- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 3,732
- Reaction score
- 0
He's not really bombing and expelling Syrians directly though.he's supporting that shit and he's financing it via taxes.
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.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?
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.
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.
The independent UN investigation assigned blame to Assad for Ghouta
Yet they are used, sincerely, and have been since their inception.
- The attack happened coterminously with bombing by government planes
- None of the actors involved deny that a chemical attack occurred.
- The Assad government has previously used and manufactured chemical weapons
- The rebels don't have the tech base to manufacture sophisticated chemical weapons."
I have already stated in this thread that I do no wish to more deeply involve ourselves in Syria. In this thread.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.
This, here, is just another example of why-- as an American-- I hold the UN in contempt.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.
You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. You're incomprehensibly confused about my comments on game theory.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.
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!Doesnt matter if it makes no sense for Assad to order this, as it has zero gain politically, diplomatically, and militarily.
You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. You're incomprehensibly confused about my comments on game theory.
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.
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?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?
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?