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

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 12:49PM

esteve wrote: »

I taught english for several years, I dont want to give you a lesson but there is a difference between strongly suggests and without a shadow of a doubt.

All i have done in this is apporach it logically, and wait for evidence. Check my previous posts, I have said it is likely he was responsible as that is all that has been offered now, likely scenarios. You however have taken whatever you get and made it categorically true, which is just absolutely bizarre. I have never said it wasn't Assad, I've tried to keep this as a logical debate based on facts. Reading some of your posts, logic need not apply.

Much of the early evidence was destroyed by Assad forces...continual bombardment of the area, starting of fires to clear the air.

However, crucially the attack was so vast that Assad forces could not achieve what they set out to do and destroy all the evidence and a significant amount still survives.

From now on, I am not going to accept the opinion of someone like you who is thousands of miles from where this happened. If you are willing to post some links to first hand witnesses on the ground or who have carried out an investigation on the ground, I am willing to listen.

So far you have come up with nothing...your opinion doesn't count to be honest. You've called for evidence but haven't bothered to come up with opposing evidence. Now is your chance, and your opinion is not evidence.

Rascasse · 11-09-2013 12:51PM

bumper234 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

Monbiot? Seriously? As an aside the Observer printed a similar mistake in an opinion piece on Sunday that it had to correct.

I find it strange that how many posts are about sticking the boot into the US rather than the issue at hand, whether to punish a dictator militarily to try to prevent further atrocities or stand aside and leave the Syrian people to their fates. This countries struggle for democracy and self determination clearly means nothing when one gets the opportunity to bitch about Americans and white phosphorous (incidentally first used as a weapon by the Irish)

esteve · 11-09-2013 12:54PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Much of the early evidence was destroyed by Assad forces...continual bombardment of the area, starting of fires to clear the air.

However, crucially the attack was so vast that Assad forces could not achieve what they set out to do and destroy all the evidence and a significant amount still survives.

From now on, I am not going to accept the opinion of someone like you who is thousands of miles from where this happened. If you are willing to post some links to first hand witnesses on the ground or who have carried out an investigation on the ground, I am willing to listen.

So far you have come up with nothing...your opinion doesn't count to be honest. You've called for evidence but haven't bothered to come up with opposing evidence. Now is your chance, and your opinion is not evidence.

I feel really bad now, I had no idea you were there on the ground. Why didnt you just say so? Where are you in Syria to have such an informed opinion?

I dont care if my opinion doesnt count to you, because having read some of the garbage you have posted, absolute drivel of disinformation and lies, and a warped view on reality, I would hate if you actually agreed with me.

You have not presented one piece of evidence that shows Assad without doubt is responsible. The onus is on you to do this. I am reserving my judgement until actual factual evdence has been provided, which is logical, it makes sense. Jumping to conclusions and wanting the US to bomb Damascus is pyschotic.

I will say though, word of advice, maybe go back to primary school and learn how to speak and understand english.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:56PM

realweirdo wrote: »

That has got nothing to do with what we are talking about..you're up to your usually muddying the water routine, introducing things that have no relevance.

HRW have carried out an analysis of the situation, far more in depth than you will ever do, and they have formed certain conclusions.

That said, I'd like to see you provide some evidence that the FSA are guilty.

It's either the FSA or Assad forces who did it..no-one else...So let's see some evidence from you, otherwise stop winding people up.

Actually, it's an extremely valid comparison.

Until the facts of the matter are presented, it's impossible for anyone to draw any conclusions.

And as has been, lamentably, pointed out to you, suggestion, claim, allegation etc. are not facts.

It may well turn out to be Assad who launched the attack, or someone in the military on the ground without government sanction.

But without any kind of factual proof to back up the claim, the claim remains JUST a claim.

This really is very basic stuff here. Any rational person, regardless of where they stand on what the US should or shouldn't do, can easilly grasp this.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 12:59PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Monbiot? Seriously? As an aside the Observer printed a similar mistake in an opinion piece on Sunday that it had to correct.

