There is a huge difference between dying suddenly and dying by sarin gas.
Sarin is one of the absolute worst ways to die.
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
There is a huge difference between dying suddenly and dying by sarin gas.
Sarin is one of the absolute worst ways to die.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Every morning I wake up brings something new with this administration.
If you would have read up on WW1 you'd understand why chemical weapons freaks us Europeans the fuck out. We know a thing about killing millions of people, yet chemical weaponry is something we'd like not to go back to.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Beijing : "We advice to avoid any deterioration in situations in Syria "
"China is against the usage of Chemical weapons by anyone and anywhere "
Sky news Arabia
"China is against the usage of Chemical weapons by anyone and anywhere "
Sky news Arabia
It's Kabuki theater. The US warns the Russians who warn the Syrians who move most of the personnel and assets. The US is seen to be doing something, Russia kicks up a bit but not too much of a fuss, Trump gets a polling boost, Russia will repair any of the damage in Syria. Assad gets told not to use chemical weapons again or there will be no warning from the Russians next time. Everyone wins.
jellies_two
Member
I am sure someone seeing explosions marching towards them before getting their lungs burst by a pressure wave are not particularly interested in the subtle pain differences of the last minutes of their life.
Trump will bomb Syria, but won't the let the refugees who are being bombed into the United States.
He will think that he must develop better nukes and ballistic missiles.
He will think that he must develop better nukes and ballistic missiles.
As much as it pains me to admit, Trump has painted Putin into a corner here. I'm not sure he would care that much given his reputation on the world stage is mud anyway, but my condemning the US for bombing an airfield that launched chemical weapons to kill civilians, it makes Putin look to be even more of an asshole.
It might give Trump a bit of credit which sucks but breaking this cult of personality that the internet have built up around Putin can only be a good thing.
It might give Trump a bit of credit which sucks but breaking this cult of personality that the internet have built up around Putin can only be a good thing.
MisterFalcon
Member
Chemical weapons are bad because they give Assad a way to massively escalate the killing. The Syrian armed forces are not capable of doing more killing then they have been doing for years without going to Putin for airstrikes and that is politically too costly for Assad to keep doing for every pocket of rebels. If he would be able to use nerve gas freely he could simply exterminate the towns that resist until the rest get the message.
Pretty much
sankt-Antonio
Banned
Russia has a point here, the US is attacking a sovereign state, imagine Russia bombing an US airport to teach the US a lesson (drone bombing people).
The US civilians would flipp their shit, but Syria...thats brown people.
Lol at people here claiming that its okay to drone bomb little children to shreds but its not okay to use chemical weapons, booth are warcrimes.
The US civilians would flipp their shit, but Syria...thats brown people.
Lol at people here claiming that its okay to drone bomb little children to shreds but its not okay to use chemical weapons, booth are warcrimes.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
JUST IN: Turkish presidential spokesman says calls urgently for a no-fly zone and safe zone in Syria to prevent further massacres. Reuters
His Majesty
Banned
I doubt if Trump will follow up on this one bombardment but this is an excellent PR move from him, restoring credibility in the US military.
So Russia bombing and sending troops to Syria is ok? I don't get this.
Chemical weapons are only dangerous to defenseless civilians. Militaries have defenses that render chemical warfare harmless, so the only reason to use chemical weapons is to kill civilians.
Really it's about history. The major powers after WWI were rightfully horrified at how gas weapons killed, which is why the stigma was formed. Much like how horror over the brutal way that nuclear weapons killed residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki created a stigma against using even tactical nukes.
Assad officially invited them, that's the difference.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Breaking: Russia places the US/Russian air safety agreement on hold.
Sky news Arabia
Sky news Arabia
It's all just for the show to hide Trump-Russia ties, some NeoGAF users will soon say.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
Technically yes, they have been called for help by the elected leader of Syria.
Everyone else is there doing shit uninvited, therefor acting against UN "law".
I know its a very complicated situation, but the amount of leeway and handwaving the US gets amongst its own people and the west is sickening. I really don't see much difference between Russia bombing schools with splinter grenades, Assad using chemical weapons on civilians and the US killing civilians with a joystick from thousands of miles away.
A Serious Man
Member
Neat.
Boy Wander
Member
Leave colour out of it. Trump isn't killing his own people, Assad is. Someone has to do something about it. What's the alternative - stand idly by and let this megalomaniac poison innocent children?
A single target, no escalation, minimal impact on Russian assets or objectives...
Don't even really need to go down the route of the dubious timing of the original chemical attack.
BouncyFrag
Member
It already has, lol
Pretty much. Syrian information minister said they don't expect any more military escalation from the US. A little show for everyone and they'll move on.
jellies_two
Member
What has putin lost? What has Assad lost?
What has putin gained?
Nothing, very little, an ally that has another six months of benefit of the doubt oxygen.
littleworm
Member
I don't think this really changes anything, the FBI investigation isn't powered by the number of times it is mentioned in the media.
He could let Syrian refugees into the US, many of whom are children.
We're going to act like not hitting Russians is a bad thing?
Russia just stated that we cease the effect of memorandum of prevention of air incidents over Syria (or whatever it's called in English)
EDIT: available in English https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704071052391256-russia-us-syria-flight-safety/
EDIT: available in English https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704071052391256-russia-us-syria-flight-safety/
UN didn't do shit for years while Bashar is murdering innocent people with Russian and Iranian help. Bashar regime already committed war crimes that goes against every UN law. I'm glad that the US is doing something.
His Majesty
Banned
Assad has firmly put the US in the opposition camp. So I would say both Assad and the Russians have lost a lot.
At least that is if you look at it from a rational point of view. I'm not that deep into the conspiracy theories that I see circulating here.
Boy Wander
Member
Yes he could but that still wouldn't mean all of them get out and Assad would still be a chemical wielding fuckhead who needs to be brought to justice.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
Of course Assad is killing his own people, its a civil war. :/
I mean the use of chemical weapons has to be stopped but this was a publicity stunt, no one can know for sure who did this, the Russians, Assad, the rebels (moderate/hardliner), Isis... It took like two years to disclose who did the chemical attacks in Aleppo but here they came to a conclusion within a week.
And by the way, what is the international community doing against the megalomaniac(s) that drone bomb children?
I don't think it's feasible to evacuate all Syrians living under the Assad terror. It might help a few, but it's not going to solve anything.
Christ, I've just starting studying neuroscience and the prescribed readings just had to use Acetylcholine as an example of a neurotransmitter crossing a synapse....
Learning the mechanics of how neurons work has made this entire Sarin incident that much more harrowing. I hope this nonsensical brutality ends swiftly
Learning the mechanics of how neurons work has made this entire Sarin incident that much more harrowing. I hope this nonsensical brutality ends swiftly
I'm confused.
Last week the US military kill over 200 civilians in a botched airstrike. Hardly a word about it on main stream news.
Assad kills 50 civilians and the news all over the world are going nuts including the US.
Is there a reason we are being given a very one sided perspective?
Last week the US military kill over 200 civilians in a botched airstrike. Hardly a word about it on main stream news.
Assad kills 50 civilians and the news all over the world are going nuts including the US.
Is there a reason we are being given a very one sided perspective?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
People are not concerned about Assad - It's the innocent people who get caught in the cross fire. Trumps rhetoric on foreign policy during the election was insane.
The gist of it is that there is a lot countries can do besides inserting themselves. Humanitarian aid; taking in civilians, providing spaces for refugees and field hospitals, setting up neighboring outposts in nearby country to help, engaging in sweeping sanctions.
What people are upset about is not that people are angry at the US when they don't intervene- It's when they do intervene, it's always military; either through arming extremist rebel groups, who often end up becoming worse than the dictator they surplanted, or through precise surgical strikes, which historically have turned out to not be all that accurate.
There is a sense of disgust associated with all of this, because Americas main industry is weapons and defense manufacturing. A lot of defense contractors got billion dollar deals by having their weapons used in the Iraq war for example. It cost a lot of money to go to war, but you make a lot of money from producing and using your stockpiles. It keeps the momentum going of constantly needing new inventory of missiles, and that is why through the military industrial complex, it seems like the US wants to solve foreign policy with military action, as defense contractors and weapons manufactureres lobby more than anyone in the American political system.
There is a legitimate concern that once Assad is defeated, that the war will go on. You have extremist Kurdish groups who are intent on taking parts of Syria for their own new state, you have Syrian nationalists, you have the Shia-Sunni groups infighting, you have Iran pouring Shia terrorism, and Saudi Arabia pouring Sunni Terrorism into the country via a proxy war. The country is being reduced to rubble in a bid for total power, for reasons that extends back to the drawing of the map.
You also have to consider that the US have little good will in the region. Almost anything it does will be seen as Western Imperialism. You got the Israel conflict which is seen as a major point of contention, you got the US backing some of the top people who helped cause the middle-east to go into despair through CIA covert ops. The US funds terror through selling defense to Saudi Arabia for billions, which ends up in the hands of ISIS.
It's impossible to know which US administrations have had good intentions (if any).
There are situations where invasion is warranted. But you need to pick up the pieces afterwards, you need to take the country back to stability. The US managed to do that with Germany and Japan after WW2, though those countries were completely broken. But that was not a comparable situation with sub tribal wars tearing the countries apart, that the US had helped start. In those countries you had "Superiority complex" of seeing the US (the occupiers) as better than themselves. Particularly in Japan. The populations were willing to work alongside the US and helped rebuild. Their legislative forms of governance where not as different from the US mentality, where as in the case of countries like Iraq and Syria, you got a situation where the US are seen as invaders.
The US backs bad states who suppress hundreds of millions of people out of weapon deals. They sell weapons to both sides in a bid to make more money like in the Iran-Iraq war. They have a history of covert regime changes where they reinstate puppet dictators who will allow for favorable deals with US interests over resources and minerals.
The US backs fanatical groups like Al-Qaeda to let them do the dying and kill each other so US troops doesn't have to, and this strategy of making rebels powerful by giving them weapons, equipment and artillery is dangerous, as we've seen some of the worst regimes come from this in Asia, the middle east and south America. The reason being to fight communism, or terror, the reality is that the US approach has not changed a whole lot.
You have many politicians on both the left and the right who believe in the American Exceptionalism.
The free world does welcome the US desire to lead the charge and defend against dictators and evil regimes, and clearly it tries to. We know that when it came to Libya and Yemen that Obama was hesitant, and it was Clinton as the SOC who was credited for pushing into the bombing campaigns on the request of European bureaucrats. The whole logic is warped and unfortunately, even here on GAF you see posters like myself being accused of nativism, isolationism and protectionism for simply not wanting the US to make a situation worse.
There is a chance that you could bomb Assad, and that the Kurdish moderate rebel groups would be graceful post-occupation. We should Consider this hypothetical with the same respect as we do with the worst case scenario; but can you; or anyone else in this thread, explain me and others; Why intervening in Syria will be go better than the previous attempts?
E-Cat
Member
Right. There was only a demolished airbase, a few dead soldiers, civilians and whatnot. There's no way this could possibly escalate further.
jellies_two
Member
What have they lost?
They prosecute their war just fine with explosions. There is no no-fly zone. Since when did Assad care much about optics. He does what putin wants anyway, so what did Putin lose? They didnt get implicated in the chemical weapons.
The runway is still usable cruise missiles are not runway busters.
It will take some time to play out but by far the biggest impact is to the polls.
Sure. I don't think that anyone believes that USA was trying to kill civilians. They had bad intel and iirc, SDF asked for US to air strike that position. Where as in this case, Assad used chemical weapons (a war crime itself I think?) on a village that wasn't even on the front lines. Chemical weapons by their nature are imprecise, inhumane and almost always ends up in mass civilian casualties.
jellies_two
Member
were there any civilians killed?
Was the runway demolished?
E-Cat
Member
It's certainly very convenient, considering he gave away his chemical weapons a couple years ago and had no real reason to use them at this point.
E-Cat
Member
Are these rhetorical questions?
Yup, they don't have chemical weapons anymore, right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-regime-dropped-chemical-bombs-on-civilians/
E-Cat
Member
All according to keikaku, am I right?
- Status