Syrian civil war

[Orogun01]

And in the news today Obama has used an Executive order to waive a law the prohibits the United States from giving arms to terrorist backed groups. So, he want to take my guns away from me and give guns to the Syrian rebels, terrorists and all. Is it 2016 yet?

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

We have some lawyers here in the forum, I have a question: Can we prosecute the President?

[kgambit]

 

If you are referring to me when you are talking about "resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame" remember firstly that I am in general for an intervention.

 

 

That comment was not directed at you.  Not even remotely.      My apologies if you took affront. 

[Malcador]

Thought the aid was going to be chemical warfare gear and related equipment. And haven't they already been arming the rebels ?

[kgambit]

yep, it's all speculation, but so is the rebuttal for the most part.

 

LOL  True but I did state that at the top. 

 

True, but the point is more that the inspectors were there and immediately available, not what day they arrived on. In either case, usage a day prior to or especially a day after them being there makes far more sense.

 

Given that it took 5 days before the UN team was able to access the impact area, I think the timing of the UN teams presence isn't really important.  I won't belabor the point because the significance is mostly conjecture and I think the hard evidence overrides this issue. 

 

My reasons for thinking it is relatively unimportant are mainly based on it being in rebel hands for a year. Under those circumstances I feel a case must be made for why it was important to use CW there, 'now', as opposed to when the inspectors were gone.

 

That's the militarily logical way of doing things, in isolation, but not all the rebels are militarily logical. And from a PR POV it would destroy the rebels internationally if they made that scale of CW attack. I also make the judgement that the thing the rebels want more than anything, militarily, is direct intervention to level the playing field. Even well run militaries are not always as respectful of civilians as they could be, when there's an advantage at stake.

 

I combined #2 and #4 because they basically are intertwined re: the issue of the area's importance.   The importance of the area to the opposition is many faceted:  it provides local support, it is a reasonably large area that allows for internal redeployment and it's fairly firmly in opposition hands.  As such, the rebels might dig in their heels and fight extraordinarily hard to maintain control of it. 

 

An urban setting that has been partially reduced to rubble by prolonged air and artillery attacks provides an excellent basis for a defense and a protracted siege is more than likely.  The rubble restricts tank movements, provides excellent cover for hunter killer AT teams and excellent positions for snipers and infantry.   Ask the Russians how that worked for them at Stalingrad.  

 

The inability of Assad's forces to root out the rebels may be more a matter of him not being able to do so, rather than not wanting to do so.  And he or one of his commanders could have decided that chemical weapons provide one excellent tool to root out a dug in defender (which they do).  The importance of the area to Assad does not need to extend past the presence of a rebel force that he has to destroy to justify its importance.  There does not have to be a significant regime military target in the area )a base that needs to be recaptured etc) to justify the regime attacks.  

 

Both sides need not see the same strategic value in the area.  The continued air and artillery attacks by regime forces against the area speaks to Assad's desire to eliminate a dug in foe while the length of the struggle attests to the opposition's determination to not let that happen.   The fact that multiple situations like this exist not only in Damascus but further to the north may speak to the fact that Assad's forces are stretched thin,

 

I'd again come back to the military significance point though. Why there, and why then? Was it really that important? As I said there are circumstances where it's eminently believable, achieving a critical breakthrough or defending a critical area. As for the hazmat, their response would clearly be "we came under CW attack from the rebels", and I'm not convinced they would need hazmat that much- if you have air superiority and artillery plus tanks you could prevent most reinforcement until the gas has cleared, and issuing atropine or similar would not be conclusive against them given they've accused the rebels prior of using gas.

 

I've just answered the military significance question from #2 and #4.  The issue of why there is easy ....  that's where the rebels are and apparently that area has been a hotbed of opposition activity for over a year by your own reckoning.  Activity against that area has been ongoing for a long time.  Why then?  Ah now that's trickier and a lot more difficult to answer without eyes on the situation.  One possible answer is the commander on the ground was getting frustrated by lack of progress. 

 

The hazmat argument "we got attacked y the rebels" won't fly - because it would require a some extraordinary luck for a usually rear deployed unit to just happen to redeploy to the front in the exact same area and at the exact time that it gets hit by an unexpected chemical attack by the rebels.  "Wow that was really bad bad luck boys.  Say what were you guys doing at the front anyway?"   That won't sell in Peoria.  Deploying chem weapon units in forward areas is usually a good sign that they are prepping to exploit a chem weapon attack.  At least that's the method behind Soviet army doctrine.   Again I'm assuming that you want to exploit the attack immediately and that does require hazmat.   

 

But if you have control of the area you can remove incriminating evidence and plant obfuscating or framing evidence. That is allegedly what happened at several massacre sites, and this was a bit above a mere massacre both in scale and potential repercussions- and they would have known that.

 

I'm going to bypass this one for the time being.  I could use a link or some details on what was alleged to have taken place at the other sites.  I know there were numerous back and forth charges on both sides.  Just off the top of my head, the arguments that speak the loudest against a rebel frame are items 1, 2, 4 and 5 below.  Item 3 I have to think about - my gut tells me that trying to plant a couple of rockets to fake impacts and impact craters is not something that can be done on the fly. 

 

A couple of points you didn't address.  There are some significant points of data that are difficult to explain away:

 

1) The sarin mixture is not a home-brew version but something significantly more advanced likely putting it beyond the capacity of the rebels.

2) One of the rockets was a 330 mm Falaq-2 launched rocket.  The rebels have never used one like that, nor would they have access to the Iranian produced launcher.

3) The rocket trajectories all point back to launch sites in military compound still in regime hands. 

4) One of the 330 mm rockets was estimated to contain 56 litres of sarin - that's 5 times what the Tokyo terrorists produced and that was from 1 rocket.

5) The German intercepts caught regime forces discussing their involvement in the attacks.  Similar intercepts from other countries confirm the substance of those intercepts.

 

Explaining those so that no blowback falls on the regime is a tall order. 

 

Oh, you'd be surprised. I think the only substantive difference is that while I do find it most likely that regime forces used them given the current evidence I don't think it's conclusive, and would like something which deals with motive a bit more than the cartoonish "Assad is a thug, lol" that is largely being portrayed. I'm basically treating it as I would a trial, you're prosecutor and I'm defender so it's my job to promote alternative scenarios.

 

100% conclusive?  No, probably not but I think there's always a little bit of doubt in anything.  Beyond a reasonable doubt?  Ahhhhh, now that might not be such a hard sell.

I don't think of Assad as a thug ....  a conniving president, yeah, but heck I'm used to those. 

[Walsingham]

And in the news today Obama has used an Executive order to waive a law the prohibits the United States from giving arms to terrorist backed groups. So, he want to take my guns away from me and give guns to the Syrian rebels, terrorists and all. Is it 2016 yet?

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

 

Wouldn't it logically follow that you ought to volunteer to fight the Syrian regime like some sort of BBQ-n-bourbon jihadi?

 

Then POTUS might be buying you guns.

[Gorgon]

They aren't called terrorists when they are doing our dirty work, only if they should happen to win. Don't you know anything.

[Walsingham]

They aren't called terrorists when they are doing our dirty work, only if they should happen to win. Don't you know anything.

 

Sorry, sir.

[licketysplit]

So it's come down to he-said, she-said on the chemical weapons now. International politics are like playground spats.

[obyknven]

Russians are scary

 

http://youtu.be/3iwhROE5Knc

[kgambit]

 

And in the news today Obama has used an Executive order to waive a law the prohibits the United States from giving arms to terrorist backed groups. So, he want to take my guns away from me and give guns to the Syrian rebels, terrorists and all. Is it 2016 yet?

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

 

Wouldn't it logically follow that you ought to volunteer to fight the Syrian regime like some sort of BBQ-n-bourbon jihadi?

 

Then POTUS might be buying you guns.

 

 

The problem is that sooner or later you are going to be confused with the beer-n-brats and grits-n-grillade jihadis and eventually the media is going to start labeling you as one of those dreaded sushi-n-chablis terrorists.  It's just a no win situation.

 

You're better off staying home, watching Fox and cursing Obama.

[Zoraptor]

I see John McCain has written a reply to Vladimir Putin in, uh, Pravda. That it's in Pravda pretty much sums up the 21st century McCain, post Rove bashing. Whereas Putin picks a newspaper of record McCain picks the equivalent of the National Enquirer based on it being famous in the 80s (and I'm not even sure it's the same Pravda, or has just co-opted the name), which is appropriately where his world view is stuck.

[obyknven]

I see John McCain has written a reply to Vladimir Putin in, uh, Pravda. .

 

Russophobe McCain claimed he's "more pro–Russian" than the country's own leaders.  Reaction of Russian people  to this:

[licketysplit]

Putin is a pathetic excuse for an oligarch. Maybe he needs to take his shirt off and ride on a white stallion, that'll convince the Russian public he's in control..

[Walsingham]

Putin is a pathetic excuse for an oligarch. Maybe he needs to take his shirt off and ride on a white stallion, that'll convince the Russian public he's in control..

 

I don't think there's any doubt he's in control. Just look at who benefited from the Sochi Olympics.

[Walsingham]

On topic, can I add - with a knowing leer - that I think we should have a UN resolution regarding their CBRN, then just let them tell us what they have and haven't destroyed. No need for inspections.

[obyknven]

Meanwhile superpowers continue preparations for WW3.

 

Russia started Western Europe Invasion exercises Zapad 2013 (West 2013)
http://investmentwatchblog.com/russia-started-western-europe-invasion-exercises-zapad-2013-west-2013/

http://youtu.be/loeuXGGO8iM

[Morgoth]

Putin is a pathetic excuse for an oligarch. Maybe he needs to take his shirt off and ride on a white stallion, that'll convince the Russian public he's in control..

 

Putin is an amateur indeed. Luckily, TEAM AMERRRICCA yet again shows the world who's the real PR master!

 

[Walsingham]

Meanwhile superpowers continue preparations for WW3.

 

As long as it makes you feel all warm and tingly I for one am happy to have ww3.

[Woldan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FsF3HspQY6A#t=15

Edited October 9, 2013 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

Hugely amused at the office to note that there is a jif unit in Syria called the Northern Storm Brigade. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24403003

 

Loosely Translated into German I think this gives it an appropriately SS sounding name: Sturmbrigade Nord.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a bunch of ****s.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Walsingham

[obyknven]

Brzezinski: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, their western allies orchestrated Syria crisis

http://orwellwasright.co.uk/2013/08/23/brzezinski-saudi-arabia-qatar-their-western-allies-orchestrated-syria-crisis/

 

The former US national security adviser says the ongoing crisis in Syria has been orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and their western allies.

“In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” Zbigniew Brzezinski said in an interview with The National Interest on June 24.

He added that US President Barack Obama also supported the unrest in Syria and suddenly announced that President Bashar al-Assad “has to go — without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen.”

 

“Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort,” said Brzezinski, who was former White House national security adviser under Jimmy Carter and now a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a senior research professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Criticizing the Obama administration’s policies regarding Syria, he questioned, “Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that ‘democratic.’ And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered.”

 

“I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly US policy was aiming at,” Brzezinski added.

 

“I’m afraid that we’re headed toward an ineffective American intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes. But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it’s simply damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not understand why — and that refers to my first answer — why we concluded somewhere back in 2011 or 2012 — an election year, incidentally that Assad should go.”

 

 

[Volourn]

All those words yet not one bit of evidence provided. L0L

[Oerwinde]

All those words yet not one bit of evidence provided. L0L

Witness accounts are generally considered evidence.

[Walsingham]

I think it's one hell of a lot more likely that we were simply caught napping.

 

There were no units ready for ANY of the stuff in the so-called Arab Spring. Even the Iranians took a while to get moving and they have been linked into events in Syria for an age.

[Agiel]

Well the irony is that in this day and age, revolutions tend to happen when things are getting better, not when they are at their worst. When people don't have to worry about scraping by anymore, they have the time and energy to organise and take stock of the situation, both past and present. I guess that's the perverse genius of Kim-il Sung and his progeny; keep the people starved of protein so that their bodies feed on their minds for sustenance, then they'll believe anything you say.