I find it strange that how many posts are about sticking the boot into the US rather than the issue at hand, whether to punish a dictator militarily to try to prevent further atrocities or stand aside and leave the Syrian people to their fates. This countries struggle for democracy and self determination clearly means nothing when one gets the opportunity to bitch about Americans and white phosphorous (incidentally first used as a weapon by the Irish)

No one's "putting the boot" into the poor US. God luv em.

But America has proven itself to be very dishonest brokers, especially in relation to the Middle East.

They are simply not trusted and for good reason.

K-9 · 11-09-2013 01:02PM

esteve wrote: »

I feel really bad now, I had no idea you were there on the ground. Why didnt you just say so? Where are you in Syria to have such an informed opinion?

I dont care if my opinion doesnt count to you, because having read some of the garbage you have posted, absolute drivel of disinformation and lies, and a warped view on reality, I would hate if you actually agreed with me.

You have not presented one piece of evidence that shows Assad without doubt is responsible. The onus is on you to do this. I am reserving my judgement until actual factual evdence has been provided, which is logical, it makes sense. Jumping to conclusions and wanting the US to bomb Damascus is pyschotic.

I will say though, word of advice, maybe go back to primary school and learn how to speak and understand english.

Mod:

Ok, that's enough, thread is getting way too personal and snipey.

This a warning for everybody, please tone back the language and stop the accusations of trolling and passive aggressive commnents about education etc. Last warning on this, thank you.

esteve · 11-09-2013 01:12PM

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Ok, that's enough, thread is getting way too personal and snipey.

This a warning for everybody, please tone back the language and stop the accusations of trolling and passive aggressive commnents about education etc. Last warning on this, thank you.

Fair enough, its just hard to debate with somebody who is lieing, posting links and then drawing different conclusions from those very links and presenting it as a fact, when clearly its not. But to accuse him of not fully grasping the english language, that is wrong. To me it just appeard so as he was taking conclusions from articles, conclusions that were simply not there. It is therefore very difficult to debate with somebody who does this. Apologies though on my part, I was not meaning to offend.

Eggy Baby! · 11-09-2013 02:48PM

An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country

As they do in Brazil and Mexico, but are those two countries evil dictatorships?

Back on topic- has the lesson of Iraq been forgotten about this soon?? Remember, back in that time, Saddam had WMDs. It was a "slam dunk".

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 02:52PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bit out-dated now, Obama has backed down from immediate strikes and the US/EU is adopting Putin's plan.

We'll see if it's genuine or another stalling tactic.

An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

As they do in Brazil and Mexico, but are those two countries evil dictatorships?

As i already pointed out to him as well

bumper234 wrote: »

And that never happens in America right?

*cough* Michael Hastings *cough*

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 02:55PM

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

As they do in Brazil and Mexico, but are those two countries evil dictatorships?

Back on topic- has the lesson of Iraq been forgotten about this soon?? Remember, back in that time, Saddam had WMDs. It was a "slam dunk".

Saddam said he didn't have them. Assad has admitted to having them. A different scenario completely.

Large stockpiles of chemical weapons in an unstable region like the Middle East is not good at the best of times but in the middle of a civil war where either side are desperate to gain an advantage, its a recipe for disaster. They need to be removed and destroyed asap.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 02:57PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Saddam said he didn't have them. Assad has admitted to having them. A different scenario completely.

Large stockpiles of chemical weapons in an unstable region like the Middle East is not good at the best of times but in the middle of a civil war where either side are desperate to gain an advantage, its a recipe for disaster. They need to be removed and destroyed asap.

How about taking them off Israel? They have a history of using them too you know. Will the US sweep in and take them from every country or only the ones it deems unworthy?

Eggy Baby! · 11-09-2013 03:08PM

Saddam said he didn't have them.

And he was right.

Assad has admitted to having them.

He has also admitted that he is willing to give them up. Why attack Syria if we have won a once in a lifetime opportunity to mediate an end to this madness?

As i already pointed out to him as wel

And here's a few nice, sexy graphs which illustrate my point for both of your enjoyment:

http://darussophiledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/russian-journalists-killed.jpg

http://darussophiledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/russian-journalists-killed-columbia.jpg?w=584

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 03:09PM

How about taking them off Israel? They have a history of using them too you know. Will the US sweep in and take them from every country or only the ones it deems unworthy?

Will the US surrender their own for a flippin start?

The US STILL has large stocks of sarin etc, that they've been promising to get rid of since the late 90's.

If these are weapons they consider illegal to use, then why do they stock them themselves, while at the same time condeming other nations for having them.

Don't answer, it's not really a question.

Rascasse · 11-09-2013 03:24PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Will the US surrender their own for a flippin start?

The US STILL has large stocks of sarin etc, that they've been promising to get rid of since the late 90's.

If these are weapons they consider illegal to use, then why do they stock them themselves, while at the same time condeming other nations for having them.

Don't answer, it's not really a question.

Again with the US.

It is probably the same reason the Russian's haven't managed to get rid of all of theirs - it's expensive and time consuming.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 03:27PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Again with the US.

It is probably the same reason the Russian's haven't managed to get rid of all of theirs - it's expensive and time consuming.

But firing cruise missiles at almost $1.5 million a piece is a cheap and effective solution to other peoples chemical weapons? What about Israels stockpile of chemical weapons? Will the US tell them that they must get rid of them seeing as they are fond of using them?

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 03:30PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Again with the US.

Of course. THEY are the nation who bleat the loudest about WMD, while at the same time they continue to hold vast stocks themselves.

Not only that, but they continue to develop other forms of warfare that they, themselves, deem to unworthy, like biological and bacterial warfare.

Because of that, they deserve the criticism that they receive.

The sheer hypocrisy of their position must be stunning to all, but the most stilted minds.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 03:34PM

bumper234 wrote: »

But firing cruise missiles at almost $1.5 million a piece is a cheap and effective solution to other peoples chemical weapons? What about Israels stockpile of chemical weapons? Will the US tell them that they must get rid of them seeing as they are fond of using them?

Or their nuclear weapons which they continue to develop in flagrant violation of international (including America) agreements on non-proliferation.

A situation that would see fierce condemnation, if not outright attack from the US, if it was another nation attempting such actions.

Seaneh · 11-09-2013 03:44PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Or their nuclear weapons which they continue to develop in flagrant violation of international (including America) agreements on non-proliferation.

A situation that would see fierce condemnation, if not outright attack from the US, if it was another nation attempting such actions.

Nuclear weapons they developed in conjunction with their old buddies in apartheid, South Africa.

thankfully since apartheid ended in South Africa they have ended their nuclear weapons program.

Hopefully someday Israel will follow South Africa's example in both regards.

Rascasse · 11-09-2013 03:45PM

bumper234 wrote: »

But firing cruise missiles at almost $1.5 million a piece is a cheap and effective solution to other peoples chemical weapons? What about Israels stockpile of chemical weapons? Will the US tell them that they must get rid of them seeing as they are fond of using them?

According the NTI, the Israelis are not currently believed to have a chemical weapons stockpile, but could develop one very quickly (like any developed nation). Not that it matters as the Israelis aren't involved in this.

As for the cruise missiles, they are cheap (Britain got theirs for a bargain £500k each I believe) and effective way to show Assad and his military commanders that there will be consequences for their actions, that they can't hide behind Russia.

Presuming targets would include airfields and aircraft, it would also limit their ability to drop cluster bombs, napalm like substances and barrel bombs.

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course. THEY are the nation who bleat the loudest about WMD, while at the same time they continue to hold vast stocks themselves.

Not only that, but they continue to develop other forms of warfare that they, themselves, deem to unworthy, like biological and bacterial warfare.

Because of that, they deserve the criticism that they receive.

The sheer hypocrisy of their position must be stunning to all, but the most stilted minds.

The US, Russia, China, UK, France all hold WMD of varying types and are involved in this situation. Yet only the US gets the continual criticism and claims of hypocrisy (though there is some Israel whataboutery too).

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 03:48PM

Rascasse wrote: »

The US, Russia, China, UK, France all hold WMD of varying types and are involved in this situation. Yet only the US gets the continual criticism and claims of hypocrisy (though there is some Israel whataboutery too).

AGAIN!!!!!!!

Because the US leads the charge when bleating about WMDs.

They even launch illegal wars based on lies about them.

So the deserve EVERY BIT of criticiism that they get.

stannis · 11-09-2013 03:49PM

The US, Russia, China, UK, France all hold WMD of varying types and are involved in this situation. Yet only the US gets the continual criticism and claims of hypocrisy (though there is some Israel whataboutery too).

Whatever about the UK and France, China and Russia don't go around the world using the presence (real or alleged) of WMDs as a pretext for war. So there is a difference between the US approach and that of other powers, and yes the Americans are hypocrites.

So the deserve EVERY BIT of criticiism that they get.

Indeed, and it should be remembered that in the long term the Americans are hurting themselves as much as anyone else with all these humanitarian interventions. Not only in the cost of their soldiers' lives but the massive and spiralling debt that is crippling the "world's sole superpower", as well as their rock-bottom reputation.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 03:50PM

Rascasse wrote: »

According the NTI, the Israelis are not currently believed to have a chemical weapons stockpile, but could develop one very quickly (like any developed nation). Not that it matters as the Israelis aren't involved in this.

But they could have?

Rascasse wrote: »

As for the cruise missiles, they are cheap (Britain got theirs for a bargain £500k each I believe) and effective way to show Assad and his military commanders that there will be consequences for their actions, that they can't hide behind Russia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/cruise-missiles-missile_n_840365.html

In fiscal terms, at a time when Congress is fighting over every dollar, the cruise missile show of military might was an expenditure of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Each missile cost $1.41 million, close to three times the cost listed on the Navy's website.

Presuming targets would include airfields and aircraft, it would also limit their ability to drop cluster bombs, napalm like substances and barrel bombs.

Rascasse wrote: »

The US, Russia, China, UK, France all hold WMD of varying types and are involved in this situation. Yet only the US gets the continual criticism and claims of hypocrisy (though there is some Israel whataboutery too).

I am asking why it's ok to start a war on one country for using chemical weapons but not on another?

stannis · 11-09-2013 03:54PM

Didn't Putin recently pose the question of what the US would do if they found proof that the rebels had used those chemical weapons? A fair one but pointless because even if that is indeed found to be the case I doubt the White House would ever admit it.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 04:49PM

Tony EH wrote: »

AGAIN!!!!!!!

Because the US leads the charge when bleating about WMDs.

They even launch illegal wars based on lies about them.

So the deserve EVERY BIT of criticiism that they get.

What exactly is your point? You seem to be arguing that every country should be allowed own WMD and use them on their own people whenever they want or whenever they get out of line since its within their own borders. That seems to be the gist of a lot of your posts.

You're taking this anti americanism a bit far to be honest and like most anti americans you tie yourself in such knots that you end up supporting people like Assad, whether you mean to or not.

Godge · 11-09-2013 04:50PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Prosecution evidence STRONGLY SUGGESTED that Kevin from Corrie was a kiddie fiddler a few weeks ago.

But when the
>FACTS<
emerged, it was shown that he was, um, in fact (there's that word again!!!), innocent.

facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts............................ad nauseum.....

So you dislike innuendo and accusations and prefer facts.

Tony EH wrote: »

The UN has tried to include White Phosphorus (and many other chemical agents, including CS gas) into the list of chemical weapons a number of times, as its effects are just as damaging as others on the list.

Guess who continually gets in the way of that though...

...there are no prizes.

Innuendo

Tony EH wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

Take from it what you will...

Accusations???

"On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening"

Which is it?

(1) Unsubstantiated allegations unproven in law (against the US) are allowed?
(2) Unsubstantiated allegations unproven in law (against Assad) are not allowed?

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 04:51PM

stannis wrote: »

Didn't Putin recently pose the question of what the US would do if they found proof that the rebels had used those chemical weapons? A fair one but pointless because even if that is indeed found to be the case I doubt the White House would ever admit it.

There has been speculation that Al Quaida in Syria would be one of the targets. Unfortunately its far easier to take out conventional assets like Assad has such as airports, scuds, tanks etc, than take out an AQ guy with an AK-47.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 04:59PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Will the US surrender their own for a flippin start?

The US STILL has large stocks of sarin etc, that they've been promising to get rid of since the late 90's.

If these are weapons they consider illegal to use, then why do they stock them themselves, while at the same time condeming other nations for having them.

Don't answer, it's not really a question.

It is not illegal to possess chemical weapons. It is illegal to use them however.

Technically the US have not broken any conventions on CW as napalm and white phosperous are not included in them, and so far there is no evidence they used white phosperous for anything other than illumination. Assad meanwhile used his in broad daylight. To be honest the use of chemical weapons by Assad represents a small fraction of his war crimes, war crimes too many people are willing to turn a blind eye too.

Everytime Assad commits another war crime, some people shout "but what about the US" while others frankly could care less as long as it doesn't impact their quiet middle class existence too much.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 05:04PM

realweirdo wrote: »

It is not illegal to possess chemical weapons. It is illegal to use them however.

Technically the US have not broken any conventions on CW as napalm and white phosperous are not included in them, and so far there is no evidence they used white phosperous for anything other than illumination. Assad meanwhile used his in broad daylight. To be honest the use of chemical weapons by Assad represents a small fraction of his war crimes, war crimes too many people are willing to turn an on going blind eye too.

Israel also used them in broad daylight why is the US not planning strategic air strikes against them? Israel have also committed war crimes against the Palestinian people yet the US turns a blind eye to them. Why is it ok for Israel to commit these crimes but not anyone else?

Rascasse · 11-09-2013 05:12PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Israel also used them in broad daylight why is the US not planning strategic air strikes against them? Israel have also committed war crimes against the Palestinian people yet the US turns a blind eye to them. Why is it ok for Israel to commit these crimes but not anyone else?

WP isn't just used at night. It creates very thick smoke that can be used to obscure vision, or to mark locations during the day.Regardless however much you want it to be, WP is not illegal.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 05:14PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Israel also used them in broad daylight why is the US not planning strategic air strikes against them? Israel have also committed war crimes against the Palestinian people yet the US turns a blind eye to them. Why is it ok for Israel to commit these crimes but not anyone else?

White phosphorous is not part of the convention. Technically Israel didn't break any international laws.

Anyways you are very good with the whataboutery...to the point where you seem to think its ok for Assad to use sarin because Israel once used white phosphorus.

Do you not see the sheer silliness of this point of view? And how it can be used to justify the use of anything. The fact is Assad crossed the line with the use of sarin. Only the Americans had the guts to call him out on it, everyone else including the Germans, UN, Ban Ki Moon, ran away from the issue as always.

I'm no fan of Israel by the way. I'd like to see everyone in the middle east getting along and to be frank its Muslims who are as always suffering the most in the middle east at the hands of one of their own.

If America was never invented or brought into being, the Middle East would still be a major battlefield. There have been wars of religion going on there going back to the time of Mohammad. The Mongols, Ottomons and Brits were massacring their way through the Middle East long before 1776 and the foundation of America, or more precisely long before America started to flex its muscles at the start of the 20th century.

Next you will be blaming America for the middle age crusades. I wouldn't put it past you.

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

Comments