• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Syrian civil war thread

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/syria-deaths-strike-sarin-alleged-chemical

"Expert opinion is hardening behind attributing the deaths on Wednesday of hundreds of people in Damascus to a nerve agent such as sarin, with regional and western governments expecting to receive smuggled biological samples from the site in the coming days."

What assurances does the public have that these smuggled samples will not have been tampered with? If it doesn't go through proper channels then the evidence is open to manipulation. It still won't prove who carried out the attack either.. but the situation we're in now the Western nations are just itching to start a fucking war.
 
I asked before but I'll ask again....why would the West want to start a war in Syria? No oil, no currency crisis, no incentive to stick it to Iran anymore. Why would the west need to lie about this when it is clear the west has no will or desire to help in Syria. Though Assad has killed enough of his own people to earn his right to rule Syria, I know I wish they would do more than 'send more aid' which is what the OAdmin said they were going to do in response. Token light weapons that cannot stop tanks or warplanes.
 
^Surely they're providing more than light weapons. The CIA is most likely on the ground in Syria. One can imagine the intelligence, strategic support and training being provided to the rebels.
 
Maybe. Hardly anything more than a token effort. They could no fly zone Assad and get rid of the warplanes in a day if they wanted to actually stop the killing.
 
^Surely they're providing more than light weapons. The CIA is most likely on the ground in Syria. One can imagine the intelligence, strategic support and training being provided to the rebels.

Exactly. The CIA and MI6 were on the ground in Libya before it officially kicked off. It's part of their job to do whatever is necessary in order to destabilize a country, remove a leader, or incite regime change. That means weapons, intelligence, training, assassinations etc. Once it did kick off the SAS got involved too, and that was admitted after it was all done. I imagine the SAS and the US equivs are ready to go in the nations that border Syria.

morninggloryseed: And as I said I'm not a military analyst or intel officer. I don't know why they want to get involved. But it's obvious they do. The dribble coming out of William Hague's mouth and that french FM just screams war. Could be nothing more than business opportunity for the military industrial complex. Or maybe they want to raise the price of oil? Or maybe its own behalf of Israel? I don't fucking know why but this is just the way it appears.
 
Another point: This chemical attack took place almost exactly 1 year after Obama made his red line speech. If there were a time to launch an attack in order to make Assad look bad and fool the public, it would be that day.

Also as the media is making it out the Assad won't let the UN inspectors in to that area.. what is he supposed to do when the rebels control that area? If he can not ensure their safety and they go in and get killed, who do you think the media will blame?
 
I think part of the disagreement in these matters is due to the tendency of false-flag speculators to not differentiate between fake attacks and fake attackers. Does that make sense? Initially I thought the claim was that no attack took place: that these were actors.

There are many reasons why several interests would frame the Syrian government for gassing its own people. One of these involves the defense industry, which is very influential and could easily incite militants to do such a thing.

The New York Times reports that the US is now studying a Kosovo-like air war:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/w...ble-response-to-syria-chemical-attack.html?hp
 
I think part of the disagreement in these matters is due to the tendency of false-flag speculators to not differentiate between fake attacks and fake attackers. Does that make sense? Initially I thought the claim was that no attack took place: that these were actors.

Yeh I get you. I mean unfortunately we live in time when it is possible to fake just about anything using media technology, so it's important to not rule out the possibility of a staged event, but in this instance I think there was more than enough data from the beginning to assert it being a genuine attack. Even the BBC admitted the possibility of faking the footage, but they too said it was unlikely.

The all important question is who did it though.. Assad or the 'rebels'? Or maybe it was a 3rd party potentially? It did occur at night afterall.. good time for a covert operation. Personally I think the rebels are the most likely candidate. Suck on that William Hague, you douchenozzle.
 
Just in case no-one has saw this link as it is not on this thread(i think :p)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-cameron-obama-intervention

So great another sodding war, when our own country is struggling like fuck.
Harsh as it may sound this has fuck all to do us, we have no conclusive proof of who carried out the attack.

And nor should we be pissing the Ruskis (and to a lesser extent the chinese) off.

Dopey fuckwits. :!
 
I asked before but I'll ask again....why would the West want to start a war in Syria? No oil, no currency crisis, no incentive to stick it to Iran anymore. Why would the west need to lie about this when it is clear the west has no will or desire to help in Syria. Though Assad has killed enough of his own people to earn his right to rule Syria, I know I wish they would do more than 'send more aid' which is what the OAdmin said they were going to do in response. Token light weapons that cannot stop tanks or warplanes.

It's the big companies that make the money.. Banks and arms manufacturers, etc..
 
It's the big companies that make the money.. Banks and arms manufacturers, etc..

Maybe they want to build some new warships in the USA? Because if they attack Syria there's a chance a ship or two may end up on the bottom of the med.. Syria has russian missile systems capable of that.
 
See the US' response?

"Too little too late" ~ Chump in charge.

Looking more and more like the same sort of setup that lead to Iraq, this time they are actually willing to kill people to get what they want.

Just bodies yeah? Really? When you see multitudes of innocent people killed, families ripped apart, children, babies, being slaughtered before your eyes at the hands of a ruthless criminal regime, you might see it differently.

False flag? Why don't you knuckleheads go look firsthand at what is happening. Nuts.

How far will this go until anyone steps in. When will the US quit erasing, and redrawing the "red line" that's been crossed multiple times.

I think Assad has seen Obama isn't willing to do a damn thing. He's going to rifle his power without being afraid of anyone at this point. It wouldn't be so hard for the allied military to rain down airstrikes on some of their most crucial airbases and operation points. We could save innocent lives, and eliminate these terrorists, without necessary putting troops on the ground. Israel airforce had the balls the launch an airstrike in Syria that prevented missiles from getting into the hand of these terrorists. Obama has no foreign policy in the middle east.

Call in the drones.

I was in Iraq and Afghanistan. Keep your platitudes and emotive responses to your bedroom with your SO.
 
They can't be morons because it obviously was their intention from the very beginning. The morons are the public for swallowing this continuing episode of middle eastern bullshit. Have people forgotten libya already? Send in MI6/CIA, stir shit up, declare the need for international involvement, engage the war machine... rinse and repeat. The major difference with syria is it has the potential to become a much wider conflict.

The public has the attention span of gnats.
 
So what kind of targets might our cruise missiles hit in Syria?

I was thinking this too. And like what is the point, really? "Acting" in my book would be stop supplying the rebels with arms and let the thing play out, which would ultimately mean Assad retaining power because the rebels are a bunch of disorganized terrorist scumfucks. But the West doesn't want that. Anyway, what use is it for us to attack limited sites with cruise missiles? If it pisses Assad off then he might fire back, or even attack Israel. There's no telling what would happen, but odds are that it will spiral out of control quickly. Why then is the West so damn insistent on "taking action"?

This whole thing could have been resolved a long time ago if the West wasn't helping the rebels/terrorists. Assad may suck sure, but will the replacement system be better? I highly doubt that.
 
Now, I'm normally very cynical of American adventures in foreign countries but I will applaud whoever puts an end to whats going on in Syria; it's like the Dark Ages in that country -very fucking scary.

If you want to see what I mean by this, I recommend watching "Syria's Torture Machine" it's a documentary on C4 (it's on YouTube as well, I think), about the Syrian government's widespread torture against it's people. (Warning:graphic scenes of brutal torture).

It's made me grateful I live in the west; If I was Syrian, I'd be picking up an AK to fight that bastard Assad. The fact he'd use chemical weapons against his own people does not surprise me whatsoever.
 
Now, I'm normally very cynical of American adventures in foreign countries but I will applaud whoever puts an end to whats going on in Syria; it's like the Dark Ages in that country -very fucking scary.

If you want to see what I mean by this, I recommend watching "Syria's Torture Machine" it's a documentary on C4 (it's on YouTube as well, I think), about the Syrian government's widespread torture against it's people. (Warning:graphic scenes of brutal torture).

It's made me grateful I live in the west; If I was Syrian, I'd be picking up an AK to fight that bastard Assad. The fact he'd use chemical weapons against his own people does not surprise me whatsoever.

You should be president.

Okay, I really doubt Assad set any bombs or anything. He doesn't look like the military type. I doubt he even knows how chemical weapons work. Also no one knows even what FORCE set up those chemical weapons, so why would you assume it's the president of the fucking country? That makes no sense.

Now, you're very cynical of US, yet you support the retardation.

Oh yeah, why should chemical weapons be the fucking red line, when 100,000 have already died and the chemical weapons killed such a small amount compared to that? Oh, 100,000 isn't a big deal but OMG KEMKAL WEPONS WE MUST KILL THE TERRORSTS DEY USIN CHEMICAL WEPONS DEYS DA DEVIL!

You know at this point the supposition is that rebels were the ones that set up the chemical weapons?

All of this at this point screams of false flag, to give OBAMA and HIS CRONIES the chance to intervene. Yeah I just used the phrase Obama and his cronies. lmao

Also, figures you'd be from England. I always see English people having such retarded political ideas like yours. No wonder Ireland doesn't want to be connected to you!

Now you're normally very cynical, but when it comes to the stupidest fucking war yet you want to join in on the stupidity? You were probably just cynical to look cool, because you obviously don't know why people are anti-war.

Tell you what, I don't care if Assad is raping babies and then throwing them in gas chambers... even if he is why should the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" intervene? Why doesn't Israel, or Russia, or China? Why the United States of America. Now, you're normally cynical, but since you get emotionally charged from headlines (which some people get paid good money to write, and for good reasons because it works on sheep like you!) you forget everything and go "WAR WAR WAR"! Tell you what buddy, your post is obviously emotionally charged and emotion shouldn't factor into war. You know what should factor into war? Defense of state. Syria gave US government permission to investigate this gas attack, so do you really think Syria is going to put the US govt in danger? How is US invading Syria a defense of state? How???

Lets say there's a really bad serial killer in China. Does this mean we should invade China so we can arrest him? Let's say that some in Ukraine is breaking US patent laws. Does that mean we invade Ukraine to protect our patents?

Seriously, you can't give a good reason. You can't formulate a good reply to this post. So go ahead, realize you were being stupid and don't come back to this topic because it's not for people that have no attention span. Because if you did have an attention span, it would have allowed you to pay attention and not make such a stupid post. So yeah, either leave or attempt a (futile) reply.

and by the way, I hear there's some bad drug cartels in Mexico. So why aren't you in Mexico killing drug dealers? I don't understand. As far as I'm aware there's big child pornography trade in Russia, so why aren't you killing those evil fuckers? You must support child pornographers since you're not moving to Russia and killing them. You probably also support people dying from poison gas since you're not in Syria investigating, or at the very least killing random people (Because like you said, you'd love to kill the president of the country who wasn't even linked to the attacks)

I mean, people got gassed in Syria. You would kill their president because their population got gassed. You should probably kill everyone in the country. and if you're too much of a bitch to do it yourself you need to convince England to invade Syria and kill every single man, woman, and child because of the atrocities that were committed by who knows. I mean, next time a crime happens in USA, why doesnt China just invade us and kill everyone? Because you know, like crimes and stuff is happening, people gots to pay!!! So China needs to come kill everyone.

I mean it makes total sense. But if you want to know an alternative, maybe you could let people work it out for themselves. Here's examples of what happens when you don't let people work out stuff for themselves:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...-split-fight-between-her-daughter-and-son-law
Iraq
Afghanistan
Any kind of domestic dispute ever (Government intervention almost always fucks families over)

People with your mindset... that's why political propaganda is made. It's not gonna work on anyone intelligent.
 
Now, I'm normally very cynical of American adventures in foreign countries but I will applaud whoever puts an end to whats going on in Syria; it's like the Dark Ages in that country -very fucking scary.

If you want to see what I mean by this, I recommend watching "Syria's Torture Machine" it's a documentary on C4 (it's on YouTube as well, I think), about the Syrian government's widespread torture against it's people. (Warning:graphic scenes of brutal torture).

It's made me grateful I live in the west; If I was Syrian, I'd be picking up an AK to fight that bastard Assad. The fact he'd use chemical weapons against his own people does not surprise me whatsoever.

Any clue where I can watch that doc m8 ? It does not appear to be on u-toooob.

Edit : S'ok found it now lol.
 
Top