Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Syria: How could Assad potentially respond militarily to Cruise Missile strikes?
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,472 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8087
maquiladora wrote: »NYT has got very quick reaction from the White House, they say Obama is prepared to do it alone now, as soon as the inspectors leave on Saturday
I'm not sure. He will have to wait for the UN report now, or risk a major political backlash if things don't go as planned.
In the meanwhile there are some scrambling to get congress recalled as a series of opinion polls today showed there is a clear majority of the public that don't support any intervention.0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »ok so they wait for the UN inspectors account on sat and then are ready to hit the sites? but what about the prisoners story? I emailed that journalist - Phil Sands who wrote that story - haven't heard back
Surely the US has been tasking Sats, GHs and U2s all over Syria and have been watching carefully any movements of people to and from the potential target set so would know if Prisoner buses have been coming or going to any specific sites?
Well there's two U-2's in Cyprus now and probably lots of other stuff we don't know about so hopefully their intel is good on the targets they pick...0 -
Sierra Oscar wrote: »I'm not sure. He will have to wait for the UN report now, or risk a major political backlash if things don't go as planned.
In the meanwhile there are some scrambling to get congress recalled as a series of opinion polls today showed there is a clear majority of the public that don't support any intervention.
CNN got the same message as NYT.Jim Acosta @JimAcostaCNN
A senior US official tells CNN unilateral action against Syria may be necessary following the vote in Britain.
Sr. US official on UK vote: "We care what they think. We value the process. But we're going to make the decision we need to make."
I think waiting for the UN report would look good in terms on public image alright, but all it's going to do is confirm that chemical weapons were used and not who ordered the attack, the White House said earlier than that information is redundant, so doesn't sound like they are too bothered about it.
There could even be a quick interim report on Saturday after the inspectors leave Syria though.
Next few days will be interesting.0 -
maquiladora wrote: »Doctors Without Borders who are dealing with the victims on the ground there confirmed hundreds of cases of neurological symptoms, so clearly some type of chemical weapon or gas was used. I haven't seen anyone officially claiming it was Sarin in particular.
Doctors Without Borders are not directly dealing with people on the ground. They supply the medicine for their designated hospitals(mostly in rebel areas) but have no active workers in these sites due to the ongoing threat. This means that all information they have put out is from an unknown third party on the ground whom they are dealing with.
'Médecins Sans Frontières can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.
(Because they are not on the ground )maquiladora wrote: »Assad's forces are known to have chemical weapons, they are known to have probably used them already in the conflict on a smaller scale.
'Probably' according to the western media.
'No evidence' pointing towards any government involvement but some evidence pointing towards Rebel involvement according to UN inspector Carla Del Ponte.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html
(Picked a media source that is usually overly critical of the Assad government to show case - Del Pontes findings so far have been widely ignored in Western media)
The line that is being force fed down peoples throats now is that it is crazy to think that the rebels would have any access to chemical type weapons. This is despite the fact(to give even a few small examples) :
-Turkey have arrested Al Nusra members in possession of Sarin gas
-Iraq have raided at least two chemical weapons factories of Al Q in Iraq
-An American report as far back as circa 2002 stated that Al Q have gained the ability to mix and manufacture crude chemical weapons (Sarin,Mustard,XV) in homemade rockets.
- Syrian govt footage of a rebel storage facility - lots of bags with 'Made in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia' on them.maquiladora wrote: »Assad's forces heavily shelled the site of the chemical attack in the days after it happened - why on earth would they do that unless they were trying to destroy as much evidence as possible at the site?
So all of a sudden fighting in an area of an alleged chemical weapons attack is going to degrade or destroy all traces?? So why are the UN Inspectors over there investigating and attack that happened months ago so?If genuine, chemical traces will stay in the ground and cannot be destroyed that easily. Also, if it was sarin, the Syrian soldiers fighting in close proximity would have been affected and also any wind could have brought this into city centre Damascus. Because of all this, the most likely scenario is that a riot control agent of some sort has been used in a high concentration dose.This can result in similar respiratory symptoms as there would be in a CW attack.
It was said the Syrian government had refused access to this new site. This was untrue as they had stated they could not guarantee the safety of the inspectors as it was a Rebel controlled area. Then it was said they had delayed giving permission, again false as the UN requested this on a Saturday and it was granted on a Sunday. This was surprising but had to be done to appease the Western demands - by granting this access the offensive had to cease and this would allow the rebels to get a breather and regroup. This offensive was organised to try and rout foreign backed militants who had just arrived in the country with the plan of a major attack onto Damascus. By agreeing to this cessation it would have lost any gains the original offensive would have gained.maquiladora wrote: »Not the actions of an innocent party, a party that has been killing 10,000's over the past 2 years by conventional means like firing heavy artillery and Scud missiles into cities without any regard for civilian life.
It is estimated the roughly 40k of the casualties have been from the Syrian govt side.American policies like drone strikes which regularly kill innocent civilians are deemed to be appropriate actions but a government fighting an externally fueled war against itself targeting militants in built up area is a war crime?
I have no doubt there have been numerous civilian casualties caused by the Syrian army by accident and also the possibility of small scale deliberate acts by individuals but this is no way near the scale of any of the western backed rebels actions.
If in fact it is proven that in any way a chemical like attack was fully co-ordinated by the Syrian govt then those responsible should be punished to the highest level. I can't see this scenario ever happening though as I doubt Al Assad could be that stupid...just like the whole line that CW were a 'red line' and what happens 3 days after UN chemical weapons inspectors arrive in the country??You couldn't make it up...
If you find it necessary, it is quite easy to find video and photo evidence of all the crimes of the Rebel side yet there is hardly any documented evidence of Syrian army crimes, apart from the 'probable' and 'suspected' notions from the media. Last week Al Nusra executed 3 truck drivers because they didn't pass the 'How Sunni are you' exam to the required standards. 100+ soldiers executed in Khan Al Assan after they surrendered. Multiple videos of beheadings and executions of civilians and soldiers for a variety of reason. Documented evidence of child soldiers being trained.
It's funny to look at all the experts in the US weighing up all the military and non-military options and they always exclude probably the quickest route to end the suffering for the ordinary Syrian - publicly acknowledge the majority extremist element of the 'rebels' and their crimes and come together to a collective decision to withdraw all funding and support(this will take a miracle from Saudi Arabia and Qatar especially given the formers knock out track record of exporting salafist and takfiri idealogies around the globe...).This would probably result in the ending of the conflict in a matter of months and the ending of the worst suffering for civilians. Afterward when stability has been restored, all governments should engage with the Syrians and hold an open and fair election to decide what future the SYRIAN people wish to decide for THEMSELVES rather than what the west thinks is best for them.
Unfortunately, this is the idea I can see the least chance of happening because of a couples of reasons ( Americas proxy war with Iran here, the independence of the Syrian and Iranian central banks,Irans plans to try and deal oil sales in Non USD currency, the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline which Qatar want to have as theirs instead...to name a few) but none of these are for democracy or for the good of civilians but rather for individual countries own best interests .0 -
fair play to you for putting that together.. need to read it more and break it down. Points need addressing.0
-
Advertisement
-
Just to point quickly also, the anti Russia camp is really coming out here too. All these claims about Russian weapons when they are merely fulfilling signed contracts and even delaying some, this is the same thing America is doing in Egypt and in stark contrast to Saudi,Qatar and Turkey who are facilitating and funding arms shipments of over 400 tons to the rebels to keep the war going.
People are trying to discredit Russian decision making now by portraying the new homosexual law passed there recently. It is a very backward step but it is only banning giving information on homosexuality to under 18s (but this is probably the people that need the information the most as it is under 18s that are going through a turbulent time and trying to make life choices about themselves) but it is in no way shape or form in the same league as say Qatar where you can land in jail for 5 years for engaging in homosexual acts!!And no calls from Stephen Fry to boycott the World Cup in 2022...
The US can harp on about democracy all it wants - Assad won by a large majority in the last election in Syria , Bahrains peaceful anti govt protest were brutally crushed with US help and in Saudi Arabia it is outlawed to protest against the govt!!And guess which nation has not even had one election since its inception in 1934....yep..Saudi Arabia but all you'd hear from Hilary Clinton and the State Dept previously was they were 'concerned' by certain lack of liberties in the Gulf state...
That's without even getting into Saudis history of exporting and funding extremist ideologies around the globe for years, its state funded extremist colleges where all of the terrorist supporting clerics learn their trade and its state sponsored sectarian policy of destroying religious site and graves which do not conform with their narrow and backward religious views but that's for another day and another thread!!!0 -
'Probably' according to the western media.
'No evidence' pointing towards any government involvement but some evidence pointing towards Rebel involvement according to UN inspector Carla Del Ponte.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html
(Picked a media source that is usually overly critical of the Assad government to show case - Del Pontes findings so far have been widely ignored in Western media)
There is a lot of things in your post, but one thing that is completely wrong is the Del Ponte quote. The interview was from May :One problem: There was no such statement.
Ms. Del Ponte did say something similar—but not quite as stark—back in May: “Investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” she told Swiss TV, referring to another alleged attack.
That story appears to have passed to ITAR-TASS via the BBC, The Washington Times and Assyrian International News Agency’s website, with the timing and wording changed.
By the end of Wednesday, a UN spokesman had told BBC Russian Service that Ms. Del Ponte didn’t say anything about the Aug. 21 attack, and that the members of the commission haven’t spoken publicly since June 4.
ITAR-TASS and Interfax reported the UN’s denial of the quote, but didn’t publish a correction. ITAR-TASS’s desk editor said the agency “took the reporter’s dispatch at face value” and the editors didn’t check it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/08/29/russia-goes-ballistic-over-inaccurate-syria-report/Doctors Without Borders are not directly dealing with people on the ground. They supply the medicine for their designated hospitals(mostly in rebel areas) but have no active workers in these sites due to the ongoing threat. This means that all information they have put out is from an unknown third party on the ground whom they are dealing with.
'Médecins Sans Frontières can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.
(Because they are not on the ground )
Unknown third parties? MSF calls it a "strong and reliable collaboration" with these hospitals, the idea that they wouldn't know who they are dealing with is laughable, I'm sorry.So all of a sudden fighting in an area of an alleged chemical weapons attack is going to degrade or destroy all traces?? So why are the UN Inspectors over there investigating and attack that happened months ago so?If genuine, chemical traces will stay in the ground and cannot be destroyed that easily.
I never said it was going to destroy all traces, but why on earth would you continue to shell an area of suspected chemical attack in the following days? It wasn't 'fighting'. Artillery units hundreds of meters away don't 'fight' with rebels with machine guns and RPGs.
If I was innocent, the last thing I'd want to do is pound heavy artillery at the scene of a crime that I had nothing to do with.It is estimated the roughly 40k of the casualties have been from the Syrian govt side.American policies like drone strikes which regularly kill innocent civilians are deemed to be appropriate actions but a government fighting an externally fueled war against itself targeting militants in built up area is a war crime?
I have no idea where you got that figure from, but are you trying to tell me that the majority of the people killed in the conflict have been killed by the side that hasn't been using warplanes and attack helicopters, heavy artillery and Scud missiles? .... Ok.
As for drone strikes, I am totally against those. Just because I believe that Assad's forces launched a chemical attack doesn't make me some kind of catch-all believer in all US policy.If you find it necessary, it is quite easy to find video and photo evidence of all the crimes of the Rebel side yet there is hardly any documented evidence of Syrian army crimes, apart from the 'probable' and 'suspected' notions from the media. Last week Al Nusra executed 3 truck drivers because they didn't pass the 'How Sunni are you' exam to the required standards. 100+ soldiers executed in Khan Al Assan after they surrendered. Multiple videos of beheadings and executions of civilians and soldiers for a variety of reason. Documented evidence of child soldiers being trained.
I'm certainly not claiming that the rebels are saints. The opposition is a complex group of different factions with different ideals. Some of it is Al Nusra, some of it is former Syrian army units that defected during the early months of the uprising. Painting the whole opposition as Al Nusra is not much different from right wing Americans cherry picking militant Islamists and saying all Muslims are bad....If in fact it is proven that in any way a chemical like attack was fully co-ordinated by the Syrian govt then those responsible should be punished to the highest level.
I agree. I'm hoping a cruise missile lands on their beds.0 -
Mr Cameron will not be ordering any form of involvement by the British Armed forces into the Syria conflict.
With a mighty dose of 'pie on face' he has had to admit defeat in the HoP in the face of overwhelming opposition from the rank and file of MPs, who, for once in their lives, seem to have listened hard to their constituents, and acted accordingly.
There were far too many Wooten Bassett funeral corteges for the British people to look eagerly for more.
tac0 -
As a number of commentators are noting, if President Obama declares "red lines" unilaterally, he may find himself having to enforce them unilaterally.
I'm no fan of Mr Cameron, but I have to give him credit for immediately and unequivocally accepting the will of Parliament and providing the assurance requested by the opposition that he won't now involve the UK in any military action in Syria.
Contrast this with the US where Obama may not even seek Congressional approval before launching an attack. Which country looks more like a properly functioning democracy?0 -
Just to point quickly also, the anti Russia camp is really coming out here too. All these claims about Russian weapons when they are merely fulfilling signed contracts and even delaying some, this is the same thing America is doing in Egypt and in stark contrast to Saudi,Qatar and Turkey who are facilitating and funding arms shipments of over 400 tons to the rebels to keep the war going.
Where are you seeing this? I haven't seen anyone on here particularly criticising Russia for supplying weapons to Syria.0 -
Advertisement
-
Noah Shachtman
The Cable
Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,472 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 8087
Interesting line coming out from Russian military officials this morning. They are claiming that they know of 1,000 missile units in Syria capable of responding to Western air strikes.
The official also did not rule out Syria having already received S-300 missile systems, pointing out that all the focus has been on Russia supplying the weaponry and forgetting that China and Belarus could have delivered their own units between 2010 and 2011.
EDIT: US army officials have been stating in private that many are concerned about Obama's plans to launch a military intervention, highlighting that American military forces are overstretched as it is. It is being said that officials are trying to advise the president against launching a strike.
U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on SyriaThe Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.0 -
Some commentary from the Royal Aeronautical Society on potential air power options for striking against the regime in Syria....
Military action against Syria – the air power options0 -
summary
- cruise missile attacks from destroyers and submarines
- perhaps augmented with US Navy air strikes with electronic jamming support
- possible long-range B-2 missions flown direct from the US to hit strategic targets
- most probable model for these attacks for the Pentagon would seem to be Operation Desert Fox in 1998, Libya 1986 or Sudan cruise missile strikes in 1998
- short, sharp warning to the regime about using WMD carried out with the least risk to US forces.
- Drones only useful for surveillance, not strikes
- hitting chemical sites/units could risk contamination, off the menu
- Stand off weapons assure safety, anything closer could risk losses because of 'better than Iraq' air defenses.
0 -
Any role for B-1 Lancers in this operation?0
-
" Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror". "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913
426 children
How could you live with yourself after carrying out that attack - whoever fired those shells0 -
"..We intercepted
communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed
that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.
inspectors obtaining evidence..."
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Is it reasonable to think the US is making this up from thin air and lying blatantly?0 -
Should the US share its Intel on the attack with the Russians?
I think they should share everything they can which proves Assad's side did it... so that they can say they shared it with the Russians which puts Putin in a spot to make a decision to support Assad even though there is evidence, which they are aware of, which says Assad has gassed 426 kids in their beds?
Reports are that they haven't shared the Intel yet.
What do ye reckon? Should they?0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »I don't think Assad would attempt to strike a US Ship unless he's completely lost control. It would only bring a larger attack.
I can't personally believe some group on the rebel side carried out the gas attack. So I'm going on the assumption Assad ordered it, ok'd it or one of his units did it without his knowledge - maybe his murderous brother.
If he didn't order it why the hell would he shell the area afterwards ???
- that part definitely doesn't make any sense to me and supports the case that his forces did it.
Thats what a lot of this is though, they are just assuming Assad ordered or was responsible for it or that syrian army units are responsible. Thats a big leap from any evidence.Be like Nutella wrote: »Any role for B-1 Lancers in this operation?
Are they delivery humanitarian aid? how will a B1 help those that are already suffering that have no say. Its hardly going to make things better.Be like Nutella wrote: »"..We intercepted
communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed
that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.
inspectors obtaining evidence..."
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Is it reasonable to think the US is making this up from thin air and lying blatantly?
Ive read it, its hardly definitive, it says
"which shows large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to nerve agent exposure"
That admits they dont know for sure, CS gas can cause people to water at the eyes and spew up mucous.
Im not saying dont try and ensure whoever is responsible is dealt with if its accurate, but wading in with an attack before anything definitive seems to suggest that it was already decided an attack was happening.
Nobody seems to be asking who the Syrian Army is fighting? they seem to be, and no one is really denying this for the most part a bunch of fundamentalist extremists from outside Syria? being funded by what must be one of the least democratic country's in the world.0 -
Assad could launch a strike on Israel and call on Iran for support. This won't stop the attack on Syria and will invite further attacks on him from Israel and the US. What he might do is threaten this after the first 2 or 3 days of the strike this will make him seem to have frightened off the USA as they probably intend to stop anyway after this.0
-
Advertisement
-
maquiladora wrote: »There is a lot of things in your post, but one thing that is completely wrong is the Del Ponte quote. The interview was from May :
http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/08/29/russia-goes-ballistic-over-inaccurate-syria-report/
Correct, sorry if my post seemed to suggest it was about the recent attack, it was in relation to an earlier incident where the UN has already finished its investigation.
Saying that though , an AFP journalist with 20 years experience has put out a report today indicating that residents on the ground in one area are indicating rebel use of the CW.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
Also another video emerging which claims to prove again rebel access to CW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZINtnvUD-Y&feature=youtu.be
Can't obviously verify translation but sarin is pretty clear to hear and I presume a false translation would be flagged up pretty quick.maquiladora wrote: »Unknown third parties? MSF calls it a "strong and reliable collaboration" with these hospitals, the idea that they wouldn't know who they are dealing with is laughable, I'm sorry.
Unknown third parties to us,known to them. Without being directly on the ground they could be getting fed a biased version in contrast to the above link posted where the journalist is on the ground interacting with individuals.maquiladora wrote: »I never said it was going to destroy all traces, but why on earth would you continue to shell an area of suspected chemical attack in the following days? It wasn't 'fighting'. Artillery units hundreds of meters away don't 'fight' with rebels with machine guns and RPGs.
If I was innocent, the last thing I'd want to do is pound heavy artillery at the scene of a crime that I had nothing to do with.
As stated previously, this was a planned offensive and I presume the Syrian Army had no plans just to stop and lose any ground it had gained.maquiladora wrote: »I have no idea where you got that figure from, but are you trying to tell me that the majority of the people killed in the conflict have been killed by the side that hasn't been using warplanes and attack helicopters, heavy artillery and Scud missiles? .... Ok.
As for drone strikes, I am totally against those. Just because I believe that Assad's forces launched a chemical attack doesn't make me some kind of catch-all believer in all US policy.
Figures from Wikipedia which are using general media sources. It also estimates rebel casualties from 21k to 45k so government forces could have either double or similar casualties to the opposition. Also 1k government officials killed.maquiladora wrote: »I'm certainly not claiming that the rebels are saints. The opposition is a complex group of different factions with different ideals. Some of it is Al Nusra, some of it is former Syrian army units that defected during the early months of the uprising. Painting the whole opposition as Al Nusra is not much different from right wing Americans cherry picking militant Islamists and saying all Muslims are bad....
The whole opposition are not salafists but over the course of the last year every major rebel offensive has been led and organised by the jihadists. See Menagh AirBase for the latest example. This shows that they are now the ones leading the charge no matter what the SNC or any coalition of opposition figures (some of whom have never been in Syria) try to say. Most major stories also focus on jihadist attacks while the FSA seems to be getting the role of 'public affairs' for comments afterwards.maquiladora wrote: »I agree. I'm hoping a cruise missile lands on their beds.
And I hope you'd feel the same way if it is found out that it was rebel controlled (from Saudi Arabia).0 -
NiallSparky wrote: »Where are you seeing this? I haven't seen anyone on here particularly criticising Russia for supplying weapons to Syria.
Only recently started looking around here again so can't comment on peoples opinions here - it's pretty wide spread if you have a nose around amongst the anti Assad camp or western govts .
'Sure it's OK that the rebels are getting weapons because Russia is still sending them to the govt'0 -
Assad could launch a strike on Israel and call on Iran for support. This won't stop the attack on Syria and will invite further attacks on him from Israel and the US. What he might do is threaten this after the first 2 or 3 days of the strike this will make him seem to have frightened off the USA as they probably intend to stop anyway after this.
Interesting. But that would again require us to believe Assad is capable of acting totally irrationally because clearly Israel and the US would destroy his forces very easily with overwhelming force which would put Syrians lives secondary to destroying Assad's forces. Also I don't believe Iran would launch all-out war with Israel just because Assad launched an unprovoked attack on Israel.
The central part to all of this in my view is whether Assad is in total control of his forces.
If he is, then it is about his psychology and his own perceived position right now.
If he ordered this gas attack and knew what it would do and knew obviously that it would force Obama to make a decision... then we may be dealing with an Assad who is just starting to act irrationally and who is moving into a vicious survivalist mode where all options are on the table.
I think we're a few steps shy of a crazy Assad but he must see the writing is on the wall at this stage. He won't fall this year but he's gotta see that arms will continue to increase in supply to the rebel side. The west will strike him soon and take a big chunk out of his air power and the rebels will get stronger. His time is coming to an end and people do crazy things when their life is finally at risk.
The most important information I would be after if I was Obama right now is 1) Is Assad in control 2) Is he acting relatively rationally ... if the answer to both of those questions is yes then the strikes will not cause world war 3 as the media is hyping.0 -
Sierra Oscar wrote: »Interesting line coming out from Russian military officials this morning. They are claiming that they know of 1,000 missile units in Syria capable of responding to Western air strikes.
The official also did not rule out Syria having already received S-300 missile systems, pointing out that all the focus has been on Russia supplying the weaponry and forgetting that China and Belarus could have delivered their own units between 2010 and 2011.
EDIT: US army officials have been stating in private that many are concerned about Obama's plans to launch a military intervention, highlighting that American military forces are overstretched as it is. It is being said that officials are trying to advise the president against launching a strike.
U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria
Some Syrian sources say Russian ships in two ports unloading last couple of days but not confirmed...0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »Should the US share its Intel on the attack with the Russians?
I think they should share everything they can which proves Assad's side did it... so that they can say they shared it with the Russians which puts Putin in a spot to make a decision to support Assad even though there is evidence, which they are aware of, which says Assad has gassed 426 kids in their beds?
Reports are that they haven't shared the Intel yet.
What do ye reckon? Should they?
The Russians have apparently already given evidence to the UN showing the attack a result of the rebels. Even within this though there are numerous scenarios such as if it was done on purpose , if they set off the weapons accidentally as in the AFP journalists report today or if a Syrian govt strike hit a CW storage area.
The US should share it's intelligence with the entire public if they want to fully convince everyone of the merits of their actions - but this is even susceptible to doubts as most US intelligence in the area lately comes through Mossad who obviously have a vested interest( and give the yanks fake evidence or opinion on Iraq and others). It's funny they should still have such close co operation given that the only state from the Middle East to ever attack USA directly was Israel (Egypt cinema attacks and ship attack- two different occasions at least)0 -
^^^
This is why the US regime like to use cluster weapons to overwhelm these defensive systems. Expect to see children being maimed from picking up brightly coloured balls for years to come after they attack.
Behold! A poster exhibits lack of knowledge and fails to distinguish between warhead and delivery method!Be like Nutella wrote: »But who knows, if he ordered the chemical attack he has made one bad miscalculation. Who's to say it's his last.
I'm not sure I see the point of the attack, it didn't kill that many, but I don't think it was a serious miscalculation. Nobody seems willing to take any significant action against him for it, and I doubt a few US cruise missiles is going to do much more damage to him than two years of civil war.The US can harp on about democracy all it wants - Assad won by a large majority in the last election in Syria
Given the level of opposition which must exist in order to maintain a civil war of such magnitude for such a length of time, one must really question how closely the official election results match with the mood of the populace.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I'm not sure I see the point of the attack, it didn't kill that many, but I don't think it was a serious miscalculation. Nobody seems willing to take any significant action against him for it, and I doubt a few US cruise missiles is going to do much more damage to him than two years of civil war.
not sure what you mean when you say 'not that many'
It was the single bloodiest day since 9/11. The highest casualties per day before Aug 21st was April 2nd 2013 when approx 500 died. Even during the bloodiest 4th and 5th years of the Iraq War/Insurgency, in which 52,000 died, there was never a day to come even close to 1500 casualties let alone the staggering figure of 426 massacred children. Even during the initial shock and awe 3 weeks of the Iraq invasion there was never a day which resulted in 1500 casualties. August 21st was a massacre by any standards at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.Manic Moran wrote: »but I don't think it was a serious miscalculation. Nobody seems willing to take any significant action against him for it, and I doubt a few US cruise missiles is going to do much more damage to him than two years of civil war.
As for it not being a serious miscalculation. Well IF Assad ordered the attack or knew the attack was being ordered by one of his top generals then obviously there was a calculation made in doing so IF we assume he DID NOT WANT a US punitive attack. If he didn't want a US attack and did the massacre and now it looks likely the US will fire approx 50-150 Cruise Missiles from its destroyers/subs which will take out some important command and control assets and possible put some airbases out of commission then obviously Assad has made a big miscalculation so I'm not sure I understand your point about Assad NOT making a miscalculation. In comparison to 2 years of civil war then no - 100 cruise missile strikes won't do more damage than that. But as the rebels have said all week.... 2 nights of cruise missile strikes on specific assets will do more damage than 3 months of their 'band of merry men' attacks and that is certainly true.
The number killed by the chemicals is the whole point of all of this. If they'd killed 20 it would be one thing but killing 400+ kids as they slept with nerve gas shows a willingness to carry out massive scale massacres (assuming it wasn't just a mistake). Who is to say that they wouldn't use gas to kill 10,000 next time? Killing 1500 shows the potential to massacre ten times as many as that down the road hence the opinion that a serious but limited military response is justified in order to check Assad's potential decision to use his chemicals to kill thousands. He must be given pause for thought before he carries out an even worse massacre. Even IF it wasn't him personally who ordered the attack and EVEN IF the attack which was ordered ended up killing more than was intended or EVEN IF it was some sort of error by Assad's forces.... striking his assets with force now will/should cause him to reconsider any possible future use of chemical weapons - especially on a larger scale which is the most important element of all of this. Saddam managed to kill 5000 Kurdish in a few hours with Mustard Gas. Assad's guys could massacre 10,000 in 30 mins with the right chemical and delivery. Obama's strike may be risking conflagration in the region if we take the most excitable view of all the regional actors acting irrationally such as Iran and Russia (incredibly unlikely and totally counter intuitive to their observable demeanor) but it is still justified IF it causes Assad to not to allow any further use of chemicals in this war by his forces.
Without a strike - Assad could literally just go and massacre 5,000 with Sarin in Aleppo next month. He has 1000 tons of chemical weapons at his disposal.
All of this assumes that the US Intel report is honest. If anyone thinks the report is total BS then by all means support that view.0 -
The thing I don't get is that this sudden clamour for action seems to be driven by the fact that a lot of kids were killed, in a short space of time using a barbaric weapon of mass destruction.
It seems 'the West' was 'fine' with the Syrian regime killing kids as long as
(a) they didn't kill too many on any given day
(b) they stuck to doing it with 'conventional' weapons
Assad has always been an evil b@stard, he's the son of an evil b@stard and the head of regime that in the past has massacred significant numbers of the Syrian population without the West barely blinking.
I don't understand the basis for action or the objectives - punishment, retribution, support for one or other of the rebel factions?
I think the Americans (and French) are about to kick over a very big and angry hornets' nest for no good reason. There is nothing that can be done from the air, or using air power, that will change things on the ground.0 -
It seems 'the West' was 'fine' with the Syrian regime killing kids as long as
(a) they didn't kill too many on any given day
(b) they stuck to doing it with 'conventional' weapons
You're dead right about the fact that 'the west' showed much less sympathy for Syrian civilians before this massacre.
The massacre was the single biggest day of deaths in this Syrian rising by far and it's nature has shocked the world... especially the 426 kids asleep in their beds thing. Anyone not sickened by that more-so than the death of civilians caught in cross fire or killed in combat zones is a psycho.
It is precisely the nature of this nerve gas massacre which has shocked the world. It's only natural... but I do get your point about the sudden empathy of the west.
You cannot compare a nerve gas massacre to firing guns or throwing grenades. They are entirely different in every way. The very use of nerve gas to kill hundreds shows the potential to kill thousands whereas shooting somebody doesn't mean you could shoot 10,000 people because you couldn't even if you wanted to - not with just your gun - you'd need a squadron of helicopter gun ships to do that- see my point?
IF you choose to kill 1500 with 20 nerve gas shells fired in a period of minutes by a hand ful of soldiers then you COULD just as easily kill 20,000 with 30 shells in a few minutes of firing?? you get me?
This is the MAJOR difference between choosing to use chemical weapons and choosing to use bullets and artillery.
Assad has chosen to use chemical weapons to kill 1500 unarmed civilians. This is what has been observed to a level of at least 90% certainty. Therefore Assad could very well carry out a much larger attack just as easily.
People are not dealing with this discrete point.
Forget the terrorist rebels, forget the start of world war 3 crap, forget the lack of empathy up to now. The situation is - you have a guy who has 1000 tons of chemical weapons who cannot run away from his war and has shown he is increasing his level of viciousness with every passing month since this rising began right up to his use of chemical weapons to massacre 1500 people.
This curve will continue upwards unabated.
A cruise missile strike on his airbases and command and control assets will show him what the US can and will do if he continues this curve of viciousness and carries out another chemical attack.
Dick Cheney fukd up the world with the lies that brought the Iraq invasion and Colin Powell sullied forever the idea that a country should come to the aid of another population by standing there and lying in front of the U.N. and that has us all critics of any and all US action and US reports and US evidence of this or that. That's only natural but use your objective brains and consider that Assad could literally massacre 20,000 people in 2 hours with his next chemical attack if somebody (with the power) doesn't attempt to give him pause for thought.
If a clever Cruise missile attack which doesn't risk Syrian civilians can do this I say do it - the Russian will not do anything, the Iranians will not do anything they're not doing already. Assad will not just launch a crazy attack on Israel. All of that is irrational.0 -
Advertisement
-
Be like Nutella wrote: »........
You cannot compare a nerve gas massacre to firing guns or throwing grenades. They are entirely different in every way.....
This is the MAJOR difference between choosing to use chemical weapons and choosing to use bullets and artillery.
....
Not really, you're not any more dead just because it's a chemical agent that killed you.
Would there be this must posturing going on if the same number of people and children were massacred using bombs and bullets over the course of a few days, or if chemical weapons were used but by good fortune no one was killed in such an attack?
This is just political posturing. Obama set out a red line and its been crossed, now like Clinton he has to do something because he's backed into a corner by his own rhetoric. The Americans can launch all their TLAMs and AGM-158s, but when the dust settles Assad will still be there unless they get a lucky hit, and even if they do the regime won't suddenly implode.
What happens then? Cyber attacks from the 'Syrian Electronic Army'? Syria strikes Israel and/or Turkey? Israel strikes back......Iran (probably through Hezbollah) strikes Israel - Israel hits Iran.........
There's a compelling argument for some form of intervention but it's only outweighed by the argument for not intervening.0
Advertisement