Russia Gets Syria to Eliminate Chemical Weapons

[Shiranu]

So...

"We don't like you to use chemical weapons to kill civilians, so we are going to provide you with an arsenal of traditional weapons to kill civilians!"

But...but... I thought Obama was doing this because he cared about human right violations! Don't tell me it was all political!

[Colanth]

Okay, we won't tell you.

[josephpalazzo]

This is about the use of chemical weapons, NOT human rights violations.

Otherwise, the US would have to bomb China, Russia and 90% of the rest of the world. Get real.

[Nonsensei]

Not to mention we would have to bomb ourselves.

[Smartmarzipan]

Oh, chemical weapons are the reason the US is getting involved in Syria. But the US does not believe there could be any other perpetrator besides Assad and his government, which is what I find troubling. Has anyone come across any released evidence from the White House to show it was Assad and/or his military? Are we still taking the White House's word at this? I mean, Obama was ready (and still is) to bomb the shit out of Syria, and there is a possibility that the attack could have been carried out by rebel forces (whose ranks are full of jihadists). Frankly, after the non-existent WMDs in Iraq, I don't fucking trust any administration just at their word, not when it comes to invading/bombing sovereign nations. But it definitely would benefit the US and our allies to have Assad fall, that much is for sure, so why not just strike first and ask questions later?

[josephpalazzo]

Oh, chemical weapons are the reason the US is getting involved in Syria. But the US does not believe there could be any other perpetrator besides Assad and his government, which is what I find troubling. Has anyone come across any released evidence from the White House to show it was Assad and/or his military? Are we still taking the White House's word at this? I mean, Obama was ready (and still is) to bomb the shit out of Syria, and there is a possibility that the attack could have been carried out by rebel forces (whose ranks are full of jihadists). Frankly, after the non-existent WMDs in Iraq, I don't fucking trust any administration just at their word, not when it comes to invading/bombing sovereign nations. But it definitely would benefit the US and our allies to have Assad fall, that much is for sure, so why not just strike first and ask questions later?

What took place is that chemical weapons were used several times, as far back as April 2013. However in other incidents, there weren't enough proof, so nothing was done or said. In the August incident, the attack was way too big to go unnoticed, hence the present crisis. It's very unlikely that it would be the rebels, though not impossible. But it is Assad that has control over those weapons, and it is his responsibility to keep them safe. His quick decision in agreeing to hand over the weapons is a tacit admission that he did use them.

Secondly, it is not to the benefit of the US to see Assad fall, unless there were a credible successor, which there isn't at the moment, and why there is no compelling reason for Obama to put ground troops.

[Smartmarzipan]

Oh, chemical weapons are the reason the US is getting involved in Syria. But the US does not believe there could be any other perpetrator besides Assad and his government, which is what I find troubling. Has anyone come across any released evidence from the White House to show it was Assad and/or his military? Are we still taking the White House's word at this? I mean, Obama was ready (and still is) to bomb the shit out of Syria, and there is a possibility that the attack could have been carried out by rebel forces (whose ranks are full of jihadists). Frankly, after the non-existent WMDs in Iraq, I don't fucking trust any administration just at their word, not when it comes to invading/bombing sovereign nations. But it definitely would benefit the US and our allies to have Assad fall, that much is for sure, so why not just strike first and ask questions later?

What took place is that chemical weapons were used several times, as far back as April 2013. However in other incidents, there weren't enough proof, so nothing was done or said. In the August incident, the attack was way too big to go unnoticed, hence the present crisis. It's very unlikely that it would be the rebels, though not impossible. But it is Assad that has control over those weapons, and it is his responsibility to keep them safe.

Good points.

His quick decision in agreeing to hand over the weapons is a tacit admission that he did use them.

I do not agree with you on this. At all. One good reason to hand over weapons would be because you don't want the shit bombed out of you to the point where you're weakened enough to have the people you're fighting defeat you, whether or not you're guilty of using chemical weapons.

Secondly, it is not to the benefit of the US to see Assad fall, unless there were a credible successor, which there isn't at the moment, and why there is no compelling reason for Obama to put ground troops.

It does benefit the US and it's allies (mostly it's allies) to have Assad fall concerning the oil/gas pipeline to be built through Syria that would bypass the Israeli pipeline. We're talking billions of dollars to be made in that industry. And the Golan Heights (hotly contested by both Syria and Israel) are wanted badly by Israel for their gas deposits. I doubt Obama will put troops on the ground any time soon (if at all), but getting rid of Assad and a Russian/Iranian ally in the region is a good thing for the right people. Destabilizing Assad's government makes Syria weak, and in turn, its "enemies" stronger.

[Solitary]

6,000+ years of recorded history and this is how far we have come in our humanity.  :roll:   Solitary

[Smartmarzipan]

6,000+ years of recorded history and this is how far we have come in our humanity.  :roll:   Solitary

I think we should just go back to beating each other with sticks....

[Hydra009]

Has anyone come across any released evidence from the White House to show it was Assad and/or his military? Are we still taking the White House's word at this

Nope.  Multiple governments haven't already released detailed reports on this topic.  We're all just taking it on faith that Assad's forces are behind this.

*cough*

*coughcough*

*coughcoughcough*

(Btw, how on Earth did you guys arrive at your conclusions without reading through this stuff first?!  #-o)

[Smartmarzipan]

Has anyone come across any released evidence from the White House to show it was Assad and/or his military? Are we still taking the White House's word at this

Nope.  Multiple governments haven't already released detailed reports on this topic.  We're all just taking it on faith that Assad's forces are behind this.

*cough*

Human Rights Watch? A very biased source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ghts_Watch

From their report:

Human Rights Watch analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information
 on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon
 systems used, and the medical symptoms exhibited by the victims of the attack
 as documented by medical staff.

Our investigation finds that the August 21 attacks were
 likely chemical weapons attacks using a surface-to-surface rocket system of approximately
 330mm in diameter—likely  Syrian-produced—and a Soviet-era
 140mm surface-to-surface rocket system to deliver a nerve agent. Evidence
 suggests the agent was most likely Sarin or a similar weapons-grade nerve
 agent.

That's a whole lotta "probably" and "likely".

*coughcough*

The first page of this just states Assad had chemical weapons and then states that he used them. There is no evidence here that he did. The next 3 pages just outline authorization and shit to attack to him.

*coughcoughcough*

This states that the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons in the past, therefore it is using them now. They could very well be right. BUT THAT'S NOT PROOF. Everyone is saying that because Assad has the capability, he must have done this attack. He very well could have, I'm not saying he's a good guy. But I would like some actual evidence, not "Oh, yeah, it was totally him. I mean, come on" arguments.

If he's guilty, fuck him. I have no love for him. But I'm tired of knee-jerk reactions and military strikes against foreign countries without even bothering to get all the facts together. "Well, he definitely LOOKS guilty...." Is that how we do things now?

Btw, would you like a lozenge?

[Hydra009]

A surprisingly quick reply.  Too quick to have actually read the material, but quick enough for more denialism.  At any rate, it is not so much for your benefit as it is other people reading the thread and willing to let facts dictate their judgements instead of the other way around.

Human Rights Watch? A very biased source.

Says the infowars junkie.

Then pick another.  There's plenty to choose from and it's pretty consistent.

If he's guilty, fuck him. I have no love for him. But I'm tired of knee-jerk reactions and military strikes against foreign countries without even bothering to get all the facts together. "Well, he definitely LOOKS guilty...." Is that how we do things now?

:Hangman:

It's not and you really ought to know that, at the very least.

[Smartmarzipan]

A surprisingly quick reply.  Too quick to have actually read the material, but quick enough for more denialism.

I'm a very fast reader and employ skimming summaries to get to gist of things. It works well when processing lots of information. I got a 35 in Reading and Comprehension on my ACT. Just to let you know so you can stop assuming things about me.

Human Rights Watch? A very biased source.

Says the infowars junkie.

Infowars junkie? You call me this after I posted one link and said "beware, the source is really fucking dubious"?

More jumping to conclusions from you, I see.

Then pick another.  There's plenty to choose from and it's pretty consistent.

Yes, they're all consistent in the fact that they all say the same thing, which is "We think it could possibly perhaps be Assad, so let's get him!"

If he's guilty, fuck him. I have no love for him. But I'm tired of knee-jerk reactions and military strikes against foreign countries without even bothering to get all the facts together. "Well, he definitely LOOKS guilty...." Is that how we do things now?

:Hangman:

It's not and you really ought to know that, at the very least.

No, I don't "know that", considering that is exactly how this is playing out. "Hey, it LOOKS like someone did something bad, let's get him!" I would like some goddamn evidence, and I don't think it's wrong for me to ask. Especially considering this country has gone to war off "faulty intel" and other bogus bullshit before (read: WMDs in Iraq).

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I have to go with Smartmarzipan on this one. There's really nothing in any of those links that amounts to proof that Assad's regime used chemical weapons in this conflict.

[Smartmarzipan]

Just to show that not every country agrees on who did what, here's Germany's report on Syria.

Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... assad-bild

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

Assad sought to exonerate himself from the August attack in which hundreds died. "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," he said in an interview with CBS.

Their findings are that the attack was carried out by rogue military personnel. That is definitely a plausible theory.