Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Syrian conflict.


LoooSeR

Recommended Posts

That's some pretty epic bullshit there Don, sorry.  Hiitler gassing people in the camps might not be 'warfare' use, but it is definite chemical weapons use. Gassing thousands and thousands of people with pesticides and nerve agents is chemical weapons use in any sense of the word.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Let's just forget what Spicer said, okay? When you're subject to so much stress because of so many things happening simultaneously, it's inevitable to say some things you'll regret. Just take note and move on.

What. No. He's the fucking White House press secretary, not Joe from backwoods Georgia. People like him should carefully consider what they're going to say. Not run their mouth like a retard and later apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ApplesauceBandit said:

Declassified U.S. report on the CW attack, talks about how they know the Syrian regime did it.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/middleeast/document-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.html?_r=1

US statement:

Quote

Further, the World Heath Organization stated on April 5 that its analysis of the victims of the attack in Syria showed they had been exposed to nerve agents, citing the absence of external injuries and deaths due to suffocation.

 

WHO report:

Quote

The likelihood of exposure to a chemical attack is amplified by an apparent lack of external injuries reported in cases showing a rapid onset of similar symptoms, including acute respiratory distress as the main cause of death. Some cases appear to show additional signs consistent with exposure to organophosphorus chemicals, a category of chemicals that includes nerve agents.

 

So the US went from "some cases" to "the victims", and from "organophosphorus chemicals" to "sarin". Those are quite the jumps.

 

9 hours ago, Donward said:

And again, the thing that has been the most annoying with this episode is that the Russians and Syrians are still behaving like Obama or Hillary are in the White House, treating Donald Trump like he is some sort of cuck.

 

Furthermore, I wish the two countries would get their lies straight about this incident. Because it is fucking annoying trying to swallow which lie they are peddling next.

 

It's the "terrorists" who did this. They used chlorine gas. No it was phosgene gas. No wait, it was insecticide. No, wait again, somehow they got their hands on Sarin gas after all. The gas was released when the Syrian Air Force accidentally detonated a bomb on the gas. No, the insurgents released the gas themselves. No, turns out the whole thing was fake, and those were actors pretending to die and it was a cleverly orchestrated bit of Hollywood special effects.

 

Oh yeah, and the whole thing was a False Flag operation.

 

False Flag!

 

FALSE FLAG!!!!1!!!!

 

Holy shit guys. Give us some fucking credit here.

 

Come on Don, have you read the shit that has come out of the mouths of US governmental people?

It goes from "this is a one-off strike, we won't take further action" to "Assad didn't do this" to "Trump wants to destabilise Syria" to "Trump wants to destabilise the region" to "we're looking for more military options" to "the US cannot separate Assad from ISIS". The US twists and turns just as much as Syria, just on another level and in the US' case the public eats it.

 

Like I said before, Syria almost immediately offered to accept an international inspection team, why was this denied? You can go shouting like "SYRIA HAS NOTHING TO DEMAND", but why shouldn't an inspection/investigation be from an international team? What inspection team in recent years hasn't been an international team? Syria also said it should start in Damascus, shouldn't that be absolutely perfect? Start in Damascus, drive to Shayrat, inspect that. If the US knew if came from Shayrat, wouldn't this be the easiest course of action? Of course, if you then can prove it came from the Syrian air force, you can then bomb to shit whatever you want to bomb to shit. For me this isn't about something like "The US shouldn't hamper the fight against the jihadis" but it's about the US straight up denying an international inspection and that they were the investigator, attorney, judge and the executioner. A major power doing that scares me, sugarcoat it all you want, but it fucking scares me. What if Russia had completely destroyed the Ukrainian air forces over MH17? What if we had destroyed Russian air defences over MH17? I mean, we had perfectly good (according to us) evidence to blame the Russians, and the Russians had perfectly good (according to them) to blame the Ukrainians. But none of the parties involved in that incident did that. I wonder why.

 

 

More about the Spicer remark:

Quote

 

Comparing the Nazi leader with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Spicer told journalists during his regular press briefing at the White House: “We didn’t use chemical weapons in world war two. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.”

 

Asked to clarify the remarks, he added: “I think when you come to sarin gas, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”

 

A reporter in the room shouted that Jews had been targeted. Stuttering and gesticulating, Spicer stumbled on: “Thank you, I appreciate that. There was not in the – he brought them into the Holocaust centres – I understand that. But I’m saying in the way that Assad used them, where he went into towns, dropped them down into the middle of towns.

