General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere's what I don't understand about the attempts to absolve Assad.
Those who believe the rebels are capable of launching such a massive attack must also know that the only way to prevent another attack would be to take out the rebels. There would be no other way to hold a group of terrorist accountable.
They are capable of launching another such attack.
So basically, those trying to absolve Assad don't seem to be really interested in holding anyone accountable.
If they are wrong and Assad launches another attack, what will they say?
polichick
(37,152 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)There are people trying to absolve Assad. The piece pushing their claim has been posted three times to my knowledge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617472
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023614397
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023613003
I responded in all three.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)The point is not to "absolve Assad" because folks are Assad-lovers. The point is to examine if the US intelligence community is either
1.) wrong or
2.) engaged in some kind of deception to start a war
Most of the DU community doesn't care who is "guilty" of the chemical attack, and most think we should stay out of the mess in the middle east (as I judge the posts and replies).
I've witnessed unnecessary wars in Korea Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, and maybe now in Syria. That doesn't include a bunch of smaller actions.
The US simply cannot continue to get involved in every dispute. Personally, I think every penny of the defense budget would be better spent on health, education, and welfare.
"The point is not to "absolve Assad" because folks are Assad-lovers..."
...no such assertion, and I know they are claiming the intelligence is wrong, as I responded in those threads:
They're trying to prove the rebels did it, but are claiming the intelligence the U.S. is presenting against Assad is unreliable?
The nonsense about being "down this road before with President George W. Bush" is beyond absurd.
This is basically another Assad didn't do it argument. The intelligence isn't fake. The attack isn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Even they acknowledge the attack, but are making a convoluted case that the rebels did it. The scale and location of the attacks make the case against the rebels more implausible, but those trying to absolve Assad seem to want to portray their claims as irrefutable.
There is also evidence from other countries implicating Assad.
The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778
By Michael Pearson. Greg Botelho and Holly Yan, CNN
(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.
Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.
The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.
The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.
- more -
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)ProSense has taken up the "rebels did it" argument, but I've also seen "military did it without Assad's knowledge" arguments here at DU.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and now a mistake was made in the formula...
and even if Assad didn't personally give the command...he is still responsible for his military action....
dkf
(37,305 posts)What don't you get about the fact that we find war DISGUSTING and want no part of it.
We can't stop a civil war, not without hundreds of thousands of troops policing the damned place. That still means our dead men and women.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Are you advocating looking the other way?
dkf
(37,305 posts)It's not like we are going to SAVE them.
The hypocrisy...it reeks.
Put Assad up at the ICC or whatever international court if they have REAL evidence.
"Dead is dead. It's not like we are going to SAVE them."
...evidently to some, saving people is not worth it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023599609#post20
It's a very RW argument. Ron Paul used it against providing health care.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)OMG! Ron Paul!!!!
RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Keep digging, spanky...
RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Or do you agree with that right bastard Ron Paul? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3605111
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Too funny.
let me repeat it for you:
Yes, "Dead is dead. It's not like we are going to SAVE them."
...evidently to some, saving people is not worth it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023599609#post20
It's a very RW argument.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But instead of Hitler, it's Ron/Rand Paul.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)"Absolve Assad?" Seriously? Pointing out that much of what is being presented as "evidence" isn't really evidence, raising an alternative possible explanation, and ultimately saying we don't know for sure does not 'absolve' anybody of anything.
But I shouldn't be surprised at the outlandish and dishonest framing coming from you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)There are people trying to absolve Assad. The piece pushing their claim has been posted three times to my knowledge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617472
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023614397
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023613003
I responded in all three.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . where they believe the evidence points, and where it does not.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Germany has evidence and has, to date, not supported a strike without UN backing.
By Matthias Gebauer
German intelligence agrees with other Western agencies that the Assad regime was behind the Aug. 21 poison gas attack in Syria. One important clue was provided by a telephone conversation intercepted by German agents.
Germany has said in no uncertain terms that it will not participate in a strike on Syria without the backing of the United Nations Security Council. But the country's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), agrees with the US position which holds Syrian President Bashar Assad responsible for the poison gas attacks near Damascus on Aug. 21. In a secret briefing to select lawmakers on Monday, BND head Gerhard Schindler said that while there is still no incontestable proof, analysis of the evidence at hand has led his intelligence service to believe that Assad's regime is to blame.
In the briefing, Schindler said that only the Assad regime is in possession of binary chemical weapons such as sarin. The BND believes that regime experts would be the only ones capable of manufacturing such weapons and deploying them with small missiles. The BND believes that such weapons had been used several times prior to the attack on Aug. 21, which is believed to have killed more than 1,400 people. Schindler said in the earlier attacks, however, the poison gas mixture was diluted, explaining the much lower death tolls in those assaults.
During his 30-minute presentation, Schindler offered up scenarios to explain why the Assad regime resorted to chemical weapons use, including, he said, the possibility that Assad sees himself involved in a crucial battle for Damascus. The city is besieged by rebel groups, with particular pressure coming from the east. Schindler believes it is possible that the regime ordered the use of poison gas as a way of intimidating the rebels. It could also be the case that errors were made in mixing the gas and it was much more potent than anticipated, he said.
<...>
Schindler also presented an additional clue, one that has not thus far been made public. He said that the BND listened in on a conversation between a high-ranking member of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which supports Assad and provides his regime with military assistance, and the Iranian Embassy. The Hezbollah functionary, Schindler reported, seems to have admitted that poison gas was used. He said that Assad lost his nerves and made a big mistake by ordering the chemical weapons attack.
- more -
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)"Germany has evidence"
Read your own text. "there is still no incontestable proof", "The BND believes that regime experts would be the only ones capable of manufacturing", " Schindler offered up scenarios to explain why the Assad regime resorted to chemical weapons use"...
No evidence at all...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)David Krout
(423 posts)Shocker!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Thanks. Explains it all
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)A=B therefore C?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Never.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)ocpagu
(1,954 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)The one you responded to has never been good with either.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Another, lame "oh snap" line up.
Silliness.
Logical
(22,457 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Or would the attack be on another nation or established ally? Firing on Turkey for example is NATO, and we have treaty obligations.
It isn't just that he used the Chemical Weapons, that isn't enough. The problems are numerous beyond it. Who are we helping? Terrorists and radical organizations that are going to decimate the thin rights that women have in Syria if they win. If the MB and AQ seized the weapons, and used them after all, a possibility you must admit, then we are demanding that we bomb the innocent in this particular crime while helping those who are guilty.
So who do we help? Assad who is without a doubt a brutal dictator? Or MB and AQ who are just as brutal, as evidenced by videos of their atrocities. Our shortsightedness won't win us any points with Assad, but there is no way to get MB and AQ to act rationally, they believe they are blessed by God and empowered to do whatever they want because God wills them to. Hardly a good choice to put in charge of a Country, as Egypt learned to their sorrow.
We can do no good in our involvement, and we can do much harm to the Syrians by getting involved. If the CW's really bother you that much, why not support taking all the evidence we have that CW's were used, including the pending UN Report, to the UN and instead of demanding authority to bomb the crap out of someone, push for Inspectors and UN forces to have authority to sieze the weapons for safe disposal? Why not ask the Russians for Sanctions until the CW's are removed, and then leave the war crimes to the Hague where it belongs?
It is the image of us being the self appointed judge, jury, and executioner that is turning the world against us, and if we succeed in isolating ourselves that way, we suffer for decades, and then we'll be voting down resolutions seeking to sanction us in the UN.
leftstreet
(36,097 posts)I'm not sure it's about 'absolving' anyone, so much as not wanting to get involved
Which makes your observation that people 'don't seem to be really interested in holding anyone accountable' true - it's just not coming from one 'side' of the debate. If proof emerges Santa Claus lobbed chem weapons people will say 'then take him to the Hague'
Rebels, Assad, Moderate Opposition-ists, doesn't matter - no one wants to get involved
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The whole "Assad didn't do it" left is an embarrassment.
And the whole pro-war Obama fan club movement is also an embarrassment... and an embarrassment aligned with power, which is doubly awful.
Sad stuff.
cali
(114,904 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I don't.
treestar
(82,383 posts)nothing can be done, everyone is wrong
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The group "People who think regime forces did launch a very large nerve gas attack, but do not favor the response to that the President seeks" is a very large group.
That group includes a likely majority of Congress, for instance.
It includes most of Europe.
It is a widespread view.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's requiring proof. Like the whole world needed to see for Iraq, because it's being used as the reason to escalate what began as a civil war into something far worse, for the people in Syria and beyond.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ocpagu
(1,954 posts)He doesn't want an intervention. Why would he invite US with 'another' attack. He would have to be really stupid, wouldn't he? He has absolutely NOTHING to gain out of it.
If there's another attack, I'll be equally skeptical regarding US hysterical claims of "HE DID IT".
Oh... you haven't proved he used it the first time yet...
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)If they can convince themselves that Assad isn't responsible, then they don't have to feel guilty for not striking his regime.
However, the uncomfortable truth is that they won't support action even if Assad is found to be at fault. In truth, they care more about staying out of Syria than they do chemical weapons.
Just wait, the next argument will be that the UN report is flawed, biased, etc. Admitting that Assad is at fault will force them to admit they're willing to allow people to be gassed and do nothing about it.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)1 - It hasn't been established who's the responsible for the attack. That's a fact. Period.
2 - Even if the UN report considers Assad as the responsible for it, I would not feel any kind of guilty or regret my decision. Why? Because I am 100% sure that not a single missile or bomb would make it any better for the victims in Syria. Quite the contrary actually. So... whether it was or not Assad, the ones opposing this attempt of a war crime are right. Do you understand it now?
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Pres.Obama
VP JOE BIDEN
SOS KERRY
MIN LEADER NANCY PELOSI
( FUTURE PRES.) HILARY CLINTON
CONG.DEBBIE-WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
HOWARD DEAN
SEN DIANE FEINSTEIN
SEN. CARDEN
SEN MENENDEZ ( NJ)
SEN COONS
SEN. BOXER
SEN DICK DURBIN
SEN Jeanne Shaheen
SEN Tim Kaine
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Better luck next time. n/t
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Seriously.
There are no good solutions here, only shitty ones. I happen to lean towards the other shitty solution, but I don't feel good about it.
I suspect you'll have to answer to your conscience if/when Assad gasses again, just like I will have to answer to mine if we do attack and the whole region explodes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Every single issue surrounding this is a dodge. They don't want to come out and say they are fine with the use of chemical weapons. They know that would sound wrong. So they pound the table with side issues.
Cha
(296,726 posts)with sarah palin, let Allah sort it out". You know, gobblygook like that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3617389
baldguy
(36,649 posts)DU has become a full-blown anti-Obama hate site. RW nutcase libertarians who live in a fantasy world are welcome & encouraged to participate. Rational progressive Democrats who realize we need to live in the real world are attacked & ostracized.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)I agree
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Only it's sad to see "the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet" being taken over by Teabaggers and Paulites who delight in watching the Democratic Party implode once again.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They will blame Obama, of course. They'll find a way.
Igel
(35,268 posts)I'm not trying to absolve Assad.
I'm trying to wait until ambiguity is resolved.
Every--and I mean every--report I've seen boils down to a few fundamental points.
Assad is known to have chemical weapons. The rebels are not definitively known to have chemical weapons. Therefore it must be Assad. (Do the rebels not have chemical weapons?)
Assad would benefit from chemical weapon attacks. The rebels wouldn't benefit in any way and the rebels don't even have the technology to use chemical weapons well. We know that the weapons were aimed and benefitted Assad, so it must have been Assad. (Are there just "the rebels" or different groups? If Assad crosses the 'redline' we'd get involved--would the rebels benefit? If the rebels don't use the technology well, might they still use the technology badly?)
Assad is a dictator. Nobody would do things without his authorization. Even if we can't show he authorized chemical weapons, since he's a dictator he must have authorized them. (Is that the level of proof--deduction? With an unsound minor premise? Really?)
No need to rush to judgment. Justice delayed is justice denied. But justice rushed is justice buried. The dead are dead and have no need of justice; if we rush, we'll be responsible for dead even if our judgment was wrong and wrested.
But part of my reluctance isn't "absolving Assad" but "not wanting to help an-Nusrah". And, to be honest, I don't want to help the secular "liberals" either. I liked when Mubarak was overthrown. Not too zipped up over his replacement. But what happened after the most recent coup? The liberals aren't. They're petty dictators whose main beef with Mubarak was he didn't let them run things.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Very progressive of you.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)you smear those who disagree with him (and you) by claiming that they are attempting to 'absolve Assad'? Even going with your smear, why would it follow that those 'trying to absolve Assad don't seem to be really interested in holding anyone accountable'?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Because it doesn't seem like you are kept from reaching further and further with each passing day.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)I think our very best bet is for Assad to win and that we should be working with him and partnering with Russia to maintain his regime in exchange for securing weapons of mass destruction, if those are our concern rather than a phony pretext.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)War criminals all.
But apparently, they will never be indicted. In fact, Feinstein is probably still the most powerful woman in the land, at least in terms of domestic power. (If you didn't like the Republican win of Calif's gubernatorial spot, for two elections, blame her! How much she gets for the set ups, I don't know.)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=553573118031712&set=a.553034728085551.1073741826.160616580660703&type=1&ref=nf
Rex
(65,616 posts)or just stay out of it. My my my...what choices.
Warpy
(111,115 posts)The problem is that the rest of us are not certain. In fact, we know the evidence points out that it was as much a surprise to him as it was to the people being gassed.
He is capable of launching a much larger attack. Why such a small one? In addition, he has taken international warnings seriously up to now, using conventional weapons that only slash, burn and crush people to death.
No one here except Rand Paul is pretending Assad is a nice guy. He isn't. He learned the dictator trade from his dad, also not a nice guy.
However, until and unless we know exactly who ordered the attack, any rush to judgment is premature, to say the least.
And unless you want another country run by Taliban-like fanatics, destabilizing him by removing his weapons is probably not smart.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)There are people trying to absolve Assad. The piece pushing their claim has been posted three times to my knowledge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617472
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023614397
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023613003
I responded in all three.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)There are people trying to absolve Assad. The piece pushing their claim has been posted three times to my knowledge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617472
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023614397
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023613003
I responded in all three.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hard, verifiable proof should be the standard. The US says they cannot confirm it. That is not good enough. I doubt it can be confirmed either way.
I don't see those as seeking to absolve Assad, they are simply raising doubts to the evidence.
Setting that aside. Even if it could be confirmed that is was the rebels, that would not mean a strike on the rebels would be justified. So, yeah, the OP makes no sense.
I am against strikes as an answer to the use of chemical weapons, from any side. It will only make things worse.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That is attempting to absolve Assad. I mean, either he did it or he didn't.
There is credible evidence that he was responsible.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)is not the same of attempting to absolve Assad.
There are other means and actions that could be taken. Without absolute certainty, our bombs should not fly.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Arguing against an act of war on another country because the evidence is not 100%"
That is not the same as arguing against action.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is also evidence he did it. Neither is proof. Without proof, no one should be talking war.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"They are saying there is evidence Assad didn't do it. There is also evidence he did it."
...acknowledging the validity of the evidence that Assad did it. In fact (not that they would know), they are dismissing the evidence as "fraudulent."
They are not interested in the facts.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Now there's something you should know about.
RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Now there's something you should know about. "
...I do know when people aren't interested in facts. I also know when they're incapable of putting together a response containing more than one snarky sentence.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)dealing with someone who thinks an emoticon is a sentence.
Yikes!
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It is logistically ABSURD to believe that the rebels chem-bombed their own people in 12 different neighborhoods within a short time -- just to supposedly draw us into the war. Puleeze, give me a break! (And they didn't even bother to bomb ONE of Assad's neighborhoods too, while they were at it. Gee, that wasn't very efficient of them, was it?)
Next it will probably be argued that Assad has a great alibi and was nowhere near any of those locations, but that doesn't mean he's innocent either. I know! -- maybe he was partying with Putin when the deed was done.
1) As reported by the NYT, the Congressional Research Service has analyzed the government's declassified intercepts and found that it does conclusively prove that Assad did it. When it says WHO did it is unknown, it means THE NAMES of the intercepted officer and his commander are unknown. How hard is that to understand? It's easy enough to determine that they guy was in fact within the regime and in a unit that would've had such knowledge... "a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive" which "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime,"
2) TIME magazine has reported the name of the doctor who gave the 1400 dead figure, out of 10,000 casualties in the CW bombing. I know what his name is and I have the link, as well as the NYT one above, and if people spent more time looking for evidence and understanding... they would KNOW the answers to these questions too. That's if they WANTED to. So there it is. They don't want to know, which comes back to the issue that knowing makes them responsible for not turning away. Meanwhile, every two hours another Syrian child dies at Assad's hands.
Oh and, I have 30 videos of atrocities by Assad's troops. Also quite a few links on exactly who the opposition is, by name and detailed description. Maybe sometime this weekend I'll put up all these links. Or maybe I won't bother. A little bit of honesty would be nice to see before wasting the time to do it.
How many people even bothered to watch a generic background video like the one below, before deciding they know everything about everything? It's not a bad starting point.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Turbineguy This message was self-deleted by its author.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and if this attack isn't enough to pull the US into the conflict, they will be willing to kill even more.
Are you starting to see why it's vital to figure out WHO did it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023582454
And....
Outside of MSM's propaganda, he's the chief suspect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3617886
Regime change in Saudi Arabia is something I could get behind.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)I think people are justified to be worried that we are about to stain our hands in blood only to find out later that we were nothing more than a patsy for some radical. Life is precious, once its gone its gone forever. We have a duty to ensure that if military action is taken its taken against the right people. We have a duty to determine the truth.
That said, I am against military action either way. Violence should be the very last recourse. We should use peaceful means to hold the culprit responsible who ever it is proven to be. We also have a responsibility to show the world that violence is not always necessary and solve our problem without killing people if at all possible.
Further, Assad could easily launch another attack whether or not we go in. If we don't go in he might think he is free to use his weapons with impunity. If we do go in he might think hes done for and use weapons with impunity to take down as many people as possible with him. If we attack we might end up pulling the entire region into war. None of us can see the future and there are a whole host of outcomes we need to consider.
Holding people accountable is important, but so is peace and the overall welfare of everyone inside and outside of Syria. If China attacked one of its neighboring countries and used Chemical weapon should we attack and possibly go to war with China? What about Russia? Or North Korea? Going to war with any of these countries could end in thermo-nuclear war.
We must also consider our own needs. The attacks not only will kill people, they will cost us money that might otherwise go to medicare, or food stamps or a plethora of needy programs to help those of us right here in America.
There are tons of considerations we need to take into account before we decide where, when, and how to react. We need to be thoughtful and measured in our actions. And, again, I strongly believe we need to give peace a chance before even considering violence.