Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[theskull1]

and what if syria launches chemical weapons at israel in retaliation?

A lot of jews killed by gas ? We all know that you would be appalled and would condemn it without reservation

FFS MS how does this add to any argument youre making.

For starters who isn't appalled by the killing of these people (including the 1000's that were killed by conventional weaponry)?
Who wouldn't condemn it?

As has been stated time and time again here (and it seems to be blindly ignored by those on your side of the debate), the issue is one of proving who carried out this vile act. It suits America's, Saudi's, Qatars, France, Al queda etc etc to claim it was Assad but that doesnt mean anything. He would have to be a complete idiot to do such a thing. More likely that someone else has carried this out so as to provoke a reaction that weaken Assads capability. The PR machine is trying to drag the west kicking and screaming toward a military strike on Syria but the electorate isn't buying into the idea.

This has nothing to do with consideration for the victims of conflict. Its about looking after national interests in the region

[Declan]

BERLIN, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Syrian government forces may have carried out a chemical weapons attack close to Damascus without the personal permission of President Bashar al-Assad, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper reported on Sunday, citing German intelligence.

Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.

This could mean Assad may not have personally approved the attack close to Damascus on Aug. 21 in which more than 1,400 are estimated to have been killed, intelligence officers suggested.

Germany's foreign intelligence agency (BND) could not be reached for comment.

Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.

Last week the head of the BND, Gerhard Schindler, gave confidential briefings to the German parliament's defence and foreign affairs committees. Bild said Schindler told the defence committee that Syria's civil war could continue for years.

The chief of staff of Germany's armed forces, General Volker Wieker, also told lawmakers the influence of al-Qaeda linked forces with within the rebels was becoming stronger and stronger.

Members of the foreign affairs committee present at the briefing told Reuters Schindler had said that although the BND did not have absolute proof Assad's government was responsible, it had much evidence to suggest it was.

This included a phone call German spies intercepted between a Hezbollah official and the Iranian Embassy in Damascus in which the official said Assad had ordered the attack.

Germany, along with the European Union, blames the Syrian government for the attack but urged waiting for a report from U.N. weapons inspectors before any U.S.-led military response.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel repeated in an interview with Bild am Sonntag that Germany would not take part in any military intervention but that the use of chemical weapons should not go without response.

Merkel is fighting to win a third term in a federal election in two weeks. Germans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Syria.

[mylestheslasher]

and what if syria launches chemical weapons at israel in retaliation?

A lot of jews killed by gas ? We all know that you would be appalled and would condemn it without reservation

FFS MS how does this add to any argument youre making.

For starters who isn't appalled by the killing of these people (including the 1000's that were killed by conventional weaponry)?
Who wouldn't condemn it?

As has been stated time and time again here (and it seems to be blindly ignored by those on your side of the debate), the issue is one of proving who carried out this vile act. It suits America's, Saudi's, Qatars, France, Al queda etc etc to claim it was Assad but that doesnt mean anything. He would have to be a complete idiot to do such a thing. More likely that someone else has carried this out so as to provoke a reaction that weaken Assads capability. The PR machine is trying to drag the west kicking and screaming toward a military strike on Syria but the electorate isn't buying into the idea.

This has nothing to do with consideration for the victims of conflict. Its about looking after national interests in the region

Skull - I don't know for sure, no more than you do, but surely it is most likely that the Syrian government forces fired these weapons and not some of the rebels. I mean what you are saying is most likely is fairly far fetched. They have the weapons and the weapons were fired in the direction of their enemies. Anyone who reads up a little on Assad and his henchmen will see he is not to bothered about what the outside world thinks of them. What does the international community do now? Well the choice is to do nothing and hope things don't get worse but effectively leave millions of innocent civilians at the mercy of war or to do something and risk making everything worse. I would lean towards making some intervention against Assad for the message of doing nothing will be heard much further away than Syria.

[deiseach]

I would lean towards making some intervention against Assad for the message of doing nothing will be heard much further away than Syria.

If I were a brutal, anti-American dictator, the message I would get from any unilateral intervention is to get some nuclear weapons, pronto.

[Franko]

Please leave the childish stuff at the door.  The reality is that she's been (directly or indirectly) elected to speak for you as a citizen of the EU.

What will it take for you to believe that Assad carried out this attack?  Tell you what, I'm quite happy to wait for the UN report but if it says Assad was the perpretrator will some of you experts answer my question then?

Evidence. Not double-speak.

Your question, whether you mean it or not, is how does one resolve the problems of the middle east? It isn't really a question as it is a red herring. Assad and Chemical Weapons is this season's soundbite. A decade ago it was Saddam and WMDs.

Two years ago this was the soundbite:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353787/Libya-mustard-gas-most-potent-chemical-weapon.html

"Libya: mustard gas 'most potent chemical weapon'
David Cameron and other Western leaders are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people."

Few if any of the vested interests want a solution, they just want a share.

My question is not that.  You have just turned it into a more difficult question because you can't answer the one I asked.

My question is this:

Assuming Assad carried out the chemical attack, should America and the international community intervene (militarily or otherwise) or do they sit back and do nothing?

The reason I posed the question was not because I necessarily support a military intervention, but because I was fed up listening to the same few people banging on about the big bad Americans whilst NONE of these experts could offer any other course of action.

I agree that posting links to articles in the Guardian or from Roberk Fisk can be helpful and informative but the thing is that the big bad yanks havent got the luxury of getting away with that - they are in a position where they must do something or do nothing and I have a feeling that the usual suspects are going to slate them to high heaven on here no matter what way this pans out.

[give her dixie]

Supporting Al-Qaeda during the anniversary week of 9/11

In a twist of irony that has escaped mainstream commentators, during the week of 9/11, the US is considering a course of action that will empower Al-Qaeda, i.e. bombing Syria.

As terror expert Evan Kohlmann put it, "two of the most powerful insurgent factions in Syria are Al-Qaeda factions." Kohlmann is an authority on the subject, having worked as a consultant in terrorism matters for the DoD, DOJ, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies.

Regarding the prospective strike on Syria, Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at The Council on Foreign Relations, warns that "American and allied cruise missiles would be to the benefit of the Al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad—the same militants whom US drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen."

According to Bloomberg, speaking off the record with military and intelligence officials within Obama's own administration, "among the primary concerns expressed were that the main beneficiaries could be groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda."   

Assad is a secular leader, which is one of the reasons he is hated by Al-Qaeda. Bombing the secular regime he represents makes it easier for fundamentalist challengers like Al-Qaeda to seize power. Such transfer of power, from secular regimes to religious extremists, is not without recent precedent. In Iraq, the US overthrow of secular leader, Saddam Hussein, enabled an Al-Qaeda organization (AQI) to emerge in Iraq in 2003. As the head of UN weapons inspections in Iraq points out, AQI "didn't exist in the country until after the invasion." Now the US wants to participate in the Syrian conflict—the very same conflict that's provided a sanctuary for AQI leaders.

On the topic of Iraq, the US intelligence community expected the invasion of Iraq to increase the likelihood of terror attacks against the US. As a letter from CIA Director George Tenet to the Senate Intelligence Committee chair revealed, it was anticipated that Bush's invasion of Iraq would lead to "much less constrain[t] in adopting terrorist actions". The intelligence community was correct; according to a study by research fellows at the NYU School of Law, terror has increased by over 600% following the invasion of Iraq.

Now the US intelligence community is anticipating that a strike on Syria would, as previously stated, "be...to the benefit of the Al-Qaeda-linked militants." We can only hope they're wrong this time around.
If we had an authentic democracy—rule by the people—an attack wouldn't happen, because strong majorities oppose intervening in Syria. Polls conducted by Reuters almost daily between May 31st and September 3rd indicate without exception that a strong majority of Americans are opposed to intervening in Syria, even if Syria used chemical weapons. Similarly, a poll conducted by the BBC shows that, in the UK, "71% of people thought Parliament made the right decision" to reject military action against Syria. Two thirds of respondents said they wouldn't care if Parliament's decision harmed UK-US relations.

Another poll shows that a stunning 80% of Americans believe that Obama should seek congressional approval for a strike on Syria. The Obama administration has interpreted this rather narrowly, having scheduled a congressional vote, but still insisting that Obama has the right to attack Syria "no matter what Congress does", as Secretary of State John Kerry bluntly remarked. Obama said the same thing, albeit somewhat more tactfully: "I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization".

The polls pertaining to the prospective strike on Syria differ significantly from those regarding the US and UK support for the Iraq War. Back in 2003, a series of polls found that a majority of Britons supported the invasion of Iraq; Americans at the time supported the invasions by even larger majorities.

Simply put, there's less support for a strike on Syria than there was for the invasion of Iraq—and we know how well the Iraq War turned out.

Yet public opinion and the threat of provoking terror attacks are not persuasive to the unfathomable wisdom of the Obama administration. As John Kerry said, a strike on Syria "is of great consequence to...all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons." Apparently Kerry is more concerned with international norms than international law, since attacking Syria without a UN Security Council resolution would violate the latter. In Obama's words, the Security Council is "paralyzed"—meaning it won't do what he tells it to do.

Matthew Waxman, writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, observes that, "despite treaties outlawing chemical weapons use, there is no precedent for using military intervention as a response to violations."
To be fair to the Obama administration, we should listen to what US leaders have to say about chemical weapons; they're experts on the matter. In Iraq alone, they used white phosphorous and depleted uranium munitions, which coincided with an explosion of birth defects documented by a recent study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. According to an Al Jazeera journalist, incidences of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah surpassed those that followed the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-al-qaeda-terror-606/

[johnneycool]

and what if syria launches chemical weapons at israel in retaliation?

A lot of jews killed by gas ? We all know that you would be appalled and would condemn it without reservation

FFS MS how does this add to any argument youre making.

For starters who isn't appalled by the killing of these people (including the 1000's that were killed by conventional weaponry)?
Who wouldn't condemn it?

As has been stated time and time again here (and it seems to be blindly ignored by those on your side of the debate), the issue is one of proving who carried out this vile act. It suits America's, Saudi's, Qatars, France, Al queda etc etc to claim it was Assad but that doesnt mean anything. He would have to be a complete idiot to do such a thing. More likely that someone else has carried this out so as to provoke a reaction that weaken Assads capability. The PR machine is trying to drag the west kicking and screaming toward a military strike on Syria but the electorate isn't buying into the idea.

This has nothing to do with consideration for the victims of conflict. Its about looking after national interests in the region

Skull - I don't know for sure, no more than you do, but surely it is most likely that the Syrian government forces fired these weapons and not some of the rebels. I mean what you are saying is most likely is fairly far fetched. They have the weapons and the weapons were fired in the direction of their enemies. Anyone who reads up a little on Assad and his henchmen will see he is not to bothered about what the outside world thinks of them. What does the international community do now? Well the choice is to do nothing and hope things don't get worse but effectively leave millions of innocent civilians at the mercy of war or to do something and risk making everything worse. I would lean towards making some intervention against Assad for the message of doing nothing will be heard much further away than Syria.

Is the reason 'most likely' a good enough reason for going to war?

Would you put your son or daughter in the front line for a most likely?

[LeoMc]

BERLIN, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Syrian government forces may have carried out a chemical weapons attack close to Damascus without the personal permission of President Bashar al-Assad, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper reported on Sunday, citing German intelligence.

Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.

This could mean Assad may not have personally approved the attack close to Damascus on Aug. 21 in which more than 1,400 are estimated to have been killed, intelligence officers suggested.

Germany's foreign intelligence agency (BND) could not be reached for comment.

Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.

Last week the head of the BND, Gerhard Schindler, gave confidential briefings to the German parliament's defence and foreign affairs committees. Bild said Schindler told the defence committee that Syria's civil war could continue for years.

The chief of staff of Germany's armed forces, General Volker Wieker, also told lawmakers the influence of al-Qaeda linked forces with within the rebels was becoming stronger and stronger.

Members of the foreign affairs committee present at the briefing told Reuters Schindler had said that although the BND did not have absolute proof Assad's government was responsible, it had much evidence to suggest it was.

This included a phone call German spies intercepted between a Hezbollah official and the Iranian Embassy in Damascus in which the official said Assad had ordered the attack.

Germany, along with the European Union, blames the Syrian government for the attack but urged waiting for a report from U.N. weapons inspectors before any U.S.-led military response.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel repeated in an interview with Bild am Sonntag that Germany would not take part in any military intervention but that the use of chemical weapons should not go without response.

Merkel is fighting to win a third term in a federal election in two weeks. Germans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Syria.

IMHO this actually sounds like the most likely scenario, a commander over-stepping his authority. However it leads to the question why are these weapons accessible in the field.

[theskull1]

My question is this:

Assuming Assad carried out the chemical attack, should America and the international community intervene (militarily or otherwise) or do they sit back and do nothing?

The reason I posed the question was not because I necessarily support a military intervention, but because I was fed up listening to the same few people banging on about the big bad Americans whilst NONE of these experts could offer any other course of action.

