Syria, are you ready for these?
Options
Comments
-
it's actually not very strong evidence and, quite frankly, this is a weaker argument as to why we should stay out of Syria. especially when you consider that you're basically claiming chemical weapons are on the loose.kingblaze84 wrote: »What people still don't understand is why get involved in this conflict when there is strong evidence the rebels used chemical weapons themselves?
Not only that, I think even Assad realized this after a while.
Argument: You used deadly Chemical Weapons on civilians in the suburbs of your own capital city.
Counter-Argument: No I didn't, the Rebels stole them and used them.
Argument: So wait, the Rebels are so dangerous that they can steal your presumably well-guarded deadly Chemical Weapons and use them on your own capital city?
Counter-Argument: Um.......yeah.........
Argument: So shouldn't you WANT someone outside of Syria to neutralize your Chemical Weapon stockpiles?
Counter-Argument: ........................? .
Seriously, if U.S intelligence really thought a bunch of Al Qaeda ? was stealing Assad's chemical weapons...........we'd prolly be giving weapons to Assad, bombing Syrian rebel strongholds, and KingBlaze would be posting all these links about how the Syrian Rebels are brave peace-loving secular humanist freedom fighters that hug kittens lol.i read about Syria all the time; it's a big and continuing story. now, the average American would probably not care-
Okay I abused "literally" a bit, but come on son, you know what I mean. Syria news coverage topping NFL news coverage?
.........
Yeah that IS NOT ever evvvvvver ? happening without the specter of ? WAR!let's not pretend NO ONE would care if Obama hadn't acted.
If you mean in the strictest sense of "NO ONE" instead of the "no one that isn't a political nerd that also pays attention to other serious issues that average Americans can't be paid to care about" I implied, then yes.
My point stands: No Syria headlines dominating the international news cycle. No G&S thread. New Syria thread made in the SL after Ghouta? That ? would have 3 replies. And Lupe Fiasco's twitter wouldn't give a ? about Syria lol. -
it's actually not very strong evidence and, quite frankly, this is a weaker argument as to why we should stay out of Syria. especially when you consider that you're basically claiming chemical weapons are on the loose.kingblaze84 wrote: »What people still don't understand is why get involved in this conflict when there is strong evidence the rebels used chemical weapons themselves?
brief note: the whole kidnap/? thing is really more of an Assad/regime kind of thing. look it up. i know the "beheading Christians" thing is a LITTLE overrated, but yes, that is not what the regime does.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Al-Qaeda linked rebels are FORCING secular and Christian Syrians to convert or be beheaded. They're kidnapping and ? tons of civilians-
a little tip: closing every argument with this little mini-rant actually undermines your argument a little. just focus on Syria if that's the topic!kingblaze84 wrote: »LOL. America is a sad joke of a nation now. It's many jobs is America's saving grace, and many would debate that.
I have shown several links here stating there is testimony from Syrian civilians that the rebels have themselves used chemical weapons, and there is actually quite a bit of evidence they have used it before. I can't prove they have, but the fact that civilians have testified in front of the UN saying rebels have used it should not be ignored. Further more, American officials are saying publicly they want to tip the balance of the war to the Syrian rebels.....why? They have committed atrocities themselves and aren't friends to America. Unless Al-Qaeda are friends of America now. Not all the rebels are Al-Qaeda but too many are, not a situation America needs to get involved in, weapons WILL get into the wrong hands.
As far as the rebels committing atrocities such as kidnappings, rapes and murders, you obviously aren't paying attention to the evidence and testimony out there. Too many stories are out there.
-
100% truth, sirSwiffness! wrote: »Seriously, if U.S intelligence really thought a bunch of Al Qaeda ? was stealing Assad's chemical weapons...........we'd prolly be giving weapons to Assad, bombing Syrian rebel strongholds, and KingBlaze would be posting all these links about how the Syrian Rebels are brave peace-loving secular humanist freedom fighters that hug kittens lol.
yeah, but NOTHING is topping NFL coverage, so that is a poor comparison.Swiffness! wrote: »Okay I abused "literally" a bit, but come on son, you know what I mean. Syria news coverage topping NFL news coverage?
yeah, if not for Obama losing it over chemical weapons, it would still be on the back burner behind domestic ? and the NFL, just because it's being going on for so long. but at the same time, it really IS a very big international news story, so if you follow that kind of thing --which is, i guess, you and me and some NEEERRRRDS-- then you know it's been news forever. but yeah, i know what you mean I GUESS.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN THERE'S A G&S SYRIA THREADMy point stands: No Syria headlines dominating the international news cycle. No G&S thread. New Syria thread made in the SL after Ghouta? That ? would have 3 replies. And Lupe Fiasco's twitter wouldn't give a ? about Syria lol. -
let me point out the problem with your argument. you have REPEATEDLY been furiously against the rebels because, and forgive my sassy quoting, "they're al-Qaeda." so when you cite, for lack of a better term, random civilians, it's weak evidence. further, you're probably going to end up citing some prisonplanet.com noise.kingblaze84 wrote: »I have shown several links here stating there is testimony from Syrian civilians that the rebels have themselves used chemical weapons, and there is actually quite a bit of evidence they have used it before. I can't prove they have, but the fact that civilians have testified in front of the UN saying rebels have used it should not be ignored.
look, i am sure there are civilians saying "rebels did it," but eyewitness testimony is the WORST --at best, we're devolving into he said, she said and picking the side we like-- and frankly, logic dictates that the regime used chemical weapons if any were used.
because Assad sucks and our allies in the region don't like him. it's not THAT complicated.kingblaze84 wrote: »Further more, American officials are saying publicly they want to tip the balance of the war to the Syrian rebels.....why?
focus up, man, come on! not the same thing again!kingblaze84 wrote: »They have committed atrocities themselves and aren't friends to America. Unless Al-Qaeda are friends of America now. Not all the rebels are Al-Qaeda but too many are, not a situation America needs to get involved in, weapons WILL get into the wrong hands.
it's actually funny you say this after Swiffness' post, but you MIGHT need to re-read what i wrote again: "brief note: the whole kidnap/? thing is really more of an Assad/regime kind of thing. look it up. i know the "beheading Christians" thing is a LITTLE overrated, but yes, that is not what the regime does."kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as the rebels committing atrocities such as kidnappings, rapes and murders, you obviously aren't paying attention to the evidence and testimony out there. Too many stories are out there.
to restate: kidnapping/? is more a regime thing. murders are more of a both sides thing.
-
let me point out the problem with your argument. you have REPEATEDLY been furiously against the rebels because, and forgive my sassy quoting, "they're al-Qaeda." so when you cite, for lack of a better term, random civilians, it's weak evidence. further, you're probably going to end up citing some prisonplanet.com noise.kingblaze84 wrote: »I have shown several links here stating there is testimony from Syrian civilians that the rebels have themselves used chemical weapons, and there is actually quite a bit of evidence they have used it before. I can't prove they have, but the fact that civilians have testified in front of the UN saying rebels have used it should not be ignored.
look, i am sure there are civilians saying "rebels did it," but eyewitness testimony is the WORST --at best, we're devolving into he said, she said and picking the side we like-- and frankly, logic dictates that the regime used chemical weapons if any were used.
because Assad sucks and our allies in the region don't like him. it's not THAT complicated.kingblaze84 wrote: »Further more, American officials are saying publicly they want to tip the balance of the war to the Syrian rebels.....why?
focus up, man, come on! not the same thing again!kingblaze84 wrote: »They have committed atrocities themselves and aren't friends to America. Unless Al-Qaeda are friends of America now. Not all the rebels are Al-Qaeda but too many are, not a situation America needs to get involved in, weapons WILL get into the wrong hands.
it's actually funny you say this after Swiffness' post, but you MIGHT need to re-read what i wrote again: "brief note: the whole kidnap/? thing is really more of an Assad/regime kind of thing. look it up. i know the "beheading Christians" thing is a LITTLE overrated, but yes, that is not what the regime does."kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as the rebels committing atrocities such as kidnappings, rapes and murders, you obviously aren't paying attention to the evidence and testimony out there. Too many stories are out there.
to restate: kidnapping/? is more a regime thing. murders are more of a both sides thing.
