Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.

I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).

But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.

And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.

That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.

Your "point"? What point? It doesn't exist because your discussion is, at best, OT to this thread. Your obsession with the whole "barrel bombs", "buried alive", "bulldozed" has done nothing but diminish your attempt at any point, if you had one, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. Please re-read the title for reference. You think those matters you mention deserve a more stepped up response? Fine, THEN PUT IT IN A DEDICATED THREAD and let's debate it! We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about the thread title response to a specific action. You're throwing around everything but the kitchen sink that's happened in Syria and actually trying to rationally debate...unbelievably...whether other means kill more or cause more suffering than a chemical attack. What the feth! The sheer absurdity of that endeavor boggles my mind, not to mention it has nothing to do with the subject...again!

What is it that you just don't get about the fact that the weapon used relevant to THIS TOPIC was a condemned WMD? The allowing of such weapon usage undermines years of international efforts to eliminate said weapons and sets a precedent for use by other rogue states and dictators down the road. It's that simple, for God's sake.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.

I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).

But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.

And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.

That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.

That's true, I'm sure there's all sorts of things we'll never know about what's going on.

What also concerns me is, while I don't often find myself sympathizing with alt-right news stories, if you put on your tinfoil hat and tilt it juuuuuust right, it is not inconceivable that an anti-assad faction could have carried out such an attack to draw the US onto their side. Because assad is winning, last I checked (at least, he recaptured Aleppo), and reprehensible as gassing civilians is, it could be seen as a desperate move on the part of anti-assad forces to get the US as an unwitting ally.

I would make a certain amount of sense, if you were an awful person.

And I don't know if that's what happened, I'd definitely say it's unlikely. But I sure hope military intelligence knows a whole lot more about who did this than I do.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.

I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).

But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.

And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.

That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.

This. It's a good rule of thumb to live by for those who follow the news on this sort of thing.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.

Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.

As opposed to parroting that 70 year old Big Lie of "isolationism".


The United States has never been, nor ever will be, an "isolationist" nation.


The correct term for our stance prior to World War II was non-interventionist under the guise of neutrality. With some exceptions, like problems south of the border (on our very doorstep), our stance was similar to Switzerland and Sweden on the world stage. As opposed to being like North Korea, the closest thing in the world today to being a true isolationist power.


That being said, if Syria was a signatory nation to any international treaties barring use of chemical warfare, then I would say that this surgical strike was justified. If not, then it was an act of aggression on the part of the United States.

There's an extremely fine line between isolationism and non-interventionism, and that line is blurry...at best...in an awful lot of spots. That's a whole other debate that has points on both sides.

As far as Syria and agreements barring chemical weapons. Answered and posted previously in this thread. Hint: The answer is "yes", they've participated and that's not mentioning their agreement...and subsequent, obvious non-compliance...to the terms of the 2013 Russia-brokered agreement that required Syria "not to develop, produce, retain or use chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons."

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Cruise missiles still one million dollar a pop nowdays?

60 Million bucks out the butt.

but they aint doing us any good not exploding right?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Spoiler:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Are you kidding? Yes, for feth's sake, yes.

No, I'm not kidding. Lets break this down again.

Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?

That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.

Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.

Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.

So, no, I'm not kidding.

[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.

You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.

aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?

Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.

Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?

I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?

It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?

you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".

My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.

Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.

Nope, you just don't get it.

No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...

Your "point"? What point?

The point I have reiterated in every post, what made the use of gas special and worthy of military response when other actions, equally horrific and illegal and often conducted on larger scales, did not? And, implied in that question is what is such action actually going to accomplish, and what might the repercussions be given that we still havent extricated ourselves from the last middleast WMD fiasco.

It doesn't exist because your discussion is, at best, OT to this thread.

Again, you are avoiding directly addressing my argument, and are just declaring it something you feel comfortable handwaving away.

Your obsession with the whole "barrel bombs", "buried alive", "bulldozed" has done nothing but diminish your attempt at any point, if you had one, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.

That thread discussing illegal acts of war inviting a military response? I would think asking why one instance invites the response but others do not is perfectly suitable for such discussion.

I'm not the one that entered the conversation tossing insults and accusations of cowardice at people who wondered if military action was appopriate. That is what I am attempting to debate.

Please re-read the title for reference. You think those matters you mention deserve a more stepped up response? Fine, THEN PUT IT IN A DEDICATED THREAD! We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about the thread title response to a specific action.

If you feel that way then hit the report button and let a mod take care of it. Capslock is also not a great argumentation tool.

You're throwing around everything but the kitchen sink that's happened in Syria and actually trying to rationally debate...unbelievably...whether other means kill more or cause more suffering than a chemical attack. What the feth! The sheer absurdity of that endeavor boggles my mind

Perhaps because you're caught up in far more emotion about this.

People are being killed by weapons in Syria.

Nobody is denying this.

We are now engaging in military action in Syria because of one specific type of weapon used in small scale attacks for which we have very limited information.

Engaging in military action in Syria has potentially gigantic consequences, from another decade or more of Iraq-esque quagmire up to and including nuclear confrontation with other interested powers. What makes the type of weapon used for killing people in Syra in these instances so outrageous over other weapons and acts committed by Syria that it necessitates risking those consequences where those others did not?

I have not seen any response except "but treaties" which didnt seem good enough for other atrocities in violation of such, and, as above, simple apoplexy assuming the truth of your own premise that does not actually address any of the points on the horrific nature, battlefield effectiveness, etc of such illicit weapons, that other weapons and acts used and committed daily in Syria possess.

What is it that you just don't get about the fact that the weapon used relevant to THIS TOPIC was a condemned WMD?

I have never refuted that. I feel like I've said this before.

The allowing of such weapon usage undermines years of international efforts to eliminate said weapons and sets a precedent for use by other rogue states and dictators down the road. It's that simple, for God's sake.

And my counterpoint is that we have very little trustable information on this incident, and nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?

So Trumps motivation for giving the ok on this? Being charitable, his briefing probably included video footage(apparently he doesn't like lots of reading and responds well to TV) of the victims just after the attack. This brought home the reality the situation in Syria to him and he decided to act.

Being less charitable Trump and his advisers saw an opportunity for a domestic distraction even better than tweeting about wire taps

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.

I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).

But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.

And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.

That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.

That's true, I'm sure there's all sorts of things we'll never know about what's going on.

What also concerns me is, while I don't often find myself sympathizing with alt-right news stories, if you put on your tinfoil hat and tilt it juuuuuust right, it is not inconceivable that an anti-assad faction could have carried out such an attack to draw the US onto their side. Because assad is winning, last I checked (at least, he recaptured Aleppo), and reprehensible as gassing civilians is, it could be seen as a desperate move on the part of anti-assad forces to get the US as an unwitting ally.

I would make a certain amount of sense, if you were an awful person.

From what reporting is saying, the attack would have had to come from an aircraft (the Soviets did at one time have shells capable of attacks for launching gas, and I believe but am not certain that the bulk of chemical attacks in WW1 were also artillery launched) which would mean an aircraft capable of launching them (which is admittedly just about anything that can fly) but would most likely be either a Russian or Syrian Air Force plane. I do not think the Russians would do it. The Syrian Air Force is capable since they fly similar planes. The Flogger, Fitter, and some Fishbed are able to do ground attack. I think the chemical strike was a miscalculation (unfortunately a LOT of bad wars are started that way) or perhaps even a test of resolve. The response being "proportional" would be the destruction of the airfield that launched the attack, but airfields are not critical to operations, most of those planes are just fine using a long stretch of highway. If I were a betting man, I would say likely an L-39 Albatross dropped the round, assuming it hit with any accuracy the intended target, which for iron bombs could be grossly inaccurate, the L-39 is a slow plane. It is also likely that target they were aiming at (maybe an insurgent or ISIS held area nearby) was missed. I would like to see more come out, especially without the rhetoric of the right and left.

They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.

What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...

It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.

Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.

To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.

It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorize the people.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Spoiler:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Are you kidding? Yes, for feth's sake, yes.

No, I'm not kidding. Lets break this down again.

Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?

That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.

Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.

Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.

So, no, I'm not kidding.

[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.

You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.

aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?

Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.

Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?

I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?

It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?

you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".

My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.

Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.

Nope, you just don't get it.

No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...

Your "point"? What point?

The point I have reiterated in every post, what made the use of gas special and worthy of military response when other actions, equally horrific and illegal and often conducted on larger scales, did not? And, implied in that question is what is such action actually going to accomplish, and what might the repercussions be given that we still havent extricated ourselves from the last middleast WMD fiasco.

It doesn't exist because your discussion is, at best, OT to this thread.

Again, you are avoiding directly addressing my argument, and are just declaring it something you feel comfortable handwaving away.

Your obsession with the whole "barrel bombs", "buried alive", "bulldozed" has done nothing but diminish your attempt at any point, if you had one, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.

That thread discussing illegal acts of war inviting a military response? I would think asking why one instance invites the response but others do not is perfectly suitable for such discussion.

I'm not the one that entered the conversation tossing insults and accusations of cowardice at people who wondered if military action was appopriate. That is what I am attempting to debate.

Please re-read the title for reference. You think those matters you mention deserve a more stepped up response? Fine, THEN PUT IT IN A DEDICATED THREAD! We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about the thread title response to a specific action.

If you feel that way then hit the report button and let a mod take care of it. Capslock is also not a great argumentation tool.

You're throwing around everything but the kitchen sink that's happened in Syria and actually trying to rationally debate...unbelievably...whether other means kill more or cause more suffering than a chemical attack. What the feth! The sheer absurdity of that endeavor boggles my mind

Perhaps because you're caught up in far more emotion about this.

People are being killed by weapons in Syria.

Nobody is denying this.

We are now engaging in military action in Syria because of one specific type of weapon used in small scale attacks for which we have very limited information.

Engaging in military action in Syria has potentially gigantic consequences, from another decade or more of Iraq-esque quagmire up to and including nuclear confrontation with other interested powers. What makes the type of weapon used for killing people in Syra in these instances so outrageous over other weapons and acts committed by Syria that it necessitates risking those consequences where those others did not?

I have not seen any response except "but treaties" which didnt seem good enough for other atrocities in violation of such, and, as above, simple apoplexy assuming the truth of your own premise that does not actually address any of the points on the horrific nature, battlefield effectiveness, etc of such illicit weapons, that other weapons and acts used and committed daily in Syria possess.

What is it that you just don't get about the fact that the weapon used relevant to THIS TOPIC was a condemned WMD?

I have never refuted that. I feel like I've said this before.

The allowing of such weapon usage undermines years of international efforts to eliminate said weapons and sets a precedent for use by other rogue states and dictators down the road. It's that simple, for God's sake.

And my counterpoint is that we have very little trustable information on this incident, and nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?

I'll go slowly and address the crux of your...position. Your whole position, as stated very clearly in your closing sentence...and it summizes the whole "but this, that, everything else in Syria" salad...presupposes, erroneously, that "nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?" and that this action...the one in the thread title...was "arbitrary" in your view.
To the first part of your assertion. Let me just cover the bases here. You are aware we were already engaged, militarily, in Syria, right? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have gotten involved in supporting anti-Assad rebels? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have supplied forces to fight alongside said insurgents? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have, not so subtly, sought regime change as an aside to defeating ISIS in Syria? Do you think that maybe, j-u-u-u-u-s-t maybe, that's because we...and the world...actually do find all those "horrific acts" unacceptable and something is being done about it?! Those acts that you speak of as being, what, ignored in comparison to the subject at hand? I wouldn't call the commitment we have made in Syria, which I just reiterated, as being in line with "nobody seemed to think...was worth fighting over...", except of course, for the fact that we already are fighting for exactly those reasons. Really? That's essentially the core of your stance and it's not holding any water. Sorry.
As far as the "...what makes this incident more special than those?", man, if you still don't get that, then, well, then you just don't get it. Maybe if you read Whembly's post above this, you'll get an idea why the WORLD, with all it's differences and disagreements, universally condemns chemical weapons and categorizes them as WMD's and why "this incident is more special than those".

If anyone thinks for a second that something that aligns hillary clinton, bill kristol and trump isn't fishy as hell, well, best of luck to you. Trudeau wen't from wanting more answers as to who actually used the weapons straight to supporting the us strike. All warfare is based on deception and if you believe assad is this stupid, you've been deceived IMO.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-our-prime-minister-was-busy-this-week-with-feminism-and-firepower-it-was-all-of-course-very-middle-class

 thekingofkings wrote:

That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.

Which is a problem in its own right because the list of institutions I would trust with limitless power over life and death is quite short and certainly doesn't include ones with histories of invasions and torture. So when the US armed forces or the CIA or whoever tries to tell us that they've got secret evidence for why they absolutely must bomb Syria my reply is "tough luck, donkey-caves, cough it up".

 whembly wrote:
They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.

What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...

It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.

Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.

To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.

It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorize the people.

That's why sarin is the most popular agent in chemical weapon stockpiles. Chemical weapons are essentially the "poor man's WMD", with sarin and VX being the most effective of the bunch. Out of the two, any Third World hole can easily produce sarin and handle it. And it holds up well to long term storage (VX requires a better developed chemical weapons program to handle).


And you are absolutely correct about the last. Chemical weapons are of limited effectiveness against military targets nowadays. But in a total war war scenario (gassing entire cities or facilities so they can be taken intact, without resorting to nukes or bio-weapons), against unprepared low-tech forces, or to simply break the morale of the oppositions civilian support structure (terror weapon), they are still of some use. One, or both, of the last two are probably what the Syrians were aiming for.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.

Which is a problem in its own right because the list of institutions I would trust with limitless power over life and death is quite short and certainly doesn't include ones with histories of invasions and torture. So when the US armed forces or the CIA or whoever tries to tell us that they've got secret evidence for why they absolutely must bomb Syria my reply is "tough luck, donkey-caves, cough it up".

Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

 thekingofkings wrote:


Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?

Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?

Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.

This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?

Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.

This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.

But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?

Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.

This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.

But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.

None of which have attacked Syrian government facilities. The US most definitely is the driving factor here.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.

How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?

Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.

This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.

But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.

None of which have attacked Syrian government facilities. The US most definitely is the driving factor here.

most of them do not have the means to do so, so they back the US and if you do not or had not heard, they have all been calling for it for a while.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

I'll go slowly and address the crux of your...position. Your whole position, as stated very clearly in your closing sentence...and it summizes the whole "but this, that, everything else in Syria" salad...presupposes, erroneously, that "nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?" and that this action...the one in the thread title...was "arbitrary" in your view.
To the first part of your assertion. Let me just cover the bases here. You are aware we were already engaged, militarily, in Syria, right? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have gotten involved in supporting anti-Assad rebels? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have supplied forces to fight alongside said insurgents? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have, not so subtly, sought regime change as an aside to defeating ISIS in Syria? Do you think that maybe, j-u-u-u-u-s-t maybe, that's because we...and the world...actually do find all those "horrific acts" unacceptable and something is being done about it?!

There is a difference there. In most instances, it is not US weapons fired from US ships on Syrian government targets after being declared openly with suggestions of deeper commitment. Providing air support for rebels as they fight ISIS is one thing, as is supplying rebels with small arms and intelligence, particularly when of late it has been more focused on fighting ISIS than Assad. Knee-jerk attacks by US forces against the Syrian government (as opposed to ISIS) in an act of war that can threaten to escalate and potentially involve other powers however is another thing.

As far as the "...what makes this incident more special than those?", man, if you still don't get that

I get that people *see* them as such, but there aren't any counterarguments in support of that position being presented. When I talk about the actual effects of what other weapons do, the kinds of deaths people die every day in Syria that are equally horrific, your counter response has not been to debate on that, but to either call it off-topic or point to the fact that "basically everyone says they're bad". Well, ok, but that's rather circular logic.

, then, well, then you just don't get it. Maybe if you read Whembly's post above this,

I get that. I understand what these things do. However, they are not unique in being mind bogglingly terrible, and there's plenty of other weapons that kill or can kill in ways that will be just as excruciating and horrific, possibly even moreso.

Is choking to death on your own vomit while you go into grand mal seizures and you bleed from the eyes awful? Yes. That is a horrific way to die and you'll get no argument from me.

Is it qualitatively more awful than bleeding to death over many hours from multiple bullet wounds from an AK tossing a burst your way, sustaining multiple bone fractures and shatters, massive organ destruction and tissue devastation? Is it worse than any number of other things? Can you tell me dying to an AK like that is a better death than the gassing death above? Or a barrel bomb dropped by helicopter onto your apartment building, blowing your legs and genitals off while collapsing the building on top of you to suffocate you after hours of claustrophobic entombment? Is it worse than being run over by a tank or a bulldozer and smeared all over the street? Is it worse than being tortured for weeks and then crammed into a cell with thirty other people and gunned down indiscriminately with AK's at point blank range with hand grenades thrown in to finish off survivors?

If given a choice between Sarin gas and one of these other deaths, would you really chose one of the non-gas deaths unhesitatingly every time?

If not, then why are we treating gas as so special, when the other have been going on every single day for five years? Had the victims of that gas attack been killed by explosives, the end result would be the same, they'd still have died horrible deaths, but we wouldn't be having this conversation, their deaths wouldn't even be on our radar, most of us would never know they existed and they'd just be more numbers for the statistics to gather later. The righteous indignation over their deaths would never have materialized, but they'd be dead all the same, and likely their deaths would not have been any less awful. Likewise, if Assad's forces had used tear gas, as cover for assault troops who just gunned all those people down, would there be a similar outcry? Almost certainly not despite the use of a chemical agent in violation of laws of war, and again, the same result of dead innocents.

All statistics point to the actual effective lethality of chemical weapons in war being lower than that of conventional weapons in actual practice. They are primarily weapons of psychological value (as noted by both Whembly and myself). That's where you get all the hub-bub about them. But when you sit down and actually look at what weapons do, what they can do, how they're used and how effective they are, chemical weapons and gas like Sarin really isn't any worse than most conventional weapons, often less so. It has a big psychological factor, it plays on the mind. That's really where most of its impact comes from. Aside from that, these weapons are very dangerous to handle and deploy, require lots of planning to use properly to avoid contamination back onto your own forces, and generally just entail a lot of hassle for very little practical gain, which is the most fundamental reason they're generally "banned", because they're a drag on all sides, not because of how starkly horrifying they are. Biological weapons similarly aren't banned because smallpox or the like is so awful in and of itself, but because they can rapidly spiral out of control and usually take far too much time to work on a tactical or operational level. They're awful without having solid tangible, practical battlefield benefits that can be immediately acted upon, unlike say, artillery shelling.

you'll get an idea why the WORLD, with all it's differences and disagreements, universally condemns chemical weapons and categorizes them as WMD's and why "this incident is more special than those".

And again...the world has done so in many other instances, it was against international law, many treaties, declarations, etc to bombard, starve, torture, etc civilians, nobody seemed to think that direct military strikes like this were necessary there...and those are things that Assad has far more definitively perpetrated, and on much larger scales, and we have not responded in kind then. Why is gas different? Yes, I acknowledge the world has portrayed them as "WMDs", but that's just a label, gas is no more "mass destructive" than high explosive shells or cluster bombs or many other weapons, the actual ultimate results of these weapons in practice aren't really any worse or better than many other conventional weapons that have been in common use for years in this conflict, and is a label that has dragged the US into a stupid quagmire before that we still haven't extricated ourselves from nearly 15 years later...


TL;DR Yes, chemical weapons are awful. In practice they aren't really worse than what other weapons do but have a special psychological hold on people and Assad has done much worse things that nobody thought required direct US military relaliation. Yes the US has been involved in Syria but this latest act represents a hard shift in policy in a very short time period and an escalation of the kind that can turn out very ugly for all involved, with no clear gameplan other than being a knee-jerk immediate reaction, and we've seen where that can lead.

If this were the opening weeks of the conflict, I'd be much more on board with you. A use of such weapons then would have had much more ground to act on, representing a dramatic escalation of the conflict before it became as insanely brutal as it is now, and a much better opportunity to intervene before everything became entrenched and large numbers of outside parties became as entangled as they are. But this far into a conflict this barbarous and destructive with this many interested parties and a nation as fractured as Syria has become, in practical terms using gas really isn't any worse than what they're already doing on a daily basis to each other (and have been for years) aside from the psychological effect, and the consequences of a US mis-step are much greater, and there appears to be no real gameplan here.

EDIT: I will bow out for now, after realizing how the size of my text wall I don't think I'm going to be successful in explaining my point of view any further on this point for the time being so I'll kick it for a while.

You're absolutely right! A bulldozer = an internationally banned WMD. Why didn't I see this before! Just as by the same "logic" you've presented, Manslaughter = Murder because the result is the same. I mean, hell, let's let them go full Monty and use a battlefield tactical nuke, I mean, as there's no difference in the result, there's apparently no difference in degree of measurement by your yardstick...the absolute failure in logic is tragic.

Obama!!!!!

*Waves fist in the air*

 whembly wrote:
They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.

What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...

It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.

Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.

To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.

It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorize the people.

I'm not disputing anything in your post when my bit none of it addresses why, after 6 years of conflict and at least 8-10 previous instances of attacks with chemical weapons that this time is somehow different and requires us to start a war with Syria without laying out any kind of end game strategy to Congress or the public.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.

What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...

It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.

Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.

To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.

It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorize the people.

I'm not disputing anything in your post when my bit none of it addresses why, after 6 years of conflict and at least 8-10 previous instances of attacks with chemical weapons that this time is somehow different and requires us to start a war with Syria without laying out any kind of end game strategy to Congress or the public.

The simple answer?

Trump happened.

I'm not even sure it's the correct decision... I think it is, but forcasting the reprecussions is foolhardy.

You are totally right that Trump needs to go to Congress with an endgame if we do facilitate a regime change.

 thekingofkings wrote:


But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.

I only want to point out that Saudi Arabia its one of the most radical islamic states of the world (They still executed people for being homosexual and lapidate women for adultery) and that they are actively funding ISIS and other fundamentalist islamic groups.

The only reason Saudi Arabia its a "trusted ally" of USA and all the European Countrys its because of Oil. For Example, many weapons (Rifles and grenades, rocket launchers, etc...) made in Spain have been encounter in Islamic terrorist groups, and """"moderate rebels""""" in Syria. Weapons that first were sold to Saudi Arabia.

Source: http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/10/14/inenglish/1476453870_656521.html

So no, Saudi Arabia its not our ally, shouldn't they be, and they don't support the anti ISIS factions. The fact that we bringed down Sadam Hussein but just let the Saudi Arabia Monarchies reign free commiting the same or worse human attrocities its one of the worse hypocrisies that both USA and Europe has done in the recent years.

Turkey and the islamic radicalization that Erdogan its doing its too other of the reasons they shouldn't be our allies. Just the idea of a radical islamic Turkey joining the Europe Union make me sick.

Ok then, I have to to remember, what I still had not time to do in life before nuclear armageddon happen and is it possible to do it now

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Ok then, I have to to remember, what I still had not time to do in life before nuclear armageddon happen and is it possible to do it now

Whether or not I think trump is a doofus assclown, I know Putin is not, I wouldn't be afraid of nuclear war.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.

Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.

As opposed to parroting that 70 year old Big Lie of "isolationism".


The United States has never been, nor ever will be, an "isolationist" nation.


The correct term for our stance prior to World War II was non-interventionist under the guise of neutrality. With some exceptions, like problems south of the border (on our very doorstep), our stance was similar to Switzerland and Sweden on the world stage. As opposed to being like North Korea, the closest thing in the world today to being a true isolationist power.


That being said, if Syria was a signatory nation to any international treaties barring use of chemical warfare, then I would say that this surgical strike was justified. If not, then it was an act of aggression on the part of the United States.

There's an extremely fine line between isolationism and non-interventionism, and that line is blurry...at best...in an awful lot of spots. That's a whole other debate that has points on both sides.

As far as Syria and agreements barring chemical weapons. Answered and posted previously in this thread. Hint: The answer is "yes", they've participated and that's not mentioning their agreement...and subsequent, obvious non-compliance...to the terms of the 2013 Russia-brokered agreement that required Syria "not to develop, produce, retain or use chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons."

Agreed. It can be a blurry distinction oftentimes. Our supplying Britain with goods and raw materials during World War One, under the guise of neutrality, is a good example. And we kept on doing it despite Imperial German warnings to neutral nations of their upcoming U-boat campaign against shipping traffic, including neutral vessels, trading with the British Empire and France. We were "unofficially" involved in the war since the beginning. But that came from Wilson looking for any excuse to get actively involved despite campaign promises to the contrary. And the Kaiser's high command took the bait, giving him the excuse needed to ask Congress for a declaration of war against the Central Powers.


And thank you for answering one of the questions on my mind regarding this ruckus. Since Assad's government signed a binding agreement, then turned around and broke it, they were asking for a cruise missile up their asses.