The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Dave]

Dave is referring to the conflict as a whole not specific scenarios. And yes to me all the evidence i have available points to Assad, until you provide something else i will stick with that.

My post refers to the situation as a whole and also to individual actions within the conflict as well. It's not really possible to split scepticism as you think, be sceptical of ALL you read, don't let personal dislike taint your analysis of any incident.

 

[Unhappy438]

My post refers to the situation as a whole and also to individual actions within the conflict as well. It's not really possible to split scepticism as you think, be sceptical of ALL you read, don't let personal dislike taint your analysis of any incident.

Of course but inventing scenarios and not being able to even answer simple questions about those scenarios isn't being sceptical. Trust me i dislike Assad and most of the rebels. The rebels were once a moderate force but now they have been largely taken over by extremists. The Kurds are the closest force i might support but even they have their issues. What im trying to say is that there is no team im truly rooting for here.

 

[Xarog]

Of course but inventing scenarios and not being able to even answer simple questions about those scenarios isn't being sceptical.

I don't think that any of those scenarios are neccessarily true. They are simply possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Thus recognising that such possibilities exist and that one is working with an incomplete picture and thus refusing to abandon a position of doubt is an eminently sceptical position.

That you don't do this is why your position is not one of scepticism at all.

 

[Dave]

The Kurds are the closest force i might support but even they have their issues. What im trying to say is that there is no team im truly rooting for here.

The Kurds probably are the most "honest" of the groups, they make no secret that their major aim is an independent Kurdish state, and good luck to them with that.

 

[Unhappy438]

I don't think that any of those scenarios are neccessarily true. They are simply possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Thus recognising that such possibilities exist and that one is working with an incomplete picture and thus refusing to abandon a position of doubt is an eminently sceptical position.

That you don't do this is why your position is not one of scepticism at all.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Its quite easy to rule out your possibilities when you cant even answer simple questions about them.

If on the other hand you could provide a possible weapon system used and the group of rebels you suspect. We could then go along and search for videos or reports of this weapon system in the area. We could also take a look and see if the rebel group you named was perhaps having a beef with the group who's hospital was shelled. That is all a product investigation and once you determine it to be true then you have a possibility that cannot be ruled out.

All you're doing at the moment is saying Elvis is still alive and that's a possibility which cannot be ruled out.

 

[Dave]

All you're doing at the moment is saying Elvis is still alive and that's a possibility which cannot be ruled out.

It's not the same, you can refute that claim with verifiable facts, independent eye witnesses, a coroners report and death certificate. Elvis being dead isn't a scenario, it's an undisputed event.

 

[Unhappy438]

It's not the same, you can refute that claim with verifiable facts, independent eye witnesses a coroners report and death certificate. Ellis being dead isn't a scenario, it's an undisputed event.

Xarogs scenario is not much different and doesn't stack up with the available evidence we have, eyewitness reports etc. Unless he provides me something to refute that it will remain that way.

 

[Dave]

Xarogs scenario is not much different and doesn't stack up with the available evidence we have, eyewitness reports etc. Unless he provides me something to refute that it will remain that way.

Except your eyewitness reports in this instance are just witnesses of a big bang and a demolished building, they didn't see who did it, they didn't see exactly what caused it. They are only one step up from a simple guess.

 

[Unhappy438]

Except your eyewitness reports in this instance are just witnesses of a big bang and a demolished building, they didn't see who did it, they didn't see exactly what caused it. They are only one step up from a simple guess.

No thats not true, eyewitnesses such as doctors and nurses at the hospital clearly say airstrike. MSF themselves say airstrike, they just dont say which airforce.

http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria-update-airstrike-al-quds-hospital
https://www.msf.org.za/msf-publications/syria-airstrikes-destroy-msf-supported-hospital-aleppo

Now if you are saying that MSF or eyewitnesses are possibly mistaken or lying then some evidence needs to be provided.

 

[Dave]

No thats not true, eyewitnesses such as doctors and nurses at the hospital clearly say airstrike. MSF themselves say airstrike, they just dont say which airforce.

http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria-update-airstrike-al-quds-hospital

Now if you are saying that MSF or eyewitnesses are possibly mistaken or lying then some evidence needs to be provided.

When did doctors and nurses become experts at airstrikes? I doubt even a qualified fighter jet pilot would be able to tell the difference between an air launched cruise missile, a ship launched cruise missile or a land based cruise missile, as an example. Remember they allude to "missile" not gravity bomb (well some of them, others say barrel bomb which isn't any form of missile and isn't even dropped from a plane normally).

How would the MSF in Paris have a first person view, or the expertise, to decide it was an air launched strike? And even if it is an air launched strike we still have no facts to verify who the perpetrators were.

Even though there is a strong possibility Assad is involved, and if not him possibly the Russians, but we really have no idea based on facts (and that's the point I keep trying to make).

 

[Unhappy438]

When did doctors and nurses become experts at airstrikes? I doubt even a qualified fighter jet pilot would be able to tell the difference between an air launched cruise missile, a ship launched cruise missile or a land based cruise missile, as an example. Remember they allude to "missile" not gravity bomb (well some of them, others say barrel bomb which isn't any form of missile and isn't even dropped from a plane normally).

How would the MSF in Paris have a first person view, or the expertise, to decide it was an air launched strike? And even if it is an air launched strike we still have no facts to verify who the perpetrators were.

Even though there is a strong possibility Assad is involved, and if not him possibly the Russians, but we really have no idea based on facts (and that's the point I keep trying to make).

It doesn't take an expert to hear the sound of a jet, i think the MSF are a reasonable organisation in that they dont seem to be a propaganda wing. So i feel they wouldn't announce airstrike unless they felt confident about those who reported it as such. Sure i dont discount the possibility of MSF or eyewitnesses being wrong but i would like to see some evidence that shows this.

 

[Xarog]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Its quite easy to rule out your possibilities when you cant even answer simple questions about them.

That might be true if we were working with reliable evidence. But the evidence here is unreliable and that is what I have asserted, and you have already conceded that the truth is the first casualty of war.

If on the other hand you could provide a possible weapon system used and the group of rebels you suspect. We could then go along and search for videos or reports of this weapon system in the area. We could also take a look and see if the rebel group you named was perhaps having a beef with the group who's hospital was shelled. That is all a product investigation and once you determine it to be true then you have a possibility that cannot be ruled out.

You can do all that anyway (but it would require going to Syria). The point here is that neither you nor I can really make those kinds of investigations; you are basing your conclusions solely on what has been reported on the internet.

You provide zero evidence to support the assertion that your conclusions are drawn from reliable facts. According to your argument above, that's enough for me to dismiss your conclusions in favour of a position of general scepticism.

All you're doing at the moment is saying Elvis is still alive and that's a possibility which cannot be ruled out.

Not at all. If you want to use the Elvis metaphor then we're arguing over who/what killed him without a reliable coroner's report that investigated the cause of death. No one is disputing that the hospital was attacked.

 

[Dave]

Sure i dont discount the possibility of MSF or eyewitnesses being wrong but i would like to see some evidence that shows this.

You're asking for evidence that something didn't happen rather than something did, which is difficult to do. You are basically asking people to prove a negative.

Hearing a jet and therefore concluding an air strike is a reach, but we are back to the same point, most jets sound pretty similar, a US jet doesn't have an American accent, a Russian jet doesn't have a Russian accent.

You are still going 2 + 2 = 8 (because of a guess there is a 4 hidden somewhere in the question, I have no proof there is but you can't prove there isn't an invisible 4 therefore there is definitely a hidden 4 to include).

 

[Unhappy438]

That might be true if we were working with reliable evidence. But the evidence here is unreliable and that is what I have asserted, and you have already conceded that the truth is the first casualty of war.

It doesnt matter about the reliability, send me whatever evidence you have for your scenario and i will take it in and consider it.

You can do all that anyway (but it would require going to Syria). The point here is that you have no way to make those kinds of investigations, you are basing your conclusions solely on what has been reported on the internet.

Not true, the internet is a fantastic resource and we can still determine certain things from it. A video of the rebels firing a rocket propelled weapons system in the area of the hospital would be a great piece of evidence that would go along way to supporting your scenario. It doesn't require us to go to Syria either.

You provide zero evidence to support the assertion that your conclusions are drawn from reliable facts. According to your argument above, that's enough for me to dismiss your conclusions in favour of a position of general scepticism.

So very disingenuous, i've provided motive, history, eyewitness accounts and of course the very fact that Assad posses the weapons system required and was operating them in the area at the time. If you can provide all this then im happy to accept your scenario as a possibility.

 

[Unhappy438]

You're asking for evidence that something didn't happen rather than something did, which is difficult to do. You are basically asking people to prove a negative.

No im not, im asking for evidence that contradicts MSF. Another words if you can provide evidence that shows it was a rebel missile system you are in turn casting doubt on MSF.

Hearing a jet and therefore concluding an air strike is a reach, but we are back to the same point, most jets sound pretty similar, a US jet doesn't have an American accent, a Russian jet doesn't have a Russian accent.

Yet that's not the argument we are having here, we are questioning the possibility of the rebels being involved (who have no airforce).

You are still going 2 + 2 = 8 (because of a guess there is a 4 hidden somewhere in the question, I have no proof there is but you can't prove there isn't an invisible 4 therefore there is definitely a hidden 4 to include).

Sorry what? You are the ones that are adding in invisible 4s without anything and i mean literally nothing to back it up.

 

[Dave]

Sorry what? You are the ones that are adding in invisible 4s without anything and i mean literally nothing to back it up.

No, in this case I'm saying I have no idea what the answer is as there are too many variables and too little substantive fact to have a definite answer.

 

[Xarog]

It doesnt matter about the reliability, send me whatever evidence you have for your scenario and i will take it in and consider it.

It does matter about the reliability. Otherwise gimme a few hours and I'll have a nice wordpress website full of concrete claims for you to digest.

Not true, the internet is a fantastic resource and we can still determine certain things from it. A video of the rebels firing a rocket propelled weapons system in the area of the hospital would be a great piece of evidence that would go along way to supporting your scenario. It doesn't require us to go to Syria either.

You have no reason to assume that all the relevant evidence would have made its way onto the internet. That presumption is made without justification. Your argument hinges on that presumption.

So very disingenuous, i've provided motive, history, eyewitness accounts and of course the very fact that Assad posses the weapons system required and was operating them in the area at the time. If you can provide all this then im happy to accept your scenario as a possibility.

None of which is reliable given the fog of war. And as I already said:

You have your opinion, and imo it isn't unreasonable, but Dave's criticism of your argument is nonetheless valid.

This statement remains true. You have presented a reasonable version of events, but it's reasonableness does not equate to actuality.

 

[Unhappy438]

This statement remains true. You have presented a reasonable version of events, but it's reasonableness does not equate to actuality.

Going in circles so im just going to finish off with this. I have no doubt my version of events doesn't equate to actuality but i firmly believe that your version of the rebels is unreasonable until you provide me with answers to the questions i have asked.

 

[Xarog]

Going in circles so im just going to finish off with this. I have no doubt my version of events doesn't equate to actuality but i firmly believe that your version of the rebels is unreasonable until you provide me with answers to the questions i have asked.

It's not "my" version of events. It is one possible version of events that was related to make the point that other alternatives are possible. All I sought to prove was that there are alternative explanations and that such alternatives are not implausible.

As another example, can you rule out the possibility that someone was trying to sabotage the peace talks alluded to here?

There are countless other scenarios which could be hiding in the picture which remains incomplete, and there's no reason to conclude that the pieces we do have are all the relevant ones.

Just because you think you see something doesn't neccessarily mean that you're not looking at an illusion someone wanted you to see. With that possibility in mind, coming off the scepticism fence and making a decision one way or another is premature.

 

[Dave]

Just because you think you see something doesn't neccessarily mean that you're not looking at an illusion someone wanted you to see. With that possibility in mind, coming off the scepticism fence and making a decision one way or another is premature.

I can't believe all this agreeing with Xarog

Just wait till I catch you in the Ukraine thread again .