Geoff > Status Update

From my understanding, President Obama was interested in strikes on Assad after gaining congressional approval (which fell through), and some members of Congress, as well as the isolationists on the left did not want to go in at all.

And wouldn't some people who supported Trump disagree with this? It goes against his 'America First' thinking.

The use of chemical weapons is an atrocity, of course, and in an ideal world there would be NFZ to prevent further use, establishment of safer areas within Syria for civilian refugees, and eventually the trial of Assad at the end of hostilities. But this went on, without congressional approval, and we have no idea if this is part of a broader strategy of deterrence, or a one-off showing. Policy shifts are one thing, execution is another.

Niklas wrote: "The Great Satan, America."

Please tell me this is a fucking joke.

Blech. I'm going back to bed. Have oodles of Evil to do later today.

Manny wrote: "Nick wrote: "Hasn't the left been crying about the need to remove Assad? I'm surprised you guys aren't jumping for joy."

Oh, is Trump now planning to remove Assad? I'm sorry, I just can't keep up."

I don't know what he's planning. But an attack at least departs from the "do nothing" attitude.

I agree that the politics and consequences here are significant no matter what action (or lack of) you take. I feel like a warning shot wasn't that bad of a move to make. It also puts others on notice.

If anything, at least we all know he's not a (complete?) puppet of Putin!

I think this is just more proof that Cuck Kushner is really in charge. What a cuck.

Nick wrote: "I don't know what he's planning. But an attack at least departs from the "do nothing" attitude.

I agree that the politics and consequences here are significant no matter what action (or lack of) you take. I feel like a warning shot wasn't that bad of a move to make. It also puts others on notice.

If anything, at least we all know he's not a (complete?) puppet of Putin!"

If his next move actually interferes with Russia's game plan in the area, as opposed to being a symbolic play made for PR value, that would be a very interesting development.

You gotta hand it to Trump: no one does reality TV like he does. I'm on the edge of my seat.

I'm amazed that there are people who say 'cuck' and 'globalist' that aren't just in Youtube comment sections.

Manny wrote: "You gotta hand it to Trump: no one does reality TV like he does. I'm on the edge of my seat. "

He is the ratings king for sure (self professed of course).

Cody wrote: Please tell me this is a fucking joke.

Blech. I'm going back to bed. Have oodles of Evil to do later today."

Look all I'm saying is Death to America.

Niklas wrote: "Look all I'm saying is Death to America."

I think the conventional reply is Resistance is Futile?

I... actually kind of assumed that the missile strike against the airbase would meet with general support, or at least not with too strong objection. As much as I disapprove of Trump on so many things, almost all western-power leaders are supporting the missile strike, and it closely resembles the missile-diplomacy we saw so many times when Clinton was president. The chemical attack on civilians seems that it may have been an intentional test of U.S. resolve right after Trump signaled disengagement with Syrian affairs. He said something along the lines of the Syrian problems would have to be settled by the Syrians, right? Assad's actions virtually forced the U.S. military's hand, unless we were willing to really give Assad the freedom to carry out any and all attrocities going forward.

I'm torn. I don't trust Trump to be able to handle a complex international situation like this, and I'm generally very hesitant to justify any kind of violent act. Yet, it's hard to condemn this missile strike in itself. On the scale of U.S. military interventions around the world, this seems like one of the least offensive, as it had a military target, it had limited human casualties, it was destructive of Assad's military capacity, and it was a response to explicit war-crimes committed by one of the world's worst despots.

It's really surprising me to hear that the loony Breitbart crew are speaking against this. Are they actually angry that he dared to consider Syrian civilian victims as humans deserving of sympathy and protection?

Zadignose wrote: "It's really surprising me to hear that the loony Breitbart crew are speaking against this. Are they actually angry that he dared to consider Syrian civilian victims as humans deserving of sympathy and protection? "

I also don't get it... at all. Kind of at a loss here.

The only thing that could really bite us in the ass is if Assad truly wasn't behind the chemical attack.

Hadrian wrote: "I'm amazed that there are people who say 'cuck' and 'globalist' that aren't just in Youtube comment sections."

I hadn't even heard the word 'cuck' a couple of months ago, and it already seems to have gone mainstream.

Looking it up on Wikipedia. I was struck by the fact that the only non-English entries were for Spanish and Arabic. The Spanish word is a simple transliteration, and I think the Arabic one is too.

Nick wrote: "I also don't get it... at all. Kind of at a loss here.

The only thing that could really bite us in the ass is if Assad truly wasn't behind the chemical attack."

I'm wondering what the contingency plan is if Assad continues to say screw you, I'll bomb whatever traitors and terrorists I want however I want to do it, and the Russians back him up with robust surface-to-air missile defenses (which I think they have installed). Right now, my guess is that Trump will fold. Though of course that could be completely wrong. It's why the situation is so fascinating, you really don't know what will happen.

Do you people seriously believe that Assad, who was just on the brink of winning the war against rebels and ISIS which he's been fighting for the last 6 years, and who's had the upper hand in peace talks lately would just turn to his general and say "You know what? Let's just gas a strategically unimportant hospital full of children and turn the entire world against us."

The idea is so fucking cartoonish you'd have to be an idiot not to realize something fishy is going on.

Good grief. I just saw there's been a major terrorist attack in central Stockholm. Don't know how many times I've shopped at Åhlens.

God fucking dammit

Yeah. I guess not so long before it reaches Geneva too. We have plenty of interesting targets.

Manny wrote: "I'm wondering what the contingency plan is if Assad continues to say screw you, I'll bomb whatever traitors and terrorists I want however I want to do it, and the Russians back him up with robust surface-to-air missile defenses (which I think they have installed). Right now, my guess is that Trump will fold. Though of course that could be completely wrong. It's why the situation is so fascinating, you really don't know what will happen. ."

My hope is he defers to Mattis... who is not an idiot.

Niklas wrote: "Do you people seriously believe that Assad, who was just on the brink of winning the war against rebels and ISIS which he's been fighting for the last 6 years, and who's had the upper hand in peace talks lately would just turn to his general and say "You know what? Let's just gas a strategically unimportant hospital full of children and turn the entire world against us."

The idea is so fucking cartoonish you'd have to be an idiot not to realize something fishy is going on. "

That is precisely my biggest fear.

Nick wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "It's really surprising me to hear that the loony Breitbart crew are speaking against this. Are they actually angry that he dared to consider Syrian civilian victims as humans dese..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us...

Jonathan wrote: "Nick wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "It's really surprising me to hear that the loony Breitbart crew are speaking against this. Are they actually angry that he dared to consider Syrian civilian victims a..."

Literal nazis like Spencer are now antiwar pacifist non-interventionists. What a time to be alive.

Nick wrote: "Niklas wrote: "Do you people seriously believe that Assad, who was just on the brink of winning the war against rebels and ISIS which he's been fighting for the last 6 years, and who's had the uppe..."

It does seem pretty damn strange. Seems like a really good way to end the talk about Trump/Putin collusion.

ATJG wrote: "
It does seem pretty damn strange. Seems like a really good way to end the talk about Trump/Putin collusion. "

So Trump/Putin ordered the chemical attack to make it look like he wasn't Putin's puppet?

Nick wrote: "ATJG wrote: "
It does seem pretty damn strange. Seems like a really good way to end the talk about Trump/Putin collusion. "

So Trump/Putin ordered the chemical attack to make it look like he wasn'..."

No idea and yes this is shamefully and embarrassingly conspiratorial, but it does seem suspicious. What did Assad stand to gain by using chemical weapons? Seems weirdly convenient as a pretext and when else have we seen Trump and Putin at odds? This is the first they haven't looked like lodge brothers and it couldn't happen at a better time. Wagging the dog again maybe?

Conspiracy theorists always give way too much credit to the abilities and intelligence of their purported conspirators. Not to mention their ability to keep secrets.

Reality is always much more stupid and messy and fumbled. I have no fucking idea what Assad thinks, nor do I have any idea about the realities of decision making within his regime. On the basis of past history, however, I think it perfectly possible he would order something as seemingly (from our perspective) illogical as this. He is a fucking mass-murdering psychopath after all.

Jonathan wrote: "Conspiracy theorists always give way too much credit to the abilities and intelligence of their purported conspirators. Not to mention their ability to keep secrets.

I guess you already forgot about the "Iraq WMDs".

Jonathan wrote: "Conspiracy theorists always give way too much credit to the abilities and intelligence of their purported conspirators. Not to mention their ability to keep secrets.

Reality is always much more s..."

Agreed completely and I swear I don't usually find myself side-by-side with conspiracy theorists. Whomever it was that ordered the use of chemical weapons, it still seems like a magic bullet for the Trump/Russia investigation.

Niklas wrote: ".

I guess you already forgot about the "Iraq WMDs"."

Nope - remember how transparent that bullshit was? And how quickly it unravelled. Anyway, there is a biiiiig difference between the complexity of the "conspiracy" in making a false statement about Iraq's weapons capability and that inherent in actually coordinating and carrying out a gas attack on civilians.

This really has no bearing on the investigation, though. It just has implications for public opinion, which Trump is desperate to win over. So yeah, it's definitely a publicity stunt, but it's not going to change whatever prior evidence exists to be found or not, and, presumably, the pursuit of it.

Gotta say I'm impressed with the media though. Took weeks of propaganda before Bush invaded Iraq.

Now we just had one day of the entire establishment media spamming pictures of dead kids before Trump made a 180 and decided to start carpet bombing the country.

You'd think there'd at least be some kind of international investigation into the gas attack, you know like last time when Assad allegedly used them and it turned out that it was the "rebels" that had gassed people? Guess we'll never know now though since all the potential evidence was destroyed by 59 scud missiles. WHOOPS.

Niklas wrote: "I honestly hate Trump for this.

I was optimistic when he won because I was certain Hillary would completely fuck Syria and the Middle East. Turns out he's just another Neocon puppet like all the r..."

After all this talk of Trump being a puppet of Putin. If only! Actually would have been nice to avoid another round of catastrophic wars.

Thing is he didn't start carpet bombing the country - this was very specific and targeted and will have no effect on Assad or the civil war and is only a tactic so that Trump can say "look at weak ass do-nothing Obama and look at me I'm a man who shoots my explosive phalluses at those bad Muslims" while actually taking the least effective and consequential action he could possibly take beyond doing nothing - he gets everything he wants - he looks "strong", he looks like he's "not Putin's puppet", he looks "decisive" and all the media gets on his dick for a few days but in reality it's just another reality show that doesn't change anything. More pointless destruction from the USA, and as Niklas says, it actually destroys the crime scene.

Geoff, I really really hope this is just Trump swinging his dick around and that he'll stop here. This would be the best case scenario. However, if he listens to the neocons and the media and pursues the "Assad must go" policy it will be disastrous for everyone involved.

Niklas wrote: "Geoff, I really really hope this is just Trump swinging his dick around and that he'll stop here. This would be the best case scenario. However, if he listens to the neocons and the media and pursu..."

The more I think about it, the more this seems a colossal fuck-up - now he's in it - there will be more war crimes, more atrocities, and Trump set his precedent. The US is now officially in the shit here - he has to respond when the next thing happens, he can no longer do nothing. Fuck, you guys marked my words, right? Way back in this thread I said "watch, we'll be in another ground war in the Middle East by summer". Goddammit.

Also, in response Russia just suspended an agreement that minimizes the risk of in-flight incidents between Russia and US Air Force over Syria. So what happens when a plane gets "accidentally" shot down? I ask again, what are you guys stocking your bomb shelters with?

I am flying to Cyprus on Monday. I had forgotten just how close it was to Syria...may pack a family set of Hazmat suits

Update on the situation in Yemen, from the American Conservative

http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

Millions and millions on the verge of starvation.

If our government were serious about stopping humanitarian catastrophes, it would be relatively easy in this case. We wouldn't have to bomb anyone. It would just mean withholding military and diplomatic aid to Saudi Arabia.

Jonathan wrote: "I am flying to Cyprus on Monday. I had forgotten just how close it was to Syria...may pack a family set of Hazmat suits"

It's close but still the EU. I don't think you have anything to really worry about........ Unless he drops a nuke.

Niklas wrote: "You'd think there'd at least be some kind of international investigation into the gas attack, you know like last time when Assad allegedly used them and it turned out that it was the "rebels" that had gassed people? Guess we'll never know now though since all the potential evidence was destroyed by 59 scud missiles. WHOOPS. ."

Exactly. Media circus that ensued after the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack convinced people that it was Assad who had done it. I said at the time that Assad might be a brutal dictator but he is not so stupid to do something to make the whole world turn against him. It was later shown (UN report, MIT study) to be the work of the "heroic rebels" who wanted to compel US to bomb Assad. Obama took the bait with his "red lines" but took a turn when intelligence made it abundantly clear that it wasn't Assad. But the US couldn't just accept being seen as a fool. There was no official follow up on it, and there wasn't enough reporting of the findings, Most people STILL think that 2013 attack was Assad's work.

What was treated like another silly conspiracy theory got proved right there. Some foreign party somehow managed to pass on chemical weapons to the "rebels," who had no problem using them against civilians. Let's start guessing how it got into rebel hands because those ragged two-bit militants obviously don't have the knowledge or the wherewithal to make it themselves.

Same goes for this one. Just when Assad is winning the war against the so-called rebels (Al-qaida allied proxies and Syrian Brotherhood mostly) and gearing up to take on IS, we get another chemical attack, and right on the eve of talks on Syria's future. American bombing is delaying the action against Raqqa. Every bit of American action is designed to weaken the parties who are ACTUALLY fighting the IS on the ground.

Someday, if my IQ allows, I hope to discover a rational explanation of American policy in Syria.

Stirring resistance from the Dems, as always

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnew...

'While we adamantly oppose Trump's use of vulgar language, we support him launching a prolonged bombing campaign in the most volatile region in the world.'

What a joke.

David wrote: "If our government were serious about stopping humanitarian catastrophes, it would be relatively easy in this case. We wouldn't have to bomb anyone. It would just mean withholding military and diplomatic aid to Saudi Arabia.
"

Yep, as long as the wellspring of Salafi terrorism is protected there will no end to the new mutants that keep appearing all over the place. But they are useful footsoldiers as we have seen many times over. So I don't think US is any hurry to lose its mercenaries.

Anyway, I like how there is no objection to war crimes committed by other countries as long as they are US allies, they have a licence to kill. Somehow using white phosphorous and cluster munitions by Israel is okay. It is also acceptable when Saudis carpet-bomb Yemen which has killed countless civilians, women and children. I don't see the so called international media shed humanitarian tears over it. Whoever used chemical weapons in Syria the other day shouldn't go scot-free, but if you want to use a principle to attack someone, apply it universally. Please start with your allies.

Bloody hypocrites.

At best we could say that the investigations into the Ghouta attack were inconclusive, not that Assad's military was cleared of responsibility. The M.I.T. study certainly does not resolve the issue. But the U.S. did not launch an attack on Syria at that time, in part because the evidence was insufficient to prove their cause, and in part because of the Syrians' agreement to destroy the known stockpiles of chemical weapons including Sarin gas which they possessed.

In any case, right now, we don't have any certainty what really has gone on this week, but I'm not plunging into any extreme conspiracy theories. On the surface, at least, it appears that civilians were targeted by a Sarin gas attack again, that the U.S. missile attack was a response to that, and that the missiles targeted military capacity, not civilians.

If the U.S. is complicit in allowing atrocities to occur elsewhere, then blame them for that. To say that the U.S. may be right in it's recent response in Syria is not necessarily to excuse their policies elsewhere.

Also, whether one believes it is rational or not, for many people in the world, the use of chemical weapons is treated as a war crime not to be tolerated, even if conventional bombs are currently responsible for more civilian deaths.

Jibran wrote: "...It is also acceptable when Saudis carpet-bomb Yemen which has killed countless civilians, women and children. I don't see the so called international media shed humanitarian tears over it. Whoever used chemical weapons in Syria the other day shouldn't go scot-free, but if you want to use a principle to attack someone, apply it universally. Please start with your allies..."

I don't think Saudi attacks on Yemen are acceptable.
I don't think the recent U.S. bungled mission in Yemen was acceptable either. I do see the international media shed tears over it. In fact, that's the only reason I'm aware of these events.

But as for starting with one's allies... in what world would that happen. Yes, when war crimes are committed, we tend to look first at enemies, or on those whose record of brutality has been established through many many years and many many reports. Criticizing Syria--and Russia in it's Syrian role--is not identical to condoning Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen. In fact, I haven't yet met anyone who would say that they approve of the Saudis' actions in Yemen while condemning only Assad.

But if, as you say, the reports from Syria are inconclusive, how is bombing the country a reasonable, moderate response?

I agree that Trump-Putin conspiracy theories are almost certainly nonsense. What's happening is entirely more banal - a continuation of disastrous, bipartisan US foreign policy, which has left the region on the brink.

And I think the situation we're facilitating in Yemen is relevant , because it completely destroys any ridiculous claim we have to being the 'moral conscience' of the world (as ambassador Haley put it). Ergo, why should anyone take our word for it when we say our intentions are put as we drop bombs in contravention of international law?

I understand the general thrust of your arguments, but...

David wrote: "... if, as you say, the reports from Syria are inconclusive, how is bombing the country a reasonable, moderate response?

..."

Just to be clear about what I've said, it would be unreasonable to launch an attack today based solely on an inconclusive investigation of an event four years in the past, with no new information. I just conceding that there is not universal agreement that Assad's forces were responsible for the 2013 attack. My main point was that we cannot say that Assad didn't do it.

The most recent gas attack, if there is at least strong circumstantial evidence that it originated from the Homs airfield, and launched by Assad's forces, then that gives a reasonable pretext for a limited military response directed exclusively at Homs airfield. Which is all that has happened so far.

Zadignose wrote: "In any case, right now, we don't have any certainty what really has gone on this week, but I'm not plunging into any extreme conspiracy theories. "

We are not certain at this point and might never be. There might be an investigation etc but the damage has been done. These last two/three days of media circus is enough to convince everyone and their grandmother that Assad is the evil perpetrator of the gassing. Every Western leader and their allies have magical powers. They know it was him. They just said so!

There is nothing to suggest that Assad did the 2013 attacks. He would have been bombed to smithereens had there been evidence of that. To say that we can't say conclusively that Assad didn't do it sounds to me a refusal to accept facts when they go against our personal views. Just like American officials always do.

I do think the conspiracy is to portray extremist Islamists as legitimate rebels while the forces fighting them are declared the real enemy. It is not a secret why this is so. Assad and his allies have long refused to be a part of American geopolitical chessboard. Anyone who faces up to American aggression is bad guy.

Criticizing Syria--and Russia in it's Syrian role--is not identical to condoning Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen. In fact, I haven't yet met anyone who would say that they approve of the Saudis' actions in Yemen while condemning only Assad.

Meet American officials, their European allies, and Gulf Arab satellites.

I'm talking about one-eyed American policy and the compliant media which buy into official fictions. The disproportionate reporting shows once again that American media acts like a megaphone of the war machine with little critical reporting of the conflict. They paint Assad as a new Hitler (he is a bloody dictator, sure, but kill him and you hand the country over to IS) but play dumb when it comes to Yemen. Or Bahrain. Few people know that Saudis crushed the legitimate democratic protests with, again, full American backing. Those who take their news from Western media outlets don't even know what happened in Bahrain.

If Americans are sooo concerned about humanitarian cost, they would not have pumped money and weapons into Islamists' hands when it was possible to settle the Syrian conflict when it was still new, back in 2011. But within six months it became clear that these so called rebel fighters were no more than pawns to achieve strategic objectives of foreign players. So please don't mind if some people laugh off American "outrage," gas attack or no gas attack.

Jibran wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "In any case, right now, we don't have any certainty what really has gone on this week, but I'm not plunging into any extreme conspiracy theories. "

We are not certain at this poi..."

Jibran, I always find your posts remarkably interesting - you're quite right, there's hardly anyone presenting this side of the story in the West. We should know by now about the strategy of arming brave rebel fighters and then rebranding them as dangerous religious fanatics as soon as they've served their purpose, but somehow it still works. Perhaps Syria is where we finally get the reductio ad absurdum.

Manny wrote: "We should know by now about the strategy of arming brave rebel fighters and then rebranding them as dangerous religious fanatics as soon as they've served their purpose, but somehow it still works."

First they create the situation and then rush to find the antidote when it gets out of hand. Syria has again showed the absurdity of this approach, but I'm not sanguine about America changing its policy anytime soon. The "rebel fighters" still haven't' served the purpose so they are being protected and excused. Ahrar as-sham is a new label for a group of militants whose ideology is identical to Al-qaidah. Hardly anyone knows that they are the beneficiaries of Saudi and Qatari petrodollars and American weapons. In fact, Ahrar welcomed American bombing on Assad on Twitter. So much for being "anti-crusaders!" There's an astounding degree of collusion between Salafi jihadist goals and American policy objectives, and not just in Syria. But no one wants to talk about it and those who do are labeled as conspiracy theorists.

Syria is Afghanistan 2.0 and I'm shocked when I see comments like "it was a mistake for America to not get involved in Syria" or "America should have done something." But hey, America, it allies and proxies have been active in Syria from the outset, killing every possibility of a democratic transition.

Jibran wrote: "Media circus that ensued after the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack convinced people that it was Assad who had done it. I said at the time that Assad might be a brutal dictator but he is not so stupid to do something to make the whole world turn against him. It was later shown (UN report, MIT study) to be the work of the "heroic rebels" who wanted to compel US to bomb Assad. Obama took the bait with his "red lines" but took a turn when intelligence made it abundantly clear that it wasn't Assad. But the US couldn't just accept being seen as a fool. There was no official follow up on it, and there wasn't enough reporting of the findings, Most people STILL think that 2013 attack was Assad's work."

Jibran, I happened to get talking today with someone here in Geneva who works for an NGO that's responsible for refugees - she's just come back from four years in Jordan. I asked her what her take on this was. She said that her information was that the official UN reports supported the theory that Assad had been responsible for the 2013 chemical weapons attack, but by now nothing would surprise her any more.

Can you post a link to the reports you refer to?

I'll look at links too. What I've gathered, though, is that amid many conflicting and partially-informed views, a report from some M.I.T. folks concluded that the rockets that delivered the gas had to come from within 2 kilometers, and Assad's forces didn't hold ground within 2 kilometers of the attacked site.

This view is contested on several grounds, including some claims that Assad's forces did hold some positions within 2 kilometers, but perhaps more plausibly, we are not actually certain what rockets were used and whether they could have come from a significantly farther distance. Wiki lists a maximum range of 9.8 kilometers for a 140mm rocket from a BM-14, and the UN claimed to have identified the engine from such a rocket at the site. One also has to consider what an "effective range" is. It largely depends on how precise one needs to be in hitting a target. Hitting a vehicle versus hitting somewhere within a wide district is a very different goal. These rockets are supposedly for "saturation" bombing, not precision, and they may have been entirely off target.

The thing is, of course, discrediting the claim that the rockets could not have come from Assad's forces is very different from demonstrating that they did come from Assad's forces.

The fact that the Syrian army had stockpiles of chemical weapons including Sarin gas, that they had BM-14 rocket systems of Russian manufacture, that a U.N. agency concluded that the perpetrators of the attack likely had access to the Syrian military's Sarin stockpiles, still adds up to circumstantial evidence and not necessarily proof. It is unlikely that proof beyond a reasonable doubt could be arrived at, especially in the middle of a civil war.

My man Benjamin Kunkel, single handedly justifying the existence of that otherwise abominable platform called twitter

'No amount of US missiles is likely to improve Syria. One US phone call could probably end the starvation of Yemen. Telling which ppl prefer.'

https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/...