The Syrian Conflict Thread

[techead]

this is all a load of codswallop. if syria attacked their own citizens with whatever weapons then whatever leave it to them to fight the good fight. it's not as if they attacked some other nation or country like hitler. other countries need not go to war for this so called cause. i don't want to see another iraq situation. USA need to keep their noses out of other countries and stop calling the shots. i've yet to hear obama and kerry state the proof that syria used these weapons. and that's my opinion and i'm sticking to it.

The best view, and identical to mine

 

[LazyLion]

this is all a load of codswallop. if syria attacked their own citizens with whatever weapons then whatever leave it to them to fight the good fight. it's not as if they attacked some other nation or country like hitler. other countries need not go to war for this so called cause. i don't want to see another iraq situation. USA need to keep their noses out of other countries and stop calling the shots. i've yet to hear obama and kerry state the proof that syria used these weapons. and that's my opinion and i'm sticking to it.

I agree with you, Celine.

 

[Fudzy]

this is all a load of codswallop. if syria attacked their own citizens with whatever weapons then whatever leave it to them to fight the good fight. it's not as if they attacked some other nation or country like hitler. other countries need not go to war for this so called cause. i don't want to see another iraq situation. USA need to keep their noses out of other countries and stop calling the shots. i've yet to hear obama and kerry state the proof that syria used these weapons. and that's my opinion and i'm sticking to it.

Agreed. There is going to be a genocide though, we almost just have to accept that it's best that no one else gets involved.

 

[Alan]

this is all a load of codswallop. if syria attacked their own citizens with whatever weapons then whatever leave it to them to fight the good fight. it's not as if they attacked some other nation or country like hitler. other countries need not go to war for this so called cause. i don't want to see another iraq situation. USA need to keep their noses out of other countries and stop calling the shots. i've yet to hear obama and kerry state the proof that syria used these weapons. and that's my opinion and i'm sticking to it.

As long as you also oppose foreign interference if the ANC ever decides to commit democide....

 

[killadoob]

As long as you also oppose foreign interference if the ANC ever decides to commit democide....

You think the US are trying to help the syrian people alan? do you honestly believe the US intervenes to help people? Odd how the gulf states are some of the most brutal dictators and guess who their buddies are? Yes the worlds police force and decider of international law.

OMW what i am seeing in this thread is giving me so much hope. More support for syria(international law) than the US. Hells yea!!!! the awakening has begun and it has infected america in a big way as well.

You guys realize though you are now considered anti west and anti american. Welcome aboard .

 

[Lightscribe]

As long as you also oppose foreign interference if the ANC ever decides to commit democide....

Yes, staying out of a country, when it's people are begging for help, is not the solution.

You think the US are trying to help the syrian people alan? do you honestly believe the US intervenes to help people? Odd how the gulf states are some of the most brutal dictators and guess who their buddies are? Yes the worlds police force and decider of international law.

People from one country, ask people from another country for help. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rebels+beg+for+help

OMW what i am seeing in this thread is giving me so much hope. More support for syria(international law) than the US. Hells yea!!!! the awakening has begun and it has infected america in a big way as well.

You guys realize though you are now considered anti west and anti american. Welcome aboard .

Sure, the world needs to take action, together, the Arab nations specifically. The USA should and probably will, remain in the background, as far as possible.

Tell us, Killa, should anyone intervene at all..?

Note what Alan said. Would you want someone to interfere here, to stop government sanctioned slaughter of any part of, or any of the people of SA whatsoever, should the anc decide to just "remove" opponents/protesters?

Happy sailing...

 

[killadoob]

Yes, staying out of a country, when it's people are begging for help, is not the solution.



People from one country, ask people from another country for help. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rebels+beg+for+help



Sure, the world needs to take action, together, the Arab nations specifically. The USA should and probably will, remain in the background, as far as possible.

Tell us, Killa, should anyone intervene at all..?

Note what Alan said. Would you want someone to interfere here, to stop government sanctioned slaughter of any part of, or any of the people of SA whatsoever, should the anc decide to just "remove" opponents/protesters?

Happy sailing...

Who would intervene?

For the moment no, i don't think anyone should intervene in syria unless it is to help assad remove the extremists on condition he steps aside once that is achieved. Backed up by russia and iran.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I'm sure Assad and Hezbollah would be glad to have so many supporters in this thread. Because that's in effect what a policy of non-intervention means.

And as Alan said, let's hope the rest of the world isn't as apathetic about us being massacred if it ever happens.

 

[Grant]

I am wondering what will happen if congress votes no.
While obama can still embark on military action without congress as commander in chief, the majority of americans are also saying no, to military action.
I doubt obama would proceed if the vote from congress were to be no given the overwhelming sentiment of his people.

The french will not go on their own , seems nor will anybody else.

The russians & chinese are against military action against their ally assad.

Will the world just watch as syria implodes ?

 

[techead]

I am wondering what will happen if congress votes no.
While obama can still embark on military action without congress as commander in chief, the majority of americans are also saying no, to military action.
I doubt obama would proceed if the vote from congress were to be no given the overwhelming sentiment of his people.

The french will not go on their own , seems nor will anybody else.

The russians & chinese are against military action against their ally assad.

Will the world just watch as syria implodes ?

It's got bogger all to do with anyone. Civil war is that... Civil war. America should mind their own bloody business

 

[killadoob]

I am wondering what will happen if congress votes no.
While obama can still embark on military action without congress as commander in chief, the majority of americans are also saying no, to military action.
I doubt obama would proceed if the vote from congress were to be no given the overwhelming sentiment of his people.

The french will not go on their own , seems nor will anybody else.

The russians & chinese are against military action against their ally assad.

Will the world just watch as syria implodes ?

The world will watch syria implode if they attack syria, the world seems perfectly had to watch a number of african countries imploding and there is actual genocide, if i saw the US even take note of one african country like darfur(sudan) i might think they care about people. They want to remove assad, then claim terrorists will get the chemical stockpiles and invade. I don't think you know what syria imploding actually means grant and it is not imploding. Not even close.

That isn't a conspiracy it is what will happen. The US strikes will kill many civilians but that will be ok grant, casualties of war right? then when extremists gets chemical weapons and slaughter people on a mass scale you will cry about those bad terrorists and want the US to go in. 2 million slaughtered christians is a hell of a lot more than 100000 dead during a civil war.

Killing more syrians in't going to change anything, replacing assad as the defender won't change anything. Do you guys want to see assad removed and do you believe america will avoid going into syria when terrorists get chemical weapons?

I have asked you guys before but give me your post assad plans please, your logic is bomb, bomb,bomb but post assad plan would be? Most US war plans consist of bomb them, then ummm errr well damn it didn't work again!!! so let's ummm errr bomb them again maybe?

They need another false flag to get this war going. The worlds corrupt police force needs to stand down!!!

 

[zippy]

Indeed that is how it appears. Actually that is how it is.





So he gets told launch chemical weapon and we will intervene, assad does it when UN inspectors are in the country? Knowing no one would believe him, knowing russia would not support him if he was found to be using the chemicals he suddenly lost his nerve and ensured he will hit hard by the US?

Not saying it isn't possible, anything is possible like war based on secret undeniable evidence but logically i don't see it. two and half years and he suddenly loses his nerve as inspectors arrive? he had two and a half years to gas on a mass scale if he wanted but he chose to do when UN inspectors could collect information?

In no way am i ruling it out but it makes no sense to me, you have to have to sense if you can fight two and half years fairly easily, rebels were killing and fighting each other, kurds were going after al nusra for the slaughter of 450 innocent kurdish people. So assad had everything going in his favour, rebels fighting each other, kurds fighting al nusra, showing the world he was right from the beginning. Then he does the one thing that would tilt the war against him? Why does the article seem to indicate the attack would enhance his position when there was no red line for the rebels? Take the iunfo to putin i am telling you now he will back assads removal if it's proven true. Why would he think the one thing that would ensure his defeat would enhance his position?

The US, the Isreali's, the French, and now the Germans all have intel that the Syrian govt did it. But still you and your Russian friends say the evidence is insufficient. But you will believe any gossip about Americans.

 

[Tun@]

The US, the Isreali's, the French, and now the Germans all have intel that the Syrian govt did it. But still you and your Russian friends say the evidence is insufficient. But you will believe any gossip about Americans.

Gas pipeline to Europe thru Syria that Assad rejects - If they get rid of Assad & replace him with someone that will agree to it then Turkey wins/France wins/Germany wins,you'll also recall Israel finding gas reserves off its coast not so long ago so also a win there giving them something to tee into for sales to Europe if they can get it happening.
Germany isn't getting into this cos they have elections otherwise they'd also be in the choir.
Top points to the UK Parliament for stopping Cameron in his tracks or he'd be right in there also.

& lets remember this isn't just a simple civil war, there are external forces feeding one side.

From Qatar - thru Iraq or Syria & the Saudi's won't agree to thru Iraq so what's the next plan & why have they been feeding so much into this conflict (with the West turning a blind eye to it) & now willing to pay the US to do mercenary work for them ? - Bad man Assad or geopolitics,i kind of think the latter.

 

[obs]

So when is Israel gonna be teached a lesson, surgically attacked, democratized etc. for that
White Phosphorus attack of 2008 - 2009 against Palestinian Civilians ?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

It's got bogger all to do with anyone. Civil war is that... Civil war. America should mind their own bloody business

Assad clearly doesn't think so, since he asked Hezbollah to help him. They aren't Syrian. The rebels also have large numbers of foreigners taking part.

And I bet you think the Rwandan genocide was just peachy. Got nothing to do with anyone else, right? Screw the million people that were butchered. They should sort out their own problems.

 

[Lightscribe]

Who would intervene?

As I said: Sure, the world needs to take action, together, the Arab nations specifically. The USA should and probably will, remain in the background, as far as possible.

For the moment no, i don't think anyone should intervene in syria unless it is to help assad remove the extremists on condition he steps aside once that is achieved. Backed up by russia and iran.

Assad will not willingly step aside. His family considers Syria theirs. Russia and Iran also have credibility issues.

Post assad, as you keep asking us opinions on, I see eternal strife between the various groups, sects, tribes and whatever "rifts", that are in the way of peace in the region. There never was lasting peace there and I doubt there ever will be. The goal then should be, as I've mentioned, to draw in radicals from elsewhere, to wage war there, rather than elsewhere. This war, well handled, can chew up a great many radicals.

Step1: Kick out assad.

Step2: New government and Syrian people return.

Step3: "Stability" as in Iraq. High turnover of radicals.

 

[Alan]

WASHINGTON — THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven’t heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don’t expect one.

Compare this lack of transparency with the administration’s treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress. (I know this, because I read them all.) Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide.

Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn’t trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq.

But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: “Trust, but verify.”

The danger of the administration’s approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”

The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, “it was clear that ‘the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.’ ”

I don’t know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public.

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.

My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html?src=mb

 

[Alan]

So much for the promise of the most transparent administration....

John Kerry was making his “beyond a reasonable doubt” case against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday when he gave lawmakers a bit of faulty intelligence.

“Just today, before coming in here, I read an e-mail to me about a general, the minister of defense, former minister or assistant minister, I forget which, who has just defected and is now in Turkey,” the secretary of state testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “And there are other defections that we are hearing about because of the potential that we might take action.”


A few minutes later, Kerry revised his account: This official-sounding “e-mail” was actually a Reuters news account about a former defense minister based on a claim by the Syrian opposition. “Reuters has now said the Syrian government is saying the defection has not taken place,” Kerry said. “So who knows whether it has or hasn’t?”

Who knows?

This is the problem with the case the Obama administration is making for attacking Syria.

Officials say the evidence is incontrovertible that Assad used sarin gas against his people. Lawmakers emerging from secret, classified briefings seem to agree. But while members of Congress are coming around to an attack on Syria, the American public remains skeptical. Why? Maybe it’s because the government won’t let them in on the secret.

The public heard about another “slam dunk” case a decade ago and, then as now, Democratic and Republican lawmakers agreed that the secret evidence was compelling. And it turned out to be wrong. Now, administration officials are telling Americans to trust their assurances that the secret evidence is convincing and that their war planning is solid. But they won’t provide details.

Estimates of collateral damage? “Lower than a certain number which I would rather share with you in a classified setting,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey told lawmakers.

Response of the Arab and Muslim countries? “This is something I’d be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session,” Kerry said.

Safeguards to keep military action limited? “We can talk about that in a closed session,” Dempsey said.

How would Russia and other Syrian allies respond to a U.S. strike? “We all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session,” Kerry said.

No, we don’t all agree.

The administration’s case against Assad may well be airtight. Walter Pincus, The Post’s longtime intelligence correspondent, tells me he hasn’t heard the sort of doubts from the intelligence community that he heard during the run-up to the Iraq war. The problem is that the refusal to declassify evidence helps opponents such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin cast doubt on the intelligence. The administration is hiding behind the protection of “sources and methods,” but is any foe still unaware of the National Security Agency’s satellite and intercept capabilities?

Pincus argues for releasing the intercepts that describe the Syrian regime using the weapons and then ending the barrage, and the satellite imagery showing preparations for an attack and the firing of rockets from Assad-controlled territory. But instead of declassifying, administration officials are being ostentatious about their secrecy, as if protecting their club’s secret handshake.

“TOP SECRET/CLOSED,” said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s notice for Wednesday’s hearing. “CLOSED,” said the Senate Armed Services Committee’s notice. In “open” testimony Tuesday and Wednesday, the officials encouraged lawmakers to save their questions for secret sessions.

Arming the Syrian opposition? That “would require a closed or classified hearing.” The broad effects of the military strike? “I would prefer to speak out in a classified setting.” Could Hezbollah have chemical weapons? “We need to talk about that in our classified session.” Would allies join an attack? It “would not be appropriate to speak about in an unclassified setting.” Could an attack make Assad use chemical weapons again? “I urge you to go to the classified briefing.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, Kerry said that “beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence proves that the Assad regime prepared this attack.” He then dangled this: “In an appropriate setting, you will learn additional evidence which came to us even today.”

But isn’t it “appropriate” for the American public to see some hard evidence? During Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked for the administration to “declassify a higher percentage of the information that we have so the American people and the international community can see it.”

Kerry said that the amount declassified is “unprecedented” and that what’s out there now is “sufficient.”

He may think so. But it’s not sufficient until the American public believes it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html

 

[Tun@]

Another read here as well if you haven't read it already Alan

The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in 12 locations mostly east of the capital, an estimate close to the one put out by the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition. When asked for victims' names, however, the group provided a list of 395. On that list, some of the victims were identified by a first name only or said to be members of a certain family. There was no explanation for the hundreds of missing names.

In Ghouta, Majed Abu Ali, a spokesman for 17 clinics and field hospitals near Damascus, produced the same list, saying the hospitals were unable to identify all the dead.

Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower: The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says it only counts victims identified by name, and that its current total stands at 502. It has questioned the U.S. number and urged the Obama administration to release the information its figure is based on. The AP also has repeatedly asked for clarification on those numbers.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders says it has not been able to update its initial Aug. 24 estimate of 355 killed because communication with those on the ground around Damascus is difficult. That estimate was based on reports from three hospitals in the area supported by the group.

Moreover, the group, whose initial report was cited in U.S. and British intelligence assessments, has rejected the use of it "as a justification for military action," adding in a disclaimer published on its website that the group does not have the capacity to identify the cause of the neurotoxic symptoms of patients nor the ability to determine responsibility for the attack.

French and Israeli intelligence assessments support the U.S., as does reportedly Germany's spy agency, on its conclusion the Syrian regime was responsible. However, none have backed those claims with publicly presented evidence either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/08/syria-chemical-attack-evidence_n_3890120.html

 

[DreamKing]

The Rwandan Genocide was a genocidal mass slaughter of the Tutsis by the Hutus that took place in 1994 in the East African state of Rwanda. It is considered the most organized genocide of the 20th century.[2] Over the course of approximately 100 days (from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on April 6 through mid-July) over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate.[3] Estimates of the death toll have ranged from 500,000–1,000,000,[1] or as much as 20% of the country's total population.

where is US?

There were no U.S. troops officially in Rwanda at the onset of the genocide.

why? anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide