The Russians did it.

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby windwalker on Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:32 pm

It is not yet clear that the Assad gov did it.

Russia has said chemical weapons that killed as many as 100 people in the town of Idlib leaked from a rebel weapons facility after it was bombed by the Syrian air force.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/04/05/syri ... killed-100

The Attack itself does not make any sense at all at this point in time, except maybe as a way to direct
the reactions of the US and others.

The ministry spokesman said in a statement, posted online by Russia’s state news agency Tass, that Syrian planes carried out an airstrike on a “major ammunition storage facility” operated by rebels.


This should be very easy to fact check, the targeting.
It would make sense that an "ammunition storage facility" would be targeted.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:06 pm

:) Even this administration (i.e., the Trump Team) say it had to be Assad. It's the administration's turn around that is interesting. Our U.N. ambassador says it had to be Assad, since the rebels don't have an air force. This wasn't even the first such attack, or the worst.

Again, the administration is now agreeing that Assad has to go.
Tillerson says coalition forming to target Assad, Trump hearing military options
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04 ... tions.html
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:20 pm

Clear enough; the news is that in the last hour the U.S. launched air strikes against Syria. Check the news.

Edit: And, btw, even if it wasn't with the authorization of Congress, I'm with Trump on this one. It might be risky; it might not work; it might not have been well thought through, but I have to agree with the reasons he's giving. If you're gonna be a gorilla, be the gorilla that defends the weak and punishes the bully. Makes me kind of hopeful for the guy actually.
Last edited by Steve James on Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby windwalker on Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:11 pm

Steve James wrote:Clear enough; the news is that in the last hour the U.S. launched air strikes against Syria. Check the news.


yellow cake, gulf of tonkin, ect

all clear until it was not.

Understand the why this was done, lets hope that the reasoning was sound
and remains so....In light of N-Korea this also sends a message to them
hope they got it...

It is interesting the type of weapons used and targeting considering Russian SAM sites
supporting Assad. I would imagine the Russians were notified ahead of the strike maybe not enough time
to move assets just enough to protect their people on the ground.

Not really something I would agree with,,,but do understand the reasoning behind it.

edited: it seems the Russians, were not notified at this time,,,,"publicly"
Last edited by windwalker on Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:28 pm

Sure, there are possible benefits; and, I agree; it's not something you would agree with. Of course, it's easy to agree or disagree when one doesn't have the responsibility. Two weeks ago, Trump wouldn't agree with what he did today, just as he warned Obama about acting on Syria after an earlier chemical attack. Yet, now we have troops on the ground and have directly attacked a sovereign nation. The only troubling thing, in fact, is his dramatic change of mind. It wasn't unexpected; it's just that it wasn't expected on this issue, which has direct ramifications on other issues, such as immigration. Or, how about the fact that many remaining Syrian Christians support Assad, and let's not forget Russia and Iran.

But, I congratulate Trump for his empathy. It's not last year's "we have to go after their families" candidate. Either he's changed or he's listening to someone. Both would be good signs. If he gets some impulse control and lays off the tweeter .... Otoh, I think he'll be very busy in the near future.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby windwalker on Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:26 am

The clip outlines what I felt at the time,
although many agencies seem to have confirmed that Assad did use a chemical agent.
For me it never made much sense...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0zXKISeSUI
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:32 am

So, you think Trump did it? Or that he's working for the people who did? He did (allegedly) order strikes against Syria. What's his game, or is someone playing him?
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Michael on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:43 pm

Pres. Assad's interview with AFP (Agencie French Press) where he responds to allegations of chemical attacks.

This is the 3 minute highlight from a longer interview.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-qXa9yQlEY
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Michael on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:43 pm

The full interview with Assad. 22 minutes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnpy7mrGMS0
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:18 pm

Well, I certainly believe that bombing his airfields was aggression. It's just interesting that Trump ordered it --after ... aw, you know.

Afa the chemical attacks, if they happened (and Trump seemed to believe they did), then someone did it. Let's agree that whoever that is should be discouraged. Of course, I don't know whether Assad was responsible (either directly or indirectly). But, I wouldn't expect anyone to admit to using chemical (WMD's), especially if they did it. Are we waiting for Putin to admit responsibility for the plane shot down over Ukraine? And, if the rebels had sarin, would they always use it on their own people? Imo, Putin's argument that Syrian planes had hit chemical weapons held by the rebels is more like the typical imperialist modus operandi. I.e., "the victims are the real guilty parties; they're just trying to make us look bad."

Now, it's also possible to argue that the attack and the response had political goals that had nothing to do with chemical weapons.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Michael on Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:40 pm

Assad says the following, my response after his points.:

Syria has no chemical weapons, because it gave them up beginning in 2013 as confirmed by Russia and the UN OPCW.
The counter-argument from the USA is that Assad did not destroy all of them, which sounds just like what we said in 2003 about Iraq, for which there was never any evidence.

The area of the alleged attack, Khan Sheikhoun, is not a particularly militarily important place and one that the terrorists control. Why attack there? Why use chemical weapons against civilians and not against the terrorists?
This goes along with the question of why use chemical weapons at all on civilians? What is to be gained?

The Syrian Army was advancing and the terrorists were collapsing, so why use the chemical weapons then?

USA claims the sarin attack originated from the air base struck by the Tomahawk missiles, so why wasn't the sarin released at the Syrian air base by these explosions? Their [military] chief of staff visited the base a few hours after the attack, how could he do that if there was a danger of sarin from the US missiles releasing it?

Videos of alleged rescuers and victims of sarin attack have no gloves or masks. The White Helmets are infiltrated by Al-Nusra and not a humanitarian organization, so you can not take their word without evidence.

Al Queada reported the attack and there has been no investigation. They claim it happened at 6:30 in the morning, but the Syrian Air Force operation was between 11:30AM-12PM.

US policy is controlled by the deep state and not by the president and this is the first proof that Trump follows this pattern.
A lot of Trump supporters have condemned him for breaking his campaign promise on Syria. Considering it was such a minor and militarily inconsequential attack, and that Russia was given notice less than an hour before, it seems more sympbolic than anything.

Other questions about the attack:

Considering that Syria is winning, why would Assad use chemical weapons when it almost brought the US into the war in September-October 2013?
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Michael on Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:47 pm

There's no obvious reason why Assad would use chemical weapons, there's no benefit and there's no evidence. The US response to the alleged chemical weapons attack was militarily insignificant, except that Russia withdrew from the agreement to alert each other's air forces of flight patterns in order to avoid accidental conflict, which comes after several high profile cases of US and its allies attacking Russia or Syria, once by using the flight pattern information provided by the agreement to down a Russian plane.

What the US missile attack achieved was to weaken support from Trump's base and to increase the chances of conflict with Russia.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:36 pm

The area of the alleged attack, Khan Sheikhoun, is not a particularly militarily important place and one that the terrorists control. Why attack there? Why use chemical weapons against civilians and not against the terrorists?
This goes along with the question of why use chemical weapons at all on civilians? What is to be gained?


Like I said, I don't know who dropped the chemical weapons or even if they were dropped. Asking why Assad's forces would use them on civilians begs the question why anyone would use weapons on them. Who did it and why? Assad says he gave up chemical weapons, but the rebels never had them. Assad's forces have used them before.

Afa a military objective, the rebels are civilians. Aleppo was a civilian city, not a military base.

Anyway, afa Trump, his "base" won't be swayed. Where would they sway to? Ten years ago, his base were saying that Obama was too weak to deal with Russia (which one candidate said could be seen from her backyard). Pffft. He said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street, and he's right. But, then you have his "supporters" who might think he agrees with them about what they think is important, or what gives them comfort. That's why he has more rallies than press conferences. I'm waiting for his State of the Union address. I wager it will sound like a campaign speech. That is, unless we're more deeply committed to a new war somewhere. That said, the idea of "mutually assured destruction" depended on the belief that at least one side was crazy mad enough to use doomsday weapons.

