Current Affairs Syria...

[NilSatisOptimum]

Uncanny prediction!

 

[Jib in lad]

Uncanny prediction!

As sure as night follows day yet people still fall for it.

 

[Tubey]

Then from all of that you should have realised that war is futile.
If it wasn't for the potential profits war would become completely oblivious.

War isn't futile; it's often necessary and completely unavoidable. Because all that war is is one side initiating and another side reacting. Because they have to. To suggest both sides agree to such wars because it's profitable is ludicrous, but if you think that then so be it.

If you seriously think the World Wars were futile, I can't really help you, but I'd urge you to consider the world we'd live in today if either Kaiser Wilhelm or Adolf Hitler (yes, both) were allowed free reign because we didn't react 'because it'd be futile to do so.' Here's a clue - no liberal democracy; replaced by an expansionist authoritarian regime encompassing the entirety of Europe and eventually possibly the world, under a massive, all-powerful police state. That's no exaggeration - that was the end game of both of those leaders.

War is tragic, to be avoided wherever at all possible. But in itself it is anything but futile. Indeed, war often occurs to prevent the worst, not to cause it.

 

[Tubey]

As sure as night follows day yet people still fall for it.

I've heard people call the Manchester Arena bombings etc. "false flag" operations and that they 'predicted' domestic terror would be staged to incite a cause. Obviously, it wasn't.

Same with this. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The reality is that 'false flag' excuses are propagated to cast doubt on the actions of Assad here, who has history with what he's done.

That said, all for a vote in parliament on it and for what evidence there is to be examined. But crackpot conspiracy theories should be seen for what they are.

 

[peteblue]

Reuters: - Saudi Arabia intercepted a ballistic missile launched by Yemen’s Houthis towards the southern city of Jizan, Saudi-owned broadcaster Al Arabiya TV said on Wednesday. Al Arabiya said earlier that Saudi air defence forces had intercepted a missile over Riyadh after at least three blasts were heard in the capital.

My son is in Riyadh......

 

[dholliday]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The reality is that 'false flag' excuses are propagated to cast doubt on the actions of Assad here, who has history with what he's done.

Where is the evidence? What is the evidence?
What would the tactical reason be for Assad to order such an attack (motive)?
What does the timing of these chemical attacks tell you?
Who benefits from the obvious fall-out (i.e. Western reaction) from these attacks?

If you don't ask questions, you won't see any answers.

I've heard people call the Manchester Arena bombings etc. "false flag" operations. Same with this.

Irrelevant to this discussion. It is perfectly possible to believe one operation was a false flag, while an entirely different one was not.

 

[peteblue]

Not the only one mate.

What does surprise me, is how the images of the chemical attacks dosent even shock me anymore.

How on earth did I get to this point ?

This is the constant ratcheting down of our moral outrage, being inundated with more and more obscene acts until it becomes the norm. I tried to get this point across within the knife thread, but no one was interested because it didn’t affect them.....

 

[Tubey]

Where is the evidence? What is the evidence?
What would the tactical reason be for Assad to order such an attack (motive)?
What does the timing of these chemical attacks tell you?
Who benefits from the obvious fall-out (i.e. Western reaction) from these attacks?

If you don't ask questions, you won't see any answers.




Irrelevant to this discussion. It is perfectly possible to believe one operation was a false flag, while an entirely different one was not.

My point was whenever anything happens, 'false flag' is always propagated by some, no matter how ridiculous. It isn't proof of anything on any issue - it's pretty much 100% of the time an outlier theory.

As for your questions, Assad used chemical attacks since Ghouta in 2013 and several times afterwards. That's his track record - there's nothing to indicate this isn't "the usual" from him.

Motive? Apart from obvious on the ground benefits to doing so, I'd speculate he's seen the Salisbury nerve agent stuff and decided to do it now to put more focus on Russia, solidifying their support as they can't condemn it at this point. The west reacts, Russia stiffens its' resolve with the allies it ihas.

Timing and benefit? See above.

Again, happy to see it debated in parliament, but I don't see any viable conspiracy theory here.

 

[ilikecheese]

So did a bit of reading up on this and I'm still not sure.

It seems everyone is happy with the northern Syria self proclaimed autonomous area (except maybe Assad, but supported by the West and Russia). Nobody likes ISIL.

So it's down to Assad vs the opposition.

You've got Russia, Iran, and Iraq supporting Assad.

Then you've got the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

What I can't figure out is why those sides were chosen by each. It certainly makes things messy when the US and Russia are opposite sides of a civil war on foreign land.

 

[Jib in lad]

I've heard people call the Manchester Arena bombings etc. "false flag" operations and that they 'predicted' domestic terror would be staged to incite a cause. Obviously, it wasn't.

Same with this. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The reality is that 'false flag' excuses are propagated to cast doubt on the actions of Assad here, who has history with what he's done.

That said, all for a vote in parliament on it and for what evidence there is to be examined. But crackpot conspiracy theories should be seen for what they are.

This attack makes no sense Assad is winning Trump was talking about pulling out just a few days ago so who gains from it the people who Assad is fighting and who knows who they are.

Listen if you want to believe what our government's and the MSM tell you that's fine you can brand anyone that doesn't as conspiracy theorist but history shows us they lie all the time to start wars and I believe this is no different.

 

[Tubey]

So did a bit of reading up on this and I'm still not sure.

It seems everyone is happy with the northern Syria self proclaimed autonomous area (except maybe Assad, but supported by the West and Russia). Nobody likes ISIL.

So it's down to Assad vs the opposition.

You've got Russia, Iran, and Iraq supporting Assad.

Then you've got the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

What I can't figure out is why those sides were chosen by each. It certainly makes things messy when the US and Russia are opposite sides of a civil war on foreign land.

As far as it's possible to put it simply:

* It started as a 'simple' civil war in opposition to Assad.
* Russia et al support Assad as Syria are historically a close ally and Assad represents that 'state' which is the ally. If the other side 'won', then they'd break ties with Russia as that political relationship belongs to Assad.
* ISIS barged in. Can't think of a better way of putting that without making this an essay. Everyone hates ISIS, so in parts the rebels and Assad forces sort of 'join forces'. Ish. Again, very simplistic.
* 'The West' then barged in because of ISIS. However, they have become intertwined with the civil war. So when Assad attacks the rebels, they're attacking de facto Western allies in the fight with ISIS. Furthermore, the west can't ignore atrocities - it's in the DNA as it were.
* ISIS are pretty much 'dead' in Syria, but the rebels can't be left to be obliterated by Russia and Assad, so the west are tied in with their fate. So it's become a proxy war, but one where Russia is offering much more support than the west to their side.

But that's missing 99% of the actual reasons, so perhaps a useless summary.

 

[Tubey]

This attack makes no sense Assad is winning Trump was talking about pulling out just a few days ago so who gains from it the people who Assad is fighting and who knows who they are.

Listen if you want to believe what our government's and the MSM tell you that's fine you can brand anyone that doesn't as conspiracy theorist but history shows us they lie all the time to start wars and I believe this is no different.

Again, the start of World War 2 was began on a lie based on an accusation of Polish sabotage on a border. I'm well aware that governments lie to serve their own interests. See the largely fabricated "Rape of Belgium" for another example. I know my history.

With that said, I don't really see one here. It benefits Assad to isolate Russia away from the west. That's your motive here. That, and chemical attacks are basically just par for the course for him.

 

[dholliday]

My point was whenever anything happens, 'false flag' is always propagated by some, no matter how ridiculous. It isn't proof of anything on any issue - it's pretty much 100% of the time an outlier theory.

Then you aren't very familiar with the concept of false flag attacks. It's a propaganda tactic as old as the hills. Conspiracy nuts on youtube screaming about crisis actors doesn't make more credible theories any less feasible.

As for your questions, Assad used chemical attacks since Ghouta in 2013 and several times afterwards. That's his track record - there's nothing to indicate this isn't "the usual" from him.

How do you know this? No one knows for sure. It's disputed officially who was responsible, so how come you're so sure?

Motive? Apart from obvious on the ground benefits to doing so, I'd speculate he's seen the Salisbury nerve agent stuff and decided to do it now to put more focus on Russia, solidifying their support as they can't condemn it at this point. The west reacts, Russia stiffens its' resolve with the allies it ihas.

That is just ridiculous. On so many levels.

 

[Jib in lad]

Again, the start of World War 2 was began on a lie based on an accusation of Polish sabotage on a border. I'm well aware that governments lie to serve their own interests. See the largely fabricated "Rape of Belgium" for another example. I know my history.

With that said, I don't really see one here. It benefits Assad to isolate Russia away from the west. That's your motive here. That, and chemical attacks are basically just par for the course for him.

Ok mate. Just out of interest did you believe the 45 minute thing and was you for or against the Iraq war.

 

[Tubey]

Then you aren't very familiar with the concept of false flag attacks. It's a propaganda tactic as old as the hills. Conspiracy nuts on youtube screaming about crisis actors doesn't make more credible theories any less feasible.




How do you know this? No one knows for sure. It's disputed officially who was responsible, so how come you're so sure?




That is just ridiculous. On so many levels.

I'm very familiar and I'm aware of legit 'false flag' attacks throughout history - see my last post. They're still incredible rare.

I know because the UN report on it essentially said so in 2013 and even Russia agreed to put pressure on Assad to 'destroy' his chemical weapons stock at the time. It was outside the UN remit to place blame but it was widely accepted as to who did it, hence the response. Any suggestion that Assad hasn't used chemical weapons at this point is simply being contrarian.

Assad survives to this day solely because of Russia. Firming up that support is common sense. But as said, that's speculation - you asked me to comment and that's a possible theory, and yes it may be as daft as a 'false flag' claim but at least I'm not putting it forward as a definite possibility for attacking him. The evidence of the chemical attack is the be all, end all for this. Let's see it debated in parliament and have an armed response as an option on the table if parliament agrees to it.