Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Also, they are now expected to produce "irrefutable" proof...

GOOD...because they're damn well supposed to.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

GOOD...because they're damn well supposed to.

Nope "they" aren't. Only in specific circumstances.

Intl. military intervention took place in Libya based on a lot less than the aggregate evidence against Assad. Intervention in Syria has been justified many times over (however it was never going to happen due to political, geographical, historical, military reasons, Russian support for Assad, etc)

Likewise military intervention took place in Ivory Coast based on less "evidence" - literally just on the assumption of what would happen in the future

They don't have to "present evidence" in CAR - the French are just going in

Same in Mali

For punitive strikes on Assad at that stage in the conflict, they obviously needed "stronger" evidence, e.g. releasing transcripts, releasing full information. That's why the "red line" statement was stupid because it presented a "no way out" clause when chemical weapons were actually used - many more men, women and children are killed by sniper fire, incendiaries and artillery than chemical weapons - it's a bit of a grim side-show really

Anyway there's not much of a Syria left to "save" - in a Machevelian way most heads of state now realise this, just provide aid to UNHCR, partake in meaningless peace talks and wait for regime loyalists and increasing Islamist factions tear each other to pieces over the next few years in unwinnable conflict

Jonny7

Manufacturing hundreds of litres of Sarin in total secrecy leaving no trace and transporting it into the world's most dangerous warzone is "not hard" apparently

On top of that it's a process that has been "mastered" by one of the most extreme jihadist groups in Syria

I like how Hersh's allegations are entertained with considerably less skepticism

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope "they" aren't. Only in specific circumstances.

Balls.

When you want to bomb another country, you better have a good reason. Otherwise you're no better than the tinpot dictators you previously supported.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Manufacturing hundreds of litres of Sarin in total secrecy leaving no trace and transporting it into the world's most dangerous warzone is "not hard" apparently

On top of that it's a process that has been "mastered" by one of the most extreme jihadist groups in Syria

I like how Hersh's allegations are entertained with considerably less skepticism

Whose to say it wasn't captured stock? And a rough sarin mix can be made from a couple of ingredients. It most definitely not beyond the capabilities of the opposition groups in the area. As has been said before in this thread, a group of wackos in Tokyo managed to produce a form of sarin and carry out an attack in a subway. This idea that ONLY the Syrian army can do this and operate certain equipment is mind-bogglingly stupid and it's a notion that only the most naive, simplistic or just out unintelligent minds would cling to.

In a war zone (especially one that's as chaotic as Syria has been), both sides will end up using captured stock. It's inevitable and has been the case in every war. Into the bargain, nobody knows exactly what munitions the disparate groups in the opposition forces have been using, but it is known that they've been operating Syrian Army weaponry since day one of the conflict. In addition, there are so many Jihadist groups thrown into the mix that have been supported by outside actors, and their munition base is completely unaccounted for.

The problem with your side of the fence, is that you simply have a closed mind on the subject and it's closed without warrant. You're satisfied with the little amount you have because you want it to be a certain way.

You have the minimal amount of "evidence" which doesn't add up to shit and that's fine for a basis for your belief.

The problem is, is that the desire for something is overriding any attempt at critical thought.

I'm done with this, as there's been nothing else added to the conversation since it broke. We're still at square one. There's nothing conclusive and certainly nothing to warrant a fixed position on the matter.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Balls.

To what? I am addressing several arguments - I think you are grossly missing my point here

Eggy Baby!

I would not be surprised to see the Syrian Arab Army fight alongside the Free Syrian Army to combat the Islamist threat within six months time. There is a growing realization that the 'revolution' is over, and that the Free Syrian Army does not have the capability to topple Assad and defeat the Islamist extremists. Desertion rates amongst moderate rebels are soaring.

It would be interesting to see if the more moderate rebels switch sides against their more radical brothers in order to get amnesty for themselves from Assad.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Only if you want that way.

And you're showing your ignorance again.

They aren't "Large rocket projectiles". They were mainly 5.5in light/medium ordnance. They can be fired from the back of a truck.

Plus, if elements of the rebel groups have the chemicals to make sarin, as Hersh alleges (and it isn't that hard), they could have easily added it to captured Army stock (which they utilise all the time), driven out to a particular spot and fired them off.

Anybody with a little enterprise, could have done it.

You were saying about ignorance?

The discovered projectiles were both 140mm and 330mm based, but with far larger diameter warheads - capable of holding 60 kilos or about 50 litres of sarin. They can, and are launched from the back of trucks, but they're certainly 'large rocket projectiles'.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kllhsgFrgN0&list=PLPC0Udeof3T7lO_O1s4yjXvFyvWrt4h6G

The volume of sarin used in the attack is well beyond the capability of the rebels to produce - as outlined in the Dan Kaszeta (WMD expert) article linked earlier:

Mr. Hersh seems unaware of just how hard accumulating a ton of sarin might be. It can’t be summarily waved away as he does by saying (I paraphrase) that “Nusra has a guy who knows how to do it.” A ton of sarin is no easy undertaking for anyone to manufacture, regardless of expertise or access to precursors. Sarin manufacture, as I pointed out in various places, is complex and can’t be done in a kitchen or bathtub, and certainly not in the quantities needed for the 8/21 attack. To put it into proper perspective, in 1994-1995 the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan built a purpose-built facility, spent many millions, and had a number of chemists and engineers. (Amy Smithson describes the Aum operation quite well in her book, “Ataxi.”) But the best that Aum could do, despite mastering the mechanics of the process, was to produce bucket-sized quantities. To produce at the scale required for the 8/21 attack, a large, sophisticated, and very expensive factory-scale facility is needed. By hinting that Nusra performed the attack, he implies the presence of such a factory somewhere. Where is it? Sarin doesn’t get conjured up out of nothing

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Whose to say it wasn't captured stock? And a rough sarin mix can be made from a couple of ingredients. It most definitely not beyond the capabilities of the opposition groups in the area. As has been said before in this thread, a group of wackos in Tokyo managed to produce a form of sarin and carry out an attack in a subway. This idea that ONLY the Syrian army can do this and operate certain equipment is mind-bogglingly stupid and it's a notion that only the most naive, simplistic or just out unintelligent minds would cling to.

Absolutely possible but no evidence. Saudi and Qatar have pumped billions into arming the ISIS groups, we could speculate all day.

There's a gulf of difference between what we know and what we can speculate

If we knew Al Nusra had Sarin in Syria, in those quantities, had the launchers and delivery methods, communications were intercepted from their members, and the trajectory showed it being fired from a suspected rebel position - then that would change the scenario entirely, I know this, you know this

However to remain consistent - you'd have to dismiss all that - which is a ridiculous position to have

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Whose to say it wasn't captured stock? And a rough sarin mix can be made from a couple of ingredients. It most definitely not beyond the capabilities of the opposition groups in the area. As has been said before in this thread, a group of wackos in Tokyo managed to produce a form of sarin and carry out an attack in a subway.

Again:

To put it into proper perspective, in 1994-1995 the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan built a purpose-built facility, spent many millions, and had a number of chemists and engineers. (Amy Smithson describes the Aum operation quite well in her book, “Ataxi.”) But the best that Aum could do, despite mastering the mechanics of the process, was to produce bucket-sized quantities.

The only way that the rebels could have sourced sarin of the volumes used, was by stealing it from the other source, known to have chemical weapons manufacturing facilities in the area. And there's no evidence whatsoever that this happened. There is ample evidence, however, of Assad's forces having ready access to the self same source.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

You were saying about ignorance?

The discovered projectiles were both 140mm and 330mm based, but with far larger diameter warheads - capable of holding 60 kilos or about 50 litres of sarin. They can, and are launched from the back of trucks, but they're certainly 'large rocket projectiles'.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kllhsgFrgN0&list=PLPC0Udeof3T7lO_O1s4yjXvFyvWrt4h6G

The volume of sarin used in the attack is well beyond the capability of the rebels to produce - as outlined in the Dan Kaszeta (WMD expert) article linked earlier:

There was nothing that size reported by the UN.

Have you even read the report.

Something that size would have been found easilly.

What was found were two remains of rockets of small/medium ordnance and of Russian design.



"The ordnance identified had the following characteristics:

Color: Light Gray Painting
Markings:

1.Black numbers on the outside: 97-179
2. Engravings on the bottom ring of the engine (some cyrillic characters which I don't have a font for) III 4 25 - 6 7 - 179 K

Dimensions:
Length ~ 630mm
Width ~140mm

The engine had 10 jet nozzles ordered in a circle at the end of the rocket with a metal electrical contact plate in the middle.

Limitations:
The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well traveled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team."

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

It would be interesting to see if the more moderate rebels switch sides against their more radical brothers in order to get amnesty for themselves from Assad.

They have been switching since last year in large numbers, the main reason: the Islamists and Levant are simply better armed

Also, the FSA and Islamic factions have already been embroiled in violence between themselves already. The ISIS is now huge, recently they have agreed to fight under an umbrella and consists of over 1000 Islamic groups (with hundreds of European fighters) - their specific aim is to overthrow Assad and replace with Islamic state - something which has always been a general goal - but now is more concrete

FSA commanders have commented they have no intention of living in a religious prison and have predicted that if they win the second fight will take place between moderate rebels and the Islamists

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's a gulf of difference between what we know and what we can speculate

We don't KNOW anything, other than the fact that sarin was used in rocket projectiles.

That's it.

Jonny7

alastair wrote: »

The only way that the rebels could have sourced sarin of the volumes used, was by stealing it from the other source, known to have chemical weapons manufacturing facilities in the area. And there's no evidence whatsoever that this happened. There is ample evidence, however, of Assad's forces having ready access to the self same source.

If any of the Syrian chemical stockpiles were to fall into rebel hands I am very sure we'd immediately hear about it from Syrian state media (for fear of false flag attack)

Also the Israelis are paranoid of one of these groups using the chaos next door to launch an attack on Israel - they've already struck at a movement of chemical weapons

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

There was nothing that size reported by the UN.

Have you even read the report.

Something that size would have been found easilly.

What was found were two remains of rockets of small/medium ordnance and of Russian design.

The (much larger diameter) warhead is made of a thin wall of metal, and shatters on impact - the core Russian shell is modified to allow for a much greater payload - chemical in this case.

In the Moadamiya suburb, inspectors found the remains of several Russian-made 140mm rockets, many of them bearing identification plates and engravings in the Cyrillic script, according to the U.N. report. It said the larger, 330mm rockets were found in Zamalka and Ein Tarma, two southeastern neighborhoods that recorded the highest numbers of casualties.

The report included photographs and drawings of the 330mm rockets’ barrel-shaped warhead, which it described as being about 14 inches wide and 30 inches long. At those dimensions, the weapon’s carrying capacity would have been about 120 pounds of liquid sarin, the report said.

Environmental samples from the rocket remnants and surrounding soil tested positive for sarin, the report said.

Researchers who have studied the weapons used during the Syrian conflict confirmed that the 330mm rockets have been used rarely, and always by government forces. Human Rights Watch’s weapons experts described the rocket as crude but effective, with a non-aerodynamic design that make it unsuitable for longer-range attacks.

Try looking on page 21 of the report. It'll show you the same rocket.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't KNOW anything, other than the fact that sarin was used in rocket projectiles.

That's it.

Aside from the type of rocket used, the type of launcher required, who is known to have both, the trajectory and the azimuth of the projectiles, and the known local source for the volumes of sarin required. No - nothing at all.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

There was nothing that size reported by the UN.

Have you even read the report.

Something that size would have been found easilly.

What was found were two remains of rockets of small/medium ordnance and of Russian design.

From the report:

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

The (much larger diameter) warhead is made of a thin wall of metal, and shatters on impact - the core Russian shell is modified to allow for a much greater payload - chemical in this case.



Try looking on page 21 of the report. It'll show you the same rocket.

These are still medium sized ordnance. Fired easily from the back of a vehicle and certainly not limited to use by any one side.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

Aside from the type of rocket used, the type of launcher required, who is known to have both, the trajectory and the azimuth of the projectiles, and the known local source for the volumes of sarin required. No - nothing at all.

But not who fired them.

Not a solid basis for any conclusion.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

These are still medium sized ordnance. Fired easily from the back of a vehicle and certainly not limited to use by any one side.

You've evidence of the rebels ever having access to or using those Volcano launchers? The fact that they are launched from the back of a lorry, isn't really meaningful. I'm sure something larger requires a battleship to fire, but these are large rocket projectiles by any reasonable interpretation.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

But not who fired them.

Not a solid basis for any conclusion.

Neither is it true that "We don't KNOW anything, other than the fact that sarin was used in rocket projectiles."

With the evidence available, you'd have to have some serious bias not to determine, with a high probability, who's responsible for this.

Tony EH

Larger ordnance would generally require specially made vehicles. Vehicles that could still be captured and made use of by any side in a war, it has to be said.

However, the types that were reported by the UN could be fired even from makeshift vehicles and the small ordnance can be fired from towed "barrel" weaponry.

None of which restricts its use by either side.

It remains entirely possible that the opposition forces got hold of Syrian Army weaponry and/or vehicles and staged the attack in an effort to invoke Obama's "red line".

They certainly had the upper hand in motive, that's for sure.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Larger ordnance would generally require specially made vehicles. Vehicles that could still be captured and made use of by any side in a war, it has to be said.

However, the types that were reported by the UN could be fired even from makeshift vehicles and the small ordnance can be fired from towed "barrel" weaponry.

None of which restricts its use by either side.

It remains entirely possible that the opposition forces got hold of Syrian Army weaponry and/or vehicles and staged the attack in an effort to invoke Obama's "red line".

They certainly had the upper hand in motive, that's for sure.

That's not sure at all. In fact, it's entirely unlikely as a scenario.

I take it you've no evidence of rebel acquisition or use of volcano launchers then? You'd just rather imagine this is a more likely scenario than those forces we know hold and use them, using them in this situation? Just as you'd like to imagine that the rebels stole large volumes of sarin from Assad's weapons labs, and no-one thought to mention it at any time? Plausibility simply plays no role in your argument.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

That's not sure at all. In fact, it's entirely unlikely as a scenario.

What's more unlikely is that Assad ordered a chemical attack after Obama's "red line" oratory. It's makes absolutely zero sense for him to do so and risk American involvement. Something the Syrians absolutely do not want in any shape or form. It simply makes no sense for Assad to order that type of attack, especially when his forces were in the ascendancy at the time.

alastair wrote: »

I take it you've no evidence of rebel acquisition or use of volcano launchers then? You'd just rather imagine this is a more likely scenario...

I'm not saying that anything is more likely. We have no solid information to make ANY conclusion. That's the point.

Adherence to one narrative in this situation is born only out of a wishful desire, not any kind of proof.

It may well turn out to be that Assad's forces, or elements therein did, in fact, launch the rockets. But without solid proof of such a thing, there remains other possibilities.

There is nothing written in stone yet.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

What's more unlikely is that Assad ordered a chemical attack after Obama's "red line" oratory. It's makes absolutely zero sense for him to do so and risk American involvement. Something the Syrians absolutely do not want in any shape or form. It simply makes no sense for Assad to order that type of attack, especially when his forces were in the ascendancy at the time.

No-one is going to win this war - it's too far gone at this stage, so talk of who was/is in the ascendancy is academic. Assad can't win this war. As to the whole red line business - well that's been proven to have been rather overstated. Assad may well have decided to call the west's bluff in order to firm up Russian support. Why would rebel forces risk exposing themselves to condemnation from their own supporters, if caught in attempting any such subterfuge? It makes little sense.

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not saying that anything is more likely. We have no solid information to make ANY conclusion. That's the point.

Adherence to one narrative in this situation is born only out of a wishful desire, not any kind of proof.

The only narrative I'm interested in, is the one that the evidence points to - a straightforward probability that Assad's forces are responsible. I couldn't care less about anything else - so spare me your 'wishful thinking' guff - I'm not the one proposing convoluted scenarios here - that's the domain of the conspiracy theorists.

Tony EH wrote: »

It may well turn out to be that Assad's forces, or elements therein did, in fact, launch the rockets. But without solid proof of such a thing, there remains other possibilities.

There is nothing written in stone yet.

There may well never be, and until then, you have to lean on the weight of the evidence.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

No-one is going to win this war - it's too far gone at this stage, so talk of who was/is in the ascendancy is academic. Assad can't win this war. As to the whole red line business - well that's been proven to have been rather overstated. Assad may well have decided to call the west's bluff in order to firm up Russian support. Why would rebel forces risk exposing themselves to condemnation from their own supporters, if caught in attempting any such subterfuge? It makes little sense.

Oh please...we're talking about Al Qaeda affiliated Jihadist groups.

Like they give a tinkers cuss what others think. There's already been numerous reports of extremely unsavory actions by them, including allegations of previous chemical weapons use.

These are people of the same ideology that slammed a couple of planes into the WTC.

I'm sure they're terribly worried about what the rest of the world thinks.

alastair wrote: »

The only narrative I'm interested in...

...is the one you want to believe.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh please...we're talking about Al Qaeda affiliated Jihadist groups.

Like they give a tinkers cuss what others think. There's already been numerous reports of extremely unsavory actions by them, including allegations of previous chemical weapons use.

These are people of the same ideology that slammed a couple of planes into the WTC.

I'm sure they're terribly worried about what the rest of the world thinks.

I never said they were. Do try to pay attention:

Why would rebel forces risk exposing themselves to condemnation from their own supporters, if caught in attempting any such subterfuge?

Tony EH wrote: »

...is the one you want to believe.

That's not my game.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

I never said they were. Do try to pay attention:.

The same applies.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

The same applies.

I'm sure you had something in mind here, but I'm at a loss.

moneymad

The premise for this were Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons which numbered third largest in the world.
Now that's taken care of. The end.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

No-one is going to win this war - it's too far gone at this stage, so talk of who was/is in the ascendancy is academic. Assad can't win this war. As to the whole red line business - well that's been proven to have been rather overstated. Assad may well have decided to call the west's bluff in order to firm up Russian support. Why would rebel forces risk exposing themselves to condemnation from their own supporters, if caught in attempting any such subterfuge? It makes little sense.




The only narrative I'm interested in, is the one that the evidence points to - a straightforward probability that Assad's forces are responsible. I couldn't care less about anything else - so spare me your 'wishful thinking' guff - I'm not the one proposing convoluted scenarios here - that's the domain of the conspiracy theorists.



There may well never be, and until then, you have to lean on the weight of the evidence.

Because their sectarian, obscurantist cannibals who don't care about support & want to impose "sharia law" with an iron fist. These people cut right of the same cloth as the people the US is fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan, yet their ready to back them up in Syria? It's a new definition of the word madness.

IF these people get into power in Syria they'll make the old dictators brutal regime look like a pick nick & make the whole region the most unstable it's been for years - and that's saying something.

Jonny7

tdv123 wrote: »

Because their sectarian, obscurantist cannibals who don't care about support & want to impose "sharia law" with an iron fist. These people cut right of the same cloth as the people the US is fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan, yet their ready to back them up in Syria? It's a new definition of the word madness.

The US and EU are (well were) supporting the FSA who are moderate opposition. They don't support the more extreme groups.

AlekSmart

moneymad wrote: »

The premise for this were Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons which numbered third largest in the world.
Now that's taken care of. The end.

I just wonder if it's time to retitle this thread ?

tdv123

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US and EU are (well were) supporting the FSA who are moderate opposition. They don't support the more extreme groups.

Have they been doing anything to get a ceasefire?

Jonny7

tdv123 wrote: »

Have they been doing anything to get a ceasefire?

The US and EU (mainly France, Germany, UK) in conjunction with the UN and Arab league have been trying to resolve the conflict since it began almost 3 years ago.

tdv123

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US and EU (mainly France, Germany, UK) in conjunction with the UN and Arab league have been trying to resolve the conflict since it began almost 3 years ago.

Would FSA agree to one tho? Even if they did how would they get nutters like Al-Nusra front to agree to one?

Jonny7

tdv123 wrote: »

Would FSA agree to one tho? Even if they did how would they get nutters like Al-Nusra front to agree to one?

There have been several ceasefires, however all sides break ceasefires, and they are temporary - they don't present a solution to the crisis, only as a means to rearm/reorganise or allow trapped residents to escape certain areas

Tea drinker

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US and EU are (well were) supporting the FSA who are moderate opposition. They don't support the more extreme groups.

No, they were supporting the removal of the Assad regime. That Syria would be crippled by this is a bonus. With the ethnic and religious make up of Syria a moderate (which Assad is in regional terms) rebel army would never take the country, as there are too few moderates outside of state loyal circles.
We also allowed Saudi to arm the terrorists and move them to Syria, NATO member Turkey is working hard to support and supply terrorists, Jordan is helping.

Our governments are very much behind the terrorist attacks in Syria

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US and EU (mainly France, Germany, UK) in conjunction with the UN and Arab league have been trying to resolve the conflict since it began almost 3 years ago.

Resolve? By removing Assad. They have said since the start Assad cannot be part of the post hostilities gov. This is a telling precondition.

Jonny7

Tea drinker wrote: »

No, they were supporting the removal of the Assad regime. That Syria would be crippled by this is a bonus.

Well most countries are pretty horrified by the way Assad was dealing with the uprising - he is deeply unpopular to say the least.

No one is interested in a crippled unstable Syria. Least of all the Israelis and regional neighbours. The Americans and French were on relatively and increasingly "good" terms with Assad before the uprising.

With the ethnic and religious make up of Syria a moderate (which Assad is in regional terms) rebel army

It's 70% Sunni, the only thing that kept Assad in power was his (and his family's) control of Syria's large military and security apparatus. Also, despite never being elected, compared to some of the regions dictators he was relatively popular. Arab Spring was testament to the simmering feeling and anger at corruption, lack of employment, lack of freedoms, etc.

We also allowed Saudi

No one "allows" Saudi, they, and Yemen, largely do as they please. Which includes funding ISIS a group which is heavily fragmenting the fight against Assad - as well as many other jihadist groups.

NATO member Turkey is working hard to support and supply terrorists, Jordan is helping.

Turkey was on good terms with Assad before the uprising, as the refugees and horror stories flooded the country they quickly turned. Turkey has been a base and safe-haven for FSA and linked fighters - however more recently - due to arrival of Jihadists and the more extreme groups it's become a much more grey area.

Our governments are very much behind the terrorist attacks in Syria

I am not sure what you are referring to here, but the language is lazy. Governments, e.g. France, UK, Germany do not support the more extreme Jihadist groups. They are taking measures to stop citizens going and fighting in the war as well as stripping them of citizenship when/if they return.

They recently suspended all non-lethal aid.

A mistake that many critics make is they don't distinguish between the conflict in 2011 - early 2012 and the conflict now - which are very different beasts altogether. The rebel groups early in the conflict managed to hold to stalemate or make gains against the Syrian military - with virtually no outside help. Then it was a case of the military fighting the military (defected vs pro-government)

Resolve? By removing Assad. They have said since the start Assad cannot be part of the post hostilities gov. This is a telling precondition.

He absolutely cannot be, or the situation repeats - he was offered peace plans whereby he could stand down and be replaced by a deputy of his choosing. He believes he can retain power, through the use of the military, but so far it's turned the country into the seventh level of hell.

Eggy Baby!

The US and EU (mainly France, Germany, UK) in conjunction with the UN and Arab league have been trying to resolve the conflict since it began almost 3 years ago.

Yeah, and the Russian have been trying to "resolve" the conflict by sending arms to Assad to hasten his victory...

Saudi conduct has been disgustingly bad lately. The Saudi minister for security indirectly threatened Russia with terror attacks during the Sochi Olympics if Russia didn't back down over Syria. How the hell do you respond to threats like that?

It just demonstrates what a despicable terrorist-sponsoring state Saudi Arabia really is.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Yeah, and the Russian have been trying to "resolve" the conflict by sending arms to Assad to hasten his victory...

Saudi conduct has been disgustingly bad lately. The Saudi minister for security indirectly threatened Russia with terror attacks during the Sochi Olympics if Russia didn't back down over Syria. How the hell do you respond to threats like that?

It just demonstrates what a despicable terrorist-sponsoring state Saudi Arabia really is.

Agree, and not to forget Qatar. I'd put most extreme Islamic groups and many of Assad's forces (especially the Shabiha) on a close par.

Tea drinker

Jonny7 wrote: »

No one is interested in a crippled unstable Syria. Least of all the Israelis and regional neighbours. The Americans and French were on relatively and increasingly "good" terms with Assad before the uprising.

The several Israeli ex servicemen I talked were all thrilled at the destruction in Syria, and didn't see any issue with fallout for Israel. You have to remember technically they (Israel and Syria) are still at war. In addition there is the military alliance between Iran and Syria. Getting at Iran through Syria, and as a bonus Hezbollah is getting bled in Syria too.
For sure Israel had no problem with the full scale civil war.

No one "allows" Saudi, they, and Yemen, largely do as they please. Which
includes funding ISIS a group which is heavily fragmenting the fight against
Assad - as well as many other jihadist groups.

The funding of terrorist activities and channelling of hardware and personell is against international laws and international banking laws. While Al Qaida was marching in to slaughter civilians we ignored this.

Turkey was on good terms with Assad before the uprising, as the refugees and horror stories flooded the country they quickly turned. Turkey has been a base and safe-haven for FSA and linked fighters - however more recently - due to arrival of Jihadists and the more extreme groups it's become a much more grey area.

Turkey is becoming far less secular under Erdogan and in fact Syria relatively secular societies destruction could be a motivator for him.
Turkey is seeing some destabilisation under him, with a large number of corruption scandals and swathes of arrests of police and military, mass routs of protestors one wonders who is the bigger dictator in the region.

I am not sure what you are referring to here, but the language is lazy.
Governments, e.g. France, UK, Germany do not support the more extreme Jihadist
groups. They are taking measures to stop citizens going and fighting in the war as well as stripping them of citizenship when/if they return.

They recently suspended all non-lethal aid.

The conflict is 3 years old and they RECENTLY started revoking citizenship for returning jihadi terrorists (where it could be applied). UK will most likely have a terrorist attack from the other Jihadi who will return, battle hardened and mentally disturbed. Same like the 2 guys who hacked Lee Rigby to death. Besides look at John McCain's visit to terrorist group.

He absolutely cannot be, or the situation repeats - he was offered peace plans whereby he could stand down and be replaced by a deputy of his choosing. He believes he can retain power, through the use of the military, but so far it's turned the country into the seventh level of hell.

It's a civil war, they ALWAYS turn out brutal, this is predictable course of events and I'm sure the interfering states knew and couldn't care less about how many Syrian's were killed in order to Islamicise it. Who from the opposition should lead the country - who has their hands clean? The cake seller from SOHR in London?
There's no reason why he should step down, just because we have been supporting a colour revolution to rid Syria of women's rights and secular society. Saudi wants to form a client state there and a secular society such as it is presents an affront to Saudi.

Jonny7

Tea drinker wrote: »

The several Israeli ex servicemen I talked were all thrilled at the destruction in Syria, and didn't see any issue with fallout for Israel. You have to remember technically they (Israel and Syria) are still at war. In addition there is the military alliance between Iran and Syria. Getting at Iran through Syria, and as a bonus Hezbollah is getting bled in Syria too.
For sure Israel had no problem with the full scale civil war.

Syria as a country was little realistic threat to Israel

The chaos that it's turned into is

The funding of terrorist activities and channelling of hardware and personell is against international laws and international banking laws. While Al Qaida was marching in to slaughter civilians we ignored this.

Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc are on the US (and most international) terrorist list they do not receive funding from those countries. They are highly dangerous groups and specialise at indiscriminate killing - much like the artillery units who wake Damascus up every morning with the shelling of urban areas, or the chaps who roll explosive barrels filled with nails out of helicopters onto residential areas

Turkey is becoming far less secular under Erdogan and in fact Syria relatively secular societies destruction could be a motivator for him.
Turkey is seeing some destabilisation under him, with a large number of corruption scandals and swathes of arrests of police and military, mass routs of protestors one wonders who is the bigger dictator in the region.

Erdogan is a strong man who's been in power too long, I wouldn't tolerate him for a second as a leader, but he's not in the same ball-park/league/universe as Hafez and his heir.

The conflict is 3 years old and they RECENTLY started revoking citizenship for returning jihadi terrorists (where it could be applied). UK will most likely have a terrorist attack from the other Jihadi who will return, battle hardened and mentally disturbed. Same like the 2 guys who hacked Lee Rigby to death. Besides look at John McCain's visit to terrorist group.

The UK and other Euro countries do not want their citizens traveling to Syria to fight. They have been trying to tackle the problem since these movements started largely in 2012 onwards.

It's a civil war

It was an uprising against a dictatorship - was. Now it's far far more than a civil war.

nacho libre

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10662823/We-can-get-rid-of-Assad-or-fight-al-Qaeda-but-we-cant-do-both.html

He is correct about Saudi Arabia. Whatever about the malign influence of other outside actors in the region, a blind eye has been turned towards what Saudi Arabia has been doing in the middle east over the last few years. There is a proxy war going on between Iran and Saudi Arabia to be the main player in the Middle east.

Nodin

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10662823/We-can-get-rid-of-Assad-or-fight-al-Qaeda-but-we-cant-do-both.html

He is correct about Saudi Arabia. Whatever about the malign influence of other outside actors in the region, a blind eye has been turned towards what Saudi Arabia has been doing in the middle east over the last few years. There is a proxy war going on between Iran and Saudi Arabia to be the main player in the Middle east.

...with a particularily vile sectarian element to it.

realweirdo

Without meaningful intervention by the rest of the world to force both sides to come to an agreement (as opposed to merely to the table) this conflict will drag on indefinitely. Assad is no closer to winning now than he was 2 years ago. Neither are the opposition. The main losers are civilians caught in the crossfire. The Saudis and Qataris shouldn't be involved, but then again neither should the Iranians, Russians and Hezbollah. With strong supporters on both sides, both sides believe they can win. Amost 10 million displaced internally and externally, 140,000 dead and 500,000 wounded and Syria now definitively reduced to ruins, bankrupt and impoverished, those who said there should be no intervention such as a no fly zone have certainly got what they wanted.

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

thought you might be interested in this..

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-and-u-k-looting-saudi-gold-as-west-unofficially-ends-petro-dollar-pact?cid=sm-facebook-030314-5.00pm-usanduklootingsaudigold

realweirdo

donegal__road wrote: »

thought you might be interested in this..

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-and-u-k-looting-saudi-gold-as-west-unofficially-ends-petro-dollar-pact?cid=sm-facebook-030314-5.00pm-usanduklootingsaudigold

Again with this gold standard nonsense? Like jonny said, its the conspiracy forum you want.

Eggy Baby!

realweirdo wrote: »

Again with this gold standard nonsense? Like jonny said, its the conspiracy forum you want.

"Its a conspiracy" - the last refuge of the lazy.

realweirdo

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

"Its a conspiracy" - the last refuge of the lazy.

No, but I just think the Assad fans such as yourself need to face up to some facts that's all. Blaming the Americans for all the world's ills, its just old hat at this stage. If it was left to the likes of Assad and Putin, all humanity would be in ruins. Just look at North Korea ffs, a communist run sh*thole.