Chemical Weapons

[Pureblood]

We need Hans Brix.

[Red Phoenix]

We need Hans Brix.

 

Or the Syrian army should employ this guy to speak to us :

 

 

"We let you in and we'll be infested with McDonald's 'restaurants' within a decade, fuck that."

[Nightcat]

It's claimed that the doctors without borders has a stack of evidence pointing towards the regime using the weapons.

 

Chemical weapons were probably used. The question is which side used them and for what reason?

 

a) The side which was winning the war and remains the most popular among a diverse Syrian(Shia, Sunni, Allawite, Christian) population?

 

b) The West intelligence-supported, foreign religious extremists, invaders who are slaughtering Shia, Alawites, Christians and who are desperately trying for months now to play the weapons of Mass destruction card in order to provoke/justify Western intervention because they are clearly losing the war?

 

As for the "claims"... I remember the intervention in South Serbia, Kosovo and the staged, fake mass graves which were used as evidence for the intervention in favour of the "innocent, poor" Albanians.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Israel calling up reservists. If that's not a sign...

[Ranxerox]

have no fear......

 

Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Delmar]

Israel calling up reservists. If that's not a sign...

 

At this stage it seems to be: "partial mobilization of select IDF reserves: Rocket, Air Force, missile interception, Home Defense command and intelligence units."

 

I think Israel would prefer Assad in power, as they did with Mubarak and now the new military leaders in Egypt. I guess they don't mind a war in Syria, as long as stays between Syrians. This one is on Obama and his need to show the Russkies. Humiliated in Egypt, in Libya, with Snowden. Obama's "baby" was the Muslim Brotherhood, that ship went down rather rapidly.

 

And with this I'm out, too many conspiracy theories here.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

At this stage it seems to be: "partial mobilization of select IDF reserves: Rocket, Air Force, missile interception, Home Defense command and intelligence units."

 

Yep. To me, that's a signal that they've been told about an impending attack on Syria. I guess we'll see.

[Anny Road]

It is a terrible thing to say but maybe the only way this whole shit nest of a world will be sorted out is with a big fuck off war. A proper one not necessarily a nuke fest. It is what usually happens after a massive worldwide economic crisis is it not.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

If you've read anything I've posted here on war in the past' date=' you'll know I'm about as far from being right-wing as possible, and hopefully you'll know that I don't allow myself to be spoon-fed by the agenda-driven media.

 

With that in mind, your post didn't really make much sense. Casualties can vary wildly dependant on the type and amount of chemicals used. As well as method of delivery (thermal dissemination, natural dispersion, etc), and where and when it was used.

 

Personally, my line isn't chemical weapon use against your own civilians. My threshold was passed a long time ago. The dead civilians - regardless of how they're killed - is my line. When an army turns on its own people, that's a line for me. That's not to say it's a line that requires interventionism, but it is a line.

 

But if we're talking about what's worse, precision bombs or chemical weapons, surely there's no contest. As unpleasant as it must be to be killed by a bomb, the effects of CW is pretty fucking horrific to watch let alone endure.

 

There must be solid evidence, there must be legal grounding for it (and I believe there will be), but stopping the use of chemical weapons against civilians - especially children - isn't the worse use of a costly military that I can think of. We should just be prepared for the likely outcomes if we do launch attacks on Syria.[/quote']

 

Surely,dead is dead? Its pretty difficult to differentiate between different ways of killing people and expecting some kind of set of rules to be adhered to when you are trying to obliterate each other is pretty ridiculous. Wars by definition cant be expected to follow rules.

Its always a bit ironic to hear Yanks complaining about the use of chemical weapons given their use of nuclear weapons in August 1945.

A hell of a crazy idea would be to keep their noses out of countries they have no business being involved in(this especially includes the Criminal Intelligence-ha- Agency,sorry Central.)

[Magic Sponge]

 

Chemical weapons were probably used. The question is which side used them and for what reason?

 

a) The side which was winning the war and remains the most popular among a diverse Syrian(Shia' date=' Sunni, Allawite, Christian) population?

 

b) The West intelligence-supported, foreign religious extremists, invaders who are slaughtering Shia, Alawites, Christians and who are desperately trying for months now to play the weapons of Mass destruction card in order to provoke/justify Western intervention because they are clearly losing the war?

 

As for the "claims"... I remember the intervention in South Serbia, Kosovo and the staged, fake mass graves which were used as evidence for the intervention in favour of the "innocent, poor" Albanians.[/quote']

 

I served as peace keeper in Kosovo, so saw at first hand the devastation caused by the Serbs.

