[Crantag]

Macron, in Macron's own words, told Trump not to withdraw from Syria.

Macron is an investment banker.

Syria is a former French colony.

Macron is probably among the more handsome heads of state out there though. He does have that going at least.

[Rugoz]

The belief that Assad like Putin are cartoon-villains? That is the only motive offered. Cartoon villains use chemicals to sow fear.

Wait...a leader who uses chemicals to sow fear is now a "cartoon villain"?

I suppose Amnesty reports about regime prisons where 1000s are tortured to death are "cartoon villain" stuff too?

Was is this, the denial of history?

[B0ycey]

Macron, in Macron's own words, told Trump not to withdraw from Syria.

Macron is an investment banker.

Syria is a former French colony.

Macron is probably among the more handsome heads of state out there though. He does have that going at least.

I don't know. I have admired Macron since he won power. He seems level headed and I know he has much more evidence than he has presented on this issue. Noemon is correct, I have made up my mind on this like everyone else has. I do believe Macron. And I don't consider him anything like the class of Washington or Westminster. There is no way he would have attacked Assad without being sure. That is my gut feeling. And the fact that the strike was precise and not overly destructive (and over) can only mean the objective of the mission was to limit Assads stock pile and nothing else.

[noir]

Recent images from Ghouta. Yes, the Sunni majority will accept a despised formerly "untouchable" Alawaite minority rule who did it to Syria.

[One Degree]

The US says not a one of our missiles were touched. Russia/Syria claims wiping most the missiles out. If this can be disputed, then obviously the chemical attack can be disputed.

[noemon]

Wait...a leader who uses chemicals to sow fear is now a "cartoon villain"?
I suppose Amnesty reports about regime prisons where 1000s are tortured to death are "cartoon villain" stuff too?
Was is this, the denial of history?

This reminds me of these "Nazi-detention centres" minus the fake pictures.

That is my gut feeling. And the fact that the strike was precise and not overly destructive (and over) can only mean the objective of the mission was to limit Assads stock pile and nothing else.

The attack was limited because Trump had already announced he is leaving Syria, a limited attack was the best that they could convince him for. Next step is to convince him to not leave Syria at all.

The fact that noone here, not Rugoz, not you, not Zamuel can explain this alleged chemical attack by Assad as a rational act in warfare but have to rely on "crazies" doing "crazy irrational stuff for the LULZ" is evidence enough of the nonsense.

[Rugoz]

The fact that noone here, not Rugoz, not you, not Zamuel can explain this alleged chemical attack by Assad as a rational act in warfare but have to rely on "crazies" doing "crazy irrational stuff for the LULZ" is evidence enough of the nonsense.

There's nothing irrational about brutality in warfare. Surely it has worked for countless leaders in history.

[B0ycey]

Of course One Degree. The chemical attack is being disputed here on PoFo now!

I will accept that in the past we have been lied to by our government to justify illegal wars. But to me it seems that because of that users will accept anything if it means not going to war again in the future. There is logic to that. You have been lied to before so it can happen again right? But all it means is that any foreign leader can do whatever he likes without reprisal if people turn against politicians for doing the right thing now. It is a dangerous presence to ignore the elephant in the room because you wish it was true.

[B0ycey]

The fact that noone here, not Rugoz, not you, not Zamuel can explain this alleged chemical attack by Assad as a rational act in warfare but have to rely on "crazies" doing "crazy irrational stuff for the LULZ" is evidence enough of the nonsense.

Actually Noemon I have. You just passed it off as unrealistic and gave your own opinion on a logical scenario. Without being there, all we have is faith that our opinion is correct.

[One Degree]

Of course One Degree. The chemical attack is being disputed here on PoFo now!

I will accept that in the past we have been lied to by our government to justify illegal wars. But to me it seems that because of that users will accept anything if it means not going to war again in the future. There is logic to that. You have been lied to before so it can happen again right? But all it means is that any foreign leader can do whatever he likes without reprisal if people turn against politicians for doing the right thing now. It is a dangerous presence to ignore the elephant in the room because you wish it was true.

I believe I understand what you are saying. I constantly struggle with wanting to be impartially logical and the acceptance of good and evil in the world. It is confusing and frustrating. Both sides lie. Both sides see ‘their truth’. There are ‘evil’ people. I don’t really know which view is right.

[noemon]

:eh: There's nothing irrational about brutality in warfare. Surely it has worked for countless leaders in history.

It is irrational using chemical weapons to kill 40 people, when you can use normal weapons to do the same, when you have already won in that location, when you have already been accused of using chemical weapons before and have been forced to hand over your chemical weapons stockpile already, when you know the world is watching your every move and trying to find any pretext to demonise you.

It is a dangerous presence to ignore the elephant in the room because you wish it was true.

You are ignoring the elephant in the room, mate. You need to suspend your own logical faculties in order to go along with such non-sense and only because you trust Macron's face.

Actually Noemon I have

You have not, when asked why do you think motive (a) is more reasonable than motive (b), you did not reply anything but merely reiterated that you have a gut feeling that makes you trust anything Macron says or does of course forgetting the fact the France has been bombing countries along with the US for decades now regardless on who was in charge.

a) Assad using chemicals for no strategic objective on the ground especially when he can use conventional weapons.
b) Others using it to demonise Assad, escalate western intervention in Syria, prevent Trump from withdrawing US forces and making it impossible to include Assad in the future of Syrian peace talks.

How is motive a) more "common sensical" than motive b) ?

I will accept that in the past we have been lied to by our government to justify illegal wars. But to me it seems that because of that users will accept anything if it means not going to war again in the future. There is logic to that. You have been lied to before so it can happen again right? But all it means is that any foreign leader can do whatever he likes without reprisal if people turn against politicians for doing the right thing now.

That is exactly why western governments should not lie so much all the time, because after so many times being proven liars it creates obvious issues on trust. That is something you should be holding these government liable for, not going along with their latest instalment and let's be clear here, Assad is defending his own country from about 5-6 foreign armies in his own soil, if you want to punish assholes from challenging global security you would be holding Erdogan responsible for invading Syria and attacking EU countries in broad daylight.

[Rugoz]

It is irrational using chemical weapons to kill 40 people, when you can use normal weapons to do the same, when you have already won in that location, when you have already been accused of using chemical weapons before and have been forced to hand over your chemical weapons stockpile already.

What does "won that location" mean? I already made this post
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=173268&start=340#p14906766


What French intelligence says:

The tactic adopted by pro-regime forces involved separating the various groups (Ahrar al-Sham, Faylaq al-Rahman, and Jaysh al-Islam) in order to focus their efforts and obtain negotiated surrender agreements. The three main armed groups therefore began separate negotiations with the regime and Russia. The first two groups (Ahrar al-Sham and Faylaq al-Rahman) concluded agreements that resulted in the evacuation of nearly 15,000 fighters and their families.

During this first phase, the Syrian regime’s political and military strategy consisted in alternating indiscriminate military offensives against local populations, which sometimes included the use of chlorine, and pauses in operations for negotiations.

Negotiations with Jaysh al-Islam began in March but were not fully conclusive. On 4 April, part of the Jaysh al-Islam group (around one quarter of the group according to estimates) accepted the surrender agreement and fighters and their families were sent to Idlib (approximately 4,000 people, with families).

However, between 4,500 and 5,500 Jaysh al-Islam fighters, mostly located in Douma, refused the terms of negotiation. As a result, from 6 April onwards, the Syrian regime, with support from Russian forces, resumed its intensive bombing of the area, ending a pause in ground and aerial operations that had been observed since negotiations began in mid-March. This was the context for the chemical strikes analyzed in this document.

Given this context, the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons makes sense from both the military and strategic points of view:

Tactically speaking, this type of ammunition is used to flush out enemy fighters sheltering in homes and engage in urban combat in conditions that are more favorable to the regime. It accelerates victory and has a multiplier effect that helps speed up the capitulation of the last bastion of armed groups.

Strategically speaking, chemical weapons and particularly chlorine, documented in Eastern Ghouta since early 2018, are especially used to punish civilian populations present in zones held by fighters opposed to the Syrian regime and to create a climate of terror and panic that encourages them to surrender.

As the war is not over for the regime, it uses these indiscriminate strikes to show that resistance is futile and pave the way for capturing these last pockets of armed resistance.

Since 2012, the Syrian forces have repeatedly used the same pattern of military tactics: toxic chemicals are mainly used during wider urban offensives, as was the case in late 2016 during the recapture of Aleppo, where chlorine weapons were regularly used in conjunction with traditional weapons. The zones targeted, such as Eastern Ghouta, are all major military objectives for Damascus.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN1HL0N1

[B0ycey]

What do you want me to say Noemon? That I find it more credible that Assad used chemical weapons to flush out any last remaining resistance fighters in Douma and he thought he could get away with it over a white flag operation to make Assad look like a cartoon villain and to prevent him from taking a seat in any future Syrian peace talks?

Because that is what I think.

[noemon]

What does "won that location" mean? I already made this post
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=173268&start=340#p14906766

What French intelligence says:

French intelligence says conjecture enough to declare that there is "no other plausible scenario" which is not evidence, but merely saying "this happened and we can think of none other than Assad of having done it" as if they would blame their own proxies for it.

On the basis of this overall assessment and on the intelligence collected by our services, and in the absence to date of chemical samples analysed by our own laboratories, France therefore considers (i) that, beyond possible doubt, a chemical attack was carried out against civilians at Douma on 7 April 2018; and (ii) that there is no plausible scenario other than that of an attack by Syrian armed forces as part of a wider offensive in the Eastern Ghouta enclave.

