World Politics

[macbindle]

Trumps says he wants to pull out of Syria (he's there to support the rebels, pulling out signals the end of US tacit regime change policy)

Chemical attack follows.

Massive media coverage-assumption in western media of Assad's guilt--calls in several countries for action-trump says he's going to attack.
............................

Is the response to the chemical attack predictable?

How does it help Assad?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Is Trump/ USA really in Syria to support the rebels? I thought he was there to 'beat ISIS'. Replacing Assad has become a foreign policy afterthought AFAIK.

I was alluding to the interesting point about timing earlier. Although this attack looks like very convenient timing taken in isolation, there have been other reported Chlorine gas attacks before this one in February that did not receive nearly as much attention. Syria paid no price for those, so it stands to reason that they didn't expect to pay a price for this one. It helps when you have a fixer in your corner, too. IMO, they can't all be false flags. Would they have changed their strategy if they knew that a response was likely? IDK.....

Demoralizing the opposition seems like a potential reason for the CW attacks. That would help push the civil war towards conclusion, helping Assad.

 

[macbindle]

All possibly true.

What troubles me is that all the players (USA and UK included) have their own interests and they aren't especially noble. It is very clear that key players are getting their ducks in a row with a viewing to fuking up Iran's schitt.

ISIS? Which rebel groups are ISIS and which aren't? Really hard to know. What is the difference between the factions (including ISIS)? I genuinely don't know. Ive no reason to believe that the civilian population of the rebel held areas are on the same side as the rebels. They might be pawns.

What a mess.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Agreed. It is a mess loaded with unsavory characters on all sides.

ISIS is whoever the brass in charge says they are.... which underscores why I think focusing on fighting these terror groups is such a slippery slope, leading to an immense amount of collateral damage.

Re: Syria. I hope Trump stands down. I don't see anything that the US can do militarily to improve the situation.

 

[macbindle]

He wont. He cant. Just as well he's a stable, safe pair of hands known for rational and consistent policy. Heaven forfend that the US had an impetuous ignoramus at the wheel at a time like this.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Is Trump/ USA really in Syria to support the rebels? I thought he was there to 'beat ISIS'. Replacing Assad has become a foreign policy afterthought AFAIK.

I was alluding to the interesting point about timing earlier. Although this attack looks like very convenient timing taken in isolation, there have been other reported Chlorine gas attacks before this one in February that did not receive nearly as much attention. Syria paid no price for those, so it stands to reason that they didn't expect to pay a price for this one. It helps when you have a fixer in your corner, too. IMO, they can't all be false flags. Would they have changed their strategy if they knew that a response was likely? IDK.....

Demoralizing the opposition seems like a potential reason for the CW attacks. That would help push the civil war towards conclusion, helping Assad.

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

 

[Elagabalus]

Re: Re:

Is Trump/ USA really in Syria to support the rebels? I thought he was there to 'beat ISIS'. Replacing Assad has become a foreign policy afterthought AFAIK.

I was alluding to the interesting point about timing earlier. Although this attack looks like very convenient timing taken in isolation, there have been other reported Chlorine gas attacks before this one in February that did not receive nearly as much attention. Syria paid no price for those, so it stands to reason that they didn't expect to pay a price for this one. It helps when you have a fixer in your corner, too. IMO, they can't all be false flags. Would they have changed their strategy if they knew that a response was likely? IDK.....

Demoralizing the opposition seems like a potential reason for the CW attacks. That would help push the civil war towards conclusion, helping Assad.

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

To discourage any citizen from joining the opposition, I would assume.

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

Is Trump/ USA really in Syria to support the rebels? I thought he was there to 'beat ISIS'. Replacing Assad has become a foreign policy afterthought AFAIK.

I was alluding to the interesting point about timing earlier. Although this attack looks like very convenient timing taken in isolation, there have been other reported Chlorine gas attacks before this one in February that did not receive nearly as much attention. Syria paid no price for those, so it stands to reason that they didn't expect to pay a price for this one. It helps when you have a fixer in your corner, too. IMO, they can't all be false flags. Would they have changed their strategy if they knew that a response was likely? IDK.....

Demoralizing the opposition seems like a potential reason for the CW attacks. That would help push the civil war towards conclusion, helping Assad.

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

Collateral damage ?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

Do you have statistics to back up that assertion? The number of foreign fighters vs. the number of Syrian anti-government fighters? The numbers I’ve seen indicate that about half the deaths of anti-government combatants are Syrian, so it seems to me misleading to describe the opposition as “mostly foreign”. If there are large number of Syrians opposing Assad, of course he’s going to strike at them in whatever way he believes is effective, and a universal lesson from other civil wars is that citizens are always targeted as possible sympathizers with the rebels.

 

[python]

^i think to try assigning numbers and proportions to foreign fighters vs the genuinely syrian opposition to assad could be misleading in terms of trying to genuinely figure out the syrian mess as it is today.

it is much less (note: i did not say 'no longer') a civil war as it started in 2011 but much more a vicious proxy brawl for various influences and interests...

the list of only those who openly support both the pro and -anti assad fighters is indeed very long....from the well known state actors with their regular army units in syria (turkey, russia, iran, the us, france, the uk....) to those who decide to interfere militarily from time to time (israel, jordan, iraq, egypt...). and this list does NOT include the various powerful sponsors of various jihadist groups like the saudis, uae, kuwait etc.

the foreign volunteer fighters may indeed be numerous, perhaps even a majorly in some - particularly in the transnational terror groups like isis and al qaeda - but it does not matter really when billions are spent to recruit, arm, feed and brain wash for a particular proxy purpose.

i could go on but the syrian mess is is anything but a classic civil war at this moment

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Is Trump/ USA really in Syria to support the rebels? I thought he was there to 'beat ISIS'. Replacing Assad has become a foreign policy afterthought AFAIK.

I was alluding to the interesting point about timing earlier. Although this attack looks like very convenient timing taken in isolation, there have been other reported Chlorine gas attacks before this one in February that did not receive nearly as much attention. Syria paid no price for those, so it stands to reason that they didn't expect to pay a price for this one. It helps when you have a fixer in your corner, too. IMO, they can't all be false flags. Would they have changed their strategy if they knew that a response was likely? IDK.....

Demoralizing the opposition seems like a potential reason for the CW attacks. That would help push the civil war towards conclusion, helping Assad.

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

To discourage any citizen from joining the opposition, I would assume.

Yes.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/kylee-pedersen-jens-renner/let-s-talk-about-civilians-dying-in-syria

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

Do you have statistics to back up that assertion? The number of foreign fighters vs. the number of Syrian anti-government fighters? The numbers I’ve seen indicate that about half the deaths of anti-government combatants are Syrian, so it seems to me misleading to describe the opposition as “mostly foreign”. If there are large number of Syrians opposing Assad, of course he’s going to strike at them in whatever way he believes is effective, and a universal lesson from other civil wars is that citizens are always targeted as possible sympathizers with the rebels.

This issue is an absolute quagmire ... extremely difficult to gain bona fide clarity ... amongst the complexities, competing interests and associated/affiliated media.

If John's observation/RQ is to encourage us to use our minds as well as our emotions, I concur with that notion.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

Is Trump/ USA really in Syria to support the rebels? I thought he was there to 'beat ISIS'. Replacing Assad has become a foreign policy afterthought AFAIK.

I was alluding to the interesting point about timing earlier. Although this attack looks like very convenient timing taken in isolation, there have been other reported Chlorine gas attacks before this one in February that did not receive nearly as much attention. Syria paid no price for those, so it stands to reason that they didn't expect to pay a price for this one. It helps when you have a fixer in your corner, too. IMO, they can't all be false flags. Would they have changed their strategy if they knew that a response was likely? IDK.....

Demoralizing the opposition seems like a potential reason for the CW attacks. That would help push the civil war towards conclusion, helping Assad.

They are terror weapons, like barrel bombs..assad's attempt to end this thing and put the country(with putin's and Iran's help) under his boot heel. trumo is clueless, as usual. He isn't at the table, won't be..he yells(i defeated ISIS), w/o acknowledging that help assad..he's a dope..

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

The Syrian government is expending all efforts to liberate its country from an opposition force that is mostly foreign. What possible motive would it have to gas its own citizens? There's not even a strategic element to it. It's like saying that the Russians have invaded North Carolina with the help of Georgia, so you're going to nuke Florida... Uh. no. That makes no sense.

John Swanson

I and others have suggested reasons. None of us sit on the Syrian war council, so it is all speculation. It all makes little sense to me, but then I am not an autocrat living through 7 years of civil war.

This morning, Macron seems to have decided that Assad is responsible based on the evidence he has received.

 

[macbindle]

No, he is saying that it is based on evidence received.

15 years ago the French rejected the proposed invasion of Iraq because they said there was not enough evidence of WMD.

This is what they said. The real reason was because they had just signed nice new oil contracts with Saddam.

There are no good guys and bad guys here. Just different people with different interests

 

[djpbaltimore]

The 'real reason'? That is a bit presumptuous isn't it? You are veering into stating opinion as fact territory.

We all understand your viewpoint, but that doesn't discount the fact that there could be proof that Assad used chlorine gas in rebel territory. Macron stated in February (after the alleged Idlib gas attacks) that France would strike if shown evidence. They didn't, so I think they have more credibility than many other players in this affair.

 

[macbindle]

It's pretty well acknowledged that the 2003 invasion was about oil supply. France and Russia vetoed and vociferously objected. Both had nice new contracts.

Point I'm making is that I wouldnt trust Macron any more than I'd trust May or Trump.

 

[Zama_Olyas]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/novichok-used-in-spy-poisoning-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-salisbury

OPCW says analysis of samples confirms UK findings about nerve agent used in Salisbury attack

 

[python]

Re:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/novichok-used-in-spy-poisoning-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-salisbury

OPCW says analysis of samples confirms UK findings about nerve agent used in Salisbury attack

you need to READ it carefully. That is,what was publicly said by the body itself vs what is not publicl (the actual meat) vs what media wants to READ into the report. The public portion of the report basically said that the samples they were provided confirmed the British lab findings , that is the nature of the chemical. it did not say and could not say by the bodies own rules about who committed the crime. Meaning the sample origin just like the British lab director said
It's like B sample confirmed the a sample.
But Joe reading just the headlines without delving into the fine details will likely conclude the International body has sided with the British foreign Department.

 

[ToreBear]

Seems to me the Syrians/Russians have been testing where the line was.
*Sarin=no go.
*Chlorine is ok if only a few are killed and injured.
*Many dead due to Clorine= possible no go?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

It's pretty well acknowledged that the 2003 invasion was about oil supply. France and Russia vetoed and vociferously objected. Both had nice new contracts.

Point I'm making is that I wouldnt trust Macron any more than I'd trust May or Trump.

OK. I don't doubt it played a factor. But by the same token, they were right about the WMDs.

Seems to me the Syrians/Russians have been testing where the line was.
*Sarin=no go.
*Chlorine is ok if only a few are killed and injured.
*Many dead due to Clorine= possible no go?

Bingo.

 

[rhubroma]

The situation in Syria is complex, but the tweet from the 'leader of the free world' Donald Trump is appalling, as if he really cares, that we have 'nice, new, sofisticated bombs' to deploy. Once the arrival of bombs, even as they were kept secret in some general's war dispatch, were announced through state chanels via sirens, to alert the people of the impending mourning and agony. Today bombing has entered social media and this is no small detail. I still have not gotten what is the signifcant difference between blowing up people, or perhaps only maming them, and killing them with nerve gas in terms of the moral perogative? Then again a 70 year-old boy in the White House says much of our times.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

It's pretty well acknowledged that the 2003 invasion was about oil supply. France and Russia vetoed and vociferously objected. Both had nice new contracts.

Point I'm making is that I wouldnt trust Macron any more than I'd trust May or Trump.

OK. I don't doubt it played a factor. But by the same token, they were right about the WMDs.

Seems to me the Syrians/Russians have been testing where the line was.
*Sarin=no go.
*Chlorine is ok if only a few are killed and injured.
*Many dead due to Clorine= possible no go?

Bingo.

They knew the WMD story was concocted as a justification for an invasion. They knew exactly what the US and their UK lackeys wanted to get their hands on. It was the oil they thought they were buying.

The French lost out.

The US and UK oil and arms companies made a packet. Other people paid the price. Dead coalition soldiers and their families, dead Iraqi soldiers dead civilians. None of them matter because none of them have any power.

Just because the French lost that particular round of the game doesn't bestow them with any sort of higher morality. If the boot had been on the other foot they'd have claimed an invasion was the only moral choice.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

They knew the WMD story was concocted as a justification for an invasion. They knew exactly what the US and their UK lackeys wanted to get their hands on. It was the oil they thought they were buying.

The French lost out.

The US and UK oil and arms companies made a packet. Other people paid the price. Dead coalition soldiers and their families, dead Iraqi soldiers dead civilians. None of them matter because none of them have any power.

Just because the French lost that particular round of the game doesn't bestow them with any sort of higher morality. If the boot had been on the other foot they'd have claimed an invasion was the only moral choice.

Unless I missed something, no one said it did. I do think their recent behavior regarding Syria gives them more credibility than some other parties. However, I do not think they are akin to Mother Theresa in this.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

The situation in Syria is complex, but the tweet from the 'leader of the free world' Donald Trump is appalling, as if he really cares, that we have 'nice, new, sofisticated bombs' to deploy. Once the arrival of bombs, even as they were kept secret in some general's war dispatch, were announced through state chanels via sirens, to alert the people of the impending mourning and agony. Today bombing has entered social media and this is no small detail. I still have not gotten what is the signifcant difference between blowing up people, or perhaps only maming them, and killing them with nerve gas in terms of the moral perogative? Then again a 70 year-old boy in the White House says much of our times.

You have to remove yourself from the moment, as in gas= 50 killed vs barrel bomb=50 killed, and think about what could happen with unrestrained gas warfare.

If there were no consequences Assad could remove all opposition life(soldiers, women, children) by several rounds of Sarin bombardment(which he had big enough amounts to do previously). Or he can use VX gas that remains in the environment for days, so that anyone entering the area dies as well.

Areas with opposition could be cleansed methodically with little loss to his own troops. The sieges that have lasted for years could be removed in a week or two.

The barrel bomb was designed to drop as much death as possible from a helicopter. If he can use gas, those helicopters will provide much more death. It could be comparable to dropping nukes.

Lets say gas warfare becomes more accepted. That would mean more armies will have them. That also means more opportunities for non state actors to acquire them. Which again means gas terrorism could be a new thing.