Post: #576

Amazing how easily propaganda and fake news reports/videos can be made.

Case in point:

Post: #577

They are using the Western values sympathy for all humans against us.

That is nothing new.

Jihadis are experts at being both superior as well as victims at the same time. Actually they have it in common with leftists.

ISIS has chemical weapons.

Such attacks have been unsuccessfully staged before. Guess they killed real kids now to bring home the point.

As for Syria - that country is fucked.

The new US administration has the same talking points as the old one. Even if they wanted Assad gone, wouldn't it be more prudent to first wipe out the Jihadis and then later force him to abdicate in a calm civilized Syria?

But of course that is not an option. If Assad stepped down, then the psychos would pour into the power vacuum and the country would descend into civil war anyway, because the makeup of Syria is quite tribal and diverse just as Iraq.

We have to face the facts. Syria will fall, just a matter of time. The moderate or radical beheaders will win. It seems as if the Russian intervention was just giving the Syrian people some time.

Afterwards we can start opening the Iran thread, because all other countries have been "liberated" and "color-revolutionized".

Post: #578

Just a reminder, from Hillary Clinton's files. This is the real reason American troops die in the Middle East, for the glory of greater Israel:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

Quote:UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

RELEASE IN FULL

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.

Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region.

Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.

The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council.

Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.

Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes.

Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).

With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

Notice the completely delusional parts in bold; that Russia will not retaliate, or that the Arab world will see America as heros.

So far it looks like Trump Administration is going to carry out the Zionist plan. They don't care if Christians get slaughtered once Assad falls, a goy is a goy. And Trump himself is either compromised on this issue because his favorite daughter is Jewish, or because his children are under extreme threats. In either case Trump if Trump was interested in doing the right thing he would not support Talmudic Judaism's plans for greater Israel.

I think Trump may also want to strike a deal with the Talmudic Jews: "Sure, America will be mercenaries for Israel, but in exchange I want America to have all the things Israel has: a wall, and a maintenance of the current ethnic majority." But we shall see.

Post: #579

Just caught a minute of Spicer on the news. He was detailed the Trump Doctrine and how it's all about America First, and we need to have a clearly defined interest before getting involved, not gonna be the world policeman, blah blah blah.

And apparently, that's why we need to stick our noses in Syria.

Wat?

Post: #580

< They have been claiming too that the Iraqis will welcome the Americans with flowers and open arms and Iraq after Saddam will seamlessly be merging into a democracy. They gave examples of post-war Germany or Japan for that.

Heh - laughable bullshit. Middle Eastern countries can only be ruled at the very best by secular strongmen, at worst they are theocratic shitholes. Syria is actually a better system of a more or less democratic strongman - essentially as good as it gets.

The problem only is that Syria does not belong to the globalist "family".

It will erupt in Iraqi internal warfare after Assad is gone.

Post: #581

(04-10-2017 08:09 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  They are using the Western values sympathy for all humans against us.

That is nothing new.

Jihadis are experts at being both superior as well as victims at the same time. Actually they have it in common with leftists.

ISIS has chemical weapons.

Such attacks have been unsuccessfully staged before. Guess they killed real kids now to bring home the point.

As for Syria - that country is fucked.

The new US administration has the same talking points as the old one. Even if they wanted Assad gone, wouldn't it be more prudent to first wipe out the Jihadis and then later force him to abdicate in a calm civilized Syria?

But of course that is not an option. If Assad stepped down, then the psychos would pour into the power vacuum and the country would descend into civil war anyway, because the makeup of Syria is quite tribal and diverse just as Iraq.

We have to face the facts. Syria will fall, just a matter of time. The moderate or radical beheaders will win. It seems as if the Russian intervention was just giving the Syrian people some time.

Afterwards we can start opening the Iran thread, because all other countries have been "liberated" and "color-revolutionized".

Take a look at the map of the Middle East. Then take a look at the map of Syria. Finally take a glance northwards and a day's drive you are in Russia.

You get the picture?

Post: #582

(04-10-2017 12:59 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Just caught a minute of Spicer on the news. He was detailed the Trump Doctrine and how it's all about America First, and we need to have a clearly defined interest before getting involved, not gonna be the world policeman, blah blah blah.

And apparently, that's why we need to stick our noses in Syria.

Wat?

The cognitive dissonance is quite befuddling.

Post: #583

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east...b63a9afb74

Quote:Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas.

As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities.

In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important.

But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe.

This has not gone down well with Russia, which uses its power over gas as political leverage and has a history of cutting off supply to countries during conflicts. It has even gone to war in Georgia and Ukraine to disrupt plans to export gas from other parts of the Middle East.

As David Dalton, the editor of the Economist Intelligence Unit, told The New York Times: “Russia has always used gas as an instrument of influence. The more you owe Gazprom, the more they think they can turn the screws.”

Much of Russia’s power comes from established pipelines used to transport gas to Europe cheaply. But other countries are now trying to get around Russia and provide new sources of gas to Europe.

Last year US President Barack Obama spoke openly about the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian gas following the conflict in Ukraine.

The US also wants to use its own natural gas supply, recently developed through fracking, to undercut Russian supply. But it will be years before the US will be in a position to ship this overseas.

The US is not the only country trying to outmanoeuvre Russia, and this is where the role of Syria becomes more important.

That's why. Assad goes, the Saudis get their pipeline, Israel doesn't have to worry about a well armed neighbor outside their influence, and western oligarchs make a TON of money off of both the war and the natural gas.

The only problem is that they dramatically underestimated Russia's willingness and capability to push back.

Post: #584

Russian Embassy in UK is being very naughty on Twitter. Are they sending a signal ?

Meanwhile in Syria, Palm Sunday was peacefully observed in Damascus

Post: #585

(04-10-2017 01:28 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east...b63a9afb74

Quote:Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas.

As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities.

In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important.

But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe.

This has not gone down well with Russia, which uses its power over gas as political leverage and has a history of cutting off supply to countries during conflicts. It has even gone to war in Georgia and Ukraine to disrupt plans to export gas from other parts of the Middle East.

As David Dalton, the editor of the Economist Intelligence Unit, told The New York Times: “Russia has always used gas as an instrument of influence. The more you owe Gazprom, the more they think they can turn the screws.”

Much of Russia’s power comes from established pipelines used to transport gas to Europe cheaply. But other countries are now trying to get around Russia and provide new sources of gas to Europe.

Last year US President Barack Obama spoke openly about the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian gas following the conflict in Ukraine.

The US also wants to use its own natural gas supply, recently developed through fracking, to undercut Russian supply. But it will be years before the US will be in a position to ship this overseas.

The US is not the only country trying to outmanoeuvre Russia, and this is where the role of Syria becomes more important.

That's why. Assad goes, the Saudis get their pipeline, Israel doesn't have to worry about a well armed neighbor outside their influence, and western oligarchs make a TON of money off of both the war and the natural gas.

"Yes, friends, governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class". - James Connolly, Irish Republican Socialist revolutionary 1915.

"War is a racket" - Gen. Smedley D. Butler 1935.





"In the councils of government, we must guard against the aquistion of unwarranted influence...by the Military Industrial Complex." President Eisenhower 1961.

Post: #586

Syria isnt doomed to fail. If the US doesnt get more involved there's two scenarios:

1- Assad cleans up, russia and the US agree on some sunni counterpart and peace is made

2- syria is divided and assad keeps the part where the minorities live anyway as well as sunni moderates. Which basically means the lebanese border as well so no sunni hezballah clashes. That part will be heavily fortified by russia and allies.

If the US does continue to supply the islamists then yes Syria is likely fucked sooner or later.

Post: #587

(04-10-2017 12:59 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Just caught a minute of Spicer on the news. He was detailed the Trump Doctrine and how it's all about America First, and we need to have a clearly defined interest before getting involved, not gonna be the world policeman, blah blah blah.

And apparently, that's why we need to stick our noses in Syria.

Wat?

Spicer is the ultimate troll. He's the 14 y/o nerd at home sitting behind his PC stirring up shit in a forum. Except he's not a 14 y/o nerd behind a computer but the White House Press Secretary.

I can't even get mad about Spicer's bullshit because it's so goddamn funny. I think with all their bluster, the media even thinks Spicer is so outlandish as to be entertaining. I know if I were in the press corps, I would be excited to go see Spicer every day. I'd have a few beers beforehand and just giggle the whole way through the press conference.

Post: #588

The 'unpersuasive' Ron Paul Points out that the attack on Syria was illegal.


What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move. It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.

Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!

http://safehaven.com/article/44137/after...comes-next

Do we live under the rule of law or do we not?

Post: #589

Can anyone with knowledge from active duty on SAM technology please explain how US forces could or should intend to combat the Anti-Air and aircraft of Russia without blowing it up or using some fancy EMP jamming device?

The whole point of those Russian SAMs is to stop Israeli, Turkish and NATO planes from entering the area. The Russians won't drop their air defense because the US demands it so it leaves no other option.

And even if some fancy jamming device works, what happens when they get around it?

Post: #590

(04-10-2017 04:56 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Can anyone with knowledge from active duty on SAM technology please explain how US forces could or should intend to combat the Anti-Air and aircraft of Russia without blowing it up or using some fancy EMP jamming device?

The whole point of those Russian SAMs is to stop Israeli, Turkish and NATO planes from entering the area. The Russians won't drop their air defense because the US demands it so it leaves no other option.

And even if some fancy jamming device works, what happens when they get around it?

Sorry, never been on active duty or served at all. But I'll give this a quick stab, if I may.

The S-300 and S-400 that Russia has stationed around Syria is kind of proven technology. How proven I don't know. But I think it's safe to say 'it kind of works'.

So for starters, why was it not employed against the recent cruise missiles? Dunno. Cost, political expediency - giving Trump his small bit of theatre? Might be they are not so effective against ground-hugging Tomahawks. Might be they only have so many of them there and they are saving them up for the big one as I mentioned in another post: shooting down American Fighter jets. Pretty sure they are very good at that, but what do I know, what does anyone know? Have they ever been shown to shoot down a US fighter/bomber? There's vids on youtube of them shooting down some high flying aircraft iirc.

It would be foolhardy to think that the Russians do not have some serious SAMs in the area though, whatever the reason. Would you like to be the fighter/bomber pilot that tests it out?

As for taking the SAM batteries out. Again, would you really want to up the ante to do that? That's an act of war, and not a good sign. I doubt Russia would tolerate it without repercussions from them. It's not the sort of thing you do for a jolly as per the recent theatre on the airfield.

It makes sense the Russians are keeping their powder dry. They have been seen to be not escalating the situation. Maybe SAMs flying through the air would have confused matters, and it was all just agreed on that a few old Cruise missiles needed to be used up, a show of strength made, and for everyone's sake, just keep it quiet. No idea at all. I'm just another arm chair general. I do take an interest in missiles though, both nuclear and conventional.

One thing not mentioned is that the Tomahawks can carry small payload nuclear bombs, and pretty sure a few of them do. Not that anyone would be so stupid as to employ them though, would they? Maybe this theatre was also a test run.

Taking out an adversary's capacity to defend itself is a big red flag. The US are unlikely to nuke Syria (well, not yet anyway). But if they did that on Russian soil proper, I have no doubt what the response would be.

If ever the Russians had their SAMs incapacitated by EMP or otherwise, they would then go to the next-level - whatever that is. They wouldn't just lie there and take it. It wouldn't just be politics then, it would be survival. Such is the insanity of ever thinking about using these things in anger.

Theatre is the best use for them. But just like a bit of play-fighting that I'm sure we've all done, it can sometimes turn a bit nasty a bit quickly when someone slaps someone a bit too hard, or an outside observer laughs a little too loud and someone loses face. Very often, the humiliation is greater than the physical pain. I don't see Russia as an un-proud nation. And certainly not Putin, who actually strikes me as an overly proud man. Don't prod overly proud people, too much anyway.

It's all fun and games until...

Just my ill-informed opinion that is not worth very much at all.

Post: #591

Kushner is to Trump what Perle and Wolfowitz were to GWB, Israel firsters running the show and using American/NATO blood and treasure to destroy Israel's neighbors.

Post: #592

With regard to the SAMs. Russia has the skies there and they defend them with aircraft and land-based weapons.

For the US to achieve air superiority it requires US air assets to have complete dominance. Russian SAMs with active radar are not exactly providing safe airspace. This is what is bugging me.

It relies on the response we will see in the coming weeks.

Also, this video by Michael Savage is good.

Post: #593

This could give us some insight of how Russia would act if they feel a global clash is coming...

"If the fight is inevitable, be the first to strike"

Post: #594

(04-10-2017 01:04 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  ..snip..

Middle Eastern countries can only be ruled at the very best by secular strongmen, at worst they are theocratic shitholes. Syria is actually a better system of a more or less democratic strongman - essentially as good as it gets.

The problem only is that Syria does not belong to the globalist "family".

It will erupt in Iraqi internal warfare after Assad is gone.

This is my limited understanding of what is going on in Syria (things are starting to become a bit clearer now to the wider game plan):

If you look at Bashar Al-Assad, the ruler there, he doesn't really look like a leg-breaker does he? I'm sure he hasn't had any problems giving the OK to a few torture sessions (if Robert Fisk is to be believed anyway) all in the name of playing the secular hardman to maintain social coherency. Eh, it worked for Saddam, and Gadaffi right (for a while anyway, and look what they did to them)? But he just doesn't look the type to me. Might be wrong.

His Father was a big man for a long time. 30 years or so. I don't know if he was a good man, and I don't know if the region saw ultimate peace, but he kind of held it together. I think that is the consensus.

Bashar's brother Basel, died in a car crash in the mid-90's and he was the one that was supposed to take over from the big man. Hafez, the big man ruled until the millenium.

Some men are born in to greatness, others have it thrust upon them. Bashar had it thrust upon him. Some men are born in to a world of shit...

Many at the time had low hopes for young Bashar. For one, he wasn't expecting it and was not the chosen one who had been groomed. He was the 'spare' to the 'heir'.

He actually studied as an ophthalmologist (Eye Surgeon) at one of the prestigious University hospitals in London. Not sure if he finished up with what he was doing there, but he's known to have performed some eye surgery and was seen as a good student. More of an eye-saver, than a leg-breaker then. But no matter, it was back to Syria for him to become president now that Basel his brother was gone.

How do I know all this? Well, he studied at the same hallowed institutes as one of the very best in the field, a world-leader in fact - the man that saved my eyesight after being blinded in an attack. You don't ever forget that. You stay in touch. You send flowers. You give updates via x-rays. I'm silly like that I suppose. Got a real soft spot for eye surgeons. And that's why I tend to think of Bashar as one of the good guys. But it could just be massive personal bias on my part. I digress.

Bashar has actually done quite well as a 'soft-dictator' I think considering there was very little store put in him at the time to be a success. Seeing as he wasn't groomed for it or expecting it.

I've heard accounts of him range from murderous psychopath dictator to all round good-egg benevolent bunny. Pretty sure the truth lies in between. It's hard to get any facts on Syria and what is going on there. No one seems to know. You do further research and get led down a rabbit hole. More than any other place on Earth, Syria is the biggest enigma and black hole of misinformation, disinformation, no information at all really. At least I have not been able to figure it out.

So that's the man, make of him what you will. It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it. It all seemed to be going quite swimmingly for a bit, until... you know, the shit hit the fan.

....

So it looks like Bashar the spare wasn't enough of a leg-breaker. Many seem to say that. I don't know. The theory being if he was a harder more callous man, then the mess that is Syria now, would not have happened. I really am not qualified to even begin to speculate on that one.

Fast forward to the carnage, and enough being enough. The big players want him gone anyway. Israel always had a real hard on for Syria, at least that seemed apparent to me. Geopolitically, Syria kind of stands out.

