http://www.therevoltingsyrian.com/post/58902680033/the-chemical-attack-massacre-of-damascus WARNING: the pictures in this website is not for the faint of heart...
Haven't heard about the Damascus incident, but here's the thing about the chemical strike that people have been talking about: it makes no sense. Assad is going to use chemical weapons 4 km away from UN chemical inspectors, in an area not that strategically important...why, again? He isn't a comic book villain. This story is way too convenient for the rebels and makes little sense for Assad, so for now, I'm not buying it.
Because he has China and Russia at his back, his calculation is that America won't intervene, and the rebels are getting to be tough. I wouldn't exactly give much weight however, to the rational thinking of a man who has decided to fire on his own people at will.
The videos on that page, where among some of the worst things I've ever seen in my life. Those poor children. RIP.
Really? Assad is irrational for firing on his own people who are trying to overthrow him? Was Deng irrational during Tienanmen Square? Was Stalin an irrational man in general? No. Assad is a perfectly rational human being, and isn't a blind idiot/Dr. Doom like the West is trying to make him out to be. And launching chemical attacks at this stage, when he is starting to win anyways, in an area of no importance is idiotic. Even if what you said is true, Northside, why now, and why at this place? Assad would have used it somewhere it would be of actual value.
Even if this time it actually is the Assad regime remember the rebels used them first. TBH this is just an excuse to continue the US crusade across the ME. How convenient for us.
A crusade to do....what, perhaps? What the heck would the US have to gain in Syria? As for my perspective, to paraphrase Truman, "If we see that the Islamists are winning we ought to help Assad and if Assad is winning we ought to help the Islamists, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see the Islamists victorious under any circumstances."
It is of actual value, if he can get away with chemical attacks, he can get away with damn near anything, and it's good to let the rebels know that. I mean, if you want to think that anything about Syria and Assad is rational. "I want to hold onto power so bad, I won't mind killing masses of my own civilians, even though I know the West hates me to death, and is just looking for excuses to kick my ass." Fine, it might have started off at something verging on a rational thought process. Now with everybody killing everybody, it's hard to imagine rationality plays as big of a part as everybody would like.
the pictures are beyond f**king revolting. Assad needs to be locked up. Period. If there's any justice in this world. Have the 1989 crew in there too. it's about time that people were held to account for their actions
Assad is rational but the threats against the Assad regime from the US and other countries have been shown to be toothless. I don't know enough about the specifics of the conflict to know how strategically valuable the area hit is but I don't see much reason why Assad wouldn't feel that he could use chemical weapons without much reprisal.
The purges, to the degree that they were implemented, could have been considered irrational. The agricultural policies that led to the Great Famine in Ukraine seem to have been ill-conceived or executed at least.
What's the point of doing this? Who will be benefited from this accident? It is pretty clear to me. Hope the crusade-maniacs have a brain.
This. It's possible that Assad is simply thumbing his nose at the West, but there are two problems with that theory: 1) it's a huge gamble to take, as the West's response is unpredictable, and 2) it's a completely unnecessary gamble to make. Assad's forces have been steadily regaining ground over the last couple of months. There is no strategic or tactical advantage to use such weapons at this point when they have plenty of conventional firepower to accomplish the same basic effects. France is calling for action, and word just broke that we are sending naval forces to the area. Reports are that we are readying a cruise missile strike. Such action would serve no strategic purpose, of course, and would only be symbolic, which begs the question: why do it? The real answer is that such a response (cruise missile strike or limited air campaign) would only really be for domestic political consumption. It would have little to no effect upon the reality on the ground. POTUS stepped in it with his "red lines" comment and now he either has to do something or look completely impotent, so we will get a token response and some forceful rhetoric. From our standpoint there really is nothing to gain from tipping the balance towards either side in this conflict. Assad is a murderous POS who we would very much like to be occupied in a civil war, and the rebels are increasingly under the control of radical islamists, including a sizeable and growing Al Qaeda contingent. This is one we need to stay well and far away from. This is no win for us if we get involved, and we have more to gain from just standing back and letting our enemies kill each other.
I must add... If we can see more of this, then I will be satisfied. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-blames-hezbollah-lebanon-bombings-090724741.html
