dublinbhoy88 wrote: » Well some eejits will fall for it in fairness
realweirdo wrote: » I wouldn't call it saturating the media so much as trying to convince the American people of the need to confront users of chemical weapons. The American people range from the hardcore isolationists in all parties and factions who are opposed to anything which smells like intervention any where...they were against intervention in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya...Their ancestors were against intervention in WW1 and when Hitler was gassing the Jews they were against intervention then too...what happened in Europe with Hitler was none of American's business...the more Hitler killed, the less of America's business it was. It was only when attacked by Japan that America reluctantly dropped its isolationists stance and even then there were people opposed to getting involved in the war. Aside from that, the ordinary man or woman on the street in America is reactionary and would struggle to point out Syria on the map. They are like children, they have to be stepped through everything, because their instinct is isolationist in all circumstances.
dublinbhoy88 wrote: » what about U.S. using chemicals in Fallujah?
Rascasse wrote: » The US did not use chemical weapons in Fallujah
dublinbhoy88 wrote: » And assad did..right?
Rascasse wrote: » In Syria his military did, yes.
realweirdo wrote: » Every chemical weapons expert I have heard talking about this, most of them independent of governments, have stated they believe Assad was responsible. Now can you please state your chemical weapons qualifications? Otherwise you'll understand why I will believe them before I believe you.
dublinbhoy88 wrote: » Where these chemical weapons experts at the scene of the explosion,otherwise they couldn't know
renegademaster wrote: » does it not worry you that not one person, including "independents", not one of them have at least acknowledged the fact it might or might not have been the rebels, some of whom have been videod eating the organs of a syrian army captured snd killed!! anybody only speaking about Assad or the Syrian army is not being truthful and honest in their appraisals of the sisuation over there since the Americans and their partners started stirring the **** over there over 2 years ago!! jebus wept!!
realweirdo wrote: » One FSA nutter was captured on camera acting up for the camera. His actions were immiediately condemned by the FSA commanders who said he was wanted dead or alive. Did he kill 1400 people including 400 children in cold blood in a few minutes? Which is the bigger crime here? Be honest. A guy pretending to eat a dead soldiers heart or Assad killing 1400 people in a few minutes?
dublinbhoy88 wrote: » How many men women and children have the FSA killed?
realweirdo wrote: » EU now agreed Assad used chemical weapons.http://www.independent.ie/incoming/eu-backs-claims-that-syria-was-responsible-for-chemical-attacks-29560889.html I think its fairly cut and dried now that Assad did use them.
realweirdo wrote: » Not close to what Assad has killed. They don't own MIGS, Scuds, Chemical Weapons, thousands of tanks, and hundreds of artillary and mortar weapons. Most of their operations are against military targets such as tanks, airfields, bases and checkpoints. Most of their victims have been military personal who were carrying out Assad's scorched earth policies so I don't think too many would lament their loss.
esteve wrote: » Is english your first language? From your very own article.. "EU OFFICIALS have agreed that the August 21 chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syria's regime" This very statement is entirley the opposite to cut and dry. It means that its possible it was him, not that it was definately him. Obama even came out and said it was likely to have been Assad, but not that without doubt it was him. For some bizarre reason, you have taken from this article it was 100% Assad, and I really do not understand how you have come to this conclusion. It is fine to say that it seems or appears that it was him, but to categorically state that it was Assad after reading some article that doesnt even say so is real weird.
realweirdo wrote: » Most of their victims have been military personal who were carrying out Assad's scorched earth policies so I don't think too many would lament their loss.
Tony EH wrote: » You're not even remotely qualified to suggest a breakdown of target priority or list the targets that have been hit on any side of the conflict. All you're going on is basic wish fulfillment.
Tony EH wrote: » It's only "cut and dried" to people who desperately want to be so. The actual FACT of the matter is that there is NO proof whatsoever available on who it was that carried out the attack.
Manach wrote: » So ancient villages populated by Christians (as per various Church/NGO sources) are such,?
clairefontaine wrote: » Chemical weapons don't appear to be effective. Opposition forces still hold the territory that was attacked.
dublinbhoy88 wrote: » he is obviously on the wind up
Tony EH wrote: » Actually, I honestly don't think he/she is. I think they are just operating with a naive perspective. More than likely Realweirdo hadn't heard about Assad, or his family, before this all kicked off, so it's very easy to slip into the "he's the new Hitler" mode of thinking. It's very easy to point a finger and go there's the bad guy and no doubt there's a litany of various things that Assad can be accused of. But this misses the big picture. And really that's all that Realweirdo is lacking...the big picture.
realweirdo wrote: » Assad could have settled this once and for all if he allowed the UN inspectors immediate and total access to the site of the attack. But he didn't did he? Because he had something to hide didn't he...his forces saturated the area for several days and nights after with shells and bombs and then allowed the UN go in. Is that the actions of a man with nothing to hide?
realweirdo wrote: » It's pretty irrelevant what we think on here by the way, most decision makers have made their mind up on the matter and have come to the conclusion Assad was guilty. These are facts, you can bend these facts, bury your head in the sand and pretend the EU, Arab League and various other countries haven't come to the same conclusion, that Assad done it. I'm just pointing out those facts...I'm not desperate for Assad to have done it.
realweirdo wrote: » If I thought the FSA carried out the attack, I'd be the first to condemn them. But the preponderance of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise points to it being Assad and also points to him attempting a coverup which unfortunately didn't work.
realweirdo wrote: » As for the wider conflict, those who have buried their head in the sand for the last two years, now suddenly wake up when they see AQ at the gates of Damascus. Something which could have been avoided if Assad and the regular FSA came to an agreement to share power or have some sort of orderly transition two years ago. The conflict has now completely spiralled out of control and is getting worse with each passing day, fanned by Iran, Russia and Hezbolah, Assad and radical Islamists too. There seems to be no peaceful end in sight to this conflict, not in the short term unfortunately. The best that can be hoped for is Assad forces are degraded enough so he decides enough is enough and he will start talking to the opposition.
realweirdo wrote: » I'm going to assume we will have to disagree on this one and won't find any common ground.
realweirdo wrote: » You view the Damascus chemical attack as a false flag operation/conspiracy carried out by the United States or allied forces with help from the FSA on the ground...I'd like to see your proof to back this one up by the way.
realweirdo wrote: » I view it on the otherhand as an operation carried out by Assad forces, as the preponderance of evidence points that way.
Tony EH wrote: » You ask this question, but you fail to ask the most salient question and that is what Assad would have to gain in launch a chemical attack, when the UN inspectors are less than 20 minutes away and knowing that it was a "red line", which would bring in the US. This is a situation that Assad wants to avoid at any cost, as it could lead to an esscalation that would see the end of him and his rule in Syria. Coupled with the fact that Assad's forces are winning the situation on the ground, this means that he has NOTHING to gain out of such an attack. Of course it's entirely irrelevant what's said on a message board and this is only a thread for debate and discussion on the subject, but you're entirely wrong (again) in your assertion that everybody in power is in agreement about this. They aren't, and they are especially are not in agreement with how to proceed. America wants to bomb, but they have their own less than altruistic agenda and other nations are in two minds on what should really be done. precisely because there has been no evidence put forward to back up the accusation. This is the crux of the matter. Mere allegation is simply not enough, especially in the post Iraq/WMD lies fiasco. It may turn out that Assad's forces did carry out the attack, or elements within, without authorisation, or rogue elements even...or even elements within the rebel forces. It simply IS NOT KNOWN. There is NO EVIDENCE, this is the point people are making. That's the issue here. If real factual evidence is available, then it should be fronted up. Not allegation, not claims, not hearsay or gossip. REAL EVIDENCE. So far there has been none, whatsoever. It's very easy, too easy, to put all of this at the door of Assad. But the fact is that there are many sides involved. There are NO good guys here. And no nation is going to simply give up power to rebelious groups, no matter what shade of rebellion they claim to represent. The FSA may have the banner of the "good guy" to some people, but they quickly threw their lot in with many extremist groups, when the latter made their services available and that suggests something to be suspicious about. They never even offered a condemnation of Al Qaeda actions. Either way, the situation on the ground has changed out of all proportion to what may or may not have existed two years ago and many people are quite rightly dubious over whether the west should support these "rebels" or not. As for "talking to the opposition", it was the rebels who refused to talk to Assad, not the other way around.
Love nor Money wrote: » That's a very important question Tony: why would Assad or anyone associated with his regime use chemicals when that has been clearly and emphatically made the red line by US since last year if not earlier? Are there any theories knocking about? Is it Putin testing the US? Because without an identifiable motive, it is a decision that is so unbelievably counterproductive to Assad that a neutral observer would be entitled to call for a high degree of proof accepting that it was Assad.
