Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[Mouth]

I got the impression their foreign policy is generally quite hands off, which is guess is quite natural i suppose.

They find a strategic bombing campaign hard to resist tho

[۩ Imperator ۩]

It is also important to consider that their military is still relatively weak, globally speaking, following WW2.

[Red Genius]

They find a strategic bombing campaign hard to resist tho

How far am i allowed to go with German jokes?

[Scouse-Con]

It is also important to consider that their military is still relatively weak, globally speaking, following WW2.

Not really weak although they aren't as big and strong as they once were, they just don't go around bullying smaller weaker countries than them like the USA do.

[Mouth]

Not really weak although they aren't as big and strong as they once were, they just don't go around bullying smaller weaker countries than them like the USA do.

They are still limited by treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany

[-Sad Fuck-]

You'd have to be braindead to not think chemical weapons hadn't been deployed

[SheikhMo]

You'd have to be braindead to not think chemical weapons hadn't been deployed

Yes they have been deployed but there's growing evidence that it was by US backed rebels and not the Assad government.

[-Sad Fuck-]

Yes they have been deployed but there's growing evidence that it was by US backed rebels and not the Assad government.

That's not the argument.

Some virgin that lives in his nan's basement reckons none have been used at all.

[Corkboy]

Might want to get rid of that, Alan X is likely to give you a holiday if he see's it.

Conspiracy theories are verboten on here on pain of death.

It's the grammar and spelling atrocities that are worthy of verbotenhood.

[Scouse-Con]

An invasion into Syria is for oil, the US is in debt with China anyway after China lent them money. Look at Iraq for example were was weapons of mass destruction being used there?

[Scouse-Con]

The Syrians don't even want the US, the UK or any other nation in Syria anyway as it will cause more bloodshed of innocent civilians which is true. If there is any other reason to send troops into Syria is for it's oil.

[Scouse-Con]

That's not the argument.

Some virgin that lives in his nan's basement reckons none have been used at all.

Who said no chemical weapons have been used? I said the US claim there's been chemical weapons used, not that they haven't.

[Corkboy]

So there's this thing called the ignore list, where you go into profile then modify profile then ignore/buddy list and lo and behold you can make it so someone's posts simply don't come up.

[-Sad Fuck-]

Who said no chemical weapons have been used? I said the US claim there's been chemical weapons used, not that they haven't.

The US aren't claiming they've been used, they're claiming they know who used them.

You comparing Iraq to Syria infers you think the US are fabricating evidence in order to invade them, which is absurd.

[Fiasco]

Yes they have been deployed but there's growing evidence that it was by US backed rebels and not the Assad government.

Growing evidence or growing conspiracy theories?

[-Sad Fuck-]

There's no need to make a claim for something that's absolute fact.

[SheikhMo]

Growing evidence or growing conspiracy theories?

http://youtu.be/TY2DKzastu8 - watch this, educate yourself and then come back to me about 'conspiracy theories'.

[Scouse-Con]

http://youtu.be/TY2DKzastu8 - watch this, educate yourself and then come back to me about 'conspiracy theories'.

Great watch that, people fail to acknowledge the truth and label it as a 'conspiracy theory'.

[Scouse-Con]

Lets put it this way, Middle Eastern oil has enchanted global powers and global capital since the early twentieth century. 7 countries in the Middle East which are Iraq, Aghanistan, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Lebanon and Sudan are worldwide providers of oil in the world. Americas plans were to being down all 7 countries governments for its oil so the USA can takeover to be worldwide suppliers of oil in the world.

We have already seen the Iraqi government being brought down by American and British forces, what for? It's oil, then there comes Afghanistan, NATO forces are still in an ongoing war in Afghan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The US plans are to bring down Afghanistan and take over the oil there also. Then comes Syria, read my above replies on why America wants military action there, then it will be Iran, Somalia, Lebanon and Sudan.

Former NATO commander even speaks out about the plans the US governments future plans on Middle Eastern wars, it's all lies, it's so people believe 'oh it's the government they are right' when in reality it's all for profit. http://youtu.be/TY2DKzastu8

The link SheikhMo posted above is we're you find an interview with the former NATO commander and here's a very interesting article about America, Oil and War in the Middle East.

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full

[Fiasco]

http://youtu.be/TY2DKzastu8 - watch this, educate yourself and then come back to me about 'conspiracy theories'.

That's all well and good, but you are trying to connect a video from 2007 and my question asking for evidence of US-backed rebels being behind the chemical attacks last week. There is hardly a correlation. Sure, Clark mentions countries that the US has had military conflict or action with but that is the extent of it. Libya? There were over 20 countries involved in the military action there and the US were not at the forefront of it like Clark suggests they would be. If in the next several years the US invade Iran, Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan then I'll stand up and take notice. Because bear in mind the 5 year plan has so far taken 12 years so someone has their wires crossed.

Telling me to educate myself is fine, we should all do that until the day we cease to breathe but your condescending demeanor is amusing. Anyway, back to my original point as we've gone a little off subject which was probably your plan: where is the growing proof that the US were behind the chemical attack? Because when you strip it down that is what you are saying.

[Mouth]

Lets put it this way, Middle Eastern oil has enchanted global powers and global capital since the early twentieth century. 7 countries in the Middle East which are Iraq, Aghanistan, Syria, Iran, Israel, Lebanon and Sudan are worldwide providers of oil in the world. Americas plans were to being down all 7 countries governments for its oil so the USA can takeover to be worldwide suppliers of oil in the world.

We have already seen the Iraqi government being brought down by American and British forces, what for? It's oil, then there comes Afghanistan, NATO forces are still in an ongoing war in Afghan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The US plans are to bring down Afghanistan and take over the oil there also. Then comes Syria, read my above replies on why America wants military action there, then it will be Iran, Israel, Lebanon and Sudan.

Former NATO commander even speaks out about the plans the US governments future plans on Middle Eastern wars, it's all lies, it's so people believe 'oh it's the government they are right' when in reality it's all for profit. http://youtu.be/TY2DKzastu8

The link SheikhMo posted above is we're you find an interview with the former NATO commander and here's a very interesting article about America, Oil and War in the Middle East.

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full

Afghanistan has never produced oil, until this year, I remember it was due to start processing in July, I assume it has.

China and India are the driving force, who are going to pull it out the ground and benefit from it, not the US.

Australia are looking at going in and mining the shit out of it.

Until now its only real exports have been fundamentalist terrorism and smack.

[Scouse-Con]

Afghanistan has never produced oil, until this year, I remember it was due to start processing in July, I assume it has.

China and India are the driving force, who are going to pull it out the ground and benefit from it, not the US.

Australia are looking at going in and mining the shit out of it.

Until now its only real exports have been fundamentalist terrorism and smack.

Mistaken for Libya, which was what I was meant to put. The war in Afghanistan is a separate thing.

[Sinos]

Yes they have been deployed but there's growing evidence that it was by US backed rebels and not the Assad government.

BOLLOCKS.

The chemical weapons were deployed with rockets and the regime are the only ones with that capability.

[Mouth]

Mistaken for Libya, which was what I was meant to put. The war in Afghanistan is a separate thing.

Once again not the US.

As far as I know its still up in the air who will get what licensing rights, I am not sure when the next licensing period is. The companies who already had agreements with the previous regime have just carried on as best they can, given the security issues.

France’s Total S.A. and Italy’s Eni have a foothold as they have done business there for years. Libya being a former Italian colony.  However when it all gets sorted out, its likely that once again China, along with Russia this time, are the countries who will be at the forefront of the queue to get Libya's oil.

[Zeb]

Loving the idea that the Obama administration has done a false flag operation to trigger a showdown with Russia, a proxy war with Iran across two or three countries and at the same time try to prevent Syria from disintegrating entirely with the knock-on effects upon a NATO ally whilst known stocks of very dangerous shit are only being kept out of the hands of people who think lots of death is what god wants because an evil bastard currently has them instead. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory; and all this after two years of hard work trying to avoid all of that - good job that we've got people able to see through their clever smokescreen, isn't it? Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Can we laugh at them for being shite at this too? You'd get all that without the kerfuffle of legal intervention by doing a falseflag attack on Turkey instead. It's not like Turkey hasn't been hit already and the US has worked hard to prevent it dragging in Turkey and NATO after all.

[jerseyhoya]

The United States has waited through 2+ years of civil war and turmoil in Syria without injecting itself much into the equation, but now we've decided that lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles toward the country is likely to yield us oil, so that's obviously why Obama is doing this

[Suspect Package.]

Yes they have been deployed but there's growing evidence that it was by US backed rebels and not the Assad government.

Except that's just not true.

Some of the best analysis of the Chemical Weapon evidence is on these two blogs.

http://rogueadventurer.com/2013/08/29/alleged-cw-munitions-in-syria-fired-from-iranian-falaq-2-type-launchers/
http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/collected-media-of-munitions-linked-to.html

More reading and education, less conspiracy theories please. And for the record, personally I'm very much against Western Intervention in Syria.

[Zeb]

Some links to pieces by 'War Nerd'. The unlocks will expire in 24 hours or so. Not posting much from them because this is the model of sharing the articles they ask people to use. The persona writing the pieces is almost certainly not to everyone's taste, but he provides a different perspective.

I don’t pretend to know what Obama’s people are going to do about Syria in the next few days. I doubt they know themselves. And to be truthful, I just can’t push my nose low enough to read the stinking entrails of Washington D.C.

It’s funny; I can read communiques from the most disgusting irregular groups in the world—say, Lashkar e Jhangvi, the worst of the worst—but I can’t watch John Kerry give speeches or listen to Obama stumble through another peanut-cluster of patriotic clichés explaining why we’re going to do something stupid, with the exciting twist that the guy shoved out in front of the cameras this time is black. That little plot twist stopped being fun sometime in Season Two. Obama has gone from disappointing to just plain depressing, a Wall Street technocrat way out of his depth when trying to think about anyplace not on the campaign trail, the one place he’s at home.

Little Kerry and the Three Bad Options

The war in Syria has been picked over from nearly every angle except the most obvious one — simple tactics: who’s doing what, and how. There’s something like class snobbery in the way people cover this war. Print and TV focus on geopolitics or the inhumanity; but there’s a whole youtube industry of Syrian videos, which, if you watch enough of them carefully enough, can give you a good sense of what’s happening in the thousand tiny streetfights that make up this war.

When you look at this war strictly as a military struggle, you notice something weird: over two years of fighting, the lines are almost totally static. The Alawites, Assad’s Shi’ia-ish people, have withdrawn from most of inland Syria — the flat, dry country where the Sunni dominate. But Assad’s troops and militias are still fighting for Aleppo, the biggest city in the Sunni inland region, and they’re holding on strong in their coastal home region. The Kurds have assumed control of their enclaves in the north and northeast with some help from their PKK friends in Turkey. Roughly speaking, the Alawites, who always looked like sure losers, have held their own and even pushed back, despite being only about 10% of the population, and having a tradition of being considered weird hicks by other Syrians.

Our Ringers vs. Your Ringers

If, like me, you spend your days lurking in the darker neighborhoods of YouTube, you’ve probably already seen the video: A Sunni rebel chieftain carving a dead SAA soldier open — not very well, either — and pulling out his heart, then taking a stagey-looking bite out of it.

If you haven’t, you probably should, if only so you understand why all of your Twitter friends are making bad jokes with “heart” in them. Those in the know have already downloaded the video, watched it about 85 times, cursing the blurring over the chest cavity, and then tweeted about how appalled they were. It’s a new phenomenon, the instant global “Tsk.” Time magazine claimed that videos like this are “fueling Syria’s Descent into Madness.”

I Heart Syria

[RojoLeón]

Just replying to say that the 'War Nerd', is quality stuff. I picked up his book and although is mostly a collection of his previous articles it is still an engaging, entertaining and very irreverent read.

John Dolan, the real guy behind the persona is also worth checking out - sharp and insightful writer with a wicked sense of humor

[Pheeny]

It's the grammar and spelling atrocities that are worthy of verbotenhood.

Give it a rest Mr Educated.

[kesey]

Has anybody seen the footage of General Wesley Clark saying that the US has been planning to invade Syria for a long time?

[robertobaggio37]

http://rt.com/news/putin-us-syria-evidence-249/

[SheikhMo]

BOLLOCKS.

The chemical weapons were deployed with rockets and the regime are the only ones with that capability.

Except that's just not true.

Some of the best analysis of the Chemical Weapon evidence is on these two blogs.

http://rogueadventurer.com/2013/08/29/alleged-cw-munitions-in-syria-fired-from-iranian-falaq-2-type-launchers/
http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/collected-media-of-munitions-linked-to.html

More reading and education, less conspiracy theories please. And for the record, personally I'm very much against Western Intervention in Syria.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

[Corkboy]

How the Rest of the World Views the American Military

—By Kevin Drum
Thu Aug. 29, 2013

Paul Waldman lays out a list of significant U.S. military actions over the past 50 years, and it adds up to 15 separate episodes, ranging from full-scale wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) to smaller incursions (Grenada, Haiti, Panama). For those of you who are math challenged, this means we've launched a significant overseas assault every 40 months since 1963. Waldman explains what this means:

    Some of these operations worked out very well, others didn't. And just to be clear, this history doesn't tell us whether bombing Syria is a good idea or a bad idea. But if you're wondering why people all over the world view the United States as an arrogant bully, reserving for itself the right to rain down death from above on anyone it pleases whenever it pleases, well there you go. It doesn't matter whether you think some or even all of those actions were completely justified and morally defensible. From here, we tend to look at each of these engagements in isolation, asking whether there are good reasons to go in and whether we can accomplish important goals for ourselves and others. But when a new American military campaign begins, people in the rest of the world see it in this broader historical context.

This is a perspective that's sorely missing from most mainstream discourse. Too many Americans have a seriously blinkered view of our interventions overseas, viewing them as one-offs to be evaluated on their individual merits. But when these things happen once every three years, against a backdrop of almost continuous smaller-scale military action (drone attacks, the odd cruise missile here and there, sending "advisors" over to help an ally, etc.), the rest of the world just doesn't see it that way. They don't see a peaceful country that struggles mightily with its conscience and only occasionally makes a decision to drop a bunch of bombs. They see a country that views dropping bombs as its primary means of dealing with any country weaker than we are.

source

[The Lash]

The US aren't claiming they've been used, they're claiming they know who used them.

You comparing Iraq to Syria infers you think the US are fabricating evidence in order to invade them, which is absurd.

Is it really absurd? They have a track record. The only 'evidence' is the say so of the USA. They are actively opposing the efforts of the UN to gather evidence to confirm or refute the claims being made. So, the US have made a claim and wont let anyone investigate, because the are right!!!!!

[Yorkykopite]

Is it really absurd? They have a track record. The only 'evidence' is the say so of the USA. They are actively opposing the efforts of the UN to gather evidence to confirm or refute the claims being made. So, the US have made a claim and wont let anyone investigate, because the are right!!!!!

In what sense are they actively stopping the UN from investigating?

[The Lash]

In what sense are they actively stopping the UN from investigating?

They have told the UN to evacuate the area, as there is a possibility of military action

[Yorkykopite]

They have told the UN to evacuate the area, as there is a possibility of military action

But the UN inspectors have now left Syria. They spent 4 days at the site. They have with them the samples they need.

So I don't understand what you mean when you say the United States won't let the UN investigation go ahead.

[The Lash]

But the UN inspectors have now left Syria. They spent 4 days at the site. They have with them the samples they need.

So I don't understand what you mean when you say the United States won't let the UN investigation go ahead.

I stand corrected. Apparently, the Syrian government agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is "too late" for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the claim of the al Qaeda affiliated "rebels" that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene were fired upon by snipers in "rebel" held territory and forced off site, although a later the inspectors returned to the site to conduct their inspection.

So, if the UN have everything that they needed, why have they not given a definitive response as to who was responsible? It would certainly solve a lot of problems.

[alfonso]

How the Rest of the World Views the American Military

—By Kevin Drum
Thu Aug. 29, 2013

Paul Waldman lays out a list of significant U.S. military actions over the past 50 years, and it adds up to 15 separate episodes, ranging from full-scale wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) to smaller incursions (Grenada, Haiti, Panama). For those of you who are math challenged, this means we've launched a significant overseas assault every 40 months since 1963.

Between 1945 and 1992 there were 55 U.S. Military and CIA Interventions around the world.