News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[lisab]

russ_watters, obviously you hate Assad or any secular government who enforces the idea of Arab or Levant region nationalism which protect all sects and groups in that regions, from all religions whether they are minorities or not, they are all Levant's. For some reason this fact discomforts you and your alike. Would you side would extremist Jihadi Al Qaeda affiliated groups just to outset someone you hate? I understand your love for Israel but this guy at least respected the piece deal and protected the borders with Israel. Do you have any idea these group can do when your troops on the ground? What about other Assad's allies in the neighboring countries. Believe me they are much more powerful on the ground than yours. Obama is thinking and considering the consequences to his troops and to the entire region as well, things you apparently cannot see.
Second who made USA the police of the world? Who gave Israel the right to defend itself and act above all laws in the name of defending itself while no other country is allowed what Israel is allowed to do? Have you heard of Lebanon war 2006? Have you seen the killed children and infants using forbidden bombs? You will say their enemies were taking those poor civilians as shields, then I would ask you to say the same for great Syria which is fighting terror on its land.
Want to stop the war, there's one and only one easy way, stop supporting the Al Qaeda groups and ask their allies to take them out of Syria where they originally belong.

Your post is all but unreadable.

When debating someone, it is quite rude to ask rhetorical question after rhetorical question.

It does not make you look thoughtful when you make wild assumptions and/or claims about the person you are debating. It makes you seem too emotional, even unstable.

Please read the guidelines before posting again:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[OmCheeto]

Good post.

I've never known hmheslept to make a bad post.

 

[jim hardy]

never mind ...

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? ...

There was a very understandable reason as to why the U.S. bypassed the involvement of the Pakistani government.

In addition to this, in an interview to Time magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated that U.S. officials did not alert Pakistani counterparts to the raid because they feared the terrorist leader would be warned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden

This isn't to say that I would be against a lawful prosecution of those responsible for the use of the chemical weapons, but the situations here are hardly comparable, and I inferred a bit of cynicism directed towards the decisions made by the U.S. wrt Bin Laden's assassination.

 

[chiro]

One side is saying that Syria did use chemical weapons while another side says that they didn't (i.e. the Syrian government/military/police).

Someone is obviously lying.

For a situation as serious as this, people should give very very specific reasons why they would trust one group over the other as well as looking at the history of the actions of each group in a careful manner.

The US unfortunately doesn't really have a good track record when it comes to wars whether acting as a primary agent or in more of a supporting role. Some of these things have been highlighted by a few members already.

If anyone here is going to sell their ideology and support to a related action, they need to answer the above question (i.e. why we should trust them taking into account their history without any form of fabrication).

 

[russ_watters]

You believe the Syrian government over the US despite Syria having killed 100,000 in the conflict we're discussing? You know what, set that aside for now. Forget if you believe the US over Syria: Do you believe Germany? France? The UK?

You're making a big mistake by framing this as a US vs Syria issue.

 

[russ_watters]

1. No
2. There is no fixed number. Maybe something like "much more than in comparable civil wars"

Fair enough. As others have suggested, the range is pretty wide there. Only 10,000 or so were dead in Libya before we acted. A million in Rwanda with no action.

3. The prerequisite for a situation like in Syria is that it is not clear who the bad guy is. So it doesn't apply to most cruel dictator situations and the rational dictator knows this.

I'm talking about the use of chemical weapons. The guy who uses chemical weapons is "a" bad guy, if not "the" bad guy.

The rational dictator will recognize from this that use of chemical weapons does not automatically elicit a military response. That, IMO makes the world a more dangerous place. Worse, the rational dictator will see us doing nothing to stop nuclear powers like North Korea and conclude that even chemical weapons aren't enough: dictators need nuclear weapons.

Questions to you:
1. How do you determine who the bad guy is?

Using chemical weapons makes Assad if not "the" bad guy at least "a" bad guy.

(Assad's motive to use chemical weapons is weak...

Not really, no. He's been embroiled in a civil war for two and a half years. I would think that that would be starting to wear on him and make him want to try to end it.

...Assad's acceptance among the population is high...

I doubt that, given that the civil war started with several months of nonviolent civil uprising, which Assad responded to with utter brutality. But even if true, that wouldn't make the use of chemical weapons morally acceptable.

2. Why are you so confident that there will be less victims in a scenario where the US intervene compared to a scenario where they do nothing?

I base it on our response in Libya. Conveniently, the number of people killed by the coalition airstrikes and no fly zone in Libya is similar to the number killed by Assad in this chemical weapons attack. That means we only have to stop the next attack (and most seem to agree there will likely be a next attack) for it to even out. And that's even setting aside the fact that our airstrikes will kill mostly military while the chemical weapons attacks killed mostly civilians.

In the long term, the calculus is more complicated of course, but the smart money is on this getting a lot worse before it gets better. It would be difficult to see how rebels with limited resources could make it worse than Assad is capable of.

 

[russ_watters]

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

Bin Laden was not a head of state and as such there was neither the legal issue nor the practical issue of how physically defended Assad is. They aren't even close to similar in their logic/implications. As far as I'm aware, no sitting head of state has ever been arrested by an international police force or other country's law enforcement (you weren't clear on exactly who would do the arresting). Assuming it would even be possible, such an act would be no less an act of war than bombing him and would carry more follow-through responsibility (if one assumes it exists) than a non-decapitating attack on his warmaking ability.

It is difficult for me to see this as more than a calculated failed fantasy. Could you explain in more detail just how you think such a thing could be made to happen?

Expanding;
Only one person has been indicted by the ICC while still in power; the President of Sudan, in 2008. The arrest warrant is active, but no one seems interested in pursuing him. He's visited several countries since then, including China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bashir#Arrest_warrant

"Crimes against humanity" under the ICC would appear to me to be a legitimate basis for going after Assad:

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[23]

(a) Murder;

Further:

UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".[20] The resolution commits the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

Extension:
So there is legal verbiage that appears to me to compel international action here. And Obama has said he wants to act, but is trying to jump through legal hoops to make it acceptable. But here's my problem with that: that's politics getting in the way of doing what is morally right. The legality of Obama going completely alone at this (no UN, no Congress) might be questionable, but preventing him from doing it, much less punishing him for it would be utterly impossible. Examples abound for both Obama, his predicessors and our allies and adversaries flouting the letter of the law when it suits them. In most of these cases, the reason is more about politics than about doing the right thing:

-China declining to arrest Bashir (above).
-The coalition (Clinton) utilizing NATO instead of the UN against Milosevich.
-Internally, multiple separation of powers fights, analogous to the issue on the international level:
-----Arizona challenging lax enforcement of immigration law; US government sued and won.
-----(related) Obama trimming immigration laws by selective enforcement.
-----Obama trimming drug laws by selective enforcement.
-----Obama shutting down the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository, being sued for it, and losing.

Plenty of people - Obama included - have shown a willingness to flout the law when they feel like it and think they can get away with it. If there is ever a Right reason to do it, upholding international law unilaterally due to the failure of the international community to do so would be a Right reason.

It appears to me that Obama has backed himself into a tight corner with both his campaign promises (to not be like Bush) and his "red line" comment. Adhering to the letter of the law here would allow him a way out of that corner, but not one I think History would deem acceptable -- it would just provide him good company. My preference, though, is for our leaders to actually lead. If Obama really thinks action is Right and isn't just saying he thinks it is because he stuck his foot in his mouth and doesn't want to admit he erred, he should act and unapologetically explain why. He should say: "Murdering civilians with gas is wrong. Helping the Syrian people free themselves of a murderous dictator is right. And shame on all of you in the international community (and maybe Congress too...) for failing to do your moral duty. Anyone have a problem with it? Come see me: I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

Or if he really doesn't want to, say so too. Admit the red line was a bluff that got called. Explain that these particular civilians aren't worth helping becasue we don't like either side of the war that is raging around them (but make it sound less heartless -- it is a legitimate position, even if it makes my stomach turn).

Own your decision. This is a Leadership Moment and that's what leadership means. Whether he does something or nothing, he should do it strongly and decisively.

 

[chiro]

You believe the Syrian government over the US despite Syria having killed 100,000 in the conflict we're discussing? You know what, set that aside for now. Forget if you believe the US over Syria: Do you believe Germany? France? The UK?

You're making a big mistake by framing this as a US vs Syria issue.

The sad truth is that people lie, exaggerate claims, or tag on to situations for their own benefit (i.e. not letting a good crisis go to waste).

The US hasn't really had a good track record of telling the truth. It doesn't matter if it was the Iraq war, Operation Northwoods, or something else.

I'm not believing anyone at the moment: I'm just pointing out that you need to give some very very good reasons to trust someone if you are going to argue that they are telling the truth.

Again, hopefully I don't have to point this out again - this is not an issue of taking sides: it's an issue of establishing trust on a basis with minimal bias and minimal "promise". Promises can be very empty and many promises are.

If you can not give a good enough justification why someone should be trusted (whoever that may be), then there is really no substance to the claim.

 

[russ_watters]

If you can not give a good enough justification why someone should be trusted (whoever that may be), then there is really no substance to the claim.

It would be best to let the evidence speak for itself, but if you would rather just pick a side to trust, logic would say one should not trust the side who's position is highly aligned with itself interests (Russia, Syria).

 

[Pythagorean]

I thought we were picking a side aligned with self interests? Islamist extremists that want to restore Islam to Syria (i.e. the "rebels").

 

[chiro]

Are you actually implying that the US doesn't have its own self-interests?

Also what do you have to say about the US track record regarding war and lying to not only its own people but countries abroad?

Trust often comes on foot but leaves on horse-back: how can you possibly expect credibility when you have situations like the Iraq war (and the lies that led to it) or similar situations? What about the situation involving Snowden confirming the massive spying that has taken place (that was previously denied)?

It seems that the above hint to what some of the US "interests" really are. Do you care to comment on this and the instances of the US outright breaching its trust?

 

[Evo]

One side is saying that Syria did use chemical weapons while another side says that they didn't (i.e. the Syrian government/military/police).

Please link to the mainstream sources of both of these scenarios so we can evaluate them. Please do this before posting again. It is against the rules to claim facts without backing them up with appropriate sources. Please read the rules for Current Events.

 

[kith]

You believe the Syrian government over the US despite Syria having killed 100,000 in the conflict we're discussing?

Using chemical weapons makes Assad if not "the" bad guy at least "a" bad guy.

But even if true, that wouldn't make the use of chemical weapons morally acceptable.

Again: these arguments assume that Assad is responsible for all the bad things happening which is the very fact I and others are questioning.

The rational dictator will recognize from this that use of chemical weapons does not automatically elicit a military response. That, IMO makes the world a more dangerous place.

I don't think that this is worse than always having a military strike without considering the specific situation.

Not really, no. He's been embroiled in a civil war for two and a half years. I would think that that would be starting to wear on him and make him want to try to end it.

His position is already much better than it has been in the past. I just don't think it is reasonable for him to take such a risk in this situation.

I doubt that, given that the civil war started with several months of nonviolent civil uprising, which Assad responded to with utter brutality.

Yes, initially his reputation was low but it got much better after militant islamists joined the opposition. Even NATO data suggests that Assad has strong public support (http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/ ).

In the long term, the calculus is more complicated of course, but the smart money is on this getting a lot worse before it gets better. It would be difficult to see how rebels with limited resources could make it worse than Assad is capable of.

This region is a powder keg and Syria is a key figure in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I can picture a lot of ways how militant islamists could make the situation worse than Assad slowly gaining back control over the country.

Also I don't think it is obvious what benefits the Syrian people the most:
-military support for the opposition
-military support for Assad
-no military intervention at all

 

[russ_watters]

Kith, you are questioning an awful lot of facts widely held to be true by the world community about events that have taken place over several years. I'm not interested in trying to prove every event over the course of a multi-year war to you. Its just seems to me to be the same stall/diversion tactic that Putin is using: say "prove it" over and over in response to anything and then not listen to any of the evidence, much less respond to it. It is an endless diversionary loop.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you actually implying that the US doesn't have its own self-interests?
...

It seems that the above hint to what some of the US "interests" really are. Do you care to comment on this and the instances of the US outright breaching its trust?

Again:
1. As pythagorean's sarcasm implies, the US/western position is largely AGAINST itself interests.
2. You are incorrectly focusing on the US (taking any opportunity to bash the US with irrelevant issues from the past). The western view is not a uniquely US position.

Your arguments mirror Putin's misdirection/distraction technique as well.

 

[Pythagorean]

Let's clarify. There is more than one chemical attack. Only one of them is claimed (by Russia) to be performed by the rebels. So there are three possibilities here, the third being that both of them have used chemicals. The only evidence for rebel use is that Hexogen was found (implying the weapon was improvised, not industrially made). I don't think this is the most solid evidence. After reading many reports, I agree with russ about the chemical weapons: evidence points to Assad in all but one case, and that case is weak.

However, the problem is that there's no scope about what a "punitive attack" is. Many (if not most) Syrian civilians do not want an Islamist government: they want a secular government that's tolerant of both secular and Christian ideologies. Since the rebels are now being backed by Islamic extremists like Al-Nursa, who have been designated as terrorists by US, AU, and UK, it's feared that attacks on Assad will allow Islam to be restored to Syrian politics.

Certainly, there are numerous human rights violations by both Assad and the opposition; so you run the risk of condoning (and assisting) the actions of one evil when you attack the other evil.

I'm all for a silent ninja destruction of chemical weapons, if that's possible... but I'm skeptical it is possible. Of course, people with a lot more ground truth than me know the answer to that better, so it's not really my place to judge. I just wonder if that's really what a "punitive strike" is.

 

[turbo]

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

The choice to do the Bin Laden operation covertly was well-advised, IMO. Bin Laden's compound was in proximity to a Pakistani military compound, so it was a pretty good bet that Bin Laden was living there with at least tacit approval from the Pakistani government.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/0...de-just-yards-from-pakistan-military-academy/

If Assad can be taken out with little loss of civilian life, I'm all for it.

 

[Dotini]

It is common sense that you should have rock solid evidence before killing a man.

Before we attack Syria and kill people, we should wait for rock solid evidence from the UN scientists. They will provide certainty that a chemical weapons attack took place, and what the chemical was. To emotionally stampede into what could easily lead to a wider war would later be seen as an avoidable calamity.

 

[russ_watters]

Why should Obama (or France or Germany) care about UN evidence if he already has evidence he trusts?

I don't believe that Putin will ever accept any evidence and the West already accepts it, so what additional value is would a UN report provide?

(Edit) Also, the UN is not investigating who used the chemical weapons anyway, so I see little value at all.

 

[Borg]

As far as I'm aware, no sitting head of state has ever been arrested by an international police force or other country's law enforcement (you weren't clear on exactly who would do the arresting).

Does this count? Operation Just Cause

 

[russ_watters]

Does this count? Operation Just Cause

Not really, no. We invaded with 27,000 troops. That illustrates my point: you don't just send a police force (or even a few dozen SEALs) to go arrest the dictator, you invade and defeat him, then capture and arrest him.

 

[kith]

Kith, you are questioning an awful lot of facts widely held to be true by the world community about events that have taken place over several years. I'm not interested in trying to prove every event over the course of a multi-year war to you.

I don't see where I am questioning "an awful lot of facts". If you claim that I do, at least state these facts.

Its just seems to me to be the same stall/diversion tactic that Putin is using: say "prove it" over and over in response to anything and then not listen to any of the evidence, much less respond to it. It is an endless diversionary loop.

Well, if the evidence looks like this I wouldn't blame him. I agree that the fact that intelligent services from different countries have claimed to have evidence in the last days makes it more plausible that the regime is responsible than only the US claim. I just don't like this "we know how things work, but it's classified" because this is so prone to abuse. In my opinion, the way to go is to publish much miore than only the results of the intelligence analyses, so a more objective judgement is possible.

But only the first line in my post deals with the question if Assad is responsible so you can't dismiss my whole post by talking about the stall/division tactic.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see where I am questioning "an awful lot of facts". If you claim that I do, at least state these facts.

Your words were "all of the bad things happening", which includes all of the 100,000 deaths to date.

But only the first line in my post deals with the question if Assad is responsible so you can't dismiss my whole post by talking about the stall/division tactic.

Nothing else matters if you can't get past that issue. And if you reread your initial response to me, every bit except the last question you asked (which you didnt follow up on) was arguing against Assad's guilt. You were asking over and over who the "bad guy" is and how we know.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the White House press release:

It says things like "We have a body of information..." and "Multiple streams of intelligence indicate..." Yes, it does not actually show the evidence: it is a press release summary, not a criminal indictment. It is basically just saying "here's how we know." It is then up to the reader to decide if they believe it or not.
So the question is; should the White House be required to present a criminal indictment quality document, with supporting evidence attached? IMO, no. Because:

1. This isn't a legal case.

2. There isn't time for it.

3. Our allies already know and believe it, so there is nothing to prove to them.

4. Conspiracy theorists will assume anything is fabricated anyway, so there is no value in trying to convince them. This is meant for the bulk of the US public for information and for the world community for an explanation of the US position. It doesn't need to be proven, just explained.

5. The Russians aren't idiots. They do have a quality intelligence service, so they already know all of this. [The White House and I believe] Russian opposition is just a game, so there is no value in going to a greater effort to try to prove anything to them.

Some of the nuggets in there are straightforward though: This was a coordinated attack, using rockets and artillery, for multiple days. The Syrian opposition has never done anything like that. They've never shown anywhere close to the capability required to do something like that. Add to this the fact that the area was an opposition stronghold that had been a problem for Assad and it just doesn't pass the laugh test to suggest there is much of a chance that it was the opposition did it.

 

[Borg]

You and your "mainstream sources"...

Do you think that this behavior helps to sway anyone to your side? Except for one link that doesn't load, your only sources are your own foul-tempered opinion. This is a forum of physics where reasoned arguments and acceptable sources of information are used to discuss a topic. Just as there are many unacceptable crackpot sites that claim that relativity is wrong, there are also standards here for media sites which have been deemed unreliable. EVO was only stating the policy (to someone else BTW) which has existed for years and you respond by lashing out. If you can't contribute something worthwhile, find another hobby.

 

[nsaspook]

Some of the nuggets in there are straightforward though: This was a coordinated attack, using rockets and artillery, for multiple days.

The best evidence so far is that the attack orders originated from at least one of the al-Assad brothers(Bashar, Maher). At this point it's unclear if Bashar originated the action, just let it happen or is covering but the official Syrian government IMO bears full responsibility for the deaths.

Someone tried to kill them both a while back and failed so attempting an operation just to capture them is very unlikely to succeed. I also don't see them ever giving up their chemical weapons stash even if it's never used on civilians again as their possession at key locations limits our options of attack and they saw what happened to Colonel Gaddafi after he let the UN destroy most of his weapons before the Libyan civil war.

http://en.dunyatimes.com/article/maher-alassad-alive-directing-attacks-by-phone-witnesses-claim-71808.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-town-led-by-murderous-brother-of-Assad.html

I'm waiting for Congress to set the limits on what we can do and how Obama will operate within those limits now that he believes "some" of his own words.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

 

[kith]

Your words were "all of the bad things happening", which includes all of the 100,000 deaths to date.

What's wrong with this statement? For a start it doesn't make sense to claim that the regime killed all those people as you did in #156.

Nothing else matters if you can't get past that issue. And if you reread your initial response to me, every bit except the last question you asked (which you didnt follow up on) was arguing against Assad's guilt. You were asking over and over who the "bad guy" is and how we know.

There are two independent points. One is the question who used chemical weapons. The other is the question if a military intervention is more beneficial to a) the Syrian people and b) the region as a whole, compared to no intervention. This is the follow up to my last question.

So the question is; should the White House be required to present a criminal indictment quality document, with supporting evidence attached? IMO, no. Because:

1. This isn't a legal case.

2. There isn't time for it.

I agree that taking it to Den Hague may take too long. This doesn't imply that there is no time to discuss the evidence in a more public forum at all. For example, if you present striking evidence before the UN security council and the russians present nothing, it is a) harder for them to veto and b) easier for pro intervention governments to convince the parliament and the public.

3. Our allies already know and believe it, so there is nothing to prove to them.

That's wrong. The british parliament for example wasn't convinced and therefore voted no to a military intervention.

4. Conspiracy theorists will assume anything is fabricated anyway, so there is no value in trying to convince them.

I agree. But that's also a killer argument. Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him.

Some of the nuggets in there are straightforward though: This was a coordinated attack, using rockets and artillery, for multiple days.

I have to check this.

Add to this the fact that the area was an opposition stronghold that had been a problem for Assad and it just doesn't pass the laugh test to suggest there is much of a chance that it was the opposition did it.

Sure it does, militant islamistic fanatics sacrifice the lifes of their people all the time. And the benefits of a military intervention for the opposition are more than obvious.

 

[russ_watters]

What's wrong with this statement?

What's wrong is that it is open-ended, enabling you to follow-up by demanding proof of every "bad thing happening" done by the Syrian government, which short-circuits discussion of the issues that are still up for debate. There just plain isn't enough controversy over this in the world community for that to be a useful exercise. Choose not to believe that Assad is a "bad guy" (or it is not adequately enough proven that he is) if you want. It makes no difference and I'm not concerned with trying to convince you of it. What matters isn't what you and me think, what matters is what Obama, Putin and the leaders of the other involved countries think/choose to project. The issue those countries are debating is not whether Assad is a "bad guy", they are debating whether or not to do anything about it.

For a start it doesn't make sense to claim that the regime killed all those people as you did in #156.

A fair point: I overreached. The UN states that more than half are civilians and the number is likely under-reported, specifically for civilian deaths. So of those 100,000 total official deaths, at least 50,000 are civilians and under-reported civilian deaths may account for an additional 60,000. And of those, the vast majority of civilian deaths are at the hands of Assad's regime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/un-syria-death-toll.html?_r=0
[note, link is slightly out of date, saying the official death toll at the time was 93,000. It is over 100,000 today. I haven't seen an updated estimate on additional under-reported deaths.]

There are two independent points. One is the question who used chemical weapons. The other is the question if a military intervention is more beneficial to a) the Syrian people and b) the region as a whole, compared to no intervention. This is the follow up to my last question.

I don't see how Assad's popularity/reputation, if he's winning or how the conflict figures into the Arab/Israeli conflict has anything to do with whether the US intervention will cause more or less deaths.

And in any case, almost every time you start to address the second, you circle back to the first.

For example, if you present striking evidence before the UN security council and the russians present nothing, it is a) harder for them to veto and b)...

You really believe that? I don't. I don't think they can be shamed into changing their mind.

...easier for pro intervention governments to convince the parliament and the public.

Pro intervention governments already have and accept the evidence, so there is nothing to be gained there. Pro-intervention governments have not had a hard time convincing parliament and public to bypass a balky [Russia] UN before. My perception is that the question of whether to act or not hinges upon self-interest, not UN support or acceptance of the evience.

But that's also a killer argument. Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him.

That's fine, but my point was simply that it means there is no value in trying to argue/reason with them. Whether they believe the evidence or not doesn't matter.

Sure it does, militant islamistic fanatics sacrifice the lifes of their people all the time. And the benefits of a military intervention for the opposition are more than obvious.

Fanatics sacrifice their people's lives by using civilians for suicide bombers and as human shields, but not for subterfuge, as far as I'm aware. If you have any examples of such false-flag operations (where they killed their own people and then framed someone else for it), please provide one.

It also doesn't pass the laugh test. Such an action would carry a huge risk not associated with other sacrifices of their own civilians. If you fail to convince forein troops to intervene, you've killed 1400 of your own people for nothing. Worse, if the trick is discovered, the foreign troops may intervene against you.

 

[chiro]

Please link to the mainstream sources of both of these scenarios so we can evaluate them. Please do this before posting again. It is against the rules to claim facts without backing them up with appropriate sources. Please read the rules for Current Events.

This is kind of what everybody has been talking about anyway, but here you go:

France accusing the Syrian "regime"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/04/french-lawmakers-debate-their-own-military-action-in-syria/

Definition of regime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime

Opposing arguments being made against such claims:

Claims that rebel groups not affiliated with the regime did it (from Russian officials):

http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/

Assad denies chemical weapons use

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.543600

These claims and stories are redundant on the internet with respect to other websites and sources saying the same thing.

I'm surprised you actually needed me to spell this out like I did above: haven't you been reading this thread in enough detail?

 

[OmCheeto]

My prophesies of WWIII from 2003 are coming true...

Bashar al-Assad interview: 'Show me the proof of regime chemical attack'
...
Describing the Middle East as a "powder keg" whose "fuse is getting shorter", he warned it would "explode" if Western forces struck Syria. "Nobody knows what will happen (after such strikes). Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists," he warned.
...

ahemmm...

I was discussing the situation today with someone who I highly respect. He said Bashar had nothing to do with the gassing. He directed me to the Assad interview.

 

[jim hardy]

Best info I've been able to find is articles by David Tabler and Michael Herzog.
They both work for think tanks.
A quick search turns up plenty of them.

The more I read the more it makes me think about this picture:

(picture courtesy Wikipedia)

The story isn't the fight but the guys in background.

My good Master said: ‘Son, there you see the aggressive spirits of those that live in anger,

 

[nsaspook]

Best info I've been able to find is articles by David Tabler and Michael Herzog.

The best information on what's happening there is from the IDF (Herzog). They live in the hood and their guys are very good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-tech-school-is-israels-unit-8200-2013-8

 

[Evo]

I'm surprised you actually needed me to spell this out like I did above: haven't you been reading this thread in enough detail?

It's not for my benefit, it's for anyone reading this thread, plus, it's a requirement in this forum.

Here are the first 5 rules

To maintain quality discussions that stay focused on issues and do not become personal or degenerate into arguments of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” the following rules apply to all new threads started in Current Events effective as of the date of posting of these guidelines:
1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.
2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
3) Any counter-arguments to statements already made must clearly state the point on which there is disagreement, the reason(s) why a different view is held, and cite appropriate sources to counter the argument.
4) When stating an opinion on an issue, make sure it is clearly stated to be an opinion and not asserted as fact.
5) When posting on topics of foreign policy or world issues, remember to ensure the topic is presented in a manner that makes all of our membership welcome to participate.

 

[Evo]

Let's keep this on topic please.

 

[chiro]

It's not for my benefit, it's for anyone reading this thread, plus, it's a requirement in this forum.

Here are the first 5 rules

Thanks for the heads up: I'll remember that for the future.

 

[fargoth]

The number 100000 keeps coming up as the number of victims killed by Assad in this thread...
Just wanted to make it a bit less biased:

about 45000 of these deaths (almost half) are Assad's people - 1000 of which civilian.
25000-45000 are islamist militants (this number has such a large margin, due to the opposition's policy of counting rebel fighters that were not defectors as civilians)
about 6000 children, and 4000 women (rounding up a bit) - we usually regard women and children as innocent bystanders... but this might not always be the case, it's hard to say which fraction of these were involved in actual fighting, and which were completely innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war[/URL]
[URL="http://www.vice.com/read/the-little-lion--syrias-11-year-old-killing-machine"]http://www.vice.com/read/the-little-lion--syrias-11-year-old-killing-machine
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/05/12577244-are-children-fighting-on-syrias-rebel-front-lines?lite
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/un-children-conflict-idINDEE95B0HD20130612
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/the_civil_war_within_syria_s_civil_war_kurdish_fighters
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/26/syria-female-fighters_n_3658205.html

 

[kith]

What's wrong is that it is open-ended, enabling you to follow-up by demanding proof of every "bad thing happening" done by the Syrian government

This isn't my intention. My main reason for using a more general formulation was your claim of 100'000 deaths at the hands of the regime.

Choose not to believe that Assad is a "bad guy"

I haven't said that. I believe that Assad is a bad guy. But this by itself doesn't justify a military intervention.

What matters isn't what you and me think, what matters is what Obama, Putin and the leaders of the other involved countries think/choose to project.

I disagree. In a democratic country, it does matter what the people think.

So of those 100,000 total official deaths, at least 50,000 are civilians and under-reported civilian deaths may account for an additional 60,000. And of those, the vast majority of civilian deaths are at the hands of Assad's regime.

From your source: "The report was not able to break down the deaths by combatant and noncombatant, or pro- and antigovernment forces." I'm inclined to think that the regime has killed more people because of their bigger guns.

I don't see how Assad's popularity/reputation, if he's winning or how the conflict figures into the Arab/Israeli conflict has anything to do with whether the US intervention will cause more or less deaths.

A US intervention will influence the civil war and it's aftermath. The points you mentioned are all relevant to how the conflict will look like after the intervention which is the most important thing to consider.

And in any case, almost every time you start to address the second, you circle back to the first.

Because they are not independent.

You really believe that? I don't.

I agree that this is a rather weak point.

Pro intervention governments already have and accept the evidence, so there is nothing to be gained there. Pro-intervention governments have not had a hard time convincing parliament and public to bypass a balky [Russia] UN before. My perception is that the question of whether to act or not hinges upon self-interest, not UN support or acceptance of the evience.

In the decision of the british parliament, it did play an important role (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html ). Which is comprehensible, given the Iraq disaster.

Fanatics sacrifice their people's lives by using civilians for suicide bombers and as human shields, but not for subterfuge, as far as I'm aware. If you have any examples of such false-flag operations, please provide one. If you fail to convince forein troops to intervene, you've killed 1400 of your own people for nothing.

I don't know of such an example. But there are numerous situations where militant islamists showed that they don't care about the life of civilians even if they are associated with them one way or the other.

Worse, if the trick is discovered, the foreign troops may intervene against you.

Given the statements of Obama and others, this is very unlikely. They would probably follow the logic of your post #130, especially if we take into account that the opposition is no homogeneous group. People who started to protest with the intent to end the repression of the Assad regime obviously won't approve of the use of chemical weapons by militant islamists.

 

[jim hardy]

The best information on what's happening there is from the IDF (Herzog). They live in the hood and their guys are very good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-tech-school-is-israels-unit-8200-2013-8

For me, this one by Herzog last year removed a lot of the ambiguity and fog.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/Herzog20120710-BICOM.pdf

Would paste some of it if I could but even nitro reader refused...
It's only an eight page pdf and it's well written.
Plodder that I am I need straightforward explanations like this one.

