No thread on Syria's chemical/gas attack massacre...

[88m3]

When are you people going to read a history book and learn how these things work? NOBODY here has provided evidence to the contrary of the Obama admin's claims...

I am PROBABLY the biggest critic of the Obama admin on this fukking board and all of my criticisms are based on EVIDENCE. If all you have is I DONT THINK Assad would use Chem weapons, then please stop talking and do not quote me.

Bashar as it stands has used chemical weapons against Sunni Muslims in the middle east, what is the outcome now even if NATO doesn't drop the bombs on his head? You think that this dude can remain in power even if he through some miracle defeated the FSA? Are you kidding me? Not only will the Sunni's never stop fighting him, ever, this will bring in even more foreign fighters and eventually they will defeat Assad. If these foreign fighters are teh reason why they defeat Assad, they will most likely be Al-Q types and then what? America will have no say as they allowed Bashar to butcher his own people and Al-Q types ended it. The faster this man is disarmed and brought to justice the better.

Situations like this is literally the reason why the U.N. exists, not just for you to put a fukking dollar in a box every Halloween

well said

 

[Broke Wave]

well said

Be a brutal dictator brehs.

Peep this totally convincing false flag.



Read the comments too, people are saying that HRW is lying as well

I wanna be an Assad supporter, let me get the full timeline... I want to believe in your cause, tell what is a false flag, what is real, who is CIA, who is Al-Qaeda, does anyone have any opposition to Assad, has he done anything wrong?

Lemme know brehs.

 

[thekingsmen]

@Broke Wave
http://www.hrw.org/node/105885

You think I trust those clowns....they have been paid by these Elitist Scum....

 

[dem bath salts]

I honestly don't know the right thing to do. The whole weapons of mass destructive shyt that bush pulled has me skeptical as fukk. But just because the u.s. lied once, doesn't mean they lied this time. I'm just at this whole conflict.

 

[Broke Wave]

@Broke Wave
http://www.hrw.org/node/105885

You think I trust those clowns....they have been paid by these Elitist Scum....

You trust these guys tho

 

[thekingsmen]

I honestly don't know the right thing to do. The whole weapons of mass destructive shyt that bush pulled has me skeptical as fukk. But just because the u.s. lied once, doesn't mean they lied this time. I'm just at this whole conflict.

They lied once? Have you read history. They lied about WW2, Vietnam, Gulf War, and Iraq.

 

[Type Username Here]

Let the Sunnis take care of their issues.

The UK and Canadians voted no to joining any strikes. The French will probably do the same.

Hell, even the Arab League, the very people who are funding, supporting and arming the rebels voted against a strike.

Why? Because they want to save face while supporting anything the US does. The US doesn't give a shyt, they will go in there by themselves if they have to. Knowning this, Europe, Canada and the Sunnis get to sit back and enjoy, and then let the US receive the blowback later on.

Enough already. 12 years of war. Economy shytting itself and the treasury robbed clean. Let them handle their own conflicts for once.

 

[thekingsmen]

You trust these guys tho

I don't trust anyone of them...

 

[Leasy]

Great Article

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_28/Attack-on-Syria-may-cause-massive-damage-to-the-US-1204/

 

[Digga38]

Bashar. Why would he use chem weapons they said, it would automatically garner a response from the West.

They clearly calculated this and it looks like they may get away with it.

i ran out of smileys for such a fukk boy response

 

[Broke Wave]

i ran out of smileys for such a fukk boy response

My fault, the rebels did it it was a false flag.

Also 9/11 was done by Mossad...

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I honestly don't know the right thing to do. The whole weapons of mass destructive shyt that bush pulled has me skeptical as fukk. But just because the u.s. lied once, doesn't mean they lied this time. I'm just at this whole conflict.

There are two parts to the recent events that you have to analyze separately:

a) the details around the chemical attacks
b) the objective of engaging Assad in military combat

You (not you) can half ass the answer to A. You can claim humanitarian aid without having direct evidence that Assad personally called for chemical attacks on aug21st. However because of the Iraq War, you will not, under any circumstance, be able to rope the worlds population into a half assed answer for B.

The US had already picked their side in the conflict since day 1. If the US believes they have proof that Assad ordered the chemical attacks, it leaves no other option other than Regime change. Problem is, Obama and everyone else, thinks we're too dumb to realize cause and effect. Military conflicts are slippery slopes. You're not just gonna send a couple of missiles then reset the score to 0 - 0. How's that fukkn make sense? This shyts a civil war. If you ain't want chemical weapons to be used, you should've done everything in your power to prevent the civil war in the first fukkn place.

So you send a couple missiles, then what? Are the missiles supposed to even the battlefield for the rebels ala Libya? If so then you're engaging in regime change. Are the missiles supposed to destroy the chemical reserves (which they CAN'T)? If so you're still not stopping the war. Assad is in power. He's not gonna stop fighting. The rebels, in order to stay alive, cannot stop fighting. There is no "lets walk away from this peacefully" shyt.

And thats the complete farce of this shyt. The US isn't looking at this situation as a "yo we need to stop this civil war, this bytch is getting out of hand" type of event. How is military intervention a form of humanitarian crisis prevention?

 

[Digga38]

There are two parts to the recent events that you have to analyze separately:

a) the details around the chemical attacks
b) the objective of engaging Assad in military combat

You (not you) can half ass the answer to A. You can claim humanitarian aid without having direct evidence that Assad personally called for chemical attacks on aug21st. However because of the Iraq War, you will not, under any circumstance, be able to rope the worlds population into a half assed answer for B.

