Syria About to Reignite

Seattle Husker said:
Has Russia ever lied?
Click to expand...
As of late, what comes out of the Russian government is more reliable than what comes out of ours.
1. Who is telling the truth about hacking the US elections, Russia or the US?
2. Who told the truth about the hacking of Vermont's electrical grid a few months ago?
3. Who told the truth about the CIAs ability to conduct cyber attacks and then leave false indicators another country initiated the attack?
 
Musburger1 said:
As of late, what comes out of the Russian government is more reliable than what comes out of ours.
1. Who is telling the truth about hacking the US elections, Russia or the US?
2. Who told the truth about the hacking of Vermont's electrical grid a few months ago?
3. Who told the truth about the CIAs ability to conduct cyber attacks and then leave false indicators another country initiated the attack?
Click to expand...

No, then? Or at least not under Putin?
 
Seattle Husker said:
No, then? Or at least not under Putin?
Click to expand...
We can argue about Putin's version at the time, of how the Russian troops stationed in Crimea were deployed outside the military base (little green men). But after Crimea's orders were secured, he admitted the deployment was used (to protect the citizens). Other than this, name something. I can rattle off lie after lie by our government since Putin has been in office.
 
Musburger1 said:
I can rattle off lie after lie by our government since Putin has been in office.
Click to expand...

Only because that's all you care about. You overlook and defend any lie by Putin.

Incidentally, on yesterdays gas attack to believe Russia's story then the US, UK, Amnesty International and many others are colluding against them.

I don't know anything about chemical weapons but here is what was said on BBC Radio:
But a chemical weapons expert, Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, told BBC Radio 4 that all signs showed the chemical used was sarin gas and that Russia's versions of events was "completely unsustainable."
"I think this is pretty fanciful and no doubt the Russians trying to protect their allies. Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Seattle Husker said:
Only because that's all you care about. You overlook and defend any lie by Putin.

Incidentally, on yesterdays gas attack to believe Russia's story then the US, UK, Amnesty International and many others are colluding against them.

I don't know anything about chemical weapons but here is what was said on BBC Radio:
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I stated. There is collusion. And that conclusion is reached by the sources I've cited. Read, discern, and believe what you will.
 
Musburger1 said:
That's exactly what I stated. There is collusion. And that conclusion is reached by the sources I've cited. Read, discern, and believe what you will.
Click to expand...

OK. I'm not sure how Amnesty International is part of the conspiracy but I'm sure you have some excuse and wingnut site to post as "evidence".
 
Seattle Husker said:
OK. I'm not sure how Amnesty International is part of the conspiracy but I'm sure you have some excuse and wingnut site to post as "evidence".
Click to expand...

To be fair, he'd almost surely get canned if he gave you the answers you're looking for. He's probably making $1,500 per month doing this.
 
Seattle Husker said:
OK. I'm not sure how Amnesty International is part of the conspiracy but I'm sure you have some excuse and wingnut site to post as "evidence".
Click to expand...
Instead of going back and forth with me, conduct a google search using the words "amnesty international credibility."

It will keep you busy for as long as you have interest. Or don't. Just go with the tried and true MSM that you are so reliant on. I don't care.
 
Musburger1 said:
Instead of going back and forth with me, conduct a google search using the words "amnesty international credibility."

It will keep you busy for as long as you have interest. Or don't. Just go with the tried and true MSM that you are so reliant on. I don't care.
Click to expand...

Amnesty International credibility: 415,000 results
Russia credibility: 14,700,000 results

LOL!

For shits and giggles I checked out this page. Looks like they've been criticized by virtually every country, including the US, which is why your collusion accusation was flimsy. Have they been more critical of non-Western countries? Of course because they are a human rights organization and typically those values are more in jeopardy in less democratic countries.

Like this for example:
 
Musburger1 said:
Putin is paying me high six figures in US dollars to post here. Maybe next year I'll be paid more.
Click to expand...

Yet you're not a Hornfans sponsor? If you're hustling that much, I think you should at least be tossing $1,000 per month Dionysus' way. Lol.
 
