Egyptian Violence

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Pearl said:
Not sure if this is a good idea. For humanitarian reasons, definitely. But militarily, it may not be so good for the U.S. Do we really need to get tangled in other war? But if there's a coalition, that might help.
Click to expand...


It may just be some cruise missile attacks. But it still can open a whole other can of worms.

I'm torn. The images of children dying from sarin gas is unbearable. Yet, I can't say which "side" is the lesser of two evils. The only other option would be to Nation Build - and I can't see anyone, Republican or Democrat, supporting another effort like that.
 
no one really knows what to do here.

don't know if anyone saw the youtubes of the aftermath of the supposed chemical attack, but it's gut wrenching.

i suppose all you can do is enforce the notion that such weapons are off limits no matter the conflict, and enforce that, without actually taking a "side" in the conflict, but it's never so surgical as that.

what an awful situation.
 
Irvine511 said:
no one really knows what to do here.

don't know if anyone saw the youtubes of the aftermath of the supposed chemical attack, but it's gut wrenching.

i suppose all you can do is enforce the notion that such weapons are off limits no matter the conflict, and enforce that, without actually taking a "side" in the conflict, but it's never so surgical as that.

what an awful situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I saw those videos. Wish I didn't.

Drones can be very accurate, which will unfortunately lead to government forces (or opposition forces) hiding chemical weapons under schools and hospitals.

It would take an invasion force of 300,000 to 500,000 personnel to invade, occupy, and rebuild a nation like Syria. It would also require a 10-plus year commitment. If the force is truly international (along the lines of the Gulf War) - then it may have a chance at success. But everyone's broke and focusing on their own economies...

I'm curious why I don't see more neocons pointing out that these are possibly the chemical weapons that were once in Iraq.
 
from wikipedia...

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

SYRIA


Former Iraqi general Georges Sada claimed that in late 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. He appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes in January 2006 to discuss his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Anticipating the arrival of weapon inspectors on November 1, Sada said Saddam took advantage of the June 4 Zeyzoun Dam disaster in Syria by forming an "air bridge", loading them onto cargo aircraft and flying them out of the country.
They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.

In January 2004, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who moved to Western Europe, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he knows the three sites where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are kept inside Syria. According to Nayuf's witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years, Iraq's WMD are in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city. Nayouf also wrote that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assef Shawkat, Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to this accusation by saying "I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we're going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen."

A similar claim was made by Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, a former Israeli officer who served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from July 2002 to June 2005. In April 2004, he was quoted as saying that "perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria." General Ya'alon told the New York Sun more firmly in December 2005 that "He [Saddam] transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria." The Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly also reported Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as having said in a December, 2002 appearance on Israel's Channel 2, "...chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."

In February 2006, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a former Iraqi general who defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991, gave an interview to Ryan Mauro, author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of WorldThreats. In the interview, al-Tikriti, who was once known as the "Butcher of Basra", told Mauro:
I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980s that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, whom he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

Al-Tikriti's interview was featured prominently on conservative web sites such as FrontPageMag and WorldNetDaily, but did not receive main stream press attention. Salon magazine editor Alex Koppelman doubts both Sada's and al-Tikriti's story, arguing that Syria's decision to side with the coalition against Iraq in 1990 would have nullified any previous military deals.

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion. Earlier, in a telephone interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay, said: "[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." Satellite imagery also picked up activity on the Iraq-Syria border before and during the invasion. James R. Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2003, has said U.S. intelligence tracked a large number of vehicles, mostly civilian trucks, moving from Iraq into Syria. Clapper suggested the trucks may have contained materiel related to Iraq's WMD programs.

ISG formed a special working group to investigate and consider these claims. Charles Duelfer, head of inspectorate at time of publication, summarized the group's conclusion: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't look good.

Fears of a Larger War in the Middle East

Will the phrase “Guns of August” one day refer not only to the prelude to World War I in 1914 but also to the prelude to a Middle East war in 2013?
That is the ominous question posed by Roger Boyes, the diplomatic editor of the Times of London and a foreign correspondent for the past 35 years.
“The direction of events in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran should keep us awake at night. History is taking a dangerous turn,” he writes. “The region certainly cannot sustain two wars — Syria’s bloody insurgency and a near-civil war in Egypt — without wrecking established peace treaties and the normal mechanisms for defusing conflict.”
I sat down with Boyes in our London newsroom. He acknowledged that the conflicts coursing through a half-dozen Middle Eastern countries did not come from a single source, nor did they stem from a single reason.
But he feared the problems were becoming intractable and were spreading across state borders: “the new Sunni assertiveness, the rise of the jihad, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood not only in Egypt but in every Arab society.”
And Boyes warned that, as in August 1914, the world was not paying enough attention.
“In August 1914 there was a lot of grouse shooting going on. In August 2013, politicians prefer to read doorstopper biographies in Tuscany and Cornwall. Yet the spreading Middle East crisis, its multiple flashpoints, is every bit as ominous as the prelude to war in 1914.”
The news certainly seems to get worse by the day. The West is now directly blaming the Assad regime for using chemical weapons against its own people in Syria. The drumbeat toward a military strike in Syria grows louder by the hour.
The U.K. is “making contingency plans,” according to the prime minister’s spokesman.
“The use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, on a large scale like this, cannot go unaddressed, cannot be ignored,” warned the French president.
And as the United States’ top diplomat put it: “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."
Western officials warn that the decision of whether to attack Syria will be made this week.
The Guns of August, indeed.
ABC News' Mary-Rose Abraham and Brian Fudge contributed to this episode.
Click to expand...
 
I know this might seem a little trivial with everything else going on, but man does this make me sad. And it's one thing to steal, but to destroy a 5000 year old artifact because it's too heavy to carry away is just incredibly ignorant
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/pictures/130823-museum-mallawi-egypt-looting-artifacts-archaeology-science-antiquities/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_tw20130827news-egyparcha&utm_campaign=Content#/egypt-mallawi-museum-looting-4_70585_600x450.jpg
 
:(

There's been rumors that the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to blast away the pyramids and the Great Sphinx. Such insanity!
 
Looks like I won't be getting out the Reserves any time soon...
Click to expand...

I recently got out of the Marine Corps because of my leg, but now that it's starting to do better and I'm getting back into things I'd like to be able to reenlist in the Marine reserves myself. Right now with the downsizing they won't let me back in, but I get the feeling if this all goes downhill I might have a chance back in.
 
The_Pac_Mule said:
I recently got out of the Marine Corps because of my leg, but now that it's starting to do better and I'm getting back into things I'd like to be able to reenlist in the Marine reserves myself. Right now with the downsizing they won't let me back in, but I get the feeling if this all goes downhill I might have a chance back in.
Click to expand...

There's a ton of Marines (notice I didn't say ex-Marines) in the Army Reserves - ever considered that option?
 
There's a ton of Marines (notice I didn't say ex-Marines) in the Army Reserves - ever considered that option?
Click to expand...

I did think about it, but I just have too much pride being a Marine. I wouldn't feel right wearing a different uniform. Not that it matters because my friends father is a national guard recruiter and he said he tried to get someone with the same reenlistment code (medical discharge) and similar situation as me and wasn't able to. :reject:
 
A government proposal here in the UK that would have allowed military intervention has been voted down by parliament. A bitter blow I imagine for Cameron who seems unreasonably gung ho about the whole situation.

Personally I am a bit conflicted most of the reports seem to lean towards Assad's regime being responsible, but the intelligence folks seem to be very cautious about linking it directly to him. While the use of chemical weapons on anyone deserves the harshest of penalties, i'm still wary of military involvement. Some people seem to be indicating that airstrikes will have limited effect on Syria's military, they are already moving things around, no one also knows whether it will deter him from using chemical weapons. Which then kinda leads to boots on the ground.

A large part of the rebels against Assad are also made up of Al Qaeda connected groups and others of that ilk. Iraq and Afghanistan have hardly been our highpoints in military intervention, yet I find this situation hard to ignore, and I don't like the idea of being isolationist in regards to such atrocities, the problem is I can't see what good we can achieve.
 
^ I think everyone is being very cautious (and rightly so). This thing can get very out of hand very fast...
 
I have no idea what I think is best here. My instinct is generally to be very much against these sorts of interventions, because, even with the best of intentions, they can be a disaster. But Obama's campaign in Libya shows that a limited and targeted attack can have a good effect without completely disastrous side-effects. And what Assad is doing is disgusting, even without the chemical attacks.

That being said, the prospect of radical Islamists taking over isn't much better. Any military intervention seems far less palatable if al-Qaeda is the main beneficiary, and a military intervention could easily cause the sort of resentment towards the West that would drive people to either radical Islam or Assad. As The Economist said today, "A Western attack that pleases al-Qaeda; pretty good evidence of a lack of good options."

Cameron losing his vote in Commons complicates things significantly. Hollande still seems supportive of a potential attack. Obama is mildly under fire from Congress, but he probably can do a limited police action without Congressional approval, and I actually think he could get such approval, despite the lack of approval from the American people (although I wouldn't be surprised if that is changing). It seems like Angela Merkel might agree with an attack in principle, but election seasons tend to be bad times to attack countries.

So, yeah, I don't know what to think.
 
Forgive me for my ignorance, but is it proven that Assad was behind this?
 
No. In fact, I don't think we hear enough about the idea of the opposition using chemical weapons and the idea that we should cut off support for terrorists because of that. In a perfect world Assad would be gone and the people would find a new leader. It's not going to happen that way.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
No. In fact, I don't think we hear enough about the idea of the opposition using chemical weapons -
Click to expand...

I brought up the possibility a few days ago...

AEON said:
Since you mentioned Syria and there have been reports of another chemical weapon attack - do you think it is feasible that Islamic "freedom fighters" would use gas on the citizens and then blame it on Assad in order to provoke the West to come in on their side?
Click to expand...
 
The Assad side of things DOES accuse the opposition of using chemical weapons! The media only tells one story -- the glorious freedom fighters. The story the people want to hear.
 
the media it seems has been pretty clear that these "rebels" are basically AQ-ish Islamists who, while certainly being slaughtered by Assad, aren't exactly kind and loving people either.

really, there's no good option here.

i do think the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and that should have consequences, but i don't see realistically what can be done other than what Obama has said he will do, and i don't see that being all that productive either.

i do think the British vote against action is difficult, but also understandable -- among the many, many sins of the Iraq War is the difficulty it is now to marshall support for smaller actions like these. the American people have no taste for any boots on the ground anywhere, nor do they want any real engagement in anything to do with the Middle East.
 
As much as I believe that the rebels are as guilty as the government and that aiding them is a terrible course of judgment, that story smells so incredibly fabricated.
 
The fact that it's not being reported on mainstream news outlets is making me a little doubtful, but there's too much room for error to readily believe anything new.
 
Any news report from a non-major source that says "a report that is sure to be blockbuster" or whatever it says... well, regardless of what it could be... it's a poor choice of words.
 
Basically we are pretty sure the use of chemical weapons comes from the government, it's a question really of whether it was on Assad's express orders, some sources seem to be saying it may have come from his brother Maher, who has a reputation of being a thug and bit more erratic, who has control of his own army division I believe.

Anyway I don't think anyone buys the glorious rebel nonsense, I think we are fairly cognisant they are a disparate group of Islamists and some other factions as well, who are just as likely to descend into civil war if left in charge. I don't see doing nothing as compromising our morality anymore than our morality has already been compromised by our decades of dubious involvement in the Middle East.
 
woops meant to post this in the should we bomb syria thread.

OK I actually think I was responding to both threads, reading both at the same time so I kinda grouped them into one in my head.
 
Vlad n U 2 said:
Has anybody seen this?

Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons - Dothan Christianity | Examiner.com

I can't be 100% sure of its accuracy but seeing as there's little to no evidence of Assad being responsible, it may very well be true.
Click to expand...

Examiner.com is not a legitimate news outlet. It is made up of citizen journalists who have little or no reporting or research experience. Usually, their "news" is based on their personal beliefs and they can fill their articles with unfounded stories, like Obama being a Socialist born in Kenya.

I also checked that "reporter's" profile. He's a just a minister with no experience in news.

You could also tell Examiner.com is not legit due to its overabundance of ads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
349
Views
10K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
33K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom