Syria, its about to get messy

 
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Spot on. Morality to one side, Saddam was a buffoon, more interested in pursuing wealth and opulence than world domination. He didn't want the likes of Al Khidr destabilising his comfortable life.

Without too much trouble the US could have bought him off and use him as a bulwark against Iran and terrorist groups. After all look at how Gaddafi was being brought back into the league of civilised nations.
Instead they ended up spending much more in dollars and blood for what end. Dead is dead.
cootanee
Hussain had problems locally, Iraq was heavily in debt due to 10 year war with Iran and his creditors wanted their money back. Kuwait No.1, Saudi and others following. Hence Kuwait invasion. The US population wanted revenge over 9-11, Afghan and Iraq wore it, Libya and a few others pulled their nose in fearing a similar outcome. However, no body in the US thought it would drag on so long and the exit plans were very weak. The USA has struggled how to handle Al Qaeda which is not a single nation, the key people are increadibly hard to find and its turned out to be like the Viet cong on a larger scale for which we all know what happened there (US butts kicked).

Al Qaeda is a growing force, the loss of these major dictators has fuelled the fire. The middle east people by and large don't like it. Its forcing things to become more extreme and conservative in the name of retaining their culture. Ongoing povety and low economic choices is making it easy for them to get a foot hold which in part due to massive population growth. The GCC countries are working incredibly hard to try and keep their people happy and not fall victim to the ideology. The GCC countries leaders have been slowing trying to keep the west on side by ensuring their countries continue to become more liberal, esepcially Saudi which wants to distance itself from Sept 11 as much as it can.

Realitsically the Israel issue is minor and only affects the likes of Syria who cannot let it go over having their arses kicked multiple times and its more a govt thing than people. The rest are all talk over Israel but have greater issues, but allowing Palistine to exist would make a world of difference. They don't see Israel a threat to the existance and know full well Israel is here to stay and US (their biggest customer, miltary supplier and protector, and in some cases debitor) will never let it fall. For its part I think Israel is being incredibly tolerant. It provides un restricted food, water and medical to Gaza and West bank at low cost to zero, it allows millions to earn money from Israel and take it home. Yet these are the same communities that fire rockets and set off bombs. The great wall Israel is building in my mind maybe should have been built decades ago. However Israel needs to return much of the occupied territories and this is a sticking point internally and externally.

The biggest issue for middle east is one religion and the different view points on how it should be observed and many don't accept that your neighbour is free to do what he chooses. The religion is very social and peer driven in a region where support from your extended family and community is critical to your wealth and survival.

While I think the USA/UN should do something, no one wants to see dead babies, women and children on TV from any strike and unfortunately this will happen and there has been so much death a distruction to the Syrian people while the world watched, I think its too late now to try and come in as the white night. The Syrian people have had enough from their own, they don't need more from others. +100,000 dead, 0.5% of the population. They should have enforced a no fly zone 2 years ago and let them sort it our more fairly. Its simply too late.

Sponsored advertisement

  Newcastle Express Chief Commissioner

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1751313/missiles-launched-in-mediterranean-russia/?cs=303 &
http://www.smh.com.au/world/missiles-launched-in-mediterranean-russia-20130903-2t38m.html



Sept. 3, 2013, 7:59 p.m.

Russia has announced that its missile early warning system had detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the sea’s eastern coastline.

The launches took place at 10.16am Moscow time (1616 AEST) on Tuesday and were detected by the early warning system in Armavir in southern Russia, the defence ministry said in a statement quoted by Russian news agencies.

It said Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu had already reported to President Vladimir Putin about the event, which comes amid growing expectations of Western military action in Syria.

"The launch was detected by the early warning radar in Armavir," the Interfax news agency quoted the defence ministry as saying.

"The trajectory of the targets in question was from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea towards the eastern part of the Mediterranean coastline," it added.

"Sergei Shoigu has already reported to Vladimir Putin - the commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces - about the discovery of the launch of the ballistic targets," it said.

The objects detected by Russian radar fell into sea, according to Russian news agency RIA, while ITAR-TASS, another agency, quoted a source in the Syrian capital Damascus as saying there were no explosions.

AFP

More to come
Newcastle Herald
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
So is there any other independent verification about this 'launch', other than the word of the Russians? If it was the US, then it would not have been a ballistic missile, they don't need them for such close range targets. And cruise missiles are not 'ballistic'.

And just to correct the grammar of that story, you don't launch 'ballistic targets', they are usually far too heavy to get off the ground Smile
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

So is there any other independent verification about this 'launch', other than the word of the Russians? If it was the US, then it would not have been a ballistic missile, they don't need them for such close range targets. And cruise missiles are not 'ballistic'.

And just to correct the grammar of that story, you don't launch 'ballistic targets', they are usually far too heavy to get off the ground Smile
TheBlacksmith
Apparently this was part of a test for an Israeli missile defence system with American assistance.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139391217914513.html

Unofficial commentary on the Syria "scandal" and other current affairs:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PxEuYUUMJI&feature=youtu.be
  Newcastle Express Chief Commissioner

You stupid idiot Obama getting support to interfere with someone else's civil war. The US & their bad Israeli pals are Hypocrites - the article says that neither "Israel" nor the US notified (especially near-by) countries that they were going to do missile tests.

FOR BLOOMIN' SAKE, STAY OUT OF THEIR (repeat THEIR) CONFLICT UNLESS SYRIA ATTACKS YOU BEFORE HAND.
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

FOR BLOOMIN' SAKE, STAY OUT OF THEIR (repeat THEIR) CONFLICT UNLESS SYRIA ATTACKS YOU BEFORE HAND.
Newcastle Express
Nah, they'd rather continue down the road to World War III under the guise of liberating an oppressed people (the government of whom "just happens" to be a friend/ally of Iran, Russia etc and therefore not on board with the increasingly frantic US empire).
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
Apparently this was part of a test for an Israeli missile defence system with American assistance.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139391217914513.html

Unofficial commentary on the Syria "scandal" and other current affairs:
HeadShunt

So it was Israel who fired the missiles, not the US.

And that 'unofficial' piece you linked to is a pathetic personal rant, it has no credibility and is pure rubbish.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
You stupid idiot Obama getting support to interfere with someone else's civil war. The US & their bad Israeli pals are Hypocrites - the article says that neither "Israel" nor the US notified (especially near-by) countries that they were going to do missile tests.

FOR BLOOMIN' SAKE, STAY OUT OF THEIR (repeat THEIR) CONFLICT UNLESS SYRIA ATTACKS YOU BEFORE HAND.
Newcastle Express

You are just getting sillier with every posting.
  CraigW Assistant Commissioner

You stupid idiot Obama getting support to interfere with someone else's civil war. The US & their bad Israeli pals are Hypocrites - the article says that neither "Israel" nor the US notified (especially near-by) countries that they were going to do missile tests.

FOR BLOOMIN' SAKE, STAY OUT OF THEIR (repeat THEIR) CONFLICT UNLESS SYRIA ATTACKS YOU BEFORE HAND.
Newcastle Express

What is this thing with "Israel" ? You do not seem to feel the need to put quotation marks around the name of any other country


Craigw
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Who cares who fired them, they did not hit Syria and unlike Assad's missiles, they contained no chemicals...
  waxyzebu Locomotive Driver


And that 'unofficial' piece you linked to is a pathetic personal rant, it has no credibility and is pure rubbish.
"TheBlacksmith"


I just watched thst and didn't think it was THAT bad. You might not agree with what he said and yes it was a rant like most of this forum, but the video showed several media reports, it was not just made up. To call it pathetic, rubbish etc was a bit harsh. Amateur, maybe. Rubbish? I think not.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
... To call it pathetic, rubbish etc was a bit harsh. ...
waxyzebu


Oh they can do better...

... I think ...
waxyzebu


No! They'll just get worse.
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

LOL moving right along...

Since we're contemplating the possibility of another "illegal" act of "aggression" in attacking Syria, I'm looking forward to the UN's report and some evidence, preferably better than a few intercepted phone calls and the sort of thing we were fed about Saddam's weapons facilities, which even included faked images. Given what has happened in the past and the reputedly poor behaviour of both the Syrian government and rebels, to expect some hard evidence would surely not be unreasonable.

Syria attack illegal without approval of United Nations Security Council
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/03/syria-ballistic-launch-mediterranean.html

Draft resolutions for "limited" military action in the US Senate.
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

Background information with tales of Iraq and the WMDs
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-another-illegal-war-of-aggression-based-on-manipulation-and-fake-intelligence/5348017

Putin: any non-UN sanctioned intervention would be interpreted as "aggression"
For what it's worth, there are loads of comments on this and other mainstream articles, a large number of which are expressing strong opposition to military action without evidence. It's fairly safe to say that many, many people are not on board with their warmongering - oh sorry, I mean, philanthropistic - politicians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655

Opposition to attack within the US government, again with many anti-attack without evidence comments from (presumably American) readers
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20311993-faces-of-the-opposition-syria-critics-come-from-both-parties#comments

US Senator Rand Paul: "I haven't had one person come up to me and say they're for this war. Not one person."
http://rt.com/usa/syria-poll-us-opposed-410/

Aljazeera:
Striking Syria: Illegal, immoral, and dangerous  
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

Fox News:
Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels fight army near Christian village
Read more: [color=#003399]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/05/al-qaeda-linked-syrian-rebels-fight-army-near-christian-village/#ixzz2eAEHQqkY[/color]
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/05/al-qaeda-linked-syrian-rebels-fight-army-near-christian-village/


G20 Syria divide: World’s largest nations speak out against US-led strike
http://rt.com/news/g20-against-syria-strike-527/


NBC News: Anti-American sentiment in Free Syrian Army (Syrian rebels)
Defense officials estimate that al Qaeda and related extremists groups now constitute “more than 50 percent” of the rebel force
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20348901-not-one-of-bad-guys-but-syrian-rebel-group-proclaims-anti-american-bent#comments
More than 800 comments from (presumably American) readers


Another unofficial piece on the US, Iran and Syria. Reference is made to numerous mainstream media sources, interviews with various officials and established historical fact. Call it another pathetic rant if you like, but if you actually pay attention to what is being said, you may find that he is onto something, even if you don't agree with all of his conclusions. Take it, leave it, counter his arguments, ridicule it. Whatever.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=youtu.be


PBS Newshour
Representative Alan Grayson: We cannot go to war for the sake of anybody's, how shall I say this, credibility.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/grayson_09-05.html
Can Past U.S. Military Engagements Shed Light on the Syria Conundrum?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/historians_09-06.html
  sar602 Chief Train Controller

Location: Nomadic truckie
This has been nothing more than a foreign backed invasion from the get go theres been plans to take out Syria for many years.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-planned-syrian-civilian-catastrophe.html?utm_source=BP_recent


basically were going to risk a 3rd world war and the genocide of all ethno/religious minorities in the reigion, reinforce extremist elements all for the benifit of our Zionist overlords.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
This has been nothing more than a foreign backed invasion from the get go theres been plans to take out Syria for many years.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-planned-syrian-civilian-catastrophe.html?utm_source=BP_recent


basically were going to risk a 3rd world war and the genocide of all ethno/religious minorities in the reigion, reinforce extremist elements all for the benifit of our Zionist overlords.
sar602

Yes, there is another credible link.

What do you mean 'we' and 'our'?
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Looks like Obama doesn't have the numbers in congress - I'm very glad of that!  Interestingly, it appears the Russians might end up helping with the removal Chem weapons from Syria:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/obama-backs-off-red-line-opens-door-to-diplomatic-track-on-syria/
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

Looks like Obama doesn't have the numbers in congress - I'm very glad of that!  Interestingly, it appears the Russians might end up helping with the removal Chem weapons from Syria:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/obama-backs-off-red-line-opens-door-to-diplomatic-track-on-syria/
Carnot

America's credibility and legitimacy in the World Police stakes has been dealt another blow by the entertainment of what started at G20 talks (led by Russia), followed by an off the cuff answer to a question at a press conference from none other than John Kerry, which was then seized upon and formalised by the other team - Russia. If Syria co-operates with a non-violent disarmament proposal it will weaken the position of the US/EU pro-war camp. If those warmongers change their story and press ahead, it could provide evidence of ulterior motives for an attack.

Few appear to wholeheartedly believe the pro-war imperial propaganda anymore. Even if they feel that Assad is a monster, they also know they can't trust the word of US leaders when it comes to regime change and who should be bombed next.

NBC News:
Obama downplaying impact of Russian proposal for chemical weapons disarmament.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/09/20399319-obama-on-russias-syria-chemical-weapons-proposal-take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt#comments
Many detailed reader comments, as usual.

Huffington Post:
Syria Poll Finds Airstrike Opposition Rising Dramatically
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/syria-poll_n_3894628.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
I'm still wondering exactly who Obama and Kerry are representing in their pro-war campaign. Not the American public, that's for sure - they're desperate to convince the public that an attack is the right course of action in the face of strong opposition. Aren't they supposed to listen to what the public want? How silly of me to hold such an ignorant belief.

RT news:
Obama ‘should be grateful’ for face-saving chance to backpedal on Syria.
http://rt.com/op-edge/obama-syria-russia-proposal-638/
The headline says it all. Now watch as the US tries to take charge of this initiative as if it was their own idea. Well, I guess Kerry did make a little suggestion at a press conference in the UK: Kerry ‘rhetorically’ gives Syria 1 week to relinquish chemical weapons

RT sources: Syrian rebels plan chem attack on Israel from Assad-controlled territories
http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/
More rumours of possible false flag attacks by Syrian rebels to drag foreign powers into action against Assad.
  PaulAustin Locomotive Fireman

Re: "Zionism"

The Arabs were quite open about exactly what they'd do to the Jews if they won in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They get no sympathy.

The so-called "right of return" will never be accepted as it denies Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

It looks like Obama & Co are pushing for a deadline for disarmament and possibly some sort of "in principle" approval for airstrikes should the disarmament programme "fail". It is fairly clear that he did not initially have the numbers in Congress, but this might be an easier way of getting Congressional support for an attack. If once the deadline is reached it is "decided" that disarmament has failed, Obama & Co would be able to argue that they tried everything, it didn't work, and bombing is the only remaining option, and they may even try to interpret a UN resolution to suit that end. Meanwhile, Putin insists that disarmament will not work unless the US promises not to use force.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24040659
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20424916-obama-speech-big-reveal-will-consider-russian-proposal-on-syria#comments
http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-chemical-weapons-669/
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

Forget chemical weapons, think energy interests
It appears that one of the underlying factors in the "Syria crisis" could be natural gas, including a proposed gas pipeline connecting Iran to Syria via Iraq. It is understood that this project would also be to the benefit of Russian energy interests at the expense of the US and its allies in the region. Meanwhile, Qatar wants to run a pipeline from the Gulf of Persia to Turkey/Europe via Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, but Syria ain't playing ball with that one. In other words, Syria has again chosen the wrong side, needs to be punished and/or brought back under control.

It might not be the only factor, but it sounds plausible enough.

Natural Gas: What the War in Syria is Really About

http://www.infowars.com/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
Why is it that all you tin foil hat wearers want to see an oil/gas/whatever conspiracy in these conflicts? Why cannot the issue simply be that the Allies don't want to see some bastard gas his people to death?
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

Why is it that all you tin foil hat wearers want to see an oil/gas/whatever conspiracy in these conflicts?
By "all you tin foil hat wearers", I assume you are referring to the authors of the various media reports referring to energy interests and other "alternative theories*" on the Syria conflict, rather than fellow Railpage members.

Otherwise, if I may be so bold, your post is bordering on abusive and adds very little to the serious discussion of the topic.

Having said that, I look forward to seeing your detailed posts with reasoned replies and rational argument on the topic, accompanied by "credible links" and "evidence" to support your position.

*For some reason I think these "alternative theories" are on the minds of large numbers of people in countries like the US, as surveys and comments online tend to suggest. They are increasingly the mainstream view of the public, while the pro war position is increasingly confined to elite circles. That's the impression I'm getting, anyway.

Why cannot the issue simply be that the Allies don't want to see some bastard gas his people to death?
Maybe it is, but it seems a decent case has been made that it might not be the real issue, or at least not the only one.

As detailed in previous posts, we are still waiting for the outcome of the UN investigation into the matter and for the US to present its classified evidence. A "guilty until proven innocent" stance is unacceptable, at least to me and, it seems, many other people who can see that the stakes are pretty high here, and we need to be sure of what is going on before serious action like bombing and governmental overthrow, is given any consideration, and even if the chemical weapons claims are proven it seems there would still be strong opposition to military action. Are millions of people mad for thinking along those lines?

