They're bombing Syria again

[Shoblongoo]

34 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.

Yeah--I don't put stock in conspiracy theories.

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 

2) In the age of wikileaks, social media, and 24/7 news coverage--no way in hell something like that stays quiet in three (3) liberal democracies with wistleblower cultures + a free press. If something like that was even being discussed, there'd be a trail of leakers a mile long and responsible government officials getting a full media rectal probe.  

3) The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[DISCREET EVENT]: Multiple poison gas attacks confirmed in Syria

[SURROUNDING FACTS]: Assad has poison gas stockpiles. All areas hit were areas known to have supported anti-Assad rebels. Spy surveillance detected no incoming chemical weapons from third parties. Spy surveillance picked up no chatter indicating that Assad's chemical weapons had fallen into rebel hands. No pro-Assad strongholds were hit by chemical weapons. Assad's human rights record is absolutely atrocious. Assad frequently uses horrific state violence to punish dissidents and deter opposition to his government. Assad is aware that he has protection from Russia against being removed by Western powers, and that Russia does not care if he uses chemical weapons.  

[REASONABLE CONCLUSION]: Assad wanted to send a message loud-and-clear not just to the rebels, but to the segments of the country that had supported them and provided them with material aid and lodging. Don't even think about doing that again--this is what happens.  It was the ultimate sanction he could bring to bear, for the ultimate crime of armed rebellion against him. He believed--rightly, as it would so-far seem--that there would be no personal cost to him in doing it, because of his protection from Russia.  
________


I would need to see some pretty extraordinary facts to the contrary to reconsider. 
 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

For what it's worth, some media outlets are reporting this:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/at-destroyed-syria-lab-workers-say-they-produce-antidotes-to-snake-venom-not-toxic-weapons/story-e2OIzVf2RqPMMuRK0XdK0H.html

13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I would need to see some pretty extraordinary facts to the contrary to reconsider. 

If we're going to go down this road, I would say it's far more likely that anti-Assad rebels would do something like this 11 days after Trump said he was going to withdraw to keep the US and others fighting the Syrian government because it only benefits them. I'm not sure I really believe that, but Assad being so gung-ho I'm really not sure about.

There's several things I don't know about this. Why would there be a chemical weapons plant in the middle of their capital? That doesn't seem like good placement at all.... especially if the US were going to target a chemical weapons plant which they apparently did as the above link... releasing chemical weapons (kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?) - in the capital. But nothing seems to suggest that was the case. Reportedly, no-one was killed. People were able to be in the area the next day.

Why would Assad do something like that when he's already basically won the war? I understand he's not a good guy, but chemical weapons illicits a certain type of heightened response compared to just a dictator killing his own people with conventional weapons. Assad doesn't strike me as someone that is stupid - he knows what the reaction from the west will be if he uses chemical weapons.

Besides all that, though. If this is the culmination of what the US is going to do, this response is pointless, just like the Syrian airstrike last April. What is this going to accomplish? The only way you're really going to actually punish Assad for what you assumedly think is a horrible transgression is boots on the ground, and I really hope that doesn't happen.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Tryhard

[Tetragrammaton]

16 hours ago, Life said:

How is that relevant?

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

I'm saying you chose this path knowing all the risk.

People like you give them the power they need, less immigrants means a smaller army to start an invasion.

15 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

@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.

I'm just stating a fact.

10 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.

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

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

"innocent until proven guilty" was not my invention.

There is enough lesson we can learn from the invasion against Iraq's WMD.

Assumption is just assumption, false flag is just false flag.

You can attack, airstrike both Syria or Russia with whatever you want, just wait until the conclusion revealed, but not before that.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

 

^https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tv-news-interview-former-army-12358938

someone got censored when asked the wrong question.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by hanhnn

[Shoblongoo]

 

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Why would there be a chemical weapons plant in the middle of their capital?

...because in a country like Syria, if you're the government and you have chemical weapons facilities, you want those facilities to be in a place where they will remain under the exclusive possession and control of your government in the event that your peripheral territories take up arms in open rebellion. The capital is the only sensible place to put them.  
 

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

If we're going to go down this road, I would say it's far more likely that anti-Assad rebels would do something like this 11 days after Trump said he was going to withdraw to keep the US and others fighting the Syrian government because it only benefits them. 

Assad would feel more emboldened to use chemical weapons after Trump announces intent to withdraw, because he would know then that America does not want to be in Syria and lacks the political will for strong reprisal. Would he not?
 

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

if the US were going to target a chemical weapons plant which they apparently did as the above link... releasing chemical weapons (kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?) - in the capital. But nothing seems to suggest that was the case. Reportedly, no-one was killed. People were able to be in the area the next day.

  Supposedly we know exactly where the chemical munitions are. And our smart bomb technology is capable of such pinpoint accuracy, we were able to target support and delivery systems without detonating the chemical weapons themselves.

 

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Why would Assad do something like that when he's already basically won the war? I understand he's not a good guy, but chemical weapons illicits a certain type of heightened response compared to just a dictator killing his own people with conventional weapons. Assad doesn't strike me as someone that is stupid - he knows what the reaction from the west will be if he uses chemical weapons.

You're asking me to put myself into the mind of a madman, but if I had to take a stab at it...

"Winning" wasn't good enough. Assad wanted maximum punishment of those who had supported the rebels, and maximum deterrence for those who might be thinking about inciting future rebellions.  Being targeted by chemical weapons does indeed illicit a "heightened response," vs. being killed by conventional means. Assad wanted to illicit that extra sense of dread from his enemies; inflict a heightened fear of the consequence of rebellion that no would-be rebel could ignore. 

Evil? Undoubtedly. Stupid? If he correctly calculated that the worst he would have to endure is a token missile strike and that the Russians would shield him from any serious retaliatory threats to his hold on power--and so far it looks like he has--anything but. 

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Besides all that, though. If this is the culmination of what the US is going to do, this response is pointless

Precisely.

So why should Assad fear such a response, or regard a course of conduct which incurs it as stupid?
 

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

The only way you're really going to actually punish Assad for what you assumedly think is a horrible transgression is boots on the ground, and I really hope that doesn't happen.

We can't put boots on the ground against Assad while Russia has boots on the ground in support of Assad--that's World War III. That option isn't even realistically on the table.

The only way to actually punish Assad is to cut him off from his Russian patronage and make his regime face the rebels without Russian backing.

Which in turn means the only way to "punish Assad" is to punish his enablers--the Russians--with punitive sanctions, asset forfeiture, and trade embargoes. (i.e. put together an international coalition of NATO aligned powers to ban all imports and exports of Russian goods, seize all Russian assets in foreign bank accounts, and ban all civilian travel to Russia)

Put the screws to their economy and make it so painful for Russia to continue acting as Assad's enabler, they have to choice but to back off.

Its being widely reported (i.e. leaked by alarmed persons in Trump's inner circle who continue to observe the President behaving as though he has been fully compromised by the Russians) in the United States that Trump's foreign policy team had put together an aggressive sanctions package over the weekend. That they were set t announce it no later than Monday. That they were all telling Trump this was the move that had to be made to show serious leadership on the issue; to reassert American power in a space where the Russians were outplaying us and enabling horrific war crimes.

And that Trump unilaterally--against the advise of all experts and advisers decided to quash the sanctions + announce that the U.S. is opposed to the imposition of any new sanctions against Russia at this time.

     

^^^
Just a friendly reminder that there's only one thing Trump is good at

[Phoenix Wright]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Its being widely reported (i.e. leaked by alarmed persons in Trump's inner circle who continue to observe the President behaving as though he has been fully compromised by the Russians) in the United States that Trump's foreign policy team had put together an aggressive sanctions package over the weekend. That they were set t announce it no later than Monday. That they were all telling Trump this was the move that had to be made to show serious leadership on the issue; to reassert American power in a space where the Russians were outplaying us and enabling horrific war crimes.

And that Trump unilaterally--against the advise of all experts and advisers decided to quash the sanctions + announce that the U.S. is opposed to the imposition of any new sanctions against Russia at this time.

     

^^^
Just a friendly reminder that there's only one thing Trump is good at

2

a few questions (not all related to the topic): you're a lawyer/going to be a lawyer, right? are you interested in a political path at all?

is the bolded bit a reflection of your beliefs, or are you simply entertaining the thought?

[Sias]

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Assad would feel more emboldened to use chemical weapons after Trump announces intent to withdraw, because he would know then that America does not want to be in Syria and lacks the political will for strong reprisal. Would he not?

Hm, I'm not sure. On the one side I agree that it's empowering for him to know that the US aren't a real danger to his rule, but on the other side the attack just made a withdrawal much more unlikely, which is bad for him.

On 15.4.2018 at 9:52 PM, Tryhard said:

This seems to reference ones in February.

Oh well, that's what I get for just reading the title, the date and skimming over the rest of it. Still sucks though.

[Shoblongoo]

22 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

are you interested in a political path at all?

Very interested. When I'm older, more experienced, and better plugged in with the local power players I'd definitely like to run for local office some day. See where things go from there.

22 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

is the bolded bit a reflection of your beliefs, or are you simply entertaining the thought?

Its a possibility. I can't say with any degree of confidence that he isn't, and it would explain so much if he was.

...he has no problem personally attacking traditional American allies in Canada, Mexico, England, Australia, and England
...he has no problem personally attacking judges
...he has no problem personally attacking lawmakers
...he has no problem personally attacking protesting athletes, CEOS, and students
...he has no problem personally attacking talkshow hosts and media personalities
...he impulsively lashes out at every perceived slight, and perceives personal slights every time someone publicly disagrees with him

For fucks sake--he was in a twitter feud with the Mayor of London after the attack on the Ariana Grande concert  and the Mayor of San Juan after Hurricane Maria.

Never a bad word about Putin. Uncharacteristic restraint, silence, and deference from a man known for none of those things, and never displays those traits in any other context.   

And it begs the question: why???

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Phoenix Wright]

it absolutely does, that's true. he's also been pretty nice to china, which is suspect. i'd still put my money on trump being...simply bad, but there's enough there to get you to think.