Syrian Gas Attack: I'm Losing My Mind

[JamesYanik]

lmao Peter Hitchens, not Christopher Hitchens FML I shouldn't stay up late and read/type

[Ogion]

First, Seymour Hirsch has been toeing the Kremlin line on this for years, and has been pretty comprehensively debunked by the actual chemical weapons experts, especialy regarding the 2013 Ghouta attack. i wouldn't pay him any more attention than I would Trump as to actual facts.

Second, Obama actually never did move in to deliver either weapons or cash in a big way out of fear of ISIS and Al-Qaeda cells. There were relatively secure (e.g., non-salafist) elements in the uprising, just like in the rest of the Arab Spring, but they got crushed by both sides while the West kind of watched. Indeed, if the US had moved decisively in 2011, this would have been over a long time ago, with the Assad regime deposed.

[leon1122]

First, Seymour Hirsch has been toeing the Kremlin line on this for years, and has been pretty comprehensively debunked by the actual chemical weapons experts, especialy regarding the 2013 Ghouta attack. i wouldn't pay him any more attention than I would Trump as to actual facts.

Of course. When the facts don't support the narrative, discredit the source.

Indeed, if the US had moved decisively in 2011, this would have been over a long time ago, with the Assad regime deposed.

So, like I said, y'all are just looking for an excuse to go to war.

[Octavious]

I don't see how providing an opinion that decisive early action would have been preferable to the current situation is looking for an excuse to go to war. Indeed, I don't think anyone here has suggested that war now is a good idea.

The discussion is about whether the principle that the use of chemical and biological weapons is forbidden is worth defending. If you allow nations to use them without punishment they will use them more. They are damned useful as a weapon of terror and intimidation, and they make house to house city fighting (of the sort we're seeing in Syria) a far easier job.

It is possible to argue that Trump's recent messages about his desire to leave Syria to others to sort out encouraged Assad to make this a test of Western commitment in the region. If we don't act he will know he can use these weapons to complete his victory over the rebels without suffering the heavy morale crushing losses that conventional city warfare involves. And if chemical weapons are shown to be an option that works, other nations will make sure they have them as an option.

[RAGINGWOMBLE]

Except this would contradict what both the Russian and Syrian government is claiming. They aren't claiming it is an accidental spill, instead that the rebels deliberately fired chemical weapons on themselves.

Please answer the question though, why haven't this specific faction, Jaysh al-Islam, used chemical weapons which they supposedly possess, against the government?

Are you dense? It's clear to everyone involved that the Syrian rebels aren't going to win by themselves. Do you question this premise? They need international sympathy and military aid to defeat Assad. No amount of chemical weapons they possess is capable of defeating Assad at this point, so as a last resort they are staging chemical attacks against themselves to garner the aforementioned sympathy. By our governments' reactions, it's clear that this was the best use of their chemical weapon supply. If, on the other hand, the rebels had used the chemical weapons on Assad, that would have forced our governments to end aid to the rebels.

As for the bit about suicide, they clearly are using their suicide to fight against the enemy, so it is in line with Islamic teaching.

You know that this isn't the only time chemical weapons have been used against Ghouta? Anyone actually properly following the conflict and not just picking it up to defend the "anti-Imperialists" everytime there's an atrocity would know that this is one of many many attacks.

Western governments haven't been giving aid to Jaysh al-islam for some time now, the US programme ended.

[principians]

It could have been the russians (more to win, less to lose)... or any desperate terrorist group, of those US likes yo ally, because... they're animals... or Assad? Yes, keep thinking he is an idiot.

By the way, can anyone tell me if Mexico has already paid the wall?

[CroakandDagger]

this is one of many many attacks.

One of many many alleged attacks*.

[Octavious]

It could have been the russians (more to win, less to lose)... or any desperate terrorist group, of those US likes yo ally, because... they're animals... or Assad? Yes, keep thinking he is an idiot.

What makes you think Assad must be an idiot to use chemical weapons? There's no longer any likelihood of Western backed rebels defeating him, and with Russian backing he's in no danger of being brought to an international court. If he uses chemical weapons and the West responds he likely sustains damage to various airfields which isn't a massive problem at this stage of the conflict. If he uses chemical weapons and the West allows it he can continue using them. This makes taking rebel positions in cities far quicker with far fewer losses of loyalist soldiers, as well as showing potential future rebels just how grim another rebellion would be. With the US showing signs of wanting to wash its hands of Syria recently the calculation was probably that it was worth the risk.

[JamesYanik]

What makes you think Assad must be an idiot to use chemical weapons? There's no longer any likelihood of Western backed rebels defeating him, and with Russian backing he's in no danger of being brought to an international court. If he uses chemical weapons and the West responds he likely sustains damage to various airfields which isn't a massive problem at this stage of the conflict. If he uses chemical weapons and the West allows it he can continue using them. This makes taking rebel positions in cities far quicker with far fewer losses of loyalist soldiers, as well as showing potential future rebels just how grim another rebellion would be. With the US showing signs of wanting to wash its hands of Syria recently the calculation was probably that it was worth the risk.

but at the same time, you don't know with Trump. we've been moving troops closer and closer to war there, my brother deployed last time to Kuwait with the 3-7, now he's likely to be put in Iraq, preparing for actual combat, this isn't just rotation-focused, this is a possible escalation of conflict.

Assad using chemical weapons days after Trump says we're pulling out have two BOTH VERY POSSIBLE explanation:

1. anti-Assad forces want the US to stay and help against Assad, and the media will immediately point to Assad for any chemical attack in the region

2. Assad is using the weapon to appear strong, to both Russians and Iran, and try to maintain power, while also forcing the rebels into submission


both are pretty viable theories

[JamesYanik]

The discussion is about whether the principle that the use of chemical and biological weapons is forbidden is worth defending. If you allow nations to use them without punishment they will use them more. They are damned useful as a weapon of terror and intimidation, and they make house to house city fighting (of the sort we're seeing in Syria) a far easier job.

It is possible to argue that Trump's recent messages about his desire to leave Syria to others to sort out encouraged Assad to make this a test of Western commitment in the region. If we don't act he will know he can use these weapons to complete his victory over the rebels without suffering the heavy morale crushing losses that conventional city warfare involves. And if chemical weapons are shown to be an option that works, other nations will make sure they have them as an option.

yes but the question is whether or not Assad is even truly behind this. I 100% think that regimes who continuously use this shit should be deposed, but recently there's been doubt cast on Assad and I would like some certainty, before I start wielding my beliefs like a sword.

[JamesYanik]

I don't know anyone in this thread who thinks using chemical weapons isn't a serious, even deposable, offense. @Octavius

Croak? Leon? JECE? Who the hell here isn't anit-chemical weapons?

the question posed is on the authenticity of all of these claims.


now if we confirm that it is Assad, and people here still say it's not our business, THEN we can get onto what you're talking about. first and foremost we need someone to aim the damn gun at

[Octavious]

1. anti-Assad forces want the US to stay and help against Assad, and the media will immediately point to Assad for any chemical attack in the region

I don't think that is particularly viable as a theory. These forces have been ground down to such an extent that nothing short of a full on American invasion will pull them back from the brink, and that's simply not on the cards. The best they would get is a significant air strike, which is only going to prolong the inevitable. There are some evil sods amongst them, but killing your own for such small benefit strikes me as highly unlikely. And that's before you add doubts regarding their access to the weapons and ability to deploy them.

But as I have said before, if you demand absolute confirmation you will never act on anything as you will never get it.

[JamesYanik]

1. anti-Assad forces want the US to stay and help against Assad, and the media will immediately point to Assad for any chemical attack in the region

I don't think that is particularly viable as a theory. These forces have been ground down to such an extent that nothing short of a full on American invasion will pull them back from the brink, and that's simply not on the cards. The best they would get is a significant air strike, which is only going to prolong the inevitable. There are some evil sods amongst them, but killing your own for such small benefit strikes me as highly unlikely. And that's before you add doubts regarding their access to the weapons and ability to deploy them.

But as I have said before, if you demand absolute confirmation you will never act on anything as you will never get it.

But this is not true, increased surveillance in the area would be able to determine who is responsible, but we've largely pulled out even there.

furthermore, you're talking about rebels fighting against Assad. what alternative do they have? submit? they'll do everything in their power to win, because they are desperate. and don't pretend that the USA doesn't have any will to go into Syria. have you heard Trump's comments? that man could very easily send troops in if he's convinced Assad is behind all of this.

[Octavious]

But this is not true, increased surveillance in the area would be able to determine who is responsible, but we've largely pulled out even there.

How, exactly? I think you hugely overestimate the ability of surveillance to achieve proof. Put a bomb on a timer and the attack can take place long after the attackers have left. What would you need to see to convince you? What would convince you the footage was genuine?

The rebels can't win. The best they can hope for is to make defeating them so costly that Assad concludes a peace deal on just about acceptable terms is preferable to wiping them out. If Assad can use chemical weapons wiping them out becomes a far less costly option.

and don't pretend that the USA doesn't have any will to go into Syria.

I'm not pretending. It doesn't. It didn't back in Obama's day when there was something worth fighting for, and it certainly doesn't now when there isn't.

[CroakandDagger]

I'm not particularly anti chemical weapon. They're not pleasant, but they're not significantly more unpleasant than nuclear weapons in my opinion - and if we deposed every government that employed a disgustingly destructive weapon in wartime, we'd have to dismantle the United States.

[JamesYanik]

But this is not true, increased surveillance in the area would be able to determine who is responsible, but we've largely pulled out even there.

How, exactly? I think you hugely overestimate the ability of surveillance to achieve proof. Put a bomb on a timer and the attack can take place long after the attackers have left. What would you need to see to convince you? What would convince you the footage was genuine?

The rebels can't win. The best they can hope for is to make defeating them so costly that Assad concludes a peace deal on just about acceptable terms is preferable to wiping them out. If Assad can use chemical weapons wiping them out becomes a far less costly option.

and don't pretend that the USA doesn't have any will to go into Syria.

I'm not pretending. It doesn't. It didn't back in Obama's day when there was something worth fighting for, and it certainly doesn't now when there isn't.

1. just because evidence is hard to get, doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed without it. and what would sate my unreasonable desire of *squints* knowing who actually did something?

expanded satellite surveillance in the area, force oversight onto Assad and start doing thorough inventory of chemical weapons, unlike last time. increased monitoring of Syrian Assad controlled airbases, 24/7 so we have exact records for the attacks, increased cyberwarfare, try to use espionage to get answers.


2. are you HONESTLY saying that because Obama backed off the red line, Trump is just going to set there calmly as all this goes down. if there is a chemical attack and Trump wants Assad out, he could do it. I'm sick and tired of people's opinions on Trump... one second he's a an incompetent maniac... but now he's a cautious observer sitting by the sidelines.

you poke Trump, he lashes out. that is 100% his fucking deal. he has authorized expansions to military power, and already directed a pretty damn serious airstrike, for not even the worst chemical attack in the region.


3. these chemical weapons are *wiping* the rebels out. the most effective strategies forsaking out the rebels that Assad has used has been cutting off supply lines, and choking the rebels with superior ground forces, not occasional chemical weapons that kill mostly civilians. that is 100% a misread, and if anything it would endear more people to the rebels (source: all of western media)


and as for "the rebels can't win"

1. there is a widespread sentiment of map-redrawing right now in the Middle East. they'll fight for whatever land they can get
2. if the USA gets mad, with Trump at the helm, we've seen pretty damaging tomahawk strikes and Israeli action. if provoked more, Assad could be in a VERY bad situation.
3. the actual state of the Syrian rebels is in flux. this is very much a Saratoga moment, they're losing ground, but if the USA hits out at Assad, they could regroup. 90% of the stuff I see in the media about the meek, tiny rebels is unsourced and speculative. that's why I hate this shit.
4. it's actually quite telling that Erdogan has been worried about rebels and displaced fighters coming to Turkey, and given Turkey has a far larger military presence than Assad, what would he have to worry about if they're just a tiny, nothing group? The reason why Assad is winning is because of larger forces and Russian backing. if the USA flexes their muscles, he could recede.

5. and most importantly, you don't seem to understand perspective. the rebels cannot win, and Assad will crush them.

that is your perspective

now imagine you are a rebel. 7 years of fighting for your lives against Assad, and he is winning, he has taken over ISIS strongholds, and his grasp is closing. the USA is the only force that's truly on your side (Turkey being an opportunistic backer, and Israeli self focused), and they're thinking about leaving.

you do whatever it takes to hurt Assad, and get him out of power.


Octavius, you're saying the rebels are losing... I agree. this is why they'd be acting so radically. and you won't even consider the possibility the radicals within rebel factions THINK they can still win.

[JamesYanik]

are you forgetting about Haley's statement "there will be no peace in Syria until Assad is ousted"???

Tillerson also backed regime change in US media... Trump's regime has been an about-face from the Obama era

[JamesYanik]

people started to cool off, with many people wanting Assad to stay in power since, but after this last attack, May, Blair, Trump, Haley, Tillerson, New outlets across the board have been talking about military strikes against Assad.

stop pretending like there's zero impetus to hit Assad after these chemical weapon attacks, and stop pretending like there's no motive for the rebels to use chemical weapons.

yes it is possible that Assad could be behind all of this, but it is also possible he is not.

[Octavious]

I think we've reached the limits of the usefulness of the discussion. Suffice to say I disagree for the reasons already stated.

[leon1122]

James, I still need a source on Assad admitting that there was a chemical attack. All the sources I have read say that both Syria and Russia claim that the attack was staged, and Russia has now officially blamed the UK for staging the attack.