Syria moving checmical weapons

[GostHacked]

I just did, Alex. I imagine a few others that bother to read will agree with me.

Hmm resorting to pet names eh? Can't prove what you think I said eh? Frustration must be getting to you.

Your premise is that Syria has no chemical weapons program.

Nope, the premise was that the weapons did not come from Iraq, which was the content of the video. Care to quote exactly where I said that Syria has no chemical weapons? Come on page two of this and you are still failing.

You wouldn't post a video with 'False Flag' and 'fool me once' as comments otherwise. Perhaps you should edit the post to change that if you're of a different opinion.

And bitching at me for the title of a video posted by someone else is awesome. A little out of your norm, but close enough to know the 'Doggystyle' .. Ok maybe 'waldo'ing' you was a tad disrespectful.

But the 'fool me once' reference is more or less the general population won't buy the chemical weapons from Iraq tangent. They bought the bullshit of the Bush Administration the first time.

'Nope, no weapons under here. Perhaps over here.' *chuckles* George Bush.

One more try Doggy, then I'll leave the thread in your most capable hands. Care to quote what you think I said?

[DogOnPorch]

Dear Alex,

Again, your initial post says it all. Best go change it.

Yours,

Doggy

[Signals.Cpl]

I just want to point out one thing, wether the weapons came from Iraq, Russia, Canada or Mars the victims will be just as dead.

And GH, your first post does seem to at least the way I understood it, present the assertion of Syria moving their WMD's as false based on the actions that happened almost a decade ago. We need to judge these situation in a case by case manner and use the case specific evidence in order to determine what is right or wrong as opposed to saying that they are wrong now because they were wrong before because whit that reasoning we can also use the opposite argument, they were right last time so they MUST be right now. If the Case is made that Syria has WMD's and plan on using them against their own people and they actually go through with it, would you blindly argue that we should do something about Iran because the intelligence was spot on in Syria?

[cybercoma]

I just want to point out one thing, wether the weapons came from Iraq, Russia, Canada or Mars the victims will be just as dead.

And?

Are we to get involved in every armed conflict on the planet because people may (will) die?

We have an obligation to intervene in genocides. This is not a genocide. This is a civil war. People are going to die and we ought not be creating some proxy war in Syria by arming and supporting one side or the other.

[Signals.Cpl]

And?

Are we to get involved in every armed conflict on the planet because people may (will) die?

We have an obligation to intervene in genocides. This is not a genocide. This is a civil war. People are going to die and we ought not be creating some proxy war in Syria by arming and supporting one side or the other.

And I am pointing out that arguing wether the WMD's came from Iraq or not is irrelevant because they are just as deadly if they were purchased by the Syrians from a source like China or Russia as they would be if they were to be "donated" by Iraq before the Invasion.

I don't think that we need to get militarily involved in Syria at this moment, but I do think that it might become a necessity at least in a limited role involving restricting/destroying any suspected WMD caches.

And just for clarification, when would consider it a full blown genocide warranting a military intervention?

[cybercoma]

And I am pointing out that arguing wether the WMD's came from Iraq or not is irrelevant because they are just as deadly if they were purchased by the Syrians from a source like China or Russia as they would be if they were to be "donated" by Iraq before the Invasion.

This of course is true. It goes without saying even.

when would consider it a full blown genocide warranting a military intervention?

When it meets the international definition for genocide.

The term is thrown around way too loosely nowadays. Not only does it take away from the gravity of what happened to the Jews in WWII and the Armenians before that, but it inhibits reasonable discourse about political conflict. When the citizenry takes up arms against their government, it is not genocide for the government to strike back to defend itself from the uprising.

The legal definition of genocide:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It is not genocide to target myriad insurgents that form a political unit seeking to overthrow the government of a nation. Genocide, according to the legal definition, must target an ethnic, racial, or religious group. The use of the term "national" here refers to a cultural nation, with a distinct and common language, history, and descent, rather than a political nation.

I fully support international intervention when a regime seeks to annihilate an ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural group. However, waging war against a domestic political group that is seeking to gain control of the government is not the same thing at all, regardless of how just it may be that they're trying to overthrow the government. These things need to be allowed to play out on their own.

Edited July 18, 2012 by cybercoma

[Signals.Cpl]

It is not genocide to target myriad insurgents that form a political unit seeking to overthrow the government of a nation.

I do believe that the civil war in Syria is divided up amongst ethnic and to some extend religious lines so it is not just a case of just a political entity having its members massacred but of a ethnic group that has been and is being oppressed.

Genocide, according to the legal definition, must target an ethnic, racial, or religious group.

As I mentioned above there are ethnic and religious differences between the two sides.

The use of the term "national" here refers to a cultural nation, with a distinct and common language, history, and descent, rather than a political nation.

I would think that it would cover both cases...

I fully support international intervention when a regime seeks to annihilate an ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural group. However, waging war against a domestic political group that is seeking to gain control of the government is not the same thing at all, regardless of how just it may be that they're trying to overthrow the government. These things need to be allowed to play out on their own.

And we as a people need to step in at some point and stop the genocide, because as I mentioned above it does fit the bill as there are ethnic and religious aspects within this war and not just political once.

Aslo at some point it becomes within our self-interest to interfere in the Syrian Civil War due to the its proximity to nations that have stability issues(Iraq), or nations that are traditional enemies(Israel), nations that would be immensely affected by this civil war(Turkey) or in nations where instability in Syria could spell instability and a refugee problem as well(Jordan).

Now, I do believe that there could be a way to avoid large-scale armed confrontation and subsequent occupation of Syria, but that would involve material, financial and technical assistance to make sure that the conflict does not require the aforementioned large-scale combat and occupation.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Aslo at some point it becomes within our self-interest to interfere in the Syrian Civil War due to the its proximity to nations that have stability issues(Iraq), or nations that are traditional enemies(Israel), nations that would be immensely affected by this civil war(Turkey) or in nations where instability in Syria could spell instability and a refugee problem as well(Jordan).

Why would Canada express and act on such interest now when officially and purposely not doing so during the Iraq War?

Canada has little direct interest or influence in the Middle East.

[Guest Derek L]

I do believe that the civil war in Syria is divided up amongst ethnic and to some extend religious lines so it is not just a case of just a political entity having its members massacred but of a ethnic group that has been and is being oppressed.

Correct, Assad (and his leadership council) are Alawite Muslims (a sect of the Shia branch like Iranians), well the majority of Syrians, including the rebels, are Sunni (Like most of the Arab world)………..Hence why the majority of Middle Eastern countries aren’t supportive of Syrian leadership or an Iranian hegemony of the region.

But you want us to get involved? Really? You understand a lot of the tensions in Iraq are between Sunni and Shia Muslims right?

[Signals.Cpl]

But you want us to get involved? Really? You understand a lot of the tensions in Iraq are between Sunni and Shia Muslims right?

I don't think an involvement is necessary at this point but should it become a problem there might come a time where an intervention is appropriate and necessary but an intervention could come in the form of select strikes in order to remove the offending piece of equip or a WMD site.

Yes, Sunni, Shia and Kurds whats the point? It is in our(Canada) best interests to assist in preventing the instability in Syria to extend or even threaten neighbours like Jordan, Israel or Turkey. And its in the best interest of the US to keep the Syrian conflict in Syria and out of Iraq in order to make sure that Syria's problem do not become Iraq's problems and thus lead to a civil war there and undo almost a decade of hard and thousands of dead and wounded soldiers and civilians.

[cybercoma]

Correct, Assad (and his leadership council) are Alawite Muslims (a sect of the Shia branch like Iranians), well the majority of Syrians, including the rebels, are Sunni (Like most of the Arab world)………..Hence why the majority of Middle Eastern countries aren’t supportive of Syrian leadership or an Iranian hegemony of the region.

But you want us to get involved? Really? You understand a lot of the tensions in Iraq are between Sunni and Shia Muslims right?

Again, just because two ethnic groups are fighting does not mean that it is genocide. There must be a deliberate and systematic attempt at destroying that group. Generally this happens quickly and on a large scale.

This is a conflict, not a genocide. The sooner we stop calling every last conflict genocide, the sooner we'll get some perspective on our responsibilities internationally.

[Signals.Cpl]

Again, just because two ethnic groups are fighting does not mean that it is genocide. There must be a deliberate and systematic attempt at destroying that group. Generally this happens quickly and on a large scale.

This is a conflict, not a genocide. The sooner we stop calling every last conflict genocide, the sooner we'll get some perspective on our responsibilities internationally.

So you don't think it qualifies as genocide when one ethnic group deliberately massacres another ethnic group? Rwanda was a civil war so there goes our responsibility to help them, just because an event is considered a civil war does not exclude it from being a genocide.

[DogOnPorch]

Good photo walk-around of a MAZ-543 Teleporter-Erector-Launcher for launching SCUD, Hwasong and Rodong missiles. Turkish sources now claim Syria has made ready 600 chemical warheads for launch from this type of vehicle.

http://www.primeportal.net/artillery/tim_roberts/maz-543_scud_b_tel/index.php?Page=1

Edited July 18, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[cybercoma]

So you don't think it qualifies as genocide when one ethnic group deliberately massacres another ethnic group?

This is not a massacre and the rebels on not being targeted for their ethnicity. They're being targeted because they're rebelling.

Rwanda was a civil war so there goes our responsibility to help them, just because an event is considered a civil war does not exclude it from being a genocide.

I didn't say that it did. However, there's very specific intellectual distinctions that need to be made between genocide and ethnic conflict. International involvement is not required nor is it even good policy to be involved in ethnic conflicts.

[cybercoma]

Good photo walk-around of a MAZ-543 Teleporter-Erector-Launcher for launching SCUD, Hwasong and Rodong missiles. Turkish sources now claim Syria has made ready 600 chemical warheads for launch from this type of vehicle.

http://www.primeportal.net/artillery/tim_roberts/maz-543_scud_b_tel/index.php?Page=1

If they are indeed using chemical weapons, this would warrant international involvement. As an armed conflict, they're required to follow the Geneva Convention. Any use of chemical agents on rebelling forces should automatically trigger international involvement.

[DogOnPorch]

If they are indeed using chemical weapons, this would warrant international involvement. As an armed conflict, they're required to follow the Geneva Convention. Any use of chemical agents on rebelling forces should automatically trigger international involvement.

I have not claimed their use. The Turkish report claims Syria had loaded warheads for SCUDs with chemical agents. That's different from:

a] Moving them for safety.

b] Not having any CW to begin with as some posters claim.

[cybercoma]

I know you're not claiming they're being used. I'm saying, if they are used....

Nobody claimed they didn't have CWs. Posters on this forum aren't that stupid to claim with certainty that something doesn't exist. What has been said is that it's pretty naive to believe that no chemical weapons were found in Iraq or used against the US during their invasion (probably the optimum time to use them, eh?) because Saddam had moved them to Syria knowing full-well that the US was going to invade.

[DogOnPorch]

I know you're not claiming they're being used. I'm saying, if they are used....

Nobody claimed they didn't have CWs. Posters on this forum aren't that stupid to claim with certainty that something doesn't exist. What has been said is that it's pretty naive to believe that no chemical weapons were found in Iraq or used against the US during their invasion (probably the optimum time to use them, eh?) because Saddam had moved them to Syria knowing full-well that the US was going to invade.

GH claimed it was a False Flag. See his initial post if he hasn't changed it yet.

[GostHacked]

I have not claimed their use. The Turkish report claims Syria had loaded warheads for SCUDs with chemical agents. That's different from:

Dunno, post an article and some people around here see it as what the poster believes. Not like that happens around here eh? Still cannot prove what you think I said.

And my name is not Alex, so stop it.

Edited July 18, 2012 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Dunno, post an article and some people around here see it as what the poster believes. Not like that happens around here eh? Still cannot prove what you think I said.

And my name is not Alex, so stop it.

Perhaps you can use my name or DOP in the future if you wish respect re: your name.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is not a massacre and the rebels on not being targeted for their ethnicity. They're being targeted because they're rebelling.

I'm sure them little kids are badass rebels... if they killed rebels fighting against them its one thing, killing innocent unarmed civilians because they belong to the same religion/ethnic background is a whole other issue.

I didn't say that it did. However, there's very specific intellectual distinctions that need to be made between genocide and ethnic conflict. International involvement is not required nor is it even good policy to be involved in ethnic conflicts.

Yeah and the UN members spend 3 months trying to determine if it was ethic cleansing or a genocide. At which point should the international community intervene? After 10,000 people are killed? Should we wait until 500,000 are killed? I are talking about providing assistance to the rebel forces in order to allow them to protect themselves.

[Signals.Cpl]

If they are indeed using chemical weapons, this would warrant international involvement. As an armed conflict, they're required to follow the Geneva Convention. Any use of chemical agents on rebelling forces should automatically trigger international involvement.

So as long as they are using conventional weapons to slaughter civilians we should get the popcorn and watch?

[cybercoma]

Yeah and the UN members spend 3 months trying to determine if it was ethic cleansing or a genocide. At which point should the international community intervene? After 10,000 people are killed? Should we wait until 500,000 are killed? I are talking about providing assistance to the rebel forces in order to allow them to protect themselves.

It's not the number of people killed that determines genocide.

Over 200,000 people were killed in the American Civil War. Would it have been preferable or constructive if countries around the world got involved and lined up behind their chosen side?

[bush_cheney2004]

So as long as they are using conventional weapons to slaughter civilians we should get the popcorn and watch?

Pretty much...this is Syria we're talking about, not oil rich Libya. Make it worth my while for blood and treasure.

[kraychik]

Or send in UN/multi-nation crew of inspectors.

They already did. A team of something like six people with absolutely no expertise, honesty, or authority to do anything. You realise that Syria isn't a free country, right? You think Syria is going to just allow "inspectors" to walk around freely and communicate with people at their discretion? This is simply a PR stunt by the UN to appear relevant, and leftists like you swallow it up.

"Oh, gee whiz! They sent some "inspectors"! Everything is gonna be fine and dandy, now! Now we'll get the truth!"