Slashdot Mirror
US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joshua Mitnick reports that Israel and the U.S. carried out a missile test over the Mediterranean Sea on Tuesday morning that was detected by Russian surveillance systems. Israel's defense ministry eventually said a Sparrow rocket had been fired to simulate a ballistic missile attack on the Jewish state to test the Arrow interceptor system. The Arrow – which wasn't fired Tuesday – has been developed to defend against long range rockets primarily from Iran, a main patron of the Syrian regime. Arieh Herzog, a former Israeli missile defense director, says that the Sparrow missile is developed to simulate 'the worst threats' in the region so Israel can hone the capabilities of the Arrow III missile interceptor. Herzog speculated that the launch Tuesday was done at a considerably long range. Another Israeli expert said the incident could be seen as muscle flexing by the U.S. and Israel. 'You could say perhaps its show of strength to Syria and its Iranian ally — that Israel has a range of options at its disposal. And to place pressure on Assad and Iran that Israel takes [retaliation threats] seriously,' says Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer on Iranian politics at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. Pentagon press secretary George Little said the U.S. 'provided technical assistance and support to the Israeli Missile Defense Organization flight test of a Sparrow target missile over the Mediterranean Sea.' 'The United States and Israel cooperate on a number of long-term ballistic missile defense development projects to address common challenges in the region,' added Little. 'This test had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack.'"
The hacker uploaded a load of email correspondence for several security contractors to pastebin, their wives and a colonel or two. it is being taken offline as fast as it is being distributed... it certainly does look damning evidence. Is anybody surprised given that we know Syria has been on the chopping block ever since "The New American Century" was published...
I'm just swinging my fist 1mm from your face, I'm not touching you, you can't stop me, there's no law against swinging your arms, stop touching my hands with your face, ha ha ha!
Except that in this case instead of getting kicked by an irate sibling some stuff might be blown up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I agree. It's difficult to believe they really think they can intimidate these guys. The one running Iran is crazy and the one in Syria is desperate. They aren't going to be put off by a missile test. Of course it's possible Israel is just trying to iron out the kinks in the system in preperation for the shit that is about to hit the fan. I think that a strike is almost inevitable at this point.
By Missile we mean Democracy Spreading Device.
Why don't we stay the fuck out of syria. Neither side likes us. We can't 'win' anything.
We're going to piss away a bunch more lives and money we don't have, for what?
'This test had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack.'
HAHAHHAHHAHA
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Now that Dear Leader Obama is the president and has decided that we all need to give war a chance, NPR has taken to calling anyone who doesn't want his war to be an "isolationist."
You'll note that this term was never used against people who disagreed with wars in Afghanistan or Iraq... instead those people were "anti-war" or "pro-peace". We basically need another Republican as president so that the press can go back to attacking the president instead of being his trained lapdog.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Intimidate? More like trying to provoke an attack - better to claim the moral high ground over blatantly starting what will be a very bloody high civilian casualty war. "We were just running an innocent missile test, and they attacked us...". Echo's of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident...
Yup, they're so real they didn't have to include the headers.
You can download all the correspondence from pastebin (well, a few hours ago you could).. All headers are there...
Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea, unannounced, with all of the threats of a US strike on Syria. What could possibly go wrong?
Or perhaps the idea was to see if someone would fire back. It sure would be a lot more convenient to fire off a bunch of Tomahawks "in self defense" right now.
Wouldn't an American general and his friends speak English? This looks like fake to me. The language seems unnatural for a native speaker. Some examples:
"Hope to see you soon again."
"Thanks God, they are alive. I hope they got a kind of present or some cash."
"I saw it either and got afraid very much."
"I see their faces when in sleep. What did Tony say you about this?"
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
First: shortly after Russia reported that they detected a missile launch, Pentagon denied having anything to do with that. Now it is reported that both USA and Israel conducted the test together. Is USA just stepping in for Israel? Don't they not even pretend to be impartial?
Second: who in their right mind approves to test a ballistic missile in Syria's backyard in this situation? Do they also give matches to kids with "go, play somewhere in some stacked hay"?
Oh the irony. If the US is behind this attack, shouldn't the rest of the world gather and attack them? Didn't Obama argue that international law must be enforced?
http://youtu.be/o2TmDtj9oPg?t=3m10s
ayottesoftware.com
Yea this is a load of crap. People need to think more. You get to be in political power by always coming out on the winning side of the risk to benefit equation. The risk to president Obama that would come from giving the rebels chemical weapons is through the roof. The benefit is at best tiny. Just not in the cards folks.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
As crazy as the Iranian government seems, they are almost certainly not that stupid. What do you suppose would happen to the Iranian government and their ayatollahs if they shot missiles at Israel?
I call BS because said colonel uses "yahoo" mail instead of .mil. Right.
The one running Iran is crazy
And what "one" would that be? The word is Dinner Jacket is just a civil administrator; the nation is run by a council.
The US fired the missile unannounced . . . to see if the Russian surveillance systems could spot it . . . and if the Russians could warn their Syrian pals about it.
They're just probing the target's defenses at this point. Nothing new here. The US military folks just want to see how good the Russian made stuff is, before they do anything for real.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
They're also not even aggressive. They've been bombed and threatened and all kinds of bullshit by the US for so long, and they've done barely anything in retaliation.
I mean, the fucking CIA used chemical weapons on them in the Iraq-Iran war, then the US blamed Iran. A US ship illegally entered Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not even a good country - but compared to the aggressors here, it's practically Hello Kitty.
I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But
data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly
reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?
The risk to president Obama that would come from giving the rebels chemical weapons is through the roof. The benefit is at best tiny. Just not in the cards folks.
Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them. I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either).
I don't think anyone is intimidated. This is the Middle East, after all. It has been the subject of conquest by many "civilizations" since before recorded history. Those who live there are used to a slew of intimidation efforts.
I think the Israelis are looking to confirm that their defensive Anti-Ballistic Missile defenses have a fighting chance of working. If Syrian action were imminent, there may well be missiles aimed at Israel, just as there were during the Iraq war. I would want to know that such defensive weapons worked before launching an attack.
It is also a warning to Iran that Israel would probably survive a missile attack enough to retaliate in kind. The Iranian government may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
Except this time the "target" has powerful friends. I fully expect Russia to defend their ally. I fully expect China to defend Iran, if it comes to that, too. If the US creates the UN, creates a "Security Council", names itself a permanent member and then ignores it completely, breaking its own rules, then either international law is abandoned completely by everyone, or the US will be held to account. And believe it or not, the US (and its European bedfellows) cannot take on the world.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The cynicism amongst some people is so strong that they'll blindly believe any shred of evidence regardless of how fake it looks. It's a good and healthy thing to question, but to buy into every stupid conspiracy theory that comes along is idiotic. They're only capable of being cynical in one direction which means the right interests will be able to easily exploit their naivete.
I bet the guys who posted those supposed emails read the summary and in their gleeful rush to share this crap neglected to dig any deeper. But I guarantee you that a year from now people will continue repeating this story and all blog links will lead right back to this particular site. When it comes to this sort of thing blogs tend to be a circle jerk where everyone uses everyone else's blog as proof for their claims.
Any reason you didn't link to the first attack? You're not trying to mislead people, are you?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
troll. fake.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Probably because of this, right at the top of the link:
In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:
At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]
Who is trying to mislead, then?
Looks perfectly legit. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wire $1,000 to my barrister in London so he can free up the one million GBP waiting for me.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?
I don't see how you get your first question, no comments here even imply that the videos were faked. The question that is pertinent is "who used the chemical?". Are you perhaps confused by the term "False Flag"? The term does not imply that an event did not happen, but rather implies that the event was staged. This is the Hegelian dialectic (problem => reaction => solution).
John Kerry last week stated that it did not matter who used chemical weapons. That statement is absolutely wrong, and I really hope you are intelligent enough to know that Kerry was wrong.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you were a terrorist or pro-terrorists by Bush's statements. Did you forget the whole "you are either for us or against us" speech used and intended to stifle questioning policy? MSM labelled many people unpatriotic as well as pro-terrorist.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The world reacts to the crisis in Syria.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
The one running Iran is crazy
If you're talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, he's not crazy at all: He acts crazy to try to keep the US from attacking his country. And pursuing a nuclear weapon also isn't a dumb move, because the US has made it clear that it leaves countries with nukes and crazy-seeming leaders (e.g. North Korea) alone while attacking countries without nukes (e.g. Iraq).
If you're talking about the current guy running Iran, Hassan Rouhani, he ran on a campaign of negotiating with foreign powers and more centrist policies, and is decidedly not crazy.
I am officially gone from
For someone accusing others of misleading, your sure going out of your way to mislead people yourself.
Once again you obscure the facts. The Maddox was attacked in international waters, not North Vietnamese waters. Just as North Vietnam was conducting a war of aggression against South Vietnam, it also engaged in aggression at sea.
Actions in the Gulf of Tonkin, August 1964
On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Ahmannadinijad [sic] was never running the country. He was nothing more than a Secretary of State analog. The clerics run Iran. But, it's an ingenious setup because it kept the Western world focused on the short, loud one (didn't he lose his last election?).
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I think for US the main problems is choice of target for the missiles that does not affect civilians too much and has some meaning for the lunatics in power in Syria - I mean Assad has probably enough palaces and lives in bunkers judging on the footage from meetings with the chosen ones broadcast by Syrian TV so palaces are of limited use as target. Maybe the military but WMD depots are dangerous as hell because of collateral damage that does not show nicely on the TV not to mention some munition that is not destroyed may get recycled by militants there.
This account, however, has come into sharp dispute with an internal NSA historical study[7] which stated on page 17:
At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]
The Maddox when confronted, was approaching Hòn Mê Island, three to four miles (6 km) inside the twelve-mile (19 km) limit claimed by North Vietnam. This territorial limit was unrecognized by the United States. After the skirmish, President Johnson ordered the Maddox and Turner Joy to stage daylight runs into North Vietnamese waters, testing the twelve-mile (19 km) limit and North Vietnamese resolve. These runs into North Vietnamese territorial waters coincided with South Vietnamese coastal raids and were interpreted as coordinated operations by the North, which officially acknowledged the engagements of 2 August 1964.[22]
So please, if you have issues with the historical account as it currently stands, take it up with the professional historians - plenty of them standing by on wikipedia and elsewhere to rip your blatant fact manipulation to shreds. Also lets not get into the long list of other false flag operations that have been used to start wars - not like it is anything new.
You do know they had elections earlier this year, right?
Israel never announces a test before they do it.
Also, the only ones with the capability to detect it are the US and Russia.
The Russians probably knew exactly what it was when they saw it.
So, maybe they are the ones trying to create a scare.
As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
I'm sure it was, um, just a coincidence. Yeah, that's it, a coincidence. A previously scheduled anti-missile test that just happened to not actually test the "anti" part of the anti-missile system.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
If you follow the parent link, you'll see that the claim is that the videos are fake. E.g.
"From the Anthony’s wife dialog with her friend it’s clear the video with the children killed in the chemical attack near Damascus was staged by U.S. Intelligence."
Irrelevant shit goes in one ear and out the other, however something tells me that the same forces are still in charge of Iran, seemingly-crazy figureheads notwithstanding. :)
Of course it's not coincidence. The test may have been planned for months but Israel would have pushed up the deadline on any such testing. They would be rightfully concerned about what may happen in the next few weeks, since they are on the front lines. If they can do anything to prepare for retaliatory attacks launched from Syria (or Iran), they will be doing it. I suspect Turkey is doing the same, as is everyone else in the region who happens to be affiliated, in any way, with U.S. interests.
Except the Syrian army didn't use chemical weapons.
Don't let the "Hacked emails" distraction confuse you. The UN inspection teams didn't find any evidence that the Syrian army perpetrated the attacks.
The infamous photo used to show all the dead bodies wasn't even from Syria. It was from Iraq.
Also, Kerry's "We Know" speech was based on 100% bullshit.
http://www.sott.net/article/265807-A-Response-to-John-Kerrys-Syria-Evidence-Speech
It takes some time to learn about the real situation on the ground and think this through calmly, but that's what needs to be done in order to avert further tragedy. People like simple answers and the war mongers want to get people to seek them so that they can supply the easy lies which will lead to war.
We need to learn to think things through before reacting. Reacting along the paths chosen for us always leads to horrors. The government is using the same WMD tactics all over again to start another war.
Don't be fooled.
I believe that he is probably talking about the man actually in charge in Iran, Ali Khamenei.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them. I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either)."
1 Actually it doesn't here. The UN will not invade because China and Russia will not agree to it. They will veto any massive UN action.
2 The US will not invade because the US is war weary and the President doesn't have the support.
3 The US did nothing when Iraq used them.
So the worse is that the US will fire some cruise missiles to make a show of it. The Syria under their brave leaders took the "worst" that the Imperialist US dogs and their lackeys could dish out and stood firm. In other words we slap the on the wrist and they stick out their tongue at the world. In other words President Obama mucked this up because frankly he just is not a good president. I am not saying that he is evil or anything like that. He seems like a good guy but he should have done a few terms in Congress to get educated about the world outside of being an "activist organizer".
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them? I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either).
This is the one question I keep asking myself too. What possible benefits might be coming to Syria if they actually used the chemical weapons? If their back was against the wall and Assad was saying "eff this, let's throw everything we have at these infidel rebels!".... yeah, I could see that as a reason. Unfortunately Syria has a whole lot to lose and not much to gain by doing this kind of stupid gas attack. For crying out loud, Syria has access to jet fighter-bombers, artillery cannons, and a whole range of explosives of a modern military at their disposal. If the goal was simply to kill a bunch of people, there were literally dozens of ways to get that accomplished without resorting to the "weapons of mass destruction".
The rebel groups, on the other hand, have their backs to the wall and are desperate... where Assad clearly has the upper hand as long as those rebels aren't getting outside assistance from other governments. They have very little to lose and a whole lot to gain if these chemical weapons are used and publicized... especially if that use is blamed upon the Assad government. Having the U.S. Army directly back up your own little band of rebels definitely is a huge boost to both morale and actual firepower.
Something definitely stinks here and this doesn't make the official Obama administration story sound all that accurate. I don't know about details here as the PR spin doctors have really mucked this thing up thus finding "the truth" is nearly impossible right now.
You aren't thinking enough like a conspiracy theorist. These are either a carefully crafted code to their Illuminati brothers or the colonels have been removed from the earth and alien doppelgangers have been put in their place.
See, it's all very obvious when you think it through.
Not unlike pithy and anal comments sometimes made on Slashdot?
It doesn't sound like you've been around here much.
This looks like fake to me.
Maybe this whole thing is a false flag false flag!! Did you ever think about that??
Oh no, of course not. You sheeple don't know how to spot a conspiracy even when it's hovering menacingly right over you.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
THIS
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If the goal was to gather and eliminate the current leadership in Washington DC, I think you might find a few supporters even in America itself. I would prefer to do that at a ballot box, but if the armies from around the world are coming anyway there could definitely be some internal domestic support too.
Heck, there are currently some deep divisions within the U.S. military itself. There is a distinct possibility that if military units are ordered to action, they may not follow orders. Then again the Obama administration has been conducting a purge of military leaders over the past couple of years, so there is likely to be some very loyal people at the top.
I still don't see it, but that's okay. Try searching for "Egypt Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Then "Syria Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Or hell, have some fun and just search for "crisis actor".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
it's hovering menacingly right over you.
That's the FSM.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Syria has access to jet fighter-bombers, artillery cannons, and a whole range of explosives of a modern military at their disposal. If the goal was simply to kill a bunch of people, there were literally dozens of ways to get that accomplished without resorting to the "weapons of mass destruction".
The problem is that the explosives route doesn't command territory, and it doesn't have a high enough body count.
It's like the "you have 6 bullets, I have 20 people" equation. You will kill the 6 ( maybe ), but the remaining 14 will get you.
Of course, you have to have a mad enough "20".
Weapons like gas add to the body count and add to the terror in the minds of the opponents, and might be able to take out the "20".
emt 377 emt 4
What Assad was doing was scaring the opposition shitless with the chem. weapons. According to intelligence from several different countries, he's done this over 10 times. It was just that he happened to do it in close where there were (a) people with cameras, and (b) medical facilities to record the casualties. He was simply upping the ante because the West didn't do anything after his previous gas attacks and he knows Russia and China don't have the ethics or morals to stop him. Iran certainly won't mind a few more dead Sunnis, and neither would Hezbollah.
So, what was in it for Assad? In a word, Fear.
But the mercenaries and imported religious fanatics (a.k.a. "rebels" in the media) don't have the "20 people". Most of the civilian population wasn't terribly happy with Assad, but almost NONE of them like these new idiots and everyone blames them for the violence (rightfully so). If the gov't gasses a neighborhood and kills the 20 civilians, they've just killed a bunch of people who support them, the majority who don't like either side, and almost no one who opposes them. They're already frightened of anyone carrying a weapon at this point, they won't have gained anything except pissing off surviving relatives who otherwise wouldn't have done anything.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I have yet to read anything about mercenaries and imported religious fanatics.
Can you substantiate this?
emt 377 emt 4
The US didn't make a fuss over Iraq using them against Iran because of the little disagreement the US had with Iran in 1979.
But mainly as a crucial catalyst to bring back Jesus Christ for the closing speech of the Apocalypse.
In all frightening seriousness, this is a fundamental tenet in not-so-far-Right-Wing foreign policy.
Khamenei isn't crazy either, he's just doing his best to hang onto the power he has, even if he has to be cruel to his citizens to do it. Your typical person with power and no term limits, in other words.
I am officially gone from
And they made little fuss when Iran used them back. That is what the Syrian government was hoping for and even if we don't they know we will not take them out so the risk seems worth it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Is 'limited strike' against Syria something like how Osama launched a 'limited strike' against the USA by striking the WTC?
They're also not even aggressive.
[...]
The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not even a good country - but compared to the aggressors here, it's practically Hello Kitty.
Pretty much this.
Iran has more to fear from Israel than vice versa, given recent history and present rhetoric. Naturally the regime in Tehran had to counter this, for selfish reasons to save face in the eyes of their electorate.
I might add, pre-emptively as it were, that the typical charge that they are antisemites is patently false -- Iran is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, and they would appear to thrive and get along just fine.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
wars are HUGELY profitable for politician's portfolios, to say nothing of the large corporations that have our politicians in their pockets.
The problem is that the explosives route doesn't command territory, and it doesn't have a high enough body count.
It's like the "you have 6 bullets, I have 20 people" equation. You will kill the 6 ( maybe ), but the remaining 14 will get you.
Of course, you have to have a mad enough "20".
Weapons like gas add to the body count and add to the terror in the minds of the opponents, and might be able to take out the "20".
Bullshit. If you want to build a bigger bomb, you just go ahead and build it. The question isn't 6 bullets and 20 people, but rather 6k bullets and 20 people, wondering if after the first couple hundred bullets into each person should the commander be reprimanded for simply wasting ammunition. Assad has a large enough army and is well supplied enough to hunt down and wipe out each of these rebel groups with vastly superior and overwhelming military force.
That really isn't a problem.
The real problem is that these groups are being supported and supplied with weapons and technical support from other countries, namely the USA, UK, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other groups (including the infamous Al-Qaeda who is actively recruiting people to help with the Syrian rebels). Since so much in the way of weapons, food, and equipment is being sent to these rebels by other major countries, why not a few canisters of chemical weapons too? It would be stupid to say that these other countries don't have access to chemical weapons and the knowledge in terms of how to build and deploy them.
The only reason why you use chemical weapons in a situation like this is either because you are mentally unbalanced (in which case.... why did the Obama administration and other governments help him out for so many decades?) or if you want to engage mass casualties where killing some of your own supporters and even loyal soldiers will be killed to deliver that final death blow.
You nor anybody else suggesting Assad has done this has given a rational explanation for why his soldiers or officers actually conducted this attack. Certainly it wasn't to increase body counts, as the victims of the Dresden fire bombing campaign can amply account for. Assad is certainly capable of conducting such a bombing campaign against a civilian population he they cared, thus chemical weapons simply aren't needed.
nonsense. over 100,000 people have already been gunned down or blown up with conventional bombs.....dead is dead. if people over there want to gas each other let them, because they'll kill each other in other ways anyway. we don't need to jump in the middle of a fight with terrorists on both sides. Look at history, the USA makes civil wars *much* worse when it jumps in, we're saving lives staying out of it
While I don't believe this is true, I do recognize that if it were true, systems are in place to keep it secret, and I would be none the wiser. But what the hell can I do but make educated guesses?
The US should just needs to add gas masks and chemical protective clothing to the next non-lethal assistance goody bag and let things play out. If the more civilized countries of the world can stomach indiscriminant killings than I guess the US shouldn't rock the boat. I am afraid it is going to take another WW2 era holocaust to once again remind the world just how petty and inconsequential their political stances and politicized morality really are.
{{Citation needed}}
Seriously. If he had done this dozens (at least the ten time you suggest here), there wouldn't be nearly so much fuss over this most recent usage of those weapons. It would have already been an accepted diplomatic fact among everybody involved and then the question would be if chemical weapons usage rises to any sort of a serious issue that is as bad as somebody using a thermonuclear weapon instead.
That is what is being claimed here.
I also don't buy the fear argument, so far as any military commander (even those commanders in World War I which actually deployed such weapons) knew that it would be an escalation of hostilities and not viewed favorably by the international community as a whole. When Germany used chemical weapons in the Netherlands, their back was up against the wall and their generals were desperate to try any possible action to try and break the log jam that was trench warfare during that war. Having a million corpses of your fellow soldiers tends to make you desperate for some major change.
Assad was in no similar kind of danger and had a great many other options available to get the job done, especially knowing that America and the UK were openly supporting the rebels and would use any possible excuse to ramp up that support even further.... as did happen too. Even total jerks like Stalin avoided things like chemical weapons simply because he wouldn't take the diplomatic loss from their use.
The most incredible thing is how few whistle-blowers there have been in US history.
And they made little fuss when Iran used them back. That is what the Syrian government was hoping for and even if we don't they know we will not take them out so the risk seems worth it.
Why would you say that Assad's government in Syria "knows we will not take them out"? After seeing the armies of Iraq evaporate as the morning dew in the Gulf War (Syria was actually an allay of America in that war and got a front row seat to the full capabilities of the U.S. military), I'm sure they realize that America is more than capable of a full conquest and even annexation of Syria if it was in the interests of the U.S. Congress. It wouldn't even cause a military draft to happen in America or even much in the way of increased taxes.
From the perspective of the U.S. military, Syria is just vermin that needs to be dealt with. Syria damn well knows that too. They also have a neighboring country (Iraq) that serves as a strong example of what can happen to them if they decide to dick around with America.
Perhaps they feel that their relationship with Russia and China can be used as a counter to American military force. The Security Council veto is irrelevant other than that particular justification for going to war isn't an option this time around.... but having Russian ships and marines standing by waiting for a move by the USA is a potential counter.
World War I started for weaker reasons than this, and similar kinds of balancing of powers against each other was attempted.... and all fell apart too. Serbia hasn't been the same since those days when the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated either. It was squished like a bug then forgotten as a backwater issue to the greater war that ended up happening. Syria is in the same danger and I would think Assad is just as knowledgeable about history as I am in that regard.
Interesting. Sadam didn't use chemical agents on them, that was the US? You sound as if you believe that. In any case Iran's preferred method of attack is by use of terrorism which they have been funneling through Syria. It's not any secret, everyone is aware of it. I can understand it, when you don't have the power for a stand up fight you use an oblique approach. It's starting to wear on the US and Israel and I think the use of gas is going to serve as an excuse to put a crimp in the Syrian-Iranian partnership.
Khamenei, the real power.
Simple the President has no stomach for boots on the ground. He is also is planning a punishment attack and nothing more. No it is a good gamble and he has Russia and China to keep the UN out of it. Without the UK to back him up President Obama is now just flopping around trying to offload as much blame and responsibility has he can. AKA it isn't his red line it is the world's.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"Bullshit. If you want to build a bigger bomb, you just go ahead and build it."
Sure, or buy it. Problem is, excepting nuclear bombs, even a sustained barrage just doesn't kill as many people as you might think it does.
"The question isn't 6 bullets and 20 people, but rather 6k bullets and 20 people, wondering if after the first couple hundred bullets into each person should the commander be reprimanded for simply wasting ammunition."
Except it is 6 and 20 writ large. You dont have enough bullets/ bombs to eradicate them all.
"Assad has a large enough army and is well supplied enough to hunt down and wipe out each of these rebel groups with vastly superior and overwhelming military force."
They why hasn't he? From where I sit, it looks like he wants to get rid of "the rebels".
"The real problem is that these groups are being supported and supplied with weapons and technical support from other countries"
OK.
"why not a few canisters of chemical weapons too? It would be stupid to say that these other countries don't have access to chemical weapons and the knowledge in terms of how to build and deploy them"
You may be right on shipping them. They likely do have them.
"The only reason why you use chemical weapons in a situation like this is either because you are mentally unbalanced"
Or desperate
" (in which case.... why did the Obama administration"
Only the Obama administration? I hardly think so. The issues in the middle east go back past Eisenhower.
"and other governments help him out for so many decades?) or if you want to engage mass casualties where killing some of your own supporters and even loyal soldiers will be killed to deliver that final death blow."
I would expect they would keep the loyal soldiers out of the area. And try to gas areas where they believe there are many rebels and few supporters.
"You nor anybody else suggesting Assad has done this has given a rational explanation for why his soldiers or officers actually conducted this attack."
He wants them dead, disarmed, deactivated or otherwise out of the way. The conflict there has been open since march of 2011, and there have been internal issues ( not everyone is happy with Assad, nor his father ) going back to the coup d'etat that installed his father. He ( and his opposition ) sees what has happened in neighboring Arab states, with their leaders being removed/deposed/etc and he wants to avoid that. His opposition believes there is no better time to engage in uprisings.
"Certainly it wasn't to increase body counts, as the victims of the Dresden fire bombing campaign [wikipedia.org] can amply account for."
Certainly it was. And Dresden is an example of what I speak of. In spite of a bombing campaign that Assad *could not* accomplish many lived.
It looks like about 25k people were killed from a population of about 350k+.
I would expect the survivors were rather unhappy with the English/Allies after that.
"Assad is certainly capable of conducting such a bombing campaign against a civilian population he they cared, thus chemical weapons simply aren't needed."
He could conduct a bombing campaign. He could not accomplish something like Dresden. Not even close.
Assuming he could, the international outcry would be just as great, and his ability to deny that it happened and that he was responsible would be next to impossible. Gas kills people, but it doesn't leave as much photographic evidence ( bodies would be there, of course, but the craters wouldn't ).
emt 377 emt 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standartenf%C3%BChrer_(Oberst)_Herzog
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2919598336/tt1278340?ref_=tt_pv_md_4
I'd prefer to think that an avid Holocaust denier is crazy rather than simply evil.
Simple the President has no stomach for boots on the ground. He is also is planning a punishment attack and nothing more. No it is a good gamble and he has Russia and China to keep the UN out of it. Without the UK to back him up President Obama is now just flopping around trying to offload as much blame and responsibility has he can. AKA it isn't his red line it is the world's.
So we should kill a few hundred or thousand Syrian children in a "punishment attack" in retribution for an attack that killed a few hundred Syrian children. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense to me.
Could that little disagreement have anything to do with another little disagreement the Iranians had with the US in 1953?
:(){
Keep in mind that the gas attack happened in a suburb of Damascus.
Damascus is the capital of Syria. Assad's palace is like, what, 10 miles from where the gas attack happened?
Do you REALLY think that he would launch a gas attack when a change in the wind could bring that gas directly to him? That reminds me of the people who think Iran would blow up Israel, not realizing that the land Israel sits on is holy land for Iran, too; the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
:(){
Damascus is not a remote village full of civilians. It is the capital of Syria.
This would be not unlike Obama gassing a suburb of DC because he's in a disagreement with Republicans.
:(){
The President: "I have directed Secretary of State Kerry to send a strongly worded memo to Mr. Assad. Strongly. Worded."
Maybe it is you who are forgetting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
Feb 15th specifically is regarded by record books as the largest protest ever, in the entire history of the human race. I'm not sure how you can classify the largest protest in the history of the world as "barely anyone".
Never said it did. I am just saying what Obama wants to do and why it will not work.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Reminds me of Python's Life of Brian....
"This calls for immediate....discussion!!!"
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No. At the time nobody really made a fuss over the Shah taking over the government. It was remarkably free of the organized mayhem seen today when power is transferred from one person or group to another. The US did supply money and promises of profitable future economic relations. The British went a little further by sending a couple of warships in to block Iranian oil exports all in a bid to stop the nationalization of their oil company assets. In general what the Shah did was not technically illegal because Iran's governmental precepts and rules gave the ruling Monarch the power to replace the Prime Minister under certain conditions. In 1979 the Iranian people replaced an anti-Islamic autocrat with a hardcore religious dictator. The liberals and student progressives of the time who initially started the wave of protests to remove the Shah were more interested in holding US embassy staff members as hostages then actually organizing and running their country. While they were playing around with the hostages the Islamic party took control of everything and then proceeded to kill or imprison anyone who offered up a different opinion on how to organize and run a country. Sort of like the protesters in Egypt rallied against Mubarak while the MB stood in the background claiming how they supported the protest but were not going to put up any candidates for Mubarak's replacement and we have all seen how that worked out. To bad the Iranians of 1979 couldn't of engineered a do over revolution after just one year.
No?
So it's not true that the 1979 revolution in Iran was in part fueled by anti-American animosity for our role in installing and supporting the Shah as ruler of Iran?
I mean, sure, in 1953, they might not have been opposed to what was happening (if they even knew what was happening at the time). But then again, in 2003, the US and most of the world thought Iraq had WMD and planned on using it. Funny how time has a habit of changing how an action is perceived. Just because someone isn't against it at the time it happened doesn't mean that it isn't viewed as a "disagreement" after-the-fact.
:(){
Anti-American animosity is the primary cause for every evil in the world today. It is the easiest position to take in any geo-political argument. Its doesn't require any actual facts and is easy to understand by any idiot who can not understand any thing more complicated.