jared_7 wrote:
Does anyone think it wasn't staged, to an extent? It targeted an airbase shared by Russians and Syrians, but Russia was informed beforehand and obviously told the sSyrians. Theoretically its a declaration of war but no one is rightly treating it like that, because they have even announced no further action is planned. Its been done for posterity sake.
Although I see the UK couldn't wait to jump in first in backing their big brother's action - so at least thats a real, common response.
The entire situation is a bit iffy tbh, even the chemical attack.
A bit iffy, or another monstrous crime by the Assad regime?
A bit iffy seems a touch soft as a description
A bit iffy as in conveniently timed. A bit iffy as in the lack of evidence although there has been plenty of finger pointing. Unless I'm completely devoid of human feeling, the news clips that come with a warning on graphic images are not entirely convincing me either. Is an oxygen mask some kind of proof as to what happened and who did it?
If Assad carried out the attack, then yes, fuck him and any other wankers responsible, but it just seems a little contrived at the moment.
I'm quietly confident that there'll be the odd story critical of Trump in the Guardian today, and specifically some of those stories will critical of his missile strikes, and reasonably so. But just on whether Assad was responsible for another chemical weapons attack on his own people or the bombs hit a rebel store which accidentally leaked the gas there's a good front line report here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... cal-attack
There's also the point that an attack on a chemical weapons silo would've destroyed the sarin rather than releasing it - at least according to a couple of experts' opinions that I have read - that's before you get to the fact that we'd been promised all chemical weapons had been removed.
Digby wrote:I'm quietly confident that there'll be the odd story critical of Trump in the Guardian today, and specifically some of those stories will critical of his missile strikes, and reasonably so. But just on whether Assad was responsible for another chemical weapons attack on his own people or the bombs hit a rebel store which accidentally leaked the gas there's a good front line report here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... cal-attack
The use of Sarin has been confirmed and the chemicals were dropped from an aircraft. Its stretching credibility to claim that Assad wasn't involved.
Mellsblue wrote:There's also the point that an attack on a chemical weapons silo would've destroyed the sarin rather than releasing it - at least according to a couple of experts' opinions that I have read - that's before you get to the fact that we'd been promised all chemical weapons had been removed.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is the bloke normally wheeled out for this kind of thing and he does know his stuff. There was a discrepancy between the alleged totals of chemical agents in Assad's possession and how many were destroyed by the UN observers. Despite the bold statements at the time, it looks likely that some chemical stockpiles were held back.
As I wrote earlier, this will hopefully stop further use of chemical weapons and the Russians will tell Assad to wind his neck in. Ultimately, Assad is now winning the civil war and whilst plenty more people will die as a result, I don't think there is much appetite in the West for any other outcome. This will reassert some kind of red line, the Russians will protest and then sit back and let this war come to its natural conclusion whilst the US has waved its cock about and will feel like it has regained some credibility in the world of realpolitik.
Digby wrote:I'm quietly confident that there'll be the odd story critical of Trump in the Guardian today, and specifically some of those stories will critical of his missile strikes, and reasonably so. But just on whether Assad was responsible for another chemical weapons attack on his own people or the bombs hit a rebel store which accidentally leaked the gas there's a good front line report here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... cal-attack
The use of Sarin has been confirmed and the chemicals were dropped from an aircraft. Its stretching credibility to claim that Assad wasn't involved.
By whom?
I've seen reports of survivors saying the bombs fell from the sky but that's hardly concrete is it?
I'm just a little sceptical about these things as it wasn't really that long ago that WMD were confirmed in Iraq and significant parts of the world were 45 minutes from being destructed.
All this information was readily relayed by the press which still readily relay, without much questioning or probing, information about this chemical attack.
I just have quite a bit of distrust for the media in things like this.
Digby wrote:I'm quietly confident that there'll be the odd story critical of Trump in the Guardian today, and specifically some of those stories will critical of his missile strikes, and reasonably so. But just on whether Assad was responsible for another chemical weapons attack on his own people or the bombs hit a rebel store which accidentally leaked the gas there's a good front line report here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... cal-attack
The use of Sarin has been confirmed and the chemicals were dropped from an aircraft. Its stretching credibility to claim that Assad wasn't involved.
By whom?
I've seen reports of survivors saying the bombs fell from the sky but that's hardly concrete is it?
I'm just a little sceptical about these things as it wasn't really that long ago that WMD were confirmed in Iraq and significant parts of the world were 45 minutes from being destructed.
All this information was readily relayed by the press which still readily relay, without much questioning or probing, information about this chemical attack.
I just have quite a bit of distrust for the media in things like this.
Most people do. Assad isn't really trustworthy though either so him saying "nah mate, wasnae us like" doesn't really do it for me.
Digby wrote:I'm quietly confident that there'll be the odd story critical of Trump in the Guardian today, and specifically some of those stories will critical of his missile strikes, and reasonably so. But just on whether Assad was responsible for another chemical weapons attack on his own people or the bombs hit a rebel store which accidentally leaked the gas there's a good front line report here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... cal-attack
The use of Sarin has been confirmed and the chemicals were dropped from an aircraft. Its stretching credibility to claim that Assad wasn't involved.
By whom?
I've seen reports of survivors saying the bombs fell from the sky but that's hardly concrete is it?
I'm just a little sceptical about these things as it wasn't really that long ago that WMD were confirmed in Iraq and significant parts of the world were 45 minutes from being destructed.
All this information was readily relayed by the press which still readily relay, without much questioning or probing, information about this chemical attack.
I just have quite a bit of distrust for the media in things like this.
i would suggest that you need to treat each case on its own merits, rather than allowing the Iraq WMD to completely alter your opinion of every event. Questioning is one thing, but discounting all reporting just because something happened almost 15 year ago doesnt make a lot of sense.
In this instance there are eyewitness accounts. There is a crater which contains chemical residue. The use of Sarin has been confirmed by samples. The Russian counter claim doesnt stack up to any kind of logic, particularly when you look at the pictures of the inside. The use of airpower against the location was proven when news crews were caught up in a follow up raid.
Assad had a large chemical weapons stockpile which wasn't fully accounted for. Now it may be possible that something else happened, but where is the credible evidence to suggest that someone other than the Syrian regime was responsible for this?
Billyfish wrote:I thought we were beyond the stage where anyone still believed this sort of thing.
One Guardian reporter and someone who saw some chemical weapons dropping from a plane (chemical bombs look different from nicer bombs?).
Why was Assad bombing this area do we know? And why would he think he could use chemical weapons to do it?
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
Billyfish wrote:I thought we were beyond the stage where anyone still believed this sort of thing.
One Guardian reporter and someone who saw some chemical weapons dropping from a plane (chemical bombs look different from nicer bombs?).
Why was Assad bombing this area do we know? And why would he think he could use chemical weapons to do it?
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
Maybe all the component elements of sarin were naturally occurring in the locality and the bomb fused them into sarin?
Last edited by canta_brian on Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Billyfish wrote:I thought we were beyond the stage where anyone still believed this sort of thing.
One Guardian reporter and someone who saw some chemical weapons dropping from a plane (chemical bombs look different from nicer bombs?).
Why was Assad bombing this area do we know? And why would he think he could use chemical weapons to do it?
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
Maybe all the component elements of sarin were naturally occurring in the locality and the bomb fused them into satin?
I think most CBRN experts would disagree that was possible.
Sandydragon wrote:
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
Maybe all the component elements of sarin were naturally occurring in the locality and the bomb fused them into satin?
I think most CBRN experts would disagree that was possible.
No one has an issue with he the violations of international law? The US has just unilaterally decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this what the US is for?
Billyfish wrote:I thought we were beyond the stage where anyone still believed this sort of thing.
One Guardian reporter and someone who saw some chemical weapons dropping from a plane (chemical bombs look different from nicer bombs?).
Why was Assad bombing this area do we know? And why would he think he could use chemical weapons to do it?
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
You mean the narrative of quite a few western countries wanting to get rid of Assad and replace him with someone a little less friendly with Putin?
Purely hypothetical, possibly far-fetched too, but I would not in the least bit be surprised with two possible alternative stories to go with the current drama. An attack by Syria on a civilian area was 'sexed up' in order to give the US an excuse to attack a strategic base. Or the attack originated from rebels or allies and 'sexed up' as if Syria or Russia were responsible in order give the US an excuse....etc, etc.
Assad may well be a total cunt, but it's not as if the US or the rebels conduct themselves with some moral dignity when it comes to sacrificing human lives.
Billyfish wrote:I thought we were beyond the stage where anyone still believed this sort of thing.
One Guardian reporter and someone who saw some chemical weapons dropping from a plane (chemical bombs look different from nicer bombs?).
Why was Assad bombing this area do we know? And why would he think he could use chemical weapons to do it?
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
You mean the narrative of quite a few western countries wanting to get rid of Assad and replace him with someone a little less friendly with Putin?
Purely hypothetical, possibly far-fetched too, but I would not in the least bit be surprised with two possible alternative stories to go with the current drama. An attack by Syria on a civilian area was 'sexed up' in order to give the US an excuse to attack a strategic base. Or the attack originated from rebels or allies and 'sexed up' as if Syria or Russia were responsible in order give the US an excuse....etc, etc.
Assad may well be a total cunt, but it's not as if the US or the rebels conduct themselves with some moral dignity when it comes to sacrificing human lives.
Whether Assad did it or not, the timing is extremely convenient. And the response is too. Seems to me like they have been gathering data on the global view, people have had enough of Syria and the memories of Iraq have faded just enough that another war makes PR sense. The strike on what was basically an empty base (save for some civilians because they had pre-warned their supposed enemy) in a meaningless attack will the be the ultimate test of international reaction.
And from the lack of concern over the violations of international law and the unilateral action of a country invading another, as well as the general consensus Assad is guilty based on Western Journalism rather than official enquiries - it looks to me as though everything is going swimmingly.
We'll have a new dictator in place in no time, only this time he'll be one who wants to "bring Syria into the 21st century, tell the west the country is open for business, and that the most profitable way of doing that is private supply of natural gas to the Euro region".
jared_7 wrote:No one has an issue with he the violations of international law? The US has just unilaterally decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this what the US is for?
So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.
Billyfish wrote:I thought we were beyond the stage where anyone still believed this sort of thing.
One Guardian reporter and someone who saw some chemical weapons dropping from a plane (chemical bombs look different from nicer bombs?).
Why was Assad bombing this area do we know? And why would he think he could use chemical weapons to do it?
Even though there is medical evidence to support the use of chemical weapons? If Assad's airforce didn't drop the bomb, what is the alternative narrative?
You mean the narrative of quite a few western countries wanting to get rid of Assad and replace him with someone a little less friendly with Putin?
Purely hypothetical, possibly far-fetched too, but I would not in the least bit be surprised with two possible alternative stories to go with the current drama. An attack by Syria on a civilian area was 'sexed up' in order to give the US an excuse to attack a strategic base. Or the attack originated from rebels or allies and 'sexed up' as if Syria or Russia were responsible in order give the US an excuse....etc, etc.
Assad may well be a total cunt, but it's not as if the US or the rebels conduct themselves with some moral dignity when it comes to sacrificing human lives.
OK, well when some evidence arrives to support those alternative narratives it will be interesting to see it. Im not sure that the use of chemical weapons (with medical evidence to support that fact) needs much sexing up. Is it more likely that the locals who were interviewed have all been briefed to blame an airstrike or that the airstrike actually happened?
