Syria Now

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

Re: Syria Now

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:12 pm

Some Russian reporting on the ground in Duma shows a boy who was featured in gas attack videos from April 7, but who was basically just an unwitting extra in a wag the dog style hoax video. According to this, the kid and his family went to the hospital for snacks, nobody was poisoned, apparently interviewing hospital staff as well.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nojZwqaFHI
Michael

 

Re: Syria Now

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:15 pm

A viewpoint on the alleged Syrian gas attacks from a rare, anti-war Democrat, also a comedian, Jimmy Dore. He goes through the basic history of the gas attack claims since 2013. He thinks there's no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump or Syrian gas attacks.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWAABd9CV4
Michael

 

Re: Syria Now

Postby Steve James on Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:50 am

I think it's one thing to criticize bombing people because of alleged attacks. However, I have no tangible way to say whether the attacks happened or not. I won't get to see the intelligence or information that the people who authorized the attacks saw.

Some say the attacks were successful. Let's say that Assad's forces were responsible for a chemical attack. Would you say that attacking the sources used was legitimate? Wouldn't attacking those chemical plants, etc., be legitimate anyway?
"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: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Syria Now

Postby Michael on Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:43 am

No, it wouldn't.

IINM, the OPCW has inspected those sites as recently as last November (according to the recent interviews with form UK ambassador to Syria. Peter Ford). And I don't believe there's any proof that the Syrian govt has used chemical weapons during this war, or before as far as I know about.

I can not see a single reason for the USA to bomb Syria because of chemical weapons, even if Syria had them and had used them, I can not see how it makes sense legally or morally. I guess this shows my anti-war bias since some people probably think if a country uses WMD's then bombing them is necessary. That is purely theoretical from the point of view of what America has actually done in the Midle East since 1988: helping Iraq use chemical and biological weapons on Iran; creating a pre-text for the second Iraq war of 2003 on the claim of WMD's; the extensive use of DU in Fallujah and the fact that the USA is the greatest (largest, most profilic, etc.) creator of chemical and biological weapons in the world and we have broken our agreement with Russia to mutually destroy our stockpiles because we are several years behind schedule, if you believe our govt actually intends to get rid of them all, which I don't. Russia already finished destroying theirs.

The USA using very, very weak claims of chemical weapons attacks as a justification to commit an act of war? Gimme a break. I'm just not buying it.
Michael

 

Re: Syria Now

Postby Azer on Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:20 am

You still at it Michael? Wasting your energy. These simpletons can only grasp the Disney version the Syrian conflict i.e.

Disney Version:

Once upon a time, a country called Syria was ruled by a ruthless dictator named Bashar Al-Assad. He was a cruel man who gassed his own people. His actions caused a civil war in Syria. America and Europe tried their best to stop the devastating civil war, and even generously accepted many Syrian refugees. Eventually America went to Syria, defeated ISIS, and is now trying to restore stability.

It's like a goodnight fairy-tale, reassures their simple minds, but all fantasies come to an end, a rude awakening isn't far off.
"All around, dude, try to imagine cold, cause the van is kinda hot, wrap the rat in tacky coat" - Duke Duke
Azer
Wuji
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 2:28 am
Location: London

Re: Syria Now

Postby Steve James on Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:23 am

I can not see a single reason for the USA to bomb Syria because of chemical weapons, even if Syria had them and had used them, I can not see how it makes sense legally or morally. I guess this shows my anti-war bias since some people probably think if a country uses WMD's then bombing them is necessary.


So, if we know that someone is committing genocide, is it immoral for us (or anyone) to do anything about it? Is this true just in the case of Assad in Syria, or is it a generallll rule.
"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: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Syria Now

Postby Bao on Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:59 pm

Steve James wrote:So, if we know that someone is committing genocide, is it immoral for us (or anyone) to do anything about it? Is this true just in the case of Assad in Syria, or is it a generallll rule.


Is genocide the reason? Do you really think so? What about ongoing and recent genocides in Africa and East-Asia?

What could it be that makes US suddenly care and feel sorry about a people? Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, hmmm what do they all have in common? I can give you a clue: it’s not Koalas.
Last edited by Bao on Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9008
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: Syria Now

Postby Steve James on Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:04 pm

Is genocide the reason? Do you really think so? What about ongoing and recent genocides in Africa and East-Asia


I don't understand your point. You didn't ask me whether I'd be in favor of humanitarian intervention in cases of genocide. Fwiw, there are lots of Americans who care about genocides in Africa. Usually, they're called liberals or leftists or social justice warriors. They even want to accept Syrian refugees.

But, that's a digression. I asked Mike a question, and I'd like his answer.
"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: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Syria Now

Postby Bao on Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:19 pm

What don’t you understand? If it’s about helping people from genocide, why do the US only make efforts to help people when Oil is involved?

My point is that it’s all Hypocrisy and that the reason is about oil. The US constantly show that they couldn’t care less about people or human lives, and also that there’s no sense of responsibility whatsoever. Hypocrisy.

Never mind. Forget about it. My point is that Syria has no koalas... :P
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9008
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: Syria Now

Postby Steve James on Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:33 pm

Your comments are irrelevant. I asked Mike why it would be immoral to prevent someone from committing genocide or mass murder. That requires a yes or no. The argument that the US (i.e., the administration) is not acting on moral grounds is irrelevant to my question.

If you were arguing that the US should act in cases of genocide anywhere, then your answer is implied. Do you think the US should intervene in cases of genocide or not?
"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: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Syria Now

Postby Peacedog on Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:47 pm

Truthfully, I never understood the “if you care about people why don’t you xxxx crowd.” It reminds me of a whiny 12 year old crying, “if you can’t save everyone in a burning building, you should just let everyone die to be fair. It’s not faaaiirrrr.”

It’s not like the US has unlimited resources to police the world with.

We are going to engage those areas that impact our national interest. And the primary reason for being is Syria is to prevent the jihadi set from having a place to spawn.

The disagreement with Assad being in power is a long term issue involving Syria’s continued efforts to undermine Lebanon, Israel and empower the Iranians.

The “war for oil” thing is really a bunch of crap in this context. Syria has negligible amounts, Lebanon and Israel effectively have none.

And none of this would destabilize Iraqi oil production significantly even if the US had stayed home altogether. Not to mention the US does not receive a significant percentage of its oil from the ME. Europe does as does Asia.
Last edited by Peacedog on Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peacedog
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 5:22 am
Location: Standing right next to your girl....

Re: Syria Now

Postby Michael on Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:48 pm

Steve James wrote:
I can not see a single reason for the USA to bomb Syria because of chemical weapons, even if Syria had them and had used them, I can not see how it makes sense legally or morally. I guess this shows my anti-war bias since some people probably think if a country uses WMD's then bombing them is necessary.


So, if we know that someone is committing genocide, is it immoral for us (or anyone) to do anything about it? Is this true just in the case of Assad in Syria, or is it a generallll rule.

The unproven, and IMO ridiculous, allegations that the Syrian govt. used chemical weapons on its own people in August 2013, April 2017 and April 2018, are claimed to have killed around a total of 300 people. Is this genocide? No, therefore the context for your question is faulty because it does not apply to Syria.

Here is a question that has relevance, unlike hypocritical concerns regarding genocide. Saudi Arabia is currently waging war on Yemen and using weapons recently purchased from the USA and UK in order to do it. Starvation, disease and death among civilians and children is the result. Saudi Arabia is also one of the primary supporters in the international coalition to wage jihad on Syria. Should the USA not sell weapons to Saudi Arabia?
Michael

 

Re: Syria Now

Postby Trick on Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:07 pm

Peacedog wrote:
The disagreement with Assad being in power is a long term issue involving Syria’s continued efforts to undermine Lebanon, Israel and empower the Iranians.

The “war for oil” thing is really a bunch of crap in this context. Syria has negligible amounts, Lebanon and Israel effectively have none.

And none of this would destabilize Iraqi oil production significantly even if the US had stayed home altogether. Not to mention the US does not receive a significant percentage of its oil from the ME. Europe does as does Asia.
not the oil per se but the control of where/how it flows and of course the dollars that comes out of it is probably a main agenda....And there is something about that Ba'ath party that stings in the US eyes
Trick

 

Re: Syria Now

Postby Steve James on Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:48 am

Someone who doesn't hold a position on morality has no business calling anything immoral.
"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: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Syria Now

Postby grzegorz on Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:10 pm

Cry me a river Alex Jones. You supported a reality TV star and what did you expect?



https://youtu.be/VToV57OoQSY
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: America great yet?

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests