International Syria Conflict: Bombs away boys. (Israel openly admits to bombing Iranian bases in Syria)

[mcveteran81]

 

[Islam Imamate]

he's supporting that shit and he's financing it via taxes.

He's not really bombing and expelling Syrians directly though.

 

[Fawlty]

Its as if iraq and wmd never happened in your world isn't it?

Trump is president, and you don't have more questions then This?

Are you insane?

It very much happened in my world, dude. I played my own little role in that farce, just like lots of people here. It sucked.

Let's remember you called this a pretext for war. That has not come to pass.

 

[Happy Man]

Except that this logic was rolled out back in 2013 after the first attack. If Assad was so close to winning, and so completely in control, then how come he fired one back then? And of course once you accept the logic of that you can't avoid the consideration that anyone willing to do it once is likely willing to do it again. It also might be that some of his soldiers are filled with rage and he isn't in perfect control of everything.

But the greatest counterargument of all is to simply point out that this argument can be fielded blindly; after all, in the contemporary age of proxy wars with first world referees, when is it ever in your interest to launch chemical attacks? If 100 guys with 100 AKs can do more damage...then why would anyone ever use them? In any war?

Yet they are used, sincerely, and have been since their inception.

I'm going to sum that up for you. You think rational actors act irrationally when it suits you. In game theory there are no coincidences. All coincicidemces are viewed as hostile acts.

Just say that you really really WANT Assad to have done this, so you can have your way and have the Syrian government attacked and overthrown and you and isreal will be happy.

Doesnt matter if it makes no sense for Assad to order this, as it has zero gain politically, diplomatically, and militarily.

Got it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It very much happened in my world, dude. I played my own little role in that farce, just like lots of people here. It sucked.

Let's remember you called this a pretext for war. That has not come to pass.

We are already at war in Syria.

White House acknowledges the U.S. is at war in seven countries

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...nowledges-the-us-is-at-war-in-seven-countries

I wonder if the strikes in Syria were supported by 90% of the public like iraq, if we wouldn't have already seen full scale invasion.

 

[tkotom]

The independent UN investigation assigned blame to Assad for Ghouta

As someone who is not dopey, you should know that there's no such thing as "independent UN investigation". The major UN powers are literally all supplying the Islamists with weapons and billions of dollars worth of aid. They admit this. The rest of the countries are scared shitless of the major powers.

Can you link me to the investigation document?

 

[tkotom]

Yet they are used, sincerely, and have been since their inception.

Mostly, by the United States. Few other countries (actually not many) have killed millions of foreign people using Weapons of Mass Destruction. And I love the USA. But this is a reality.

Assad actually has taken back most of the country barring US/related sections, and that shitty little nest was already starving to death and were going to surrender, there would be no need to gas them. It's much more logical to presume that the Islamists gassed a few people in the area they held for American sympathy.

Then Trump bombed empty buildings.

 

[tkotom]

1. The attack happened coterminously with bombing by government planes
2. None of the actors involved deny that a chemical attack occurred.
3. The Assad government has previously used and manufactured chemical weapons
4. The rebels don't have the tech base to manufacture sophisticated chemical weapons."

1. No proof of this at all. You could just as easily use "coterminous" bombing as cover.
2. Okay?
3. No proof of the former. Latter is inconsequential, Obama took all of their chemicals off them.
4. Absolute garbage. A chemical attack that kills a few dozen people is not "sophisticated". This is pathetic prose on your part to sell such a lame narrative. They built a fucking heavy load tunnel system under the ground that rivals the NY subway while under siege and blockade and you're telling me they can't mix a few chemicals to gas a few kids or get their hands on a few canisters of gas from their favourite nations.

 

[Madmick]

I'm going to sum that up for you. You think rational actors act irrationally when it suits you. In game theory there are no coincidences. All coincicidemces are viewed as hostile acts.

Just say that you really really WANT Assad to have done this, so you can have your way and have the Syrian government attacked and overthrown and you and isreal will be happy.

Doesnt matter if it makes no sense for Assad to order this, as it has zero gain politically, diplomatically, and militarily.

Got it.

I have already stated in this thread that I do no wish to more deeply involve ourselves in Syria. In this thread.

So...is it a coincidence that you're an idiot by assumption (where none was required)? Maybe according to Game Theory?

Rational actors acting irrationally might not conform to the precepts of Game Theory, but it's winning Nobel Prizes in economics, lately. Yes, rational actors act irrationally, frequently, and with little predictability. The point of my argument is that chemical weapons are not by their nature rational within the context of conventional warfare if your goal is to kill as many people as possible: to devastate a target.

They are implemented to terrorize; to send a message that transcends battle.

They're also a tool of attrition: to weaken your opponent's ability to defend himself or to marshal support among the civilian population harboring him (thereby making victory quicker, control more easily established, and casualties minimized). It ties up resources in medical care. All of these are still quite rational measures for Assad. After all, he isn't just concerned with this rebellion, but any future thoughts towards one.

He plans to win.

 

[tkotom]

I have already stated in this thread that I do no wish to more deeply involve ourselves in Syria. In this thread.

So...is it a coincidence that you're an idiot by assumption (where none was required)? Maybe according to Game Theory?

Rational actors acting irrationally might not conform to the precepts of Game Theory, but it's winning Nobel Prizes in economics, lately. Yes, rational actors act irrationally, frequently, and with little predictability. The point of my argument is that chemical weapons are not by their nature rational within the context of conventional warfare if your goal is to kill as many people as possible: to devastate a target.

They are implemented to terrorize; to send a message that transcends battle.

They're also a tool of attrition: to weaken your opponent's ability to defend himself or to marshal support among the civilian population harboring him (thereby making victory quicker, control more easily established, and casualties minimized). It ties up resources in medical care. All of these are still quite rational measures for Assad. After all, he isn't just concerned with this rebellion, but any future thoughts towards one.

He plans to win.

Literally everything you said here is the complete antithesis of what happened. They didn't do any of these things. They barely killed a few kids at the cost of a KNOWN repercussion from the greatest military known in the history of the universe.

Your spiel about game theory works if Assad wiped out a fucking legion of Islamists, not 15 children.

If you can't acknowledge this then there's something fundamentally wrong in your thinking, you're overly biased for whatever reason.

You and I had a similar discussion about drone attacks a few years back, you can get fucking deep on a topic and there's no bringing you out of that mine.

 

[Madmick]

As someone who is not dopey, you should know that there's no such thing as "independent UN investigation". The major UN powers are literally all supplying the Islamists with weapons and billions of dollars worth of aid. They admit this. The rest of the countries are scared shitless of the major powers.

This, here, is just another example of why-- as an American-- I hold the UN in contempt.

Why does my country participate in that farce? It exists to shit on us and Israel, and when it does, the anti-Americans won't shut the fuck up and stop talking about how impartial it is. Yet, when it comes to a matter that doesn't favor the narratives of our enemies, immediately there is "no such thing as an independent UN investigation". The point of citing the UN is that I'm citing a body with input and oversight from all nations.

Human Rights Watch is probably also corrupt. The Observatory for Syrian Human Rights. Bellingcat, too. All of those western media outlets corroborating it...all 100% pure government shills. Or MIC shills. Ignore that these same media groups are perpetual thorns to these same governments, and that many of their owners mutually hate each other.

 

[Madmick]

Literally everything you said here is the complete antithesis of what happened. They didn't do any of these things. They barely killed a few kids at the cost of a KNOWN repercussion from the greatest military known in the history of the universe.

Your spiel about game theory works if Assad wiped out a fucking legion of Islamists, not 15 children.

If you can't acknowledge this then there's something fundamentally wrong in your thinking, you're overly biased for whatever reason.

You and I had a similar discussion about drone attacks a few years back, you can get fucking deep on a topic and there's no bringing you out of that mine.

You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. You're incomprehensibly confused about my comments on game theory.

 

[whougonnacall]

Doesnt matter if it makes no sense for Assad to order this, as it has zero gain politically, diplomatically, and militarily.

Nothing to gain other than taking douma without losing a man in a campaign which has already been very costly to his precious few native milias and his loyalist base, the first victory since 2015ish that wasnt really russia or iran for his loyalists to celebrate!

A mans who's done this twice before with next to 0 consequences and could correctly assume russia and iran are too deeply invested to let him fall easily

A man who correctly assumes the u.s has no serious interest in syria outside of isis and no real strategy ,than 2 presidents have come and both have shown with words and actions they dont want 'ownership' of the 'syrian problem'.

Any tinfoilhat b.s that we used this as a 'pretext ' to overthrow him dies in the cold light of simple logic
A)we again didnt overthrow him ! we hit very lightly, precision strikes designed to not alter the balance of power just hit chem weapons depos
B) we have such 'pretexts' every day from his warcrimes if we were so inclined to remove him.

 

[tkotom]

You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. You're incomprehensibly confused about my comments on game theory.

Not confused at all. You didn’t address anything I said so you’re clearly disinterested in fair discussion. You like preaching. I suspect you’re an academic. Nevertheless.... on a separate note, what’s with the redundant shit in your comments like “incomprehensibly confused”. Who writes like that.

 

[Fronk]

There is no proof that gas was even involved at this stage. Reading Fisks report by interviewing actors actually involved in the event it could've been asphyxiation from dust spread by high explosives. What has been proven though is rebels tampering with the scene to create emotional stories that get sanctimonious westerners involved.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Nothing to gain other than taking douma without losing a man in a campaign which has already been very costly to his precious few native milias and his loyalist base, the first victory since 2015ish that wasnt really russia or iran for his loyalists to celebrate!

A mans who's done this twice before with next to 0 consequences and could correctly assume russia and iran are too deeply invested to let him fall easily

A man who correctly assumes the u.s has no serious interest in syria outside of isis and no real strategy ,than 2 presidents have come and both have shown with words and actions they dont want 'ownership' of the 'syrian problem'.

Any tinfoilhat b.s that we used this as a 'pretext ' to overthrow him dies in the cold light of simple logic
A)we again didnt overthrow him ! we hit very lightly, precision strikes designed to not alter the balance of power just hit chem weapons depos
B) we have such 'pretexts' every day from his warcrimes if we were so inclined to remove him.

If they knew where the chemical manufacturing sites were, why don't they show us that evidence?

 

[Seaside]

Just question how would US overthrow Assad? My guess is he is not even in Damascus is probably on some Russian aircraft carrier (there only 1) or large frigate.

That would be most safe place for him or next to a Russian naval base.


So next best thing is destroy his air force completely. Syria doesn' have a navy. Destroy air force and air defenses. Then capture the capital that would mean there fall is my guess.

 

[whougonnacall]

If they knew where the chemical manufacturing sites were, why don't they show us that evidence?

How much evidence would satisfy you? Do the satellites need to been overhead exactly at that time tracking or assad to do a bond villian monolouge on camera stroking a white cat?

 

[VivaRevolution]

How much evidence would satisfy you? Do the satellites need to been overhead exactly at that time tracking or assad to do a bond villian monolouge on camera stroking a white cat?

Lol, well atleast you arent one of these posters who have been talking about trump like he is the bond villain stroking a cat, for the past year. Then this happens and they put on MAGA hats.

Of course you believe their was WMD in iraq, so your judgement on evidence is suspect

 

[Fronk]

How much evidence would satisfy you? Do the satellites need to been overhead exactly at that time tracking or assad to do a bond villian monolouge on camera stroking a white cat?

Well since what the characterisation behind the goverment carrying out the attack entails is Assad basically being a comically evil bond villian, then a cat stroking picture wouldn't be too farfetched.

It's obvious there is a picture being painted here of Assad just bombing civilians for the sake of bombing civilians, i.e. not a "rational actor", instead of these bombings having an actual purpose. The goverment just spends time, money and political capital on being comically evil.
The motivation of the goverment couldn't obviously be keeping control of Syria and making rationalisations out of that goal; then the chemical attack would make no sense. There is no such thing as not allowing fundamentalist separatists entrench themselves in the suburbs of the capital. Assad just spends his time barrel bombing civilians while stroking a cat.