Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe

[Helwyr]

It's been a while since I've read Causewitz, but I recall enough to know even in the cold logic of 'war as an extension of policy by other means' a strike on Syria doesn't make sense... at least not by any reasoning that I have seen for the interests of the American people or the Syrian. None of the advocates of this war can demonstrate how such attacks would result in some sort of worthwhile policy objective.

None of that is to say I don't think the advocates of war, and by which I do not include the peons that parrot state propaganda, do not have clear strategic policy goals. Only that those goals, the real policy objectives, are not the same as the one's they tell the rest of us. Further that those policy objectives do not serve our interests but theirs.

It's my view that the War in Syria is motivated in three parts, one is to maintain the current global economic framework which dominated by Western central banks and tied to the US Dollar. The dollar and the massive US debt is sustained not by American productivity, but by US control of the petroleum market and military power. Secondly the US Military Industrial complex itself which needs constant warfare to sustain itself. Lastly domestic politics, which in terms on the US is to distract from endless Obama administration scandals and prop up the Federal government by rallying the American people in a state of war ... USA USA USA!

Fortunately many American people are waking up to the world around them and the criminals that run the country. However, on the flip side this again goes to the domestic cause for wanting some world war by the ruling elites... They're desperate now to control the narrative and they need a state of war and people fearful of terrorism (whether real or manufactured) to bring in yet more control. Just look on the anniversary of 9/11 how far we've sunk already into a police state since those attacks took place.

In summary, the American people along those of most other Western Countries have enough problems of their own without meddling in Syria or starting WW3 with Russia. We've got so much debt there isn't enough money in the world to pay for it, and the economic situation for ordinary people is declining rapidly. Some sort of economic collapse or reset is pretty much a forgone conclusion, the only questions are when and how it will take place. We've even got Tyrants of our own to deal with, heck they even have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida.

[ImThatGuy]

On the contrary, what the US does now will depict and further iron their reputation into the world's perspective of Americans.

[Figment]

So the UN report is out and states that at least that last attack was an attack with Sarin, using ground target rockets. Urine samples yielded 91% results and blood samples 85% results.

At least 13 other locations were also targeted with chemical weapons, in each case the opposition held area was the target.

Sorry, but a single fake attack could indeed be pulled off by the rebels, but 14 fake attacks on their own side? That is stretching it, isn't it?


And why did Russia veto the UN mandate to try and determine the source? So regardless of what action should be taken, my personal suspicion that Assad is behind it has only grown stronger. And tbh, it wouldn't surprise me if Russia helped in creating the weapons...

[ChipMHazard]

A german report claims that it was done by the government but without Assad's approval.
I guess it's still up in the air until the UN decides on who's responsible.

[Figment]

14 chemical attacks without approval from the president?

Then either he lost control over his forces or he doesn't have to give approval or he gave no written, but verbal orders to prevent a paper trail.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

And why did Russia veto the UN mandate to try and determine the source? So regardless of what action should be taken, my personal suspicion that Assad is behind it has only grown stronger. And tbh, it wouldn't surprise me if Russia helped in creating the weapons...

Where did this come from?


This isn't even on fox news... No offense but, Syria is not in any way a critical ally, that Russia would put their own credibility on the line for. Escpecially in the light of the last diplomatic victory.


And also the number 14.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Where did this come from?

Common sense deduction. It's pretty much Russia's LAST ally in the region and Russia is it's primary weapon supplier. Of course, North Korea was pretty much confirmed as being involved. However, Russia is Syria's primary component and resource supplier.

This isn't even on fox news... No offense but, Syria is not in any way a critical ally, that Russia would put their own credibility on the line for. Escpecially in the light of the last diplomatic victory.

No offense NewSith, but Russia has never been credible, there's nothing to put on the line. Putin is the last person on earth I'd ever believe on his word.

After North Korea, Iran, China and Cuba, he's the worst lieing, manipulating, corrupt, election stealing, constitution ignoring, freedom suppressing leader of the known world. And no, he's not to be considered a democratically elected president when he orders any potential strong opponent to be thrown in jail after a fake tribunal.

Sorry.

But there's no diplomatic structural succes. The recent move isn't even a victory, it's actually a loss, made to look like a victory. Sure, there's no military intervention (yet), but Russia's goal was to keep Syria out of the security councils entire sight. They failed at that and they've only barely managed to safe face.


Trusting Putin's regime would be like trusting FOX news, just on the KGB end of the spectrum.

And also the number 14.

http://news.sky.com/story/1142398/sy...ed-gas-attacks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...98F0EM20130916
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09...-on-august-21/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24088277

Need more sources?

14 comes from the UN report. Who watches Fox news? Either way, I wouldn't trust a single Russian news broadcast, they're just as bad as FOX. Personally I stick with western European sources. They're the most reliable and independent, particularly critical German, Dutch, Belgian and British sources (not sure how poorly to rate Sky though, given it's Rupert Murdoch's).


And uhm, if it is found out for certain that Assad's regime WAS responsible for ANY chemical weapon attacks, this would mean that the Russian goverment has been lieing to the world by stating without even having researched the situation that it must have been the rebels, based on Syrian authority sources. I would like to point out however, that the method of supposed rebel deployment of the Sarin gas that the Syrian authorities proposed was not by means of ballistic rocketry, but by opening containers. The UN inspectors found missiles with traces of the gas. And again I'll have you point out that the Syrian authorities obstructed attempts by UN inspections at determining what was going on. If the rebels would have been behind it, they'd have asked for UN inspections to show the world how bad those rebels are!

Instead, the most likely scenario is that the Syrian authorities were trying to do these attacks in secret and also cover up and scapegoat the rebels after they've been found out. Any other scenario seems very anti-Occam's Razor given the known information.


I've never seen Russia be sincere and I don't expect them to start now. The main reason Russia supports Syria is to have non-intervention in "internal state affairs". Russia's (and China's) main goal is to legitimise internal civil wars and politional expeditions to suppress civilian revolts. Of which there's several going on at the moment from which we barely ever hear anything because there's no such thing as freedom of press in those regions under Chinese and Russian control.

Syria is, especially after Lybia where Russian and Chinese support of Ghadaffi's regime under the pretends of an internal affair failed, a test case.

It is also very much in Russia's interest to have any such revolts and rebels be portrayed as extremist elements in order to legitimise striking them hard without any form of mercy.


And to have Russia state you should not interfere with foreign domestic disputes is laughable after what Russia recently did in Georgia.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

Common sense deduction. It's pretty much Russia's LAST ally in the region and Russia is it's primary weapon supplier. Of course, North Korea was pretty much confirmed as being involved. However, Russia is Syria's primary component and resource supplier.

You overestimate Russian economy. But yes, Syria is an object of income, although, wouldn't it be logical for Russia to then support rebels to keep the weapons rolling?

Everybody talks weapon supplies, but everyone always ignores the fact that weapon supplies to 3rd world are useless if there's no war there...

And no, he's not to be considered a democratically elected president when he orders any potential strong opponent to be thrown in jail after a fake tribunal.

If you are talking about Navalny, you are incorrect, he's no better than Putin, I myself dislike him after he attempted to start a revolution. And that's no frame, that's a fact proven by youtube cell camera videos where he almost directly calls for arms.

Who watches Fox news?

I do. And since typically the opinions of Russian national television and American national television are completely polar, you can get some truths on some matters via "Common sense deduction"

And to have Russia state you should not interfere with foreign domestic disputes is laughable after what Russia recently did in Georgia.

EXCUSE ME, all things aside, what are you implying here? Because while I do understand your points regarding other items of your post, the last thing you said needs a bit more... clarification. If you say that Georgia was to be let attacking Osetia, that's BS. While Syria is a different country, Osetia is structurally and socially a part of Russia. No matter Southern or Northern.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by NewSith

I do. And since typically the opinions of Russian national television and American national television are completely polar, you can get some truths on some matters via "Common sense deduction"

Yes, if you're to have any chance at gleaning a glimpse of the truth you really have to pay attention to multiple and diverse sources of news. All the lies don't match up when they're from sources with very different political interests.

Some people seem to forget the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons in the past and tried to blame Assad, it's not like it's something new. I'm sure if it was his only way to win Assad would use such weapons, it's not as though I think he's a great guy either. But people that think these "rebels" who routinely butcher civilians and saw off priests heads wouldn't use chemical weapons on civilian bystanders if they could gain by it are living lala land. Heck a lot of the Rebels aren't even from Syria, they're jihadists from all over.

On a side note, I don't want to seem like defending FOX News, but the predictable dribble that comes up from certain people saying how untrustworthy the network is without so much as mentioning any other news source as bad gets old and lame very fast. Yes FOX isn't great and I wouldn't trust anything on the network just because they said it. However, I'd trust FOX news way more than CNN which routinely fabricates stories, or MSNBC which might as well be the official propaganda network for the Obama administration. Foreign MSM isn't any better either, BBC, CBC, SKY, Al Jazeera, RT/Pravada etc etc.. umm no all state/corporate propaganda of one source or another. Also within the US market FOX has way more viewers than any other MSM news network, it's not even close.

I'm not suggesting everyone should watch FOX, but rather like NewSith broaden your sources, and be aware that even when listening to a source of news that is ideologically and culturally aligned to your own thinking you are being subjected to propaganda, more so it's more effective propaganda since it's tailored for you!

[Figment]

Georgia responded to a violation of the cease-fire, I'm not saying it was proportional, justified or anything like that. It was however, a similar civil war scenario to say the Kurds in Turkey and the situation in northern Syria.

I'm not saying anything about the exact situation in that area, or who is right or wrong just that Russia has interfered with a sovereign nation called Georgia by a military intervention within the official national borders of Georgia, under the pretends of coming to the aid of the Southern Ossetians (and at the same time escalating the situation in Abchazia, or however you spell it).

This I deem rather hypocritical, considering they're supposedly opposed to any form of foreign intervention in civil wars like that of Syria, regardless the amount of victims.


And as far as I'm aware, Georgia had not yet committed any form of atrocities on the civilian populace. After the intervention by Russia however, there were pretty significant attacks on Georgian civilians in Southern Ossetia. Which as far as I'm aware of, Russia did next to nothing to stop.

And as far as I'm aware, Russia didn't ask for the approval of the UN either.

So to now say "you can't interfere in Syria!" and "we veto any action at the UN!", that's just laughable.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

And as far as I'm aware, Georgia had not yet committed any form of atrocities on the civilian populace. After the intervention by Russia however, there were pretty significant attacks on Georgian civilians in Southern Ossetia. Which as far as I'm aware of, Russia did next to nothing to stop.

On this particular line: My friends say otherwise. Georgians, Osetians and my acquaintances in one of the participating airborne assault battalions that is. And I'm inclined to trust them more.

Especially remembering how at first there was "No invasion of Osetia" reported by western media, and "Russians were blatantly invading Georgia".


If you want a pinkless look at what happened there we go:
US got a significant puppet represented by a Georgian President
Georgian President was dumb enough to trust that USA will back him up even if he starts a war
He started a war, unwillingly pulling Kremlin's attention to the region and its loyalties
If it wasn't Osetia the response would've taken longer, but that way Georgia attacked Russia almost directly
As a result Saakashvili lost a war and backing from both countries.


All the following "atrocities" were a result of his own actions, like starting a war with launching missile artillery strikes into populated areas. From there on it stopped being a conflict and started being a war. And the difference is - when it becomes war, collateral damage stops mattering. I'm an ex-military myself, and I tell you the truth: if I were to be ordered to execute a group of unarmed Georgian soldiers after what happened there, I would and I would never admit to it.

Stop looking at this so one-sidedly, making it sound like Russia is the only one who's lying in this world. If anything a country the size of ours is just a titbit for any country suffering from overpopulation or lack of natural resources, so there're alot of powers in the world that would gladly take even a small slice of it. And it's not a national pride, it's a fact based on how low the density of population is, even in the very central Russia.


PSNo offense here, but rather an advice, - the more you touch the subject from that side of the coin(like blaming Russia for hypocrisy), the more hypocritical you look yourself...

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

On this particular line: My friends say otherwise. Georgians, Osetians and my acquaintances in one of the participating airborne assault battalions that is. And I'm inclined to trust them more.

Especially remembering how at first there was "No invasion of Osetia" reported by western media, and "Russians were blatantly invading Georgia".

Uhm, I don't think you're quite aware of what the western media were saying. BOTH were reported very shortly after one another, as reporters gave both the views from Georgia and Russia, as well as the EU. At first they were just trying to catch up because "what the hell is an Ossetia?", "what sides are involved?", "who is doing what and why?". Nobody really knew at first, after which they mostly tried to find local civilian sources and journalist checks.

However, Ossetia is considered to be a part of Georgia by the west and so is Abkhazia, so yes, an invasion of Georgia by the Russians is accurate. The reasons to why were directly quoted from Russian sources. There's no bias there, at most lack of own, local reporters in the first days. In fact, if I recall correctly, we had one dutch reporter in Moscow and one in Tblisi. So not much to go on at first.

If you want a pinkless look at what happened there we go:
US got a significant puppet represented by a Georgian President

I'll have to disagree on the term "puppet". The USA didn't install him, but go on.

Georgian President was dumb enough to trust that USA will back him up even if he starts a war
He started a war, unwillingly pulling Kremlin's attention to the region and its loyalties
If it wasn't Osetia the response would've taken longer, but that way Georgia attacked Russia almost directly
As a result Saakashvili lost a war and backing from both countries.

Ossetia is not in Russia and it's a province - with a high degree of autonomous control - in Georgia. I never said the nationalists in Georgia were justified. Mind.

All the following "atrocities" were a result of his own actions, like starting a war with launching missile artillery strikes into populated areas. From there on it stopped being a conflict and started being a war. And the difference is - when it becomes war, collateral damage stops mattering. I'm an ex-military myself, and I tell you the truth: if I were to be ordered to execute a group of unarmed Georgian soldiers after what happened there, I would and I would never admit to it.

Warcrimes don't excuse other warcrimes.

Stop looking at this so one-sidedly, making it sound like Russia is the only one who's lying in this world.

When did I say that? I'm just saying I've yet to see a single time where they didn't.

And no, I'm not looking at it one sidedly. FFS NewSith, read back! I never said anything that suggested legitimisation of Georgia's actions against its own citizens!

On the contrary.

However, Russia's actions weren't respectful either and violated the sovereignty of a state, the exact thing they're so opposed against: mingling in other state's affairs. Southern Ossetia has never been a state of its own, despite it's semi-autonomous state. Without UN mandate, Russia had no right to intervene, so it can't really criticize other nations well (even if they're right to do so), without making themselves look like total hypocritical arses.

If anything a country the size of ours is just a titbit for any country suffering from overpopulation or lack of natural resources, so there're alot of powers in the world that would gladly take even a small slice of it. And it's not a national pride, it's a fact based on how low the density of population is, even in the very central Russia.


PSNo offense here, but rather an advice, - the more you touch the subject from that side of the coin(like blaming Russia for hypocrisy), the more hypocritical you look yourself...

Whether or not I'm hypocritical is besides the point that Russia is. Don't distract from the case (and no, I'm not, I've been sarcastically pointing something out, not hypocritical).

You're just rather protective of Russia because you're a Russian national and I don't blame you for being proud of Russia, but come on, there's never an excuse more childish than "they did it, so can we", or "you can't do that, but we can".

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

If you are talking about Navalny, you are incorrect, he's no better than Putin, I myself dislike him after he attempted to start a revolution. And that's no frame, that's a fact proven by youtube cell camera videos where he almost directly calls for arms.

No I'm not. Not really anyway (he's just one of the opponents put in jail - and I'm quite sure there's a case to be made there, I very much doubt ANY Russian industrialists is above petty corruption: it's pretty much the only way to get anything done... You should hear the stories from dutch companies never having to bribe here, but once abroad... (that includes a lot of eastern and southern European countries too btw, Italy, Greece, Spain, Balkans, but next to never in northern Europe, even if it does occur on small scale. And we're all aware of corruption in US politics, no doubt about that. Russia is just on the scale of small to big: "Titanic") :/ ).

What I'm talking about though in terms of opposition, is more in general opponents of the regime. I'm not sure how much the news is censored where you are, but our sources regularly report Russian demonstrators randomly being imprisoned for "not having a license to protest", etc. and licenses to demonstrate against Putin of course never being granted by default. ie. deliberate vicious circle. Similarly, journalist' licenses being revoked, newspapers being penalized or brough to court, journalists imprisoned for having critiqued Putin, etc. That's pretty much daily routine.

And no, I don't think the guy you mentioned would have been much better. If you get that rich in Russia, you're bound to have done shady business at some point.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

I'm not sure how much the news is censored where you are, but our sources regularly report Russian demonstrators randomly being imprisoned for "not having a license to protest"

That's a law we have which is quite funny... Any demonstasrtion (the route it takes at least) must be agreed upon with local authorities prior to the event.


So basically you need to ask permission from authorities to defy authorities. Which is, nonetheless, actually quite reasonable in our country, mostly due to the fact that we often see a lot of bloodshed when, say Russian nationalists (a rather prevalent group) protest against Caucassians here.

Without this law you can't jail a person provoking the crowd for the very bloodshed. You won't be understanding until you see how it happens firsthand.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Without this law you can't jail a person provoking the crowd for the very bloodshed. You won't be understanding until you see how it happens firsthand.

You know how it works here?

We have a law where you can't call for bloodshed.