Syria gas attack (as it were)

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Patrick Armstrong, Aug 23, 2013.

  1. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Does anyone in this group believe the reports that the Assad govt gassed people a few kilometres away from the visiting UN group?

    I don't thinks so.

    So
    1. Is the whole thing a complete fake like so many other reported atrocities from this part of the world that the Western MSM swallows whole? (eg check this film of apparently Egyptian Muslim Bros rehearsing atrocity poses )
    2. Was a real CW attack made to make it extra-special convincing? (personally I don't think so. The Western MSM is so complicit in this crap there's no reason to actually do it)
    3. How will the MSM contrive to blame Putin for this?
    4. Is this the final staged moment before NATO starts bombing?

    Further reading
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/0...commentary/another-syria-chemical-attack-8934
  2. Sky Fisher

    Sky Fisher Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Nope. I don't believe Assad did this, and I don't think he did the other chemical attacks either. Was there a real attack? I'm not sure. I agree that the MSM propaganda haze is so thick a real attack might not be necessary. But these are also real psychopaths putting up these false pretexts for invasion, so they might kill people even if it wasn't necessary. They do it all the time. I might as well admit that I am an American, but these psychos don't represent me. I'd stop them if I could, but they don't listen to people like me.

    "How will the MSM contrive to blame Putin?" I don't know, but they'll find some idiotic pretext to do that. Question is: what will Putin do ? I've just heard that some invasion forces have begun- US, Israel, Jordan and, of course, CIA. I hope Putin can put a stop to this quickly.

    "Is this the final staged moment before NATO starts bombing?" Ah, but will all the NATO countries be on board with it? If the puppet strings are still in place, I suppose that will be the next step. Otherwise, it could be the final moment before NATO shatters.
  3. MarkPavelovich

    MarkPavelovich Commissar

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    22
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Victoria, British Columbia
    NATO cannot attack Syria without a UN go-ahead without edging into war-crime territory, because the UN charter forbids wars of aggression. The Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine was expressly designed to get around this, but Syria is not Libya and too many people are suspicious now of NATO's motives and are well aware of how hungry NATO is for regime change. Also, the group waiting in the wings to assume power in Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood, and their copybook has been well and truly blotted by Morsi in Egypt. So I don't think so. If NATO moved for an R2P operation based on this "chemical attack", people would clamor for an investigation to determine it was genuine because there have been several blatant attempts to fake a chemical attack after Obama helpfully announced that was the "red line".

    I don't think there is going to be an invasion of Syria, as much as NATO would dearly love to do it. Nobody has the money, for one thing - the U.S. is still in the throes of the sequester, while its bestest buddy the UK is groaning under the most severe austerity budget since the Great War. Outside those two happy warmongers, nobody has much appetite for a new war except France - because Hollande would love anything that would be a distraction to what a shitty leader he has turned out to be - and the self-interested Gulf nations Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The latter two are physically too close to try anything like that without being part of a massive invasion force.

    That said, if I were Assad I would be keeping my head down, because eventually the west will get around to trying assassination if they cannot get the green light to go in and wreck the whole country. NATO is used to having its own way, does not like to be balked and likes least of all being balked by Russia. Especially in circumstances which let Russia claim the moral high ground while the west looks like a bunch of Orcs skulking about the borders and winnowing through the options for a pretext to attack.
  4. AKarlin

    AKarlin Generalissimo Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    39
    (1) Have no idea, but I'm almost certain Assad had nothing to do with it. It would be mind-bogglingly stupid on too many levels, and the location and timing are oh-so convenient.

    Agreed with Sky Fisher that its likely entirely fake, but possibly not, as the jihadists really are psychopaths.

    (3) Putin is already a supporter of blood-thirsty dictators.

    (4) That is a possibility. With the initiative now firmly in the regime's hands and rebels deserting in droves, these months are probably the very last chance NATO will get to avert an Assad victory.

    France, in its new role as most loyal puppet, is leading the way with demands for action now. US decision-makers are split, as far as I can tell.

    PS. Don't usually put much stock in conspiracy theories, but the sheer bizarreness of this means that such possibilities shouldn't be dismissed out of hand:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/delete...attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178

    h/t Moscow Exile for this.
  5. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
    It's harder in the modern world to do these things. Here is the classic analysis of another atrocity (this time it was the Israelis who had the Child-Seeking Warhead). The Western media is so easily gulled (or is it willing to be gulled) that a blogger was able to find pictures that put together the whole show with the actors and the props.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.ca/2006/08/qana-directors-cut.html
    Alexander Mercouris likes this.
  6. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
  7. Alexander Mercouris

    Alexander Mercouris Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    62
    Gender:
    Male
    Dear Patrick,

    I cannot speak for the western media in its entirety but the British media at least are having no difficulty putting responsibility for the gas attack on Putin. Here is Shashank Joshi in the Daily Telegraph, claiming that Russia is preventing UN inspectors from examining the scene of the crime

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10259931/Its-hell-in-Syria-but-Uncle-Sam-isnt-going-to-come-riding-to-the-rescue.html

    and here is the Guardian making very similar claims.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/syria-chemical-weapons

    The banal reality is that Russia has asked the Syrian government to allow an inspection of the area where the attack was committed and the Syrian government according to the Russian Foreign Ministry and from the tone of the reports carried by Syrian government’s news agency Sana seems to have agreed to this.

    http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-attack-cooperation-841/

    http://sana.sy/eng/22/2013/08/23/498754.htm

    A point that western media demands for the Syrian government to “allow” the UN inspectors into the area of the gas attack wilfully ignore is that the area where the attack seems to have taken place is rebel controlled. It is therefore the rebels not the government who control access to it. The onus should therefore be on them and not just the government to allow the UN inspectors in.

    I do not know who carried out these attacks but as many have pointed out if it was the Syrian government then the timing – a year apparently to the day after Obama’s “red lines” speech and just after the UN inspectors arrived in Damascus – would in that case be incredibly stupid to the point of being frankly bizarre. As has also been correctly pointed out, an attack of this sort now when the government seems to be winning on the battlefield makes no sense.

    By contrast one can see why at a time when the rebels are coming under increasing pressure they might want to stir up support by engaging in a false flag operation. I would add that another factor might be worry that the "international community" is losing interest in them because of the attention on Egypt. The coup in Egypt must anyway be a big psychological blow for them given the tacit support the Egyptian military government is now giving Assad.

    What many people don’t of course know is that if one reads regularly Sana (as I do) then one would know that the Syrian government has been alleging incidents of use of chemical weapons by the rebels practically every week for the last few months. If this is true then the latest incident is simply another example. Obviously I have no idea how true these claims are. However I do find it depressing that the government’s claims of use of chemical weapons by the rebels get no attention whilst rebel claims like the latest one get saturation coverage and are immediately believed. There is no reason to give greater credence to any side in this war but there is at least some corroboration of rebel use of chemical weapons: not just the famous comments of Carla del Ponte but also an incident when some rebels were discovered in Turkey in possession of a sarin gas canister a few months ago. News of that incident was suppressed even though it was accompanied by stories that a gas attack on a Turkish town that would be blamed on the Syrian government was being planned.

    It also puzzles me why western commentators like Shashank Joshi seem so unwilling to accept that the Syrian rebels are capable of carrying out false flag operations. This is after all a rebel movement amongst whose commanders is a cannibal who still commands his unit and who has come in for barely any criticism from the rebel leadership even after his activities were broadcast in a film shown internationally, which uses suicide bombers as a regular tactic and whose members cheerfully behead children if they discover them committing "blasphemy". Given how utterly ruthless this movement is why assume they would stop at false flag operations involving sarin gas if they thought it would advance their interests?
  8. Alexander Mercouris

    Alexander Mercouris Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    62
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is the full text of Obama's interview on the Syrian situation.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/23/p...day-interview-transcript/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    It is quite an amazing interview in many respects. First there is the interminable discussion of education policy, which as the BBC has pointed out Obama must have insisted on as a condition to doing the interview. Then there is the clear reluctance to put the blame on any party and the clear reluctance to get drawn into the Syrian conflict. There is also the reminder that the war in Afghanistan is still not over.

    All of this might lead one to think that Obama does not want to get involved in Syria. If however that really is his policy, why doesn't he simply stand up and say so? If Obama took a non interventionist stand in the conflict US public opinion would solidly support him. It is also clear that the US military oppose becoming involved in this war. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, has all but said as much. If intervention were publicly ruled out some US allies might be annoyed but realistically what could they do? There would at least be clarity about what the US was going to do and the international community would adjust around it. There might even be a chance that talks between the Syrian factions might result. As it is all this ambiguity and evasion does is simply encourage the war hawks to pile on the pressure and to become still more intransigent.
  9. owenpolley

    owenpolley Gubernial Secretary (12th class)

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    The Times of London has trotted out Edward Lucas to write a column claiming that 'the West' 'must drop all illusions about Putin's character' following the claims about chemical weapons. Mind you, even Ed allows that the attack was caused "possibly by rebel groups trying to stoke international outrage".
  10. Russian Truth

    Russian Truth Office Registrar (13th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/ - Solved. Common sense betters the CIA once again. Not too surprising when you look at the face of the CIA in 2013...
    [​IMG]

    Some more links and information:

    History of U.S. False Flag Operations:
    http://www.911review.com/articles/anon/false_flag_perations.html

    Now the U.S. finally admits that the CIA was behind the fall in 1953 of the democratically elected Iranian leader:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-ad...-enemies-and-commit-terrorism-in-iran/5346238

    Assad would have to be the dumbest person on the planet to use chemical weapons when Syria is winning and at the very same moment UN inspectors are arriving. Plus, it is obvious that Russia is heavily involved in the conflict. They would never allow such an attack. Finally, chemical weapons attacks are unpredictable. This is much too close to Assad territory to risk it. Like him or not, we do know that Assad is pragmatic.

    I don't think waging war on the Brady Bunch of the Middle East will go over very well with Middle America. Now, in saying that, 98% of Middle America thinks that Putin is a communist. So, maybe the Assads should be looking into Moscow schools for their kids.
    [​IMG]

    In all seriousness, the real question is how far will Russia go to not let Syria fall if NATO/Israel/Gulf States make a big push? The feeling is that first Syria will fall, then Lebanon, then Iran, then Russia. Read Zbigniew Brzezinksi's The Grand Chessboard if you want to know what the Obama administration is after (he advises Obama). It will scare the hell out of you. http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html

    html
  11. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
  12. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
  13. Hero of Crappy Town

    Hero of Crappy Town Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think there has never been less chance of a direct American intervention than there is right now. I think it is clear intervening would go against Obama's better judgement, which does not mean he is not going to do it considering what a weak "leader" he is, but it nonetheless diminishes the chances. Assad is simply in a too strong position and America does not like hard wars. Also the rebels are too wacky even for the liberal humanitarians to be able to credibly pretend that their reign would be well received by the Syrian masses.

    Also the coup in Egypt has really reshuffled things as the MB was an extremely enthusiastic backer of the rebels but the Egyptian military is far less so. In fact the Egypt situation has now outshone the war in Syria for Washington, and while the latter's policy is normally characterized by idiocy and contradiction backing the military in Egypt in its struggle against the relatively moderate MB in Egypt, only to help considerably nuttier Islamists overthrow the Baath in Syria would be just a tad too idiotic even for them.

    It's a strange situation because the US likes the idea of being seen "doing something" and having a feel good moment in siding with the plucky rebels and toppling the big bad dictator, but it is simultaneously realizing that at the end of the day it actually doesn't want to see the Islamist inmates take over the asylum.

    And another thing, I think American "humanitarian" interventionism may have had its big day in the sun in 1999 and that we may be seeing its slow decline. That may be a strange thing to say because it has seemingly never been more widely accepted to the point it is just taken for granted the US may, if it decides, attack this or that state if it can spin a good morality tale against it. However, that is just it, it is as if Washington was motivated to intervene in the 1990s in order to make a precedent and to illustrate it takes such powers for itself. To make the idea normal. But now that the US government (de facto) has this power it isn't really that motivated to use it due to all the potential liabilities involved. Even in Libya if you recall that was an extremely weak-willed effort with all the "leading from behind" and Obama actually trying to put a distance between the intervention and the US in the public within days of launching it.
  14. Alexander Mercouris

    Alexander Mercouris Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    62
    Gender:
    Male
    You make many interesting points and events may prove you right. I would however add a word of caution. I can only recall one case where war was seriously threatened by the US and its allies over the last 25 years when it didn't happen. That was over the Darfur crisis. The reason for that was the strong opposition to intervention on the part of both the African Union and the Arab League. There have also of course been vague threats to attack Iran and North Korea. In the case of Iran that possibility is still there. Generally however whenever war is threatened it seems to happen. Given the extreme loss of face some in the US will feel if Assad wins the possibility of an attack on Syria can by no means be discounted.
  15. Alexander Mercouris

    Alexander Mercouris Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    62
    Gender:
    Male
    Amid all the fire and thunder of war preparations the Syrian government and the UN inspectors have now agreed the terms of the UN inspection of the site of the alleged gas attack.

    http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/08/25/499082.htm

    What needs to be made clear is that as I said in the comment I posted on Friday 23rd August 2013 the Syrian authorities agreed to allow the inspectors access to the area several days ago. Demands that the Syrian authorities allow such access, which have been noisy on the ether over the last few days, are therefore completely misplaced. The reason the inspectors have not visited the site is because the area is rebel controlled and it is the rebels who therefore control access to it. I gather that the UN inspectors have themselves been unwilling to enter an area that is under rebel control and the sight of fighting and where they may be unsafe. What the agreement announced today suggests is that they have now been provided with the safeguards they feel they need.

    All of this fuss over the UN inspection gives anyone with any memory of the Iraq conflict a dreary sense of deja vu. Then as now the US and its allies were shrill in their demands that the regime "cooperate" with the UN inspectors. Then as now the US and its allies nonetheless forthrightly anticipated what the UN inspectors would say before the UN inspectors had any chance to do their work. Then as one suspects now the failure of the UN inspectors to come up with any "evidence" implicating the regime in WMD activity was construed not as a sign that the regime was not undertaking WMD activity but instead as "proof" that the regime was "not cooperating" with the UN inspectors.

    In the case of Iraq when it was all over it turned out that the regime had been cooperating with the UN inspectors after all and that its protestations that it was not engaged in WMD activity were true. One wonders what will now happen in Syria.
  16. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Worthless prediction which I will deny making if it does not come true.
    But seriously. Do I detect the slightest beginnings of an understanding in the comment sections in the Rightosphere that maybe maybe Putin is on the correct side on this one?

    If (if) so -- and we're still a long way to go, would this be a changing point?

    Many of us concern ourselves with what a lousy PR job Moscow does. But I am just starting to wonder if Putin's habit of just going ahead and doing it might be the winning policy in the end.

    A long way to go before this tentative idea is even testable.
  17. Philip Owen

    Philip Owen Office Registrar (13th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Who gains from the fall of the Assad regime? The US and the UK have no material interest there. William Hague, the British Foregin Secretary, continually spins in the anti Assad direction but sounds totally unconvinced by the words that fall from his mouth. What is the internal situation in Saudi and the Gulf states? Do they need examples of functioning secular Arab States removed to protect their own legitimacy? Why now? Because they finally have the means? Is it a race to get ahead of Iran. Would Israel feel more secure with Jihadists in Damascus? I doubt it. Is it the NATO bureaucracy's job preservation programme that began in Bosnia running away with itself? So why the French?
  18. Patrick Armstrong

    Patrick Armstrong Commissar

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ottawa
    All good questions. I will reply by asking more.

    Who gained from the appearance of Kosovo? Few of the atrocities we heard about at the time were ever proven true. And we put a rather nasty group of criminals into charge in a country we created for them. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Council_adopts_Dick_Martys_Kosovo_report.html?cid=29328740

    Who gained from the end of Gadaffy? He was harmless as far as we were concerned, the oil and gas was flowing. Today??

    And yet these happened didn't they?

    I can't find a cui on our side who got any bono. Although you will be happy top hear that many of the foreign heroes of Kosovo should be doing well out of it. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/w...o-return-as-entrepreneurs.html?pagewanted=all
  19. AKarlin

    AKarlin Generalissimo Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    39
    UN inspector Carla del Ponte finds evidence to suggest it was the rebels who used sarin.

    One hopes no-one is surprised.

    Even ordinary Americans are finally wisening up and acquiring a properly cynical outlook on such matters, if the polls on support for Syrian intervention are to be believed.
  20. Sky Fisher

    Sky Fisher Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    I think the polls are correct. The American people are strongly opposed to yet another war. Washington is not popular with the public for many reasons these days, but unfortunately public opinion matters little. They'll most likely attack anyway, and I can't express how horrified I am by the thought.

    If this turns into a major conflict (it sure looks that way), then there will be real chaos here if Washington even suggests reinstating the draft. Another real problem they're going to have is with their alliance. Morale matters in wartime, and it will be low. The US will be going into this as a rogue aggressor with "allies" the US soldiers aren't going to like- by this I mean both the "insurgents" (terrorists) and the IDF.

    Does anyone think it possible that this imperialism might be stopped through economic means rather than just military? The western banking system has reached the logical end of the chain. The only question is whether it will fall hard and fast or decline in a slow engineered collapse. A sudden economic event, at just the right time, could bring it down hard and that would put a stop to the military adventurism rather quickly, wouldn't it? Also, if China froze exports to the US, even temporarily, it would have devastating effects that would also probably slow the war machine down. It's very difficult for a government to wage war abroad when the domestic front is in total chaos.

    Of course, this would also throw quite a few other countries into chaos as well. It wouldn't be just the US. It could be the end of the EU as well. Both might well end up looking a lot different.

    Which leads me to a thought I've had for quite a long time. I believe there are eras of empire building and consolidation of power, and then there eras of empire collapse and fragmentation of power. I think that the world may be entering an era of fragmentation. This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. It could be the best thing that could happen.

Share This Page