Syria

The Obama Administration has confirmed that Assad has used chemical weapons on the rebels. In the past, Obama considered this his "red line" ... I guess we will see what, if anything that means to him now. My guess is it will mean nothing ... perhaps he'll prove me wrong. I am not sure what the point of treaties that ban the use of this sort of thing/UN Resolutions/etc when we get a clear usage and there is no penalty of any consequence.

Obama declared it a red line .. time to shit or get off the pot
 
Looks like the US will start sending arms to the rebels ... not sure that will strike the fear of God into anyone thinking about crossing red lines in the future .. but I suppose better than nothing.
 
Looks like France has a more distinct Red Line than Obama .. which is pretty sad


France has said that if Syria is proved to have used chemical weapons against its own people it could merit an international "reaction with force".

The comments from Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius come as Syrian activists say more than 1,000 people were killed in the attacks on Wednesday.

France, the UK and Turkey are leading calls for a tough response from the UN.

In a letter, they called for UN weapons inspectors already in Syria to be granted access as a matter of urgency.

However, there is no sign that the UN team will be allowed to investigate.

The team are staying close to the site of the recent attacks, but only have a mandate to visit three sites previously agreed between the UN and the Syrian government.
 
I was being sarcastic, if you are going to declare a "red line", "line in the sand" or something similar ... you should be prepared to back it.
 
So, Ghouta.

What we know for a fact is that some sort of chemical warfare took place there.

It is not known who used the gas. It is not even known for certain what kind of gas was used, which would be important for determining who could have possessed and therefore used it.

Assad, Russia and Iran staunchly support the thesis that the rebels were the ones to use it. Syria does not deny the offensive on Ghouta, but Syrian television has reported that Syrian troops nearly suffocated when entering the city.

France, the US and Turkey say with conviction that it was Assad who used the gas, and that a red line has been crossed. The US wants to send warships, while France says that any sort of action should not involve boots on Syrian ground.

Firas Abi Ali, the head of the Middle East and North Africa country risk team for IHS Global, has, upon being asked by Al Jazeera, stated that he believe the attack was conducted by someone in the Baath party's inner circle, in order to force Assad to keep a hard line.

On other news stations, I have read a between the lines interpretation that it was the rebels staging a false flag operation to make it look like it was Assad's doing, to force foreign support.

To be quite honest, I find each of these explanations equally plausible.
 
Both sides could have used gas, too. If one side tossed some, I bet the other side would have done so in retaliation immediately. This is a dirty war.
 
From what I can see right now, there is no point in finger pointing at force. The fact that this war has spawned chemical warfare makes everything bad enough. It doesn't matter who used gas, what matters is that the war must end now.
 
Too bad the Russians won't agree, unless it's ended in Assad's favour. Which...would be the wrong outcome as well. Perhaps better than gas being used everywhere. I'm not sure about that.
 
Infowars is one of the reporters of the things published by the first link.
You can ignore both second and third links as they only sum up the first.
 
...and the conspiracy theorists get out of their holes again.
 
Yes, and I am saying that Infowars has never published anything of reliable note. I'm not denying the possibility that the rebels launched the strike to get outside help, but I highly doubt a western power would do that.
 
Well, why are you so quick to believe unreliable news? That's the question you should answer.
 
Back
Top