Syria - Chemical attack near Allepo??

WakeUp

If these reports turn out to be confirmed apart from the horrific consequence of using such a horrible weapon it could have much wider far reaching consequences for Syria and the region.

Assads government and the rebels are accusing each other of the attack. The Russian foreign minister has blamed "rebels" with the US saying at the moment the chemical attack can not be confirmed. Britain is saying it hasnt been "fully confirmed yet" The story is only breaking now and is sure to gather pace.

A dangerous and horrific turn if true in what is already a desperate situation. This is bad.

cyberhog

Western powers have said the use of chemical weapons would demand a serious response from the international community. Assad is hardly going to risk triggering NATO intervention. The rebels, on the other hand, are desperate for military assistance from NATO. So if the reports are true I would say the rebels are the most likely culprits.

Jaafa

The SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human rights) a very pro-rebel monitoring group and the source for almost all casualty figures from the conflict has confirmed the rocket attack and said on its FB page that 16 regular soldiers as well as 10 civilians were killed as a result. It failed to mention whether this was a chemical attack or not. Israel however has just recently confirmed a chemical attack did take place.

This attack coincides with the rebels capture of the munitions depot in Khan Tuman a few days ago, which is where the SAA (Syrian arab army) is claiming the rebels got the chemical weapons from. The target of this attack was Khan al-asal in western Aleppo, the sight of heavy fighting between the SAA and rebels in the last month or so with the rebels destroying a good part of the police academy there before being beaten back about a week ago. So this was a regime held area.

The deliver system for this attack need not be a scud, and in fact it definitely wasn't, as the US and others can detect scud launches and have already said it wasn't a scud. Grad rockets, DIY rockets or even artillery shells all of which the rebels are known to posses could serve as a crude delivery system.

The SAA and government has repeatedly said it would never use chemical weapons against the rebels on moral grounds (the real reason being they know they'd be bombed to hell if they did by NATO or others). Some of the rebels on the other hand, who we must remember are not 1 group but dozens of separate groups including Jihadists, have posted videos on youtube where they say they are prepared to use chemical weapons.

It's very clear who were the perpetrators of the attack.

WakeUp

Looks like the West finally have their casus beli for direct military intervention in Syria even though it is apparent that it was the people they are backing who used the weapon this doesnt make sense at face value. Something is seriously not right with this chemical attack apart from the obvious.

Both sides in Syria are denying they carried it out yet US officials are laying the blame at the feet of Assad whilst the Russians and Iran are blaming the "rebels"... Looks like the hawks in the states are starting to rally behind the flag again and pushing for boots on the ground.

NATO apparently drawing up contingency plans for direct intervention but only with a UNSC resolution which as sure as night turns to day they will not get.

Israeli intelligence have confirmed the attack as Jaffa has said, Yuval Steinitz wouldnt comment on who he believed responsible though I think the striking part of what he said is "and it doesnt matter". Obama is in Israel today the timing couldnt be more acute I wonder what him Bibi are discussing about Syria right now...

and a penny for the thoughts of the Russians.

cyberhog

WakeUp wrote: »

and a penny for the thoughts of the Russians.

Russia seems to believe the US has gone insane.

In the 10 years since the Iraq war, Putin's worldview has only strengthened and expanded. Now he believes that the strong not only do what they want, but also fail to understand what they do. From Russian leadership's point of view, the Iraq War now looks like the beginning of the accelerated destruction of regional and global stability, undermining the last principles of sustainable world order. Everything that's happened since — including flirting with Islamists during the Arab Spring, U.S. policies in Libya and its current policies in Syria — serve as evidence of strategic insanity that has taken over the last remaining superpower.

Russia’s persistence on the Syrian issue is the product of this perception. The issue is not sympathy for Syria's dictator, nor commercial interests, nor naval bases in Tartus. Moscow is certain that if continued crushing of secular authoritarian regimes is allowed because America and the West support “democracy,” it will lead to such destabilization that will overwhelm all, including Russia. It's therefore necessary for Russia to resist, especially as the West and the United States themselves experience increasing doubts.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/russia-iraq-10-year-anniversary-putin-bush-syria.html

WakeUp

cyberhog wrote: »

Russia seems to believe the US has gone insane.



http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/russia-iraq-10-year-anniversary-putin-bush-syria.html

If you look at what the US and the West are doing and the course they are charting it is hard to disagree with Russias point of view what they are doing is crazy and eventually they will say enough is enough. Ive been saying it for a long time, I mean the Russians and Chinese are openly talking and warning of nuclear war this should be setting alarm bells ringing but its barely being reported. The nuclear weapons of today are thermonuclear a completely differnet dynamic in the physics of that weapon and something we as a species and our planet can never recover from. If a substantial thermo nuclear exchange takes place we are finished thats it the game is over there is no second chance.

American geostrategy should scare people. They are actively working to disrupt and tear up the established geopolitical equlibirum in their search for unchallenged primacy dangerous doesnt even come close to describe the game they are playing and have been for the past decade or so.

WakeUp

You have to wonder are the American public in general so dumbdowned / brainwashed and people in general who also swallow this nonsense that they still actually believe these spoofers when they stand infront of a camera and spin their spin.. "morally obligated" "morally motivated" (after the people we are backing used the weapon) would you ever fook off.

looks like public opinion over there is being prepared for Iraq take two only this time the entire region is going up in flames and who knows what else.

Here we go again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhLFmKQ0bjg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaNIzSmToVw

JustinDee

From the quote above "Russia’s persistence on the Syrian issue is the product of this perception. The issue is not sympathy for Syria's dictator, nor commercial interests, nor naval bases in Tartus. Moscow is certain that if continued crushing of secular authoritarian regimes is allowed because America and the West support “democracy,” it will lead to such destabilization that will overwhelm all, including Russia"

-Who writes this rubbish?? Russia of today and when it drove USSR, has never cared a jot for stability of the region. Like all other outside parties involved in the Middle East, their foreign policy is determined by what serves Russia best and nothing else.
It is non other than a very weak attempt at justifying the Syrian regime's place at the helm of the country, and is no doubt being latched upon by the usual suspects with blinkered subjective agendae.

WakeUp

JustinDee wrote: »

From the quote above "Russia’s persistence on the Syrian issue is the product of this perception. The issue is not sympathy for Syria's dictator, nor commercial interests, nor naval bases in Tartus. Moscow is certain that if continued crushing of secular authoritarian regimes is allowed because America and the West support “democracy,” it will lead to such destabilization that will overwhelm all, including Russia"

-Who writes this rubbish?? Russia of today and when it drove USSR, has never cared a jot for stability of the region. Like all other outside parties involved in the Middle East, their foreign policy is determined by what serves Russia best and nothing else.
It is non other than a very weak attempt at justifying the Syrian regime's place at the helm of the country, and is no doubt being latched upon by the usual suspects with blinkered subjective agendae.

Of course Russia has strategic interests in Syria of which the US is fully aware and yet they are still persisting with their support of Rebel jihadi terrorists, not all of the FSA , but a proportion of them and in the combined attempt to get rid of Assad. Russia considers Syria and to a lesser extent Iran (for the time being),historically the Russians and the Persians both had ideas of their own though due to US policy signed unprecedented defence agreements, to fall under their geostrategic sphere of influence and they are not prepared to see either Assad or the Iranians attacked. Nor is China.

The Russians have drawn a line in the sand and are having none of it, clearly. This isnt Iraq the Russians have had enough and they aint backing down. US foreign policy is reckless and endangers all of us there is no other way to describe it.

JustinDee

WakeUp wrote: »

Russia considers Syria and to a lesser extent Iran (for the time being),historically the Russians and the Persians both had ideas of their own though due to US policy signed unprecedented defence agreements, to fall under their geostrategic sphere of influence and they are not prepared to see either Assad or the Iranians attacked. Nor is China

None of the above justifies Russia's tinkering in the region. You appear to be watering down their influence and raison d'etre in the Middle East with words like 'strategic' etc, in comparison with the language used in descriptions for the other side of the coin. There is nothing any different in their Middle Eastern foreign policies when comparing to the big evil westies.

WakeUp wrote: »

The Russians have drawn a line in the sand and are having none of it, clearly. This isnt Iraq the Russians have had enough and they aint backing down. US foreign policy is reckless and endangers all of us there is no other way to describe it.

This theory of yours makes Russian foreign policy what? Responsible? Chechnyans would disagree with you, as would any commentators on the Turkmenistan or Belorussian situation. Georgia and South Ossetia should have illiustrated perfectly how Russia behaves outside its borders, as does its history with support of Lebanese and Syrian involvement in coups, espionage and assassinations over the decades in the neighbouring countries.

WakeUp

JustinDee wrote: »

None of the above justifies Russia's tinkering in the region. You appear to be watering down their influence and raison d'etre in the Middle East with words like 'strategic' etc, in comparison with the language used in descriptions for the other side of the coin. There is nothing any different in their Middle Eastern foreign policies when comparing to the big evil westies.

But Russia isnt tinkering in the region when it comes to Syria which is the country in question and if you think that they are it shows a total lack of understanding on your part of Russian/Syrian relations both historic and present . They also arent bombing and overthrowing governments in the name of "democracy" throughtout the middle east. Im not watering down anything its the realpolitik of the situation. The history of US Syrian relations on the other hand can only be described as bad and that is being generous. When Russia agreed to write off 3/4s of Syrias incurred debt during the time of the Soviet Union Assad in turn agreed to Tartus port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships which is currently on-going. Its one and only military outpost in this part of the world.
That in itself is reason enough for Russia to be highly pissed at US/Western attempts to oust Assad without even taking the other political and economic angles into consideration. Historically the US has had no influence nor anyway meaningful relations with Syria whilst Russia has a long and close relationship with that country pre-dating the cold war. Clearly it is the US tinkering with Russian interests to suggest Russia is tinkering in Syria just isnt true plain and simple. Syria is and has been firmly established under the Russian sphere of influence for a long time Im not sure if that point has gone over your head or you are being obtuse on purpose. The larger world powers have spheres of influence and Syria falls under Russian influence its realpolitik.

This theory of yours makes Russian foreign policy what? Responsible? Chechnyans would disagree with you, as would any commentators on the Turkmenistan or Belorussian situation. Georgia and South Ossetia should have illiustrated perfectly how Russia behaves outside its borders, as does its history with support of Lebanese and Syrian involvement in coups, espionage and assassinations over the decades in the neighbouring countries.

See my reply above. The geopolitical reality of Russias relationship with Syria is that Syria falls under their sphere of influence it really isnt that hard to understand regardless of Russian foreign policy in other parts of the world and with other nations. When the US/West decide to impose themselves upon Syria they are by default imposing on Russian interests. This is what is reckless and dangerous.

JustinDee

WakeUp wrote: »

But Russia isnt tinkering in the region when it comes to Syria which is the country in question and if you think that they are it shows a total lack of understanding on your part of Russian/Syrian relations both historic and present

On the contrary, Russia's unfaltering support of the Syrian regime, despite what the regime has done in region, would say otherwise.

WakeUp wrote: »

They also arent bombing and overthrowing governments in the name of "democracy" throughtout the middle east. Im not watering down anything its the realpolitik of the situation

You're going to try and claim that coups over the past decades in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt have had no Syrian influence with support from outside, are you?

It is still a Cold Ward theatre with each outside party sticking to their guns and chosen vessels of operation. I don't chuck any misled apologetics for those evil yanks/frenchies/poms. Each side of this battle for control of the area bit by bit is as bad as the other, and that includes Russia.