Here you go. And before you attack the source the Guardian for all is spelling mistakes is one of the few news outlets that values proper investigative journalism.
Thank you for the link. It's certainly interesting, and MSF are a reliable source (it's good that they're not quoting the White Helmets, for example), but there are still some points where they're not telling all. First, the doctors working in hospitals 100 kms from Khan Sheykhoun sound too assured about the geography of the attack than they could possibly be.
Second, the shelf life of sarin is short, that's right, but somehow the author of the article says nothing about the existence of numerous techniques that make the production process easier and cheaper and making the weapon more stable. I doubt that he or she is unaware, so that other pops to mind? Actually, the way to prolong the shelf life of sarin shells is to keep the ingredients in separate containters and mix them right before usage. Chemicals stored like that would react to impact exactly like that: partly evaporate, partly mix to create a deadly weapon.
Quote from Kahedron »
With the exception of the Qataris the rest of the countries you mentioned are involved in other conflicts in the region and Chemical weapons have not been used in those. For the Qataris the Americans built their airbase and have been using it fairly consistently since the end of the First Gulf war so I doubt that any chemical weapons could have been snuck past them.
Of course nobody uses the chemical weapons openly. It puzzles me why you're so eager to believe that Assad would do so numerous times. Also, why would anyone need to sneak weapon past the Americans? The US have been treating their allies mildly always, which usually results in hypocrisy: if the country tolerates the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia or the tyranny in Bahrain, I don't see why prohibited weapons that are kept in secret are so much of a different thing.
Quote from Kahedron »
So again our option fairly quickly narrow to Assad or Assad. I get you still don't like the fact your country has thrown itself in with a mass murderer, but history and geopolitics don't really care what you think.
History and geopolitics remember the country which resorted to use of the chemical weapons without feeling guilty afterwards, and it's the US. History and geopolitics also remember how the States invaded a country based on the claims of chemical weapons storage there just to find no evidence at all. The geopolitics also tells that Assad doesn't have any reason to suddenly start using prohibited weapons in a conflict that he was winning anyway, but there are sides greatly interested in making the world believe he did. When the teleological reasoning is against you, you're usually wrong.
Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.
It definitely is capable, right, but is it really the only one? Theoretically, how about Turkey, Jordan, Qatar or Saudi Arabia?
It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.
You sound so assured that I would like to see a source, because honestly it doesn't feel like there is a difference than can be perceived as clearly, but I would like to be proven wrong, if it is possible. What exactly are those casualty patterns?
Quote from Kahedron »
So you are agreeing with me that Assad didn't give a damn about the majority of the people that lived in the country just those of his tribe. Good to know
If by "his tribe" you mean the shia, the christians, the druze and even sunni who don't believe that power distribution should be based on religion, then yes.
He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.
So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.
The only people who "didn't fall into his cliques" by the time the crisis started, if I'm not mistaken, were the sunni muslims who believed that if they form a majority of the population, they should have the power: a sunni president, a sunni government, a sunni head judge and so on. The same kind of people who support Hamas in Gaza or Mohammad Morsi in Egypt. The way the protests were handled indeed was a shame and a brutality, but not something unseen in the region. As harsh as it may sound, the Middle East is not like Europe and America now. How many peaceful protesters were murdered, when the egyptian police cracked down on the Rabia al Adawiya demonstrations? How many people died during the Moqtada As-Sadr's suuporters' protests in Baghdad? What about the last year's events in Algeria? How many democracy advocates, journalists and kurdish activists are imprisoned and tortured in Turkey after the failed coup?
But the syrian security forces encountered armed resistance from the first moments. Look up the events that happened in Jisr al-Shughour in the June of 2011, where the so-called "peaceful democratic protesters" killed more than a hundred members of the security personnel. It takes a lot to organize such an operation, this isn't something that can happen accidentally. The regime's response was indeed brutal and it affected a lot of people who weren't guilty. But from then scores of people joined the armed oppositions for reasons close to vendetta, which is understandable, but not something it would be right to support by anyone anywhere.
Take a look at the countries, where the people indeed fight an oppressive autocratic leader. Look at the protests in Sanaa against Al-Saleh or the Tahrir square events against Mubarak (or later Morsi), look at Moscow, where thousands of people defy blackmail and harassment to express their outrage at the leader. Then look at Damascus, where almost everyone carries Assad's portrait. And notice that at first most of the opposition resided in the poor peripheral cities like Homs or Hamaa. You can still argue that Assad is only supported by his cliques. But it looks like those so-called cliques form quite a chunk of the total population.
That is get rid of both Isis as we are doing in Iraq and get Assad out of Syria and in front of the Hague.
As in a game of Magic, politics requires proper sequencing. Assad is probably guilty of war crimes (though probably to a lesser extent that you would like to believe), and it's a must to launch a thorough investigation. As a result of that, he will end up in front of the Hague tribunal. But if you depose of his rule now, especially if it is by brute force, that will give ISIS a possibility to regain all of the lost ground and even spread their positions further. Which in turn will strengthen them in Iraq.
So instead we should idly stand by whilst someone flagrantly breaks international law and murders their own population using some of the most horrific weapons ever created?
One word missing from your post is allegedly. It looks like a really tough case of the trolley problem, do you really believe it's right to kill a number of people if it MAYBE would help to save a bigger number of people? Or you know, it could actually endanger lots of syrians as there are serious concerns of religious cleansing that might start in Syria in case of Assad leaving right now. The alawites, the druze, the christians, the shia etc.
Most of you are talking about the chemical attack as if there's no doubt it actually happened. But there's no convincing proof, and actually there was no proof of a chemical attack by the regime forces the last time. Activists' reports sadly can't be regarded as proof, as there are a lot of contradictions. Moreover, if the base was the one that the chemical attack came from, the bombardment would have trigger another chemical outburst, but it didn't, and the syrians even were able to use the base today as if there was no attack at all.
There is no definitive proof that the Assad did not use the chlorine, I admit, but would it really be in his interest? It would contribute nothing to Syrian army's positions, but would greatly strenghten the western bias against the regime. And it would put lives of millions of syrians in danger. There's nothing to gain and plenty to lose for Assad, I understand that you actively dislike him, but I believe everyone should understand he's not stupid and not crazy.
Some of you writing that the bar has lowered, but this was actually a surprisingly good action, please consider if maybe that shift was the real point of the attack on Syria.
A Bristling Hydra is a great idea! I've been thinking of something that could kill the control mage quickly because that's kinda the only thing the deck is unable to do, unless you sneak in an unanswered Verdurous Gearhulk. Dispel is good too, but I'm a little bit afraid of the narrowness. While I'd love to counter that Glimmer of Genius off Torrential Gearhulk, but at the same time it would suck to sit with couple of dispels in hand while dying to the hulk himself.
I'm thinking of maybe adding one Eldritch Evolution to maindeck that would kinda let me use Bring to Light to get a Noxious Gearhulk, but that idea sounds clunky. I'm also interested in toying with a one-of Quicksmith Rebel when the new set is released as we usually have Panharmonicons and Prisms that could be targeted and having a Furious Reprisal each turn sounds strong.
Sideboarding is definitely difficult! Easier against control, where we don't need both black gearhulks and all of the Reflector Mages, but against an aggressive deck it feels like everything is essential. I usually remove the Thought-Knot Seer as their hand is usually empty by the time I get to play Bring to Light, and then just turn some of the 4-ofs into 3- or 2-ofs, like the Prism, Bring to Light and the Panharmonicon itself. In the delirium match-up it feels like we don't need Arborback Stomper as the lifegain from the Filgree Familiars and black hulks is enough. It's also nice to remove the Panharmonicons when you feel like the enemy is boarding in his Fragmentizes, as the deck is strong enough to win even without doubling the triggers.
Yay, this RB brew sounds like a sweet idea for sure.
Now, I've tried to take a different direction while staying on the Panharmonicon strategy (what do you all think about the Four-Color Rite deck presented by Eric Hawkins at the invitational?). My version is centered around Bring to Light and an array of fetchable answers. I'm yet to play more matches with the deck, and I change it a little bit after every tournament I play, but even now it feels really strong but quite hard to pilot. For example, all of my losses against came after fetching a wrong card with Bring To Light or (which is more irritating) being unable to pay two colored mana when needed, be it :symw::symw: for Fumigate or :symb::symb: for Noxious Gearhulk.
Sadly I'm yet to test the deck more, but for now I've 1:0 vs. Temur Aetherworks, 2:0 vs. GB Delirium, 1:1 vs. Esper Control, 0:1 vs. UW Flash, 0:1 vs. RG Energy and 0:2 against R/W and Mardu Vehicles. Also 1:0 against mono-black vampires but that probably doesn't matter at all. Most of the losses were picked up before the recent changes, so I'm looking forward to improve the record against those aggro decks.
The thing that I want to stress here is that the Delirium matchup is extremely beatable, they don't have enough power and explosiveness to win before we start going, and this deck's late game plan is the strongest in the format by far. Also it felt quite Emrakul-proof as the giant Eldrazi doesn't wreck us too bad. I've actually won all the three games in which my opponents have casted her.
It's not always about the power level. She might indeed be overcosted, but this ultimate is positively UNFORGETTABLE.
Thank you for the link. It's certainly interesting, and MSF are a reliable source (it's good that they're not quoting the White Helmets, for example), but there are still some points where they're not telling all. First, the doctors working in hospitals 100 kms from Khan Sheykhoun sound too assured about the geography of the attack than they could possibly be.
Second, the shelf life of sarin is short, that's right, but somehow the author of the article says nothing about the existence of numerous techniques that make the production process easier and cheaper and making the weapon more stable. I doubt that he or she is unaware, so that other pops to mind? Actually, the way to prolong the shelf life of sarin shells is to keep the ingredients in separate containters and mix them right before usage. Chemicals stored like that would react to impact exactly like that: partly evaporate, partly mix to create a deadly weapon.
Of course nobody uses the chemical weapons openly. It puzzles me why you're so eager to believe that Assad would do so numerous times. Also, why would anyone need to sneak weapon past the Americans? The US have been treating their allies mildly always, which usually results in hypocrisy: if the country tolerates the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia or the tyranny in Bahrain, I don't see why prohibited weapons that are kept in secret are so much of a different thing.
History and geopolitics remember the country which resorted to use of the chemical weapons without feeling guilty afterwards, and it's the US. History and geopolitics also remember how the States invaded a country based on the claims of chemical weapons storage there just to find no evidence at all. The geopolitics also tells that Assad doesn't have any reason to suddenly start using prohibited weapons in a conflict that he was winning anyway, but there are sides greatly interested in making the world believe he did. When the teleological reasoning is against you, you're usually wrong.
It definitely is capable, right, but is it really the only one? Theoretically, how about Turkey, Jordan, Qatar or Saudi Arabia?
You sound so assured that I would like to see a source, because honestly it doesn't feel like there is a difference than can be perceived as clearly, but I would like to be proven wrong, if it is possible. What exactly are those casualty patterns?
If by "his tribe" you mean the shia, the christians, the druze and even sunni who don't believe that power distribution should be based on religion, then yes.
The only people who "didn't fall into his cliques" by the time the crisis started, if I'm not mistaken, were the sunni muslims who believed that if they form a majority of the population, they should have the power: a sunni president, a sunni government, a sunni head judge and so on. The same kind of people who support Hamas in Gaza or Mohammad Morsi in Egypt. The way the protests were handled indeed was a shame and a brutality, but not something unseen in the region. As harsh as it may sound, the Middle East is not like Europe and America now. How many peaceful protesters were murdered, when the egyptian police cracked down on the Rabia al Adawiya demonstrations? How many people died during the Moqtada As-Sadr's suuporters' protests in Baghdad? What about the last year's events in Algeria? How many democracy advocates, journalists and kurdish activists are imprisoned and tortured in Turkey after the failed coup?
But the syrian security forces encountered armed resistance from the first moments. Look up the events that happened in Jisr al-Shughour in the June of 2011, where the so-called "peaceful democratic protesters" killed more than a hundred members of the security personnel. It takes a lot to organize such an operation, this isn't something that can happen accidentally. The regime's response was indeed brutal and it affected a lot of people who weren't guilty. But from then scores of people joined the armed oppositions for reasons close to vendetta, which is understandable, but not something it would be right to support by anyone anywhere.
Take a look at the countries, where the people indeed fight an oppressive autocratic leader. Look at the protests in Sanaa against Al-Saleh or the Tahrir square events against Mubarak (or later Morsi), look at Moscow, where thousands of people defy blackmail and harassment to express their outrage at the leader. Then look at Damascus, where almost everyone carries Assad's portrait. And notice that at first most of the opposition resided in the poor peripheral cities like Homs or Hamaa. You can still argue that Assad is only supported by his cliques. But it looks like those so-called cliques form quite a chunk of the total population.
Which was never proven in the first place.
As in a game of Magic, politics requires proper sequencing. Assad is probably guilty of war crimes (though probably to a lesser extent that you would like to believe), and it's a must to launch a thorough investigation. As a result of that, he will end up in front of the Hague tribunal. But if you depose of his rule now, especially if it is by brute force, that will give ISIS a possibility to regain all of the lost ground and even spread their positions further. Which in turn will strengthen them in Iraq.
One word missing from your post is allegedly. It looks like a really tough case of the trolley problem, do you really believe it's right to kill a number of people if it MAYBE would help to save a bigger number of people? Or you know, it could actually endanger lots of syrians as there are serious concerns of religious cleansing that might start in Syria in case of Assad leaving right now. The alawites, the druze, the christians, the shia etc.
There is no definitive proof that the Assad did not use the chlorine, I admit, but would it really be in his interest? It would contribute nothing to Syrian army's positions, but would greatly strenghten the western bias against the regime. And it would put lives of millions of syrians in danger. There's nothing to gain and plenty to lose for Assad, I understand that you actively dislike him, but I believe everyone should understand he's not stupid and not crazy.
Some of you writing that the bar has lowered, but this was actually a surprisingly good action, please consider if maybe that shift was the real point of the attack on Syria.
I'm thinking of maybe adding one Eldritch Evolution to maindeck that would kinda let me use Bring to Light to get a Noxious Gearhulk, but that idea sounds clunky. I'm also interested in toying with a one-of Quicksmith Rebel when the new set is released as we usually have Panharmonicons and Prisms that could be targeted and having a Furious Reprisal each turn sounds strong.
Sideboarding is definitely difficult! Easier against control, where we don't need both black gearhulks and all of the Reflector Mages, but against an aggressive deck it feels like everything is essential. I usually remove the Thought-Knot Seer as their hand is usually empty by the time I get to play Bring to Light, and then just turn some of the 4-ofs into 3- or 2-ofs, like the Prism, Bring to Light and the Panharmonicon itself. In the delirium match-up it feels like we don't need Arborback Stomper as the lifegain from the Filgree Familiars and black hulks is enough. It's also nice to remove the Panharmonicons when you feel like the enemy is boarding in his Fragmentizes, as the deck is strong enough to win even without doubling the triggers.
Now, I've tried to take a different direction while staying on the Panharmonicon strategy (what do you all think about the Four-Color Rite deck presented by Eric Hawkins at the invitational?). My version is centered around Bring to Light and an array of fetchable answers. I'm yet to play more matches with the deck, and I change it a little bit after every tournament I play, but even now it feels really strong but quite hard to pilot. For example, all of my losses against came after fetching a wrong card with Bring To Light or (which is more irritating) being unable to pay two colored mana when needed, be it :symw::symw: for Fumigate or :symb::symb: for Noxious Gearhulk.
So, here's the deck.
4 Servant of the Conduit
4 Glint-Nest Crane
4 Filgree Familiar
3 Reflector Mage
1 Thought-Knot Seer
1 Cloudblazer
1 Arborback Stomper
1 Verdurous Gearhulk
2 Noxious Gearhulk
Artifact (8)
4 Prophetic Prism
4 Panharmonicon
Sorcery (5)
4 Bring To Light
1 Fumigate
Instant (2)
1 Anguished Unmaking
1 Eerie Interlude
4 Aether Hub
4 Evolving Wilds
3 Holdout Settlement
2 Botanical Sanctum
2 Lumbering Falls
1 Inspiring Vantage
1 Wandering Fumarole
1 Shambling Vent
1 Hissing Quagmire
1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Mountain
1 Forest
1 Plains
2 Harnessed Lightning
2 Radiant Flames
2 Natural State
2 Negate
2 Ceremonious Rejection
1 Appetite for the Unnatural
1 Restoration Gearsmith
1 Lost Legacy
1 Confiscation Coup
1 Harsh Scrutiny
Sadly I'm yet to test the deck more, but for now I've 1:0 vs. Temur Aetherworks, 2:0 vs. GB Delirium, 1:1 vs. Esper Control, 0:1 vs. UW Flash, 0:1 vs. RG Energy and 0:2 against R/W and Mardu Vehicles. Also 1:0 against mono-black vampires but that probably doesn't matter at all. Most of the losses were picked up before the recent changes, so I'm looking forward to improve the record against those aggro decks.
The thing that I want to stress here is that the Delirium matchup is extremely beatable, they don't have enough power and explosiveness to win before we start going, and this deck's late game plan is the strongest in the format by far. Also it felt quite Emrakul-proof as the giant Eldrazi doesn't wreck us too bad. I've actually won all the three games in which my opponents have casted her.