[skinster]

[B0ycey]

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.

I think many will share your sentiments Heisenberg. Noir keeps bringing up her cartoon to illustrate this point also. It is not the chemical weapons being used in this case but their potential if you take a blind eye now for the future. There potential is enormous and potent, far greater than targetted weapons of precision.

So Assad was given a warning with Obama, now this case. The West was put into a corner where they either acted or not. If they didn't, then it sets out a dangerous acknowledgement that Assad could do what he likes without consequence. If they did, it risked conflict with Russia. So the attack was small and targetted. It was a mission to sent a message out to Assad (where I suspect he will listen as he doesn't need to be lazy as Noemon keeps pointing out) and also a small enough attack to not back Putin into a corner where he would need to act otherwise. In my opinion it was the only thing that could be done.

So I guess it all depends on whether you think we should be allowed to use chemical weapons in warfare or not in the future. Or whether you believe this to be a white flag operation or not as well... I guess.

[skinster]

The British government don't give a shit about chemical warfare. You didn't get a peep from them about white phosporous used in Gaza in 2014.

[noemon]

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.

You mean that someone said that "chemical weapons were used to flush out some pockets of resistance" and this makes 'perfect sense' if you ignore the fact that conventional weapons can be used without any repercussions whatsoever, but somehow rational people chose the weapons that have repercussions. Because that makes "perfect sense".

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".

I don't know how it serves your interests, but you did say that you support the anti-Russian narrative because:

It's obvious Russians and Russiophiles give a flying shit about international law, be it real or hypothetical. You're not even willing to discuss it. In that case I really don't see why I shouldn't support whatever power represents my political ideology better.

You identify with this crap, ideologically even so there is clearly no point here.

[skinster]

[skinster]

The West doesn't give a shit about dead Syrians. Stop with this nonsense.

The US doesn't even care about Syria - but we keep the war going
According to the logic behind American strategy in the Middle East — and the rest of the world — one of our principal goals should be to prevent peace or prosperity from breaking out in countries whose governments are unfriendly to us. That outcome in Syria would have results we consider intolerable.

First, it would signal final victory for the Assad government, which we deluded ourselves into thinking we could crush.

Second, it would allow Russia, which has been Assad’s ally, to maintain its influence in Syria.

Most frighteningly, it might allow stability to spread to nearby countries. Today, for the first time in modern history, the governments of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon are on good terms. A partnership among them could lay the foundation for a new Middle East.

That new Middle East, however, would not be submissive to the United States-Israel-Saudi Arabia coalition. For that reason, we are determined to prevent it from emerging. Better to keep these countries in misery and conflict, some reason, than to allow them to thrive while they defy the United States. ...

[The US] role is now crucial because our sway over mostly-defeated rebel groups allows us to push them toward either war or peace.

From Washington’s perspective, peace in Syria is the horror scenario. Peace would mean what the United States sees as a “win” for our enemies: Russia, Iran, and the Assad government. We are determined to prevent that, regardless of the human cost.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... l#comments

U.S.-led forces appear to be using white phosphorus in populated areas in Iraq and Syria

US ally, Saudi Arabia appears to be using white phosphorus in its war in Yemen

[Rugoz]

You identify with this crap, ideologically even so there is clearly no point here.

Beyond the fact that I believe liberal democratic institutions are inherently more trustworthy and capable of uncovering the truth, my ideology is hardly relevant.

[One Degree]

Hmmmm, what if it was one person who launched the chemicals instead of a group? The ideological reasoning would become meaningless I suppose. Nah, can’t have that. Someone has to be ‘right’.

[skinster]

On Believing MI6
Ian Blackford MP, investment banker and now SNP Westminster parliamentary leader, has received an “intelligence briefing” from the security services and is satisfied with MI6 assurances that Assad attacked Douma with chemical weapons. The whirring sound you hear is Willie Macrae spinning in his grave.

The other whirling sound you hear is Charlie Kennedy spinning in his. Charlie – who was a friend since 1979 – once told me that the scariest walk he ever took was to get the security service briefing on the Iraq War. He was scared in case the intelligence was actually convincing on Iraqi WMD – what would he do then? Charlie said that when he saw the actual intelligence he was astonished by how weak it was, and left with a clear mind – and a lifelong distrust of MI6.

But Charlie Kennedy, though we disagreed on Scottish independence, was a very decent man of great principle. Not an Establishment hack like investment banker Ian Blackford MP.

The SNP is attempting to be all things to all men by attacking the government for not having a parliamentary vote on the attack on Syria, while accepting the British establishment narrative. I am not sure if Blackford is saying there should have been a vote because he missed the chance to vote for the war, or if he is going to accept that the attack was illegal in international law.

Nicola Sturgeon joined Boris Johnson on day one of the Salisbury attack in blaming Russia with no evidence and cheering for Britnat jingoism. Blackford promotes the entirely dodgy Douma narrative. The SNP leadership could not be more divorced from the views of its own grassroots membership.

This cannot last.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... eving-mi6/

[Heisenberg]

I think many will share your sentiments Heisenberg. Noir keeps bringing up her cartoon to illustrate this point also. It is not the chemical weapons being used in this case but their potential if you take a blind eye now for the future. There potential is enormous and potent, far greater than targetted weapons of precision.

"Precision" strikes are a myth, particularly in densely-populated urban areas. High explosives do not discriminate between civilians and combatants. This has been demonstrated time and time again, in every urban conflict since WW1. The only difference is that we write civilian deaths off as "collateral damage", while assuming that every civilian death caused by people we don't like, must have been deliberate.

So Assad was given a warning with Obama, now this case. The West was put into a corner where they either acted or not. If they didn't, then it sets out a dangerous acknowledgement that Assad could do what he likes without consequence.

The West was not "put into a corner", because every strike they have launched has been rushed, and in the absence of independently verified evidence with reliable custody chains.

If they did, it risked conflict with Russia. So the attack was small and targetted. It was a mission to sent a message out to Assad (where I suspect he will listen as he doesn't need to be lazy as Noemon keeps pointing out) and also a small enough attack to not back Putin into a corner where he would need to act otherwise. In my opinion it was the only thing that could be done.

Why is it the "only" thing that could be done? How about waiting to verify whether this alleged attack even took place, let alone was ordered by Assad? The only source we have is Jaysh al-Islam, which has itself been accused of using chemical weapons on civilians in the past.

I also fail to see how weakening the side that is winning this bloody war will lead to fewer civilian deaths.

So I guess it all depends on whether you think we should be allowed to use chemical weapons in warfare or not in the future. Or whether you believe this to be a white flag operation or not as well... I guess.

Western governments have proven repeatedly that their moral compass re: chemical warfare is very selective.

As I have discussed in another thread, both the USA and the UK backed the Iraqi government in the Iran-Iraq war despite knowing perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons - on a far, far greater scale than the Syrian war.

I am also yet to see a single western government advocate bombing against rebel groups like the aforementioned Jaysh al-Islam when they are accused of chemical weapons attacks.

Finally, this exact conflict has seen extensive use of white phosphorus munitions by the US, as part of its offensive on Mosul (an offensive which saw at least 40,000 civilian deaths by some estimates) - weapons which can cause both poisoning and severe chemical burns, and whose status under the Chemical Weapons Convention is iffy at best.

I am honestly baffled that intelligent people can so easily believe such an obviously manufactured pretext.

[skinster]

[Zamuel]

using chemicals as psychological warfare against collaborators and remaining pockets of resistance makes perfect sense to me as well.

Tamrlane, the conqueror of Persia and founder of the Timurid Empire liked to slaughter the inhabitants of cities that resisted him and build a pyramid of skulls to encourage he regional population to cooperate. Not exactly a "rational" policy either. But it worked.

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.

What a tactfull statement ...

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".

Neither do I. Assad, I think, is discredited and can no longer rule. The world will not accept it, not to mention his own people ... As I've said before, the manner of his exit is his to choose ... I do believe he will only leave under pressure. But I don't think he's got Saddam's balls ... When it gets right down to it, he will go.

Zam

[noir]

^ The frustrated Syrian patriots blame Israel for his rule. They believe it's not on Israel interest to remove him, therefore Faisal al Qassem, the Syrian journalist now spreads the notion that the Assads (snr and jnr) were always Zionist stooges. He may think it will help to discredit him, after all other means have failed.

The rumor the opposition spreads is " Hafez Al-Assad (snr) announced the fall of the golan 48 hours before her fall" meaning there was a collusion between Israel and Syrian during the 67 war

[skinster]

I don't think secularists in the region and the majority of Syrians have the same view of Assad that Westerners have, especially considering to them (and us) it looks like Assad has won the war.

You all are indulging in the Assad-has-to-go meme that is so 2017, 2016, 2015, etc.

[skinster]

Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive
The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch missiles against Syria, claiming to have “evidence” of the government’s use of chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.

After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump, which included continued accusations that Syria’s president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as “animal Assad,” the very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included 103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were intercepted.

For the past week, we were told that the US had ‘evidence’ and the UK had ‘evidence’ that Syria had used chemicals. The ‘evidence’ largely relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the Western-funded White Helmets (that “rescuer” group that somehow only operates in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani, a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for example of former Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.

This, we were told, was ‘evidence.’ This and the words of the highly partial, USAID-funded, US State Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like Al-Qaeda’s rescuers, only supports doctors in terrorist-occupied areas.

On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence.

Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted, requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.

President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.

General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”

But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a sovereign nation, and he knows it. So does Russia. In a statement on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as illegal, noting:

“Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of the UN Charter, norms and principles of international law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism has been committed.”

What if chemicals had been at targeted locations?
In the same Pentagon briefing, General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies’ targets in Syria, alleging they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons program.” One target, at which 76 missiles were fired, was the Barzeh scientific research centre in heavily-populated Damascus itself, which Dunford claimed was involved in the “development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology.”

This ‘target’ is in the middle of a densely-inhabited area of Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar Barakat, who knows the area in question, “the establishment consists of a number of buildings. One of them is a teaching institute. They are very close to the homes of the people around.”

Of the strikes, Dunford claimed they “inflicted maximum damage, without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians.”

If one believed the claims to be accurate, would bombing them really save Syrian lives, or to the contrary cause mass deaths? Where is the logic in bombing facilities believed to contain hazardous, toxic chemicals in or near densely populated areas?

Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as “centered on preparing the chemical compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.

Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal components. One article includes Said’s logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I've been here since 5:30 am in full health – I'm not coughing.”

Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in the April 14 UN Security Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any type of chemical activity” that would be in contravention to Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.

Bombings based on Al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Islam Claims
The entire pretext of the US and allies’ illegal bombings of Syria is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used chemicals in Douma. Numerous analysts have pointed out the obvious: that Syria would not benefit from having used chemical weapons. But America, Israel and allies would benefit from staged attacks.

The website Moon of Alabama noted discrepancies in the videos passed around on social media as “evidence” of Syria’s culpability, including the following:

"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', dousing with water and administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and many of the 'patients' seem to have no real problem. It is theater. The real medical personnel are seen in the background working on a real patient.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released interviews with two men who were included in the footage alleging a chemical attack has occurred. One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the hospital in question, they had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying: “We treated them, based on their suffocation," also noting: “We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.

In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the accusations game is to allow the actual inspection to occur.

“The evidence that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent. Let the inspectors go in and possibly within days we will have a verdict but the jury is still out. ...I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not produce one shred of evidence to back up the assertions of the Americans. If the Americans had proof, they’d have brought it forward. What they're saying and what Mrs. May is saying, is just ‘take our word for it, trust us’. There’s not even a dodgy dossier this time.”

Israel and America benefit from the attacks... and are guilty of chemical weapons use
While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by chemical weapons script-reading journalists of corporate media, little notice is given to the ongoing Israeli slaughter and maiming of Palestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of at least 17 unarmed Palestinians protesting in Gaza’s eastern regions. Israel’s murder of these unarmed youths, women and men got only mild tut-tuts from the UN, and was relegated to “clashes” by slavish corporate media. Israel is literally getting away with murder, as eyes are turned elsewhere.

According to Secretary Mattis, the US-led illegal attack on Syria “demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of international law.”

The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have used chemical weapons on civilians. The US has attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, to name but two countries, with chemical weapons.

In 2009, I was living in Gaza and documenting Israel’s war crimes when Israel bombed civilians all over Gaza with white phosphorous. These were civilians with nowhere to run or hide, including civilians who had fled their homes and taken shelter in a UN-recognized school. I myself documented numerous instances of Israel’s use of white phosphorous.

If this doesn’t outrage American citizens, the billions of US taxpayers’ dollars sent to Israel and spent on the bombing of sovereign nations — and not on America’s impoverished, nor on affordable health care — should outrage.

However, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not merely Trump’s threats to Syria:

“There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.”

By not attacking Russian forces in Syria this time, the US narrowly avoided a direct military confrontation with Russia, one which would have had global ramifications, to say the least.

The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be stupid and cruel enough to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their unending efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game and allow Syria’s full return to peace? The US and allies claim their concern for Syrian civilians, but do everything in their power to ensure civilians suffer from terrorism and sanctions.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424186-us-allies-syria-lie/

[noir]

Faisal al Qassem of Al Jazeera blames Israel for allowing Iran to enter Syria to finish the rebels



He retwits Israeli academic who agrees with him



Another Syrian who believes in Israel complicity



Another Syrian who believes in Israel complicity



Faisal al Qassem invites American occupation despite the bad model of Iraq



About the celebrations after the American bombing

[skinster]

I don't know why you keep posting jpegs by that Qatari mouthpiece.

Syria Airstrikes Instantly Added Nearly $5 Billion to Missile-Makers' Stock Value

[noir]

Raf Sanchez of Daily Telegraph (UK)

[skinster]

Five thoughts on air strikes against Syria
1. The United States, the UK and France launched air strikes on Syria this morning just as inspectors from the UN chemical weapons agency, the OPCW, had arrived to investigate whether a chemical weapons attack – the official justfication for the strikes – had taken place in Douma last week and, if so, who was responsible.

It looks suspiciously like the strikes were timed to pre-empt, and foil, the UN investigation. That has to raise concerns that we are being hoodwinked by our leaders, as we were in Iraq and Libya, as they seek to actively stoke yet another “humanitarian war” whose only beneficiaries will be the west’s military-industrial-security-media elites.

2. Let us not forget, a military attack on a sovereign country without authorisation from the UN Security Council amounts to a war of aggression. That is a crime against humanity – the supreme international crime, in fact – as jurists have repeatedly pointed out.

We have now so inverted the global order that western powers can claim – with a straight face – to attack a country in the name of decency and humanitarianism by breaking the most fundamental tenets of international law, tenets that were developed precisely to prevent last century’s two world wars that laid waste to Europe and beyond.

3. Trump has said: “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.” Given that he doesn’t know whether Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, or whether Assad’s jihadist opponents in Douma have access to such agents, his statements can only give Islamic extremists of the headchopping variety a huge incentive to carry out (more?) false-flag attacks – or simply mock up phoney attacks – to intensify western violence that will work in their favour.

4. There is precisely nothing humanitarian about western military attacks. They encourage and strengthen the losing side, Islamic extremists, and further drag out an already protracted proxy war in which Syrian civilians have been paying the main price.

They also risk triggering an escalation and a widening of the fighting that could lead to massive death and destruction in the region and beyond (and that without contemplating the dangers of a nuclear confrontation). We are now dependent not on the good sense of our leaders (they have shown they have none), but on the restraint of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. We must hope he refuses to be baited by our own irresponsible governments.

5. This is not Trump’s fault, bad as he is. There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hilary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.

It is hard not to notice a political context in both the US and the UK in which those opposed to escalating tensions with Russia – including Trump when he was a presidential candidate – have been vilified as Kremlin agents and Putin-bots.

Doubtless Trump’s shady global business dealings are worthy of investigation, as they were before he became president. But it is the relentless focus on his ties to Russia alone, on Russia’s supposed interference in the last US elections, on Russia’s supposed role in generating so-called “fake news” on social media, on the assumption of Russian involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK, and much else, that provides Trump with little choice but to go along with the US security and intelligence elites.

That is the reason why he is instantly feted by the policy establishment every time he attacks Syria. It will take a brave Trump to resist these pressures in the future – and little so far suggests that he possesses that kind of courage.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018 ... nst-syria/

This seems pretty significant.
Veteran and highly respected Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk visited the hospital where the victims of last week's Douma "chemical weapons" attack were filmed – the attack that was used as a justification for the air strikes by the US, UK and France on Syria.

Fisk says the senior doctor there told him the victims had *not* been gassed. They were suffering from inhalation of dust and debris after a bombing attack. They were doused down when someone created alarm by shouting out "Gas!".

This is a short preview clip of the interview on Irish radio station Spirit. The full interview is due to be broadcast tomorrow. Presumably, Fisk will be writing more on this soon for the Independent newspaper.

[skinster]