ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
UN report concludes that the regime was responsible for the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack - https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/234/18/PDF/G1723418.pdf?OpenElement
was this truly ever in doubt? Despite the attempts of the govt and the russians to say otherwise?
As someone works in cyber security, pretty much regardless of what you do, people with determination will find ways to share such materials. For a start a lot of it is hosted on servers in other parts of the world where the UK/US has no jurisdiction, they could get ISP's to block the IP's/Domains but that's a process that takes time and resources, and for people on the other end the easy get around is simply to host it on another server and domain like what happens with torrent sites that are 'blocked.' It's also actually kind of nice for the security services to know where this kind of thing is mainly hosted rather than it being distributed via encrypted services like Telegram. If someone is downloading terrorist/bomb making manuals from a website you can bet your ass GCHQ know exactly who has done it.
Well it's a good thing the investigation was carried out as there are plenty of non-regime bad guys operating in Idlib these days. It won't change the minds of the many, many people out there who seem to lap up everything the Russians and Assad say as gospel.
I mean I guess if a day ever comes when he isnt in power and is brought to justice - these reports will provide proof/evidence of his crimes against humanity
Yeah, I figured that would be it. Just hoped they'd have better resources for this than torrent websites.
I don't have as much confidence in them being able to act on knowing who downloads what anymore. I know plenty of potential attacks have been stopped, but we know some inevitably get through. Of course it's a tough gig to stay on top of, but I'm sure more could be done with better resources from magic money trees that appear for other things.
There is a good chance this was a direct result of the cooperation between ISIS and the US in East Deir Ezzor. The shelling that led to his death was sudden and very accurate as he was killed in the first hits, raising the possibility that it was based on accurate coordinates provided by the US.
The cooperation between ISIS and the US (and its backed forces) has been very evident in Eastern Deir Ezzor. The US and the forces it backs literally walked tens of kilometers without any resistance from ISIS or any clashes in the Eastern part of Deir Ezzor while ISIS was resisting fiercely against the Syrian forces and they just about managed to build a thin wall preventing the Syrian army from reaching the Gas fields, just in time for the US forces to walk into them first, which was very interesting to watch.
Either way it's interesting to follow how things in other oil-rich areas on the Eastern (southern) part of Deir Ezzor will unfold.
Not a big surprise that tall the Brits in Raqqa would be tight with one another.
Was. Still is.
Everyone outside the Putin/Assad propaganda orbit has known this from day one.
One side of the story is from the Al Nusra controlled site and the other is from those that initiated the attack. Each side describes the opposing view as propaganda. Evidence is compromised. Personally, I believe it was a conventional weapon attack. You believe what you want.
Ok then you continue believing Russian/Assad propaganda and the rest of us will go with what the UN said.
You know the UN is fubar though, right?
If that's your way of attempting to discredit their report because you don't like the results then go right ahead.
This is what they always do.
Funny thing is Assad supporters were using the UN to back their arguments a while back, now they are FUBAR.
Russia has just completed setting up a bridge for the Syrian army to cross the Euphrates (more easily), which means they decided to go ahead in the race with the US for the Eastern oil fields. Tough task but this might be their reaction to the death of Asapov.
It's true. I am more prepared to accept the version put forward by the Syrian and Russian authorities, together with reasoned analysis by experts that are deliberately ignored by media controlled by vested interests, than the side who base their version of events on the testimony and dodgy evidence provided by a bunch of head hoppers supported by those self same vested interests.
What it really comes down to, I think, is that I believe the most powerful actors on the world stage are deviant and dangerous, and that real moral authority most often lies with those brave few that are able to dig down to find and expose the truth of what's really going on. If we accept the UN as a pure, incorrupt source of truth in all things without question, we fail to accept that it would be only sensible for powerful vested interests to seek to control it.
Don't believe anything based on who says it. Look at evidence and/or (if the evidence is likely bogus) reasoned analysis.
I am not trying to tell you what to believe. I am trying to tell you how to decide what to believe.
And Assad & the Russians don't have vested interests?
And trust me Assad is no better than the head choppers.
No. He's not. Assad lays on buses. Al Nusra chops heads.
Do you know why the civil war started? Please do some research.
Also.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40795739
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41359369
Some very recent examples, these are just the tip of the iceberg.
You presume too much. For example, you ask if I know how the civil war started. I don't believe it is or was a civil war. I believe the conflict arose out of a deliberate plan to destabilise the Assad regime by external agents. You might want to look back at some of my earlier posts in this thread before presuming that I'm ignorant on the subject.
I haven't presumed anything. I just asked you a few questions. Also not surprised how you avoided the other part of the my post regarding Assad's brutality.
You're one of the conspiracists, that's fine you can hold that position.
I'm leaving it at that really. Frankly it's disrespectful to all the Syrians who died protesting just for better governance.You're arguing with a fake news, conspiracy buff. Best of luck.
You're being very disrespectful to me and all, tbh. I honestly believe I know a lot about this subject. I also believe the BBC's reporting on it has been woeful. I've read as much as I can from their website though, along with a lot of other sources you would probably consign to the "conspiracy theorist" bin. The fact is, by widening my view of sources, I have a much more balanced view than those that would consider the BBC as an authoritative source.
Mutual respect mateYou're arguing with a fake news, conspiracy buff. Best of luck.
A long worthwhile read on the devastation of Raqqa - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_city_fit_for_no_one_raqqa_syria_islamic_state_group
First, it's never really been proven to have been sarin. Every report I have seen says "sarin-like". Second. We know ISIS/Al-Nusra or whatever they are calling themselves got their hands on all kinda of nasty chemical weapons when they overran half of Syria. Third, why would Assad suddenly decide to drop nerve agents on civilians, when he was winning handily on all fronts?
Just following Occams razor, the most likely cause of the incident is this. Syrian aircraft carried out a conventional airstrike, that hit/compromised chemicals on the ground (that may have been captured weaponized chemicals). The resulting damage resulted in a chemical incident that caused "sarin-like" effects.
To suggest that Syrian forces under orders from Assad decided without logic, or reason, to carry out a chemical attack requires too many, far too many, logical loop holes to be jumped through. You've got to be a mental gymnast to rationalize that.
Lastly, the UN is hardly beyond reproach. I'd like to see exactly who this team was that concluded this, what their political/national affiliations are. Language is telling. Everytime you call the Syrian government the "regime", you belie your underlying bias.
The US has done so much shady garbage in that part of the world, wait, all parts of the world, you've got to have your head so far up your own ass that the lump in your throat is you nose, to think that spinning blame onto regional rivals for political gain is outside what is possible. Especially when American foreign policy since WW2 has been, end justifies the means, and since America is ultimately good, anything we do to serve America, no matter how fecked up, is actually good.
Interesting, I'm good friends with 3 naturalized American citizens originally from Syria. Came over as babies. They all still have large, extended families living in Syria. All of them, 100% support Assad. Their families support Assad. Now, that isn't representative of the entire country, obviously, but it is interesting that it does seem like the majority in Syria actually do support him. I'd bet more Syrians support Assad, than Americans support Trump
There were what 23 million Syrians now down to about 18 to 19 million. So even if he had 100% support Assad probably falls short of Trumps numbers....sadly.Interesting, I'm good friends with 3 naturalized American citizens originally from Syria. Came over as babies. They all still have large, extended families living in Syria. All of them, 100% support Assad. Their families support Assad. Now, that isn't representative of the entire country, obviously, but it is interesting that it does seem like the majority in Syria actually do support him. I'd bet more Syrians support Assad, than Americans support Trump
Don't you think he meant proportionally?