However, between 4,500 and 5,500 Jaysh al-Islam fighters, mostly located in Douma, refused the terms of negotiation. As a result, from 6 April onwards, the Syrian regime, with support from Russian forces, resumed its intensive bombing of the area, ending a pause in ground and aerial operations that had been observed since negotiations began in mid-March. This was the context for the chemical strikes analyzed in this document.

Where is the evidence for all this general non-sense that we are supposed to believe without question. Where are these fighters? do they control anything in Eastern Ghouta? What is their location?

What do you want me to say Noemon? That I find it more credible that Assad used chemical weapons to flush out any last remaining resistance fighters in Douma and he thought he could get away with it over a white flag operation to make Assad look like a cartoon villain and to prevent him from taking a seat in any future Syrian peace talks?

Assad can use any conventional weapons he likes to finish off resistance. Killing 40 people with chemicals to secure a victory that is already assured..really?

[Rugoz]

French intelligence says conjecture enough to declare that there is "no other plausible scenario" which is not evidence, but merely saying "this happened and we can think of none other than Assad of having done it" as if they would blame their own proxies for it.

Stop changing goalposts. You said chemical attacks made no sense for Assad. Clearly however there's a rational motive.

That is exactly why western governments should not lie so much all the time, because after so many times being proven liars it creates obvious issues on trust.

Lie all the time? They occasionally lie which is made public by our (still) independent media and institutions. Maybe you should emigrate to your beloved Russia, where the big lie is the norm.

[skinster]

Wait...a leader who uses chemicals to sow fear is now a "cartoon villain"?

There's no evidence Assad used chemical weapons and it's entirely illogical that the Syrian army would. I don't know why there are so many jihadi fanboys on here.

I suppose Amnesty reports about regime prisons where 1000s are tortured to death are "cartoon villain" stuff too?

The prison story was fabricated in the UK. Amnesty International, in the report, stated they had no evidence.

Was is this, the denial of history?

I would call it a denial of propaganda regurgitated by gullible empire babies.

Do you really think siding with tyranical minority rule (Alawite, a Shia sect), despised by the Sunni majority) will help them to stay?

Even after 7 years of war, the West still doesn't understand Syria

These happy people can be Alawites (Assad's people) and Christians. It doesn't prove anything about his popularity. Most of the Syrians are Sunni

It is you who doesn't understand. Syrians are fighting to keep the country secular, as it has been. And the nerve you have of telling others they don't understand what's going on in Syria.

[Heisenberg]

Even if we accept that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons, I must admit I still don't understand why they are apparently beyond the pale while high-explosive and incendiary munitions that tear people to pieces and cause horrendous burns are morally A-OK. I can't imagine a Syrian child cut in half by a piece of shrapnel feels any better about the fact it was British shrapnel.

[noemon]

Stop changing goalposts. You said chemical attacks made no sense for Assad. Clearly however there's a rational motive.

I am not changing any goalposts. Chemical attacks make absolutely no sense for Assad and there is no clear rational motive behind this attack whatsoever. That is a view shared by British Generals and anyone with basic logical faculties, even Zamuel who is anti-Assad and supports the narrative called the attack "irrational". You simply fail to address reality because your narrative is lacking and despite the fact that your narrative is lacking of the most basic information you simply choose to go along with it because it "serves your interests" as you said in another thread. For those of us without any bone in this fight, our logical faculties are the only valid scales.

[noir]

Even if we accept that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons, I must admit I still don't understand why they are apparently beyond the pale while high-explosive and incendiary munitions that tear people to pieces and cause horrendous burns are morally A-OK. I can't imagine a Syrian child cut in half by a piece of shrapnel feels any better about the fact it was British shrapnel.

This is also expressed often by Syrian patriots (opposition). What the fuss about chemical weapons.

Faisal al Qaseem today

[Rugoz]

I am not changing any goalposts. Chemical attacks make absolutely no sense for Assad and there is no clear rational motive behind this attack whatsoever. That is a view shared by British Generals and anyone with basic logical faculties, even Zamuel who is anti-Assad and supports the narrative called the attack "irrational". You simply fail to address reality because your narrative is lacking and despite the fact that your narrative is lacking of the most basic information you simply choose to go along with it because it "serves your interests" as you said in another thread. For those of us without any bone in this fight, our logical faculties are the only valid scales.

That analysis of French intelligence makes perfect sense to me. Even if we ignore that analysis, using chemicals as psychological warfare against collaborators and remaining pockets of resistance makes perfect sense to me as well.

I don't think you and the people who agree with you on the irrationality of the attack have proven to be very rational people in general, on a wide variety of issues. I will leave it at that.

P.S. I do not advocate the removal of Assad by force (though I definitely would like to see him removed as part of a political solution). He's a necessary evil given the alternatives (though the Kurds should keep their territory). So I don't know how it "serves my interests".