Jump to content


Photo

Alleged Chemical Deployments In Syria


  • Please log in to reply
640 replies to this topic

#41 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,506 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1039 AM

Ah, now; I missed him because he left command at Sarajevo two years before the incident. Thanks.

 

Though I just find his criticism of the UN's handling of Srebrenica, nothing on the Markale Market (nor any other recent UN report blaming the attack on the Bosniaks). Obviously he couldn't say much on this, too, because he was nowhere near the place then.


Edited by BansheeOne, 26 August 2013 - 1110 AM.

  • 0

#42 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,167 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1112 AM

 

 

 There is absolutely NO evidence chemical weapons have fallen into the hands of Rebels. If there was, there would be a plausible argument for the west to get involved, ie to ensure Sarin or other nerve agents doesnt get into the hands of terrorists.

 

Actually there is. Several months ago several Al-Nusra rebels were arrested in Turkey in the possession of 2 kg of sarin gas.

http://www.globalres...r-syria/5336917


  • 0

#43 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,787 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1122 AM

To me MacKenzie remains most famous for stating that (as I recall) we would need 150K troops to stablize the situation when he returned from UNPROFOR.  The lack of troops was repeated for a more unfortunate Canadian UN leader at Biafra, then the most famous was the gutting of the 2003 Iraq invasion force to a mere 50K. Unaccountably, we have rank amateurism replacing the once feared militarism of old.

 

 

A good point  on why we never took to arms over chemical use before, and we certainly tilted in favor of Iraq in their war with Iran, despite the Iran Scam conducted by the Reagan WH NS staff. I don't think the signatories to the latest chemical ban treaties inherited any police powers.

 

Now we have this disturbing 'message' from an unattributed 'senior' govt 'source' being trumpeted by US press stating that the inspections are 'too late' to change US initiatives...sounds like 2003 again. WTF is that guy? Are there neocons operating as moles in the US administration?


  • 0

#44 nitflegal

nitflegal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,778 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1147 AM

Nah, I think you just have a reactive admin that is headed by someone with a very thin skin.  The admin is looking very weak and feckless, so they have to man up and do "Something"™ that will appease the critics.  I would guess some pointless cruise missiles and the like.

 

I suspect that the probable failure of Iraq and Afghanistan combined with the increasing oil and gas production in the US will end with most middle East diplomacy steering this route.  Kill each other to your heart's content and if you get too aggressive we'll launch a pointless limited strike to feel better.  I also suspect that as they become less universally important and oil revenues decrease (possibly enhanced by fewer guest workers who actually keep the oil flowing if it's too dangerous) that whole region will fall apart.  Should be interesting.


  • 0

#45 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,506 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1302 PM

Uh, from the top stories box on the left of that page:

 

 

Turkey arrests 12 in raids on 'terrorist' organization

 

ANKARA | Thu May 30, 2013 4:09pm EDT

 

(Reuters) - Turkish authorities have arrested 12 people on suspicion of being members of a terrorist organization in raids across the country, a provincial governor said on Thursday.

 

The police raids were carried out in Turkey's largest city Istanbul as well as in the southern provinces of Mersin, Adana and Hatay near the Syrian border, said Adana governor Huseyin Avni Cos.

 

Cos said unknown chemical materials were found during the raids and sent away for investigation. He denied media reports that a small amount of the nerve agent sarin had been uncovered.

 

Six of those arrested were later released, Cos said, while the other six were being kept for further questioning. He did not say which organization had been targeted in the raids.

 

Earlier, several Turkish newspapers had reported that 12 people from Syria's al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front who allegedly had been planning an attack inside Turkey and were in possession of 2 kg (4.5 pounds) of sarin, had been detained in Adana.

 

The raids highlight the growing concern that Syria's civil war is dragging in neighboring states.

 

In the worst example of the spillover into Turkey, 52 people were killed when twin car bombs ripped through the border town of Reyhanli on May 11. Turkey has accused Syria of involvement in the attacks, but Damascus has denied any role.

 

Nusra is one of the most effective forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad and last month pledged allegiance to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The U.S. State Department designated Nusra as a terrorist organization in December.

 

Experts have long said Nusra is receiving support from al Qaeda-linked militants in neighboring Iraq. The group claimed responsibility for deadly bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and its fighters have joined other Syrian rebel brigades.

 

Assad's forces and opposing rebels have accused each other of using chemical weapons, and both have denied it.

 

The United States has said it would view any use of chemical weapons in Syria as a "red line", hinting that it could lead to some form of intervention, but wants proof before taking any action.

 

http://www.reuters.c...E94T0YO20130530

 

Which doesn't mean there are no rebels with chemical weapons, but when I find a story perpetuated exclusively on conspiracy, Russian and Iranian news sites, I become a bit cautious about its veracity.


  • 0

#46 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,993 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1309 PM

The BBC did a report on the mortar attack and used some ex-military guy to calculate the rounds came from the Croat held areas as I recall.


  • 0

#47 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1510 PM

So I'm just curious..what's the point of military intervention? Is it to stop the bloodshed or topple Assad, because killing Assad won't stop the deaths. It's not like we're going to kill Assad and Alawites will be like 'OK, let's now stop fighting and enjoy FREEDOM!' The Alawites in Syria and throughout that region (I believe 10% of Turkey's population is composed of both Alawites and Shias, Lebanon has a fair share as well) will fight even harder. More massacres will take place and before you know it, similar situations that took place in Rwanda or the Balkans will soon happen. 

 

If we want to actually stop the bloodshed, we'll have to do full scale military strikes lead by a massive ground invasion AND occupation of Syria, one that will last for a decade. It will be police work to try and get everybody to stop fighting with each other. I'm not sure if the West, or any country for that matter, is willing to do that..


  • 0

#48 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,993 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1614 PM

Frankly bolster the Kurds, make signing a peace treaty with Turkey and respecting their border part of the deal, help them form Greater Kurdistan, it will eventually be another Israel. In which case you have two staunch allies that don't hate each other to keep the rest in check. Turkey will need the west onside to control the Kurds, the Kurds need Turkey for export/imports. We build up our interests and let the rest fight for scraps. I suspect the Druzes will find reason to ally with Israel or the Kurds eventually.


  • 0

#49 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1633 PM

Frankly bolster the Kurds, make signing a peace treaty with Turkey and respecting their border part of the deal, help them form Greater Kurdistan, it will eventually be another Israel. In which case you have two staunch allies that don't hate each other to keep the rest in check. Turkey will need the west onside to control the Kurds, the Kurds need Turkey for export/imports. We build up our interests and let the rest fight for scraps. I suspect the Druzes will find reason to ally with Israel or the Kurds eventually.

 

Excuse me but :blink: Turkey will never allow any kind of "Greater Kurdistan" - for that matter, neither will Syria (any iteration), Iraq or Iran.


  • 0

#50 J.Hawk

J.Hawk

    Towarzysz Pancerny

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,626 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1707 PM

 

Frankly bolster the Kurds, make signing a peace treaty with Turkey and respecting their border part of the deal, help them form Greater Kurdistan, it will eventually be another Israel. In which case you have two staunch allies that don't hate each other to keep the rest in check. Turkey will need the west onside to control the Kurds, the Kurds need Turkey for export/imports. We build up our interests and let the rest fight for scraps. I suspect the Druzes will find reason to ally with Israel or the Kurds eventually.

 

Excuse me but :blink: Turkey will never allow any kind of "Greater Kurdistan" - for that matter, neither will Syria (any iteration), Iraq or Iran.

 

 True, but on the other hand, given Erdogan's policies toward the Kurds and greater emphasis on the Islamic aspect of the Turkish state, a Turkish protectorate over Kurdish areas (maybe even some sort of "Middle Eastern Union" under Turkey's aegis) does not seem utterly implausible anymore. A sort of Ottoman Empire Lite.


  • 0

#51 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1842 PM

Umm, I think it does - certainly even if it was accepted by Kurds (which I kinda doubt), there is no way it would be accepted by Syria, Iraq or Iran.


  • 0

#52 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,993 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 1956 PM

Screw them, they didn't want an Israel in 48,56, 67,73,82 either. The key is Turkey, beat it into the Kurds heads that Turkey is their economic lifeline and better a bird in the bush than 2 in the sky. Once Turkey is lined up, Kurdish Iraq says we are leaving and taking a chunk of Syria too. We might also want a bit of Iran, but we can talk....

The Kurds offer Iraq a portion of the oil revenues for x number of years. The other option is fight a kurdish population backed by the west and possibly even western troops.

 

Northern Iraq is mostly an independent Kurdish state as it is. The Syrian Kurds have been staying out of the fight so far, so likely in the best shape of all. Assad can't take on a western back Kurdish independence and the FSA. 

Of course the above scenario requires fairly large balls and the likelihood of some fighting. The Kurds I suspect will make better longterm partners than our other choices so far. An independent Kurdistan might push the Balch to raise up against their Persian oppressors, in fact a little help there might keep them distracted.


  • 0

#53 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2013 PM

Screw them, they didn't want an Israel in 48,56, 67,73,82 either. The key is Turkey, beat it into the Kurds heads that Turkey is their economic lifeline and better a bird in the bush than 2 in the sky. Once Turkey is lined up, Kurdish Iraq says we are leaving and taking a chunk of Syria too. We might also want a bit of Iran, but we can talk....


Problem is, you literally do have to "beat it into them": Turkey has killed tens of thousands of Kurds over last couple of decades. It's going to take bit more than sweet words to get them to same table.

The Kurds offer Iraq a portion of the oil revenues for x number of years. The other option is fight a kurdish population backed by the west and possibly even western troops.


What, you're going to fight Iraq? Again?

The Syrian Kurds have been staying out of the fight so far, so likely in the best shape of all. Assad can't take on a western back Kurdish independence and the FSA.


Syrian Kurds haven't stayed out of the fight, they have been busy fighting FSA, who aren't any more interested about independent Kurdistan than Assad is. Should FSA win, they'll attack the Kurds.
  • 0

#54 Kenneth P. Katz

Kenneth P. Katz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,684 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2031 PM

NO!

 

"Right by us" is a perpetual bloodbath that consumes the manpower and treasure of the Ba'athists, Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

 

The problem is, do we do whats right, or whats right for us? Right for us is a Stable Syrian Government. And unfortunately the only game in town towards that end is Assad. Its not a choice of the lesser evil. Its just a choice of necessity.


  • 0

#55 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,787 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2034 PM

In any case, the US certainly does not have to hurry into the fray and can afford to await the results of the UN inspection of the alleged incidents. Mr Kerry's statements seem utterly fatuous, but are a response to the hounding of the RW for action.

 

If Syrian rockets and arty were pounding a rebel held suburb, the bombardment could have released and dispersed chemicals in storage, such as sarin brought in by rebel suppliers, or even chlorine supplies for swimming pools, which exist around Demascus for sure. Who are the observers who can certify nerve agents from choking agents among the dead?


  • 0

#56 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,517 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2038 PM

 

NO!

 

"Right by us" is a perpetual bloodbath that consumes the manpower and treasure of the Ba'athists, Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

 

The problem is, do we do whats right, or whats right for us? Right for us is a Stable Syrian Government. And unfortunately the only game in town towards that end is Assad. Its not a choice of the lesser evil. Its just a choice of necessity.

 

That's cold, Kenneth, but there aren't better options... :mellow:


Edited by shep854, 26 August 2013 - 2039 PM.

  • 0

#57 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,798 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2245 PM

 

 

 

This is a video of Rebels using BM21 MLRS . Could it be they captured some depots and didn't realize what was in those boxes ? How are chemical munitions marked ?

 

 

Of course there is always the possibility that whoever fired the munitions knew exactly what they were doing. 


  • 0

#58 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,798 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2247 PM

If we want to actually stop the bloodshed, we'll have to do full scale military strikes lead by a massive ground invasion AND occupation of Syria, one that will last for a decade. It will be police work to try and get everybody to stop fighting with each other. I'm not sure if the West, or any country for that matter, is willing to do that..

And how exactly does that stop bloodshed?  Destroy the villages to save the villages?


  • 0

#59 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,798 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2252 PM

Its very easy for Republicans to keep slamming Obama over Syria, but they really ought to reflect in a similar situation they wouldnt be doing anything any different. After all, have Iraq and Afghanistan become models of stability? Hardly.

The only two Republicans that are being terribly vocal are McCain and Graham, both of whom are urging the Nobel Peace Prize recipient to wage war.  Other than that Republicans, from what I can tell, have been fairly mute except to point out the utter and amateurish folly that is the Obama foreign policy.


  • 0

#60 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,798 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 2258 PM

 

That's cold, Kenneth, but there aren't better options... :mellow:

 

Should have followed that path with Libya.  With Egypt should have followed that path with one caveat, the west should have established a 90km firebreak from Port Said to Great Bitter Lake, and then told the Egyptians to do what they wanted to each other, but to keep it west of the Suez Canal.


  • 0