Question About Syria

[barbos]

Yes, repeatedly. Any reports are claimed to be "false flag" operations by the rebels, or orchestrated by foreign intelligence agencies even if there is footage.

It does not affect opinion in the west which is Assad is always to blame. And in this particular case chemical weapons accomplished nothing for him and could not have possibly.

Chemical weapons have been used multiple times in Syria, without barely any repercussions. There is no reason for Assad to fear the international community's frowning any more than the previous times. Besides Assad isn't necessarily himself in charge of deciding tactical choices like when to use chemical weapons.

He gets blamed anyway. even evidence clearly points that he neither gave an order nor was aware. And rebels who used it too somehow never get blamed.

I don't know about Iran, but you can buy Assad without making Russia sad. Russia has no problem with Israel and if US offered Assad a deal where he stops being nice to terrorists and he gets off the list plus some economic assistance he might as well take it. Iran is not going to invade Syria. And US has bought a lot of their Middle East allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan).

Iran and Hezbolla are the main sticking points, not Russia. And US track record with Libya and Iraq doesn't bode well for mutual trust either.

So the whole country is in ruins because of Hezbolla/Iran? That must do the wonders for the long term success of US in the Middle East.
But I agree West does not instill much trust if you are a dictator trying to reform.

No, the civil war is due to Sunni-Shia conflicts that predates Assad. His dad had to deal with sunni extremists in his day as well. But my point is that paying off dictators isn't an on-off switch. After 2005, when Assad withdrew from Lebanon there may have been an opening to improve ties, and with Iraq becoming a clusterfuck and ISIS raising its head it wasn't realistic to just bribe Assad to make a 180 degree turn on a dime. I don't think anyone even seriously considered that option.

I know about Sunni-Shia. I just think that Western help just prolongs the war, so my question is why? We know that "rebels" lost already, why prolong the massacre?

 

[Cycad]

Show us the proof Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks. Dont just claim you have the absolute proof, show it !
(since the west claims its a proven fact)

And while at it, show us the WMD of Saddam please. And maybe a coherent reason to destroy the Libyan social fabric.

 

[Copernicus]

Much of the Syria situation is driven by two factors:

1) Russian desire for a permanent Mediterranean naval base. Assad gives them that, so they support Assad.
2) Iranian desire to keep a minority Shiite religious sect in charge of Syria. So they are allied with Assad and Russia.

The Saudis are interested in seeing a Sunni regime take power in Syria. The Kurds want territory from which to expand their drive for international recognition as a Kurdish nation. The Turks want to block the Kurds.

The US has no basic strategic interest there. It is caught in a battle that it is ill-equipped to play a role in and cannot possibly win by military means. Its only real interest is in its NATO ally, Turkey, which is now run by an unstable, unreliable dictator. So it is probably best that the US withdraw now. Whatever positive role that it could have played has long since been shredded, when its credibility as a Middle East peace broker was shredded by Trump's nutty Israeli policy.

Israel is one of the main remaining reasons to stay in Syria. Israel wants Syria as a mess because Syria is the main supply route for Hezbollah. Also nobody will really bat an eye when Israel bombs bases in Syria as long as the war is going on. It would be harder if there is peace.

Whether the US stays in Syria or not is irrelevant to the Hezbollah issue, since the US is incapable of driving Assad from power and has no strategic interest in taking sides in the religious feud between Shiites and Sunnis. Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran and has fought in Syria on behalf of Assad. Turkey is traditionally opposed to Assad, but it is now finding common cause with Iran and Russia to keep the Kurds from forming a hostile nation on its southern border. Perhaps Israel finds it useful to keep the US involved, but that does not make it in the strategic interests of the US government. What might be more in Israel's interest is not to be located next door to a civil war. Their interest ought to be regional stability. What is in Netanyahu's interest may be something else.

 

[Elixir]

Show us the proof Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks. Dont just claim you have the absolute proof, show it !
(since the west claims its a proven fact)

.
It's vastly more likely than any "alternative facts" presented by Russia or its apologists.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic says it has confirmed at least 34 chemical attacks since 2013, many of which it said used chlorine or sarin, a nerve agent, and were conducted by the Syrian government. The commission, which is currently investigating the attack on Douma, is an independent body established by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

I'll take the word of a independent commission established by the UN long before I'll take the word of Putin, Trump or any other mobsters.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Show us the proof Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks. Dont just claim you have the absolute proof, show it !
(since the west claims its a proven fact)

.
It's vastly more likely than any "alternative facts" presented by Russia or its apologists.

So, according to you...

Assad was about to win the civil war. He was about to finally defeat the last rebel group. He had surrounded the last rebel held town, rebels were leaving it, he had his troops moving in.

So on the verge of victory he angered the entire world by chemically attacking the defeated rebels.

That makes sense to you?

 

[Elixir]

Show us the proof Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks. Dont just claim you have the absolute proof, show it !
(since the west claims its a proven fact)

.
It's vastly more likely than any "alternative facts" presented by Russia or its apologists.

So, according to you...

Assad was about to win the civil war. He was about to finally defeat the last rebel group. He had surrounded the last rebel held town, rebels were leaving it, he had his troops moving in.

So on the verge of victory he angered the entire world by chemically attacking the defeated rebels.

That makes sense to you?

That's not how it went down. He's been doing it for a long time.
What do you imagine - that Syrian civilians pooled their resources, produced chemical weapons and then used them on themselves to make Asshat look bad?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, according to you...

Assad was about to win the civil war. He was about to finally defeat the last rebel group. He had surrounded the last rebel held town, rebels were leaving it, he had his troops moving in.