I don't know how many of you reading this have a globe to hand. You know - one of those round things that you spin around in your hand on its axis. If you do, then if you centre the globe on the land mass (30 percent of the globe), and if you then centre in further, you will find that Turkey is actually the centre of the land mass of the entire planet! Try it. It's why they are so cocky and given so much leeway. They are the centre of the Grand Chessboard that Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about (might have spelled his name wrong).

Bit further down the road...

All around Israel you have Jordan which is neutered. Egypt, neutered. Iraq, neutered. Saudi Arabia (brothers in arms). Lebanon, 'problematic', and Syria - very 'problematic'.

Is the hard on that Israel has for Syria just because it is a next-door neighbour and they view it as a threat? Or could it be more ideological with them seeing it as a stepping stone to having to neuter it as well should they ever decide to go for their big prize - Iran - before their dream of Ersatz Israel is realised?

You tell me. No idea.

They seem to have a plan though. I'm not a big Israel/Jewish conspiracy theorist. I'm just throwing some ideas out there for you to shoot down, if you can.

Someone wants Assad gone. I'm pretty sure he will be glad to gtfo, but then again, he probably doesn't want to be hanged a la Saddam, or anally raped to death a la Gadaffi. He's just biding his time now. It's all over bar the crying. And there is a lot of that to come.

Oh yes. A lot!

So who do we put in his place? I say 'we' white man, but I really mean those calling the shots. And they have a bit of a predicament, because Syria is about as multi-cultural as they come. Seven languages spoken for a start. Let's look at the religious demographic for the region:

Muslim 87% (official; includes Sunni 74% and Alawi, Ismaili, and Shia 13%), Christian 10% (includes Orthodox, Uniate, and Nestorian), Druze 3%, Jewish (few remaining in Damascus and Aleppo)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...os/sy.html

Interesting make up of the Sunni to Shia ratio. But don't forget there is a very significant Christian 'minority' there as well. If they give over to a Sunny hard man puppet, those Shia and those Christians won't last very long I don't think. The murderous fuckers will be so busy exterminating the rest that peace will be a long way away. So they need something other than a Sunni leader in my humble opinion. Putting in a Shia leader won't sit well either, seeing as the general population might resent that and they will outnumber the ruling minority.

Then again, it works for Bahrain (in reverse), where there is a 70 percent Shia population ruled over with an iron fist by a 30 percent Sunni population/government. Don't forget that the Saudis/Isis are predominantly Sunni with Wahhabism being their particular sect.

It's ironic in a way, because anyone that has ever been to the festival of Ashura and witnessed the blood-letting, would think that the Shia were by far more the more brutal sect. But it's controlled theatre, as brutal as it is. Ashura marking the split where the Shia removed themselves from the Sunnis. But then again, the Sunnis have an Ashura as well, totally different thing. Fog of war. No one really knows what is going on, and those that claim they do are still fighting over it.

In the new Syria, the potential for ongoing civil war is massive. Like Zel said, another Iraq, maybe worse.

Decisions decisions eh lads?

Could always call a truce and put in a Christian president. Er, not sure how well that would work.

So, back to the good old fashioned Charlie Foxtrot (clusterfuck).

It's not anything that will really work out well. And it just portends future strife and dis-harmony. But eh, at least that bloody pipe line can get built. They only have to neuter the population, then it's next stop Iran. But probably they'll try to neuter neighbouring Lebanon if they can before they go for the big one. Wouldn't want the Hezbolla getting uppity. Good luck with that.

I have absolutely no idea at all. But I know it won't end well. But it has to end somehow. Let's just get it over with eh? With the least amount of bloodshed.

You might say that is defeatist. But with the monopoly on war, the great age of going to war is over. No one really fights any proper wars any more, they just bomb the shit out of people that can't defend themselves, all the while, forcing those that could fight back (Russia) to keep their yap shut or you know? Muh Mutually Assured Destruction.

It's brinkmanship at its finest. And the US thinks it's getting pretty good at it, and it is. But Russia is getting pissed off, China is not sitting idly by either - do not discount them in the equation, especially a Sino-Russo pact.

America might just push one thing a little too far and the hornet's nest is unleashed. But it will be nothing compared to what will happen domestically should that happen. Lots of unhappy people in the States. All very well informed. And most of them good people. Who have had enough of this bullshit that does not benefit them. Sick of being race-baited and divided and conquered. No real solutions coming with regard to domestic policy (ok we'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt here, let's not be too harsh, he's doing ok so far). But the domestic goes out the window if the foreign stuff starts hitting the fan.

Who'd be a pundit eh? Not me!

All I know is, things are about to become very clear for most of us very soon.

If I got anything wrong, then please correct me and put me right. It's just my own very uninformed opinion, and I don't pretend it is otherwise. I have, however, had many a late night dinner conversation with family members who spent a lot of time in Damascus, as they did in Oman and the ME in general. Also my time growing up in the ME has given me a flavour for things. I admit to being ignorant though, and I'm always eager to learn from those that know better. I love the ME and its people. I only want what is best for it. I just don't see a solution without a world of pain.

But it's a brave man that pretends he knows what is going on in Syria, let alone the wider ME in general. And the wider world at large again...

Post: #595

The meme warfare against a potential attack of Syria has already begun. Pretty decent job so far !

Post: #596

(04-10-2017 04:56 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Can anyone with knowledge from active duty on SAM technology please explain how US forces could or should intend to combat the Anti-Air and aircraft of Russia without blowing it up or using some fancy EMP jamming device?

The whole point of those Russian SAMs is to stop Israeli, Turkish and NATO planes from entering the area. The Russians won't drop their air defense because the US demands it so it leaves no other option.

And even if some fancy jamming device works, what happens when they get around it?

The answer to your first question is "no".

However, you have identified the cat-and-mouse game that is electronic warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400

Post: #597

Maybe the US wanted to test the ability of the s400 with the resent attack to get a better assessment.

Post: #598

(04-10-2017 03:56 PM)rockoman Wrote:  The 'unpersuasive' Ron Paul Points out that the attack on Syria was illegal.


What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move. It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.

Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!

http://safehaven.com/article/44137/after...comes-next

Do we live under the rule of law or do we not?

Emphasis mine.
OK, two issues here: one about points of law, another about Russia's claims.

First, "Do we live under the rule of law or do we not?" It's a fair question.

The Left and the (usually libertarian) Right bandy about the term 'illegal' in international conflicts quite loosely. Both do so in order to inflame outrage and gain popular support, not necessarily to enlighten.

Why? because of international law amid the anarchy of nation-states is actually a customary matter - and often not at all immediately clear.

For example, the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 found "signatory states promised not to use war to resolve 'disputes or conflicts of whatever nature'" or origin.
It is 'still on the books,' as they say. And is was signed by the powers soon engaged in World War Two more or less a decade later.

By contrast, treaties outlawing gas weapons of war goes back to 1899, and the convention was re-affirmed soon after the trauma and terrorism of its use in the First World War, as well as its indiscriminate nature. And today, such weapons are banned by an 189-country international convention that began in the 1970s and the early 1990s requiring anywhere, anytime inspections.

Thus, as a matter of international law, US claims to defend customary law are actually on a much sounder basis than its critics, especially since no one doubts that civil war already means Syria is much closer to a state of anarchy than anything like a sovereign state.

Likewise, Senator Rand Paul has charged Trump with acting unconstitutionally because Congress has that power. Indeed, "Congress shall have the power to declare war" is in the Constitution.

Yet the Constitution does not say "Only Congress" shall have that power. And in the 300-some times the US has used force, how often has war been declared? Less than a dozen times, I think?

So again, from the perspective of history, custom, and precedent, critics like Senator Paul are on the unfirm ground.

(Does the Constitution need amendments to clarify that point? I wish the demand would be argued.)

Now to the second issues: "Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory."

It's a very convenient claim to invoke since the evidence to prove or absolutely disprove it lies under rubble in a war zone. So how does anybody check the claim? They don't because it's useful inflammatory rhetoric.

Thus, while it remains possibly true - and claims that rebels have their own stores of gas may well be true since they did use mustard gas in mid-2013 - it is also possible rebels could have *deliberately* killed civilians to tar Syria and Assad in the recent case.

But the second claim is unlikely to have been possible because perp positioning under TWO planes is unlikely. The US record of the air tracks does not show the planes there at that time crossing much. Perps would have had to have been very lucky to have planned and carried it out.

That's why the claim of local accidental enemy exposure by the Syrian-Russian enemy is more clever!

Except for this: sarin gas is a bi-combinant weapon that requires recombination for its separately inert components to become actively harmful. Can this really occur by accident? Has it ever?

This strikes me as quite unlikely. Sarin is safer to handle in part because it is a recombinant agent.

I did a did a few variations of google searches on the terms "sarin accidentally released" and come up empty. (Which doesn't mean it hasn't happened, somewhere, sometime - maybe.)

Therefore, rockoman's two concerns are likely overstated. I suggest keeping a more open mind because you could be mistaken....

Post: #599

^ To be fair there have been at least a couple of accidental Sarin Leaks:

http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxiped...Sarin+Leak (After sand-blast treatment)

http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/sar...66ee0.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/military/2013/1...56288.html

Post: #600

(04-11-2017 02:11 AM)Orson Wrote:  Likewise, Senator Rand Paul has charged Trump with acting unconstitutionally because Congress has that power. Indeed, "Congress shall have the power to declare war" is in the Constitution.

Yet the Constitution does not say "Only Congress" shall have that power. And in the 300-some times the US has used force, how often has war been declared? Less than a dozen times, I think?

https://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

Quote:This argument, like so much propaganda, originated with the U.S. government itself. At the time of the Korean War, a number of congressmen contended that “history will show that on more than 100 occasions in the life of this Republic the President as Commander in Chief has ordered the fleet or the troops to do certain things which involved the risk of war” without the consent of Congress. In 1966, in defense of the Vietnam War, the State Department adopted a similar line: “Since the Constitution was adopted there have been at least 125 instances in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without obtaining prior congressional authorization, starting with the ‘undeclared war’ with France (1798-1800).”

We have already seen that the war with France in no way lends support to those who favor broad presidential war powers. As for the rest, the great presidential scholar Edward S. Corwin pointed out that this lengthy list of alleged precedents consisted mainly of “fights with pirates, landings of small naval contingents on barbarous or semi-barbarous coasts, the dispatch of small bodies of troops to chase bandits or cattle rustlers across the Mexican border, and the like.”

To support their position, therefore, the neoconservatives and their left-liberal clones are counting chases of cattle rustlers as examples of presidential warmaking, and as precedents for sending millions of Americans into war with foreign governments on the other side of the globe.

The war with France was the Quasi War at the end of the 18th century.

Quote:An incident that occurred during the Quasi War throws further light on the true extent of presidential war powers. Congress authorized the president to seize vessels sailing to French ports. But President Adams, acting on his own authority and without the sanction of Congress, instructed American ships to capture vessels sailing either to or from French ports.

Captain George Little, acting under the authority of Adams’ order, seized a Danish ship sailing from a French port. When Little was sued for damages, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Captain Little could indeed be sued for damages in the case. “In short,” writes war powers expert Louis Fisher in summary, “congressional policy announced in a statute necessarily prevails over inconsistent presidential orders and military actions. Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress.”

Little's defence had been that he acted in compliance with a Presidential directive, which he certainly did - but the problem was that Adams exceeded the authority Congress had given him for aggressive action.

And it's apparent from all of the commentary around the Constitution at the time of its framing - you cannot consider the document in a vacuum - the framers were deliberately and clearly intending to restrict aggressive, nation-on-nation violence to require Congressional approval. Madison, Jefferson, Wilson, and Hamilton are all clearly on record stating that. They were moving away from the English model of the executive power for war resting in the executive, i.e. in the English monarch, specifically because they knew what horrors it could create.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm