Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: A day without PSU is like....well...um...hell I don't know.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

View Poll Results: Whom to believe?
Pro-Invasion people 2 18.18%
Anti-Invasion people 2 18.18%
Trust noone and you'll be safe 7 63.64%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2013-09-03, 03:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #1
NewSith
Contributor
Brigadier General
 
NewSith's Avatar
 
Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


So as we know, there are two points of view on the matter of who used the chem weapons:
  1. Assad
  2. Those who will benefit from US intervention which is:
    • The United States themselves, since, let's be honest to ourselves, oil and presence in Europe is a sweet piece of pie for them.
    • Rebels, since direct incusrsion by the States, will almost ensure their victory.


Being a left-right anti-American (not saying the people of America are bad, since borders do not define moral obligations, that's far too close to nationalism), I myself with A.1 option, however, I'm still uncertain, or, to be precise, not even close to having an opinion.

One thing that eludes me is why would Assad use the chems and why do people keep believing it so blindly. Did he ran out of lead or missiles? Did he watch too much James Bond and decided to be a classic villian and launched toxins into populace just for the fun of it? I'm being sarcastic here, definitely, but I do want to hear some opinion in favor of option A...

...since we all know what the UN investigators have to say. That's if they are still even alive.
__________________

Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Shields.. these are a decent compromise between the console jockeys that want recharging health, and the glorious pc gaming master race that generally doesn't.

Last edited by NewSith; 2013-09-03 at 03:15 PM.
NewSith is offline  
Old 2013-09-03, 06:29 PM   [Ignore Me] #2
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crysis: Whom To Believe


C. Rebel on rebel action. It's no secret some rebels are fighting others for dominance. Unlikely since they are not in Assad terrain though.
D. Hezbollah. Not above killing civilians with bombings. Maybe they got their hands on them for the first time and just wanted to see what they could do with it.

Two other options.

Hard to tell, but it's not B1. You don't move firing installations like that around without getting noticed in Assad territory. Radar images from several nations were suggested to have seen the source of the missiles to be from Assad controlled terrain.

Additional suspicion upon Assad is raised by the following bombardment by Assad and the refusal to let inspectors visit the area for a long time. If it wasn't them, wouldn't they want to have it confirmed the rebels were using these weapons? Or is he just trying to protect the public secret that there are gas weapons in his hands?

The reason why? Rooting them out conventionally is a lot harder than letting Allah sort them out. I take it he's going to be quite conservative with his remaining own (human) resources (soldiers). After all, they're already within his own capital's city limits. And so far, conventional methods have proven unsuccesful in rooting them out. And without Russian and Iranian weapon supplies, what's he gonna fire with? Stones?

Assad's regime is not above torturing its own citizens for no reason. Wanton killing is not entirely out of character.

Last edited by Figment; 2013-09-03 at 07:17 PM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-09-03, 06:56 PM   [Ignore Me] #3
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


I think the last polls showed between 9% and 19% of the US support a war with Syria. Our representatives aren't known to represent much so it should be interesting how many support the military industrial complex. I bet a few of them are getting a huge kick back for each missile they send from Raytheon.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2013-09-03, 07:13 PM   [Ignore Me] #4
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crysis: Whom To Believe


What do you lot reckon this says about the Arabian Liga as an organisational body btw?


Also, for nerve gas attacks, I'd say the amount of victims is rather low. Could be it was just a test.

Last edited by Figment; 2013-09-03 at 07:18 PM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-09-03, 08:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #5
ChipMHazard
Contributor
PSU Moderator
 
ChipMHazard's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crysis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Also, for nerve gas attacks, I'd say the amount of victims is rather low. Could be it was just a test.
Or a deliberate attack created to try and force the western world into action. Getting the US/UN to attack president Assad would help ensure the opposition's victory. If Assad had wanted to he almost certainly would have been able to pull off his own version of Hussein's chemical attack.

I don't trust either side in this civil war, both sides are obviously going to do what they deem necessary to win the war.
Best bet would be to not get involved unless the war starts threatening neighboring countries, imo.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature

*Disclaimer: When participating in a discussion I do not do so in the capacity of a semidivine moderator. Feel free to disagree with any of my opinions.
ChipMHazard is offline  
Old 2013-09-03, 08:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #6
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Part of me kind of wishes this was a secret vote to overthrow North Korea. At least that would accomplish something with clear results.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 04:13 AM   [Ignore Me] #7
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crysis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by ChipMHazard View Post
Or a deliberate attack created to try and force the western world into action. Getting the US/UN to attack president Assad would help ensure the opposition's victory. If Assad had wanted to he almost certainly would have been able to pull off his own version of Hussein's chemical attack.

I don't trust either side in this civil war, both sides are obviously going to do what they deem necessary to win the war.
Best bet would be to not get involved unless the war starts threatening neighboring countries, imo.
I kinda doubt that, but it's one of the options that's been suggested before (the only one I excluded from New Sith's options was B1 - not in the least since Syria is not in Europe NewSith ).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-symptoms.html

Syrian state television claimed it was used by rebels to stop the advance of the army using some form of containers.

But if there's one thing I don't trust as a source due to bias, it's Syrian state television. Followed by Russian television, tbh, we all know Russian reporters aren't free to work as independently from censoring as they should and independent media in Russia are hammered down a lot. Disagreeing with Putin is dangerous for the continuity of your job and company and Russia is a major arms dealer in the region and clamps on to its last sphere of influence there, so I would not consider Russian sources trustworthy at all.


However, not sure if you remember this:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-856206.html

(Respectable German newspaper)

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...ugust-1.465402

(Israeli newspaper using der Spiegel as a source)


Which states Syria was already at the very least continuing its chemical weapons delivery system testing in august 2012, which suggests they would consider its use an option.

And why develop it in the first place, if you don't intend on or at the very least consider using it?

Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
Part of me kind of wishes this was a secret vote to overthrow North Korea. At least that would accomplish something with clear results.
A nice, decent, conventional war with China would be a bit more clean cut?

Last edited by Figment; 2013-09-04 at 04:15 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 04:29 AM   [Ignore Me] #8
NewSith
Contributor
Brigadier General
 
NewSith's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crysis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
The only one I excluded from New Sith's options was B1 - not in the least since Syria is not in Europe NewSith

It is. From the perspective of how close it is to Eastern and Western Europe.

Originally Posted by Figment View Post
But if there's one thing I don't trust as a source due to bias, it's Syrian state television. Followed by Russian television, tbh, we all know Russian reporters aren't free to work as independently from censoring as they should and independent media in Russia are hammered down a lot. Disagreeing with Putin is dangerous for the continuity of your job and company and Russia is a major arms dealer in the region and clamps on to its last sphere of influence there, so I would not consider Russian sources trustworthy at all.
No offense, but... Would you ever trust ANY television?
__________________

Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Shields.. these are a decent compromise between the console jockeys that want recharging health, and the glorious pc gaming master race that generally doesn't.

Last edited by NewSith; 2013-09-04 at 04:31 AM.
NewSith is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 05:52 AM   [Ignore Me] #9
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crysis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by NewSith View Post
It is. From the perspective of how close it is to Eastern and Western Europe.
Am a geographical purist. You can't win this one. I'd agree however that the strategic position in the middle east and removal of one of the only allies Iran has would make it a - from an American point of view - valid strategic target.

A Syria that's more like Jordania and doesn't support Hezbollah or intervene with Lebanon would surely stabilise the region more.

Regarding oil, maybe pipeline-to-the-west related since Russia clamps down on Georgia (which it has no right to either, but eh... Russia.).

No offense, but... Would you ever trust ANY television?
Me? Yes.

Only Northern European media though.

Independent and thorough journalism with a very critical take on any government action. It's quite telling when your state subsidised public television is one of your biggest critics, regardless of political government coalition in charge.

I can understand your skepticism and cynism though, most media in the world are rather poorly construed with regards to quality and independency. Especially those you personally are most frequently confronted with.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 06:42 AM   [Ignore Me] #10
ChipMHazard
Contributor
PSU Moderator
 
ChipMHazard's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


I see only two reasons as to why president Assad's regime would use chemical weapons. The first being that it's meant as a warning for the opposition, to try and break their will. I don't remember an instance of this ever working out as intended.
Or it could have been a test to see how far the world will allow them to go, of course Saddam Hussein got "permission" to use chemical attacks against the kurds and look what happened.
At least those are the two reasons I can see right now. I don't see much rationality in Assad's actions, but I may be at fault for trying to find reason in a sick mind. My point being that every violent regime should know that using chemical weapons is one of the things that tend to get you removed.

