Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 90

Thread: Last Syrian Gas Attack

  1. #1

    Default Last Syrian Gas Attack

    See the article below. I've heard echoes of this line of thinking in the media all last week: Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons so openly, indiscriminately and so close to Damascus when UN investigators, experts on the subject, were there and while the government forces, by most accounts, have the upper hand against the rebels? That's not very smart.

    On the other hand, is it credible the 'rebels' did it to themselves to provoke global outrage and a military response? Sounds ridiculous on first glance but....

    a. the rebel side is fragmented into groups, some with very extreme ideologies, some from outside of Syria who wouldn't hesitate to kill local civilians to gain advantage

    b. is it conceivable rebel groups could have captured chemical munitions to use in such an attack?

    c. is it conceivable that one extreme rebel group could have staged the attack and the victims, and other rebel groups, not even know it was staged?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #2
    Uh. . . Choobs? Did you forget something?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #3
    Didn't forget - had sudden business to deal with.... here's the article:

    Syrian Kurdish leader says Assad not to blame for attack

    By Alexandra Hudson

    BERLIN (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be "so stupid" as to use chemical weapons close to Damascus, the leader of the country's largest Kurdish group said. Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), said he doubted the Syrian president would resort to using such weapons when he felt he had the upper hand in the country's civil war. He suggested last Wednesday's attack, which the opposition says was carried out by government forces and killed hundreds of people, was aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction. Assad has denied his forces used chemical weapons.

    "The regime in Syria ... has chemical weapons, but they wouldn't use them around Damascus, 5 km from the (U.N.) committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so," Muslim told Reuters. At the time of the incident, U.N. experts were already in Syria to investigate three previous alleged chemical attacks dating from months ago.

    Muslim's PYD, which has well-armed and effective militias, has clashed with Assad's forces as well as rebels, but has allowed both to move through its territories during the war.

    Some rebels and rival Kurdish groups accuse it of having been close to the state, a position Muslim disputes. He said Kurdish areas the PYD controlled were under attack from al Qaeda-linked rebels.

    Muslim suggested "some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action" lay behind the chemical attack, which has led to speculation that Western countries will order a military response.
    He said that if the U.N. inspectors found evidence Assad was not behind the gassing and the rebels were, "everybody would forget it".

    "Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr. Erdogan of Turkey?" Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have all strongly condemned Assad and backed the rebels. Kurdish militias have sought to consolidate their grip in northern Syria after exploiting the chaos of the civil war over the past year by seizing control of districts as Assad's forces focused elsewhere. The PYD said in July it aimed to set up a transitional council and their emerging self-rule is starting to echo the autonomy of Kurds in neighboring northern Iraq.

    Muslim said he reassured officials during talks last month with Turkey's intelligence agency that the council was not a move to divide Syria - which would alarm Ankara, which is wary of deepening sectarian violence on its border. Nonetheless, it highlights Syria's slow fragmentation into a Kurdish northeast, mainly government-held areas around Damascus, Homs and the Mediterranean, and a rebel swathe leading from Aleppo along the Euphrates Valley to Iraq.
    (Editing by Alison Williams)


    Anyway.... Seems that the Syrian government didn't have a big incentive to mount an attack like that, but the opposition that needs outside intervention did.... It's a fascinating question, really. At this point the "media" is talking like the Obama Administration doesn't have much choice but to launch a strike into Syria.... it isn't like anyone's going to be able to prove it wasn't the government. And hell, even if there were video evidence of irregulars, rebels, firing the gas artillery shells, who is to say it wasn't regular army in disguise? Crazy shit.

    Does anyone know if this Kurdish leader is an Assad ally? The article makes him sound neutral at best, opportunist at worst...


    Link:
    http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-kurdish...181018014.html
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  4. #4
    Don't think we can know without more information. I do think that it's conceivable that the Assad regime thinks that because the US didn't do anything at the last (small scale) chemical attacks, they can now use them with much greater impunity. That line of reasoning militates for a greater urgency for intervention rather than more cautious waiting, but it could be wrong.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Does anyone know if this Kurdish leader is an Assad ally? The article makes him sound neutral at best, opportunist at worst...
    He's more of an Assad ally than the other Kurds. He also hates Islamists more than he hates Assad, and doesn't particularly value the truth.

    Back to your original point, it's inconceivable that the rebels would gain access to this many chemical weapons, find an efficient way to deliver those weapons, and hit the area they want to hit. That ignores the fact that even the worst of the rebels aren't really in the business of killing a thousand of their own people. I think the "who benefits" analysis that people throw around is lazy at best. Just because someone benefits from an act doesn't mean we should assume they're responsible for it. All it means is we should look a little harder at the evidence.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #6
    I do think it's a decent point that I've been mulling over all day. Besides the obvious facts that-

    A) Assad has the chemical weapons and has probably used them in small scale so far.
    B) The US has tried to stay out of this militarily in every way possible

    ...this does seem a bit too easy. But Loki has a good point that it would take some Heisenberg-level manipulation and cold-bloodedness to make the kind of "false flag" operation Kathaksung will be whining about for months to come.

  7. #7
    Assad might also be trying to see how much he can get away with before provoking a military response. Using that logic, the reason he did this now was because using lesser amounts of the same weapon didn't provoke much of a response.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #8
    It's another "International Intelligence" crisis. Reminds me of Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I was reading comments on a news site (I know, bad idea to begin with), and was surprised how many people completely distrust anything the USA claims because of the misinformation about chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq. Looks like you lost a lot of credibility in public opinion here.

    Btw, maybe I'm cynical, but how exactly is a few hundred/thousand deaths so much worse, after many, many more already died?

  10. #10
    I was reading some comments, and most of them said Muslims should be allowed to kill each other.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    That too, yes.

  12. #12
    In sum, most of the people commenting on these stories are sociopaths.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #13
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Looks like China also drew comparisons with the Iraq 'proof'.

  14. #14
    A country collectively ruled by sociopaths.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Like all countries? :P

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Back to your original point, it's inconceivable that the rebels would gain access to this many chemical weapons, find an efficient way to deliver those weapons, and hit the area they want to hit.
    I think this is a good point. I don't know much about chemical munitions but I recall reading somewhere that they are not simply a bunch of chemical filled shells or missiles sitting in a warehouse somewhere but that the chemical has to be loaded into the delivery device in a relatively short time period before the weapon is fired - like days or weeks. So whatever a rebel captured would need to be prepared for use requiring some know-how and so on.... not likely this would all be accomplishable on a large scale.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Assad might also be trying to see how much he can get away with before provoking a military response. Using that logic, the reason he did this now was because using lesser amounts of the same weapon didn't provoke much of a response.
    It's probably not valid to assign simple logic like "Inspectors are nearby, the army is already winning, so using chemical weapons is dumb" to the thinking of the Assad regime. Any reasonable average human being could reach that conclusion. But people at the top of a brutal totalitarian dynasty are anything but average and reasonable.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    It's probably not valid to assign simple logic like "Inspectors are nearby, the army is already winning, so using chemical weapons is dumb" to the thinking of the Assad regime. Any reasonable average human being could reach that conclusion. But people at the top of a brutal totalitarian dynasty are anything but average and reasonable.
    He probably just didn't care. Or perhaps he did it at precisely this time to have some plausible deniability. But again, I wouldn't get too hung up on the motives here. Only one side had the capability to do this.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Plus the economist mentioned the army may be somewhat winning but also had some recent setbacks, so the logic isn't even completely true.

  20. #20
    Well they're probably going to get set back some more in the next few days. I hope whatever the Obama Admin decides to do isn't a half-assed token action. If we pull the trigger it ought to be significant enough to leave an impression.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Like all countries? :P
    Actually most democratic countries are ruled by intensely empathic egomaniacs. Sociopaths are crap at campaigning.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Well they're probably going to get set back some more in the next few days. I hope whatever the Obama Admin decides to do isn't a half-assed token action. If we pull the trigger it ought to be significant enough to leave an impression.
    What does "pulling the trigger" even mean, though? When congress says, "We expect President Obama to have open talks and keep us informed"...does that mean they'll have floor debates and call for a vote, taking some responsibility for the decisions? Or will they just punt to the administration and executive powers, so they have room to criticize if/when things go to hell?

    Whatever the US does, I hope it's with international consensus, approval from UN and NATO, and real participation from other nations (including Saudi Arabia et al). With a clear exit strategy. Last thing we need is to "own" this like Iraq, and spend ten fricking years trying to extricate ourselves. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

  23. #23
    Um, there's no chance in hell of Russia and China agreeing to this. I also don't think we'd do anything that would require extrication. Whether it would be effective is an altogether different matter.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I do think it's a decent point that I've been mulling over all day. Besides the obvious facts that-

    A) Assad has the chemical weapons and has probably used them in small scale so far.
    B) The US has tried to stay out of this militarily in every way possible

    ...this does seem a bit too easy. But Loki has a good point that it would take some Heisenberg-level manipulation and cold-bloodedness to make the kind of "false flag" operation Kathaksung will be whining about for months to come.
    It also depends on the level on which the rebels have embraced the culture of death we see with some jihadi's; they may very well see these deaths as worthy and the victims being on their short-cut to paradise on the basis of their martyrhood.
    Congratulations America

  25. #25
    China and Russia have 'veto power', but does that mean the international community can't do anything without their approval/agreement? Still not sure what we'd be doing militarily that wouldn't have unintended consequences or blowback. Or as you said, how it would be "effective".

    Let's see if I've got this straight. We want to stop chemical attacks and killings of innocent civilians....but we don't want to get involved in a civil war. We want to topple the Assad regime...but don't know who'd take power in the vacuum. We assume the rebels are frenemies because they're fighting Assad's regime...but we don't know exactly who they are. Sounds like another Mission Impossible.

  26. #26
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    That does sound about right. It's a mess, for sure.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    China and Russia have 'veto power', but does that mean the international community can't do anything without their approval/agreement? Still not sure what we'd be doing militarily that wouldn't have unintended consequences or blowback. Or as you said, how it would be "effective".

    Let's see if I've got this straight. We want to stop chemical attacks and killings of innocent civilians....but we don't want to get involved in a civil war. We want to topple the Assad regime...but don't know who'd take power in the vacuum. We assume the rebels are frenemies because they're fighting Assad's regime...but we don't know exactly who they are. Sounds like another Mission Impossible.
    You said UN. No, the UN can't do anything without their support.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Btw, maybe I'm cynical, but how exactly is a few hundred/thousand deaths so much worse, after many, many more already died?
    I think it's the principle of using chemical weapons in this manner. They are generally considered a from of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Even the Allies and Axis didn't use chemical weapons in WWII because they felt it would make the war even uglier and more irrational.

    As with fighting with nuclear weapons, no one wants the standard of war to involve chemical weapons.

  29. #29
    There's some good evidence that the main reason Hitler didn't use chemical weapons was because he was on the receiving end of such weapons in WWI.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You said UN. No, the UN can't do anything without their support.
    Wouldn't the votes matter anyway, for a historical record at least? And haven't there been NATO 'interventions' not sanctioned by UN security council (like Kosovo)?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •