Syria?
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:34 pm
No one appears to be discussing this. Can it be that everyone here is unsure about what to do about the gas attacks?
I have been a hawk most of the time, in the past. But I'm having trouble with this one. Beside the fact that there does not seem to be a side we can support there (with the possible exception of the Kurds), I'm concerned with how can we be sure who is responsible for the gas attacks. I am not even convinced that they happened at all.
A few weeks ago, while I was giving Fordama a failing grade regarding his take on what happened in Libya, I ran across some disturbing things about that situation in 2011. What particularly bothered me, was the fact that NATO and other forces joined the battle against Gaddafi, based in a large part on reports of atrocities committed by his regime. The truth of the matter, is that both sides were guilty of atrocities. But...this sentence caught my eye:
"In June 2011, a more detailed investigation by Amnesty International found that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to be false or to lack any credible evidence, saying that rebels at times appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence." - Cockburn, Patrick (24 June 2011). "Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war". The Independent. London. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
If the evidence turns out to be clear that Assad's forces are the guilty ones, then I welcome the military action that it appears will come from a coalition of nations. But we need to be sure we aren't being played by the rebels producing some theater for the media. The media was manipulated by the Libyan rebels...is it happening again?
What does everyone think? It seems like the latest attack was strategically not in Assad's interests, considering the fact that Trump floated the idea of leaving Syria. That would make it logical that the opposite is true...that it would be in the strategic interest of the rebels that this gas attack should occur (or appear to occur), in order to keep the Americans in it.
I have been a hawk most of the time, in the past. But I'm having trouble with this one. Beside the fact that there does not seem to be a side we can support there (with the possible exception of the Kurds), I'm concerned with how can we be sure who is responsible for the gas attacks. I am not even convinced that they happened at all.
A few weeks ago, while I was giving Fordama a failing grade regarding his take on what happened in Libya, I ran across some disturbing things about that situation in 2011. What particularly bothered me, was the fact that NATO and other forces joined the battle against Gaddafi, based in a large part on reports of atrocities committed by his regime. The truth of the matter, is that both sides were guilty of atrocities. But...this sentence caught my eye:
"In June 2011, a more detailed investigation by Amnesty International found that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to be false or to lack any credible evidence, saying that rebels at times appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence." - Cockburn, Patrick (24 June 2011). "Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war". The Independent. London. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
If the evidence turns out to be clear that Assad's forces are the guilty ones, then I welcome the military action that it appears will come from a coalition of nations. But we need to be sure we aren't being played by the rebels producing some theater for the media. The media was manipulated by the Libyan rebels...is it happening again?
What does everyone think? It seems like the latest attack was strategically not in Assad's interests, considering the fact that Trump floated the idea of leaving Syria. That would make it logical that the opposite is true...that it would be in the strategic interest of the rebels that this gas attack should occur (or appear to occur), in order to keep the Americans in it.
