Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Syria: What should the US do/not do?
Options
Comments
-
Oh, well if Willie Hague said so, it must be true.Be like Nutella wrote: »"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said the foreign secretary, William Hague, on Friday. "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."
William Hague today.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/assad-syria-chemical-attack
If Assad had nothing to hide and it was in his direct interest to prove he didn't do it then why wouldn't he bring the experts to the site immediately and prove the world wrong? Any opinions?
The site is littered with landmines, IEDs, booby traps, barricades and Al Qaeda snipers.
Do you think the U.N will let their inspectors enter such a dangerous environment.0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »Russia standing by Assad
The Russian foreign ministry claimed in a statement, meanwhile, “a homemade rocket loaded with an unidentified chemical agent” was used in the attack which was “probably a provocation” by the opposition to implicate President Assad.
But the Kremlin failed to provide any further details to back up the charge.
Fine... where's the evidence?
They don't exactly have to provide evidence. The papers are essentially Kremlin controlled and no one in Russia really gives a ****.
Still though, in this particular instance, I have my doubt that the weapon came from the regime - but then again, I feel that Assad crossed the line 2 years ago - not for intervention, but for unity on the issue via the UN.0 -
I'm totally open to the possibility the gas shells didn't come from Assads people... but so far I think it's likely that it did.
If it didn't and some group on the rebel side did this - then it's actually much much worse and I'm lost for words how a group could do this to its own people while purporting to be fighting for the freedom of Syrians from Assads regime. It's more rational to believe Assad did it even though it's incredibly evil and inhumane.
He has used the national military to inflict massacres on his own people to put down a justified rebellion. That part seems to be lost on many who focus on the 'bad' rebels.
The US is moving assets into the region right now apparently awaiting a decision from Obama's meetings with his people, France and Britain.
There are samples from victims of this inhumane massacre being smuggled to the inspectors right now apparently and these inspectors came prepared to deal with a combat environment, they're not just a bunch of suits walking around taking photos. They have means and expertise to deal with a chemical attack environment within the context of a civil war scenario - that's what they came to do. There are ways and means to get samples from the location and they should be granted any and all access to the area by the regime (who could really give a sh1t about the safety of the inspectors!)
I don't like Hague or any of them tbh but it has to be said that the analysis across the board, so far, is that this was not a false flag attack by a group on the rebel side.
Chemical warfare experts have been interviewed who have reviewed the secondary evidence available, videos, thousands of photos, many many accounts etc and they have all said the same thing - the videos show scenes analogous to the aftermath of a chemical attack - they say there is no evidence of skin blistering agents, fine but that doesn't rule out Sarin or a bespoke agent of some sort which seems to have suffocated people as they slept in their beds with 'some' signs of possible nerve agent symptoms seen in the convulsions and foaming at the mouth evident in many videos and photos, so far, which, qualified commentators from across the world are opining would be almost impossible to fake or 'set-up'.
CT theories are rampant at this point based mostly on the strange timing of the event - i.e. just as the inspectors were setting up in-country - and that's fine - it seems mental to me too - but Assad has shown he cares little what outside forces think about his actions during this conflict over the last 2+ years so I look at the reports and everything seems to point to Assad so far.
If it was his people who did this then I hope the US moves and hits every chem site they can with cruise missiles if it can be done without risking civilians. Assad has moved some chem stocks around the country over the last year it has been reported but his main stocks, of which there are hundreds of tons are still at the known half dozen sites. Destroying those sites at least takes the chance of Assad massacring 20,000 people with a huge chemical attack out of the equation and to me - that's worth doing once there is 'enough' evidence that Assads forces carried out this chemical massacre of approx 1000 people.0 -
In my view, the al Qaeda based rebels are far worse than Assad and if they got into government, they would make all what Assad does appear mild by comparison. An al Qaeda lead Syria would be a dangerous and disruptive force that would worry the West, Russia, Arab states, Iran, Turkey and Israel alike and so-called 'Sunni Islamic' extremism should be curbed at all times. A Taliban style state at the gateway of Europe and Asia is the last thing needed, especially a country that borders Iraq and Israel. The potential chaos is unthinkable.
The world community need to find a way of ending the war in Syria. The genuine rebels need to be facilitated and Assad needs to set up some kind of power sharing arrangement. But they also need to get rid of al Qaeda in Syria. Al Qaeda could well be behind the chemical attack and I would not trust them at all.0 -
It appears to me fairly obvious that chemical weapon use would apply more pressure to trigger US involvement.
My wager is this is the LAST thing Assad wants, the US helping the rebels, so I doubt very much he is behind this.0 -
Advertisement
-
must be a lot of oil in Syria0
-
John Kerry , Secretary of State Department made a very strong speech today.
My guess is the US are building a case against Assad on the use of the Chemical weapons, Assad regime is blaming the rebels.
Evidence is what Kerry said they have and will release shortly.
A UN Inspection team vehicle was attacked today en route to an inspection site.
Once a UN Security council gives the green light I can see Tomahawk Cruise missiles being authorised for use against key economic targets in Syria.
See link :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-238436490 -
clairefontaine wrote: »It appears to me fairly obvious that chemical weapon use would apply more pressure to trigger US involvement.
My wager is this is the LAST thing Assad wants, the US helping the rebels, so I doubt very much he is behind this.
US involvement in Middle East wars = more trouble than it is worth.
Al Qaeda more than likely used the chemical weapons in another cynical attempt to get the US to take out another obstacle to al Qaeda's desire to set up a Talibanistic caliphate across the entire Middle East.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »US involvement in Middle East wars = more trouble than it is worth.
Al Qaeda more than likely used the chemical weapons in another cynical attempt to get the US to take out another obstacle to al Qaeda's desire to set up a Talibanistic caliphate across the entire Middle East.
Yep. Most likely.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons with inspectors in the vicinity?
It wouldn't suprise me if Assad has them, but strongly doubt he used them innthisnnstance.0 -
We can only speculate if Assad did or did not carry out the chemical attack.
Its fair to say that there will be a response to this outrage.
I can see this kicking off at the end of the week.
US are moving military equipment into the region preparing for a strike.
They just need UK, France and a few other key allies on board plus a UN security council resolution order.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-238428670 -
Advertisement
-
clairefontaine wrote: »Yep. Most likely.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons with inspectors in the vicinity?
It wouldn't suprise me if Assad has them, but strongly doubt he used them innthisnnstance.
Exactly.0 -
They just need UK, France and a few other key allies on board plus a UN security council resolution order.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23842867
France will be 100%. UK is 95%. Saudi, Qatar and the Turks will be 100%.
The Arab league are the ones to watch.
Its very unlikely they would get a UN resolution, the Russians will almost certainly block.. unless the yanks can convince Russia to drop Assad or they can pay out Syrian arms contracts.0 -
We can only speculate if Assad did or did not carry out the chemical attack.
Its fair to say that there will be a response to this outrage.
I can see this kicking off at the end of the week.
US are moving military equipment into the region preparing for a strike.
They just need UK, France and a few other key allies on board plus a UN security council resolution order.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23842867
Another Middle East war involving the US is the very last thing the world needs right now. The US seems to be scared of blooming al Qaeda and are on a mission to take out ALL of the regimes that stand in al Qaeda's way: al Qaeda hate Assad's Syria, Saddam's Iraq and anyone's Iran. Al Qaeda obviously want world domination, first the Arab world, then the greater Islamic world and then the rest of the world. They want to impose Taliban law to keep people down and it would seem the West is their willing partner. We will never know the truth about all these wars and who is behind them. Strange bedfellows!0 -
-
must be a lot of oil in Syria
Not too much actual oil but oil pipelines go through it and more could go through it too. The West want to control all the oil producers (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, Kuwait, etc) and the countries between the producers and themselves (like Syria, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia) along with the Suez canal and straits of Hormuz.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »
That is very true. All are not what they seem in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is the key to the origins of al Qaeda and the US has dealt with (openly or otherwise) all of the current regimes in the Middle East when it suits. It tolerates many and takes out ones if it suits them. Assad was tolerated for years. Now, no one wants him. Even Russia and Iran are not as supportive of him as before. The global arms industry want a war there for a long long period it seems too.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »That is very true. All are not what they seem in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is the key to the origins of al Qaeda and the US has dealt with (openly or otherwise) all of the current regimes in the Middle East when it suits. It tolerates many and takes out ones if it suits them. Assad was tolerated for years. Now, no one wants him. Even Russia and Iran are not as supportive of him as before. The global arms industry want a war there for a long long period it seems too.
Some argue Saudi is getting the US to do all its wars for it by proxy because it doesn't want Iran dominating the region.0 -
The West should stay out of this one. They should be concentrating on getting aid to the innocent civilians but the fact is that neither side seem particularly palatable. I see no upside to Western military action at all except for the fact that it may in the short term stop any further chemical attacks. However that has to be measured against a possible response from Iran who are now talking about their "red lines" and worse still it could lead to a potential confrontation with Russia, and that's a road no one wants to go down.0
-
The west, including Europe and the US should be offering an expedited refugee program to get civilians out.0
-
clairefontaine wrote: »Some argue Saudi is getting the US to do all its wars for it by proxy because it doesn't want Iran dominating the region.
I think that is very much the case. It is inevitable that the US and Iran will again be friends maybe much sooner than we think. This is something Saudi Arabia don't want at all as Iran would go back to its pre-1979 role as open US ally. The age old Arab v Persian rivalry is here of course. Note how also Saudi Arabia sent fighters into Afghanistan that became al Qaeda to fight the Russians. It was in reality an attempt to Arabise another Persian country.
Hassan Rohani of Iran is a very intelligent man and he could well bring Iran forward reversing the poor leadership of recent times there. Of course, Saudi Arabia were delighted when the Shah was overthrown and when a succession of weak governments formed and collapsed in 1979-1981 Iran. Saddam's invasion was the icing on the cake. Iran in the 1980s and early 1990s was a shell of its former self. From the late 1990s, its economy picked up and Saudi Arabia did not like this. Ahmadinejad, whose poor choice of words showing up his inexperience in politics, suited Arab agenda. The much more experienced Rohani will not fall into that trap and Saudi dominance of the Middle East could well be over. And that would not be a bad thing as Saudi are the source of 100% of all 'Islamic' terrorism incl. 9/11 and the US cannot see this.0 -
Advertisement
-
BuilderPlumber wrote: »I think that is very much the case. It is inevitable that the US and Iran will again be friends maybe much sooner than we think. This is something Saudi Arabia don't want at all as Iran would go back to its pre-1979 role as open US ally. The age old Arab v Persian rivalry is here of course. Note how also Saudi Arabia sent fighters into Afghanistan that became al Qaeda to fight the Russians. It was in reality an attempt to Arabise another Persian country.
Hassan Rohani of Iran is a very intelligent man and he could well bring Iran forward reversing the poor leadership of recent times there. Of course, Saudi Arabia were delighted when the Shah was overthrown and when a succession of weak governments formed and collapsed in 1979-1981 Iran. Saddam's invasion was the icing on the cake. Iran in the 1980s and early 1990s was a shell of its former self. From the late 1990s, its economy picked up and Saudi Arabia did not like this. Ahmadinejad, whose poor choice of words showing up his inexperience in politics, suited Arab agenda. The much more experienced Rohani will not fall into that trap and Saudi dominance of the Middle East could well be over. And that would not be a bad thing as Saudi are the source of 100% of all 'Islamic' terrorism incl. 9/11 and the US cannot see this.
So true. All the 911 terrorists were Sauds. The Bushs were pals with the Sauds too and were historically war lenders. They have made money from wars so always had incentive.
It is a mystery to me too why the US cannot see this. Many people in the US do see this and do believe we are being used to fight wars for Saudi by proxy. I for one have a hard time believing government doesn't see this and that there is something in it for them so they carry on.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »So true. All the 911 terrorists were Sauds. The Bushs were pals with the Sauds too and were historically war lenders. They have made money from wars so always had incentive.
It is a mystery to me too why the US cannot see this. Many people in the US do see this and do believe we are being used to fight wars for Saudi by proxy. I for one have a hard time believing government doesn't see this and that there is something in it for them so they carry on.
The Saudi Wahabism is what the Taliban and the like came from. Saudi Arabia's leaders have supported violence and trained violent people. Whether or not they work directly for Saudi Arabia when carrying out terrorist attacks, what is beyond doubt is that they get their warped ideology in Wahabi madrassahs all supported and funded by Saudi Arabia's regime.
Iran would make a more dependable and loyal ally of the US if the US sat down and made friends and treated it as an equal. Also, moderate Islam would flourish there and Wahabi-inspired copycats who have been lucky in setting up a Shia answer to Wahabism there would not be able to function anymore. If the West treated Iran with respect, Iran would be a key ally and would solve a lot of issues in Iraq, Palestine, Syria, etc. as a go between for the US. Saudi Arabia under its current Wahabist regime will only create a negative influence and has no intention of changing as the US turn a blind eye to their support of 100% of all the terrorist groups operating out of the Middle East and Africa today.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »Another Middle East war involving the US is the very last thing the world needs right now. The US seems to be scared of blooming al Qaeda and are on a mission to take out ALL of the regimes that stand in al Qaeda's way: al Qaeda hate Assad's Syria, Saddam's Iraq and anyone's Iran. Al Qaeda obviously want world domination, first the Arab world, then the greater Islamic world and then the rest of the world. They want to impose Taliban law to keep people down and it would seem the West is their willing partner. We will never know the truth about all these wars and who is behind them. Strange bedfellows!
I agree that no one wants another war but there has to be a measured and proportionate response to the use of illegal chemical weapons against innocent men, women and children in Syria. Did you see the photos? Horrid.
No one wants US boots on the ground but I do think a proportionate response is needed.
US and UK are awaiting their own individual intel reports on the possible location of chemical weapons and their use in this atrocity.
Should western countries just stand by and wait for further use of chemical weapons and do nothing.?
This would send out the wrong message to Assad or whoever used the chemical weapons in the first instance.0 -
I agree that no one wants another war but there has to be a measured and proportionate response to the use of illegal chemical weapons against innocent men, women and children in Syria. Did you see the photos? Horrid.
No one wants US boots on the ground but I do think a proportionate response is needed.
US and UK are awaiting their own individual intel reports on the possible location of chemical weapons and their use in this atrocity.
Should western countries just stand by and wait for further use of chemical weapons and do nothing.?
This would send out the wrong message to Assad or whoever used the chemical weapons in the first instance.
The images were very disturbing but right now I think US led military action would lead to more death, perhaps some form of limited action against suspected chemical weapons sites is something I could just about go with, however there are some things that need worked out first.
1) It appears to this layman that a massive chemcial attack did take place, I don't think that is really in doubt anymore, the dreadful images showed scores of bodies of children with no obvious sign of blood. However those images don't tell us who carried out the attack. Why would Assad have done this? Am I right in thinking his forces were winning? Am I right in thinking the UN weapons inspectors were in Damascus at the time? It just seems a really stupid move on his part. Of course perhaps he was emboldened by the lack of action to the previous smaller scale chemical weapon incidents in the Spring?
2) If it is proven that Assad is responsible what would the reaction of Iran and Russia be to even limited military strikes? The situation could quickly get out of control and sad and tragic as those images of dead civilians were they could very quickly become the least of our worries.0 -
Must never ignore hypocrisy
________________________________
The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew,"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
Chemical Weapons
Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988
August 1983: Haij Umran — Mustard, fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
October–November 1983: Panjwin — Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
February–March 1984: Majnoon Island — Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties
March 1984: al-Basrah — Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties
March 1985: Hawizah Marsh — Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties
February 1986: al-Faw — Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties
December 1986: Um ar-Rasas — Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties
April 1987: al-Basrah — Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties
October 1987: Sumar/Mehran — Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties
March 1988: Halabjah & Kurdish area — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties
April 1988: al-Faw — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties
May 1988: Fish Lake — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
June 1988: Majnoon Island — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
July 1988: South-central border — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties0 -
This is not in our interests at all.
We are going to piss off Putin to no end. I'm afraid to think what will happen with Iran after that.
We are doing this on kinda sorta evidence.
Big mistake.0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »Must never ignore hypocrisy
________________________________
The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew,"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
Chemical Weapons
Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988
August 1983: Haij Umran — Mustard, fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
October–November 1983: Panjwin — Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
February–March 1984: Majnoon Island — Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties
March 1984: al-Basrah — Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties
March 1985: Hawizah Marsh — Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties
February 1986: al-Faw — Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties
December 1986: Um ar-Rasas — Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties
April 1987: al-Basrah — Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties
October 1987: Sumar/Mehran — Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties
March 1988: Halabjah & Kurdish area — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties
April 1988: al-Faw — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties
May 1988: Fish Lake — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
June 1988: Majnoon Island — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
July 1988: South-central border — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
And this was the SAME Reagan administration that also was arming Iran at the same time !! The arms industry obviously controlled/controls US foreign policy and the policy here was the prolong this war as long as possible.0 -
I agree that no one wants another war but there has to be a measured and proportionate response to the use of illegal chemical weapons against innocent men, women and children in Syria. Did you see the photos? Horrid.