Well, again, if I knew for sure that the chemical weapons were launched from site X, and something could be done about it, I would. I agree with you totally about US aggression and intervention, especially for political and economic reasons (like getting their oil and other natural resources). No doubt about it.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Michael on Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:29 pm

Assad says he gave up chemical weapons, but the rebels never had them. Assad's forces have used them before.

Do you mean Assad used them in 2013? I did a little googling when you mentioned this several years ago and I just couldn't come up with anything, but I really don't know* [edited] if they used or were accused of using chemical weapons before the civil war. I mean I don't know of any credible reports that Syria has used chemical weapons before 2013.

Going back to 2013, the Turkish police caught jihadis with sarin. There have been other reports that the rebels have chemical weapons, such as chlorine gas taken from Syrian stockpiles lost during the war, although of course these were very small amounts compared to what the Syrian Army had. However, who is now more credible about having or not having chemical weapons and I think Syria is more credible about having given them up; also, the rebels never admitted having them.

ISIS accused of using chemical weapons recently in Mosul.
Syria has faced international condemnation for using chemical weapons. But Islamic State has them too

Well, again, if I knew for sure that the chemical weapons were launched from site X, and something could be done about it, I would.


I know this sounds horribly cynical, but considering the obvious implications that what you're saying is US military involvement in Syria, right?, why would you advocate that? Is there any reason to think the outcome would be different than Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya? The amount of casualties in the Syrian war by chemical weapons is very small compared to the 400,000 plus dead, right? Why does this deserve a Tomahawk strike that predictably leads to the Russians backing out of the air force agreement?

Again, it sounds like the first Iraq war: Saddam is a bad guy because he gassed the Kurds. Yes, that's true, but why wasn't he a bad guy when he was gassing the Iranians much more, and with CIA logistical support? And from whence did those chemical and biological weapons come? He got some of them from NATO countries.

My point is that the Aug. 2013 Ghouta chemical weapons attack and the one a couple of weeks ago are not significant militarily or in comparison to overall numbers of casualties. I consider them isolated events, significant for propaganda and as pretexts for further US/NATO involvement. Aside from the moral outrage over chemical attacks, which always provide videos of injured children blamed on "the psychopath Assad" (I'm trying to recall viral videos of injured children by the rebels/terrorists, but nope, somehow not as prevalent), why are they more significant than other casualties, yet somehow less significant than the depleted uranium attacks by the USA in Fallujah? I'm not bringing up Fallujah to sidetrack or pull a tu quoque. I do so because I think it's a valid comparison, admittedly more controversial than sarin.

EDITED for clarity.
Last edited by Michael on Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Russians did it.

Postby Steve James on Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:25 pm

Afa previous chemical attacks, yeah, I was thinking of 2013. It was actually a big thing. Obama was criticized (by Trump, too) for drawing a "red line" about it. McCain called for imposing a no fly zone, and perhaps more. Anyway, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

I consider them isolated events, significant for propaganda and as pretexts for further US/NATO involvement.


Ok, you can call it part of a US/NATO conspiracy, with Trump taking the lead. However, that political argument will work for any issue. Putin and Assad will be the good guys, and the US/NATO will be the bad guys. For me, that perspective is useless and paralyzing. Plenty of Americans didn't want to go to war against Nazi Germany. Many people still say that Hitler wasn't as bad as the media made him out to be. But, suppose they're right? I'd rather be wrong, if being right meant ignoring those who wanted to exterminate me or others. What I lack is reliable information -and I don't trust the internet or tv. The president, otoh, gets much more pertinent information. It could be a lie. However, once he/she knows, then a decision has to be made about what to do, especially since he has the obligation to react. I can't say bombing the airfields is effective or a stunt. I can agree with the reasons given for the bombing. I won't disagree because of Putin or Russia or because I have any reason to believe Assad.

Well, if the rebels had the chemical weapons, and used them, I'd see no reason not to hit them either. They're also in Syria.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16245
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest