Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe - Page 4 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Umm sir, your Phoenix is showing.
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 2013-09-19, 02:19 PM   [Ignore Me] #46
huller
Private
 
huller's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by NewSith View Post
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.
The rumour goes that Assad's brother, a high ranking officer in the syrian army and quite a piece of work apparantly, gave the order to deploy these weapons, I generaly do not believe that these rebels have either the means (no or very few heavy/lo,g range artillery or aircraft which can be loaded with these chemical agents) nor knowledge, or even skills (I doubt that many of the rebels have the knowledge on how to pilot military aircraft) to pull of a chemical strike, even if they did have access to one of assad's stashes of chemical weapons. It is no real secret that the UN investigators got severely hindered by hostile ofrces (rebels or Assad's troops, tough it would greatly be in the intrests of the rebels for the UN investigators to report the use of chemical weapons).

it is also highly unlikely that Assad's forces would simply abandon a stash of these weapons in terrain controlled by rebels or about to be overrun by reblels. But that is up for debate, it is certainly possible for the rebels to have their hands on a stash of these weapons but that is no certainty.

As for the target, why would rebels deploy a chemical strike in one of the territories controlled by them? This could potentialy be explained by infighting but is less likely than a strike by the official army since these posess means better suited to deploy such and attack and it is undeniably in their best intrest to strike at territory controlled by their enemies even tough there is a remote fucked up possibility that some messed up and borderline insane rebels targeted themselves in order to provoke a response from the western world.

generaly I believe that Assad's forces are to blame for this attack, and despite the distinct possibilty that the western world have multiple intrests in the region, fact remains that chemical weapons are deployed, one of the most horrible weapns know to man and a death i would rather not die if I had the choice. It is one of the few means of warfare that is enteirily illegal in the international community and it is for a bloody good reason. It is not a huge step to deploy nuclear weapons once the step is taken to use chemical and biological weapons. Once these weapons are deployed, you know things are propperly fucked up, shooting civilians or even soldiers with a rifle, tank, artillery or any other conventional weapon is already a messed up thing to do as a human being, but weapons like this? If the soldiers responsible for this are not an emotinal wreck in the knowledge of just what they have done, they are litle better than the worst of the SS during the second world war. In fact, this is little different than what Hitler and the Nazis did to the ****, blacks, handicaped, etc in the conentration camps, the only difference being that the victims are not imprissoned and a lot of them are activly fighting back.

As for the point of chemical weapons, the reasoning is that it kills organic beings over a very large area, huge when compared to conventional explosives and extremely more likely to decimate a city's population, leaves the buildings intact and utterly shatters the morale of enemy troops and civilians unfortunate enough to have to pay witness to the sheer carnage of such a weapon. The pilot that drops the bomb does not see the results first hand, the survivors do, and I do not believe I am strong enough mentaly to bear witness to such an event and ever recover my emotional ballance. It would haunt me for the rest of my life.

So I am for the invasion, Assad's regime has done some seriously fucked up things and that should come to a halt. Altough it is more than likely that Assad's successor will probably be as bad, if not worse if the rebels take power, a clear message has to go out, this cannot be tollerated, this cannot be tollerated and a world where someone gets away with this is barely more civilised than when we were bashing each others head in with stones and had barely discovered fire.

The argument goes that Syria is not Obama's juristiction, but then again so was Nazi Germany and there are few who deny that Nazi germany was pretty fucked up, even when the princple of "the victor writes the history" is taken in considderation, we are so long past that event now that we are getting a less biased view year by year but still agree than what the Nazi's did to ethnical minorities was bad and borderline evil.

So by these arguments and explainations I declare myself in favour of the invasion plans
huller is offline  
Old 2013-09-19, 03:40 PM   [Ignore Me] #47
Neurotoxin
First Lieutenant
 
Neurotoxin's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Not our problem, not our war. If Assad is such a villain, it is up to the people of Syria to depose him, not FSA terrorists that are funded and backed by US and Israel (and apparently Saudi Arabia, who allegedly sent 1,200 death row inmates to join FSA forces).
Neurotoxin is offline  
Old 2013-09-20, 12:07 AM   [Ignore Me] #48
Helwyr
Sergeant Major
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by huller View Post
[...]I generaly do not believe that these rebels have either the means (no or very few heavy/lo,g range artillery or aircraft which can be loaded with these chemical agents) nor knowledge, or even skills (I doubt that many of the rebels have the knowledge on how to pilot military aircraft) to pull of a chemical strike, even if they did have access to one of assad's stashes of chemical weapons.
You don't need aircraft to launch a chemical attack or long range artillery for that matter. Seriously go out and do a little bit of research before you lock yourself into one position and start calling for war. Some of the rebels themselves have admitted to having chemical weapons and the intent to use them. There's footage showing rebels believed to be firing chemical rockets. Granted none of this is conclusive evidence that "rebels" did it, but it's far more evidence than has been provided to date that Assad's forces did the attack.

Here's a few links to get you started:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09...-had-sarin-gas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HCJ...e_gdata_player

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witness...eapons/168135/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kda1KhqlU

http://www.infowars.com/5-lies-inven...weapons-attack


Originally Posted by huller View Post
[...]fact remains that chemical weapons are deployed, one of the most horrible weapns know to man and a death i would rather not die if I had the choice. It is one of the few means of warfare that is enteirily illegal in the international community and it is for a bloody good reason.[...]
Yes they're horrible weapons. You don't even have conclusive evidence of who did the attack and you're supporting a "solution" of bombing people.. ie incinerating and dismembering people in big explosions, many of whom may not die straight away and have frankly just as horrible deaths. Maybe you should also research the effect of using depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, and agent orange in Vietnam. I'm sure similar atrocities will occur in Syria if you get the war you want.


Originally Posted by huller View Post
So I am for the invasion[...]
Ok, you personally go fight it then. Please be sure to go to a site like liveleak and do a search of some of the videos of your new "Syrian rebel" allies have proudly put out. I'm not posting links as it's stuff that will make most people feel like throwing up, but you huller need to see it.

Originally Posted by huller View Post
Assad's regime has done some seriously fucked up things and that should come to a halt. Altough it is more than likely that Assad's successor will probably be as bad, if not worse if the rebels take power, a clear message has to go out, this cannot be tollerated, this cannot be tollerated and a world where someone gets away with this is barely more civilised than when we were bashing each others head in with stones and had barely discovered fire.
Think about what you just wrote in my last quote.. I mean really think about it.

Last edited by Helwyr; 2013-09-20 at 12:17 AM.
Helwyr is offline  
Old 2013-09-20, 03:32 AM   [Ignore Me] #49
huller
Private
 
huller's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by Helwyr View Post
You don't need aircraft to launch a chemical attack or long range artillery for that matter. Seriously go out and do a little bit of research before you lock yourself into one position and start calling for war. Some of the rebels themselves have admitted to having chemical weapons and the intent to use them. There's footage showing rebels believed to be firing chemical rockets. Granted none of this is conclusive evidence that "rebels" did it, but it's far more evidence than has been provided to date that Assad's forces did the attack.

Here's a few links to get you started:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09...-had-sarin-gas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HCJ...e_gdata_player

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witness...eapons/168135/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kda1KhqlU

http://www.infowars.com/5-lies-inven...weapons-attack




Yes they're horrible weapons. You don't even have conclusive evidence of who did the attack and you're supporting a "solution" of bombing people.. ie incinerating and dismembering people in big explosions, many of whom may not die straight away and have frankly just as horrible deaths. Maybe you should also research the effect of using depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, and agent orange in Vietnam. I'm sure similar atrocities will occur in Syria if you get the war you want.




Ok, you personally go fight it then. Please be sure to go to a site like liveleak and do a search of some of the videos of your new "Syrian rebel" allies have proudly put out. I'm not posting links as it's stuff that will make most people feel like throwing up, but you huller need to see it.



Think about what you just wrote in my last quote.. I mean really think about it.
No need to get so hostile, While i agree that who deployed the weapons is inconcusive and that plenty of the rebels are as bad, if not worse than most of Assad's forces, fact remains that the strike occured in rebel controlled territory, which would be a highly unlikely target for rebel forces.

And yes, I know about some of the stuff the rebels have done, which makes me just as sick as the deployment of chemical weapons but for us to just stand by idly while people are being massacred on such a scale, especialy with weapons like these. While I do agree that there needs to be far more evidence as to whom launched the attack, we shouldn't just stand by and let it happen, which is at the core of my arguement.

While I admit that I am lacking in keeping track of the developments of this conflict and am generaly poorly informed on the matter of chemical weapons that does not automaticaly invalidate my concerns over the deployment of these weapons. Personaly I find it more likely for Assad's forces to be the culprit of these attacks seeing as how their forces have both a greater intrest in a strike on the affected regios and a greater fammiliarity with the operation of these weapons.

Despite the fact that some of the rebels (which are not in any way my allies as you implied) are guilty of despiceable acts and crimes against humanity, and I wouldn't for the life of me wish to live under their reign, we cannot just stand by on the sidelines when chemical weapons are deployed. This should be thouroughly investigated and when clear proof is provided as to whom is the culprit they shouldn't just get away with "just give us those weapons and everything will be ok".

I do not deny that to act now without evidence would be rash and some would say immoral my opinion is that we should intervene the moment such evidence is found. And I know that the US droped some messed up shit on vietnam but one should keep in mind that thresholds are crossed in syria, and that the conflict could drasicay escalate beyond this point.




The core of my argument is not that we should just rush straight into a war but rather that in my eyes the arguments that Assad's forces are guilty are easier to believe and hold more merit than those that the rebels did it. And That Millitary intervention is a nessecity now that chemical weapons are deployed. To just let this happen while we stand on the sidelines, or even worse, to let the culprit get away with it would be highly moraly objectionable. This isn't about helping the rebels achieve victory, but to put an end to this drastic excalation.

While I agree that the obama administration should present any evidence they have against the Assad regime to the internattional community before striking against Syria I firmly believe that once that evidence is provided and proven to be legit, a millitary strike is the right course of action.

I do not condone the actions of anyone involved in this conflict, least of all the rebels, but a peacefull solution is no longer an option should appropriate evidence be presented as to whom is guilty of using chemical weapons. If we do not intend to punish those guilty of using them what is the point of making them illegal in the first place?
huller is offline  
Old 2013-09-20, 03:47 AM   [Ignore Me] #50
huller
Private
 
huller's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
What really needs to be shown is evidence where the attack came from. :/

Radar footage, launch sites on satellite, sources from within the Syrian authority, that sort of thing. :/

At the same time, for those against the strike, I'd like to see thorough evidence that the opposition did it as well. There seem to be a lot of people just picking sides after FIRST deciding if a strike by the USA should be done or not, rather than looking at what actually happened: they don't care, look at Baneblade for instance. Justification and evidence is irrelevant as his ultimate opinion won't be affected by it, but rather what he accepts as truth (bias) is, because it would weaken the opposing view, regardless of the truth.

No offense Baneblade, it's entirely understandable, I just see this happening a lot (also in dutch discussions) on this particular issue and I'm not quite sure if most people who support non-intervention are even aware that they're choosing sides based on their disgruntlement with US policies.


The facts:

1. We know something - probably Sarin - has been used.
2. We know for certain that Assad has access to those weapons.
3. We suspect that militias have potentially gained access to some of those weapons.
4. We know both Assad and militias attack civilians of the opposing side.
5. We know both Assad and militias don't mind killing children, torturing enemies and commit acts of insane cruelty.
6. We know Assad has delivery systems (rocketry).
7. We don't know if the militias have delivery systems or simply opened barrels of gas or something.
8. We know Assad deliberately stalled and hindered UN inspections from reaching the site in question.
9. We know Assad's forces bombarded the area afterwards, which can be seen as an attempt to destroy evidence on site.

But nothing has been validated that confirms anything solidly. At the moment, I don't see which side has the moral high ground, since all sides have sunk to such barbaric levels, it's just insane.

Personally, I'd say attacks on both Assad and any foreign militias are warranted... >.>
I would also like to add to that list that we know that the strike occurred in territory controlled by rebel forces, which makes it a target for Assad's forces.

On the other hand, both sides have sunk deeply, very deeply in fact, so there is the remote possibility that the rebels deployed gas in their own territory (which would remove the need for a delivery system) either because of infighting between rival rebel factions or to provoke the western world into a reaction, which would be so messed up I cannot tell which scenario I find more appalling.
huller is offline  
Old 2013-09-20, 08:39 AM   [Ignore Me] #51
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by huller View Post
On the other hand, both sides have sunk deeply, very deeply in fact, so there is the remote possibility that the rebels deployed gas in their own territory (which would remove the need for a delivery system) either because of infighting between rival rebel factions or to provoke the western world into a reaction, which would be so messed up I cannot tell which scenario I find more appalling.
I'd like to point out that according to the UN report, rockets were used as the means of deployment.

So the lack of delivery system is not an argument anymore: someone who had a delivery system used said system.



Any source for the rumour of Assad's brother giving the order? It's quite possible, the Assad family controls a lot of high ranking posts in the country.

Last edited by Figment; 2013-09-20 at 08:40 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-09-20, 02:23 PM   [Ignore Me] #52
Helwyr
Sergeant Major
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by huller View Post
[...]fact remains that the strike occured in rebel controlled territory, which would be a highly unlikely target for rebel forces.
Learn some History about False Flag Attacks.

Originally Posted by huller View Post
While I do agree that there needs to be far more evidence as to whom launched the attack, we shouldn't just stand by and let it happen, which is at the core of my arguement.
Well it's good that you now at least acknowledge some solid evidence is actually needed prior to bombing people. But even assuming we knew for a fact Assad's forces did it what course of action do you have in mind that would meaningfully put a stop to the use of chemical weapons in Syria and result in a better situation in that country. Is Iraq better now than under Sadam? Is Libya better than under Gadaffi? Is Afghanistan free from the Taliban and other thugs? Are we in the West (the actual regular people) better off for having attacked each of these countries?


Originally Posted by huller View Post
If we do not intend to punish those guilty of using them what is the point of making them illegal in the first place?
People incorrectly equate "International Law" with the law they are subject to domestically within the state in which they live... It's not the same. Syria wasn't even a signatory to the international treaty on banning chemical weapons at the time of the attacks. But what about if the facts point to Saudi Arabia as the guilty party through proxy forces? Will you be calling for the bombing of Riyadh? How about if someone in the US government like John Kerry ordered it on his visit to Syria, will you then call on bombing the District of Criminals.. er I mean Washington D.C.?

We are also not the World's policeman. I'm not sure what country you're from huller, but the US is broke and the majority of the people and especially those that have to actually fight these wars are sick and tired of them... Especially when nothing really good results from all the blood, tears, and $$$ that is spent.

If you think "punishing" Assad is so important are you then willing to go over there yourself and risk life and limb? How about selling your home, car, and any other assets you might have to pay for a bomb or two?
Helwyr is offline  
Old 2013-09-21, 03:17 PM   [Ignore Me] #53
Bulltahr
Corporal
 
Bulltahr's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Reading this thread shows why people like wikileaks exist.
Cause your never going to be told the truth by government.
__________________
Bulltahr is offline  
Old 2013-09-21, 08:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #54
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Originally Posted by Bulltahr View Post
Reading this thread shows why people like wikileaks exist.
Cause your never going to be told the truth by government.
And even if the government did tell you the truth, the last thing you should do is take them at their word.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
Old 2013-09-23, 04:39 PM   [Ignore Me] #55
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe


Getting off-topic fast, this is.
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 05:08 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 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.