Russia Complicit in the gassing of Syrians?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by joepistole, Apr 7, 2017.


Is Russia complicit or incompetent in the gassing of Syrians?

  1. Complicit

    3 vote(s)
  2. Incompetent

    0 vote(s)
  3. Both

    4 vote(s)
  1. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Has there been any objective analysis as to whether the Russo/Syrian version of events has any merits?

    Can they really have been "framed" by genuine terrorists-or even a desperate opposition?

    Or is this "version" just a transparent holding strategy?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Common sense tells everybody that a chemical attack which may be somehow attributed to Assad is in the interest of the, hm, islamists. So, such fake attacks have to be expected.

    Nobody in the world cares if the hm, islamists use chemical weapons themselves, as they had. But it they claim "this was Assad" Trump bombs Assad. Predictably where will be more of such fake attacks in the future. They have the chemical weapons to kill some victims, they have some actors to make some White Helmets cinema, they have even an Oscar for this.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well here is the problem with that, Russia and Assad aren't fighting "Islamists"; they are fighting Syrian rebels. Oops. And the there is the fact that this isn't the first time Assad gas used chemical weapons against Syrian children.

    Trump's attack wasn't fake. It was very real. Ignore it at your peril. It was a very clear statement. The use of chemical weapons against children will not be tolerated.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Ok, special service for you, but only today:

    Nobody in the world cares if joepistoles beloved rebels use chemical weapons themselves, as they had. But it they claim "this was Assad" Trump bombs Assad. Predictably where will be more of such fake attacks in the future. They have the chemical weapons to kill some victims, they have some actors to make some White Helmets cinema, they have even an Oscar for this.

    Indeed, joepistoles beloved rebels have done already several such fake attacks.
    Indeed, it was a quite real aggression, based on nothing but propaganda lies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nobody ignores it. Even if only 23 of 59 cruise missiles have reached the airbase, and even if they had destroyed only a canteen, 6 old planes which were unable to fly anyway - even a single bomb is, from a legal point of view, a full scale aggression.

    And, given that joepistoles beloved rebels will predictably repeat their exercises for the next Oscar nomination, and Assad cannot do anything to prevent them from doing this, there will be more attacks against Syria. Syrians and Russians will prepare themselves for the next attack.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Joepistole's beloved rebels from Daesh have made two of their typical peaceful rebel protests in two Christian (Koptic) churches in Egypt. In Tanta, 25 persons have been killed and more than 70 wounded, in Alexandria 14 killed and 41 wounded.

    The bloody dictator Sisi has, after this, send the army to surround all such churches to prevent joepistoles beloved rebels from further peaceful protests against the Christian fundamentalists in these churches.
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, who cares about the truth comrade? Certainly you and your comrades don't. But unfortunately for you and your fellow comrades the rest of the world does. The fact is you have made several misrepresentations. Syrian Rebels aren't "islamists".

    Two, there is no evidence the Syrian rebels have ever gassed or bombed themselves, including their wives and children in order to blame Russia and Assad; much less repeatedly gassed themselves as you have repeatedly asserted. There is however evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons and he has repeatedly used them against rebel forces.

    Three, US military forces aren't in anyway comparable to those of your beloved Mother Russia. Just because 1 out 2 Russian cruise missiles fall short of their target, it doesn't follow the US has similar failure rates. The unfortunate fact for you is that 59 American cruise missiles delivered the intended message to both Russia and Assad.

    The US warned Russian of the attack before it occurred. The US gave Russia time to save their butts and they did. Your brave Russian ran for cover. When confronted, your Russian comrades ran for cover to save their asses. The bombers which delivered the gas weapons were destroyed. Radars were destroyed, and hardened shelters were destroyed. The mission was quite successful. The mission was intended to send a message, and it did. The fact that you are out here making excuses validates that fact.

    Putin, through his own incompetence, has once again embarrassed himself on an international scale.
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Again Comrade Schmeltzer, Syrian rebels aren't Daesh or ISIS or al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group. They are just Syrian rebels. They don't like being arrested, tortured, and murdered by their government and they have the courage to stand up against tyranny. They are Russia's and Assad's worst enemy. But that doesn't make them terrorists.
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Rebels.....could be ordinary citizens, kind of oppressed mass. Over the period of time these people could acquire some weapons and could become aggressive. But this does not change the basic nature of bona fide rebellion.

    It cannot be denied that Assad is killing and torturing rebels (read civilians), so it is very natural for more and more citizens to come forward and object to him. In a weak undemocratic set ups or in authoritarian regimes people in power almost invariably treat rebellion as nuisance and apply cruel force from day one instead of solving the cause behind rebellion. You can check the history that this tactics never works and a civil war breaks out, which after killing/maiming of thousands of innocent leads to ouster of regime. Its a matter of time that Assad will go. I do not know when will we understand that we are leaving in an era where oppression will not work. Shame that UN is spineless.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Common sense also notices that State terrorism has many benefits for someone like Assad, and is to be expected in the future (as well as having been observed in the past).

    And that Assad has had - and probably did not destroy completely - both the gas and the delivery systems, in good working order and in the hands of experienced deployers. Not really all that easy to come by - even with Russian help.

    Against this we have the odd argument that somehow these tactics don't make any sense for Assad, ostensibly because of his desire to maintain a good public image or the like. This argument relies on the assumption that Assad is not a strongman in Russian-backed control of a terrorist State - because if he is, not only the acts but the timings make perfect sense.
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course, the usual state terrorism - like imprisoning people who don't pay taxes - give a lot of benefits and is done by all states. Assad is no exception, Putin too.
    No. This argument relies on what has happened 2013, where the world has learned that Obama's "red line" had the predictable consequence, namely a false flag gas attack. And where the only thing Assad could do to prevent the US aggression was to give up all his chemical weapons - thus, all his deterrent power against Israel. And the next time what could follow was unpredictable, it could be an open US war. How is such a clear and visible danger of US war related with Assad himself being a strongmen or so? It is a question of elementary safety not to do completely stupid things.

    Wake up and learn that politicians all over the world cannot afford doing completely stupid things, like US politician can and do. And the time when US politicians can do them is finishing. (They continue to do them, and this is what makes this time so dangerous.)
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    All countries don't throw people in jail for not paying their taxes. The US doesn't do it. The US will throw people in jail for failing to report their income or fraudulently reporting their income. But it doesn't imprison people for not paying what is owned. Facts are important comrade.
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay tax that would fund wars and slavery, was jailed for it in 1846.

    Maybe they actually don't, that's a purely pragmatic question. They can if they want.
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    That was 1847 and it was a local poll tax. It wasn't a state or federal tax and it wasn't used to find any wars. He was illegally arrested. Facts matter Comrade.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Don't be silly.
    Gas attacks by Assad began before Obama's "red line" maneuver, and continued after briefly - until Putin stepped in, apparently to prevent what he saw as likely in US politics, namely Congressional authorization of US assault. Obama deserves credit for that - many Syrians were spared the worst of Assad's tactics for a while, without the US doing harm of its own. After he was forced to get rid of the nerve gas and gear, he was limited to chlorine derivatives now and then for three or four years - unwieldy and less useful for State terrorism.

    Deterrence of Israeli nukes was of course a transparent excuse without credibility.
    There's been nothing stupid about Assad's State terrorism so far. He uses it to keep power, just as Saddam did (and Putin, to a lesser and more easily obscured degree), and Shah Pahlavi, and the various strongmen in the 'stans, and innumerable others all over the world. And he employs it well - good timing, good targets, etc. His torture prisons were well known for their reliability and effectiveness, for example.

    That of course makes him vulnerable to a false flag operation. But the gain is worth that risk, apparently.
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I have not cared about such earlier attempts for false flag propaganda, but this is, of course, plausible. Last but not least, there had to be some informational reason for Obama's stupid "red line" speech, which made a big false flag operation unavoidable.
    Syrians were spared US bombing and Daesh/jihadist rule like it happened in Libya, which would have killed much more people than in Libya (all Alewite and Christian population).
    Ok, if you seriously declare that this is an excuse without credibility, this is a serious argument. Even if without any evidence.
    Yes. About the real state terrorism (inclusive some torture or extralegal killing of various islamists, which I don't know about, but which seems sufficiently plausible) there is nothing stupid. One can reasonably argue that torturing terrorists would allow to give some information which would allow to prevent future attacks. I don't believe, but this is beyond the point.

    My position about this is that torture should be forbidden. And in the extremal cases where torture is good, those who torture should do this on their own risk. And even if they get information by torture which helps to prevent an attack, they should receive some legal penalty for torture. The fame for having saved lifes will be sufficient for them to live with the legal punishment. But if Assad thinks otherwise, this is not a big problem for me. There are a lot of much more important questions for me. Like the ability for a Christian, or an atheist, to live a peaceful live in Syria. The fate of those who want to rule Syria is IMHO much less relevant than the fate of those who simply want to live a peaceful live in Syria, without having to change their religious belief or non-belief.

    But the use of chemical weapons would be stupid. It would be "worse than a crime... It [would be] a blunder"
    I disagree. Everybody is vulnerable to false flag operations. Especially if nobody even cares of presenting any proofs.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You mistake the role of State terrorism, and the role of the "justifications" for it. Torture, for example, is almost never employed by a State to gain information (and certainly not by Assad) - that is a cover story, a propaganda fable always in obvious conflict with the facts. The conflict is usually so obvious that a reasonable person is forced to notice that it must be intended - that the lie is meant to be seen, and part of the operation of the terror regime.
    Ok. But don't argue backwards from that to Assad being other than he is. If you are making that bargain, as was made with Saddam and Shah Pahlavi and so many others around the world, make it with your eyes open.
    Assad knows better - as did Saddam, his nearest neighbor in more ways than one.
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Learn to read. My position does not depend on that question. I take what can be used, in principle, for a justification, and reject even this justification.
    I don't argue what he is. I have no base to think he is a peaceful nice guy, and I have also no base to believe the NATO propaganda. What I can say, after seeing some interview, is that he is not stupid, certainly not that stupid as he should be to use chemical weapons.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You mistake the role of State terrorism, and that mistake is:
    1) visible in your positing of something that you think could "in principle" justify torture, in other words be an actual motive (however wrong) for State torture (gathering information);
    2) the apparent error behind your thinking that Assad would be "stupid" to engage in such State terrorism as gas attacks with UN observers present.
    It's not a stupid thing for him to do. One of the reasons to believe that he has done it is that it makes sense for him to have done it - just as it made sense for Saddam, and so many others.

    He has the means, and the motive, and requisite character. So even if one or more of these attacks were false flag, they are credible as his doing because they fit his doing - they make sense. This fit, this vulnerability, is something he created himself.

    The point is: it's reasonable to accept Assad as the best option for Syria, given the unholy horrorshow the US created by invading Iraq. I lean that way myself - certainly all US efforts to change Syrian governance should be nonviolent, imho. W&Cheney have all but destroyed the US military's ability to do anyone any good in that part of the world, even wisely and prudently led. But don't close your eyes. Assad's governance is what it is, and it's not pretty. And Putin's alliance with him reflects favorably on neither man.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course, I know about the role of state terrorism - simply to create fear and terror among the population.

    But what I see in reality is something different. Namely, I see a repetition of local peace agreements, where some part of the fighters is allowed to travel, with families, out of their enclaves to Idlib, and others are allowed to stay at home and receive amnesty, by giving away their weapons. And in all these peace agreements, there are large numbers of fighters who stay at home and accept the amnesty. This is something you cannot reach by creating fear and terror among the population. Think about it - there is a fighter, he has weapons, he has friends to fight together, he can choose to continue fighting. If to give away his weapon means that he, after this, has to live in a state of fear and terror, will he do it? In no way. Many may hesitate to take weapons to fight against those who create fear and terror. But once one has already taken the weapon, and started to fight, one will not come back volitional into a living in fear and horror. But this is something Assad needs to win the war - to motivate enemy fighters to stop fighting, to make peace.

    So I think the Horror-Assad, who wants to create fear and terror, is mainly Western propaganda fantasy. That there may be some Dracula-like dictators who want to create fear and horror among the population to prevent upraising, ok, it may in some situations make sense. But this is not what one observes in Syria. And, even if he would like to create terror - there would be better ways, less politically dangerous ones.
    Above know that it does not matter what they do, their picture in the Western press will be extremely unfavorable. Even if they would bow down to America, it would not help them - too late. So, live with the fact that they don't have to care about this.

    BTW, I have seen an interesting thesis about the Russian reaction - to shut down the military coordination channel with the US. The idea is that the US has used this channel to inform Russia, to prevent a counterattack, which, else, would have started after the cruise missiles have been started. Shutting down the channel means a repetition of this is no longer possible.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Oh, I see CNN became pro-Trump now:

    And NYT too:

    And ABC also:

    All one has to do to get their support is to bomb under violation of international law. So, a rough overview suggests not only the German NATO-press supports this end of any international law, but the US media too. Trump follows now the Clinton foreign policy, and everything is fine again.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017

Share This Page