Suspected Chemical Attack in Irbin, Syria!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

There are a number of countries who support the rebels (not methods) to remove Assad. A point that has pissed Assad off over the last couple of years.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that some of these attacks may be occurring by Assad's forces / contract forces in an effort to kill support for the rebels by other nations? Had it not been for countries supporting the Rebels (weapons etc) Assad may have won a couple years back.

If he cant get nations on board to stop sending weapons to the rebels why not create an incident that points at the Rebels? Kill the source of their supplies and the rebels will go down faster.

There are times when we watch a video that suggest one thing only to find out it is something completely different.

Maybe.

But there just no proof.

Its all speculation.

And its likely to remain so, Im sure the CIA and SIS(MI6) know who doing what to who. But I doubt they will ever share with the public.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: thesaneone
If I was Assad I would use impure chemical weapons just so it looks like the rebels are doing it plus not as many people would die. It would keep the u.n off their backs.

US should NOT be sending the Calvary in here.

There you go again, nobody mentioned the U.S.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, in terms of the thought Assad may commit what would actually be an honest to God false flag by definition? (We don't see many of those in the wild, do we? lol) I have little doubt he would and likely has done that very thing.....with conventional weapons..at one time or another.

We're back to the original argument with that though, but from a much stronger direction this time. Why go so small, where it looks like a minor industrial accident or MAJOR household accident more than any military attack with chemical weapons?

Halabja is what a chemical attack with a factory produced (what Assad has) warhead looks like. It's horrible, it's decisive and it's total for the area it touches. You don't get many survivors from modern slime and damn sure not over 50% of those directly in the impact area, IMO. Not by all the reading I've done about them (which is still lay person level, of course). They're made to kill, not make sick in the military level agents we're talking about.

We have seen Sarin in Tokyo though. That was bathtub use of an exceptionally dangerous agent, so it didn't kill as it is designed to do in warheads.

So..the base question we're back to by the logic of a chemical false flag? Why SO small? Why a few people with no meaning to anything, anywhere in the scheme of ..well..anything at all for the war effort or propaganda value? Why not a sarin mortar right into a UN convoy?

We DO know the rebels have had control of some weapons at some points. At least the ground they were stored around. So..the idea they have the real deal isn't far fetched either..but this bunch didn't appear to.

Related: 1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack

originally posted by: thesaneone



There you go again, nobody mentioned the U.S.

Because like or not that what it all boils down to.

For both our country's and France.

Look how they were frothing at the mouths in October like rabid dogs to go into Syria?

Since then I have lost all respect for your country and my country's government who just want to go in a shot crap up in the ME for the most flimsy of reasons.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

See thousands of casualties?

Based on what pray tell?

I agreed with Ewok not really based on any concrete physical data, but simply because I imagined that if one would go to the lengths of actually making chemical weapons, they would use a chemical that would be lethal in smaller doses. I say this because if you are launching chemical weapons then you probably wish to kill those you are attacking, and this being the case wouldn't you want to use weapons that would do more than simply injure people? Now of course you are correct about the various factors which could potentially affect the potency of a chemical weapon, and there are probably a whole host of other factors as well...such as production capabilities, or which chemicals can actually be produced, etc...I would still estimate that this was not a government attack, but I fully admit that is just speculation.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

False Flag operations are committed by many other nations. The fact they are not the US is one of the reasons they don't make the news. Its easier to speculate and accuse the US rather than research the same behavior by other nations. Since certain groups of people are convinced everything the US does is a False Flag it becomes difficult to change that mindset. Difficult to the point of being almost impossible.

Why go small?

An attack with chemical weapons in a small quantity are going to be hard to trace and determine who was responsible. If you have a massive chemical weapon attack its possible it might get caught on satellite. A large attack requires more people, which furthers the chances of someone talking, even more so should they be captured. A large attack would put Assad, Russia and Iran on the defensive since its going to be argued the rebels are not capable of pulling off that type of an attack. A large attack would affect world opinion to the point of it doesn't matter who used the weapons, all we know is it must stop before it crosses other borders in the area.

What do you think would have happened if Russia sent in their military forces, without hiding them behind no insignias, into Crimea? What do you think would have occurred if they moved beyond Crimea and into the South and the East?

Instead of an "incursion" into Crimea you would have an "invasion" which again would affect public opinion, both at home and in other countries.

Sometimes small actions that are ambiguous can do more towards winning a conflict than a full on invasion.

A small action leaves people guessing.
A full on invasion leaves people with facts.

a reply to: crazyewok

Why is it people are so quick to go after Western nations with body count numbers in Arab nations while at the same time completely ignoring the body count caused by the dictator in those countries prior to the west being involved?

So its ok for a dictator to kill all the people he wants because he is in charge?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is this the party line or something? Want a different type of dictator?

You would think as an American you would understand the dangers of extremism and realize that you cannot play nice with the extremist ideological mindset, you must stamp it out.

You have Assad, charged with protecting the minority groups, whose schools were being blown up and innocent people were being killed by extremists who wanted a caliphate and/or did not believe that minorities should be able to have freedom of religion and/or a voice in their own country.

Therefore it is with a heavy hand you must have rule or you will have another country like Saudia and others full of extremism where it is near to illegal if not actually illegal to hold a separate religious view from the majority. In Syria you can openly practice your religion, and openly be whatever religion you choose... because of a ruler like Assad.

If you want to drink alcohol you can, whatever you please you can do... because of Assad.

If you get a democracy in there, you end up with majority rule. With majority rule there you would have an Islamic caliphate and dreams thereof come to fruition, you would loose the minority voice altogether as well as freedom of religion. You will see many minority peoples die as a result - or simply fleeing for their lives.

At least right before this war the only ones fleeing for their lives were the extremists. (although now that we are arming the extremists in Syria that's changed) One would think westerners would understand and support equal rights and freedom of religion and the "whatever it takes" to stamp out extremism. They are always saying why don't the moderates do something about the extremists, yet, when something does get done... its somehow evil... hypocritical much?

Let's face it, it's not because Assad doesn't play nice with extremists who would kill minorities that you want Assad gone, its another reason altogether... its political - and got not one thing to do with the people or your sudden concern for their welfare... there welfare is fine so long as they aren't killing innocent people.

The people of Syria need to figure out Syria, because if anyone else tries to butt in, it will be Egypt all over again....Let Syrians figure out how to have elections without the risk of inviting an extremist government in. THAT is something the US doesn't seem to know how to do, so I don't imagine the US can help in any way to solve the existing dangers. Just since they started butting in though we have seen a marked rise in extremists doing what they do...do you want kudo's for that?

Why do you think the moderates in that country are voting for Assad. And they really are. I do know Syrians inside of Syria. The moderates as well as the minorities want Assad to stay until they can figure the above out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What do you think would have happened if Russia sent in their military forces, without hiding them behind no insignias, into Crimea? What do you think would have occurred if they moved beyond Crimea and into the South and the East?

I think I'm trying very hard to maintain a case by case, nation by nation view of what is happening in the world and not cross Syria with Crimea or anywhere with Ukraine.

Sure..Russia is moving in multiple directions ...as have we for a couple decades now, largely without anyone questioning it. Well.. It'll get a bit crowded now that we're not alone anymore, but we'll have to adapt. However, Syria is full of Syrians and frankly, I think the Syrians are better off with Assad than the blood thirsty terrorists who are trying to topple him.

We probably have real different ways of approaching these things right now tho..

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Of they have not been able to figure out when Assad's dad was in power, and still cant now that Assad is in power, I don't think they will ever get around to it.

They say they want him to stay but given the events in the past of people challenging Assad I believe those who support him are doing so out of fear of being killed / having their family killed by Assad forces.

none of which has anything to do with the use of chemical weapons.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Right I get that.

what I am pointing out is why some plan are incremental instead of balls to the walls.

An instrumentalist approach allows for the constant tweaking of the plan to take into account the X factors - like world opinion, opinion of governments who have the ability to interfere, how the message is playing on the home front.

Putin is using that game plan, and we see that with the 15+ justifications he has used to justify his actions.

The same can be said for Assad, who is facing the exact same issue. Massive use of chemical weapons would result in foreign intervention. It would be pegged to Assad, whether his forces were behind it or not. World support for anti Assad forces would most likely increase.

He has every reason for small actions. Those types of actions, small, are the only thing that is keeping him in power right now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

Why is it people are so quick to go after Western nations with body count numbers in Arab nations while at the same time completely ignoring the body count caused by the dictator in those countries prior to the west being involved?

So its ok for a dictator to kill all the people he wants because he is in charge?

Because:

1) what right does the USA and allies have to play world police?
2) why should we send people to die in some wretched war that has no bearing on our own defence?
3) why send people to fight and die in a war based skecthy intelligance or outright lies?
4) if you want to protect humans then why not go for the worst dictatorship first?nork korea that does have wmdand threatens to use them on us?

And lastly....

5) if we went into syria who the hell do we support? Most the rebels are as twisted as Assad! How can you ensure a worse reguime does not end up in its place? Who should the west support?

Awnser me all five and dont dodge like a politician.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No, if it was fear of being killed by Assad I would know that. It's not. It's a fear of exactly what is happening right this second...

As far as they should have been able to figure it out by now... well, its not like the US knows how either or the second the US steps in they wouldn't have suddenly been eaten up with foreign terrorists, not just their normal domestic ones.

If outsiders would leave them alone whenever elections get put on the internal table then perhaps they could have a chance to figure it out....





As far as the chemical weapons, I already stated my piece on that, I was addressing a specific post of yours - which we are allowed to do.

originally posted by: crazyewok


Because:

1) what right does the USA and allies have to play world police?

Ask the United Nations.
World War I
World War II
The Cold War
Because you can build something in your back yard that can be snuck into my backyard.
Because no other single country can go toe to toe with the USSR / Russia.
Because no other single country can go toe to toe with China.
Allies / UN waving the US into the Fray with no intention of following behind with their own militaries.

originally posted by: crazyewok
2) why should we send people to die in some wretched war that has no bearing on our own defence?

For the same reasons we did during WWI and WWII. Appeasement is not an option anymore so you are left with nip it in the bud now or nip it in the bud later.

The question of involvement and the question of damage now or later should be a determining factor. Just like if the US got involved in WWII before our own national interest was affected may have resulted in less death and destruction than actually occurred.

Not to mention I always see people making the comment -
They came for the communists and I remained quiet....

Watching a government kill its own people and doing nothing makes the country watching just as responsible for those deaths than the ones doing the killing.

Why should we send our kids across the street to break up another fight? Because those people across the street being attacked are someone else's kids to.

originally posted by: crazyewok
3) why send people to fight and die in a war based skecthy intelligance or outright lies?

All warfare is based on deception. To assume the Us is solely guilty of this is misconceived and ignores history. A government who mislead the people are to be held accountable by the people. That requires more than just bitching of course.

originally posted by: crazyewok
4) if you want to protect humans then why not go for the worst dictatorship first?nork korea that does have wmdand threatens to use them on us?

If the US did that we would be having this same conversation.

Secondly the difference between N. Korea and Syria deals with the nations around it - China and S. Korea / Japan. in case you forgot we are still at war with N. Korea. S. Korea and Japan have the ability to define their foreign policy based on consultation coupled with their own militaries and defense institutions. Our presence is to support S. Korea and Japan in defensive actions. Aside from that they are more than capable of doing what they need on their own.

In the Middle East the list of US allies grows and becomes more complex. Oil is certainly one factor but the manner in which people try to apply oil is incorrect. I say that because the US is not the only nation that requires oil from the middle East to have a functioning economy. The oil coming from the ME runs the entire global economy. You think the Great Depression was bad. That would be a cake walk compared to a great depression based on the world economy coming to a stand still. I doubt many people would accept going from the 21st century and the space age back to an agrarian society.

originally posted by: crazyewok

And lastly....

5) if we went into syria who the hell do we support? Most the rebels are as twisted as Assad! How can you ensure a worse reguime does not end up in its place? Who should the west support?

A basic answer would be to support the group that would most likely leave people in peace at the end of the conflict. In Syria's case our issue started out as humanitarian concern due to the large number of civilians caught in the cross fire. When the use of air assets cropped up it moved to a different level. The use of chemical weapons is the main concern now.

Secondly I never saw any suggestion we invade with boots on the ground. The discussion I saw was a no fly zone. Since the use of force was denied by the UN, the US government and the British government, now what? If a civil war breaks out in Cuba do you think Russia would not support the Castro government? If a civil war breaks out in Ukraine do you not think the Russians would support the rebels?

As to ensuring a government does or does not do something.

That task falls to the people since the authority to lead should stem from consent of the people.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Awnser me all five and dont dodge like a politician.

We have debated enough in other threads that you should know my responses are usually in depth.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

When you say outsiders who are you referring to?

The US?
The UN?
Russia?
Iran?
N. Korea?

What I would like to know about the western (and in this case presumably Saudi) proxy-war strategy is...

Do western intelligence services and the Pentagon's subcontractors ever think about the consequences of arming and training those islamist "Rebels"?

We have seen in Croatia how cruel the consequences can be - when the Mujahideen (trained by MPRI for the US DOD) used what they learned to conduct one of the worst episodes of ethnic cleansing.

Our own soldiers (!) had to fight the same Islamists that fought for the bosnian Mujahideen and UCK in Kosovo (namely the "Terrorists" around Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar - aka "Al Qaeda") 10 years later in Afghanistan... how sick is that?

a reply to: ColCurious

The reason for NATO action in Croatia was to end the ethnic cleansing occurring against the Muslim population. Prior to that involvement Russia was their main supporter, both politically as well as militarily.

We supported rebel forces in Afghanistan just as Russia supports rebel factions in Ukraine.

Those groups we supported in Afghanistan decided not to like the US when we stopped assisting after the Soviets withdrew. They wanted us to assist in helping those groups consolidate their hold on Afghanistan over the other rebel factions and we refused.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Seriously? You don't see a problem with this strategy?

Just yesterday the sunni ISIL/ISIS took the city Mossul in northern Iraq.
The ISIL/ISIS Mujahideen are based and operate in Iraq and Syria, and their goal is to build an islamic state in the region.
Guess where they got their weapons.

*Also the true history of the Kosovo conflict is much more complicated than just preventing ethnic cleansing.

a reply to: ColCurious

They get their weapons from wherever they can find them. For some reason you and others think that the US is the only nation to use American made weapons.

Ever think its possible they got the weapons from Iraqi police / military areas after the US withdrawal?

Your inability to see anything other than the US is a problem and is making you blind to other issues you are ignoring.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh please.
Why would I think the US is the only nation using US issued weapons? That is stupid. Do you think I'm stupid?
We had decent debates before (which I enjoyed btw) so why would you resort to such nonesense now?
And I also don't see the US as "the only problem" (what ever that means) - and you should know I'm not "anti-american" by now.
I like you Americans. (I do dislike neocon imperialism though... you're not a neocon, are you?)
I must say I'm really disappointed. You can do better than that.
What is wrong with you? Are you mad about something?