[Strontium]

Surely,dead is dead? Its pretty difficult to differentiate between different ways of killing people and expecting some kind of set of rules to be adhered to when you are trying to obliterate each other is pretty ridiculous. Wars by definition cant be expected to follow rules.

 

 

Well, yes they can actually, which is why rules exist.

 

Its always a bit ironic to hear Yanks complaining about the use of chemical weapons given their use of nuclear weapons in August 1945.

 

 

68 years since they used nuclear weapons, I'm afraid I'm not seeing any irony here.

[Red Phoenix]

The US has more recent problems with chemical weapons :

 

August 26, 2013 | Picture this: an Arab country uses chemical weapons in an indiscriminate manner. The attacks kill and injure at least hundreds of people.

 

No, it’s not Syria in 2013--it’s Iraq in the 1980s, and the U.S. was complicit in the attacks. In sharp contrast to U.S. outrage over the chemical weapons attack that Syrian government forces allegedly launched last week in a Damascus suburb, the U.S. aided Iraqi forces who used chemical weapons attacks during the brutal Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

 

Foreign Policy magazine reports that recently declassified CIA documents and interview with former intelligence officials prove that “America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen.”

 

Foreign Policy’s Shane Harris and Matthew Aid write that in 1988, the United States “learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.”

 

The use of chemical weapons by Iraq helped turn the tide of the war in favor of Saddam Hussein, then a U.S. ally. President Ronald Reagan wanted Iraq to win the war to strike a blow at Iran.

 

While the two situations are markedly different, the cases of Iraq back then and Syria right now are still instructive. The U.S. has said that the Syrian use of chemical weapons violates international law. In June 2013, when the U.S. first said Syria used chemical weapons, White House official Ben Rhodes said that “the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades.” But the U.S., by aiding Iraq as it was set to blast Iranian troops with chemical weapons, also violated that international norm.

 

The drumbeat for punishing Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack is not being welcomed by the American people. As the Washington Post's Max Fisher writes, attacking Syria is even less popular than Congress itself. Only nine percent of those polled by Reuters recently favor a U.S. military attack.

 

And the two cases of Iraq and Syria demonstrate that when chemical weapons are used by an American ally, the U.S. will turn a blind eye. But when a regime the U.S. wants to overthrow allegedly uses them, it’s time for war. The next time you hear about the international “norm” against chemical weapons, think about America and Iraq in the 1980s.

 

Chemical Hypocrisy: U.S. Aided Iraqi Nerve Attacks Decades Before Outrage At Syria Attack | Alternet

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Surely,dead is dead?

 

Yes, dead absolutely is dead. It's not the end result we're talking about. 100k are dead, which is bad enough. How you die, on the other hand, is entirely different.

 

Its pretty difficult to differentiate between different ways of killing people and expecting some kind of set of rules to be adhered to when you are trying to obliterate each other is pretty ridiculous. Wars by definition cant be expected to follow rules.

 

Opps, you've just dropped weaponised facepalm. Of course wars follow rules. Jus in Bello, mi amigo. The International Humanitarian Law, the Hague and Geneva convention. And on and on.

 

Its always a bit ironic to hear Yanks complaining about the use of chemical weapons given their use of nuclear weapons in August 1945.

 

Nope, that has nothing to do with this. It's not relevant at all. IT's in no way comparable, regardless of whether or not it was justified.

 

A hell of a crazy idea would be to keep their noses out of countries they have no business being involved in(this especially includes the Criminal Intelligence-ha- Agency,sorry Central.)

 

That's certainly one point of view. It's not just the Yanks, though. Go back further in history and read about what we - the British - have done. Maybe we should keep our noses out. I can't find an argument against it, other than it's not necessarily the right thing to do when you see regimes throwing chemical weapons at their own citizens. What you see as right or wrong might differ from others. That's fine.

 

What I wouldn't like is for us to do any more than act in any other way than to protect civilians.

[Dan]

Will Britain definitely be intervening in Syria? Because if you are it could be the right time for us to attack you lot and take back wales.

[Red Phoenix]

From Glenn Greenwald :

 

In 2008, President Obama, when he was a candidate for President, had this question-and-answer exchange with the Boston Globe :

 

"Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

 

"OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

 

"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

 

Given that not even the most ardent interventionists for Syria contend that the bombing is necessary for US national security, how can a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval possibly be reconciled with that position?

 

 

Ongoing NSA work | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Will Britain definitely be intervening in Syria? Because if you are it could be the right time for us to attack you lot and take back wales.

 

Most likely. But I'm not sure the spears and crossbows you lot have got will be enough to retake Cardiff.

[ODZ]

I think it's highly unlikely that Syria will launch rockets at Israel, it doesn't serve their interests at all. Israel are also not keen on getting involved here, Netanyahu would rather have things stay the same with regards to Syria. He's afraid of change of any kind.

 

There are also no elections on the horizon. Israeli government isn't interested in escalation, there is just no motivation over here. They had their little Gaza war in the winter before the elections and I don't expect them to manufacture a new conflict anytime soon.

[Nightcat]

I served as peace keeper in Kosovo, so saw at first hand the devastation caused by the Serbs.

 

Of course you did. You were part of the show. You were paid by those who run the business, the show. How likely is for a circus employee to speak out about the treatment of animals by the business?

 

I guess you missed out the parts where albanians were slaughtering Christians of Kosovo, burning thousand years old Christian monasteries and how the albanian UCK was doing drug and illegal human organ trafficking. That's not part of the story, is it?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I think it's highly unlikely that Syria will launch rockets at Israel, it doesn't serve their interests at all. Israel are also not keen on getting involved here, Netanyahu would rather have things stay the same with regards to Syria. He's afraid of change of any kind.

 

There are also no elections on the horizon. Israeli government isn't interested in escalation, there is just no motivation over here. They had their little Gaza war in the winter before the elections and I don't expect them to manufacture a new conflict anytime soon.

 

Surely you agree, though, that if the US/UK/EU attack Syria then there's a chance they'll be true to their word and retaliate towards Israel? Not a certainty, but a chance. If that happened, what do you think Israel's response would be?

[torahboy]

More idiotic world policing by the axis of gobshites. Our fucking cunt MPs should insist on absolute, unarguable and fully detailed proof being produced by Cameron to back up his, and the fucking Yanks', assertion that the Assad government were the sole users of the weapons in question, and the weapons themselves be unequivically proven to be 'chemical' weapons. And then tell Cameron to fuck off anyway.

 

I don't have much faith in Assad or his rebel advereraies but I have absolutely no faith at all in Cameron or Bollock Obama. I have every sympathy for those caught up in this sectarian shit but I don't see how launching a few Cruise missiles on the same people can be classed as helping them.

 

The middle east is now in a state of dysfunction that will take many, many years to address and repair, but it won't be fixed by western involvement. Such cunt involvement heped foment the current volatility in the region with the establishment of the Zionist state. More 'help' from the likes of America, Britain and France can only create more problems for all Arab people. We should resist any further acts of mercy by our government as strongly as we can.

[Magic Sponge]

 

Of course you did. You were part of the show. You were paid by those who run the business' date=' the show. How likely is for a circus employee to speak out about the treatment of animals by the business?

 

I guess you missed out the parts where albanians were slaughtering Christians of Kosovo, burning thousand years old Christian monasteries and how the albanian UCK was doing drug and illegal human organ trafficking. That's not part of the story, is it?[/quote']

 

If I'm the circus animal, then you're the one mucking the shit out of my pen.

[ODZ]

Surely you agree, though, that if the US/UK/EU attack Syria then there's a chance they'll be true to their word and retaliate towards Israel? Not a certainty, but a chance. If that happened, what do you think Israel's response would be?

 

Of course there is a chance, but I think it would be hugely detrimental to their interests. It will be extremely foolish of them, because they will gain nothing from it. I just don't think they're that stupid.

 

Should Israel be attacked, it will definitely retaliate, but I don't think they will attack with the intent of escalating the situation. They will probably symbolically target the missle launchers and other strategic military locations to save face that they "did something". They do not want to get dragged into this.

 

I also do not expect Iran to get involved in this scenario. They will make some noises like they love to do, but that will be it. The way I see it, the threats the Syrians are making is just talk. I may be wrong, but this is my perspective.

 

I'm more concerned with what Hizbollah would do in this scenario.

[Ranxerox]

...jumping into a Middle Eastern civil war? Can't see anything going awry there.

[Strontium]

I have every sympathy for those caught up in this sectarian shit but I don't see how launching a few Cruise missiles on the same people can be classed as helping them.

 

 

I believe the general idea is that cruise missiles are aimed at military targets and not civilians.

[Anny Road]

I believe the general idea is that cruise missiles are aimed at military targets and not civilians.

 

Any action we take will result in further civilian deaths. It escalates the conflict.