Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 04:53PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Well some eejits will fall for it in fairness

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 · 08-09-2013 04:54PM

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.

what about U.S. using chemicals in Fallujah?

Rascasse · 08-09-2013 05:13PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

what about U.S. using chemicals in Fallujah?

The US did not use chemical weapons in Fallujah

dublinbhoy88 · 08-09-2013 05:21PM

Rascasse wrote: »

The US did not use chemical weapons in Fallujah

And assad did..right?

Rascasse · 08-09-2013 06:06PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

And assad did..right?

In Syria his military did, yes.

bumper234 · 08-09-2013 06:07PM

Rascasse wrote: »

In Syria his military did, yes.

Do you have evidence of this? 100% rock solid no doubt at all, here it is in black and white evidence?

renegademaster · 08-09-2013 06:26PM

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.

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!!

dublinbhoy88 · 08-09-2013 07:06PM

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.

Where these chemical weapons experts at the scene of the explosion,otherwise they couldn't know

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 07:08PM

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.

Not a scintilla of credible evidence has been offered by anyone to suggest the rebels carried out the attack.

The only people arguing they rebels carried out the attack are the usual trolls on Russia Today, Press TV, Info Wars as well as David Icke.

Some evidence the rebels did it would be nice. Assad however tried desperately to cover his tracks by shelling the area of the attack for several days after, in the hope he could destroy as much evidence as possible. In this he failed however.

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 07:14PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Where these chemical weapons experts at the scene of the explosion,otherwise they couldn't know

They know that the rebels were in no position to carry out the attack. They know that Assad has one of the largest and most sophisticated chemical weapons programs in the middle east if not the world.

Aside from that, the French, German, UK, American, Australian and other spy agengies have independently come to the conclusion Assad was responsible. As have the EU now, again an organisation which can hardly be called hawkish.

The French and Germans were against the Iraq War by the way, so again you can hardly describe them as hawks. The Germans are scared sh*tless about getting involved in any foreign military adventures, but even they agree Assad was responsible.

The evidence points over-whelmingly in favour of Assad doing it. Whereas you my friend are merely clutching at straws, hoping against hope that your pal Assad will be absolved of all blame.

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 07:18PM

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!!

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 · 08-09-2013 07:35PM

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?

How many men women and children have the FSA killed?

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 07:38PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

How many men women and children have the FSA killed?

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 · 08-09-2013 07:39PM

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.

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.

dublinbhoy88 · 08-09-2013 07:41PM

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.

really,how do you know?

Tony EH · 08-09-2013 08:02PM

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.

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.

Tony EH · 08-09-2013 08:04PM

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.

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.

Manach · 08-09-2013 08:28PM

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.

So ancient villages populated by Christians (as per various Church/NGO sources) are such,?

dublinbhoy88 · 08-09-2013 08:49PM

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.

he is obviously on the wind up

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 09:11PM

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.

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? 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. 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. 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.

clairefontaine · 08-09-2013 09:16PM

Chemical weapons don't appear to be effective. Opposition forces still hold the territory that was attacked.

realweirdo · 08-09-2013 09:19PM

Manach wrote: »

So ancient villages populated by Christians (as per various Church/NGO sources) are such,?

So over two years into this conflict you're suddenly concerned about AQ?

The escalation of this conflict could have been avoided years ago if Assad sat down with the opposition including the opposition he exiled and imprisoned. But he decided to tough it out and that has brought AQ into the country and yes they have attacked some Christian towns. Unfortunately there's not much can be done about AQ now.

If the Americans intervene or not AQ are going to exist in Syria regardless, thanks mainly to the stupidity of Assad and Iran.

My main concern in Syria unlike the mindless anti Americaners, is regarding ending this conflict asap.

The anti americans wouldnt care if it went on for hundreds of years so long as the evil Americans don't get involved.

dublinbhoy88 · 08-09-2013 10:15PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Chemical weapons don't appear to be effective. Opposition forces still hold the territory that was attacked.

how are obamas allies getting on in maaloula?

Tony EH · 08-09-2013 11:31PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

he is obviously on the wind up

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 · 08-09-2013 11:40PM

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.

I'm going to assume we will have to disagree on this one and won't find any common ground.

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.

I view it on the otherhand as an operation carried out by Assad forces, as the preponderance of evidence points that way.

Like I said I doubt we will agree on it.

Tony EH · 09-09-2013 12:00AM

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tony EH · 09-09-2013 12:07AM

realweirdo wrote: »

I'm going to assume we will have to disagree on this one and won't find any common ground.

You can assume anything that you wish. In fact, you been going on mere assumption for the entire thread.

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.

Oh dear...if you were paying attention, you'll note that I have made no such claim, even in the mildest of terms. I have simply said that there is no evidence, or at least no evidence made available, to back up the claim that Assad carried out the chemical attack. I haven't stated that the attack was carried out by any quarter...

...because there has been no evidence to show who did it.

realweirdo wrote: »

I view it on the otherhand as an operation carried out by Assad forces, as the preponderance of evidence points that way.

Again, there is NO evidence, nothing, nada, zip...absolutely bugger all.

You say it's Assad, because you WANT it to be Assad. That simply isn't good enough.

Wildlife Actor · 09-09-2013 12:16AM

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.

realweirdo · 09-09-2013 12:51AM

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.

It was either Assad who carried it out or the rebels. So in your opinion who was it?

My own belief is it was Assad.

Your belief seems to be that you don't know, you haven't been able to process the information quickly enough.

You seem to assume also that anyone who believes it was Assad forces who carried it out are automatically stupid which is frankly bullsh*t.

I will repeat only Assad had the means, motive, lack of morality and everything else you want to mention in regard to this.

In other words I am in absolutely no doubt as is most of the world that the 21st August Chemical attack was CARRIED OUT BY ASSAD.

As for evidence there is litterly tons of it but everytime someone brings it up you do your usual bury your head in the sand routine and pretend its not there. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see and you certainly fall into that category unfortunately. You are unwilling to listen to any evidence that points to Assad, while at the same time not coming up with even one piece of hard firm evidence that points to the FSA. In other words without even one single piece of evidence pointing to the FSA, and lots pointing to Assad, I'm going to go with Assad being guilty.

realweirdo · 09-09-2013 12:57AM

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.

Because he is stupid...that's if he actually ordered it which is a mute point in any regard.

The latest intel (German) is that commanders on the ground were pushing for its use for months beforehand which he refused. My own view is that he either gave the go ahead or more likely a local commander under pressure from above to push back rebels ordered its use. It was a dumb dumb move, but then again Assad is a dumb president. He has brought his country to disaster through bad decision after bad decision.

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Comments