So on the verge of victory he angered the entire world by chemically attacking the defeated rebels.

That makes sense to you?

That's not how it went down. He's been doing it for a long time.
What do you imagine - that Syrian civilians pooled their resources, produced chemical weapons and then used them on themselves to make Asshat look bad?

What do you imagine - that Syrian rebels have absolutely no backing from any foreign powers? "Pooled their resources", geez.

 

[Elixir]

So, according to you...

Assad was about to win the civil war. He was about to finally defeat the last rebel group. He had surrounded the last rebel held town, rebels were leaving it, he had his troops moving in.

So on the verge of victory he angered the entire world by chemically attacking the defeated rebels.

That makes sense to you?

That's not how it went down. He's been doing it for a long time.
What do you imagine - that Syrian civilians pooled their resources, produced chemical weapons and then used them on themselves to make Asshat look bad?

What do you imagine - that Syrian rebels have absolutely no backing from any foreign powers? "Pooled their resources", geez.

You must be right - it elegantly explains why most of the 50 or so known chemical attacks in Syria have happened in rebel-held areas.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What do you imagine - that Syrian rebels have absolutely no backing from any foreign powers? "Pooled their resources", geez.

You must be right - it elegantly explains why most of the 50 or so known chemical attacks in Syria have happened in rebel-held areas.

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

 

[Elixir]

What do you imagine - that Syrian rebels have absolutely no backing from any foreign powers? "Pooled their resources", geez.

You must be right - it elegantly explains why most of the 50 or so known chemical attacks in Syria have happened in rebel-held areas.

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

I think it's just business as usual. Likely Asshat gets help from *cough, cough* ... some other party with greater expertise in the production of chemical weapons.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

I think it's just business as usual. Likely Asshat gets help from *cough, cough* ... some other party with greater expertise in the production of chemical weapons.

I think it's just you wanting to condemn Assad just like all the warmongering Neocons looking for an excuse.

 

[Jayjay]

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

I think it's just business as usual. Likely Asshat gets help from *cough, cough* ... some other party with greater expertise in the production of chemical weapons.

I don't know if that coughing is a rhetoric device, or if you know too much and are now lying under your desk and foaming from all orifices. But let's assume the former. ;-)

Asing why Assad is using chemical weapons now is like asking why the Empire used the Death Star just when they were about to stamp out the rebellion.

 

[ZiprHead]

And Bone Spurs just announced strikes against Syria.

 

[ZiprHead]

Huge explosions and smoke reported in Damascus.

 

[Jayjay]

I guess Trump wasn't bluffing this time. Live and learn. Anything to divert attention from Comey and Stormy scandals.

 

[barbos]

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

I think it's just business as usual. Likely Asshat gets help from *cough, cough* ... some other party with greater expertise in the production of chemical weapons.

I don't know if that coughing is a rhetoric device, or if you know too much and are now lying under your desk and foaming from all orifices. But let's assume the former. ;-)

Asing why Assad is using chemical weapons now is like asking why the Empire used the Death Star just when they were about to stamp out the rebellion.

Assad is not Empire, so your analogy fails.

 

[Copernicus]

Those strikes were not just a US decision. The UK and France participated in them. So it is probably unlikely that Putin will make good on his threat to target the launch sites. The fact is that Putin could have deterred his puppet from using chemical weapons, but why should he? He develops and uses them himself. This was a case where he probably assumed that the West would turn a blind eye to Assad's use of terrorism with poison gas to "cleanse" areas that were opposition strongholds.

The problem is that Trump gave plenty of advance warning, so these attacks are largely symbolic. Assad and his Russian allies had plenty of time to move military assets away from target zones. The damage will be very limited, and Assad can pick up where he left off. He will probably dial back on the gas attacks, but he is committing plenty of atrocities by other means. And neither the Russians nor the Iranians are going to abandon him, no matter what he does.

 

[Derec]

The problem is that Trump gave plenty of advance warning, so these attacks are largely symbolic. Assad and his Russian allies had plenty of time to move military assets away from target zones. The damage will be very limited, and Assad can pick up where he left off. He will probably dial back on the gas attacks, but he is committing plenty of atrocities by other means. And neither the Russians nor the Iranians are going to abandon him, no matter what he does.

Exactly. the bases were evacuated days ago. Contrast with Israel's surprise attack on the T4 base. They managed to kill 14 bad guys, among them Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Now that's some good shooting!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Those strikes were not just a US decision. The UK and France participated in them. So it is probably unlikely that Putin will make good on his threat to target the launch sites.

If the US had launched the attack on its own, it would still be unlikely that Putin would do that, since he would have to attack American forces, which would guarantee an open war with the US. He does not want that. His forces probably wouldn't even be able to defeat the ships that fired the cruise missiles, whereas American aircraft would take out all of his air defense systems, and then the rest of his bases.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The problem is that Trump gave plenty of advance warning, so these attacks are largely symbolic. Assad and his Russian allies had plenty of time to move military assets away from target zones. The damage will be very limited, and Assad can pick up where he left off. He will probably dial back on the gas attacks, but he is committing plenty of atrocities by other means. And neither the Russians nor the Iranians are going to abandon him, no matter what he does.

Exactly. the bases were evacuated days ago. Contrast with Israel's surprise attack on the T4 base. They managed to kill 14 bad guys, among them Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Now that's some good shooting!

But that's still not making a significant strategic difference. The Iranian regime can afford to lose a handful of military personnel, and continue with its plans only slightly delayed.