War in Syria?

[Forty Two]

What's the justification for war with Syria? https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/94426 ... urocontrol

Ought there not be a United Nations resolution for the use of force, or is that not needed?

Did Assad government do it? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 97856.html

What proof has been presented that he did it, and not the rebel opposition forces (ISIS types)? https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un- ... es/5363139

For me, I don't see why Assad would use chemical weapons. I think it is too convenient an excuse to level against Assad. I think that it's weird that all of a sudden, in the US, Democrats and Republicans and the major media outlets are now in lock-step supporting a war in Syria, and they are taunting Trump to bomb Syria or "look weak."

Syria has been on the chopping block since around 2006, or earlier. We learned from Wikileaks documents that the US/UK were planning to topple various regimes, including Libya, which is now gone, and Syria (being handed it's hat), after Iraq back in the day, and soon Iran. The US and Uk have ben working to destabilize Syria for at least 10 years, even to the point of supporting sectarian forces in Syria that are part of the terrorist groups that we were supposed to be fighting.

The UK/France are jumping in full force now -- and there is no call for restraint, no call for resolutions and no need for anyone to be attacked or for Assad's government to be involved in terrorism. Assad's opposition are the ones involved in terrorism.

Trump ran in part on no more stupid wars. But, he's being hemmed in here policy-wise, and this will serve to bring him to heel and follow the establishment lead. If he doesn't bomb, he will be accused of being Putin's lapdog. If he does bomb, then the Syrian war will be put in his lap, it'll be his baby. There is no good way out of Syria. There is no victory in Syria. It's 50 years of a country split in half, at best, and it'll be a sad century for the Syrian people.

If there was some evidence presented that it was Assad's regime who ordered chemical attacks, that would at least help make military action more palatable. And, frankly, I bet if such evidence were presented, Russia would cooperate with the west on punishing Assad for it. But, the goal of the US/UK/France is regime change, not bringing the Syrian regime into line.

[pErvinalia]

Ought there not be a United Nations resolution for the use of force, or is that not needed?

There should be. But the UN is broken, largely thanks to the actions of the US and Russia over the last few few decades.

[Scot Dutchy]

Who is bothered by the UN. Shut the place down as the days of negotiation are over. Trump has not got a clue how diplomacy works. The closer Mueller gets to him the greater chance of war. Just hope somebody has the straitjacket ready in the White House.

[Forty Two]

Ought there not be a United Nations resolution for the use of force, or is that not needed?

There should be. But the UN is broken, largely thanks to the actions of the US and Russia over the last few few decades.

So if the UK and France bomb now, that'll be illegal?

I hope Trump holds off on the missiles. He needs to resist the drumbeats here. Nothing good can come of it.

[Forty Two]

Who is bothered by the UN. Shut the place down as the days of negotiation are over. Trump has not got a clue how diplomacy works. The closer Mueller gets to him the greater chance of war. Just hope somebody has the straitjacket ready in the White House.

LOL, France and the UK are threatening to bomb by tomorrow, didn't they?

Who has a clue how diplomacy works?

Why not take center stage, Netherlands, and show us how negotiation is done?

[pErvinalia]

Ought there not be a United Nations resolution for the use of force, or is that not needed?

There should be. But the UN is broken, largely thanks to the actions of the US and Russia over the last few few decades.

So if the UK and France bomb now, that'll be illegal?

Well it should be. The international "laws" are a bit murky, though, and indeed that was the reason why it's not necessarily clear whether Bush, Blair and Howard's invasion of Iraq in 2003(?) was legal or not. It was held to be "illegal" because it was not sanctioned by the UN, and it wasn't undertaking in actual self-defence. But it was certainly immoral. Syria is a total fucking mess, so it's not really clear who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And there's degrees of rightness and wrongness there. It's hard to say whether it would be morally justifiable to launch strikes on the Assad regime. If there's clear evidence that he gassed people, then I think it's all good to fuck the cunt up. Trying to restrict casualties would be great, though, so as not to breed yet another batch of new terrorists.

[Forty Two]

Well, at this point, I have to say I oppose any bombing of Syria with missiles or otherwise, and any commitment of troops. I don't trust those blaming Assad on this one, and I would like to see what they're basing the accusation on. The ISIS crowd has chem weapons too, and it sure would benefit those Islamic extremist bastards to get the West to bomb Assad. Assad has them on the ropes. He has no incentive at all to use chem weapons, and any use, he would have to know, would be contrary to his interest.

[Forty Two]

Moscow claimed two Israeli F-15 jets attacked a Russian T-4 air base in Syria -- https://www.debka.com/syria-claims-homs ... on-denies/

Russia later asserted it was a "feeler" for a US attack - https://www.debka.com/moscow-turns-agai ... offensive/

Jaysh al-Islam, the rebel group holding Douma, was first to accuse the Syrian army on Saturday, April 7, of attacking the people of Douma with poison gas, causing 500 casualties.

Both Damascus and Moscow deny the allegation, accusing Syrian rebels of fabrications. Russia issued a statement on Sunday warning that foreign military intervention under “far-fetched, fabricated pretexts” in areas in Syria where Russian servicemen are deployed “might lead to very severe consequences.” https://www.debka.com/chemical-warfare- ... salisbury/

Russia said there was no evidence of Douma chemical attack http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697670

Naturally, they would say that.