Furthermore, we have past events as reason to be sceptical about the claims made by leaders of the US, UK and other nations on why a government should be overthrown and a country bombed. We have numerous reports that bring the integrity of rebel forces into question and cast into doubt their ability to provide stability in a post-Assad scenario; also that the rebels are being supported in various ways by the US and its allies in the Middle East such as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who are apparently partners in a proposed natural gas pipeline that Syria does not support. On top of that, it looks like Assad doesn't even need to resort to chemical weapons to win against the undisciplined, devious rebels, and would be mad to do so in light of threats about crossing a line from the US.

Then we have the small matter of international laws and conventions regarding aggression etc. Even if chemical weapons have been used, does that make it a good idea for a foreign superpower to bomb them and quite likely kill many more people in the process, if not directly from the bombing, then in the post-Assad chaos that would follow?

Obama stated in a recent address that the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military...
Such statements should not be forgotten when it comes to consideration of international law and aggression.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

Senator Rand Paul's response to Obama's address:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/10/transcript-sen-rand-paul-responds-to-president-obama-syria-address/

Here are a few more American opinions on the subject, some for war, but most apparently against, including several Republicans:
http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/nh-reacts-to-president-obamas-syria-speech_11f0e4ad

The execuitve branch of the US government, its agencies and followers have made serious claims about Assad and what is happening in Syria, but the lack of evidence to support those claims is allowing ordinary people an awful lot of room for scepticism. It follows that there's no reason why "alternative" views (many expressed in the mainstream Western media) should not be thoroughly examined rather than instantly dismissed as pure conspiracy theory rubbish while unproven claims from the POTUS etc should be accepted without question - surely that would not be a healthy approach.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
I have no need to provide 'credible links' or other evidence because Syria has admitted it has chemical weapons and Russia has agreed to remove them.

And the evidence for their use on civilians is rather irrefutable, and moreover, why would Russia offer to remove the chemical weapons if they had not been used?

Where is the rhetoric decrying that arssehole Putin for supplying the Syrians with the arms and rockets capable of delivering the gas. He has a military base in Syria, made billions out of selling armaments to Syria and is very interested in their oil and gas reserves. Moreover, the prick has been sitting on his hands while Assad murders innocent civilians and children.

And if it isn't the only reason, so what? Isn't it enough of a reason to send Assad a clear message that the world will not accept his actions?
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

And the evidence for their use on civilians is rather irrefutable

Irrefutable? Yes, because you can't refute something unless it has been properly laid out on the table... and even if they have been used, it doesn't necessarly mean it is a good idea to start dropping bombs on Syria, a view shared by many people, politicians, governments etc.



why would Russia offer to remove the chemical weapons if they had not been used?

I'd say it has something to do with the fact that they are opposed to the bombing of Syria (along with, might I add, a huge number of people around the world, or so it seems, along with China, Brazil, India, the British House of Commons and no doubt a huge number of British people etc), and they think this might ward off a US attack. Sure, Russia may have its selfish motives for opposition to an attack, but that doesn't mean their anti-war position is wrong, nor that Putin is isolated. Obama is after all going along with the idea to some extent, because he knew it trumped his warmongering.

The burden of proof is on the people who make the case for airstrikes/war etc. So far, the case they are making isn't good enough.



Where is the rhetoric decrying that arssehole Putin for supplying the Syrians with the arms and rockets capable of delivering the gas. Moreover, the prick has been sitting on his hands while Assad murders innocent civilians and children. And if it isn't the only reason, so what? Isn't it enough of a reason to send Assad a clear message that the world will not accept his actions?
Oh, probably somewhere not too far away from the "rhetoric" decrying those British companies who supplied Assad with the ingredients for sarin gas.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/britain-supplied-poisonous-chemicals-to-syrian-government-report-415990

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-uk-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html


Back to Putin on a serious note, please do dig up all the dirt on him that you can and add it to the mix of information we already have here.


He has a military base in Syria, made billions out of selling armaments to Syria and is very interested in their oil and gas reserves.
And Russia doing this sort of thing is illegal or worse than what "our" side does how? It's ok when the US/UK act in the interest of oil and gas supplies, supply weapons to their friends, support the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran, but when Russia has friends and allies, sells them weapons and sets up bases, oh my god, it's the end of the world and it must be stopped...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/us-chemical-weapons_n_3909495.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: CraigW, RTT_Rules, sar602

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.