They're bombing Syria again

[Tryhard]

2 hours ago, Sias said:

Whoops. So much for "Russia was warned before the airstrikes and didn't suffer casualties".

This seems to reference ones in February.

[Life]

9 hours ago, Raptok said:

The attacks were not designed to disable Syria, and should not be viewed as such. They were to degrade and damage the capability of the Assad regime in using chemical weapons, and to deter further uses. 

So, we should just support attacking a sovereign nation (a declaration of war) that won't do anything in the long run just to feel good about ourselves?

 

If you want to eliminate the possibility of another chemical attack, you need to either raze the country entirely or sweep from house to house. Either that or you just want to feel good about yourself without actually doing anything to help anyone.

[Excellen Browning]

Life is once again talking about razing a middle eastern country. Good to see that some things stay the same, even though in this case its a thoroughly shitty opinion.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Life is once again talking about razing a middle eastern country. Good to see that some things stay the same, even though in this case its a thoroughly shitty opinion.

I think Life is suggesting people should do the complete opposite.

[Moblin Major General]

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Life is once again talking about razing a middle eastern country. Good to see that some things stay the same, even though in this case its a thoroughly shitty opinion.

Life doesn't want Syria razed, because if Assad loses the war, a radical faction could take over and invade Israel through Lebanon. Or, he's being selfish and doesn't want to be called up to invade Syria. Either way, Assad losing means Israel puts boots on the ground, and he doesn't want that.

[Tetragrammaton]

On 4/15/2018 at 3:08 AM, Tryhard said:

I don't necessarily disagree with all of the above. Assad is undoubtedly not a good actor, but I question the purpose when under Western governments jurisdiction he gave up chemical weapons in 2013/14 in peace talks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria's_chemical_weapons 

I'm willing to believe the US/UK governments on some things. For example, the recent poisoning via nerve agent of an ex-Russian spy in the UK. While I don't exactly put entire faith in the UK government, Russia have a long history of strange and unusual deaths occurring to people who are exiled or betray them, the most notable being Alexander Litvinenko also in the UK some time ago (and hell, "revenge is a dish best served cold" seems to be a Russian principle going all the back to when Stalin had Trotsky murdered years after exile from Russia). In this case - I'm on board with the fact that it was very likely to be Russian actors.

This, I'm far less generous towards. It also shows how the Democrats (on a whole) have the opportunity to put themselves forward as the anti-war party, and ultimately fail entirely at that, because they aren't anti-war or conflict.

Given the track record of Western governments and the Middle East, I would prefer if they would decide to be non-interventionist for once and for Trump to pull at least the US out of Syria like he said he would do. I wonder if Bolton has been in his ear already. Chemical attacks are horrible, but I really would prefer if the US and its allies didn't have another party in the sand that have went so well before.

As much as I am willing to give credence to the whole "America does bad things too", and we could speak for a while about the horrible things Saudi Arabia, US ally and benefactor of millions in arms from Mr. Trump, many of it illegal under international law, I never gave the US credit as some perfect arbitor of justice because they are clearly not and are selective in who they criticise.

Just a reminder, Russia or Assad had yet to be proven that they done those poisoning or chemical attack.

Too much for "innocent until proven guilty".

[Shoblongoo]

Between the state-of-play in Syria and the ongoing investigation into 2016 election interference, I keep harkening back to this little gem from 2012: 
 

#RomneyWasRightAboutEverything 

[Johann]

47 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Between the state-of-play in Syria and the ongoing investigation into 2016 election interference, I keep harkening back to this little gem from 2012: 

#RomneyWasRightAboutEverything 

Oh come now, everything? I'd give him 50% at best, and that's only cuz I'm giving him some credit for Massachusetts Health Care Reform

[Life]

7 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Life doesn't want Syria razed, because if Assad loses the war, a radical faction could take over and invade Israel through Lebanon. Or, he's being selfish and doesn't want to be called up to invade Syria. Either way, Assad losing means Israel puts boots on the ground, and he doesn't want that.

Bingo.

Unless I'm being a terrible person for not wanting to go to more funerals because a bunch of champagne bourgeoisie liberals in the West are crying about "oh, the morality".

I'm simply pointing out that if you want to do something effective, this would have to be Iraq all over again. And I don't want that ON MY BORDER.

EDIT: I think it bears mentioning that I think I am the only one here who has actually been in a warzone as a fighting soldier. Please do not be so cavalier with soldiers' lives.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Life

[Excellen Browning]

28 minutes ago, Life said:

Bingo.

Unless I'm being a terrible person for not wanting to go to more funerals because a bunch of champagne bourgeoisie liberals in the West are crying about "oh, the morality".

I'm simply pointing out that if you want to do something effective, this would have to be Iraq all over again. And I don't want that ON MY BORDER.

EDIT: I think it bears mentioning that I think I am the only one here who has actually been in a warzone as a fighting soldier. Please do not be so cavalier with soldiers' lives.

you might consider the reality that Syria has been a right mess for years now. And that the Israelis have happily been bombing stuff in Syria for years now. The Americans and various Europeans have been bombing stuff there for years now. 

so how exactly is this an escalation in Israeli eyes? 

[Life]

9 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

you might consider the reality that Syria has been a right mess for years now. And that the Israelis have happily been bombing stuff in Syria for years now. The Americans and various Europeans have been bombing stuff there for years now. 

so how exactly is this an escalation in Israeli eyes? 

I've been against every single time we do shit in Syria regarding Hezbollah. But my government has never publically come and said "oh yeah, we want the secular dictator who is leaving us alone gone" until now. I wasn't aware that I needed to explain here that I am not exactly happy with everything (or almost anything) my gov't does but now I know.

The idea that Bibi wants Assad gone and quickly (especially because Bibi's staring down the end of a legal gun that's getting closer by the day) is terrifying to me because that might actually mean a full invasion under the guise of "removing the link between Hezbollah and Iran". Which means I die. Not figuratively. No, I and everyone around me simply dies.


And before anyone asks me "but what about those innocent Syrians", fuck them. I am under no moral obligation to care about their well-being more than mine and my country's. None.

Excuse me for being passionate but tomorrow night is the start of Yom Hazikaron (Remembrance Day for our soldiers). I refuse to entertain the idea of sacrificing more friends around the time when I'm mourning one of them.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Life

[Tetragrammaton]

11 minutes ago, Life said:

I've been against every single time we do shit in Syria regarding Hezbollah. But my government has never publically come and said "oh yeah, we want the secular dictator who is leaving us alone gone" until now. I wasn't aware that I needed to explain here that I am not exactly happy with everything (or almost anything) my gov't does but now I know.

The idea that Bibi wants Assad gone and quickly (especially because Bibi's staring down the end of a legal gun that's getting closer by the day) is terrifying to me because that might actually mean a full invasion under the guise of "removing the link between Hezbollah and Iran". Which means I die. Not figuratively. No, I and everyone around me simply dies.


And before anyone asks me "but what about those innocent Syrians", fuck them. I am under no moral obligation to care about their well-being more than mine and my country's. None.

Didn't you choose this life by becoming an Israeli by yourself?

[Life]

8 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

Didn't you choose this life by becoming an Israeli by yourself?

How is that relevant?

Are you insinuating that immigrants have less of a right to comment on problems in their new country?

Edited April 16, 2018 by Life

[Moblin Major General]

@hanhnn Good to see that you still have your blatant anti-American bias. Someone had to use a red herring/scapegoat to deflect all of the other blatantly terrible things done by Russia and Assad both.

[eclipse]

Rip apart logic, not people.

[Moblin Major General]

Sorry. He says there is no proof it was done by Syria.There was an unexploded chemical ordinance in the city that was bombed chemically. It did not have any markings to indicate that it was dropped by the US or NATO. Assad has consistently threatened investigators with death if they even attempt to do their job.There is evidence to suggest the ordinance had to have come from a Syrian attack aircraft, not a NATO or American bomber.

[Shoblongoo]

18 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Sorry. He says there is no proof it was done by Syria.There was an unexploded chemical ordinance in the city that was bombed chemically. It did not have any markings to indicate that it was dropped by the US or NATO. Assad has consistently threatened investigators with death if they even attempt to do their job.There is evidence to suggest the ordinance had to have come from a Syrian attack aircraft, not a NATO or American bomber.

It's so obvious even Trump with his giant man-crush on Putin can see it. The Russians btw petitioned the U.N. for a redress of grievances over the weekend, making the "no proof of chemical weapons use by the Syrians" argument and spinning this as mere pretense for illegal acts of violence against the Assad government.  The U.N. (not the most pro-American organization on the best of days) weighed the available body of evidence, and basically told the complaining Russians to go suck a fat one. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

15 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Just a reminder, Russia or Assad had yet to be proven that they done those poisoning or chemical attack.

Too much for "innocent until proven guilty".

Like I said, I don't approve of the actions done to Syria.

But if you don't think Russia have a history of murdering (or attempting to) political dissidents, critics and operatives who either turn against them, flee the country, or generally become uncooperative, I don't know what to tell you. There's a reason why "ruled a suicide with two shots to the back of the head" or "polonium tea" are things, or other such mysterious death circumstances. Or the fact that footage of people blatantly stuffing Putin's sham election last month means he can't be described as anything other than an autocrat.

Look at some of deaths like Boris Nemtsov, Anna Politkovskaya, Sergei Magnitsky, Natalia Estemirova, Paul Klebnikov, Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova, Boris Berezovsky, Oleg Erovinkin, Alexander Litvenenko, etc. Go look up how critics of the Kremlin or Russia leadership often end up dead in unforeseen and bloody ways.

Hell, a Russian reporter died just yesterday under once again mysterious circumstances.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351

Edited April 16, 2018 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

Consider Assad's position though. The Russian Army, which the western powers dare not fight, support him staying in power and does not care if he uses chemical weapons. The worst we're willing to do in response is degrade his own Syrian Army with targeted strikes on bases and weapons facilities (which as long as he has the Russians supporting him he doesn't even need--there's a superior army keeping him in power no matter how degraded his own forces become). Assad himself is not touched by our retaliation. He's in the same position he was in before; in power and untouchable so long as he continues to support Russian interests and take a strong anti American stance.

Putin for his part is now increasing Russia's presence on the ground in response. Ships loaded with Russian tanks are currently inbound to the conflict zone, lest the Syrian rebel forces get any funny ideas about pressing their "advantage" against Assad after the brief American/British/French bombardment of his own army.

This is now--what--the third time Assad has gassed his own people, with no serious reprisal and no real risk to his hold on Damascus???

Was there any real deterrence? Whats his exposure if he does it again?
_____________

 

7 hours ago, Life said:

*snip*

There's a few moving pieces here; multiple factors at play affecting Israel's interest in the outcome of the Syrian Civil War:

1) Syria has historically been a major financier of terrorism in Lebanon and a source of violent incursions into the Golan; attacking farmsteads and settlements on Israel's northern border. Since the Civil War started, however, the Syrians have been too busy fighting each other to stir up trouble beyond their own borders; there has actually been less anti-Israeli violence spilling over into the Golan and fewer attacks on Israeli citizens. Purely in the interest of maintaining a ground-state where the Syrians are preoccupied with their own internal conflict and Israel is not the target, it is not in the interest of Israel for any one side to prevail but rather for the conflict to simply continue indefinitely. For as long as possible, and for all-parties-involved to be too busy killing each other to turn their guns south. Therefore it is in Israel's interest that one side doesn't outright beat the other in the near-future.

2) Russia is aligned with both Syria and Iran. Russia's involvement as an intervenor in the Syrian Conflict and inclusion of Russian-aligned powers as bolstering forces brings an Iranian presence directly to Israel's doorstep. Which has Israel's military strategists rightly alarmed about what happens next if the Russian intervenors prevail in Syria, and Syria becomes a functional proxy-state of a resurgent Russian Bloc. Moreover, to the extent Israel relies upon America for protection from international reprisals in the same sense that Syria relies upon Russia, an outcome in Syria which diminishes American Power in the region and establishes Russia as the superior power-broker is bad for Israel's geopolitical position. Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the ultimate outcome in Syria be steered away from Russian interests. 

3)  Israel is so reviled in Syria that any party on whose behalf Israel intervened in Syria would see Syrians turn against them in mass, by virtue of their affiliation with Israel. And that any party Israel attacked + which came to be seen as the premier enemy of the Israelis would gain support.

________

Israel's position is an awkward one.  It doesn't necessarily want Assad to fall. But it doesn't want the Russians to win. And it can't be seen as a direct intervenor in any event.

It may well be the case that the most prudent thing Israel can do is sit back, disengage, and let the Americans and the Europeans do the heavy lifting. But not for the reasons you've put forth.

Bibi's a rightwing shill and a crook, but I think he's smart enough to know that sending troops into Syria would be an absolutely disastrous move for his own government.   

Edited April 16, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Like I said, I don't approve of the actions done to Syria.

But if you don't think Russia have a history of murdering (or attempting to) political dissidents, critics and operatives who either turn against them, flee the country, or generally become uncooperative, I don't know what to tell you. There's a reason why "ruled a suicide with two shots to the back of the head" or "polonium tea" are things, or other such mysterious death circumstances. Or the fact that footage of people blatantly stuffing Putin's sham election last month means he can't be described as anything other than an autocrat.

Look at some of deaths like Boris Nemtsov, Anna Politkovskaya, Sergei Magnitsky, Natalia Estemirova, Paul Klebnikov, Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova, Boris Berezovsky, Oleg Erovinkin, Alexander Litvenenko, etc. Go look up how critics of the Kremlin or Russia leadership often end up dead in unforeseen and bloody ways.

I don't know like any of the details, but it seems using a poison attack to assassinate traitors or defectors would be a really inefficient plan. Not when you could just drone strike or something on them just as easily (once again, naive on the details, but I imagine a drone strike would be just as easy for an assassination as a gas attack in this particular context, correct me if I'm wrong). Not to mention using gas for the particular weapon of choice would undoubtedly get this exact reaction from the Western powers. I can't help but feel that who ever was behind it wanted this exact reaction. Assassinating people that fail you is certainly a thing, but so are false flag operations. Now I'm not saying it definitely was a false flag, just that I wouldn't put it past any of the powers involved to do basically anything if they thought it suited their needs.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Jotari

[Tryhard]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't know like any of the details, but it seems using a poison attack to assassinate traitors or defectors would be a really inefficient plan. Not when you could just drone strike or something on them just as easily (once again, naive on the details, but I imagine a drone strike would be just as easy for an assassination as a gas attack in this particular context, correct me if I'm wrong). Not to mention using gas for the particular weapon of choice would undoubtedly get this exact reaction from the Western powers. I can't help but feel that who ever was behind it wanted this exact reaction. Assassinating people that fail you is certainly a thing, but so are false flag operations. Now I'm not saying it definitely was a false flag, just that I wouldn't put it past any of the powers involved to do basically anything if they thought it suited their needs.

Seems pretty effective to me considering how many defectors and dissidents have managed to be poisoned and died. Remember, this isn't some new thing to Russia. It has been going on far longer than even Alexander Litvenenko, perhaps the most famous case, back in 2006.

That said, you seem to be conflating the alleged gas attacks that Assad/Syria have committed with the history of assassinations or mysterious deaths that plague Kremlin dissidents. I'm keeping them separate for a reason.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

6 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Seems pretty effective to me considering how many defectors and dissidents have managed to be poisoned and died. Remember, this isn't some new thing to Russia. It has been going on far longer than even Alexander Litvenenko, perhaps the most famous case, back in 2006.

That said, you seem to be conflating the alleged gas attacks that Assad/Syria have committed with the history of assassinations or mysterious deaths that plague Kremlin dissidents. I'm keeping them separate for a reason.

I do indeed seem to be conflating them, but that's more down to me only skimming the actual context here rather than not understanding the situation in Syria. But I think regardless of that, there is truth in what I say. I think the that this is either a false flag operation, or that retaliation was a planned and expected response are both real possibility.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Jotari

[Shoblongoo]

42 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 I think the that this is either a false flag operation, or that retaliation was a planned and expected response are both real possibility.

You believe America, France, and England staged a fake poison gas for pretense to attack Damascus?

Wut??? 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

56 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

You believe America, France, and England staged a fake poison gas for pretense to attack Damascus?

Wut??? 

Don't know what their motivation might be, but I believe they're capable of doing something like that if it suited them.

[Moblin Major General]

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Don't know what their motivation might be, but I believe they're capable of doing something like that if it suited them.

And if they had planned it, who's to say that this plan wouldn't leak at some point? If someone blew the whistle on this, think of the sanctions that would come down the pipeline if it was true? Granted, the 3 offending parties in this case are 3 of the 5 veto powers on the UNSC, so the sanctions couldn't be as substantial, but it would create the greatest of hypocrisies, especially since 2 of them know the devastating effects of poison gas first hand.