Assad agrees with Trump: Syrian terrorists among immigrants

drummerboy said:

I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

No one said that he's not capable of acting rationally. But the argument that Assad couldn't have done this because we deem it opposite of what we think his interests are is ridiculous. 

Assad isn't saying a chlorine depot was hit. He isn't saying that his opposition did it to make him look like the actor. He's saying it was an elaborate play staged for the world.

Saying that Assad probably did this isn't the same as saying as we should invade Syria. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Read your own posts.  The "VIPS" statement isn't the only thing you've posted.  You've posted material pointing to AQ affiliates as having sarin.  

The issue you raised was my "explanations" of what happened on April 4th, not whether Syrian rebels affiliated with Al Qaeda have the ability to produce or obtain sarin. Apples and oranges.

No, that is not a correct description of what's in the thread.  You've posted multiple long passages that you propose as alternate explanations, which you claim invalidate the "Assad gassed his own people" explanation.  You didn't flag which ones you weren't adopting (and presumably just posting because they disagreed with "Assad gassed his own people").  Without any statement on your part, it just looks like you're relying on all of the explanations.

The problem is the need to distinguish and separate "Donald Trump's stupid and useless missile strike" from "Did Assad gas his own people".  The former isn't evidence of any kind with respect to assessing the latter.

There have been some good analyses that Assad gassing his own people isn't a crazy idea.  He mercilessly bombed them, with the most prominent recent one being in Aleppo.  The Aleppo bombing didn't have a negative consequence for him, as Trump was making noises that he didn't care about trying to get rid of him.  He had even had a member of Congress come for a visit, sit with him and smile for pictures, telling him and everyone else that we should focus on other issues and actors.  Assad doesn't have the manpower, but he does have tools to terrify the populace.   Even after the gassing, he's got Russia more strongly in his corner, apparently, and his own people are more terrified of him now (which is what he probably wanted).

Finally, disregarding whatever Trump says, there are international sources (as in, not U.S.) which testify to the likelihood that it was Assad, and not another actor and certainly not staged (as Assad claims).

drummerboy said:

I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

We get manipulated by the Army pretty frequently (remember Jessica Lynch? Iraq babies being thrown from their incubators?)

I'm not necessarily saying Assad didn't do it - it just seems to me that his doing it is about as likely as him not doing it.


An investigation of the attack is in order. To pretend that one knows for certain what happened is foolish in this case.

Post edited to add - The G7 proposed an investigation, there was a resolution for that in the Security Council, and Russia vetoed it.

So the call for the investigation was shot down by Syria's patron.

I didn't say the U.S. government should investigate. How about the U.N.

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

We get manipulated by the Army pretty frequently (remember Jessica Lynch? Iraq babies being thrown from their incubators?)

I'm not necessarily saying Assad didn't do it - it just seems to me that his doing it is about as likely as him not doing it.


An investigation of the attack is in order. To pretend that one knows for certain what happened is foolish in this case.

An investigation is irreparably tainted at this point.  Suppose the U.S. government concluded that a resistance group fired a few 122 mm rockets with chemical weapon warheads.  How would our government ever admit that.

I also didn't say we should simply believe Assad. I said we should investigate. But that's unlikely to happen, apparently.

South_Mountaineer said:

The problem is the need to distinguish and sepaate "Donald Trump's stupid and useless missile strike" from "Did Assad gas his own people".  The former isn't evidence of any kind with respect to assessing the latter.

There have been some good analyses that Assad gassing his own people isn't a crazy idea.  He mercilessly bombed them, with the most prominent recent one being in Aleppo.  The Aleppo bombing didn't have a negative consequence for him, as Trump was making noises that he didn't care about trying to get rid of him.  He had even had a member of Congress come for a visit, sit with him and smile for pictures, telling him and everyone else that we should focus on other issues and actors.  Assad doesn't have the manpower, but he does have tools to terrify the populace.   Even after the gassing, he's got Russia more strongly in his corner, apparently, and his own people are more terrified of him now (which is what he probably wanted).

Finally, disregarding whatever Trump says, there are international sources (as in, not U.S.) which testify to the likelihood that it was Assad, and not another actor and certainly not staged (as Assad claims).

drummerboy said:

I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

We get manipulated by the Army pretty frequently (remember Jessica Lynch? Iraq babies being thrown from their incubators?)

I'm not necessarily saying Assad didn't do it - it just seems to me that his doing it is about as likely as him not doing it.


An investigation of the attack is in order. To pretend that one knows for certain what happened is foolish in this case.

Post edited to add - The G7 proposed an investigation, there was a resolution for that in the Security Council, and Russia vetoed it.

So the call for the investigation was shot down by Syria's patron.

There are a lot of gems in this post to be commented on later, but for now, some clarification of your over-simplified comment on the Russian veto of the UN resolution.

Former Guardian Russia/Middle East correspondent Jonathan Steele noted yesterday on Democracy Now!:

https://www.democracynow.org/2...

JONATHAN STEELE: . . . But it’s important to point out, too, that although the Russians vetoed the resolution in the U.N. Security Council last night calling for Syria to cooperate, the element of cooperation which the West wanted, the U.S., Britain and France, was that they should show their flight logbooks of all their aircraft. That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept.

But as Lavrov pointed out in his remarks with Tillerson when they were having their joint press conference, the Syrian government has written to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offering an inquiry, offering access to the airfield that was hit by the American cruise missiles, but also calling, quite legitimately, for the rebels to give access to the site where the sarin gas was used, to see whether indeed it was caused by an airstrike or caused by somebody on the ground who was doing a dirty trick to try and discredit the Syrian government.

And if you read beyond the NYT headline, you'll learn that the the US refused to accept a compromise resolution:

The United States dismissed a compromise measure that several other
countries on the council had tried to advance last week. It left out the
specific reminder to the Syrian government to turn over flight logs.
The United States and its two major Western allies, Britain and France,
insisted on that specific language.

The resolution made additional demands on the Syrian Government, but made equivalent demands on the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels who control the site of the incident.

paulsurovell said:

There are a lot of gems in this post to be commented on later, but for now, some clarification of your over-simplified comment on the Russian veto of the UN resolution.

Former Guardian Russia/Middle East correspondent Jonathan Steele noted yesterday on Democracy Now!:

https://www.democracynow.org/2...

JONATHAN STEELE: . . . But it’s important to point out, too, that although the Russians vetoed the resolution in the U.N. Security Council last night calling for Syria to cooperate, the element of cooperation which the West wanted, the U.S., Britain and France, was that they should show their flight logbooks of all their aircraft. That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept.

But as Lavrov pointed out in his remarks with Tillerson when they were having their joint press conference, the Syrian government has written to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offering an inquiry, offering access to the airfield that was hit by the American cruise missiles, but also calling, quite legitimately, for the rebels to give access to the site where the sarin gas was used, to see whether indeed it was caused by an airstrike or caused by somebody on the ground who was doing a dirty trick to try and discredit the Syrian government.

And if you read beyond the NYT headline, you'll learn that the the US refused to accept a compromise resolution:

The United States dismissed a compromise measure that several other
countries on the council had tried to advance last week. It left out the
specific reminder to the Syrian government to turn over flight logs.
The United States and its two major Western allies, Britain and France,
insisted on that specific language.

The resolution made additional demands on the Syrian Government, but made equivalent demands on the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels who control the site of the incident.

From paulsurovell's post, the point of contention seems to be the flight logs.  

The reporter quoted with approval says of turning over the flight logs, "That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept."  Obviously, there either will be a real investigation, or not.  I don't find the Syrian position to be valid, if they actually wanted an independent investigation.  Absent any statement to the contrary, it seems paulsurovell does find that to be a valid position.

I don't think I "over-simplified" by stating a fact.  Open to having it explained to me, beyond what I quoted and commented on already.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

There are a lot of gems in this post to be commented on later, but for now, some clarification of your over-simplified comment on the Russian veto of the UN resolution.

Former Guardian Russia/Middle East correspondent Jonathan Steele noted yesterday on Democracy Now!:

https://www.democracynow.org/2...

JONATHAN STEELE: . . . But it’s important to point out, too, that although the Russians vetoed the resolution in the U.N. Security Council last night calling for Syria to cooperate, the element of cooperation which the West wanted, the U.S., Britain and France, was that they should show their flight logbooks of all their aircraft. That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept.

But as Lavrov pointed out in his remarks with Tillerson when they were having their joint press conference, the Syrian government has written to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offering an inquiry, offering access to the airfield that was hit by the American cruise missiles, but also calling, quite legitimately, for the rebels to give access to the site where the sarin gas was used, to see whether indeed it was caused by an airstrike or caused by somebody on the ground who was doing a dirty trick to try and discredit the Syrian government.

And if you read beyond the NYT headline, you'll learn that the the US refused to accept a compromise resolution:

The United States dismissed a compromise measure that several other
countries on the council had tried to advance last week. It left out the
specific reminder to the Syrian government to turn over flight logs.
The United States and its two major Western allies, Britain and France,
insisted on that specific language.

The resolution made additional demands on the Syrian Government, but made equivalent demands on the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels who control the site of the incident.

From paulsurovell's post, the point of contention seems to be the flight logs.  

The reporter quoted with approval says of turning over the flight logs, "That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept."  Obviously, there either will be a real investigation, or not.  I don't find the Syrian position to be valid, if they actually wanted an independent investigation.  Absent any statement to the contrary, it seems paulsurovell does find that to be a valid position.

I don't think I "over-simplified" by stating a fact.  Open to having it explained to me, beyond what I quoted and commented on already.

Well, you did ignore the Trump administration's rejection of a compromise as well as the resolution's failure to hold the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels, who control the site, equally accountable.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

There are a lot of gems in this post to be commented on later, but for now, some clarification of your over-simplified comment on the Russian veto of the UN resolution.

Former Guardian Russia/Middle East correspondent Jonathan Steele noted yesterday on Democracy Now!:

https://www.democracynow.org/2...

JONATHAN STEELE: . . . But it’s important to point out, too, that although the Russians vetoed the resolution in the U.N. Security Council last night calling for Syria to cooperate, the element of cooperation which the West wanted, the U.S., Britain and France, was that they should show their flight logbooks of all their aircraft. That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept.

But as Lavrov pointed out in his remarks with Tillerson when they were having their joint press conference, the Syrian government has written to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offering an inquiry, offering access to the airfield that was hit by the American cruise missiles, but also calling, quite legitimately, for the rebels to give access to the site where the sarin gas was used, to see whether indeed it was caused by an airstrike or caused by somebody on the ground who was doing a dirty trick to try and discredit the Syrian government.

And if you read beyond the NYT headline, you'll learn that the the US refused to accept a compromise resolution:

The United States dismissed a compromise measure that several other
countries on the council had tried to advance last week. It left out the
specific reminder to the Syrian government to turn over flight logs.
The United States and its two major Western allies, Britain and France,
insisted on that specific language.

The resolution made additional demands on the Syrian Government, but made equivalent demands on the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels who control the site of the incident.

From paulsurovell's post, the point of contention seems to be the flight logs.  

The reporter quoted with approval says of turning over the flight logs, "That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept."  Obviously, there either will be a real investigation, or not.  I don't find the Syrian position to be valid, if they actually wanted an independent investigation.  Absent any statement to the contrary, it seems paulsurovell does find that to be a valid position.

I don't think I "over-simplified" by stating a fact.  Open to having it explained to me, beyond what I quoted and commented on already.

Well, you did ignore the Trump administration's rejection of a compromise as well as the resolution's failure to hold the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels, who control the site, equally accountable.

I didn't ignore "the Trump administration's rejection of a compromise".  I commented on it, see the highlighted language, "the point of contention seems to be the flight logs".

As for what the NY Times reported, later on in the article quoted by paulsurovell it states, "Russia drafted an alternate resolution but did not put it up for a vote."

So, there was one resolution voted on.  Russia vetoed it.  The United States dismissed an alternative which limited the relevant information which would be made available.  No resolution with that alternative was actually voted on.  I haven't seen any explanation as to why the Russian proposal to limit information was valid or defensible.

Finally, regarding paulsurovell's assertion that only the Syrian government and not other parties would be investigated under the resolution that Russia vetoed - paulsurovell provided a link to that document, and so we can read what it says, including:

"Recalling that in resolution 2118 (2013) the Council decided that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons, to other States or non-State actors and underscored that no party in Syria should use, develop produce acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer chemical weapons, ..."

And it also states:

"Recalls that in its resolutions 2118 and 2235 it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] and the United Nations including the Joint Investigation Mechanism ..."

"No party in Syria should use ... chemical weapons."  "All parties in Syria shall cooperate fully."  That covers every side in Syria, but if paulsurovell claims otherwise he can explain how he comes to that conclusion.

Post edited to add - Since I realize that was a long response, the short version is that the highlighted paragraph addressed to me, "Well, you did ignore ..." is incorrect.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

There are a lot of gems in this post to be commented on later, but for now, some clarification of your over-simplified comment on the Russian veto of the UN resolution.

