Quote (ampoo @ 5 Apr 2017 23:28)
because his camp is the one that this incident makes the least sense for
i really recommend this nights "markus lanz" talkshow to you, which will certainly be online soon
one guest is a journalist and middle east expert, who has some very interesting things to say about the syrian war
how a lot of evidence from the large 2013 poison gas attack points towards a false flag operation of al nusra and turkish intelligence, how ~90% of the so called rebels are jihadists, how western press is manipulated with fake news
and how this famous picture
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/08/21/gettyimages-591717242_custom-628e98f91625439d550f0297a147dc6cce2ef421-s900-c85.jpgwas actually taken by a jihadist supporter in eastern aleppo
IF you can bear someone else have a different opinion than your biased propaganda of course
it's hilarious how unaware you are of the hypocrisy when you of all people accuse others of "biased propaganda" - that's literally all you're spewing here. you haven't contributed a single original or critical though to any of our "discussions".
the thing is: i'm completely OPEN to the idea that it was not assad - so far we don't have 100% solid proof ("just" the bs excuse by russia that already has been debunked, the opinions of many political / military / medical experts on the ground, and the fact that assad is no stranger to chemical warfare against his own civilians). assad and putin have already committed warcrimes in syria, i have no personal or political interest to pin this one on either of them if it was indeed jihadist scum.
a false flag operation IS a possibility. my point, however, was not to start a purely hypothetical discussion about the guilty party, but to point out how ridiculous it is to just assume it's "false flag" when there's a much more likely second option that you apparently completely dismissed (without any proof) because it doesn't fit your narrative (about putin and his puppet assad bravely fighting radical jihadists, and civilian casualties just being collateral damage). it requires much more mental gymnastics to support your politically biased view than the alternative, it's that simple. that does ofc not make it wrong by force, but it exposes a concerning degree of intellectual dishonesty - yet again...
Quote (Goomshill @ 5 Apr 2017 23:44)
Not just capable, but willing and precedented. Yes, he definitely used chemical weapons before.
No, he doesn't. Thats exactly the problem. It makes no sense from a perspective of motive. ISIS and the rebels are being mopped up. They are driven out of the strongholds and the battles have been forfeited. He is guaranteed his victory at this point
Thats literally the only thing he has to be afraid of at this point. If russia pulls their support and the US intervenes, it will reverse everything he's gained over the past few years
And committing atrocities like chemical weapons is basically the only possible way for him to lose support now that the US has given up and given that green light.
You need to torture the logic as much as assad tortures sunni prisoners to come up with any notion of why he'd possibly want to do this.
His opponents are already being crushed and demoralized. He has the backing of Iran & Russia and even Turkey is limiting its strikes to ISIS. For the first time, he's winning all around and has already ousted rebels and ISIS from the urban centers where gas would be an effective weapon. The syrian army is just cleaning up the suburbs and bringing goat herders living in the boonies to heel at this point. Theres no message he could send to the rebels that he hasn't already.
guess you don't have to "torture logic" if you already tortured reality to make it fit. you argue like someone who is unclear about the fact that assad is indeed russia's puppet - they won't "pull their support". in fact, they have been the ones making excuses on syria's behalf and blocking any attempts of UN sanctions.
you also seem to be unaware of how complicated the situation with the countless "rebel" groups in syria is. yes, the massive russian military intervention was a huge blow to assads opposition (including jihadists, actual moderates, as well as tens of thousands of civilians). and while ISIS is indeed being defeated in the east, assad's most powerful opponents, the kurds and the so called "moderate" rebels (some of which actually sympathise with isis and are radical jihadists as well, but not all of them) are far from "crushed and demoralised". in fact, there had been reports recently that they were regrouping in the very region the gas attack happened (idlib province). so i strongly disagree with your points about assad's motivations.
Quote (ampoo @ 5 Apr 2017 23:55)
dont worry, fender will find a way to make it sound like its logical for assad to act against his own interest
a real shame that you can't even distinguish between having a different opinion concerning assads reasons and motivations on the one hand, and trying to make it sound like it's "logical" to act against one's own interest on the other hand. guess that's where you feel you have to go in order to make a point...