I agree that posting links to articles in the Guardian or from Roberk Fisk can be helpful and informative but the thing is that the big bad yanks havent got the luxury of getting away with that - they are in a position where they must do something or do nothing and I have a feeling that the usual suspects are going to slate them to high heaven on here no matter what way this pans out.

Do you really want a military response on an assumption Franko? But going by your question ... if it was the Assad regime, the reason why the Americans would respond with military action, is to further their own strategic interests in the region. The suffering of the people is what they want you to think this is about. So to reword your sentence ... they are in a position where to they must do something or risk losing strategic and economic interests in the region.

Another separate question here is ...what Russias response to such an attack would be?   

[deiseach]

My question is this:

Assuming Assad carried out the chemical attack, should America and the international community intervene (militarily or otherwise) or do they sit back and do nothing?

I've highlighted the pertinent part. The US should be bringing diplomatic pressure to bear. Syria is effectively a client state of Russia - Cold War habits die hard. If Putin advised Assad to move on, he would. Paris is lovely all year round. If that failed, the US should do nothing more. Obama should never have made comments about lines not to be crossed or other such nonsense. As I said above, intervention here would be a message to dictators the world over that if you antagonise the US then you'll end up with a rope around your neck being bayed at by a mob, and the time has come to get some of those MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) things.

[LeoMc]

My question is this:

Assuming Assad carried out the chemical attack, should America and the international community intervene (militarily or otherwise) or do they sit back and do nothing?

The reason I posed the question was not because I necessarily support a military intervention, but because I was fed up listening to the same few people banging on about the big bad Americans whilst NONE of these experts could offer any other course of action.

I agree that posting links to articles in the Guardian or from Roberk Fisk can be helpful and informative but the thing is that the big bad yanks havent got the luxury of getting away with that - they are in a position where they must do something or do nothing and I have a feeling that the usual suspects are going to slate them to high heaven on here no matter what way this pans out.

Do you really want a military response on an assumption Franko? But going by your question ... if it was the Assad regime, the reason why the Americans would respond with military action, is to further their own strategic interests in the region. The suffering of the people is what they want you to think this is about. So to reword your sentence ... they are in a position where to they must do something or risk losing strategic and economic interests in the region.

Another separate question here is ...what Russias response to such an attack would be?

Maybe we should send James Blunt out as a precaution.

[Franko]

Of course not, I've already said that.  Although personally, I think it most likely was the government (or, as it now seems, rogue elements within the army), I believe that nothing should be done until the verdict of the UN weapons inspectors is delivered.

I also stated that I am fully aware that the Americans would not be going into Syria pure of heart to aid the stricken Syrian people.

However, if it does transpire that Assad was responsible, what do you think should be done?  Nothing?

[theskull1]

Of course not, I've already said that.  Although personally, I think it most likely was the government (or, as it now seems, rogue elements within the army), I believe that nothing should be done until the verdict of the UN weapons inspectors is delivered.

I also stated that I am fully aware that the Americans would not be going into Syria pure of heart to aid the stricken Syrian people.

However, if it does transpire that Assad was responsible, what do you think should be done?  Nothing?

If the world and his mother know from the evidence made available that he carried it out, then Russia should be held to task for supporting him. All trading arrangements with them should stop until they agree and help bring about Assad's arrest and face a war crimes tribunal. But is Europe too tied to the gas supply from the east, for the west to be principled about the thing? I'd say not. They're stuck.


side point ........meanwhile thousands die by conventional means

[Franko]

Of course not, I've already said that.  Although personally, I think it most likely was the government (or, as it now seems, rogue elements within the army), I believe that nothing should be done until the verdict of the UN weapons inspectors is delivered.

I also stated that I am fully aware that the Americans would not be going into Syria pure of heart to aid the stricken Syrian people.

However, if it does transpire that Assad was responsible, what do you think should be done?  Nothing?

If the world and his mother know from the evidence made available that he carried it out, then Russia should be held to task for supporting him. All trading arrangements with them should stop until they agree and help bring about Assad's arrest and face a war crimes tribunal. But is Europe too tied to the gas supply from the east, for the west to be principled about the thing? I'd say not. They're stuck.


side point ........meanwhile thousands die by conventional means

So, to paraphrase, I don't know what they should do.

[theskull1]

How'd you come to that conclusion? .... I answered the question

If the world and his mother know from the evidence made available that he carried it out, then Russia should be held to task for supporting him. All trading arrangements with them should stop until they agree and help bring about Assad's arrest and face a war crimes tribunal