Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[jimbob]

The "regime" has never denied having chemical weapons, to the contrary. If you want to know more about Alloush and his connection to the events, I suggest you click on the link I provided instead of cutting it out of your quote of my post.

btw, the terrorist was banned from twitter finally after some serious efforts.

I followed your link and saw a lot more links but nothing actually to refute the reasoning in this post

Lots of sources, there are other assessments too - Thanks to ApolloGnomon for the Brown Moses blog link, which is pretty authoritative.

Possessing the weapons is only one part of conducting such an operation.

We know that at least some came from what look like rockets, and some have been bent as if on impact. This blog (which I linked to earlier) lists a lot of evidence about this - it is a collation of the publicly available information and description of it.

Thursday's post shows videos of UN inspectors linking the projectiles to the attack


As well as that, the actual operation needs to be carried out.

Given the fact that several areas were hit at the same time all surrounding Damascus, would require a large scale use of weapons with detailed planning in order to do this.

They would need to devote a lot of scarce resources to this attack on their own area rather than defending their neighbourhoods, and those involved would have to hide their involvement from their comrades in the weeks prior to the incident without anyone having second thoughts and warning their friends. The risk of such a plan being exposed would also end the rebellion, and it would be almost impossible to keep secret.

Look at the little things that annoy thread to see how well humans are at project management - the more complex the more chances of failure. Everything would need to work like clockwork and be implemented by chaotic organisations, whilst under attack and having diverted massive resources away from the actual role of defence without any one noticing.

A rebel false-flag attack would violate the rules of project management. It would be impossible to pull off without going wrong or and getting discovered, and such an attack would end that part of the rebellion which organised it.

ETA: In other words, the people who ask what the regime would have to gain from the attack being attributed to the regime haven't asked what the rebels would have to lose from a false-flag operation being discovered.

Immediately the attack helped the regime tactically.

If it was a false flag operation, it was one that caused significant harm to the rebels and helped the regime.

Elsewhere a poster commented that the situation in Syria with Assad and ISIS is like choosing between Mussolini and Pol Pot.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I don't have to read a post that starts with calling Brown Noses "authoritative". His sources re:Ghouta and in extension himself through refusing to readjust the nonsense he spouts and admit mistakes have been called fraudulent by actual chemical weapons experts for a reason.

There's quite a bit of original research re those attacks and Alloush on our wiki, but it is admittedly a bit chaotic so I don't expect you to take the time to dig through it, as your attention span isn't even long enough to read through the single relevant link that is at the linked wiki page.

 

[jimbob]

The "regime" has never denied having chemical weapons, to the contrary. If you want to know more about Alloush and his connection to the events, I suggest you click on the link I provided instead of cutting it out of your quote of my post.

btw, the terrorist was banned from twitter finally after some serious efforts.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world-july-dec13-charlierose_09-09/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Even in 2003, from the Daily Fail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-176750/Syria-denies-chemical-weapons.html

 

[CapelDodger]

If it was a false flag operation, it was one that caused significant harm to the rebels and helped the regime.

One should not confuse outcomes with intentions.

Elsewhere a poster commented that the situation in Syria with Assad and ISIS is like choosing between Mussolini and Pol Pot.

A fine analogy, I think.

An older saying :
"Always keep a hold of Nurse,
For fear of finding something worse."

 

[jimbob]

I don't have to read a post that starts with calling Brown Noses "authoritative". His sources re:Ghouta and in extension himself through refusing to readjust the nonsense he spouts and admit mistakes have been called fraudulent by actual chemical weapons experts for a reason.

There's quite a bit of original research re those attacks and Alloush on our wiki, but it is admittedly a bit chaotic so I don't expect you to take the time to dig through it, as your attention span isn't even long enough to read through the single relevant link that is at the linked wiki page.

Your list of links was large and didn't really summarise what they were presenting.

Are you saying the defending rebels staged the attack, or that some other rebels attacked them due to infighting, and with the potential benefit of discrediting the regime?

 

[CapelDodger]

HOWEVER, given all of that, you may be right. Right now there is not much of an alternative. The best option is probably to work with the regime to find some kind of political solution.

I think that's the most pragmatic approach.

 

[CapelDodger]

That applies to every single country in the entire world.

There's a great difference between nation-states such as the United Kingdom and those like Syria and Nigeria. The former, like France, emerged out of a long history ih which a synthesis was worked out and (crucially) confessional differences were effectively removed from the political equation. This became the model for Germany and Italy; Spain, as usual, walked its own peculiar path that nobody sensible would want to follow. Portugal, on the other hand, is an emergent country.

Syria was created by Imperial bureaucrats with no regard for its history and no consideration for the fractured nature of its population except insofar as it could be exploited (by, for instance, forming a native militia largely from the Alawite and Christian minorities). Without a firm hand at the centre it falls apart - as we see now. And ditto Iraq.

A European traveller in the Ottoman Middle East once described a typical city as a cluster of walled-in quarters each with its own community - Sunni, Shia, Jewish, Armenian, Kurdish, Greek and what-all else - living in imminent expectation of massacre. From that to nation-states in one bold leap is more than could sensibly be hoped for, in my opinion.

 

[CapelDodger]

There's quite a bit of original research re those attacks and Alloush on our wiki, but it is admittedly a bit chaotic so I don't expect you to take the time to dig through it, as your attention span isn't even long enough to read through the single relevant link that is at the linked wiki page.

For the record, I'm not going to dig through it because I think the subject is a pointless distraction larded with strong partisan overtones.

Carry on.

 

[Childlike Empress]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world-july-dec13-charlierose_09-09/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Even in 2003, from the Daily Fail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-176750/Syria-denies-chemical-weapons.html

Funny how the first comment on your first link is

Your headline "Assad Denied Possession of Chemical Weapons" is a lie! He refused repeatedly to say whether he had them or not. He never DENIED having them. You PBS are liars and unethical.

while there is nothing but the headline that suggests such. And everybody knows that they through the barbwire bragged about it as deterrent against Israel. So spare me your +10 years old Daily Fail article. The "regime" denied to have used chemical weapons in the Ghouta, but they didn't deny to have them. They treated the issue (at best/worst) like Israel treats their nuclear arsenal.

 

[Childlike Empress]

For the record, I'm not going to dig through it because I think the subject is a pointless distraction larded with strong partisan overtones.

Carry on.

It almost caused a major military operation that was only avoided by Russian diplomacy, unexpected by most. I had to assure several people that it wouldn't cause a world war, so at the time it wasn't a pointless distraction, it was a BIG deal.

 

[CapelDodger]

It almost caused a major military operation that was only avoided by Russian diplomacy, unexpected by most. I had to assure several people that it wouldn't cause a world war, so at the time it wasn't a pointless distraction, it was a BIG deal.

The big deal is that counter-productive action was not taken, and that wasn't because there was doubt about attribution. It demonstrated a recognition in the White House that it's a can of worms out there where red lines can turn out, on examination, to be dotted. This stands in stark and welcome contrast to the blockhead "thinking" of the previous administration.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The big deal is that counter-productive action was not taken, and that wasn't because there was doubt about attribution. It demonstrated a recognition in the White House that it's a can of worms out there where red lines can turn out, on examination, to be dotted. This stands in stark and welcome contrast to the blockhead "thinking" of the previous administration.

The British parliament also had surprisingly not approved action, which might have had quite an influence on Washington as well. And IIRC there was doubt about attribution there, if only (loudly) by Galloway.

 

[CapelDodger]

The British parliament also had surprisingly not approved action, which might have had quite an influence on Washington as well. And IIRC there was doubt about attribution there, if only (loudly) by Galloway.

Galloway's natural environment is a 1930's bierkellar. A skidmark on the underpants of history, not to be taken seriously.

Parliament getting up on its hind legs for once was indeed a surprise. That's the legacy of the Iraq War and Blair. And Cameron's political ineptitude - what a delight it was to watch the horrible truth dawning on him as the vote approached.

It did give Obama some cover when he gave diplomacy a chance. We won't know if it made a difference until the insider memoirs come out in a few years, and even then we won't know for sure.

 

[Childlike Empress]

New BBC interview with Assad just published.

 

[CapelDodger]

New BBC interview with Assad just published.

In some cultures the capacity to tell flat-out lies that everybody must know are lies is a demonstration of high status. Just saying.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In some cultures the capacity to tell flat-out lies that everybody must know are lies is a demonstration of high status. Just saying.

I'm the first to admit that the 15 minutes of fame for Brown "Barrel Bombs" Noses are quite embarrassing.

 

[Childlike Empress]

U.S., Qatar Plan To Rebrand AlQaeda Into "Moderate" Rebels

The CIA supported and equipped "moderate" rebels in Syria are losing out against al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra. The last "moderate" group active in north Syria, Harakat Hazzm, had to give up its headquarter -including a warehouse full of U.S. weapons- to Jabhat al Nusra and dissolved. Many of its members then joined Nusra.

The U.S. military plans to recruit, pay and train new "moderate" rebels but the effort is starting veeerrry slow. Just 100 have been vetted so far to be "moderate" enough for the program. There are simply too few non-Jihadi rebels and warlords available who are willing to die for U.S. dollars.

A solution to the lack of qualified "moderate" personal is the rebranding of non-moderate groups into "moderates". James Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, recently moved into that direction:

Moderate these days is increasingly becoming anyone who is not affiliated with ISIL. [...]​

Disgusting. Will this scum ever give up?

 

[LSSBB]

U.S., Qatar Plan To Rebrand AlQaeda Into "Moderate" Rebels




Disgusting. Will this scum ever give up?

Where in that steaming pile of inference does he say exactly that he plans to rebrand Al Qaeda as moderate?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Speaking of the devil: Top Nusra Front Commander Killed in Syria Blast

[...] The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said "a number of al-Nusra Front leaders were killed" in the attack as they gathered for a meeting, but was unable to say if its chief, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, was among them.

"It's not clear if the attack was carried out by the coalition or the regime, and there is contradictory information over the fate of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani... amid reports that he was at the place of the attack," Observatory director Rami Abdel-Rahman told AFP.

The Syrian state news agency SANA, quoting its correspondent, said Abu Humam and a number of other Nusra leaders had been killed in an army operation targeting the meeting held in the village of Hobait in a rural area of Idlib.

SANA also cited a military source saying the army had carried out "concentrated strikes" against Nusra and other Islamist groups in the Abu al-Dhuhur area, which lies to the northeast of Hobait.

Insurgent sources initially said a US-led coalition airstrike hit the meeting in the northwestern province of Idlib, but Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said he could not confirm the reports, and added that neither “the US or the coalition have conducted air strikes near that location in recent days.” [...]

Way to go, SAA. Meanwhile useless Skull&Bones ratboy Kerry is busy repeating the old mantra:

[...] In Saudi Arabia to meet with Gulf allies, Kerry upped pressure on Assad to negotiate, saying he had "lost any semblance of legitimacy" and raising the possibility of military pressure.

"Ultimately a combination of diplomacy and pressure will be needed to bring about a political transition. Military pressure particularly may be necessary given President Assad's reluctance to negotiate seriously," Kerry said in Riyadh. [...]

Why would anybody want to "negotiate seriously" with this clown?

 

[angrysoba]

Why would anybody want to "negotiate seriously" with this clown?

Indeed. Or with John Kerry.