Syria



  • Explosions heard in Damascus as Trump announces airstrikes are underway.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43762251



  • God dammit...

    I'm part way through this series on the Syria conflict and US intervention, 3 parts the first being at the time of the first airstrike a year ago and the last part came out yesterday.

    Fascinating stuff but also equally disconcerting with these new attacks.



  • so are suspected Chemical weapons sites like WMDs?

    0_1523674429379_7d620052-d560-4713-9451-40b762c88039-image.png



  • @taniwharugby oooh, you are so on a list now mate. Spies will be looking at your browsing history as we speak, you leftie.



  • Isn’t Trump supposed to be Putin’s bitch? How does this action fit that narrative?

    Anyway, hope this doesn’t escalate by accident into WW3. Sigh



  • I'm surprised they sent the tornadoes in, with the possibility of Russian fighter Ac - maybe they've all gone? But I'm glad those boys n girls got back safe. Back to Akrotiri for brandy sours and Chris kebab!



  • Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.



  • The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.

    Saving face? To who? His Twitter followers?



  • @crucial said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.

    Saving face? To who? His Twitter followers?

    The depth of your analysis is astounding. If you cannot figure out to whom I would be referring.... it explains a lot.



  • @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    Yes, it would. Not bombing Syria would embolden them to use chemical weapons in future. Assad is a terrible person but there is no norm against bombing your own people or oppressing them. We should protect the norms that we do have so that Russia is strongly encouraged not to break them.



  • Did bombing him last time stop him this time?

    Seems like more is needed, that could get messy.



  • @kirwan said in Syria airstrikes:

    Did bombing him last time stop him this time?

    Seems like more is needed, that could get messy.

    Impossible to tell really but I imagine Assad would be using them constantly if there were no consequences to doing so.



  • @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    Yes, it would. Not bombing Syria would embolden them to use chemical weapons in future. Assad is a terrible person but there is no norm against bombing your own people or oppressing them. We should protect the norms that we do have so that Russia is strongly encouraged not to break them.

    So it is a norm to starve your people, bomb them into oblivion or enslave them. But you think killing them by chemical weapons is not the norm?
    I think all of them are bloody horrendous. All them are evil.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?

    I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.

    I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.

    Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.



  • @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?

    I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.

    I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.

    Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.

    Fair enough, I am far more sceptical of you that Assad actually did it. But like most of the population I just dont know, I am just more wary of believing the intelligence agencies.
    I dont want WWIII over this.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.

    The Times is reporting more than 100 strikes so far. Syria is claiming they shot down most of thes missiles.



  • @jc said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.

    The Times is reporting more than 100 strikes so far. Syria is claiming they shot down most of thes missiles.

    I read they only struck 3 places and all linked to supposed chemical weapons? Is my info out of date?

    I think initially people were talking (including Trump) and about widespread shock and awe destruction of Assad forces. Just has not happened as far as Iam aware.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?

    I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.

    I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.

    Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.

    Fair enough, I am far more sceptical of you that Assad actually did it. But like most of the population I just dont know, I am just more wary of believing the intelligence agencies.
    I dont want WWIII over this.

    Think of the awesome films we'll get in a few years time.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?

    I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.

    I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.

    Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.

    Fair enough, I am far more sceptical of you that Assad actually did it. But like most of the population I just dont know, I am just more wary of believing the intelligence agencies.
    I dont want WWIII over this.

    I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.



  • @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.

    There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @jc said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.

    The Times is reporting more than 100 strikes so far. Syria is claiming they shot down most of thes missiles.

    I read they only struck 3 places and all linked to supposed chemical weapons? Is my info out of date?

    I think initially people were talking (including Trump) and about widespread shock and awe destruction of Assad forces. Just has not happened as far as Iam aware.

    No, I think your info is same as mine, just quoting a bit more detail that seems to be surfacing. TBH I think the rationale is more credible if they stick to a limited job.



  • @duluth said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.

    There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.

    Or one of the groups fighting with Assad and enjoying the chaos (like Iran or Russia) did it.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    Yes, it would. Not bombing Syria would embolden them to use chemical weapons in future. Assad is a terrible person but there is no norm against bombing your own people or oppressing them. We should protect the norms that we do have so that Russia is strongly encouraged not to break them.

    So it is a norm to starve your people, bomb them into oblivion or enslave them. But you think killing them by chemical weapons is not the norm?
    I think all of them are bloody horrendous. All them are evil.

    All of them are bad. One of them is an international norm and the other isn't. I don't set norms but I think it is worth protecting the norms that we do have. There are reasons that bombing your own civilians is seen as more acceptable than attacking them with chemical weapons.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @jc said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.

    The Times is reporting more than 100 strikes so far. Syria is claiming they shot down most of thes missiles.

    I read they only struck 3 places and all linked to supposed chemical weapons? Is my info out of date?

    I think initially people were talking (including Trump) and about widespread shock and awe destruction of Assad forces. Just has not happened as far as Iam aware.

    Not meant to destroy his forces. Just attack his chemical weapons factories.