So, what does our vaunted "19 intelligence agencies" have to say? What "confidence level" are they at? Surely, our "intelligence agencies" can issue a memo that let's us know if they have some secret, classified info that shows unequivocally that a chemical attack occurred, and Assad government was to blame....

Funny, none of the news reports references even any "unnamed intelligence officials familiar with the events" to say that there is verification, even if undisclosable because of sources and methods and whatnot.....

Does anyone here have a source or sources that they trust that has given them enough information to believe that (A) a chemical attack happened the other day in Syria as "the disciples of Allah" group claimed, and (B) that it was the Syrian government that dunnit?

Does anyone else get the feeling that there is an offal lotta bullshit piling up about this issue? And, did you notice that all of a sudden the usual war folks are all over the news again -- Bill Kristol -- founder of the Project for the New American Century - was all over the news, after being conspicuously absent for quite some time.... https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-neoco ... cy/5407538

[JimC]

The problem is that Assad definitely has access to chemical weapons, whereas one can only say that it is possible that rebel groups may have access. I agree that it would seem counter-productive for Assad to use them, but if he is convinced that the fog of war will prevent definite proof, then he is counting on the reactions of people like you, 42, to restrain military action against him.

Having said that, there would have to be some fairly telling evidence for me to concede that a military strike was justified...

[PsychoSerenity]

There's absolutely no fucking sense in dropping more bombs on the country in the hope that that somehow improves the situation. The whole thing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The West want to overthrow Assad mainly because he's an ally to Russia rather than any humanitarian reasons. If they dropped that as their foreign policy there would be the possibility of negotiating with Russia a political solution with the eventual goal of having Assad stand down, but first focus international efforts on breaking up ISIS as cleanly as possible, removing their funding streams through Saudi and stop selling weaponry into the region that inevitably end up in the hands of terrorists and extremists. If we do attack Assad to the extent that he is overthrown all we will do is create a power vacuum and continuing civil war like we did in Iraq, but in the meantime it means attacking a country without UN approval and going into confit against Russian forces, risking serious international escalation.

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump fired one last year and nothing happened.

The whole Syrian thing is a distraction. Trump's future is not looking great. Just rack up the tension. Stormy is off the front page.

[mistermack]

Trump is looking scarily easy to manipulate.

The rebels in Syria are fucked. What can they do? They are losing on the ground. The answer is to simulate a chemical attack. It's worked before, it will work again. That's all they've got.
And I wouldn't put it past them to use real chemicals. After all, they are religious fanatics. They can justify anything.

Assad is just a typical middle east leader. Syria was OK before we started this war.
The problem was, it was on the wrong side. If Assad had been pro Israel and pro Saudi, the west would have LOVED him, and held him up as a shining example of stability.

So all the killing, all the maiming, all the religious fundamentalism, is of our own making.
The US, the UK and the EU all kicked it off in Libya, and promoted it in Syria.
Now, they naturally blame it all on Assad. But it was Obama, Cameron and Merkel who are really to blame.

Edit: Wouldn't this thread be better in News and Politics?

[Forty Two]

The problem is that Assad definitely has access to chemical weapons, whereas one can only say that it is possible that rebel groups may have access. I agree that it would seem counter-productive for Assad to use them, but if he is convinced that the fog of war will prevent definite proof, then he is counting on the reactions of people like you, 42, to restrain military action against him.

Having said that, there would have to be some fairly telling evidence for me to concede that a military strike was justified...

Since all I've said is that there has to be some fairly telling evidence for me to concede that a military strike was justified, what the fuck is with this nonsense that "reactions of people like you, 42..." is what he'll rely upon to restrain military action?

What is it you are saying? You can oppose military action without fairly telling evidence, and that's just fine. It's not the reaction of a person like you that he's counting on? But, me, oh, me - I'm the kind of person who, if I ask for evidence, he's counting on me?

What the fuck?

[Forty Two]

Trump is looking scarily easy to manipulate.

The entire mainstream media, and the "intelligence communities" of the US, UK and France are in lockstep on this.

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump is looking scarily easy to manipulate.

The rebels in Syria are fucked. What can they do? They are losing on the ground. The answer is to simulate a chemical attack. It's worked before, it will work again. That's all they've got.
And I wouldn't put it past them to use real chemicals. After all, they are religious fanatics. They can justify anything.

Assad is just a typical middle east leader. Syria was OK before we started this war.
The problem was, it was on the wrong side. If Assad had been pro Israel and pro Saudi, the west would have LOVED him, and held him up as a shining example of stability.

So all the killing, all the maiming, all the religious fundamentalism, is of our own making.
The US, the UK and the EU all kicked it off in Libya, and promoted it in Syria.
Now, they naturally blame it all on Assad. But it was Obama, Cameron and Merkel who are really to blame.

Edit: Wouldn't this thread be better in News and Politics?

They have nothing to lose. It really started in Afghanistan many moons ago when the Soviets tried to take the place over. Who supported and armed the rebels?
Next Iraq. WMD's Who attacked it? Lybia, Tunisia and then Syria. Thank you America. You are such a great country for fucking the world.