Syria - civil war incoming?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Smoove_B »

Max Peck wrote:Mission accomplished?
So a train track in NY Penn Station was more effective at delaying NJ transit trains than $90+ million worth of missiles were in stopping planes from taking off? Again, I've never ordered a coordinated strike on a hardened target, but I'm still pretty sure if you have concerns that planes taking off are going to be dropping chemical munitions, you need to kind of maybe destroy air strips? I can only assume there is logic in both notifying your target to expect the strike and then only making sure you hit planes. Because who would think to then just fly new planes to the base?

Total insanity. All of this.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Rip »

Smoove_B wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Mission accomplished?
So a train track in NY Penn Station was more effective at delaying NJ transit trains than $90+ million worth of missiles were in stopping planes from taking off? Again, I've never ordered a coordinated strike on a hardened target, but I'm still pretty sure if you have concerns that planes taking off are going to be dropping chemical munitions, you need to kind of maybe destroy air strips? I can only assume there is logic in both notifying your target to expect the strike and then only making sure you hit planes. Because who would think to then just fly new planes to the base?

Total insanity. All of this.
They weren't attempting to remove the ability, they were sending the message that if they need to start removing the ability to do stuff, they are capable and willing to do so.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Smoove_B »

Really? From the man himself:
"Yesterday's chemical attack, a chemical attack so horrific in Syria against innocent people including women, small children, and even beautiful little babies, their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated," Trump said.
I guess one way to not tolerate them would be to strike at planes, sure. But the fact that Syrians were flying planes out of the airfield a day later makes it all seem rather worthless.
"The intent here wasn’t just to punish; it was deter future use," retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, an ABC News contributor and the former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command who turned down the role of national security adviser after Michael Flynn's resignation, told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday.
Apparently I have a different understanding of "deter future use' than a retired Vice Admiral - which is fine. I'm just left confused as it seems like targeting the hardware and not the infrastructure might not really deter much. I honestly didn't realize the military was into "sending messages". I sort of figured if we're lobbing $90+ million worth of missiles (I don't know how many Meals on Wheels that is precisely) we're doing so to f-ing destroy the hell out of something.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by RunningMn9 »

Isgrimnur wrote:I have no opinion on the reasons for the low casualty count. My issue is with a number being thrown out for the duration of the strike being given to us with the backing of, "trust me, I know things."
I'm not sure I understand the confusion. The low casualty count was on purpose. Our purpose in the attack was not to kill people. It was to be a show of force. Yes, it was theater. But it was pretty much the only possible response without risking American lives (during the operation), or dramatically increasing the potential for collateral damage in the form of Russians.

Our options were to do nothing, or to do this.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by RunningMn9 »

Smoove_B wrote:you need to kind of maybe destroy air strips?
That wasn't really an option. Tomahawk cruise missles blow giant whale dong at negatively impacting air strips. They make holes, you fill them in immediately, and air strip is all better.

The sort of payloads that are used to destroy airstrips have to be deployed by aircraft, which would be attempting to do so against a sophisticated air defense that knows you are coming (since we had to tell the Russians, and they would obviously tell the Syrians).

It's not insanity, so much as it was our only option aside from doing nothing. And maybe doing nothing was a better choice, but at the same time, how many times can our response to chemical weapons attacks be nothing?
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Smoove_B »

RunningMn9 wrote:The sort of payloads that are used to destroy airstrips have to be deployed by aircraft, which would be attempting to do so against a sophisticated air defense that knows you are coming (since we had to tell the Russians, and they would obviously tell the Syrians).
If nothing else, I have the utmost confidence in our military and I'm guessing disrupting those airstrips could have been accomplished, likely using a method the American people haven't seen before. I totally get that this was theater, it just seems like a half-ass attempt at demonstrating bullshit won't be tolerated. I guess to me it feels like a half-measure and I suppose I'm of the mind that if you're going to fully embrace the bravery of being out of range, you make sure that your target (particularly when it's infrastructure) can't be used less than 24 hours later to do the very thing you were sending a message about.

EDIT: Here's a nifty article covering the stuff you mentioned and how useless this all was.
Last edited by Smoove_B on Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Holman »

Rip wrote:Oh sure, they killed a bunch of people with Sarin gas just to set-up the WWE like storyline of Trump rushing to the rescue just to take advantage of all the ignorant marks in the US.

:roll:

WHen do we find out how much the pay-per-view will cost?
Assad needn't be complicit in Trump's posturing for Trump to posture.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by RunningMn9 »

Smoove_B wrote:I have the utmost confidence in our military
Then it might be a good idea to listen to them when they conclude that the only real response here is to lob cruise missiles at them. The plan came from the Pentagon, not Trump's fever dreams.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Rip »

Smoove_B wrote:Really? From the man himself:
"Yesterday's chemical attack, a chemical attack so horrific in Syria against innocent people including women, small children, and even beautiful little babies, their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated," Trump said.
I guess one way to not tolerate them would be to strike at planes, sure. But the fact that Syrians were flying planes out of the airfield a day later makes it all seem rather worthless.
"The intent here wasn’t just to punish; it was deter future use," retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, an ABC News contributor and the former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command who turned down the role of national security adviser after Michael Flynn's resignation, told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday.
Apparently I have a different understanding of "deter future use' than a retired Vice Admiral - which is fine. I'm just left confused as it seems like targeting the hardware and not the infrastructure might not really deter much. I honestly didn't realize the military was into "sending messages". I sort of figured if we're lobbing $90+ million worth of missiles (I don't know how many Meals on Wheels that is precisely) we're doing so to f-ing destroy the hell out of something.
Deter is to make them think twice about. If they wanted to prevent it he would have said the mission was to destroy the capability of launching such attacks. If that were the mission the airfield and certainly the storage facility would have been targets.
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Max Peck »

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/ ... 0369862656

Well played, sir, well played indeed. :clap:
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Smoove_B »

RunningMn9 wrote:Then it might be a good idea to listen to them when they conclude that the only real response here is to lob cruise missiles at them. The plan came from the Pentagon, not Trump's fever dreams.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not suggesting in any way that Trump himself came up with this plan. And I also know we'll never be privy to all the options that were presented. Not knowing the full picture it is indeed hard to fully appreciate what was done and why. I'm just saying that if the goal was to try and stop Assad from having planes leave that airport to continue to chemically attack "beautiful little babies", it failed. This then leads me to believe that wasn't really the goal and how I get to:
Rip wrote:Deter is to make them think twice about. If they wanted to prevent it he would have said the mission was to destroy the capability of launching such attacks. If that were the mission the airfield and certainly the storage facility would have been targets.
Ok, so now we're back to theater. Now he can say he did something (unlike Obama) and his supporters can say he did something (unlike Obama) but in reality nothing was done to stop the issue that the strike was seemingly ordered over. To be clear, I'm not against the strike - I agree we likely should have done something much sooner. However put me in the camp that doesn't believe this is really "doing something".
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by malchior »

I think doing something here is the military equivalent of an enforcer putting his hand on someone's shoulder. It doesn't stop him from throwing another punch. It tells him that if he does throw another punch he is going to get the business. Unfortunately in this admittedly shaky example, the guy has a big friend holding an AK-47 there and there are also about 50 skinny-fat guys running around slapping each other.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by RunningMn9 »

Smoove_B wrote:Ok, so now we're back to theater. Now he can say he did something (unlike Obama) and his supporters can say he did something (unlike Obama) but in reality nothing was done to stop the issue that the strike was seemingly ordered over. To be clear, I'm not against the strike - I agree we likely should have done something much sooner. However put me in the camp that doesn't believe this is really "doing something".
I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I'm just saying that there are two issues at hand - the political issue, which I believe is exactly as you describe here; and the actual military issue.

From the military side of things, for all practical considerations, there were (are, and will be) no other military options. *Technically* a full-scale ground invasion is an option. But it's not one that we would every use here. *Technically* we could turn Syria into a sheet of glass, but clearly that isn't a practical option. Conducting actual airstrikes of Syrian airfields which also include a Russian military presence fall into that same bucket. Not happening. Not a viable option - even though it is possible if one accepts a high probability of American losses.

