend the actions of Russia in Syria. 

 

The net is they are bombing innocent civilians.  Nothing else matters.

 

Nobody is trying to defend the Russians, that is a stupid thing to say. You are just being presented with facts. It is a fact that Russia has full Syrian Government agreement to be there and to act in a defensive manner. The US does not have any agreements and it's attack on Syria was potentially an act of war (we can let the men with thin arms argue it out) on a sovereign territory. Your argument that Syria is bombing civilians unfortunately has nothing to support it (as a reason to strike). Innocent civilians are being bombed in Yemen and the US is doing nothing, Innocent civilians are being killed throughout Africa and the US are doing nothing. Trump SHOULD have gone to Congress.

 

Today, official tweets from Russian Diplomatic sources have threatened that all of this may well result in a conventional war. If that happens there will be mountains of dead innocent children and babies.

 

Quote

Syria crisis: Russia raises prospect of war if it is given G7 ultimatum as it mocks Boris Johnson's no-show

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/boris-johnson-spearhead-diplomatic-drive-get-russian-forces/

[stevenl]

 
I don't think that I made this argument, exactly. My point is more to do with complaints about Western involvement, which somehow condone/support Russian/Iranian involvement.
 
International intervention, under the hospices of the UN requires a UNSC resolution. Ain't gonna happen. Some members go bonkers when the US uses it's veto right, not that many issues when Russia and the PRC do the same. Go figure.
 
 

Exactly. No resolution, therefore no national action.
I don't see anyone condoning Russian involvement, i do see people using Russian involvement as an excuse for Western involvement. As mentioned, imo a poor excuse.

sent using Tapatalk

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And this will stop if Daesh or Al Nusra triumphs? Apart from Sunni fanatics and some Kurds in the Kurdish portion of Syria, there isn't much in the way of serious opposition to Assad.  Instead, of they win, they'll be extending the slaughter to whatever portions of the caliphate they can get their hands on. 

 

The Russians and Assad's forces aren't very discriminant when it comes to opponents and civilians. Killing the latter seems to be at odds with the supposed underlying cause - saving Syria (unless, that is Syria equates with Assad). 

 

From a utilitarian (or even cynical) point of view, letting Assad and Russia deal with things might be the answer for some. As pointed out earlier, I have little doubt that some of those advocating it will have no compunctions blaming the US for standing aside and letting it happen, when this will serve.

 

That no one seems to have a good plan of how to deal with Syria if Assad is deposed, or even if he stays and the war is over - doesn't make the Russian intervention and Assad's practices any more palatable or right.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Exactly. No resolution, therefore no national action.
I don't see anyone condoning Russian involvement, i do see people using Russian involvement as an excuse for Western involvement. As mentioned, imo a poor excuse.

sent using Tapatalk
 

 

As said, that's not the argument I was making.

There are actually posters who do condone the Russian intervention, on this very topic.

Russia will veto any UNSC resolution that goes against its interests. You seem to be ok with this. When the same is applied on other matters, by the US, you object.