The US had already picked their side in the conflict since day 1. If the US believes they have proof that Assad ordered the chemical attacks, it leaves no other option other than Regime change. Problem is, Obama and everyone else, thinks we're too dumb to realize cause and effect. Military conflicts are slippery slopes. You're not just gonna send a couple of missiles then reset the score to 0 - 0. How's that fukkn make sense? This shyts a civil war. If you ain't want chemical weapons to be used, you should've done everything in your power to prevent the civil war in the first fukkn place.

So you send a couple missiles, then what? Are the missiles supposed to even the battlefield for the rebels ala Libya? If so then you're engaging in regime change. Are the missiles supposed to destroy the chemical reserves (which they CAN'T)? If so you're still not stopping the war. Assad is in power. He's not gonna stop fighting. The rebels, in order to stay alive, cannot stop fighting. There is no "lets walk away from this peacefully" shyt.

And thats the complete farce of this shyt. The US isn't looking at this situation as a "yo we need to stop this civil war, this bytch is getting out of hand" type of event. How is military intervention a form of humanitarian crisis prevention?

#salute seeing some good posts in here....

 

[Digga38]

My fault, the rebels did it it was a false flag.

Also 9/11 was done by Mossad...

i thought al queda did 9/11...the same al-queda we are helping now?

we dont know who did it....I havent been convinced with evidence that assad commited this action.

why would i want a country to strike when i myself havent been convinced of it. You have to be a shill or a downright idiot to believe this story after Iraq....​

 

[Roaden Polynice]

http://humanprovince.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/an-open-letter-on-syria-to-western-narcissists/

An open letter on Syria to Western narcissists

On the eve of what seem to be ineluctable strikes on Syria, I’ve been struggling with what my position on Syria should be. Before I get to that though, I should say that while I’m not Syrian, I too have some skin in the game, as it were. On our way to donate blood for a friend’s mother’s surgery last month, my wife got a call from a friend telling us to avoid the neighborhood of Bir al-Abed in Beirut’s southern suburbs, since there had just been a large explosion there. At Bahman Hospital, my wife and baby daughter and I saw ambulances speeding toward us carrying those who had just been wounded. And a few days after I’d left for southern Turkey to conduct interviews with Syrians who had fled the war in their homes, I found out that a car bomb had just gone off a few blocks from my mother in law’s home in the “Hezbollah stronghold” of Rweiss. It kills me that my daughter has heard the sound of a car bomb before her first birthday.

Extended family from Yarmouk, the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, have been displaced and are forced to seek refuge yet again in Lebanon, a country that doesn’t want them. And even now, we’re making plans for what might happen if the impending strikes on Syria fuel an escalation in Lebanon, where living in the southern suburbs can get you killed if there’s a war with Israel. And yet all of this pales in comparison to what my Syrian friends continue to go through on a daily basis.

All that to say that the current conflict in Syria isn’t just of academic interest to me; it’s personal as well. This is partially why I have so little patience for some of the rhetoric I’ve been seeing from Western leftist circles, where this conflict seems like nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon for scoring ideological points. This has been illustrated by the passing around of an article by Robert Fisk, who asks, “Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?” This lazy and facile opinion piece assures us that if the US attacks Syria, then “the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.” It is the flip side of the rhetoric that was so evident in the run-up to war in Iraq that equated any opposition to an idiotic war with support for Saddam Hussein. Well, guess what? There are lots of perfectly fine opinions that might put you on the same side as al-Qa’ida. Just to name one: if you’re against drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as I am, then you’re also “on the same side as al-Qa’ida” according to this logic.

This is the caricature of knee-jerk leftism, where everything is always and everywhere about the United States. The narcissism of such a position boggles the mind. In such an ideological stance it’s not enough to be critical of Washington’s actions and motivations, as well we should be, it is necessary to parrot the talking points of Washington’s enemies. (The same phenomenon can be seen in certain Islamophobicand right-wing circles.) In this narrative, the militarization of the uprising in Syria was an American plan, not a foreseeable reaction to a brutally violent crackdown on apredominately peaceful opposition movement by the security forces of the Ba’ath regime. This conflict is, so the argument goes, a creation of Washington, and perhaps Riyadh, and the opposition is made up of only of blood-thirsty sectarian Islamists who are generally seen as but tools of malicious statecraft. Such a narrative, of course, denies the agency of Syrians, seeing them as so many lifeless puppets waiting for a tug from the imperialist American hand.

This is why discussions of Syria in such quarters tend not to be discussions of Syria. They’re actually discussions of “American capitalism” or “American imperialism” – take your pick. So let me be clear: if your opinion of Syria is actually an opinion about the United States, I have no interest in hearing it, and it’s probably safe to say that most Syrians (or at least all of the ones I know) who are faced with the business end of the regime’s ordinance don’t either. I can’t think of a single Syrian who’s willing to get killed so you can flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your local coffee shop.

Lest I be accused of shilling for American intervention here, let me set a few things straight. In addition to endangering my family’s lives, the proposed “punitive strikes” that are all but inevitable probably won’t make anything better on the ground, and may make things worse, which is why I’m against them. My opinion on American intervention in general and in this conflict in particular (about which more in a subsequent post) is that the US is not to be trusted to act in anything but what it sees as its interests, and often a woefully short-sighted understanding of those interests to boot. So no, Washington does not really care about those children killed last week in a chemical attack, just as it didn’t care about the Iranians or Kurds killed in previous ones. Consequently, my feeling is that a vicious, and viciously short-sighted, realpolitikin Washington would probably like nothing better than to let its enemies fight indefinitely in Syria, burning the country to the ground as they do so.

But please, don’t let the conflict in Syria be about opposing America. Let it be about Syria, and what might actually help Syrians – you know, the actually existing people who are dying by the tens of thousands in this brutal war. But if you can’t do that, then do me a favor, and please shut up.