The War In Syria

[davidg]

USAF seemed to be providing a lot of support to the SAA in Palmyra and is now doing so in Deer ez Zor. So what they say in the UN and what they do on the ground appear to be different things.

[Errol]

This would be a good thing. Ideally, we want to see the US and Russia working closely together to completely destroy ISIS. Absolutely no reason why they can't cooperate on this simple issue.

[davidg]

On 03/03/2017 at 5:12 PM, Errol said:

This would be a good thing. Ideally, we want to see the US and Russia working closely together to completely destroy ISIS. Absolutely no reason why they can't cooperate on this simple issue.

I see the US has now back pedaled after tweeting that they destroyed an ISIS tank in support of their SAA partners. They retweeted without the SAA part.

[Errol]

Russia’s General Staff blasts US-led coalition for destroying Syrian infrastructure

The US-led international coalition is destroying critically important infrastructure facilities in Syria, complicating the country’s postwar rebuilding, Head of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operations Department Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy said on Tuesday.

"We continue observing the international coalition’s actions on the territory of Iraq and Syria. An impression is being created that the international coalition has set the goal of fully destroying critically important infrastructure facilities on the territory of Syria and maximally complicating the country’s postwar reconstruction," the general said.

http://tass.com/defense/937892
 

[Errol]

Washington Makes 'Very Significant' Decision to Abandon Regime Change in Syria

America's top diplomats, including US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, have indicated that Washington no longer wants Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign. 

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201703311052164891-washington-regime-change-syria/

[Stay Beautiful]

That's very noble of them.

Personally i would have liked that decision to of been made several years ago as it would have cut down the number of dead bodies that have littered Syria since.

[Pieman Pieface]

On 3/31/2017 at 5:48 PM, Stay Beautiful said:

That's very noble of them.

Personally i would have liked that decision to of been made several years ago as it would have cut down the number of dead bodies that have littered Syria since.

Your right, they should have sided with the brutal genocidal dictator straight away. Then at least we'd be able to complain about that as well.

[Pieman Pieface]

Assad uses a bit more of his chemical weapons.. Russians turn a blind eye:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-chemical-attack-idlib-province

Russians claiming it was a hit on an ISIS warehouse, something thats been roundly dismissed:

 

Quote

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hamish de Bretton Gordon, director of Doctors Under Fire and former commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said this claim was “completely untrue”.

“No I think this [claim] is pretty fanciful, no doubt the Russians trying to protect their allies,” he said. “Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it.”

“It’s very clear it’s a sarin attack,” he added. “The view that it’s an al-Qaida or rebel stockpile of sarin that’s been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue.”

 

[knock out johnny]

US going in.

Trump buttering up the population with "little babies. The littelest babbiest babies dying in the most dieingest deadly bigly dead way" speech

A bit like the Gettysburg Address, except this one is for simpletons - and it's sh1t

Edited April 5, 2017 by knock out johnny

[Errol]

The Saker weighs in on recent events:

 

The Trump administration goes Neocon-crazy

First, let’s set the context.  The Syrians gave up their chemical weapons three years ago (courtesy of Russia).  The Syrians have also pretty much defeated the Anglo-Zionist-Wahabi aggression against their country (courtesy of Russia, again). There is a new (kind of) US Administration in power (some say that this was also courtesy of Russia) which appeared to have given up on overthrowing Assad.  And right at this moment in time, in what is supposed to be a *pure coincidence*.

The Syrian forces used chemical weapons

In a location filled with children

and a lot of folks with cameras

How stupid do they think we are?

http://thesaker.is/the-trump-administration-goes-neocon-crazy/

[Pieman Pieface]

Lol. What a paranoid nonsense article. 

Lets all just forget that Russia has essentially supported a genocidal dictator in killing his own citizens and instead push the blame back on the US. Typical 

[ccc]

I'm completely confused by the entire Syria situation. So many conflicting views and stories. 

[Maynardgravy]

You'd have to be mildly insane to believe this is nothing other than a false flag. Assad is no angel, but he's not stupid. You're winning the war against ISIS and people are waking up to the fact that there is a western agenda against the Syrian 'regime'. So what do you do? Drop a load of gas on civilians.

Do me a favour.

Another war courtesy of the 'free world'.

[Maynardgravy]

16 hours ago, Pieman Pieface said:

Lol. What a paranoid nonsense article. 

Lets all just forget that Russia has essentially supported a genocidal dictator in killing his own citizens and instead push the blame back on the US. Typical 

For a minute I thought you were referencing Sadam's relationship with the US.

[Riedquat]

47 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

You'd have to be mildly insane to believe this is nothing other than a false flag. Assad is no angel, but he's not stupid. You're winning the war against ISIS and people are waking up to the fact that there is a western agenda against the Syrian 'regime'. So what do you do? Drop a load of gas on civilians.

Do me a favour.

Another war courtesy of the 'free world'.

No, he's not stupid. He knows he can do what the he feels like and enough people will go around calling it a false flag. At any rate I don't find his explanation of it more convincing.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Riedquat

[Errol]

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

At any rate I don't find his explanation of it more convincing.

Both Russia and the Chinese were calling for a full investigation of the incident. This is the rational response. 

Launching an attack against a sovereign country on the basis of no evidence whatsoever is not rational and makes America look little better than a rogue state.

And given that the incident in 2013 was later proved to be a terrorist/rebel false flag attempt, I would need some convincing that Assad had anything to do with it. Certainly the investigation would have to have no involvement of any Western power. Perhaps one of the relatively neutral Asian countries could do it?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Errol

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, Errol said:

Both Russia and the Chinese were calling for a full investigation of the incident. This is the rational response. 

Launching an attack against a sovereign country on the basis of no evidence whatsoever is not rational and makes America look little better than a rogue state.

Oh I agree with you there, it needs more thorough checking, a sudden military response designed to achieve who quite knows what beyond a smack for being naughty, with apparently no thought given to the consequences isn't the answer. I'm just saying that whilst it seems unlikely that Assad would risk using chemical weapons (not really that much to gain under the circumstances) the alternative explanations sound more far-fetched. False flags happen from time to time but not as often as some people claim (they're incredibly risky because they can really come back to bite you on the ****), and the "hit a landmine factory" story sounded completely absurd. The only reason it's a bit muddled at all is because we're dealing with two sides who'd both happily use chemical weapons if they felt they could get away with it. Assad might have more to lose by doing so but how convincing is it that the others have much in the way of ability to?

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'm just saying that whilst it seems unlikely that Assad would risk using chemical weapons

Remember that his country has been in a brutal civil war for years without anyone winning.  If he has weaponry at his disposal, why wouldn't he use it, especially as the US did nothing last time?

[Errol]

Interestingly, either the American equipment doesn't work very well or something went wrong (or Russian jamming?):

 

US missile strike on Syria airfield was ‘low efficiency’ 

The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added.

https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/

[Errol]

28 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Remember that his country has been in a brutal civil war for years without anyone winning.  If he has weaponry at his disposal, why wouldn't he use it, especially as the US did nothing last time?

The obvious answer is that he has the Russian airforce on tap. Why couldn't he just ring them up?

Given what we know about the crazed terrorists in the area, I think it highly likely that they waited until Syria/Russia planes were in the area (and possibly bombing with conventional weapons) and then set off the gas attack to coincide with the airstrike.

Trivially easy to do, really. You could use an IED, a mortar etc.

Either that or the airstrike hit the chemical weapons facility which is known to be in the hills in the area. The Russians have noted that the entire hilly area is riddled with caves/catacombs etc which are used for weapons storage and other terrorist activities.

Either way, an investigation was needed. Not a ludicrous response which just makes America look insane.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Errol

[thecrashingisles]

10 minutes ago, Errol said:

The obvious answer is that he has the Russian airforce on tap. Why couldn't he just ring them up?

You think that's the way it works?  Assad is the client, not the puppeteer.

[Riedquat]

42 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Remember that his country has been in a brutal civil war for years without anyone winning.  If he has weaponry at his disposal, why wouldn't he use it, especially as the US did nothing last time?

From a winning-the-war point of view does it achieve that much, enough to be worth the condemnation and hardening of attitudes against him? From the "who has the least to lose?" point of view it makes more sense that it wasn't him, it's just the rest of it being someone else that's far-fetched. Not that that appears to be the reasoning behind some posters, which is entirely down to "if Russia likes it it's good and true, if the USA likes it it's bad and a lie", and all facts must be made to fit that assumption.

[thecrashingisles]

32 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

From a winning-the-war point of view does it achieve that much, enough to be worth the condemnation and hardening of attitudes against him?

That's an easy question to ask when you're thousands of miles away and not in the bubble of paranoia that exists in the centre of a brutal war.

[Riedquat]

7 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's an easy question to ask when you're thousands of miles away and not in the bubble of paranoia that exists in the centre of a brutal war.

Sure, but it is a valid one, and an even more important one when you're the one fighting it.

[Errol]

My point, and the point made by the Russians/Chinese (including in the 2013 incident) is that if the US has any evidence they should present it in the correct manner in the appropriate forum i.e. the UN Security Council or closed meetings related to it.

Thus far not one single shred of evidence has been presented to anyone indicating that Assad or anyone else is responsible. The Americans screaming 'Assad did it', is not evidence. In the 2013 incident, again no evidence was presented despite Putin asking directly to see it.

The UN should have passed a resolution not pointing fingers, allowing for an independent investigation carried out by neutral nations (not Russian or Western) to determine facts and collect evidence.

The only conclusion one can draw for the Americans not showing anyone any evidence is that they don't have any actual evidence in their possession.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Errol