coincidence on the eve of Iran's elections and the aforementioned escalation in the coverage of Erdogan? Dunno but according to EuroNews Obama has confirmed Sarin and the mobilisation of troops to the area. Waiting on confirmation from other sources but breaking news bulletins causing lights to flash.
I heard about this a few hours ago, but there was no indication of what Obama was planning to do. Now it looks like he wants to provide military assistant to the opposition. As much I hate seeing chemical weapons being used, I'm on the fence about helping the rebels. Some rebel groups have ties to terrorist organizations, and if they win, it could spell trouble.
I know there are rules to war which in itself sounds pathetic but I don't see why its ok for any side to obliterate a building full of people with a huge bomb or drop a chemical bomb in through the letterbox - same sad result. However, the rebels are made up of over 25 smaller groups, two of which are n the US most wanted terrorist list - Jabhat al-Nusra, the other group on the tip of my tongue has a leader who rip the heart of a Syrian soldier and ate it live on video which was then posted to youtube - these are the 'people' the West are arming.
Why? Do you disagree? If so, say so. Or do you think it's ok to bomb 90,000 people but as soon as you let off a stink bomb you're in trouble?
and all this, "Assad has crossed the red line - this is a game changer - we're going to arm and assist the rebels" is crap too. The UN only a month ago produced proof that the rebels were in fact the ones using the nerve gas Sarin. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505 Out of 90,000 deaths, 150 were caused from nerve gas - now all of a sudden its a game changer - what are they up to?
Obama has in theory agreed to resettle Syrian refugees who are opposed to Assad, even in the full knowledge a huge number of these refugees either have direct Al Qaeda connections or are Al Qaeda activists. On top of arming these rebels, who are on his own most wanted list we have to wonder what the hell is going on. Nothing makes sense.
You know that use of 'stink bomb' a little understated... 3 main reasons that CBRN(chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) weapons are banned. 1) uncontrolled targeting: in theory, kinetic weapons will kill what they hit. With gas, a slight change in wind direction and that 1sq mile of death floats over a school. Yes bombs kill civilians as well, but when it happens, people are accountable for hitting the wrong target. 2) long term effects: chemical weapons are over a century old and they have left many more wounded than dead. Most of them in the fields of northern France. Loosing a leg is bad, loosing control of your nervous system is worse. 3) It is illegal: if no one enforced the Geneva convention, no one would follow it. The global consequences of that would be much worse. My issue isn't the US intervention, it's that they should have done it last year, before the country was a ruin.
compared to 90,000 killed by 'traditional' weapons, the 150 killed by chemicals is a mere stink bomb. The UN also have proof that the sarin was in fact used by the Rebels. Because a miss wouldn't hit a school? I think they call that collateral damage and then proceed to gloss over it. Oh well, shit happens! I live in Northern France, please tell me more about this. Especially the century old chemical weapons. Who's the judge? So you think the US should have blown the shit out of Syria a year ago?
Well, the fact that Assad refused to allow the UN into the country to investigate the purported use of chemical weapons by the rebels doesn't make sense either. What does erebh know? Only what others tell him, same as everyone else here. The US is saying they have substantial physcial and eye-witness evidence of Assad using chemical weapons. The whole middle-east is a giant cluster and has been since the dawn of time. It's just nothing but war and conflict. The rest of the world is mapping the human genome and they are just lobbing rockets and blowing each other up year after year. I'm more of an isolationist and wish the US would just beef up our borders, lock them down and mind our own damn business.
didn't Bush say the same about Iraq... but again I'll post this which says the UN have found proof that chemicals have been used in Syria - by the rebels! http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
The commissioner said - "there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas..." And this was an independant investigation, not the official investigation by the UN.
erebh are you seriously saying chemical weapons are cool? do you not think there is a reason they are banned? Yes the American, French and British should have bombed the regime as soon as the rebellion got enough traction. Just like they did in Libya. The only thing that stopped them was Russian intervention, with a Turkish fighter jet shot out of the sky to prove a point.
He doesn't see the difference between bullets and poison gas. Chemical weapons have been banned since their horrible uses in WW1. Soldiers were not killed, they were suffocated, blinded and in most cases forced to cough up charred bits of their lungs until they died. It was just deemed a savage weapon that was more torture than death.
This is another issue. If the rebels win, who's going to be in power? It could lead to more civil war, and/or it could lead to a haven for terrorists. This is a horrible situation to be in. I feel bad for the Syrian people.
Yeah, the main groups comprising the rebels are the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Liberation Front and the Syrian Islamic Front. The FSA is the group that needs to take power when Assad falls. They are non-sectarian, whereas the SLF and the SIF have Islamic ideologies. The problem is that there's no central commander, no face of the rebellion. Right now they all get along, but who knows what will happen when the vaccum hits. Add to that the growing group of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda aligned group that is leeching support from all three of the main parties and is more organized and well funded. Once again, it's the lesser of two evils. It didn't work out to well in Egypt so we'll see what happens here and hope the US doesn't waste too much time or money on this hopelessness.
Did you seriously just ask that? Wow there's a way to twist - Who said anything about being 'cool'? I just don't see this big clichéd "Game-changer". Obama, "Okay Assad - 89.850 deaths from bombs and bullets is fine but let me tell you about the 150 we suspect you used chemicals on - you is gonna die homie!" BULLSHIT! JJ - been listening to John McCain lately? I loved his photo op with the so-called rebels. Go back to the bit about Bush confirming WPD in Iraq.... Another by the way as we are all now experts on Syria, what did Assad do before this civil war started to prompt all of this? Does anybody know? What actually sparked these 90,000 deaths? That's not a cue to all jump on wiki either - just ask yourselves, do you actually know anything about this conflict?
Erebh, I love how you enjoy using John Mcain when Obama himself made the 'red line' and its the Obama administration that decided to arm the rebels. It's weird that even a foreigner like yourself loves to give democrats a pass and focus on an unimportant republican. This is Obama's baby through and through. But you would never admit that, right? Naw, if you just keep screaming 'Bush!' all the liberals will keep clapping. You keep bringing up Iraq, but do I honestly have to list every other country and democrats that were on board with the conclusions of the Bush administration? I'd rather not because it won't matter to you. ...and go ahead and finish that train of thought, erebh. 'You don't know what's really going on in Syria so...' What? So we should shut up? We shouldn't discuss it? We shouldn't study it or learn about it? Do you live in Syria? Do you have first-hand knowledge of Assads regime or is everything you know from the Internet or TV? Please, clue us in.
JJ I completely agree with you funnily enough. I'll put my hand up and admit for a long time I thought Obama had a white steed out back, now I think he's every bit as bad as every Republican president 'we, the world' had to endure. He said he'd shut down Guantamano, what happened that? He said he has proof of chemicals in Syria, where is it? Yes the UN sanctioned independent checks and they found the Syrian rebels using chemicals, no independent party has found Assad using them - the keyword is independent, not republican or democratic or UN or Russian or Chinese - Independent. Yes I cite John McCain buddying up to terrorists, on the US most wanted list, getting his picture taken over a few beers - what an arsehole. You're a republican through and through, aren't you embarrassed? ashamed? Republicans have been pushing for Obama to act from day 1 and Obama has been looking for an excuse, after 2 years he hasn't found that excuse so he uses a Bush trick - lie! So rather than dodge my initial question - did you ask yourself what you know about Syria? How this all started, (without doing a quick wiki). - Thought not.
Okay, since you won't answer my question, we'll play this silly charade. Erebh, I don't know the political history of Syria. Now what?
So why pretend you do? Why pretend you have all the answers? Why pretend you know everything about everything when its plain to see you've copied and pasted half your arguments. You listen to Republican tripe and pass it off here as your own. I suggest you read up on this stuff before committing yourself. Until then it's pointless arguing this out here when you don't really have a clue. You've consistently called the whole middle east a complete mess, lumped everybody in together and taken the Republican / Israeli paranoid view of the whole region. You've even thrown the great European/Near Eastern country of Turkey in with the ME for some strange reason. Good luck and good night JJ.
There ya go, erebh. Feel better now? Glad I could slow-pitch that one for you. You'll have to work for the next one. ... And by the way, you speak with as much 'authority' as I do, and you get all your info second-hand as well. Might wanna think about that. You read things and choose to accept them as truth and other things you dismiss as lies. You still think that the UN found proof the rebels used chemical weapons. Reading comprehension problem perhaps?
Evidently, It baffles me how many writers can't read - IN-DE-PEN-DENT report, I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T - google the definition JJ
I know what independent means. Your 'independent' report found... and this is where you're having difficulties... '...suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof...' How difficult is that to understand?
A friend of mine once told me that you can't argue with 'some people', they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
