Syrian war thread - Page 200 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15107803
skinster wrote:You shared a source of allegations and may as well post all major corporate media at the time who made the same allegations. But that's not the point:

I've repeatedly asked for evidence to prove these allegations, and you are yet to present any.
By wat0n
#15107814
skinster wrote:Please refer to evidence rather than allegations.

Oh wait, you have none. :lol:


You treat the UN as evidence when it suits you, so it follows you will treat this letter in the same manner - if you were not a racist hypocrite that is.
By wat0n
#15107818
skinster wrote:No I don't treat UN allegations as evidence for anything, that's you. :lol:


No, I do not. I already said so, and even explained why.

And now you don't treat the UN as a credible source because it does not suit you. We know the drill already.
#15107819
The drill is that you have no evidence for your or the UN's claim that the Syrian army used chemical weapons in an area your buddies in Al-Nusra controlled, many years after the Syrian govt gave up their chemical weapons to majority-Western powers.
By wat0n
#15107820
skinster wrote:The drill is that you have no evidence for your or the UN's claim that the Syrian army used chemical weapons in an area your buddies in Al-Nusra controlled, many years after the Syrian govt gave up their chemical weapons to majority-Western powers.


You will have to ask the OCPW if the materiel they report to have found there is not "evidence". It's funny how the standards change depending on which country is criticized, in other cases you don't ever even try to get into the nitty gritty of whatever is in the report.
#15107822
skinster wrote:The drill is that you have no evidence for your or the UN/OPCW's claim that the Syrian army used chemical weapons in an area your buddies in Al-Nusra controlled, many years after the Syrian govt gave up their chemical weapons to majority-Western powers.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15107877
@wat0n

OPCW themselves said that they have destroyed all Chemical weapons in Syria AND all production facilities. So how the fuck is Syria attacking anybody with them if by OPCW they have been destroyed along with the production facilities. The logical argument that you are going to give regarding is that the Syrian Government hid some somewhere. Well, don't bother unless you have evidence of Syrian stockpiles which literally nobody has and nobody has seen. A then somehow Syrian government does those attacks without actually having chemical weapons anymore? :knife:
By wat0n
#15107893
JohnRawls wrote:@wat0n

OPCW themselves said that they have destroyed all Chemical weapons in Syria AND all production facilities. So how the fuck is Syria attacking anybody with them if by OPCW they have been destroyed along with the production facilities. The logical argument that you are going to give regarding is that the Syrian Government hid some somewhere. Well, don't bother unless you have evidence of Syrian stockpiles which literally nobody has and nobody has seen. A then somehow Syrian government does those attacks without actually having chemical weapons anymore? :knife:


I recall they also said they found traces of chemicals in areas that had been previously undeclared by the Syrian Government, and furthermore that it is possible to use civilian chemical production facilities to weaponize compounds like chlorine (which is why they concluded that ISIL had the capability to carry chlorine attacks out, and even claimed they did so once).
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15107894
wat0n wrote:I recall they also said they found traces of chemicals in areas that had been previously undeclared by the Syrian Government, and furthermore that it is possible to use civilian chemical production facilities to weaponize compounds like chlorine (which is why they concluded that ISIL had the capability to carry chlorine attacks out, and even claimed they did so once).


There are pictures of AL-Nusra/ISIS chemical labs in houses. We do not have pictures of Syrian chemical labs/stockpickles anymore. Is it possible to do? Well, yes it probably is. We have no evidence though of Syrian government doing it. The timing was odd because Assad was winning. Assad is not stupid, chemical weapons attacks are one of the few things that might justify European/US involvment that can stop Assads forces progress. You are trying to imply that Assads IQ is -100 or something for him to do it. He is a dictator but dictators are also rational actors, well, in a dictatorial kinda way. There are A LOT of evidence pointing to the fact that somebody tried to set up Assad couple of times. Just too many factors speak for Assad and against his side conducting those attacks.

This doesn't mean that he didn't use chemical weapons before the disarmament was agreed. But after that, i don't think so.
By wat0n
#15107897
JohnRawls wrote:There are pictures of AL-Nusra/ISIS chemical labs in houses. We do not have pictures of Syrian chemical labs/stockpickles anymore. Is it possible to do? Well, yes it probably is. We have no evidence though of Syrian government doing it.


You should read this.

JohnRawls wrote:The timing was odd because Assad was winning. Assad is not stupid, chemical weapons attacks are one of the few things that might justify European/US involvment that can stop Assads forces progress. You are trying to imply that Assads IQ is -100 or something for him to do it. He is a dictator but dictators are also rational actors, well, in a dictatorial kinda way. There are A LOT of evidence pointing to the fact that somebody tried to set up Assad couple of times. Just too many factors speak for Assad and against his side conducting those attacks.

This doesn't mean that he didn't use chemical weapons before the disarmament was agreed. But after that, i don't think so.


What do you mean exactly? What would Assad be scared of? After the alleged Douma attack, Trump did exactly what you mentioned. Yet I still see him around, and interestingly enough we haven't heard about these things again.

Assad is indeed not stupid, he knows no Western Government will get into a serious attempt to topple him and get bogged down in Syria like it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq over these attacks. I see that American response as simply sending a message not so much to him but to Russia and China that Trump would be a lot more willing to use force to enforce some red lines than Obama was.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15107900
wat0n wrote:You should read this.



What do you mean exactly? What would Assad be scared of? After the alleged Douma attack, Trump did exactly what you mentioned. Yet I still see him around, and interestingly enough we haven't heard about these things again.

Assad is indeed not stupid, he knows no Western Government will get into a serious attempt to topple him and get bogged down in Syria like it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq over these attacks. I see that American response as simply sending a message not so much to him but to Russia and China that Trump would be a lot more willing to use force to enforce some red lines than Obama was.


Yeah, those undeclared stockpiles were destroyed also. Technically those stockpiles were remains of 12 production facilities that have been shut down long ago and constituted 2% of the already destroyed quantity. It was immediately destroyed. Douma happened in 2018.
By wat0n
#15107902
JohnRawls wrote:Yeah, those undeclared stockpiles were destroyed also. Technically those stockpiles were remains of 12 production facilities that have been shut down long ago and constituted 2% of the already destroyed quantity. It was immediately destroyed. Douma happened in 2018.


The attacks the OPCW was referring to in its 2016 letter to the UN took place in Talmenes in 2014 and Sarmin in 2015 - before the discovery of these traces. The OPCW also says in that letter that the Syrian Government did have access to chlorine since some civilian chemical plants produced it as well.

The Douma attack is a completely different incident, and also it is interesting to see Obama never quite bombed Syria to smithereens after the OPCW letter came out either.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15107904
wat0n wrote:The attacks the OPCW was referring to in its 2016 letter to the UN took place in Talmenes in 2014 and Sarmin in 2015 - before the discovery of these traces. The OPCW also says in that letter that the Syrian Government did have access to chlorine since some civilian chemical plants produced it as well.

The Douma attack is a completely different incident, and also it is interesting to see Obama never quite bombed Syria to smithereens after the OPCW letter came out either.


As i said before, there were to many chemical "attacks" in Syria by now. So it is hard to remember all of them. They happened in 2 chunks. First chunk were at the start . The other chunk started happening as soon as Assad started winning and Russia got involved. At least the big televised "attacks". It is believable that Assad is responsible for Ghoutta/start of civil war but after that, it is really unclear and dubious. Considering that OPCW also blamed ISIS and local AQ sells/rebels for some of them then i can't really blame Assad for things after disarmament. There is not enough evidence.
By wat0n
#15107905
JohnRawls wrote:As i said before, there were to many chemical "attacks" in Syria by now. So it is hard to remember all of them. They happened in 2 chunks. First chunk were at the start . The other chunk started happening as soon as Assad started winning and Russia got involved. At least the big televised "attacks". It is believable that Assad is responsible for Ghoutta/start of civil war but after that, it is really unclear and dubious. Considering that OPCW also blamed ISIS and local AQ sells/rebels for some of them then i can't really blame Assad for things after disarmament. There is not enough evidence.


I don't see why is it so unbelievable that both sides may have carried chemical attacks out. I also don't see why would winning be such a reason not to, I actually think it's the other way around and would have expected the Syrian Government to be more concerned about trying its luck with American red lines when it was weaker yet far from being defeated (so it did have something to lose by taking risks in 2012-2013). A chemical attack in itself will not do much, but their psychological effects may demoralize the enemy (particularly if the international community doesn't do much) and thus hasten their defeat, which is why the US nuked Japan despite being clearly winning at the time. In that sense I see a stronger case for them from a strictly military point of view now than 7 years ago.
#15107957
As Syria Struggles Under COVID-19 Lockdown, America’s Scorched Earth Policy Ensures Food Insecurity
Infuriated by a failed military campaign to remove Syria’s leadership, the US is now turning the economic screws on a nation that has endured a brutal 10-year war of attrition waged by extremist mercenaries.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/as-syria- ... ty/269376/




wat0n wrote:I don't see why is it so unbelievable that both sides may have carried chemical attacks out.


Anything can be believable if we imagine it hard enough, like what you're doing. The facts remain, as has been pointed out by others, that Syria gave up its stockpile before the war and it would be illogical for them to attack with chemical weapons their own people, while fighting mercenaries from many countries. The Syrian people are the Syrian army, practically every family has somebody conscripted, serving to defend Syria as the war on the country progressed.

Not to mention the fact that Idlib was not controlled by the Syrians at the time the chemical weapons attacks you're talking about took place. It was controlled by jihadists like al-Nusra, which you're going far out to defend here, why is that? Why, to you, is it unlikely that these people who were running around putting people in cages, beheading children etc., wouldn't attack the same people with chemical weapons?

I also don't see why would winning be such a reason not to


Because when the Syrian army was making tons of advances in liberating land and while Western powers continued to threaten further intervention and spoke of chemical weapons being a red line, it makes NO SENSE LOGICALLY for the Syrian army to decide at that very moment, they would attack their own people with chemical weapons that they don't have.

You are basically pushing an argument that is illogical and which you have no evidence for. Maybe stop until you find evidence. I understanding honing your argumentation skills is what you're about, but arguments like yours demand evidence.
By wat0n
#15107960
skinster wrote:Anything can be believable if we imagine it hard enough, like what you're doing. The facts remain, as has been pointed out by others, that Syria gave up its stockpile before the war


No, it did not. It didn't even acknowledge having chemical weapons before the war began in 2011.

skinster wrote: and it would be illogical for them to attack with chemical weapons their own people, while fighting mercenaries from many countries. The Syrian people are the Syrian army, practically every family has somebody conscripted, serving to defend Syria as the war on the country progressed.


I guess that's why the war is still ongoing, because "practically every family has someone conscripted" even in areas outside the control of the Syrian Government :lol:

Unless of course Alawites are the only Syrians who matter to you. Because, yes, they have brunt the bulk of the burden.

skinster wrote:Not to mention the fact that Idlib was not controlled by the Syrians at the time the chemical weapons attacks you're talking about took place. It was controlled by jihadists like al-Nusra, which you're going far out to defend here, why is that? Why, to you, is it unlikely that these people who were running around putting people in cages, beheading children etc., wouldn't attack the same people with chemical weapons?


Again, you are still somehow pretending planes and helicopters are incapable of delivering chemical attacks :lol:

skinster wrote:Because when the Syrian army was making tons of advances in liberating land and while Western powers continued to threaten further intervention and spoke of chemical weapons being a red line, it makes NO SENSE LOGICALLY for the Syrian army to decide at that very moment, they would attack their own people with chemical weapons that they don't have.


No, with chemical weapons they claim not to have. And the threats? Obama didn't follow up with those.

skinster wrote:You are basically pushing an argument that is illogical and which you have no evidence for. Maybe stop until you find evidence. I understanding honing your argumentation skills is what you're about, but arguments like yours demand evidence.


Logic is far from being your strong suit here, snowflake :lol:
  • 1
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  • 201
  • 202
  • 204
Putin is now the most powerfull man

@SaddamHuseinovic Actually, we (we as in the […]

Britain wants the free trade without selling its […]

Election 2020

Trump has been saying there would be voter fraud […]

Canceling Student Debt Would Be a ‘Brahmin Bailou[…]