We aren't going to accept any probability of American losses. So that leaves cruise missiles or nothing at all.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Scoop20906
Posts: 11786
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Belleville, MI

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Scoop20906 »

Didn't Clinton do the same thing to Iraq back in the day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scoop. Makeup and hair are fabulous. - Qantaga

Xbox Gamertag: Scoop20906
Steam: Scoop20906
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by RunningMn9 »

Scoop20906 wrote:Didn't Clinton do the same thing to Iraq back in the day?
Wasn't that Sudan?
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Holman »

Bill Clinton used cruise missiles to hit Iraq in 1993 and hit Al Qaeda-affiliated targets in both Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. There might have been others I'm forgetting.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Smoove_B »

RunningMn9 wrote:We aren't going to accept any probability of American losses. So that leaves cruise missiles or nothing at all.
Plus, as someone that owns stock in Raytheon, it's a win/win! I'm sure the blind trust is taking care of it though.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by RunningMn9 »

Smoove_B wrote:Plus, as someone that owns stock in Raytheon, it's a win/win! I'm sure the blind trust is taking care of it though.
I mean, you know how I feel about Trump. There's a 0% chance that we lobbed cruise missiles at Syria because Trump owns stock in Raytheon.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Kurth »

Smoove_B wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:Then it might be a good idea to listen to them when they conclude that the only real response here is to lob cruise missiles at them. The plan came from the Pentagon, not Trump's fever dreams.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not suggesting in any way that Trump himself came up with this plan. And I also know we'll never be privy to all the options that were presented. Not knowing the full picture it is indeed hard to fully appreciate what was done and why. I'm just saying that if the goal was to try and stop Assad from having planes leave that airport to continue to chemically attack "beautiful little babies", it failed. This then leads me to believe that wasn't really the goal and how I get to:
Rip wrote:Deter is to make them think twice about. If they wanted to prevent it he would have said the mission was to destroy the capability of launching such attacks. If that were the mission the airfield and certainly the storage facility would have been targets.
Ok, so now we're back to theater. Now he can say he did something (unlike Obama) and his supporters can say he did something (unlike Obama) but in reality nothing was done to stop the issue that the strike was seemingly ordered over. To be clear, I'm not against the strike - I agree we likely should have done something much sooner. However put me in the camp that doesn't believe this is really "doing something".
I don't get the confusion over what's going on here. Put all the "beautiful little babies" crap aside. This strike was about the use of chemical weapons. The message to Assad is clear: Feel free to barrel bomb to your heart's content, but use of chemical weapons will result in cruise missiles. This time, we hit the airfield, which was sort of symbolic since it was where they launched the chemical attacks from. But next time, it might be Assad's residences or somewhere that might cause him actual pain.

I don't think that makes this theater. It's sending a very clear message, probably one that we're hoping to amplify through Russian channels.

Of course, none of this does all that much for the Syrian people. While not getting gassed is certainly a good thing, if the alternative is getting barrel bombed, it's probably not worth all that much.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Smoove_B »

Oh, of that I'm sure. But it still looks kind of shitty that our President just earned cash money because a company he owns stock in delivered the goods.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
PLW
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Clemson

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by PLW »

Why do you think he used chemical weapons in the first place? Is it just about showing that he can without us intervention? Why does that matter domestically?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Kraken »

PLW wrote:Why do you think he used chemical weapons in the first place? Is it just about showing that he can without us intervention? Why does that matter domestically?
This much puzzles me, too. Unless Assad (and his buddies in Russia and Iran) were deliberately testing Trump or trying to draw the US into their war, the upside of terrorizing his enemies would seem to be outweighed by numerous potential downsides. It's a big strategic gamble for little tactical benefit.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Holman »

Using chemical weapons sends a message of ruthless power. Assad is telling his enemies that he will stop at nothing and that international condemnation won't protect them. It's a form of terrorism available only to the regime.

As for why he would take the gamble, he believes that Russia will cover for him. It's almost certain that no chemical strike happens without Russian approval.

Again, though, it's entirely possible that Russia will arrange Assad's departure. They'll spin it as humanitarian (while installing an essentially identical replacement puppet), and Trump will reward them by lifting sanctions.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5307
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by em2nought »

Holman wrote:Using chemical weapons sends a message of ruthless power. Assad is telling his enemies that he will stop at nothing and that international condemnation won't protect them. It's a form of terrorism available only to the regime.

As for why he would take the gamble, he believes that Russia will cover for him. It's almost certain that no chemical strike happens without Russian approval.
Using chemical weapons that supposedly don't exist anymore is a great way to give a prior administration a black eye. Wonder when Iran's going to test a glowing payload for that ballistic missile they tested in January? :wink:
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
DD*
Posts: 4706
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Detroit, where the weak are killed and eaten

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by DD* »

I thought this piece by Kevin Williamson (who I find I agree with more often than not) was an interesting read. Hard to be objective on something like the use of chemical weapons, but where do you draw the line? If people want to kill other people, they will find a way - been doing it for thousands of years.
Are you a prostitute Rip? Because you blow the margins more than a $5 hooker. -rshetts2

Much like bravery is acting in spite of fear, being a functioning adult is acting responsibly in the face of temptation. -Isg
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Rip »

DD* wrote:I thought this piece by Kevin Williamson (who I find I agree with more often than not) was an interesting read. Hard to be objective on something like the use of chemical weapons, but where do you draw the line? If people want to kill other people, they will find a way - been doing it for thousands of years.
That sounds like an NRA mailer....

:ninja:
User avatar
DD*
Posts: 4706
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Detroit, where the weak are killed and eaten

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by DD* »

Rip wrote:
DD* wrote:I thought this piece by Kevin Williamson (who I find I agree with more often than not) was an interesting read. Hard to be objective on something like the use of chemical weapons, but where do you draw the line? If people want to kill other people, they will find a way - been doing it for thousands of years.
That sounds like an NRA mailer....

:ninja:
Well, I *am* an NRA life member, but that doesn't make it any less true. I seem to recall a certain president doing a victory lap about how his administration got rid of Syria's chemical weapons - how's that working out? :ninja:
Are you a prostitute Rip? Because you blow the margins more than a $5 hooker. -rshetts2

Much like bravery is acting in spite of fear, being a functioning adult is acting responsibly in the face of temptation. -Isg
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by hepcat »

em2nought wrote:
Holman wrote:Using chemical weapons sends a message of ruthless power. Assad is telling his enemies that he will stop at nothing and that international condemnation won't protect them. It's a form of terrorism available only to the regime.

As for why he would take the gamble, he believes that Russia will cover for him. It's almost certain that no chemical strike happens without Russian approval.
Using chemical weapons that supposedly don't exist anymore is a great way to give a prior administration a black eye. Wonder when Iran's going to test a glowing payload for that ballistic missile they tested in January? :wink:
What are the odds that Trump's response would be to order an airstrike so he can make some more cash off his Raytheon stock?


:coffee:
Covfefe!
User avatar
Scoop20906
Posts: 11786
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Belleville, MI

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Scoop20906 »

DD* wrote:
Rip wrote:
DD* wrote:I thought this piece by Kevin Williamson (who I find I agree with more often than not) was an interesting read. Hard to be objective on something like the use of chemical weapons, but where do you draw the line? If people want to kill other people, they will find a way - been doing it for thousands of years.
That sounds like an NRA mailer....

:ninja:
Well, I *am* an NRA life member, but that doesn't make it any less true. I seem to recall a certain president doing a victory lap about how his administration got rid of Syria's chemical weapons - how's that working out? :ninja:
That's really disappointing the the Russians lied to the US about the chemical weapons. I think we should hold Russia responsible for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scoop. Makeup and hair are fabulous. - Qantaga

Xbox Gamertag: Scoop20906
Steam: Scoop20906
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Grifman »

hepcat wrote:
em2nought wrote:
Holman wrote:Using chemical weapons sends a message of ruthless power. Assad is telling his enemies that he will stop at nothing and that international condemnation won't protect them. It's a form of terrorism available only to the regime.

As for why he would take the gamble, he believes that Russia will cover for him. It's almost certain that no chemical strike happens without Russian approval.
Using chemical weapons that supposedly don't exist anymore is a great way to give a prior administration a black eye. Wonder when Iran's going to test a glowing payload for that ballistic missile they tested in January? :wink:
What are the odds that Trump's response would be to order an airstrike so he can make some more cash off his Raytheon stock?


:coffee:
Given that Raytheon's gross revenue was about $24 BILLION last year, and the cost of the cruise missiles that were launched was about $50 to $60 MILLION, probably extremely low. Frankly, it's even rather silly to think this.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Max Peck »

Grifman wrote:
hepcat wrote:
em2nought wrote:
Holman wrote:Using chemical weapons sends a message of ruthless power. Assad is telling his enemies that he will stop at nothing and that international condemnation won't protect them. It's a form of terrorism available only to the regime.

As for why he would take the gamble, he believes that Russia will cover for him. It's almost certain that no chemical strike happens without Russian approval.
Using chemical weapons that supposedly don't exist anymore is a great way to give a prior administration a black eye. Wonder when Iran's going to test a glowing payload for that ballistic missile they tested in January? :wink:
What are the odds that Trump's response would be to order an airstrike so he can make some more cash off his Raytheon stock?


:coffee:
Given that Raytheon's gross revenue was about $24 BILLION last year, and the cost of the cruise missiles that were launched was about $50 to $60 MILLION, probably extremely low. Frankly, it's even rather silly to think this.
More like $110M ($1.869M x 60, if you count the reported single launch failure).

And what's wrong with silly? This is a random internet forum, not a Congressional inquiry. Stop trying to chill speech! ;)
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by hepcat »

Grifman wrote:
hepcat wrote:
em2nought wrote:
Holman wrote:Using chemical weapons sends a message of ruthless power. Assad is telling his enemies that he will stop at nothing and that international condemnation won't protect them. It's a form of terrorism available only to the regime.

As for why he would take the gamble, he believes that Russia will cover for him. It's almost certain that no chemical strike happens without Russian approval.
Using chemical weapons that supposedly don't exist anymore is a great way to give a prior administration a black eye. Wonder when Iran's going to test a glowing payload for that ballistic missile they tested in January? :wink:
What are the odds that Trump's response would be to order an airstrike so he can make some more cash off his Raytheon stock?


:coffee:
Given that Raytheon's gross revenue was about $24 BILLION last year, and the cost of the cruise missiles that were launched was about $50 to $60 MILLION, probably extremely low. Frankly, it's even rather silly to think this.
It was intended as such. I was responding to an equally silly post.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Max Peck »

In other, less silly, news...

Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming
The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.

The senior official said the U.S. has no proof of Russian involvement in the actual chemical attack in northern Syria.

But the official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.

The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on intelligence matters and demanded anonymity, didn't give precise timing for when the drone was in the area, where more than 80 people were killed. The official also didn't provide details for the military and intelligence information that form the basis of what the Pentagon now believes.

Another U.S. official cautioned that no final American determination has been made that Russia knew ahead of time that chemical weapons would be used. That official wasn't authorized to speak about internal administration deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The allegation of Russian foreknowledge is grave, even by the standards of the currently dismal U.S.-Russian relations.

Although Russia has steadfastly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, and they've coordinated military attacks together, Washington has never previously accused Moscow of complicity in any attack that involved the gassing of innocent civilians, including children. The former Cold War foes even worked together in 2013 to remove and destroy more than 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapons and agents.

Until Monday, U.S. officials had said they weren't sure whether Russia or Syria operated the drone. The official said the U.S. is now convinced Russia controlled the drone. The official said it still isn't clear who was flying the jet that bombed the hospital, because the Syrians also fly Russian-made aircraft.

U.S. officials previously have said Russians routinely work with Syrians at the Shayrat air base where the attack is supposed to have originated. U.S. officials say the chemical weapons were stored there and that those elements add to the conclusion that Russia was complicit in the attack.

Last Thursday 59 Tomahawk missiles were fired on the government-controlled base in the United States' first direct military action against Assad's forces.

The U.S. has been focusing its military action in Syria on defeating the Islamic State group.

On Monday, Col. John J. Thomas, a U.S. military spokesman, said the U.S. has taken extra defensive precautions in Syria in case of possible retaliation against American forces for the cruise missile attack.

Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon that the increased emphasis on defensive measures to protect U.S. troops on the ground in Syria led to a slight and temporary decline in offensive U.S. airstrikes against IS in Syria.

There has been no Syrian retaliation so far for the cruise missile attack, which destroyed or rendered inoperable more than 20 Syria air force planes, he said.

Thomas said the U.S. intends to return to full offensive air operations against IS as soon as possible.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Scoop20906
Posts: 11786
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Belleville, MI

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Scoop20906 »

Max Peck wrote:In other, less silly, news...

Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming
The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.

The senior official said the U.S. has no proof of Russian involvement in the actual chemical attack in northern Syria.

But the official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.

The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on intelligence matters and demanded anonymity, didn't give precise timing for when the drone was in the area, where more than 80 people were killed. The official also didn't provide details for the military and intelligence information that form the basis of what the Pentagon now believes.

Another U.S. official cautioned that no final American determination has been made that Russia knew ahead of time that chemical weapons would be used. That official wasn't authorized to speak about internal administration deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The allegation of Russian foreknowledge is grave, even by the standards of the currently dismal U.S.-Russian relations.

Although Russia has steadfastly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, and they've coordinated military attacks together, Washington has never previously accused Moscow of complicity in any attack that involved the gassing of innocent civilians, including children. The former Cold War foes even worked together in 2013 to remove and destroy more than 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapons and agents.

Until Monday, U.S. officials had said they weren't sure whether Russia or Syria operated the drone. The official said the U.S. is now convinced Russia controlled the drone. The official said it still isn't clear who was flying the jet that bombed the hospital, because the Syrians also fly Russian-made aircraft.

U.S. officials previously have said Russians routinely work with Syrians at the Shayrat air base where the attack is supposed to have originated. U.S. officials say the chemical weapons were stored there and that those elements add to the conclusion that Russia was complicit in the attack.

Last Thursday 59 Tomahawk missiles were fired on the government-controlled base in the United States' first direct military action against Assad's forces.

The U.S. has been focusing its military action in Syria on defeating the Islamic State group.

On Monday, Col. John J. Thomas, a U.S. military spokesman, said the U.S. has taken extra defensive precautions in Syria in case of possible retaliation against American forces for the cruise missile attack.

Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon that the increased emphasis on defensive measures to protect U.S. troops on the ground in Syria led to a slight and temporary decline in offensive U.S. airstrikes against IS in Syria.

There has been no Syrian retaliation so far for the cruise missile attack, which destroyed or rendered inoperable more than 20 Syria air force planes, he said.

Thomas said the U.S. intends to return to full offensive air operations against IS as soon as possible.
Not silly at all and this is an AP story so its not some left-wing agenda story. If true, they f*cking bombed a hospital to hide the evidence. This is the Russian government/military that Donny so admires. I'm glad the wind is blowing away from Russia/American cooperation against ISIS. Imagine the kind of atrocities Donny would have condoned/support in the war against terror. He is already on the record on bombing the families (civilians) of terrorists so its not hard to see what kind of force he would deploy with his Russian buddies. F*cking chills my blood.
Scoop. Makeup and hair are fabulous. - Qantaga

Xbox Gamertag: Scoop20906
Steam: Scoop20906
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Isgrimnur »

Independent
The French foreign minister has said that France's intelligence services have evidence that the Syrian government carried out the alleged chemical weapons attack on a rebel village earlier this month.

"There is an investigation underway... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Jean-Marc Ayrault told LCP television on Wednesday.

The suspected attack on Khan Sheikhun which killed 86 was found by British and Turkish scientists to have involved both sarin - a nerve gas - and chlorine.
...
Damascus, along with its Russian and Iranian allies, have said that the casualties were caused when a conventional air strike on an al-Qaeda weapons depot nearby caused an explosion, releasing the deadly gases.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Max Peck »

Syria war: US ground troops kill 'leading IS member'
US troops have targeted and killed a leading member of the so-called Islamic State (IS) group in a commando raid in Syria, military officials say.

The attack took place near the town of Mayadin in eastern Syria.

Abdurakhmon Uzbeki, who was believed to be from Uzbekistan, is said by the Americans to be a close associate of the IS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The US says he played a key role in an attack on a night club in Istanbul on New Year's Eve which killed 39 people.

Turkish police arrested Abdulkadir Masharipov, the main suspect in the attack, on 17 January after a huge manhunt.

"It was a ground operation. I think that's all we're willing to say about that," US Central Command spokesman John Thomas said in Washington in relation to Friday's attack.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63525
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Daehawk »

--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Max Peck »

And so Trump's secret plan to defeat IS continues to be carrying on with Obama's plan.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63525
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Daehawk »

Trump would claim that everything he does is his alone and nothing is Obama...even though most is.

Example
"No this is my health plan because I took out coverage for pre existing conditions"
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: Syria - civil war incoming?

Post by Enough »

And Assad has built a crematorium. :cry:
The Syrian regime has built a crematorium 45 minutes outside of Damascus where the U.S. government believes they are burning the bodies of the thousands of prisoners executed inside the walls of the Saydnaya military prison — an institution nicknamed "the slaughterhouse".

The prison is believed to kill at least 50 detainees a day often by mass hangings, acting assistant Secretary for Middle Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones briefed reporters on Monday. Jones also presented aerial photos of the prison complex showing the crematorium's construction in 2013.

The international community previously believed that the bodies were being disposed of in mass graves. The building of a crematorium allows the regime to cover up the extent of mass murders they undertake while leaving behind little evidence, Jones said.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Post Reply