Points are all taken. For me it comes down to this, lately when America butts its head in the Middle East, things just seem to get worse for the nation, due to very low opinion of American moral authority and the epic killings Americans tend to commit in the nation it bombs( reports state that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died in the Iraq War, some reports show over one million were killed). Iraq has been a disaster ever since the American invasion, Americans have overstayed their welcome in Afghanistan and things are not much better there now. Libya is a hot mess now since Gaddafi was bombed out, and Syrian rebels will still commit atrocities with the American weapons we are now giving them. I don't see much benefits to taking Assad out, considering America's HORRIBLE history of intervention. I prefer the devil we know to the devils who are killing people for being Christian, atheist, or non religious in general.
America needs to mind its own..... -
http://in.news.yahoo.com/syrian-government-rebels-committing-war-crimes-un-160608428.html
Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons according to multiple witnesses and Russian intelligence
Both sides have laid siege to neighbourhoods and subjected them to indiscriminate shelling, said the report, which would be presented to the UN Human Rights Council's ongoing session Sep 16.
It said that the government forces have committed gross violations of human rights and war crimes.
Meanwhile, anti-government armed groups have also committed war crimes, including murder, execution without due process, torture, hostage-taking and attacking protected objects.
They have besieged and indiscriminately shelled civilian neighbourhoods, added the report, which also called for cessation of hostilities by warring parties and a return to negotiations.
In Moscow, Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the Duma or the lower house of the Russian parliament, said that Russia has submitted proof of use of chemical weapons by militants in Syria to the UN Security Council.
"Chemical weapons must be outlawed. It is not only the government of Syria, but militants in Syria as well who have chemical weapons"" ITAR-TASS quoted Pushkov as saying in a meeting of the Duma Wednesday.
According to Pushkov, the Syrian militants""used the chemical weapons repeatedly".
"Russia has just turned over the evidence at its disposal to the UN Security Council," he said.
--It's the HEIGHT of hypocrisy to say Assad is a war criminal for using chemical weapons and must be taken out, while the Syrian rebels have used murder and chemical weapons themselves.....let both sides ? each other off, America has done far worst things to the MIddle East then Assad ever has anyway. -
Iraq was always going to be a disaster if not managed properly (it wasn't), but i think that's less intervention than how the US handled the post-war part. ditto on Afghanistan. Libya i think the jury's still out on (country has problems, to be sure, but i don't think it's so cut and dry).kingblaze84 wrote: »Iraq has been a disaster ever since the American invasion, Americans have overstayed their welcome in Afghanistan and things are not much better there now. Libya is a hot mess now since Gaddafi was bombed out, and Syrian rebels will still commit atrocities with the American weapons we are now giving them.
not arguing that you or anyone else might think it's not worth backing the rebels, because Syria is SUCH a mess. but let's get back to what i AM arguing...
i am still telling you the same thing re: witnesses. Russia's going to be a little suspect on this point. but let's take it to the NYT:kingblaze84 wrote: »http://in.news.yahoo.com/syrian-government-rebels-committing-war-crimes-un-160608428.html
Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons according to multiple witnesses and Russian intelligence
Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas
continued...A United Nations report released on Monday confirmed that a deadly chemical arms attack caused a mass killing in Syria last month and for the first time provided extensive forensic details of the weapons used, which strongly implicated the Syrian government.
While the report’s authors did not assign blame for the attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the details it documented included the large size and particular shape of the munitions and the precise direction from which two of them had been fired. Taken together, that information appeared to undercut arguments by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that rebel forces, who are not known to possess such weapons or the training or ability to use them, had been responsible.
The report, commissioned by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, was the first independent on-the-ground scientific inquest into the attack, which left hundreds of civilians gassed to death, including children, early on Aug. 21.
The repercussions have elevated the 30-month-old Syrian conflict into a global political crisis that is testing the limits of impunity over the use of chemical weapons. It could also lead to the first concerted action on the war at the United Nations Security Council, which up to now has been paralyzed over Syria policy.
“The report makes for chilling reading,” Mr. Ban told a news conference after he briefed the Security Council. “The findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale. This is a war crime.”
Mr. Ban declined to ascribe blame, saying that responsibility was up to others, but he expressed hope that the attack would become a catalyst for a new diplomatic determination at the United Nations to resolve the Syrian conflict, which has left more than 100,000 people dead and millions displaced.
There was no immediate reaction to the report from the Syrian government. But just two days before the report was released, Syria officially agreed to join the international convention on banning chemical weapons, and the United States and Russia, which have repeatedly clashed over Syria, agreed on a plan to identify and purge those weapons from the country by the middle of next year. Syria has said it would abide by that plan.
The main point of the report was to establish whether chemical weapons had been used in the Aug. 21 attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, an area long infiltrated by rebels. The United Nations inspectors concluded that “chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale.”
The weapons inspectors, who visited Ghouta and left the country with large amounts of evidence on Aug. 31, said, “In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used.”
But the report’s annexes, detailing what the authors found, were what caught the attention of nonproliferation experts.
In two chilling pieces of information, the inspectors said that the remnants of a warhead they had found showed its capacity of sarin to be about 56 liters — far higher than initially thought. They also said that falling temperatures at the time of the attack ensured that the poison gas, heavier than air, would hug the ground, penetrating lower levels of buildings “where many people were seeking shelter.”
The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance.
These findings, though not presented as evidence of responsibility, were likely to strengthen the argument of those who claim that the Syrian government bears the blame, because the weapons in question had not been previously documented or reported to be in possession of the insurgency.
Moreover, those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way. -
page 2:
Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas
seems like a pretty reasonable analysis of blame.One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex.
Other nonproliferation experts said the United Nations report was damning in its implicit incrimination of Mr. Assad’s side in the conflict, not only in the weaponry fragments but also in the azimuth data that indicated the attack’s origins. An analysis of the report posted online by the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, said “the additional details and the perceived objectivity of the inspectors buttress the assignment of blame to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government.”
The United States and its allies seized on the volume of data in the report to reaffirm their conclusion that only Syrian government forces had the ability to carry out such a strike, calling it a validation of their own long-held assertions.
Both the British and American ambassadors to the United Nations also told reporters that the report’s lead author, Dr. Ake Sellstrom, a Swedish scientist who joined Mr. Ban in the Security Council briefing, had told members that quality of the sarin used in the attack was high.
“This was no cottage-industry use of chemical weapons,” said Britain’s ambassador, Sir Mark Lyall Grant. He said the type of munitions and trajectories had confirmed, “in our view, that there is no remaining doubt that it was the regime that used chemical weapons.”
Samantha Power, the American ambassador, acknowledged implicitly the credibility issue that has confronted the United States on Syria chemical weapons use, a legacy of the flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that led the United States into the Iraq war a decade ago.
“We understand some countries did not accept on faith that the samples of blood and hair that the United States received from people affected by the Aug. 21 attack contained sarin,” she said. “But now Dr. Sellstrom’s samples show the same thing. And it’s very important to note that the regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition posses sarin.”
Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly I. Churkin, said there were still too many unanswered questions. In talking to reporters, he asked, if the Syrian forces had indeed been responsible and sought to attack insurgents, “how is it possible to fire projectiles at your opponent and miss them all?”
“We need not jump to any conclusions,” he said.
The report’s release punctuated a tumultuous week spawned by the global outrage over the attack, in which an American threat of punitive force on the Syrian government was delayed as Russia proposed a diplomatic alternative and intense negotiations between the United States and Russia led to a sweeping agreement under which Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal could be destroyed.
The United Nations, in danger of becoming irrelevant in helping to end the Syria conflict, was suddenly thrust back into a central role, with the Security Council now engaged in deliberations over an enforceable measure to hold Syria to its commitment on chemical weapons.
Secretary of State John Kerry and the foreign ministers of France and Britain said Monday that they would not tolerate delays in dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons.
“It is extremely important that there are no evasions,” William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said at a news conference with Mr. Kerry in Paris.
Mr. Kerry said, “If Assad fails in time to abide by the terms of this framework, make no mistake, we are all agreed — and that includes Russia — that there will be consequences.”
The release of the report came as a separate panel of investigators from the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva said they were investigating 14 episodes of suspected chemical weapons use.
-
I understand Assad's regime may have used chemical weapons, all I'm saying is the Syrian rebels may have used chemical weapons too. The many links I've put up here (and there are many more online if you choose to look) show that the United Nations has lots of testimony from civilians that the Syrian rebels ALSO used chemical weapons, as recently as May (Russia claims more recently).
If Obama wanted to bomb both the rebels and the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons, this whole butting in business would make sense. But to play favorites in a civil war like this is dumb, and it's one of the main reasons most Americans don't want us to get involved in the war between two groups of savages. Let them all bomb each other to hell, we got serious problems in America that need attention before we babysit a nation that is filled with anti-Americans anyway. Funny how America thinks this is so serious an issue but almost no one else around the world is willing to bomb the Assad regime. -
well it KIND OF sounds like you're arguing Assad didn't... but either way, yeah, i know Russia's going to argue otherwise, but as much as you distrust the US (fair enough), Russia has much more of a dog in this fight, so...kingblaze84 wrote: »I understand Assad's regime may have used chemical weapons, all I'm saying is the Syrian rebels may have used chemical weapons too.
Americans are pretty war-weary. honestly, it's probably more about that than Syria. but i would agree that at this point, if America wanted to get in the mix, they PROBABLY should have done it sooner. the execution of this is a hot mess no matter what position you take on it.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Obama wanted to bomb both the rebels and the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons, this whole butting in business would make sense. But to play favorites in a civil war like this is dumb, and it's one of the main reasons most Americans don't want us to get involved in the war between two groups of savages.
-
well it KIND OF sounds like you're arguing Assad didn't... but either way, yeah, i know Russia's going to argue otherwise, but as much as you distrust the US (fair enough), Russia has much more of a dog in this fight, so...kingblaze84 wrote: »I understand Assad's regime may have used chemical weapons, all I'm saying is the Syrian rebels may have used chemical weapons too.
Americans are pretty war-weary. honestly, it's probably more about that than Syria. but i would agree that at this point, if America wanted to get in the mix, they PROBABLY should have done it sooner. the execution of this is a hot mess no matter what position you take on it.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Obama wanted to bomb both the rebels and the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons, this whole butting in business would make sense. But to play favorites in a civil war like this is dumb, and it's one of the main reasons most Americans don't want us to get involved in the war between two groups of savages.
Agreed.... -
So while Barack OBomBa and John "I wanna War" Kerry whine and ? about Syria, there was another mass shooting in Chicago last night, 13 were shot, including a three year old who took a bullet to the face.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/chicago-park-shooting_n_3959062.html
I think Obama should be more worried about the high amount of violence and bloodshed in his own hometown of Chicago then a far away place like Syria.....then again, Obama has zero moral authority on the bloodshed going on Chicago when he's a bloodthirsty warlord himself whose killed much more babies worldwide then any gang member has.... -
you have to remember that this is all the fault of those senators that didn't do what he wanted on gun controlkingblaze84 wrote: »I think Obama should be more worried about the high amount of violence and bloodshed in his own hometown of Chicago then a far away place like Syria.....then again, Obama has zero moral authority on the bloodshed going on Chicago when he's a bloodthirsty warlord himself whose killed much more babies worldwide then any gang member has....
