-
Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!
US to attack Syria in "unbelievably small, limited strike" if they don't give up chemical weapons
- Thread starter alexd
- Start date
praktik
TRIBE Member
A look back at Obama's weak case for bombing Syria:
The Wrong Way to Be Right
Pretty clear that all these same challenges remain for Trump...
The Wrong Way to Be Right
Pretty clear that all these same challenges remain for Trump...
praktik
TRIBE Member
Bernnie Federko
TRIBE Member
Trump is gonna Trump this up 100%
praktik
TRIBE Member
Looks like escalation is nearing:
Trump considering options for Syria retaliation, source says - CNNPolitics.com
Given Americas recent track record MISSION ACCOMPLISHED is a guarantee
Trump considering options for Syria retaliation, source says - CNNPolitics.com
Given Americas recent track record MISSION ACCOMPLISHED is a guarantee
praktik
TRIBE Member
Ya zenko was saying you need air dropped, much heavier bombs, these airfields should be repairable pretty quick given the munitions used.
Bernnie Federko
TRIBE Member
basketballjones
TRIBE Member
you are using cnn....lol. cnn is fox news left. both are comedy shows
praktik
TRIBE Member
What do you mean by "you are using CNN"?
praktik
TRIBE Member
You do realize that like, this is just straight ahead reporting of what Putin is saying??
Everyone has the same damned story, cause everyone is just repeating what the hell he said, here it is from The Blaze:
Russia says U.S. airstrikes break international law, denies Assad’s guilt
And you can find the same thing in Reuters, AP, any number of newspapers, ABC, CBS, Fox News - CNN as an outlet is entirely incidental to this piece and means absolutely nothing, and I meant nothing by its random selection as the arbitrary source of information "making the rounds" across ALL outlets.
your comments are fucking weird sometimes man
Everyone has the same damned story, cause everyone is just repeating what the hell he said, here it is from The Blaze:
Russia says U.S. airstrikes break international law, denies Assad’s guilt
And you can find the same thing in Reuters, AP, any number of newspapers, ABC, CBS, Fox News - CNN as an outlet is entirely incidental to this piece and means absolutely nothing, and I meant nothing by its random selection as the arbitrary source of information "making the rounds" across ALL outlets.
your comments are fucking weird sometimes man
praktik
TRIBE Member
Pretty much the same shit. They only have one article on the Syria strikes (no need to give these readers TOO MUCH info, they wouldnt know what to do with it), but inside it:
U.S. launches surprise missile strike on Syria
The Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin believes the U.S. strike is an “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law.” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in Friday’s statement carried by Russian news agencies that Putin believes the U.S. launched the strikes under a “far-fetched pretext.”
“Washington’s move deals a significant blow to the Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in a deplorable shape,” Peskov said. He added that the attack creates a “serious obstacle” for creating an international coalition against terrorism.
So ya, pretty much everyone has this story. Why? Because there are public comments from Russia now. All outlets of all stripes report on it. You will get substantially the same story on these comments across ALL outlets, no matter their politics or ideology.“Washington’s move deals a significant blow to the Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in a deplorable shape,” Peskov said. He added that the attack creates a “serious obstacle” for creating an international coalition against terrorism.
praktik
TRIBE Member
The Consequences of Last Night’s Attack
Posted on April 7, 2017, 7:40 AM Daniel Larison
The Trump administration reportedly warned Russia of last night’s attack in advance, but the attack has still resulted in predictable anger from Moscow:
The most immediate practical consequence of the attack is the end of Russia’s cooperation in deconflicting Syrian airspace. That is potentially hazardous for both Russian and American pilots, and may further complicate the ongoing anti-ISIS bombing campaign. It increases the chances that there will be more near-misses and possibly even accidental collisions. American pilots flying over Syria today are less safe today because Trump wanted to show the world how “tough” he is. Even if last night’s strikes were a one-time thing, that is already a high price to pay for the sake of sending a message.
The Kremlin’s spokesman said that the attack “deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in a deplorable shape.” It is not surprising that Russia isn’t pleased that our government has just attacked one of its clients, and it should put an end to the silly idea that Russia would have become more cooperative and less confrontational if Obama had ordered an attack in 2013. On the contrary, we should assume that tensions with Moscow over Syria and other disputed issues will increase in the weeks and months to come. The Trump administration may find that this attack contributes to many more headaches in the future on issues when they cannot gain Russia’s cooperation. Meanwhile, Russia has also announced that it will help the Syrian government improve its air defenses, so if the administration is going to be launching more attacks they may be even less effective.
Far from showing “strength” or “resolve” or whatever it is Trump thinks launching missiles shows, the president has shown to everyone in Washington that he is very easily pushed into taking military action by events and political pressure. His abrupt volte-face on Syria certainly confirms his phoniness, as Rod Dreher and Robert Merry have mentioned, but more than that it reinforces the impression that he is extremely pliable and easy to manipulate. Trump craves approval, and unfortunately he has just discovered that the quickest way to gain it from many denizens of Washington is to bomb something, no matter how ineffectual or dangerous that action may be. It is inevitable that Syria hawks will now be greatly encouraged to press for a larger intervention, and Trump has demonstrated that he will cave in to demands for “action” very quickly.
Last night’s attack probably won’t have have the desired effect on Syrian regime behavior, but it was significant in that Trump ordered it without Congressional authorization and without authorization from the U.N. Obama launched an illegal war in Libya in 2011 as far as U.S. law was concerned, but could at least claim to be acting on the basis of a Security Council resolution. Bush launched an invasion of Iraq that was illegal under international law, but had at least gone through the motions of securing Congressional authorization. Trump simply ordered an attack on a foreign government that posed no threat to the U.S. without explaining his reasons beforehand and without any debate or input from our elected representatives. Even if it doesn’t lead to a larger war, the fact remains that Trump had no authority to do what he did. Because most members of Congress don’t care about their responsibilities or constitutional limits on the power of the executive, he will very likely get away with it, and unfortunately that will help Trump or some future president to launch the next war with greater ease.
Posted on April 7, 2017, 7:40 AM Daniel Larison
The Trump administration reportedly warned Russia of last night’s attack in advance, but the attack has still resulted in predictable anger from Moscow:
World leaders rallied around the United States after it launched a missile strike early Friday on a Syrian air base in response to this week’s chemical attack, while Russia condemned the move as “aggression” and suspended crucial coordination with Washington in Syria’s congested skies [bold mine-DL].
The most immediate practical consequence of the attack is the end of Russia’s cooperation in deconflicting Syrian airspace. That is potentially hazardous for both Russian and American pilots, and may further complicate the ongoing anti-ISIS bombing campaign. It increases the chances that there will be more near-misses and possibly even accidental collisions. American pilots flying over Syria today are less safe today because Trump wanted to show the world how “tough” he is. Even if last night’s strikes were a one-time thing, that is already a high price to pay for the sake of sending a message.
The Kremlin’s spokesman said that the attack “deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in a deplorable shape.” It is not surprising that Russia isn’t pleased that our government has just attacked one of its clients, and it should put an end to the silly idea that Russia would have become more cooperative and less confrontational if Obama had ordered an attack in 2013. On the contrary, we should assume that tensions with Moscow over Syria and other disputed issues will increase in the weeks and months to come. The Trump administration may find that this attack contributes to many more headaches in the future on issues when they cannot gain Russia’s cooperation. Meanwhile, Russia has also announced that it will help the Syrian government improve its air defenses, so if the administration is going to be launching more attacks they may be even less effective.
Far from showing “strength” or “resolve” or whatever it is Trump thinks launching missiles shows, the president has shown to everyone in Washington that he is very easily pushed into taking military action by events and political pressure. His abrupt volte-face on Syria certainly confirms his phoniness, as Rod Dreher and Robert Merry have mentioned, but more than that it reinforces the impression that he is extremely pliable and easy to manipulate. Trump craves approval, and unfortunately he has just discovered that the quickest way to gain it from many denizens of Washington is to bomb something, no matter how ineffectual or dangerous that action may be. It is inevitable that Syria hawks will now be greatly encouraged to press for a larger intervention, and Trump has demonstrated that he will cave in to demands for “action” very quickly.
Last night’s attack probably won’t have have the desired effect on Syrian regime behavior, but it was significant in that Trump ordered it without Congressional authorization and without authorization from the U.N. Obama launched an illegal war in Libya in 2011 as far as U.S. law was concerned, but could at least claim to be acting on the basis of a Security Council resolution. Bush launched an invasion of Iraq that was illegal under international law, but had at least gone through the motions of securing Congressional authorization. Trump simply ordered an attack on a foreign government that posed no threat to the U.S. without explaining his reasons beforehand and without any debate or input from our elected representatives. Even if it doesn’t lead to a larger war, the fact remains that Trump had no authority to do what he did. Because most members of Congress don’t care about their responsibilities or constitutional limits on the power of the executive, he will very likely get away with it, and unfortunately that will help Trump or some future president to launch the next war with greater ease.
Bernnie Federko
TRIBE Member
Who cares, let's roll! War America! USA! USA! USA!
praktik
TRIBE Member
A Doctor in Syria
Mohamad Katoub
AP Photo via AP video
Volunteers practicing treating casualties of a chemical weapons attack, Aleppo, Syria, September 18, 2013
While I was submitting a report for the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS) on how our hospitals in Syria handled the April 4 chemical weapons attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun, I was struck by how familiar the aftermath is: journalists asking the same questions, pictures of the children killed, mothers looking for their kids among the unidentified bodies, Western leaders threatening retaliation, and the international media make a huge noise but without any effective action from the international community. All of this came to my mind.
Strikes by Donald Trump on military bases in Syria are no more effective than the redlines drawn by Barack Obama. UN mechanisms are dead and inactive. UNSC resolution 2118, passed in September 2013, declared that under chapter 7 of the UN charter, punitive measures would be imposed on the Syrian government in the event of further use of chemical weapons. Since then, hundreds of chemical strikes have occurred in Syria, killing at least 260 people, and the UN has done nothing. I am still answering the same questions from the same journalists.
Witnessing this week’s attack, I was reminded of some thoughts I wrote down last summer, for the anniversary of the August 21, 2013 chemical attack:
August 19, 2016
“Could you tell us a story still fixed in your memory from the night of the chemical attack? A story of a casualty or a victim that caught your attention more than the others?” asked the journalist.
Every year, on this date, journalists come with the same questions about the chemical attack that occurred in eastern Ghouta, in the Damascus countryside. I have given hundreds of interviews about it.
Journalists want a human story—far beyond numbers and statistics—in order to attract readers. I was always asked questions like: “Is the reaction to chemical attacks different from the reaction to conventional weapons?” Here I explain the special challenges of treating victims of chemical attacks, which requires a well-ventilated building, unlike the places where we work, which are almost all underground to avoid the systematic aerial attacks of the Syrian regime on health facilities. There is a risk of inhaling chemical gases that have been absorbed by the clothes and bodies of the victims. Here a journalist interrupts me to ask: “Is death by chemical attack different from death by other weapons?”
I lose my temper completely. “Of course there is a difference. Mr. Journalist, let me show you a victim of a chemical attack and a victim of barrel bomb. From them you will easily be able to tell the difference. But before that you should ask God to enable you to contact the dead, who can explain to you the difference better than I can.”
Journalists avoid talking about statistics. Cold numbers usually bore readers and make them want to stop reading, so the journalist asks the following question: “Would you please tell us the details of that night? What were you doing when you received the alarm?”
I don’t like to talk about it, though. The attack took place in the early hours of August 21, coinciding with the birthday of my wife, which is on August 20. We were talking on Skype; she was ten kilometers away from me, in Damascus, while I was stuck in Eastern Ghouta, which had been under continuous siege by the regime. I hadn’t seen her for months. That is, we were a family of Skype addicts. It was painful for me to recall that night, so I avoided details. I said: “I was talking by Skype”—here the smart journalist interrupts me, saying, “But as far as I know there are no communications with Ghouta?”—I replied, “We were using satellite net,” and I lost my train of thought.
Today, on the third anniversary, i.e. the fourth time I have retold the story of the chemical attack, you can’t take me back to that night again. Ever since 2013, I have missed celebrating my wife’s birthday because I’ve been busy talking about the massacre, which Bashir al-Assad committed the same night.
We go on with the interview. The journalist tries to highlight the size of the massacre: “How many beds are there in the emergency unit in your city? And how many casualties did you receive that night ?” Again I feel agitated: “We assigned two of our team to count the casualties. We asked them to do nothing but count the dead and the wounded and to be exact in counting, because we need an exact number to give to the press.”
The smart journalist doesn’t realize that I am kidding. He opens his eyes wide and asks: “If you asked two of the medical team to do this documentation, how many total were on the medical team in your city?”
The faces of all my colleagues, faces of all the people of my city, flashed through my memory. They all became members of the medical team, helping us, offering their vehicles and services. Journalists believe that at such moments we can set aside two of these people just to provide news organizations with the correct number of victims.
Here I answered: “The local council estimates that the population of Eastern Ghouta is more than 500,000 people.” The journalist interrupts me: “But I am asking about the number of people on the medical team.” I answer: “I don’t know, all of them were on the medical team.”
I believe journalists are confused about what attracts the reader more, numbers of casualties or a human story. When there is a humanitarian issue the subject is no longer a personal one. Personal stories do not end, if you think from a humanitarian view point. You will see in every victim a father, a brother or a sister. Deaths of relatives and friends are painful any time, regardless of the reasons for their deaths, because we know the personal story.
Do you think I can tell you the stories of the more than 1,500 people who were killed, and the 10,000 who were wounded, by chemical weapons over the past three years? These numbers are of great importance because they represent human beings like us.
The journalist asked intelligently: “Would it have been possible to save more human lives if Ghouta had not been besieged?” Or “If you had had the necessary equipment and services would you have had better success in treating the victims? Tell me how you can work without electricity and communications.”
I already had the answer. These questions had been asked several times by other journalists with good intentions. They had always tried to give their readers an idea about how things are in Ghouta. I used to tell them that every medical team is in a different situation. Even the best-equipped teams will say: “If we had such and such, we would have saved more lives.” I believe even the medical teams in New York said the same after 9/11.
The question is a painful one; but only doctors will feel its true potency. Could I have saved one more life if I hadn’t been talking on Skype with my lovely wife Dima at that moment? Did that delay my attention? She hates her birthday because it always reminds us of the massacre. Would it have been possible to save more lives in the difficult conditions we face in Ghouta if we had been more alert?
I wish journalists would stop asking such questions because the world, which didn’t care about what happened then, will not care about what will happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Those who are really concerned about what is happening in Syria already know all the necessary details. So there is no need to embarrass them and to remind them of Ghouta or the air raids on hospitals.
I wish that those who are not concerned about Syria—those who believe that Obama achieved victory by declaring his red lines on chemical weapons, and by the 2013 UNSC resolution calling for the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons—will be alarmed when I tell them about 2015. In 2015 there were more chemical attacks in Syria than ever.
I hope politicians and international officials will be concerned to learn that 77 percent of the chemical attacks took place after the UNSC resolution was issued on December 13, 2013. A full third of these attacks occurred after UN Security Council resolution 2209 of March 6, 2015, which criminalized the use of chlorine as a poisonous gas.
Those who doubt these facts might claim that the 161 chemical strikes that have been documented by the Syrian-American Medical Society are exaggerated. I wish they would review our methods for gathering information and investigating these attacks. They might respond differently if they knew that out of a total of about three hundred strikes in Syria since 2013, most of them have taken place in areas under the control of the opposition factions. They were systematically implemented by the regime forces. The number 161 is the number of strikes whose documentation was deemed to meet UN standards of investigation. Those people won’t care for personal humanitarian stories.
“What happened on the day after the massacre?” the journalist continues. There is a span of several hours that I can’t remember. It seems that my mind has tried not to remember those twelve hours. It is very painful to remember that day. So please stop asking me about it.
On August 7, 2015, a “Joint Investigation Mechanism” was formed by the UN Security Council to determine responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in nine strikes in Syria. I don’t know how these cases were chosen, but I know that our doctors in Aleppo had treated three dead and dozens of wounded just a few days before, and the international community is still postponing, for political reasons, holding the perpetrators to account. The Ghouta massacre was not among the nine attacks I mentioned above, because the committee in charge of the investigation had dropped it under the pretext that the weapons used in it had been destroyed. They forgot that the perpetrator still had other weapons in his bag.
Returning to numbers, I can tell you that there are six million Syrian refugees who have fled the country, more than 500,000 dead, more than 1.5 million wounded, and more than 12 million Syrians who need humanitarian aid—half of them have lost their homes.
The question that nobody can answer is, Until when? Until when I will keep celebrating chemical birthdays with my wife?
A real change means accountability. A real change means seeing perpetrators in jail, and stopping this killing machine. This is what the leaders of the world should do, regardless of the bureaucracy of the UNSC. Several mechanisms have been created to investigate war crimes and human rights violations in Syria, dozens of reports have been written, but there has been no tribunal. American strikes will not do this. Since there have now been 180 chemical attacks in Syria and counting, you can imagine how many Syrians have chemical birthdays.
April 7, 2017, 3:47 pm
Mohamad Katoub
AP Photo via AP video
Volunteers practicing treating casualties of a chemical weapons attack, Aleppo, Syria, September 18, 2013
While I was submitting a report for the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS) on how our hospitals in Syria handled the April 4 chemical weapons attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun, I was struck by how familiar the aftermath is: journalists asking the same questions, pictures of the children killed, mothers looking for their kids among the unidentified bodies, Western leaders threatening retaliation, and the international media make a huge noise but without any effective action from the international community. All of this came to my mind.
Strikes by Donald Trump on military bases in Syria are no more effective than the redlines drawn by Barack Obama. UN mechanisms are dead and inactive. UNSC resolution 2118, passed in September 2013, declared that under chapter 7 of the UN charter, punitive measures would be imposed on the Syrian government in the event of further use of chemical weapons. Since then, hundreds of chemical strikes have occurred in Syria, killing at least 260 people, and the UN has done nothing. I am still answering the same questions from the same journalists.
Witnessing this week’s attack, I was reminded of some thoughts I wrote down last summer, for the anniversary of the August 21, 2013 chemical attack:
August 19, 2016
“Could you tell us a story still fixed in your memory from the night of the chemical attack? A story of a casualty or a victim that caught your attention more than the others?” asked the journalist.
Every year, on this date, journalists come with the same questions about the chemical attack that occurred in eastern Ghouta, in the Damascus countryside. I have given hundreds of interviews about it.
Journalists want a human story—far beyond numbers and statistics—in order to attract readers. I was always asked questions like: “Is the reaction to chemical attacks different from the reaction to conventional weapons?” Here I explain the special challenges of treating victims of chemical attacks, which requires a well-ventilated building, unlike the places where we work, which are almost all underground to avoid the systematic aerial attacks of the Syrian regime on health facilities. There is a risk of inhaling chemical gases that have been absorbed by the clothes and bodies of the victims. Here a journalist interrupts me to ask: “Is death by chemical attack different from death by other weapons?”
I lose my temper completely. “Of course there is a difference. Mr. Journalist, let me show you a victim of a chemical attack and a victim of barrel bomb. From them you will easily be able to tell the difference. But before that you should ask God to enable you to contact the dead, who can explain to you the difference better than I can.”
Journalists avoid talking about statistics. Cold numbers usually bore readers and make them want to stop reading, so the journalist asks the following question: “Would you please tell us the details of that night? What were you doing when you received the alarm?”
I don’t like to talk about it, though. The attack took place in the early hours of August 21, coinciding with the birthday of my wife, which is on August 20. We were talking on Skype; she was ten kilometers away from me, in Damascus, while I was stuck in Eastern Ghouta, which had been under continuous siege by the regime. I hadn’t seen her for months. That is, we were a family of Skype addicts. It was painful for me to recall that night, so I avoided details. I said: “I was talking by Skype”—here the smart journalist interrupts me, saying, “But as far as I know there are no communications with Ghouta?”—I replied, “We were using satellite net,” and I lost my train of thought.
Today, on the third anniversary, i.e. the fourth time I have retold the story of the chemical attack, you can’t take me back to that night again. Ever since 2013, I have missed celebrating my wife’s birthday because I’ve been busy talking about the massacre, which Bashir al-Assad committed the same night.
We go on with the interview. The journalist tries to highlight the size of the massacre: “How many beds are there in the emergency unit in your city? And how many casualties did you receive that night ?” Again I feel agitated: “We assigned two of our team to count the casualties. We asked them to do nothing but count the dead and the wounded and to be exact in counting, because we need an exact number to give to the press.”
The smart journalist doesn’t realize that I am kidding. He opens his eyes wide and asks: “If you asked two of the medical team to do this documentation, how many total were on the medical team in your city?”
The faces of all my colleagues, faces of all the people of my city, flashed through my memory. They all became members of the medical team, helping us, offering their vehicles and services. Journalists believe that at such moments we can set aside two of these people just to provide news organizations with the correct number of victims.
Here I answered: “The local council estimates that the population of Eastern Ghouta is more than 500,000 people.” The journalist interrupts me: “But I am asking about the number of people on the medical team.” I answer: “I don’t know, all of them were on the medical team.”
I believe journalists are confused about what attracts the reader more, numbers of casualties or a human story. When there is a humanitarian issue the subject is no longer a personal one. Personal stories do not end, if you think from a humanitarian view point. You will see in every victim a father, a brother or a sister. Deaths of relatives and friends are painful any time, regardless of the reasons for their deaths, because we know the personal story.
Do you think I can tell you the stories of the more than 1,500 people who were killed, and the 10,000 who were wounded, by chemical weapons over the past three years? These numbers are of great importance because they represent human beings like us.
The journalist asked intelligently: “Would it have been possible to save more human lives if Ghouta had not been besieged?” Or “If you had had the necessary equipment and services would you have had better success in treating the victims? Tell me how you can work without electricity and communications.”
I already had the answer. These questions had been asked several times by other journalists with good intentions. They had always tried to give their readers an idea about how things are in Ghouta. I used to tell them that every medical team is in a different situation. Even the best-equipped teams will say: “If we had such and such, we would have saved more lives.” I believe even the medical teams in New York said the same after 9/11.
The question is a painful one; but only doctors will feel its true potency. Could I have saved one more life if I hadn’t been talking on Skype with my lovely wife Dima at that moment? Did that delay my attention? She hates her birthday because it always reminds us of the massacre. Would it have been possible to save more lives in the difficult conditions we face in Ghouta if we had been more alert?
I wish journalists would stop asking such questions because the world, which didn’t care about what happened then, will not care about what will happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Those who are really concerned about what is happening in Syria already know all the necessary details. So there is no need to embarrass them and to remind them of Ghouta or the air raids on hospitals.
I wish that those who are not concerned about Syria—those who believe that Obama achieved victory by declaring his red lines on chemical weapons, and by the 2013 UNSC resolution calling for the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons—will be alarmed when I tell them about 2015. In 2015 there were more chemical attacks in Syria than ever.
I hope politicians and international officials will be concerned to learn that 77 percent of the chemical attacks took place after the UNSC resolution was issued on December 13, 2013. A full third of these attacks occurred after UN Security Council resolution 2209 of March 6, 2015, which criminalized the use of chlorine as a poisonous gas.
Those who doubt these facts might claim that the 161 chemical strikes that have been documented by the Syrian-American Medical Society are exaggerated. I wish they would review our methods for gathering information and investigating these attacks. They might respond differently if they knew that out of a total of about three hundred strikes in Syria since 2013, most of them have taken place in areas under the control of the opposition factions. They were systematically implemented by the regime forces. The number 161 is the number of strikes whose documentation was deemed to meet UN standards of investigation. Those people won’t care for personal humanitarian stories.
“What happened on the day after the massacre?” the journalist continues. There is a span of several hours that I can’t remember. It seems that my mind has tried not to remember those twelve hours. It is very painful to remember that day. So please stop asking me about it.
On August 7, 2015, a “Joint Investigation Mechanism” was formed by the UN Security Council to determine responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in nine strikes in Syria. I don’t know how these cases were chosen, but I know that our doctors in Aleppo had treated three dead and dozens of wounded just a few days before, and the international community is still postponing, for political reasons, holding the perpetrators to account. The Ghouta massacre was not among the nine attacks I mentioned above, because the committee in charge of the investigation had dropped it under the pretext that the weapons used in it had been destroyed. They forgot that the perpetrator still had other weapons in his bag.
Returning to numbers, I can tell you that there are six million Syrian refugees who have fled the country, more than 500,000 dead, more than 1.5 million wounded, and more than 12 million Syrians who need humanitarian aid—half of them have lost their homes.
The question that nobody can answer is, Until when? Until when I will keep celebrating chemical birthdays with my wife?
A real change means accountability. A real change means seeing perpetrators in jail, and stopping this killing machine. This is what the leaders of the world should do, regardless of the bureaucracy of the UNSC. Several mechanisms have been created to investigate war crimes and human rights violations in Syria, dozens of reports have been written, but there has been no tribunal. American strikes will not do this. Since there have now been 180 chemical attacks in Syria and counting, you can imagine how many Syrians have chemical birthdays.
April 7, 2017, 3:47 pm
praktik
TRIBE Member
Trump’s Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Is Just Getting Started
"I have studied limited U.S. military operations such as Thursday evening’s cruise missile strikes for almost 20 years. I have found that the majority of the time, they either fully or partially achieve their military objectives of destroying things and killing people. However, they rarely achieve their political objectives of deterring a foreign government or armed group from doing something, or compelling them from stopping an ongoing activity. It is unlikely that 59 cruise missiles will succeed in deterring or compelling Damascus, Moscow, Tehran, or Pyongyang from doing anything they planned to do already. When it is clear that this attempt at deterrence has failed, the question is: Then what?
The time between the Syrian chemical attack and Trump response is the shortest period for debate or deliberation compared with recent U.S. retaliatory attacks. Consider that the 1986 airstrikes on Libya were 10 days after a Berlin nightclub bombing, the 1993 cruise missile attacks against the Iraqi intelligence headquarters occurred 73 days after an alleged Iraqi government plot to assassinate President George H.W. Bush while he was traveling to Kuwait, and the 1998 cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan were conducted 13 days after East African embassy bombings. There is simply no way that the massively understaffed U.S. national security and foreign-policy apparatus has adequately thought through what’s next, nor will be able to apply the attacks to a renewed and synchronized strategy for Syria. This unprecedentedly fast instance of mission creep should worry the American people and Congress (about to enjoy 17 days of well-deserved vacation) more than anything else."
"I have studied limited U.S. military operations such as Thursday evening’s cruise missile strikes for almost 20 years. I have found that the majority of the time, they either fully or partially achieve their military objectives of destroying things and killing people. However, they rarely achieve their political objectives of deterring a foreign government or armed group from doing something, or compelling them from stopping an ongoing activity. It is unlikely that 59 cruise missiles will succeed in deterring or compelling Damascus, Moscow, Tehran, or Pyongyang from doing anything they planned to do already. When it is clear that this attempt at deterrence has failed, the question is: Then what?
The time between the Syrian chemical attack and Trump response is the shortest period for debate or deliberation compared with recent U.S. retaliatory attacks. Consider that the 1986 airstrikes on Libya were 10 days after a Berlin nightclub bombing, the 1993 cruise missile attacks against the Iraqi intelligence headquarters occurred 73 days after an alleged Iraqi government plot to assassinate President George H.W. Bush while he was traveling to Kuwait, and the 1998 cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan were conducted 13 days after East African embassy bombings. There is simply no way that the massively understaffed U.S. national security and foreign-policy apparatus has adequately thought through what’s next, nor will be able to apply the attacks to a renewed and synchronized strategy for Syria. This unprecedentedly fast instance of mission creep should worry the American people and Congress (about to enjoy 17 days of well-deserved vacation) more than anything else."
Lojack
TRIBE Member
That is a very Western view. From my observations, traditions in the Middle East typically see the perpetrators killed in retaliation rather than brought to some sort of judicial forum. Even in those situations, it can appear.. I'm thinking the recorded actions of the executioners of Saddam Hussein as one clear example.
praktik
TRIBE Member
Wasn't a westerner speaking, so probably off the mark with this
basketballjones
TRIBE Member
Russia vetoes UN resolution to condemn Syria chemical attack: 'Russia now has a lot to prove'
when are they going to hold a vote to condemn the un for being a useless expensive cesspool of corruption and lies
when are they going to hold a vote to condemn the un for being a useless expensive cesspool of corruption and lies