No one wants US boots on the ground but I do think a proportionate response is needed.
US and UK are awaiting their own individual intel reports on the possible location of chemical weapons and their use in this atrocity.
Should western countries just stand by and wait for further use of chemical weapons and do nothing.?
This would send out the wrong message to Assad or whoever used the chemical weapons in the first instance.
The Syrian situation is terrible and chemical weapons are terrible too. But we need an investigation into who exactly used them.
The problem here is no matter what action is now taken, things will remain very bad in Syria. Al Qaeda definitely need to be wiped off the face of the earth ASAP (if Assad was overthrown, the last thing the world needs is them controlling a Talibanistic state on the gateway of Europe and Asia).
In 2011, the opposition and Assad needed to sit down and hammer out a deal. But the West and Russia at the time were not all that interested (Libya for one was then considered more urgent) and Iran - possibly the only country that could broker a deal - then had a rookie, inexperienced, naive president who was famous for his poor judgement and poor choice of words (Ahmadinejad went straight from obscurity into being Tehran mayor and then president in a whirlwind, and this lack of political experience showed masively). Had the more experienced current Iranian president Rohani being around at the time, who knows?0 -
The images were very disturbing but right now I think US led military action would lead to more death, perhaps some form of limited action against suspected chemical weapons sites is something I could just about go with, however there are some things that need worked out first.
1) It appears to this layman that a massive chemcial attack did take place, I don't think that is really in doubt anymore, the dreadful images showed scores of bodies of children with no obvious sign of blood. However those images don't tell us who carried out the attack. Why would Assad have done this? Am I right in thinking his forces were winning? Am I right in thinking the UN weapons inspectors were in Damascus at the time? It just seems a really stupid move on his part. Of course perhaps he was emboldened by the lack of action to the previous smaller scale chemical weapon incidents in the Spring?
2) If it is proven that Assad is responsible what would the reaction of Iran and Russia be to even limited military strikes? The situation could quickly get out of control and sad and tragic as those images of dead civilians were they could very quickly become the least of our worries.
1) Personally, I would think al Qaeda did this chemical attack and that this blight and common enemy of every nation should be destroyed. The US, EU, Russia, Iran, China and MANY others should set aside their differences and unite to crush a common enemy: al Qaeda and other 'Sunni Islamist' extremist groups. Would such groups use chemical or nuclear weapons? No doubt they would.
2) The US and Russia at war or even the risk of it is something we do not want to ever see! With regard to Iran: with the election of the new and more experienced moderate president Hassan Rohani, the West should take advantage of this and renew constructive relations. Regarding Assad: we need to recognise facts and also propaganda: Assad would have nothing to gain from a chemical attack. But al Qaeda would (even al Qaeda within Assad's army pretending to remain on Assad's side but well place to deliberately do this to undermine Assad).0 -
Advertisement
-
BuilderPlumber wrote: »1) Personally, I would think al Qaeda did this chemical attack and that this blight and common enemy of every nation should be destroyed. The US, EU, Russia, Iran, China and MANY others should set aside their differences and unite to crush a common enemy: al Qaeda and other 'Sunni Islamist' extremist groups. Would such groups use chemical or nuclear weapons? No doubt they would.
2) The US and Russia at war or even the risk of it is something we do not want to ever see! With regard to Iran: with the election of the new and more experienced moderate president Hassan Rohani, the West should take advantage of this and renew constructive relations. Regarding Assad: we need to recognise facts and also propaganda: Assad would have nothing to gain from a chemical attack. But al Qaeda would (even al Qaeda within Assad's army pretending to remain on Assad's side but well place to deliberately do this to undermine Assad).
Yep it could easily have been Al Qaeda.
The argument that the Rebels wouldn't kill hundreds of their own people just doesn't stack up. It hasn't stopped Al Qaeda killing thousands of people in Iraq, AQ would not hesitate to kill Muslim civilians from whichever side of the sectarian divide to acheive their own aims.
Anyway it looks like Britain is backing of a bit today, Cameron and Hague have obviously realised that the British people are totally against this and actually this might be one of those rare situations where the US needs Britain because of Cyprus so it will be "interesting" to see how this plays out.0
Advertisement