 

Makes it a little more nuanced, but it's still a dumb statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

What. No. He's the fucking White House press secretary, not Joe from backwoods Georgia. People like him should carefully consider what they're going to say. Not run their mouth like a retard and later apologise.

 

Technically speaking I should be the most offended by his statement, you know, because I'm nationally Jewish and all. But I choose not to be offended by it, so surely you can find the strength to ignore it as well and see it as one man's unintentional slip of tongue.

 

49 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

US statement:

 

WHO report:

 

So the US went from "some cases" to "the victims", and from "organophosphorus chemicals" to "sarin". Those are quite the jumps.

 

 

Come on Don, have you read the shit that has come out of the mouths of US governmental people?

It goes from "this is a one-off strike, we won't take further action" to "Assad didn't do this" to "Trump wants to destabilise Syria" to "Trump wants to destabilise the region" to "we're looking for more military options" to "the US cannot separate Assad from ISIS". The US twists and turns just as much as Syria, just on another level and in the US' case the public eats it.

 

Like I said before, Syria almost immediately offered to accept an international inspection team, why was this denied? You can go shouting like "SYRIA HAS NOTHING TO DEMAND", but why shouldn't an inspection/investigation be from an international team? What inspection team in recent years hasn't been an international team? Syria also said it should start in Damascus, shouldn't that be absolutely perfect? Start in Damascus, drive to Shayrat, inspect that. If the US knew if came from Shayrat, wouldn't this be the easiest course of action? Of course, if you then can prove it came from the Syrian air force, you can then bomb to shit whatever you want to bomb to shit. For me this isn't about something like "The US shouldn't hamper the fight against the jihadis" but it's about the US straight up denying an international inspection and that they were the investigator, attorney, judge and the executioner. A major power doing that scares me, sugarcoat it all you want, but it fucking scares me. What if Russia had completely destroyed the Ukrainian air forces over MH17? What if we had destroyed Russian air defences over MH17? I mean, we had perfectly good (according to us) evidence to blame the Russians, and the Russians had perfectly good (according to them) to blame the Ukrainians. But none of the parties involved in that incident did that. I wonder why.

 

 

More about the Spicer remark:

Makes it a little more nuanced, but it's still a dumb statement.

 

1)"some cases" refers to highlighted data on the victims. So when they say "the victims", there's no "jump". They were referring to them from the beginning.

From a 5 second google search, I found out Sarin was a organophosphorous compound, which means that referring to it as "organophosphorous chemicals" is correct. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

 

2)We all know what the inspectors would find. And if you don't know, I'll give you a hint: Iran's nuclear facilities' inspection. Another hint: They found nothing harmful but also found completely closed off and covered sections in those facilities, from which they were prohibited.

This is Syrian turf. And partly even Russian turf. They can cover things up fairly easy I say. The supposed follow up strike on the hospital could serve as evidence for that.

 

3)There are plot holes in the Syrian/Russian/Iranian version as well. They say it was an innocent attack on an arms factory or storage facility in which chemical weapons were located (and Assad didn't know about the chem weapons, just thought there were weapons). But then, how would that create a chemical reaction necessary for the creation of Sarin gas? That would destroy the components, not mix them.

And then of course the claims that the attacks were in fact fake, which contradict the early version that a warehouse was hit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Technically speaking I should be the most offended by his statement, you know, because I'm nationally Jewish and all. But I choose not to be offended by it, so surely you can find the strength to ignore it as well and see it as one man's unintentional slip of tongue.

You being offended or not has nothing to do with me thinking it's a retarded statement that shouldn't have been said. This isn't the first time Spicer has said dumb shit. He said that Trump's goal is to destroy healthcare and he has said that Trump's goal is to destabilise Syria/the region twice now. A press secretary shouldn't have so many "slips of the tongue", if he can't stop saying stupid shit (and having to apologise for it), maybe he shouldn't be press secretary? 

 

37 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1)"some cases" refers to highlighted data on the victims. So when they say "the victims", there's no "jump". They were referring to them from the beginning.

From a 5 second google search, I found out Sarin was a organophosphorous compound, which means that referring to it as "organophosphorous chemicals" is correct. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

 

2)We all know what the inspectors would find. And if you don't know, I'll give you a hint: Iran's nuclear facilities' inspection. Another hint: They found nothing harmful but also found completely closed off and covered sections in those facilities, from which they were prohibited.

This is Syrian turf. And partly even Russian turf. They can cover things up fairly easy I say. The supposed follow up strike on the hospital could serve as evidence for that.

 

3)There are plot holes in the Syrian/Russian/Iranian version as well. They say it was an innocent attack on an arms factory or storage facility in which chemical weapons were located (and Assad didn't know about the chem weapons, just thought there were weapons). But then, how would that create a chemical reaction necessary for the creation of Sarin gas? That would destroy the components, not mix them.

And then of course the claims that the attacks were in fact fake, which contradict the early version that a warehouse was hit. 

 

1. Except the US didn't refer to it as organophosphorus chemcicals, they said nerve gas. Some organophosphates are nerve gasses, not all organophosphates are nerve gasses. So you can't simply make the jump from organophosphates to nerve gasses, but the US did do just that. WHO said "the symptoms are consistent with exposure to organophosphates (which include nerve gasses)". WHO didn't say "the symptoms are consistent with nerve gasses (which are organophosphates)". The US completely dropped the organophosphates part and went straight to nerve gasses. 

If WHO had said "organophosphorus chemicals, a category of chemicals that includes phosmet" (which is a true statement) would the US have said "World Heath Organization stated [...] the victims of the attack in Syria showed they had been exposed to phosmet" (which could be a true statement)? 

 

2. They say they have proof, an inspection can confirm that proof. It's one thing to go look for proof, it's another thing to confirm the proof you already have. You give Iran as an example, I can give MH17 as an example. I think the only country that didn't (fully) accept the JIT's findings is Russia. For as far as I know every other country has accepted JIT's findings as correct.

Syria's only demands were: International team and start in Damascus. There was nothing like "Only non-NATO countries allowed, who have to start in Damascus, cannot go anywhere without military protection, and are not allowed to visit military installations". Nothing in the two Syrian demands prevented an inspection team from visiting all military installations, airbases or factories they suspect of making and/or storing sarin.

 

3. I'm not saying that the Russian/Iranian/Syrian sides aren't sketchy.

 

Also, as soon as the two compounds come into contact, it would make sarin. Sure, properly mixing everything would make sure that the binaries are fully converted to sarin, but as soon as the binaries come into contact with each other, sarin is formed.

 

It also has to be noted that Putin didn't say it was a false flag, he said it was a provocation. The term "false flag" was a mistranslation:

This was Putin's statement:

Quote

Теперь, возможны ли новый удары или не возможны? Вот у нас есть информация от различных источников, что подобные провокации, а я по-другому это назвать не могу, готовятся и в других районах Сирии...

Which, according to a Redditor translates to:

Quote

Now, about whether new strikes are possible or not. We have info, from multiple sources, that similar provocations, I cant call it in any other manner, are being prepared in other regions of Syria...

Now, I can't confirm the accuracy of that translation, but I do know that "провокации" transliterates to "provokatsii".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

   Russia will be isolated in the international arena if it does not agree to conclude a deal with the US on Syria. Such a statement was made by the representative of the White House, Sean Spicer. His words are reported by RIA Novosti.

Well, now it is obvious why everything in last days was done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

You being offended or not has nothing to do with me thinking it's a retarded statement that shouldn't have been said. This isn't the first time Spicer has said dumb shit. He said that Trump's goal is to destroy healthcare and he has said that Trump's goal is to destabilise Syria/the region twice now. A press secretary shouldn't have so many "slips of the tongue", if he can't stop saying stupid shit (and having to apologise for it), maybe he shouldn't be press secretary? 

 

1. Except the US didn't refer to it as organophosphorus chemcicals, they said nerve gas. Some organophosphates are nerve gasses, not all organophosphates are nerve gasses. So you can't simply make the jump from organophosphates to nerve gasses, but the US did do just that. WHO said "the symptoms are consistent with exposure to organophosphates (which include nerve gasses)". WHO didn't say "the symptoms are consistent with nerve gasses (which are organophosphates)". The US completely dropped the organophosphates part and went straight to nerve gasses. 

If WHO had said "organophosphorus chemicals, a category of chemicals that includes phosmet" (which is a true statement) would the US have said "World Heath Organization stated [...] the victims of the attack in Syria showed they had been exposed to phosmet" (which could be a true statement)? 

 

2. They say they have proof, an inspection can confirm that proof. It's one thing to go look for proof, it's another thing to confirm the proof you already have. You give Iran as an example, I can give MH17 as an example. I think the only country that didn't (fully) accept the JIT's findings is Russia. For as far as I know every other country has accepted JIT's findings as correct.

Syria's only demands were: International team and start in Damascus. There was nothing like "Only non-NATO countries allowed, who have to start in Damascus, cannot go anywhere without military protection, and are not allowed to visit military installations". Nothing in the two Syrian demands prevented an inspection team from visiting all military installations, airbases or factories they suspect of making and/or storing sarin.

 

3. I'm not saying that the Russian/Iranian/Syrian sides aren't sketchy.

 

Also, as soon as the two compounds come into contact, it would make sarin. Sure, properly mixing everything would make sure that the binaries are fully converted to sarin, but as soon as the binaries come into contact with each other, sarin is formed.

 

It also has to be noted that Putin didn't say it was a false flag, he said it was a provocation. The term "false flag" was a mistranslation:

This was Putin's statement:

Which, according to a Redditor translates to:

Now, I can't confirm the accuracy of that translation, but I do know that "провокации" transliterates to "provokatsii".

 

There's our misunderstanding. I'm talking about this very specific remark. Not about his history of similar remarks. Simply because I don't follow US politics much other than occasionally reading the headlines and having a chuckle.

What I'm saying is you shouldn't give it too much weight. It's insignificant.

 

 

1)I believe you're clinging to unnecessary small details here. The intent was clear. 

 

2)It's only going to keep them in the loop of "I'm right. - No I'm right. No I'm right.". The information has been validated by numerous intelligence agencies, with their own means to research it in a short time without these prolonged unnecessary inspections. There are plenty of very good ways to gather information, and an 'on the ground' inspection may not be necessary at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/middleeast/document-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.html?_r=1

There's already a declassified report on the incident. Obviously several parts are not included to prevent leakage of classified data on intelligence gathering capabilities. 

 

This is just a delegitimization attempt by Syria (and Russia) of the missile strike, because they know the US has already got the necessary info and won't be part of an investigation it deems redundant. This is a very common method in Russian media to be fair. They're still blaming the US for everything done in Syria because they say they offered the US to participate in their coalition, which the US later declined. Of course failed to explain that the Russian coalition included groups that are highly hostile to the US, and the US was already part of a much larger coalition. Every actor and their tactics. This just happens to be Russia's primary card.

 

 

3)In a Bellingcat's post (note, I am not an expert in chemistry, nor am I even interested in the subject), it was said that either one of the components, or a certain chemical required to mix them (can't remember which) is highly flammable and would disintegrate before the Sarin compound can be created. I'll try to find it.

 

 

Last but not least, the translation is fairly accurate (other than the first part. It was phrased incorrectly), but what do you think he means by "provocations"? Because as far as I can see, the two mean the same thing. US sets up a plan to provoke Assad into using a chemical weapon (unknowingly it is a US operation), Assad uses chem weapons and the US strikes again. EZ and PZ. If that's Russia's theory, it's damn well a false flag accusation, because then none would have known it was the US who planned it, and everyone would think it was purely Assad's fault. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

#Iran FM to travel to #Moscow on Friday where he will have meeting with #Russia FM and #Syria FM.

 

Quote

US report on allaged chemical attack in #Syria, has some awesome parts like, "Medical staff with body suits on"

C9KzArWXUAEMZ_p.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

There's our misunderstanding. I'm talking about this very specific remark. Not about his history of similar remarks. Simply because I don't follow US politics much other than occasionally reading the headlines and having a chuckle.

What I'm saying is you shouldn't give it too much weight. It's insignificant.

I'm not giving it too much weight? I literally only posted it here because it's a retarded comment, I think I've posted Spicer's retarded comments here before.

 

46 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1)I believe you're clinging to unnecessary small details here. The intent was clear. 

I'm seeing a jump to justify a military strike. And if they're doing it here, who's to say they won't do it on other issues too?

 

2. Yes. It looks more like a press release than an intelligence report though, but hey. That's the report we're talking about right now. That's where this organophosphates vs nerve gas discussion comes from.

Citing intelligence agencies as a source are usually a bit sketchy imo. Personally I don't trust the "Trust us, our intelligence agency said so" arguments at all. We've seen what can happen with that in Iraq, although that might be an extreme case.

 

3. Depends on what chemicals you use. Yes, one is isopropyl alcohol (MSDS here), which is not flammable in presence of shocks, but can explode due to mechanical impacts or open flames.

But using isopropyl alcohol isn't the only way of making sarin. Another way is to use methylphosphonic dichloride instead of isopropyl alcohol, but that has a whole range of other problems, including it being super toxic. But it's not highly flammable or explosive. So yes, according to Wiki it's possible to create sarin without explosive/highly flammable materials.

 

Quote

Last but not least, the translation is fairly accurate (other than the first part. It was phrased incorrectly), but what do you think he means by "provocations"? Because as far as I can see, the two mean the same thing. US sets up a plan to provoke Assad into using a chemical weapon (unknowingly it is a US operation), Assad uses chem weapons and the US strikes again. EZ and PZ. If that's Russia's theory, it's damn well a false flag accusation, because then none would have known it was the US who planned it, and everyone would think it was purely Assad's fault. 

I guess that a provocation would be something like jihadis storing chlorine in a house, have it look like an HQ or important place and wait until it's bombed: "We've been bombed with chemical weapons!!!!!111!1". While a false-flag would be something like deliberately blowing up the house yourself and claiming you were being bombed with chemical weapons.

 

 

But anyway, I have literally no idea what to think about this whole incident. Sometimes I'm leaning to one side, then something gets posted and I start leaning to the other side. I've been trying to give other perspectives but it seems that with a lot of people it's "You're either with me or you're a conspiracy nut/brainwashed by the media". I've been IP-banned on a forum that's totally unrelated to the SCW or even weapons because I told a moderator that maybe the proof wasn't as definitive as he claimed. Obviously that meant I support a mass murdering dictator and he perma'd me. :D

 

Anyway, I think we'll have to wait on further information for this discussion to get anywhere. If you don't mind I'll drop it here since I think we can keep discussing endlessly and I wasn't planning on doing that.:)

 

7 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Yeah, interesting times.

 

 

That was the second time he said that. I mean come on Spicer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Cochran had a magnificent article on Syria in 2013 that is just as applicable now as it was then.

 

Quote

There is a better way. Sure, the U.S. want to deter use of chemical weapons—but we also want to prevent a jihadist Syria and/or Alawite genocide. Air strikes against Assad fulfill the first requirement, but interfere with the second. In order to achieve our goals, we have to attack both sides in the conflict. We may not be dead certain about who used that nerve gas, but if we attack both regime and rebels, we’re bound to hurt the responsible party. Balanced strikes won’t hand the advantage to the local al-Qaeda franchise. With any luck, bombing both sides will so confuse and alienate everybody that we won’t be able to intervene later even if we want to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Greg Cochran had a magnificent article on Syria in 2013 that is just as applicable now as it was then.

 

 

Isn't the modern mode of civil war one where both sides get propped up by various powers so that nobody gets a decisive upper hand and the host country is comprehensively ruined in ways that neither side could achieve on its own?

 

If so, isn't one country propping up AND bombing both sides simply the best way to cut out the middleman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Isn't the modern mode of civil war one where both sides get propped up by various powers so that nobody gets a decisive upper hand and the host country is comprehensively ruined in ways that neither side could achieve on its own?

 

If so, isn't one country propping up AND bombing both sides simply the best way to cut out the middleman?

 

LoooSeR posted estimates from Russian economists on how long it would take the Syrian economy to recover to its pre-war level.  That was about a year ago, and they were estimating two decades.  Obviously, the situation has not improved since then.  @Donward's comparisons to the Thirty Years War are apt.  This is a massively confusing proxy war that has vastly exceeded the original scope of the conflict and dragged in much larger foreign actors.  It will leave the country devastated for decades.

 

At this point, given the reports of CIA backed and DOD backed militias fighting each other, and US-backed Kurdish forces coming to blows with militias armed with US-supplied weapons, let alone Seymour Hersh's allegations that senior Pentagon officials were passing intelligence to Israel and Russia to undermine the Obama Administration's policy, the US basically has been fighting itself in Syria by proxy for the past five years.

 

It's a hell of a thing for a country to have a foreign policy that was written by Azathoth.  It's even worse when that country has the world's largest economy and the best weapons.  Can you imagine what Cardinal Richelieu would have done if he had TOWs, nuclear weapons and tertiary syphilis?  Wonder no more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...