Because I get confused --- "Tell me again - Who's on first" ?

old jim

 

[nsaspook]

Because I get confused --- "Tell me again - Who's on first" ?

old jim

My foremost fear is that we are creating future 'bin Ladens' from this sort of "our bad guys will kill the other bad guys' tactic. Much of the original training and weapons for the original jihadist Mujahadeen forces in Afghanistan (Under Carter in 1979) was justified as a way to force Russian into a losing war and the effects of empowering brutal tribal and religious forces were minimized. I don't want us to fight in Syria but if we must, don't use murdering proxies to do our dirty work.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...rian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0

 

[jim hardy]

Thanks for those links spook. Zbig_B was Obama's department head at Columbia if I recall correctly.

I'm still circumspect

Is Yossef Bodansky anybody you know?

 

[nsaspook]

Is Yossef Bodansky anybody you know?

No, but there is pretty good evidence the gas attack was prompted by the sizable delivery of US (via third parties) provided weapons to the rebels for an offensive in that area.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-21/world/40112212_1_weapons-shipments-tanks
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...hipment-reaches-Syrian-rebels-opposition.html

 

[Dotini]

A few minutes ago I was watching Fox TV news channel, and a Fox staff military analyst commented that the administration's intel was "unraveling". He did not elaborate.

Here is a McClatchy (I think they are mainstream enough, i.e., frequently appearing on NPR's Diane Rehm show) report of a 100 page document delivered by the Russians to the UN detailing forensically the rebel's use of chem weapons in an earlier attack near Aleppo. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html

I have seen non-mainstream media, which I should not link to, "MintPress News", which purports to identify and interview the responsible parties on the ground at the scene. This report appears to dovetail with what little is so far known of the Russia document.

Earlier today Vladimir Putin described John Kerry as "a liar". Later today, a grinning President Obama shook Putin's hand, in public, at St. Petersburg. It seems extremely odd to me that any US President would shake the hand of man who just called his Secretary of State a liar.

 

[nsaspook]

Here is a McClatchy (I think they are mainstream enough, i.e., frequently appearing on NPR's Diane Rehm show) report of a 100 page document delivered by the Russians to the UN detailing forensically the rebel's use of chem weapons in the Damascus attack. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html

That report is about the earlier reported use of CW blamed on the rebels that the UN was there to investigate before the latest mass gas attack side tracked them to only looking that incident. It's very likely the rebels used an improvised device in the earlier incident because of the target and the "lack" of effect. That use could have motivated an "effective" use by the Syrian government later.

The report dealt with an incident that occurred March 19 in Khan al Asal, outside Aleppo, in which 26 people died and 86 were sickened. It was that incident that the U.N. team now probing the Aug. 21 attack was originally assigned to investigate, and the Russian statement noted that the investigation had been sidetracked by the sudden focus on the later incident.

Haq, the U.N. spokesman, acknowledged that the most recent attack “has pushed the investigation of the Aleppo incident to the back burner for now.” But he said that “the inspectors will get back to it as soon as is possible.”

 

[Dotini]

Thank you for that correction.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The LA times reported the following:

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

For those who have argued that an attack is necessary to dissuade future dictators from using chemical weapons, I think you have to ask yourself if "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will do this, or if it will instead embolden them - will they say "Heck, Assad gassed his people and only got a couple missiles lobbed at him"?

 

[lisab]

The LA times reported the following:



For those who have argued that an attack is necessary to dissuade future dictators from using chemical weapons, I think you have to ask yourself if "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will do this, or if it will instead embolden them - will they say "Heck, Assad gassed his people and only got a couple missiles lobbed at him"?

Hard to say, this is almost a rhetorical question. I mean, if the attack kills Assad himself, would that be "muscular enough"?

"Heck, Assad gassed his people, he got blown to bits. Maybe I shouldn't gas my people." Equally possible.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, but if your goal is to blow Assad to bits. isn't it better to plan an attack that will blow him to bits?

 

[lisab]

Yes, but if your goal is to blow Assad to bits. isn't it better to plan an attack that will blow him to bits?

It wouldn't break my heart if that was an outcome.

 

[nsaspook]

It wouldn't break my heart if that was an outcome.

Maybe we could scare him to death.
Secret Weapon

and if that fails...
What American really wants in Syria