Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[Itse]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

CNN has obtained footage of kids with chemical burns and peeling skin... very graphic warning:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...ttack.cnn.html

I think I'll let the experts take a look at those...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

CNN has obtained footage of kids with chemical burns and peeling skin... very graphic warning:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...ttack.cnn.html

That was played earlier n today on TV...very disturbing and really shouldnt be on daytime television IMO.

At any rate, just brutal stuff by whoever did it.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

The only place they could seek revenge is against Israel. They can't get near the States so they will try to hurt them the only place they can.

Could they hit Turkey? Not that it would affect the United States quite as much as a strike against Israel, but it seems like a logical target since Turkey is one of the countries most strongly pushing for action in Syria.

I'm headed to Istanbul in a few days and am not sure whether I should be nervous or consider changing my plans.

[worth]

Istanbul is mega far away from the border with Syria. I wouldn't worry about it.

[corporatejay]

So the Iraq WMD thing has really effed the U.S. on this stuff. I know people were skeptical before but now even their allies have to question the legitimacy of their claims.

UN report is going to have to weigh in on this in. This is why you don't burn political capital finishing your dad's war.

[Street Pharmacist]

Not sure on the integrity of the paper (I've never read the Jerusalem Post), but here's what they say the facts are:

-US has a regime senior official on the phone concerned about their attack and the inspectors finding out

A central piece of intelligence included a communication that was intercepted from "a senior official intimately familiar with the attack," who confirmed that chemical weapons had been used by the government on August 21 and was "concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence" about it.

-The US also had regime soldiers preparing for an attack before the attack happened

Three days before the attack, regime chemical weapons personnel were on the ground making preparations, and regime elements were told to prepare for the attack with "specific instructions" to wear gas masks and taking other precautions associated with chemical weapons, Kerry said.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-...-attack-324813


That's pretty damning if true

[SeeGeeWhy]

So while watching the CNN coverage of obama's speech yesterday, the one analyst said that the rebels are being supported by Al Qaeda.

Dumb question time... If that's the case, why have the US been supporting the rebels? And second, would it matter who used the chemical weapons if the options were between Assad or Al Qaeda? Wouldn't the US strike against either scenario? If so, is the only reason proof is required to show that it wasn't the US or another military that made the strikes?

Read an interesting article today that postulates that this is actually about the US getting to Iran indirectly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...t-8789506.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

So while watching the CNN coverage of obama's speech yesterday, the one analyst said that the rebels are being supported by Al Qaeda.

Dumb question time... If that's the case, why have the US been supporting the rebels? And second, would it matter who used the chemical weapons if the options were between Assad or Al Qaeda? Wouldn't the US strike against either scenario? If so, is the only reason proof is required to show that it wasn't the US or another military that made the strikes?

Read an interesting article today that postulates that this is actually about the US getting to Iran indirectly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...t-8789506.html

there are a bunch of different rebel groups, some are Al Queda backed some aren't. that's why the Western powers are so reluctant to arm groups because of where the weapons end up.

Its also why the American's aren't pushing for regime change, which I think is kind of foolish in the way because you have a leader that's committed major crimes against humanity.

With what seems like resolve to do anything slipping a bit, I think we'll see Asaad double down and continue to use more of these chemical weapons and other terror weapons like napalm on rebel strong holders and civilians sympathetic towards the rebel groups.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

there are a bunch of different rebel groups, some are Al Queda backed some aren't. that's why the Western powers are so reluctant to arm groups because of where the weapons end up.

Its also why the American's aren't pushing for regime change, which I think is kind of foolish in the way because you have a leader that's committed major crimes against humanity.

With what seems like resolve to do anything slipping a bit, I think we'll see Asaad double down and continue to use more of these chemical weapons and other terror weapons like napalm on rebel strong holders and civilians sympathetic towards the rebel groups.

The only rebels who have a remote chance at toppling Assad are supported by al Qaeda.

If the U.S strikes Syria, they're fighting a war with Al Qaeda only to help them strengthen and then have them plan attacks on the U.S and Israel in the future.

The States would have to be crazy to strike Syria.

Obama and company are already helping Al Qaeda through the rebels by financing them and arming them with nice shiny American weapons.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

So the Iraq WMD thing has really effed the U.S. on this stuff. I know people were skeptical before but now even their allies have to question the legitimacy of their claims.

UN report is going to have to weigh in on this in. This is why you don't burn political capital finishing your dad's war.

Absolutely. Just saying "we have evidence" isn't going to cut it any longer. From this perspective the problems over Iraq have been a game changer. Governments thinking about armed interventions are going to have to weigh the risks of full disclosure of intelligence with public wrath if they go against popular opinion.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-...-attack-324813

That's pretty damning if true

The longer we hear reports of evidence without any verification that such evidence actually exists, the more sceptical I'm starting to get that any exists.

If they have all this evidence, there must be something they can release.

[puckluck2]

Is the United States a democracy or a dictatorship country?

"We will seek approval from congress but even if we aren't approved we will strike anyways"

Then what's the point of seeking approval?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Is the United States a democracy or a dictatorship country?

"We will seek approval from congress but even if we aren't approved we will strike anyways"

Then what's the point of seeking approval?

Obama was democratically elected to be Commander in Chief.

[Knut]

Updates

@cnnbrk: Blood, hair samples from eastern Damascus, Syria, show signs of sarin gas, Secretary of State John Kerry tells CNN. http://t.co/DGiSV4RcMZ

@RSyrianCivilWar: Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the Syrian government had carried out chemical weapons attacks http://t.co/DNyAbblPz2

@MahirZeynalov: Iranian authorities barred Rafsanjani from running for president and this is his revenge today: http://t.co/5zO65nKplx


@MahirZeynalov: Three military cargo planes landed in US base in southern Turkey near Syria on Saturday, carrying military epuipments http://t.co/zmAroCuvfA

@MillerMENA: No one knows more about Syria than @lizobagy - she throws water on the myth that jihadists run the rebellion http://t.co/4QRafdXEOz

[Street Pharmacist]

Really enlightening article

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100...?mg=reno64-wsj

[Daradon]

^^^ Wasn't enthralled.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be a multinational group drawing some lines. But the article is overly simplistic. Support the moderate rebels? Who are they? Moderates in these situations don't join the rebels. They hate the system but they don't join radical rebels.

It's Morsi all over again just with more lives. Topple a dictator to put in an oppressive regime.

UN has to go old school wall building. Or commision peacekeepers with guns.

Or I don't know if there is a realistic solution. I wanna see one, but I don't.

I want 'the world' to help. But imagining scenarios just makes it worse.

Arm the moderates. Are we watching the same war? Do we live on the same planet?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ Wasn't enthralled.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be a multinational group drawing some lines. But the article is overly simplistic. Support the moderate rebels? Who are they? Moderates in these situations don't join the rebels. They hate the system but they don't join radical rebels.

How would you know? What's your first hand experience on civil wars?

Huge numbers of rather moderate people have joined various rebellions in the course of history. What would be odd about that happening in Syria?

It's been well reported in the news that a significant portion of the fighting forces of FSA is made up of former Syrian army units (which refused to open fire on demonstrators). That means mostly rather average G.I. Abduls.

The first hand report of that reporter says nothing that is very surprising. When you consider the actions of the jihadists elsewhere it makes a lot of sense. Jihadist groups groups operate over national borders and have not shown much interest in forming governments or cooperation with other movements in Iraq or Afghanistan. So basicly, they don't necessarily share any goals with the FSA.

Things do get muddy in civil wars, and all sides get dirty, but usually there still are sides and many of them clearly separated. This is simply because people need to tell apart those they can trust to shoot with them.

[Daradon]

If true moderates do leave their homes and get their country back, they generally get subverted by a radical in moderate clothing. Ala Morsi.

Dude I want it to work as much as you do. But the majority of rebels are still radical. And even if they weren't, it only takes one crazy guy to take over a bus.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ Wasn't enthralled.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be a multinational group drawing some lines. But the article is overly simplistic. Support the moderate rebels? Who are they? Moderates in these situations don't join the rebels. They hate the system but they don't join radical rebels.

It's Morsi all over again just with more lives. Topple a dictator to put in an oppressive regime.

UN has to go old school wall building. Or commision peacekeepers with guns.

Or I don't know if there is a realistic solution. I wanna see one, but I don't.

I want 'the world' to help. But imagining scenarios just makes it worse.

Arm the moderates. Are we watching the same war? Do we live on the same planet?

I meant enlightening with regards to the jihadis role with the rebels. I had assumed they were in the lead.

[Daradon]

Fair enough. It was a good read, just seemed to have some hopeless imperialism behind it.

Which I will reiterate I don't think that's what the US gov't has in mind. Just the over optimistic ideas of the article.