Syria watch...

[Little John]

Chris - I'd well agree that mounting lines of evidence point to a government assault.

Regarding the actual perpetrator, if it wasn't Assad's decision, to avoid a death sentence for attracting a US strike the officer in question would have to have been very senior - leaving open the question of Assad's actual control of the conduct of the war. His brother certainly has the brutality for such a decision, having been in command of the reprisal against around 30,000 in the failed earlier uprising.

Regards,

Lewis

These "mounting lines of evidence" are precisely what?

As you've already made clear your prejudice by grossly slandering the SFA's commanders,
there is clearly no point in putting up further information for you to ignore.

Your abusive bullying tone is just silly and has no place on a discussion forum -
and your need to resort to it only demonstrates the weakness of your case -

Your attempts to deter me from writing here, along with claiming that we cannot discuss what should be done
until what has happened has been proven to your satisfaction -
are not only futile, they are also an attempt to censor this discussion - of which you should be ashamed.

A lot of obfuscatory words, as usual.

No evidence, as usual.

Point to the "mounting lines of evidence" you speak of in support of your position. Your position is not the problem. Pretending your position is based on "mounting lines of evidence" is. Unless, that is, you can point to the evidence of which you speak.

Where is this evidence then?

[SleeperService]

Point to the "mounting lines of evidence" you speak of in support of your position. Your position is not the problem. Pretending your position is based on "mounting lines of evidence" is. Unless, that is, you can point to the evidence of which you speak.

Where is this evidence then?

RB - you are wrong to state that the UN ascertained that CW were used by rebels. They did not.
Del Ponte said she had strong suspicions, not proof.

Credibility creep again; My sponsors think it's the rebels becomes strong suspicions becomes mounting evidence becomes proof (all this 'evidence' some, if not all must be true).

This IS Iraq all over again.

[Blue Peter]

Here's a long article by William Polk on the situation in Syria,


Peter.

[Billhook]

Good article by Simon Tisdal in the Guardian at

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... y-campaign

on the diverse and cumulative risks of an extended version of a missile assault,
with the aim of doing what would best be achieved by the non-jihadi FSA rebels.

Whether Obama would be fool enough to take that path isn't clear as all current talk is only positioning for the congress vote;
what actually gets deployed is his decision as CiC.

Washington chatter about US forces "training" the rebels - as to how to successfully handle conventional armed forces,
while lacking both air cover and substantive artillery back-up, sounds pitifully hubristic.
What exactly has nine years of US training of the 400,000 strong (?) Afghan army achieved, when they don't face enemy air power ?
They're getting shot to bits even before the US has gone home.

If the FSA have any sense, they'll insist on choosing their own trainers.

Regards,

Lewis

[UndercoverElephant]

Here's a long article by William Polk on the situation in Syria,


Peter.

Yes,

And for all I respect the input of Billhook, I think he should read this. I still see no reason why the Assad regime would carry out a Sarin attack in disputed territory, and numerous reasons why the rebels would do so. I simply do not believe that the regime carried out this attack.

[UndercoverElephant]

This IS Iraq all over again.

Looks that way to me also.

[Lord Beria3]

For the record, I remain open minded on who launched the chemical attack.

On the basis that sheer logic would suggest the rebels, the UN statement that the rebels have used sarin in a previous chemical attack and the very dangerious elements within the rebel militias (Islamist extremists) I do not think that you can not consider a rebel attack as a serious option.

The intelligence provided so far is not compelling in the slightest that Syria's government was responsible. Until they come up with something better I remain open minded.

Even if Syrian government is responsible. I still have profound concerns about a military attack and would think that there are better alternatives to launching missiles.

I also think that I represent mainstream British (and American!!) opinion on this regard.

[UndercoverElephant]

I strongly share your interest in establishing negotiations - to the extent of seeking to establish the conditions
where the dictatorship wishes to negotiate. Until that time, it will inevitably pursue the military option -
with the full backing of Iran, for whom it is a critical ally, and Russia, whose gas monopoly over the EU depends on a compliant Syrian state.

If you know of a way to get Assad to the table and ready to negotiate without further force of arms, I'd be interested to hear it.

I'm not even sure what there is to realistically negotiate. It seems to me that the probability of being able to establish a stable, democratic state in Syria is nil. If Assad were just to abdicate power tomorrow, and set up a situation where there could be "free and fair" elections, then I see no reason to believe the outcome would be any more successful than what has happened in Iraq, Libya or Egypt. Iraq is still a basket case, with bombs still going off and with no real hope of any stability. Libya is fast becoming a Somalia-like failed state, and Egypt elected a bunch of Islamists who so messed things up that the military had to intervene and are now slaughtering people with impunity.

It seems to me that the only possible way to run Syria are (a) a strong-man secular dictatorship like Assad, (b) a bunch of religious nutjobs who will impose Sharia law or (c) a breakdown of central political power and a downward spiral towards a Somalia/Libya failed state.

So...what's the point in getting Assad to negotiate? What are WE, in the west, actually trying to achieve? Because if it is the spreading of western values and forms of government in the middle east then we are wasting everybody's time.

[Little John]

For the record, I remain open minded on who launched the chemical attack.

On the basis that sheer logic would suggest the rebels, the UN statement that the rebels have used sarin in a previous chemical attack and the very dangerious elements within the rebel militias (Islamist extremists) I do not think that you can not consider a rebel attack as a serious option.

The intelligence provided so far is not compelling in the slightest that Syria's government was responsible. Until they come up with something better I remain open minded.

Even if Syrian government is responsible. I still have profound concerns about a military attack and would think that there are better alternatives to launching missiles.

I also think that I represent mainstream British (and American!!) opinion on this regard.

Yes

[Little John]

I strongly share your interest in establishing negotiations - to the extent of seeking to establish the conditions
where the dictatorship wishes to negotiate. Until that time, it will inevitably pursue the military option -
with the full backing of Iran, for whom it is a critical ally, and Russia, whose gas monopoly over the EU depends on a compliant Syrian state.

If you know of a way to get Assad to the table and ready to negotiate without further force of arms, I'd be interested to hear it.

I'm not even sure what there is to realistically negotiate. It seems to me that the probability of being able to establish a stable, democratic state in Syria is nil. If Assad were just to abdicate power tomorrow, and set up a situation where there could be "free and fair" elections, then I see no reason to believe the outcome would be any more successful than what has happened in Iraq, Libya or Egypt. Iraq is still a basket case, with bombs still going off and with no real hope of any stability. Libya is fast becoming a Somalia-like failed state, and Egypt elected a bunch of Islamists who so messed things up that the military had to intervene and are now slaughtering people with impunity.

It seems to me that the only possible way to run Syria are (a) a strong-man secular dictatorship like Assad, (b) a bunch of religious nutjobs who will impose Sharia law or (c) a breakdown of central political power and a downward spiral towards a Somalia/Libya failed state.

So...what's the point in getting Assad to negotiate? What are WE, in the west, actually trying to achieve? Because if it is the spreading of western values and forms of government in the middle east then we are wasting everybody's time.

Yes

[Little John]

And for the record, I do not make a judgement about who fired what on whom with regard to this particular incident. I do not even presume to know what the nature of this incident actually was.

Until l have seen some evidence. At which point it may well be appropriate to discuss possible responses, if any.

And, also, for the record, the words of our governments simply telling us they think they know who did it does not constitute evidence for all of the blindingly obvious recent historical reasons.

Everyone is entirely free to make speculations about who did what to whom in this incident and what responses may or may not be appropriate given those speculations. They are also free to make the claim that there are "mounting lines evidence" in the public domain in support of their speculations. However, if they are called out to provide a link to such evidence and obfuscate instead of providing it then they can expect me, for one, to view their posts with disdain at best and contempt at worst and to make that disdain and/or contempt clear.

[Lord Beria3]

I strongly share your interest in establishing negotiations - to the extent of seeking to establish the conditions
where the dictatorship wishes to negotiate. Until that time, it will inevitably pursue the military option -
with the full backing of Iran, for whom it is a critical ally, and Russia, whose gas monopoly over the EU depends on a compliant Syrian state.

If you know of a way to get Assad to the table and ready to negotiate without further force of arms, I'd be interested to hear it.

I'm not even sure what there is to realistically negotiate. It seems to me that the probability of being able to establish a stable, democratic state in Syria is nil. If Assad were just to abdicate power tomorrow, and set up a situation where there could be "free and fair" elections, then I see no reason to believe the outcome would be any more successful than what has happened in Iraq, Libya or Egypt. Iraq is still a basket case, with bombs still going off and with no real hope of any stability. Libya is fast becoming a Somalia-like failed state, and Egypt elected a bunch of Islamists who so messed things up that the military had to intervene and are now slaughtering people with impunity.

It seems to me that the only possible way to run Syria are (a) a strong-man secular dictatorship like Assad, (b) a bunch of religious nutjobs who will impose Sharia law or (c) a breakdown of central political power and a downward spiral towards a Somalia/Libya failed state.

So...what's the point in getting Assad to negotiate? What are WE, in the west, actually trying to achieve? Because if it is the spreading of western values and forms of government in the middle east then we are wasting everybody's time.

Couldn't have put it better myself. The sad fact is that the Assad dictatorship is the least bad option for the Syrian people, unpleasant as they are. The alternatives are far worse.

Therefore the West should keep out, stop supporting the rebels and work with the pragmatic elements within the regime to end their WMD programmes as we successfully did with Saddam after 9/11 and Gadaffi under Blair.

[biffvernon]

What we do know for sure is that USA has used depleted uranium and white phosphorous.

There has to be a better way to persuade people not to kill each other than by killing people.

[clv101]

Until l have seen some evidence. At which point it may well be appropriate to discuss possible responses, if any.

And, also, for the record, the words of our governments simply telling us they think they know who did it does not constitute evidence for all of the blindingly obvious recent historical reasons.

Everyone is entirely free to make speculations about who did what to whom in this incident and what responses may or may not be appropriate given those speculations. They are also free to make the claim that there are "mounting lines evidence" in the public domain in support of their speculations. However, if they are called out to provide a link to such evidence and obfuscate instead of providing it then they can expect me, for one, to view their posts with disdain at best and contempt at worst and to make that disdain and/or contempt clear.

I'm not quite clear what the evidence you're asking for looks like, especially as you are seem to specifically discount the "official" version of event. What would you like the see? Articles like that Mint report linked to above a simply ridiculous IMO, no one should give them more credibility than the "official" version. So what evidence would you like to see? There are dozens of videos in the public domain claiming to show what happened. People who know about making videos and with no obvious agenda have explained how they look genuine.

We've had reports from the UK the US and the French now, the UN report is due soon. If you're discounting these sources, which source will you trust?

I think Billhook has explained his position very clearly - obviously he doesn't have any additional data, he's just interpreting what in front of us in a logical way.

[Little John]

Until l have seen some evidence. At which point it may well be appropriate to discuss possible responses, if any.

And, also, for the record, the words of our governments simply telling us they think they know who did it does not constitute evidence for all of the blindingly obvious recent historical reasons.

Everyone is entirely free to make speculations about who did what to whom in this incident and what responses may or may not be appropriate given those speculations. They are also free to make the claim that there are "mounting lines evidence" in the public domain in support of their speculations. However, if they are called out to provide a link to such evidence and obfuscate instead of providing it then they can expect me, for one, to view their posts with disdain at best and contempt at worst and to make that disdain and/or contempt clear.

I'm not quite clear what the evidence you're asking for looks like, especially as you are seem to specifically discount the "official" version of event. What would you like the see? Articles like that Mint report linked to above a simply ridiculous IMO, no one should give them more credibility than the "official" version. So what evidence would you like to see? There are dozens of videos in the public domain claiming to show what happened. People who know about making videos and with no obvious agenda have explained how they look genuine.

We've had reports from the UK the US and the French now, the UN report is due soon. If you're discounting these sources, which source will you trust?

I think Billhook has explained his position very clearly - obviously he doesn't have any additional data, he's just interpreting what in front of us in a logical way.

Billhook does not have any data with specific regards to this incident, whatever the hell this incident actually is (even that is not entirely clear). Or, at least, none that he has deigned to present here. As for the dozens of videos of which you speak, not one of them contains a single piece of hard evidence that points to the Assad regime attacking the Syrian people with Sarin. Additionally (extremely debatable) logical extrapolation does not constitute "mounting lines of evidence". Nor does it legitimise posts whose baseline assumption is the Assad’s forces used Sarin on the Syrian people and which then attempts to move the debate on to possible "responses" without providing any evidence at all for that baseline assumption.

It might all be a bit tedious, but evidence is required. Not cast-iron evidence. Just some evidence. Can you point to any?. If so, I will be more than happy to look at it and give my opinion on it. To date, as far as I am aware, with regards to this incident, there has not been a single piece of solid evidence presented here, in the media or by any government to that effect. However, I am more than happy to be shown some. Can you point to any CLV?

And please don't point me to the French "report". It is a piece of blatant propaganda along the lines of Obama's speech the other day. There is absolutely no hard evidence of any kind whatsoever contained within it in exactly the same way there was not a single piece of evidence contained in Obama's speech.None at all. Again, if you can point to nay from the French or US government, I will be happy to look at it.

As for the UN inspection team, on what basis do you make the assumption that I will reject the evidence they have presented? Where have I indicated that I will not accept their findings. Nor, I might add, have I indicated I will accept them. In order to do either of those two thing, I will need to see it. Also, I am interested to know why you are conflating two pieces of blatant and content-less propaganda with a UN inspection report which has not yet even been published?

The thing is, CLV, I intend to reserve judgement until I have actually seen the evidence presented in that UN inspection report. Given that you generally give the impression of being someone who is a rationalist who makes his judgements based on rationally presented evidence, I find it rather odd as to why you seem prepared to suspend such rational analysis of the evidence as presented (or not) in this particular case. Perhaps you could explain?