  • @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    Yes, it would. Not bombing Syria would embolden them to use chemical weapons in future. Assad is a terrible person but there is no norm against bombing your own people or oppressing them. We should protect the norms that we do have so that Russia is strongly encouraged not to break them.

    So it is a norm to starve your people, bomb them into oblivion or enslave them. But you think killing them by chemical weapons is not the norm?
    I think all of them are bloody horrendous. All them are evil.

    All of them are bad. One of them is an international norm and the other isn't. I don't set norms but I think it is worth protecting the norms that we do have. There are reasons that bombing your own civilians is seen as more acceptable than attacking them with chemical weapons.

    You are saying that starving, murdering and enslaving children are international norms? Seriously?



  • @duluth said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.

    There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.

    Yeah, I'd considered that possibility and certainly would not discount it but, especially given the fall out over the WMD debacle and Trumps avowed non-interventionism, that the US would be pretty certain about what occurred. If there was a tangible benefit to the US I could easily see things differently.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.

    So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
    There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?

    Yes, it would. Not bombing Syria would embolden them to use chemical weapons in future. Assad is a terrible person but there is no norm against bombing your own people or oppressing them. We should protect the norms that we do have so that Russia is strongly encouraged not to break them.

    So it is a norm to starve your people, bomb them into oblivion or enslave them. But you think killing them by chemical weapons is not the norm?
    I think all of them are bloody horrendous. All them are evil.

    All of them are bad. One of them is an international norm and the other isn't. I don't set norms but I think it is worth protecting the norms that we do have. There are reasons that bombing your own civilians is seen as more acceptable than attacking them with chemical weapons.

    You are saying that starving, murdering and enslaving children are international norms? Seriously?

    No. I am saying that there are not international norms against doing so. When Assad shot his own citizens for peacefully protesting, he faced sanctions. There was no serious attempts by the USA or the UN to jump in and enforce the fact that Assad is not allowed to do that. It is obvious from looking around the world that you can starve your own citizens and get away with it. Look at North Korea or even Venezuela. No one is suggesting those government be overthrown by foreign powers. North Korea faces huge sanctions but it is not prohibited from doing what it does and when it breaks international law, this is not enforced.

    Chemical weapons are different. There is an organisation for the destruction of chemical weapons. There is not the same thing for bombs or guns.



  • @duluth said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.

    There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.

    If that was true (and I have not seen any evidence suggesting it is true) that is why the strikes were targeted at chemical weapons facilities. The strikes don't actually help the rebels win the war at all.



  • @duluth said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:

    I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.

    There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.

    Let's also be quite clear that Russia consistently use their veto to prevent any investigation of these attacks by the UN.



  • @catogrande

    Not exactly a benefit, but I think opinions on Iran play a role here. A large number of politicians and the majority of the military seem to want a more belligerent stance on Iran.
    Some of the talk in the past week has been about having a larger presence in Syria to limit Iran’s influence over the region

    Maybe some Trump advisors didn’t take much convincing? Or maybe they have water tight proof.. I’m just sceptical how fast this turned after Trump said he intended to pull the 2000 troops out of Syria just over a week ago



  • @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes don't actually help the rebels win the war at all.

    there aren’t just two sides in this war



  • @duluth said in Syria airstrikes:

    @hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:

    The strikes don't actually help the rebels win the war at all.

    there aren’t just two sides in this war

    I don't see who the strikes help (apart from potential statistics).



  • @hydro11

    Al Nusra would be one. Not ‘rebels’, but fighting Assad

    I’m not making definite claims about this. Others are claiming this is a simple black and white situation. It would have been great if the case was made to Congress rather than just go forward with an unconstitutional attack without the correct checks on the executive



  • @duluth said in Syria airstrikes:

    @catogrande

    Not exactly a benefit, but I think opinions on Iran play a role here. A large number of politicians and the majority of the military seem to want a more belligerent stance on Iran.
    Some of the talk in the past week has been about having a larger presence in Syria to limit Iran’s influence over the region

    Maybe some Trump advisors didn’t take much convincing? Or maybe they have water tight proof.. I’m just sceptical how fast this turned after Trump said he intended to pull the 2000 troops out of Syria just over a week ago

    All of what you say is quite possible, I just feel it is the less likely position for reasons previously stated. Trump’s about turn is not much of a surprise as he does come across as a man ruled by his emotions



  • Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.

    Must suck to live in their playground.



  • @rembrandt said in Syria airstrikes:

    Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.

    Must suck to live in their playground.

    There's definitely an element of the UK being eager to join in due to their recent dealings.



  • @rembrandt said in Syria airstrikes:

    Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.

    Are there other chemical attacks that haven't been met with a show of force? I genuinely don't know - it seems a proportionate response



  • If — and I say a Big IF — it was about slaughters and human rights, they’d be bombing the crap out of Riyadh right now while “our” good Royal Saudi buddies are commiting untold atrocities right next door in Yemen — using weapons purchased from the West. But of course “we’re” not really concerned about human rights, it’s always a moral & ethical charade. (Kayfabe)

    And by all means, if you haven’t read this, take a look. Not saying it’s 100% accurate, but some good food for thought:

    6 Simple Reasons Why Trump Is Going To War In Syria


Log in to reply