Musburger1 said:
No, dumb sh-t. More clear he's beating war drums under unproven (fabricated) accusations. I've seen this movie before.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear, neither of us know for certain who is fabricating a story albeit eye witness testimony and historical precedence is pointing a giant finger at Syria. Evidence will eventually leak out. If it validates that Syria is the culprit, which I believe, then I'm sure you'll have a ready made excuse like every single other transgression in which Russia (more specifically Putin) is involved. Da?
 
Last edited:
This whole "Assad is misunderstood" back-and-forth is just sad. Saying that we can't point fingers at him because we're complicit in lots of foreign death is disingenuous. I say that until someone in the U.S. walks away with 90 percent of the popular vote in an "election" that we're still better than he is.
 
Horns11 said:
So both the White House and UK state (foreign) departments blame Assad for the most recent attacks, and we're supposed to trust the Russian version of what happened?
Click to expand...

Selling the Russian version of anything right now is swimming upstream
 
Here is Bellingcat debunking of the Russian counterclaims about Syrian chemical attack --

".........Even assuming that large quantities of both Sarin precursors were located in the same part of the same warehouse (a practice that seems odd), an air-strike is not going to cause the production of large quantities of Sarin. Dropping a bomb on the binary components does not actually provide the correct mechanism for making the nerve agent. It is an infantile argument. One of the precursors is isopropyl alcohol. It would go up in a ball of flame. A very large one. Which has not been in evidence.

Another issue is that, if the Syrian regime actually did believe that the warehouse stored chemical warfare agents, then striking it deliberately was an act of chemical warfare by proxy.

Finally, we are back to the issue of industrial capacity. It takes about 9 kg of difficult to obtain precursor materials to generate the necessary steps to produce Sarin. The ratio is similar with other nerve agents. Having a quantity of any of the nerve agents relies on a sophisticated supply chain of exotic precursors and an industrial base. Are we to seriously believe that one of the rebel factions has expended the vast sums of money and developed this industrial base, somehow not noticed to date and not molested by attack? It seems an unlikely chain of events."​

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/men...n-sheikhoun-chemical-warehouse-attack-claims/
 
If human rights issues are of paramount concern, why are the Saudis allowed to continue horrendous war crimes against Yemeni citizens?

Back to Syria. The Syria. Air Force was bombing at the time the gas was released. Until testing determines the origin of the gas - assuming that is still possible - it's a he said/she said argument. Seymour Hersh among others have shown the "rebels" possessed and had the capacity to produce Saran. Did Assad's Air Force drop gas or did an ordinate hit a target which housed it? Without an answer, don't you think it's a wee bit premature to make accusations and get the US citizens behind a war footing?
 
You have to admit the timing is suspect

C8q0IOAV0AE38Gq.jpg
 
Nikki Haley threatens unilateral US action in Syria if UN doesn't act. Link.

Before I comment, let me toss out the obligatory "Obama sucks," "John Kerry screwed up Syria in the first place," and "Hillary would have been worse." Now that those are out of the way, what the hell is the plan here? Just recently, we said that ousting Assad isn't our top priority anymore. Assuming Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, have our priorities changed? Trump says his view on Assad has changed and that he has "crossed a lot of lines" (invoking Obama's red line comment). Link. Of course, "speaking Trump" is never easy, but trying to harmonize Trump's comments and Haley's, it sounds like we're very seriously considering military action.

If we decide to do that, then what's the strategy? Will we pull half-assed options like we usually do (airstrikes, small ground forces that are big enough to fight some bad guys but not big enough to occupy)? Will we try to get Russia to turn on Assad, jointly oust him, rout ISIS, and form a joint US-Russian occupation of Syria and all ISIS-controlled areas? That would probably be the best case scenario. However, if Russia sticks with Assad, do we walk out with our tail between our legs, or will we go after Assad anyway and risk a direct military confrontation with Russia?

Like I've said previously, I'm not an Assad fan, but I don't think ousting him should be our top priority. Furthermore, even if he's responsible for the chemical attack, I'm not sure that fact all by itself justifies a major war followed by a very messy occupation. I hope Trump is really thinking this stuff through. In light of the fact that he has been horribly inconsistent and "all over the place" on foreign policy and national security, I'm a bit worried.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Nikki Haley threatens unilateral US action in Syria if UN doesn't act. Link.

Before I comment, let me toss out the obligatory "Obama sucks," "John Kerry screwed up Syria in the first place," and "Hillary would have been worse." Now that those are out of the way, what the hell is the plan here? Just recently, we said that ousting Assad isn't our top priority anymore. Assuming Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, have our priorities changed? Trump says his view on Assad has changed and that he has "crossed a lot of lines" (invoking Obama's red line comment). Link. Of course, "speaking Trump" is never easy, but trying to harmonize Trump's comments and Haley's, it sounds like we're very seriously considering military action.

If we decide to do that, then what's the strategy? Will we pull half-assed options like we usually do (airstrikes, small ground forces that are big enough to fight some bad guys but not big enough to occupy)? Will we try to get Russia to turn on Assad, jointly oust him, rout ISIS, and form a joint US-Russian occupation of Syria and all ISIS-controlled areas? That would probably be the best case scenario. However, if Russia sticks with Assad, do we walk out with our tail between our legs, or will we go after Assad anyway and risk a direct military confrontation with Russia?

Like I've said previously, I'm not an Assad fan, but I don't think ousting him should be our top priority. Furthermore, even if he's responsible for the chemical attack, I'm not sure that fact all by itself justifies a major war followed by a very messy occupation. I hope Trump is really thinking this stuff through. In light of the fact that he has been horribly inconsistent and "all over the place" on foreign policy and national security, I'm a bit worried.
Click to expand...
Good questions Deez.
Before I can speculate on possible strategy, I want to contrast the massive condemnation for this act with the sublimation of last weeks US bombing in Mosul which is said to have killed over 100 civilians and maybe more than 200.
Also, there is the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Yemen where the Saudis have blockaded food imports and tens of thousands are starving. Where is the outrage in these instances?

A fair, diplomatic approach to the Syrian gas tragedy would be to not only condemn the attack, but also demand an impartial investigation into the source of the gas. While it's possible the Syrian army is responsible, intuitively it makes no sense for Assad to have approved such an action as his army is winning.

My personal belief is that the vocal allegations have multiple purposes. First, any attention to the Mosul bombing and Saudi atrocities have been moved to the back burner. Second, I believe whether or not the US has any intention of attacking Assad, the US does plan on partitioning Syria which will not be popular. By demonizing Assad in the same way Saddam was demonized after gassing the Kurds, it will be easier to get the public on board with a partition and permanent US presence in the newly formed Kurdistan. I may be off base, but I'm trying my best to make sense of a poorly articulated strategy.
 
Musburger1 said:
A fair, diplomatic approach to the Syrian gas tragedy would be to not only condemn the attack, but also demand an impartial investigation into the source of the gas. While it's possible the Syrian army is responsible, intuitively it makes no sense for Assad to have approved such an action as his army is winning.
Click to expand...

Everybody is pointing the finger at Assad, but if he did do it, it might be the dumbest move I've ever seen a world leader make. Trump had just handed Assad major victory by announcing that Assad's ouster would no longer be a priority for the US. If Assad did launch the chemical attack, he made Trump's position almost impossible to maintain for obvious reasons. I can't imagine him being that dumb.

Musburger1 said:
Second, I believe whether or not the US has any intention of attacking Assad, the US does plan on partitioning Syria which will not be popular. By demonizing Assad in the same way Saddam was demonized after gassing the Kurds, it will be easier to get the public on board with a partition and permanent US presence in the newly formed Kurdistan.
Click to expand...

If a partition is going to happen (which I don't think is a crazy idea), it would have to come after ISIS is completely destroyed and would probably happen through a Potsdam-like conference between the US and Russia and their respective allies. We'd probably end up with a Russia-aligned Syria and a US-aligned Kurdistan. That might be a best case scenario, but it would take one hell of a mess to get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top