Former Guardian Russia/Middle East correspondent Jonathan Steele noted yesterday on Democracy Now!:

https://www.democracynow.org/2...

JONATHAN STEELE: . . . But it’s important to point out, too, that although the Russians vetoed the resolution in the U.N. Security Council last night calling for Syria to cooperate, the element of cooperation which the West wanted, the U.S., Britain and France, was that they should show their flight logbooks of all their aircraft. That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept.

But as Lavrov pointed out in his remarks with Tillerson when they were having their joint press conference, the Syrian government has written to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offering an inquiry, offering access to the airfield that was hit by the American cruise missiles, but also calling, quite legitimately, for the rebels to give access to the site where the sarin gas was used, to see whether indeed it was caused by an airstrike or caused by somebody on the ground who was doing a dirty trick to try and discredit the Syrian government.

And if you read beyond the NYT headline, you'll learn that the the US refused to accept a compromise resolution:

The United States dismissed a compromise measure that several other
countries on the council had tried to advance last week. It left out the
specific reminder to the Syrian government to turn over flight logs.
The United States and its two major Western allies, Britain and France,
insisted on that specific language.

The resolution made additional demands on the Syrian Government, but made equivalent demands on the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels who control the site of the incident.

From paulsurovell's post, the point of contention seems to be the flight logs.  

The reporter quoted with approval says of turning over the flight logs, "That’s a huge violation or intrusion of sovereignty, which the Syrians couldn’t accept."  Obviously, there either will be a real investigation, or not.  I don't find the Syrian position to be valid, if they actually wanted an independent investigation.  Absent any statement to the contrary, it seems paulsurovell does find that to be a valid position.

I don't think I "over-simplified" by stating a fact.  Open to having it explained to me, beyond what I quoted and commented on already.

Well, you did ignore the Trump administration's rejection of a compromise as well as the resolution's failure to hold the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels, who control the site, equally accountable.

I didn't ignore "the Trump administration's rejection of a compromise".  I commented on it, see the highlighted language, "the point of contention seems to be the flight logs".

As for what the NY Times reported, later on in the article quoted by paulsurovell it states, "Russia drafted an alternate resolution but did not put it up for a vote."

So, there was one resolution voted on.  Russia vetoed it.  The United States dismissed an alternative which limited the relevant information which would be made available.  No resolution with that alternative was actually voted on.  I haven't seen any explanation as to why the Russian proposal to limit information was valid or defensible.

Finally, regarding paulsurovell's assertion that only the Syrian government and not other parties would be investigated under the resolution that Russia vetoed - paulsurovell provided a link to that document, and so we can read what it says, including:

"Recalling that in resolution 2118 (2013) the Council decided that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons, to other States or non-State actors and underscored that no party in Syria should use, develop produce acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer chemical weapons, ..."

And it also states:

"Recalls that in its resolutions 2118 and 2235 it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] and the United Nations including the Joint Investigation Mechanism ..."

"No party in Syria should use ... chemical weapons."  "All parties in Syria shall cooperate fully."  That covers every side in Syria, but if paulsurovell claims otherwise he can explain how he comes to that conclusion.

Post edited to add - Since I realize that was a long response, the short version is that the highlighted paragraph addressed to me, "Well, you did ignore ..." is incorrect.

You've shown nothing to show that Al Nusra / Al Qaeda are being held equally accountable by the resolution, which was my point:

Well, you did ignore the Trump administration's rejection of a
compromise as well as the resolution's failure to hold the Nusra / Al
Qaeda rebels, who control the site, equally accountable.

Specifically, the resolution makes specific demands on the Syrian government, but none at all on the Nusra / Al Qaeda rebels who control the site and who made the initial allegations.:

 5. Emphasises that
this includes the obligation upon the Syrian Arab
Republic to provide the JIM and FFM with the following: 

 (a) flight plans,
flight logs, and any other information on air operations, including
all flight plans or flight logs filed on April 4 2017;

 (b) names of
all individuals in command of any helicopter squadrons;

 (c) arrange meetings
requested including with generals or other officers, within no more
than five days of the date on which such meeting is requested;

 (d) immediately provide
access to relevant air bases from which the JIM or the
FFM believe attacks involving chemicals as weapons may have been
launched

The resolution obviously favored Nusra / Al Qaeda and was biased against the Syrian government.  I'm sure if you were to represent a client in real-life involved in negotiations you would reject a proposal of similar bias out of hand.