As to the US having a presence in Europe, they already do via their military bases. But aye I don't see what that has to do with Syria
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature

*Disclaimer: When participating in a discussion I do not do so in the capacity of a semidivine moderator. Feel free to disagree with any of my opinions.

Last edited by ChipMHazard; 2013-09-04 at 07:55 AM.
ChipMHazard is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 08:28 AM   [Ignore Me] #11
Hamma
PSU Admin
 
Hamma's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Most Americans don't give a shit about what happens over there, myself included. All those areas have been at war for thousands of years and will continue to do so regardless of what the US or anyone else does.
__________________

PlanetSide Universe - Administrator / Site Owner - Contact @ PSU
Hamma Time - Evil Ranting Admin - DragonWolves - Commanding Officer
Hamma is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 08:46 AM   [Ignore Me] #12
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


But what off the kittens Hamma? Think of the baby-kittens!
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-09-04, 07:52 PM   [Ignore Me] #13
NewSith
Contributor
Brigadier General
 
NewSith's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


"Well, the Russians supply them, others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves." - says one of the key players in Pentagon.




Rrrrrright... Let's get a next enemy of the state in line. Ten years from now our future president will become a dictator and unorthodox christianity will be named as "the devil's try to decieve the true christians" or "fake christianity".
I just wonder if it's going to be like that or we'll just get a pro-american president who will "purge the corrupt politicians" and will put more pro-american people on high positions. That's so easy, all he needs to do is to state that the Russia will get clear of caucassians if he gets elected, and nationalistic "minorities" (currently prevailing in our country) will do the rest for him.
__________________

Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Shields.. these are a decent compromise between the console jockeys that want recharging health, and the glorious pc gaming master race that generally doesn't.
NewSith is offline  
Old 2013-09-05, 02:06 AM   [Ignore Me] #14
Helwyr
Sergeant Major
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


None of the major actors are trustworthy, and the Obama administration and their Neo-Conservative allies such as wacko bird McCain are definitely not to be believed.

There's so much more going on in this than Syria, that's pretty much just where The Eye of Sauron happens to be focused atm. One thing is for certain an attack on Syria is not because Obama and Co are concerned about the welfare of the Syrian people.

There's lots of conflicting stories in respect to the chemical weapon attack, but from what I can discern that Assad was behind the attack is one of the least credible. I'd put elements of our own government behind the attack as a false flag as more likely, and the rebels/Al-Qaeda where behind it and our governments capitalizing on it by spinning it to their own narrative most likely. Lets not forget Egypt where the Obama admin was backing the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Benghazi shenanigans with the CIA possibly arming terrorists and all kinds of coverups, or Libya as a whole where the Obama admin and allies ousted Gaddafi in favor of more Al-Qaeda types. Lets not also forget Iraq under the Bush Sr admin, where we were told all the throwing babies out incubators horror stories to later find out it was all BS, or Bush Jr with all the WMD nonsense.

We're being lied to and our so called leaders are doing a lot of evil things in our name serving the interests others, a small elite that doesn't include you.

I also have to differ with Hamma (although I don't think he meant it the way it sounds), I do care what happens to the people "over there", I just don't think we're helping their lot or ours by bombing them.
Helwyr is offline  
Old 2013-09-06, 02:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #15
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Russia did supply them with a lot of the weaponry and delivery systems, including the chemical stuff, most of it is pretty old though from what I recall, Cold War / Iraq-Iran war era (80s-90s). :/ But also most modern military tech in Syria is from Russian and Iranian make. The same can be said for a lot of regimes in the middle east, some which have fallen, some which still exist.

SCUDs wern't really designed and produced locally either for instance...

Russia is well-known to be one of the biggest arms dealers in the world, particularly for "less than civil" third world countries where Russia wants or wanted to have influence you'll find loads of Soviet/Russian tech. Military and otherwise.

I find it incredibly hypocritical when people point at the USA for being "all about oil", when China is the biggest exploiter in the world of third world resources, while before that Russia and the USA competed equally for the favour of small nations. Where Russia frequently attempted to annex areas into the USSR. Both sides have installed regimes through Coup d'État's and supported dictators and both failed many times in establishing the most influence in some same nation the other was going for.

But when it comes to Syria explicitly, it's Russia and Iran. And some North Korea.

Last edited by Figment; 2013-09-06 at 02:21 PM.
Figment is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.