Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 04:11:21 AM

Title: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 04:11:21 AM
Well, things in Syria have moved up a ratchet or three.

Trump authorised an attack on a base of Russia's de-facto ally, Syria. Without UN sanction the US once again acts as policeman, or is it vigilante?

Ignoring the fact that this is a total reversal of Trump's attitude pre-election, having both said America should not take this dort of action nor act as global copper, and ignoring thst Assad needs a good dlapping, it is fraught with problems.

Trump says it is in America's interest. How?  Syria is not a direct threat. Currently the biggest potential threat comes from Sunni Islam, Al Q, Daesh and their franchisees. Russia is as anti them as the rest of the non-Islamic world - it faces the same threats. We need Russia on side in this matter. The major threat to the West from the Syrian war is from militants hidden amongst emmigrants and total collapse of the country allowing the militants more options.

I know there are basically two options, ignore or take action over the gas attacks - which, in sheer numbers killed and damage to property, amenities etc, pale into insignificance when compared to barrel bombing and the use of bomblets and mines etc. Bombing a hospital is at least as heinous and many hospitals have been bombed.

I await Russia's considered reaction with condiderable tredidation. Being a country where "face" is important can they ignore an attack on a "friend" whom tbey wish to accomodate their, very politically and strategically important to them, Mediterranean fleet?
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Arturo on April 07, 2017, 05:10:47 AM
War with Russia? Very Likely
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Icarus on April 07, 2017, 06:06:39 AM
A very bad decision on the part of the Trump person. Reported 50 minuteman missiles were released on one of  Assads' bases thought to contain chemical agents. 

That show of modest force probably cost 50 million and the ass hole commander in chief and his consorts want to save money by eliminating the National endowments for the arts and National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood, and some more useful entities. The lunatics also want to "save" money by lowering taxes. Trickle down economy don' you know?

We have two crisis possibilities going in the far east. That would be the China synthetic Islands along with the delicate nature of the one China/divided China Taiwan problem. The most scary right now is the machinations of the psychopathic leader of North Korea. We have a long term commitment to the South Koreans. If the crazy guy gets so worked up that he fires missiles into Japan or South Korea....then the shit has hit the fan.  We do not need to get involved in another theater like Syria. We have enough on our plate as it is.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tank on April 07, 2017, 06:48:43 AM
A very bad decision on the part of the Trump person. Reported 50 minuteman missiles were released on one of  Assads' bases thought to contain chemical agents. 

That show of modest force probably cost 50 million and the ass hole commander in chief and his consorts want to save money by eliminating the National endowments for the arts and National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood, and some more useful entities. The lunatics also want to "save" money by lowering taxes. Trickle down economy don' you know?

We have two crisis possibilities going in the far east. That would be the China synthetic Islands along with the delicate nature of the one China/divided China Taiwan problem. The most scary right now is the machinations of the psychopathic leader of North Korea. We have a long term commitment to the South Koreans. If the crazy guy gets so worked up that he fires missiles into Japan or South Korea....then the shit has hit the fan.  We do not need to get involved in another theater like Syria. We have enough on our plate as it is.

59 cruise missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)) with conventional warheads. Not 50 Minuteman (https://www.nps.gov/mimi/index.htm) ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. You're channelling Trumps dreams there. :grin:
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 10:22:27 AM
I wish some politicians had brains.

One verdion of the "gas attack" is that conventional weapons set off gas bombs stock piled by militants. One refutstion of this is that sarin is a binsry wespon, needs the mixing of two components, and that the useful life of the mixed components is very short. Thus it cannot be stored in a weaponised state.

Some Brit politician, missed his name, who is evidently against this action, looked back to the Gulf War and the fear of gas bring used there. He quoted Hansard, the official record of parliamentary procedings in the UK, as saying that if sarin wespons are bombed "they ecplode".  That is so ambiguous. The sarin components are volatile, they burn very well. So is this "explosion" caused by the combination or by the components catching fire?

It is this kind of imprecise trash talk that has given politics its power over the minds of the masses. Sow the seed with rhetoric, mob idiocy will do the rest.

Later: just listened to a replay of the interview mentioned above, the interviwee was actually a former ambassador to Syria.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
More political language.

A Syrian spokesman called the US an ally of Daesh because the sirfield they hit was used against those militants. I.e. they did Daesh et al a favour.

Russia has now scrapped the agreement to co-ordinate flights with the US and the UK to prevent conflict with their operations. This means the West cannot safely attack the militants. I.e. they have done Daesh et al a favour.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tank on April 07, 2017, 12:52:04 PM
I wish some politicians had brains.

One verdion of the "gas attack" is that conventional weapons set off gas bombs stock piled by militants. One refutstion of this is that sarin is a binsry wespon, needs the mixing of two components, and that the useful life of the mixed components is very short. Thus it cannot be stored in a weaponised state.

Some Brit politician, missed his name, who is evidently against this action, looked back to the Gulf War and the fear of gas bring used there. He quoted Hansard, the official record of parliamentary procedings in the UK, as saying that if sarin wespons are bombed "they ecplode".  That is so ambiguous. The sarin components are volatile, they burn very well. So is this "explosion" caused by the combination or by the components catching fire?

It is this kind of imprecise trash talk that has given politics its power over the minds of the masses. Sow the seed with rhetoric, mob idiocy will do the rest.

Later: just listened to a replay of the interview mentioned above, the interviwee was actually a former ambassador to Syria.

Sarin can by created as a finished product OR as a binary weapon.

"Along with nerve agents such as tabun and VX, sarin can have a maximum shelf-life of five years.[27] Sarin's otherwise-short shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Degradation_and_shelf_life
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tank on April 07, 2017, 12:57:52 PM
War with Russia? Very Likely

I do not agree. Both Russia and America have too much to lose from a direct hot war. There could be proxy wars but direct confrontation is virtually impossible given the consequences to both sides. IMO Russia took this opportunity to test Trumps rhetoric. And frankly I approve the result although not the Russian actions. Americas response was spot on. Shame people had to die.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on April 07, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
Hillary Clinton suggested the very same response earlier in the day.  It was measured and appropriate - Assad should have been stopped long ago.  Obama missed the mark by not taking some action. Assad is a pure murderer.  If we don't draw the line somewhere, this horror will continue to spread.  I'm no Trump supporter, but I can't really criticize this move.  Of course, time will tell what the consequences will be.  Nothing is ever solved in the ME.  At least Turkey and the Saudis are agreeing with us.  In the ME, people and governments respect power.  This was a power move.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tom62 on April 07, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?   
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

I did wonder something similar in later reflection. However there seems to have been something of a history of "retribution" strategy and pushing boundaries on Assad's part. Coupled with what always seems to me as a "medieval" mindset in how to carry out warfare - you have "obliterate" your enemy, and all his family and friends, because blood debt never dies. Never give the enemy a chance to bounce back, never give an intergenerational feud a chance to develop.

Also with Russia holding his back he msy have felt "invincible". Now he may find just how much of a friend Russia really is. IIRC they have slready held him back a couple of times.

China is taking a fairly neutral stance, that just about leaves Russia and Iran as the two supporters of a regime that is not looked upon kindly by the majority of the world's important players. Will it, one day, dawn on Russia that they will continue to be side-lined (their pet complaint) for as long as they support rogue regimes?

Yet, we all need to be united against militant Islam of all types.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 03:29:28 PM
I wish some politicians had brains.

One verdion of the "gas attack" is that conventional weapons set off gas bombs stock piled by militants. One refutstion of this is that sarin is a binsry wespon, needs the mixing of two components, and that the useful life of the mixed components is very short. Thus it cannot be stored in a weaponised state.

Some Brit politician, missed his name, who is evidently against this action, looked back to the Gulf War and the fear of gas bring used there. He quoted Hansard, the official record of parliamentary procedings in the UK, as saying that if sarin wespons are bombed "they ecplode".  That is so ambiguous. The sarin components are volatile, they burn very well. So is this "explosion" caused by the combination or by the components catching fire?

It is this kind of imprecise trash talk that has given politics its power over the minds of the masses. Sow the seed with rhetoric, mob idiocy will do the rest.

Later: just listened to a replay of the interview mentioned above, the interviwee was actually a former ambassador to Syria.

Sarin can by created as a finished product OR as a binary weapon.

"Along with nerve agents such as tabun and VX, sarin can have a maximum shelf-life of five years.[27] Sarin's otherwise-short shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Degradation_and_shelf_life

Thanks for that, Tank, shoulda looked it up meself  :redface: It was oh oh very dark, during a bad night, when I heard the news.

One does wobnder wgether or not the militants have the means though. Crude chlorine weapons seem to be more in the line for those working under the conditions pertaining. Also the one reporter who got into the area seemed to think there was no evidence of a manufactory, assuming he knew what to look for. Wonder if he got out with any soil, or other, samples?
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on April 07, 2017, 04:02:19 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Because he thought he could get away with it, since he thought the Russians covered him and that Trump would do nothing.  He may have miscalculated.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: joeactor on April 07, 2017, 04:55:35 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Because he thought he could get away with it, since he thought the Russians covered him and that Trump would do nothing.  He may have miscalculated.

Russians like Assad. Russians like Trump.

Trump needs a smokescreen.

Russians provide nerve gas to Assad. He deploys it from an airbase that he doesn't need.
(and Russians were on the airbase during the loading of the nerve gas)

Trump responds predictably by bombing the airbase.  Since the Russians were warned, they tell the Syrians to leave with them. Minimal losses for Assad.

... aaaaannnnnddd. We're now talking about something other than Russian collusion.

Putin's pulling all the strings now.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 05:46:14 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Tom, when you say "rebels" do you mean "dissenting Syrians"?  Rightfully most of the media have tried to keep "rebels" for Syrians and "militants" for Al Q, Daesh etc. Assad tends to call them all "terrorists" regardless of the accepted use of that term - just so he can feel justified in treating them all the same and accuse the West of supporting "terrorism".

Do you have a reference that the rebel Syrians have used nerve gas? Or was it the militants against the Syrian rebels?
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tom62 on April 07, 2017, 06:10:35 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Tom, when you say "rebels" do you mean "dissenting Syrians"?  Rightfully most of the media have tried to keep "rebels" for Syrians and "militants" for Al Q, Daesh etc. Assad tends to call them all "terrorists" regardless of the accepted use of that term - just so he can feel justified in treating them all the same and accuse the West of supporting "terrorism".

Do you have a reference that the rebel Syrians have used nerve gas? Or was it the militants against the Syrian rebels?

I meant all Islamic radical groups that fight against Assad. There doesn't seem to be any moderate groups fighting any more in this bloody war, so I don't differentiate between rebels and militants. Here is an interesting article (http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-the-truth-behind-the-idleb-chemical-attack-chemical-weapons-were-stored-and-ppossessed-by-terrorist-groups/5583700) about the chemical attack.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 07, 2017, 08:10:19 PM
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Tom, when you say "rebels" do you mean "dissenting Syrians"?  Rightfully most of the media have tried to keep "rebels" for Syrians and "militants" for Al Q, Daesh etc. Assad tends to call them all "terrorists" regardless of the accepted use of that term - just so he can feel justified in treating them all the same and accuse the West of supporting "terrorism".

Do you have a reference that the rebel Syrians have used nerve gas? Or was it the militants against the Syrian rebels?

I meant all Islamic radical groups that fight against Assad. There doesn't seem to be any moderate groups fighting any more in this bloody war, so I don't differentiate between rebels and militants. Here is an interesting article (http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-the-truth-behind-the-idleb-chemical-attack-chemical-weapons-were-stored-and-ppossessed-by-terrorist-groups/5583700) about the chemical attack.

Problem is, who to believe? Rationalwiki describes GlobalResearch (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch) thus:

Quote
Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Quote
Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist and author. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.[1] Since 2001, he has been the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes pieces viewed as conspiracy theories.[2][3] Chossudovsky is himself a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories.



Though there seems to be viciousness and barbarity on all sudes (see my comments on medieval mindsets) I do tend to dufferentiate those who are fighting for their verdion of what their country should be and those who will kill, rape and torture all commers to gsin territory etc in the country of another. Thus, though shitheads all, at least the patriotic Syrian shitheads (opposing a shitty regime) have a little more legitimacy than a mixture of fundamentalist shitheads from all over.

OK, needs a microscope to spot the differece but . . .

Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2017, 10:30:24 PM
I haven't been following the attack on Syria in the news so forgive me if something I say is off the mark, but between that and the attack in Stockholm all the news' been showing is people saying that the US stepped in to save the civilians afflicted in the war. Or something.  :reading:

Sounds like the kind of bullshit politicians like to tell people in order to gain popular support.

What's the political...or economic goal? Does Syria have petrol?

I have some catching up to do.  :eyeroll:

 
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Sandra Craft on April 08, 2017, 12:02:21 AM

What's the political...or economic goal? Does Syria have petrol?

I have some catching up to do.  :eyeroll:

Personally, I think it's all just dick swinging on 45's part.

What really gets me are the Tea Party types now blubbering about the poor dead children in Syria.  Would have been a lot more useful if they'd been concerned about the fate of Syrian children when their refugee parents were trying to find haven elsewhere, like in America.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Recusant on April 08, 2017, 12:42:00 AM
Some of Trump's loony right supporters are having trouble accepting this. "The Alt-Right Has Found A New Cuck To Hate: It’s Donald Trump" | Red State (http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/04/07/alt-right-found-new-cuck-hate-donald-trump/)

Yes, I did just post a link to "Red State," but it's an interesting piece.

Quote
These were the alt-right nutcases that made Donald Trump during the run up to the election. They went from being just random internet kooks to actual engines of policy, promoting Trump’s every crazed, barely intelligible speech on the campaign trail.

And Trump ate it up.

Trump is no stranger to pushing conspiracy theories, whether it be his birther theories about Barack Obama or his oh-so-casual promotion of the idea that Ted Cruz’s dad was somehow connected to Lee Harvey Oswald and President Kennedy’s assassination.

Make no mistake, these are his people.

And now his people are losing their collective minds.

Even before last night’s strike, the usual suspects began a furious “false flag” push, signaling that Assad was not to blame for the deadly gas attack, but that either it was staged by the “fake media,” or Syrian rebels had launched the attack, themselves.

Alex Jones, the rabid Trump-apologist and founder of unhinged conspiracy site, InfoWars, began beating the drum on Wednesday, implicating George Soros-funded groups for staging the gas attack.

[Continues . . . (http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/04/07/alt-right-found-new-cuck-hate-donald-trump/)]
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Icarus on April 08, 2017, 06:18:07 AM
 I got my first information from an unreliable source. Turns out it 59 Tomahawk missiles not Minutemen. The schedule was for 60 but one of them failed.

I continue to argue that using those facilities was a waste. I agree with Books that it was an act of "dick swinging" more than an affective deterrent.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tom62 on April 08, 2017, 07:50:30 AM
More doubts about the responsible people (http://theantimedia.org/media-chemical-attack-syria/) behind the attack.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 08, 2017, 08:27:24 AM
More doubts about the responsible people (http://theantimedia.org/media-chemical-attack-syria/) behind the attack.

As many doubts about the veracity of reporting agencies . . . As soon as I see anything resembling an agenda or a bias in a report I suspect its accuracy. Interested in facts not opinions in this sort of thing.

Playing devil's advocate a bit: I wonder how sure even the UN can possibly be that any country has complied 100% with a ruling, that there are no hidden stocks, or even the ability to construct gas manufacturing plant to make new stock after the inspectors are gone? After all if a bunch of terrorists can do it in the midst of a battle zone a government would have no problem.

"Motivation" is going to be the key to working out the "who" and I agree that a bunch of barbaric (in our western eyes) terrorists, for whom killing innocents is everyday stuff and a means of ensuring only their people remain, have the edge there. However I also feel that Assad is only very slightly more sane and trustworthy than was Saddam Hussein.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Tom62 on April 11, 2017, 09:14:12 PM
It seems that I'm not the only one who has some doubts.
Title: Re: Oh, shit!
Post by: Dave on April 11, 2017, 09:53:45 PM
It seems that I'm not the only one who has some doubts.

Yes, that guy has been holding that line from the begining. There was "an expert" in nerve gasses on the BBC radio today saying that the "hard" evidence, so far, points at air delivered weapons.  He based this, from what I can remember, on the persistence of the agent. If air delivered in the open the gas disperses quickly, if it is contained in a building the "saturation" of the structure, due to the partial containment, would make it dangerous to enter for some time. Also the spread patterns in the surroundings would be modified by the structure and how it failed and, presumably, any wind.

In the reports, IIRC, the reporter entered the area that was the claimed factory or store with no problems. He did make it clear that the words used were important to determine whether or not this target was a building or open compound and that this was not clear. News stations, including the BBC, are often sloppy in their re-writes and editing.

If innocent Assad's best defense would have been to immediately call for an independent observation/investigation team. He seems to be against any external verification of this sort of thing. Assad, like his father, has a strong and well earned vicious bully-boy reputation. But, could be a cultural thing looking around the Muslim world and its history.

So, still doubt and that ex-ambassador is probably as accurate as his "opponents" until, hopefully, some trustworthy facts appear. I'll not hold my breath waiting.