Oh shit son...
- Thread starter Zapy97
- Start date
To provide some Obama policy vs Trump policy context: Obama wanted to initiate a strike against Assad in response to use of nerve gas in 2013, but he went for congressional approval and an overwhelming number of Republicans were against it. Here, Trump initiated a strike without first asking for Congressional approval, and is now being applauded by some of the same Republicans (it looks like they are now simply falling in line with Trump's decision). Whether they would have approved the strike if Trump went for Congressional approval first is a more complex question.
Outside of Obama/Trump comparisons and the issue of congressional approval: It's hard to say if this was the best move, but I don't like Assad and I'm in favor of the US playing a role in the enforcement of international law (i.e. restrictions against chemical weapons, human rights violations, etc.). In that sense, this is probably better than the US not doing anything?
Outside of Obama/Trump comparisons and the issue of congressional approval: It's hard to say if this was the best move, but I don't like Assad and I'm in favor of the US playing a role in the enforcement of international law (i.e. restrictions against chemical weapons, human rights violations, etc.). In that sense, this is probably better than the US not doing anything?
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373581528405905408
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373146637184401408
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375609403376144384
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/374712124620406784
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/346063000056254464
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/255784560904773633
Gonna have to agree with Trump on this one. The President is making the wrong move here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373146637184401408
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375609403376144384
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/374712124620406784
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/346063000056254464
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/255784560904773633
Gonna have to agree with Trump on this one. The President is making the wrong move here.
Assad should just be happy they weren't Cruz missiles.
This seems like a pretty janky play. Seems pretty clear Assad's got to go, but opening the conversation with a barrage of missiles isn't the most effective way to make that happen.
Also, it killed more civilians than soldiers. Holy fuck, America, step down the collateral damage.
Also, it killed more civilians than soldiers. Holy fuck, America, step down the collateral damage.
Syria's leadership is a complete Facade.
I hadn't paid a lot of attention to the coverage of the chemical attacks, since honestly it wasn't really that big of a deal until now, but if I remember correctly witnesses claimed that bombs were dropped from aircraft. The rebels almost certainly don't have aircraft*. The only people who might are ISIS but I would think we'd be hearing about a lot more chemical attacks if ISIS had chemical weapons.
*Right? They'd need aircraft, jet fuel, pilots, a lot of miscellaneous other equipment, and the chemical bombs. They've had a lot of time to accumulate that, but I'm not buying it.
But even if there's proof, this was a very rash action.
*Right? They'd need aircraft, jet fuel, pilots, a lot of miscellaneous other equipment, and the chemical bombs. They've had a lot of time to accumulate that, but I'm not buying it.
But even if there's proof, this was a very rash action.
It is possible that conventional bombs detonated some chemical bombs or otherwise dispersed chemical weapons that were already present, yes. And rebels with chemical weapons might not necessarily store them such that they wouldn't be dispersed by bombs. But if the craters at the target are sufficiently small, it would be reasonable to assume that those were not in fact conventional bombs. This is information that our government *could* feasibly have, but on second thought you are certainly right that sightings of planes dropping bombs is not adequate proof by itself, and we don't know that Trump and/or Mattis were acting on any better information than that.
But again, regardless of the amount of proof floating about this was not the way to go about this.
By the way, if anyone is wondering, it is actually easier than we would like to make chemical weapons. So it's also not inconceivable that rebels might have chemical weapons, even if there weren't preexisting stockpiles to capture.
But again, regardless of the amount of proof floating about this was not the way to go about this.
By the way, if anyone is wondering, it is actually easier than we would like to make chemical weapons. So it's also not inconceivable that rebels might have chemical weapons, even if there weren't preexisting stockpiles to capture.
Evidence for use of chemical weapons includes World Health Organization reports, Amnesty International reports, reports from victims of the attack, and reports from the doctors treating victims / conducting autopsies (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/ + http://who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2017/toxic-chemicals-syria/en/ + https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/06/autopsy-results-of-syrian-victims-show-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-attack-turkey.html)
Russia is trying to shift the blame to terrorist/insurgent groups. One of the Russian explanations is that the Syrian airstrike was targeting an insurgent weapons warehouse. Presumably, the warehouse was storing chemical weapons that got into the air after the strike OR insurgents used chemical weapons in a separate attack prior to the Syrian airstrike, but western media is indicating that the stories being told from the Russian/Syrian perspective are unlikely (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/russia-account-syria-chemical-attack.html).
TL;DR: There's strong international evidence that chemical weapons were used, and there's informed western speculation that they were intentionally used by Assad (though the Russian/Syrian stories blame insurgents).
Last edited:
No one ever once questioned whether or not there was a chemical attack. They questioned why the administration and every single western media agency immediately jumped on the narrative that Assad had been the one to use them despite not offering up a single shred of proof. Not even any motivation for doing so. Then the UN reports came out and they all went "See! Told you so!" to something nobody was denying.
From the previous administrations point of view it made sense to deny that it was the FSA, since they were openly aiding them. It also made sense for the FSA to use them, since it would invite regime change. What never made sense was Assad using chemical weapons against a weaker enemy that he was sufficiently winning against, knowing that it could lead to western intervention. And certainly not in small sporadic attacks on civillians.
I agree Assad isn't a hero or anything, but is there any reason to believe he's actually using chemical weapons on civillians? I just can't believe so many people are just accepting this when they can't seem to answer that simple question.
From the previous administrations point of view it made sense to deny that it was the FSA, since they were openly aiding them. It also made sense for the FSA to use them, since it would invite regime change. What never made sense was Assad using chemical weapons against a weaker enemy that he was sufficiently winning against, knowing that it could lead to western intervention. And certainly not in small sporadic attacks on civillians.
I agree Assad isn't a hero or anything, but is there any reason to believe he's actually using chemical weapons on civillians? I just can't believe so many people are just accepting this when they can't seem to answer that simple question.
(Okay, I thought you were also questioning whether we had proofs that chemical weapons were involved. Glad to see we agree that they were involved. Questioning whether Assad was intentionally using chemicals against civilians here / if insurgents were instead responsible is fair).
One theory I heard was that Assad was testing the Trump administration's resolve to punish chemical weapons use. I don't really buy it though. It doesn't make sense that Bashar al-Assad would invite the aggression of the United States over chemical weapons use one week after the Trump administration basically said that they were no longer going to pursue regime change as one of their main goals in Syria, at least for the time being.
In light of the policy of the previous presidency I would say that the theory of testing the resolve of the new presidency holds a bit more water. As far as I am aware the US never intervened when Assad used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency. I could imagine that after eight years with a lack of serious intervention one might be lulled into a false sense of continued status quo.
In a less serious note some of the memes coming out of this are quite hilarious.
Obama sought Congressional approval to strike Syria. They didn't give it to him. Trump acted unilaterally, which pissed off a lot of people in Congress.
There's pretty good evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical attacks in 2013. We know that the Syrian government had access to the types of chemical weapons involved (US + Syria + Russia worked to then decrease Syria's existing chemical weapons stock after the 2013 attacks), we know that the Syrian government had access to the types of rockets used in the 2013 attacks, we have no evidence of insurgents ever using these types of rockets, and we have a clear motive for why the Syrian government would want to launch a chemical attack in these locations - they were opposition-contolled (https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria).