The attack on Syria

[Timsup2nothin]

If that is all the complex with a dozen should be more than enough.

If anything you cant say they lack precission. The excavator guy has half the the work already done.

Warhead on a tomahawk is only 1000 pounds. One will level a fair sized house, but you aren't taking down a large industrial building unless you hit it with several.

 

[innonimatu]

No, you are supposed to believe that if Portugal had all the power there would be peace across the entire earth through the awesomeness of their grand leadership.

I believe you should get some medical help for your Portugal obsession.

If that is all the complex with a dozen should be more than enough.

If anything you cant say they lack precission. The excavator guy has half the the work already done.

I don't know anything about explosives, but if it took 34 tons of high explosive and weapons costing some 70 million dollars to cause that level of destruction, we'd have far fewer wars going on. It'd be far more expensive to destroy than to build. I did notice that they seems not the worried about possible dangerous chemicals (special protections, cordoning a wide area off) during this cleanup.

 

[red_elk]

If that is all the complex with a dozen should be more than enough.

Considering cruise missile carry 450 kg warhead, yes, may be less.
Russian general staff claimed the center was targeted by 30 missiles and 7 of them were shot down.

 

[innonimatu]

In this era of ubiquitous mobile phones and cameras I'd expect that some videos of missile interceptions would appear, at least if those missiles were intercepted near the target in Damascus. If none are published I'll be inclined to discount the syrian/russian claim that so many were shot down.

 

[red_elk]

In this era of ubiquitous mobile phones and cameras I'd expect that some videos of missile interceptions would appear, at least if those missiles were intercepted near the target in Damascus.

There are plenty. Problem is that you can't see much on them:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In this era of ubiquitous mobile phones and cameras I'd expect that some videos of missile interceptions would appear, at least if those missiles were intercepted near the target in Damascus. If none are published I'll be inclined to discount the syrian/russian claim that so many were shot down.

I always walk around with my phone camera recording random sections of sky where a cruise missile I can't see coming might be intercepted by an anti-missile system I don't know the operating parameters of. Doesn't everyone?

 

[Sommerswerd]

The whole point is it’s becoming increasingly evident Trump’s not gonna do that either. I mean a year ago one would think he’d call for a full withdrawal from the Middle East with the way he was being sold.

So apparently the French President (Macron) says that he has convinced Trump that the US military should stay engaged in Syria long term... as opposed to the swift full withdrawal that Trump was selling (and folks were buying).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-trump-to-keep-troops-in-syria-idUSKBN1HM0X4

So I guess y'all's response to this will be that if it was Hillary, she wouldn't have needed any convincing by France to do exactly the same thing... she would have reached the same conclusion on her own... so that's like totally different... because, reasons etc?

 

[red_elk]

Censorship?

 

[Zkribbler]

Censorship?

No. Motive is unimportant. The fact remains: Syria did it.
Why do you assume her statement that they were out of time was a lie?
It is the host's job to ask questions, not to answer them. Why do you assume the host had the information necessary to answer the expert's question?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

There are plenty. Problem is that you can't see much on them:

Mmmm, may be. But SA missiles automatically self-destruct if cant lock on any target. It may be that too.

When a missile hits an aerial target face to face you usually can see burning rests falling in the oposite direction. That would be a more contundent proof. Or some resmains of shot down cruise missiles. They are like little planes. With 70+ downed there should be plenty.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, you are supposed to believe that if Portugal had all the power there would be peace across the entire earth through the awesomeness of their grand leadership.

There is an issue with how easy it seems to sell war, though. I mean, the syrian civil war has been going on for so many years. Why would anyone - anyone at all - use chemical weapons when they can use planes or even their allies like Russia and Iran? Looks rather unlikely that Assad would want to give the ever-so-willing enemies of his outside Syria any pretext or reason to get into this war again, no?

I don't like how nowdays there is no safeguard against bombing foreign countries. Or that warcrime is so openly used in a selective manner. Also, bombing Syria again would only cause the civil war to carry on; how is that in the interest of citizens in the US? Or of any logically thinking person.

 

[Berzerker]

the west must do something, so it does the minimum

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is an issue with how easy it seems to sell war, though. I mean, the syrian civil war has been going on for so many years. Why would anyone - anyone at all - use chemical weapons when they can use planes or even their allies like Russia and Iran? Looks rather unlikely that Assad would want to give the ever-so-willing enemies of his outside Syria any pretext or reason to get into this war again, no?

I don't like how nowdays there is no safeguard against bombing foreign countries. Or that warcrime is so openly used in a selective manner. Also, bombing Syria again would only cause the civil war to carry on; how is that in the interest of citizens in the US? Or of any logically thinking person.

Nobody likes it, but there has already been an answer to why Assad would use chemical weapons.

1) Assad gasses some people. Repeat as necessary to get the attention of the west. Truthfully, this did require multiple repetitions
2) The US, and usually their UK bomb buddies, and in this case France, feel compelled to "do something."
3) Invasion, along with anything else that can bring NATO troops into direct contact with Russians is out, so the only possible something for them to do is an airstrike...and they do.
4) Russia takes offense at the "western interference."
5) Russia retaliates by bombing the snot out of the Syrian rebellion.
6) Civil war is declared over and the westerners go home.

 

[Kyriakos]

^The 'rebels' already have lost, and Russia can freely bomb them, again already. So i am not seeing how this enables Russia in any way. The term "false flag" is used often when it isn't one, but in the case of this chemical attack... there simply is zero logic in thinking Assad did it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

^The 'rebels' already have lost, and Russia can freely bomb them, again already. So i am not seeing how this enables Russia in any way. The term "false flag" is used often when it isn't one, but in the case of this chemical attack... there simply is zero logic in thinking Assad did it.

Sure. The war is over. And Russia can freely bomb the opponents.

Oh, wait.

If the war is over, who is this that they can "freely bomb"?

Truth is that the rebels have repeatedly regathered themselves under the umbrella provided by western threats to sanction Russia for "interfering." There is no reason to think that they were going to be unable to regather themselves yet again and keep their endless civil war perking along. It definitely appears that the only thing that might actually put an end to it is if Russian air power is allowed to outright exterminate everything that might be an ISIS backed rebel, including the western backed rebels. Once that is done the west can declare ISIS defeated and go home. Now Russia has an excuse to get it done.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sure. The war is over. And Russia can freely bomb the opponents.

Oh, wait.

If the war is over, who is this that they can "freely bomb"?

Truth is that the rebels have repeatedly regathered themselves under the umbrella provided by western threats to sanction Russia for "interfering." There is no reason to think that they were going to be unable to regather themselves yet again and keep their endless civil war perking along. It definitely appears that the only thing that might actually put an end to it is if Russian air power is allowed to outright exterminate everything that might be an ISIS backed rebel, including the western backed rebels. Once that is done the west can declare ISIS defeated and go home. Now Russia has an excuse to get it done.

Hm, and Russia needs a chemical attack, cause without it they cannot use their planes? Russia already has bases in Syria; it doesn't need anything to happen. If they want to they can bomb whole regions. This chemical attack, on the other hand, was used precisely to sell some US (and lapdog + France) attack.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hm, and Russia needs a chemical attack, cause without it they cannot use their planes? Russia already has bases in Syria; it doesn't need anything to happen. If they want to they can bomb whole regions. This chemical attack, on the other hand, was used precisely to sell some US (and lapdog + France) attack.

No, they can't "bomb whole regions." C'mon man, we know you pay attention. Whenever the Russians use their air power to support the Assad regime there's a huge kerfuffle at the UN, various western nations call Putin names, and trade sanctions against Russia get discussed in plenty of western parliaments. They won't risk all that just to end a civil war they care nothing about. But when the western nations interfere, the Russians are honor bound to match that interference by interfering themselves...and they can because those discussions in western parliaments will include numerous voices saying "well, the US did interfere also..."

That's why the whole 'false flag' narrative is obvious nonsense. Every event that prompts outside interference will inevitably prompt interference from both sides. The west will engage in some precision air strike and blow up a few military targets that Assad doesn't really need anyway, and the Russians will level a rebel held city and churn the ruins to a depth of fifty feet to make sure there are no survivors hiding in a basement somewhere. Go ahead and explain how you can sell a rebel leader on that outcome.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, they can't "bomb whole regions." C'mon man, we know you pay attention. Whenever the Russians use their air power to support the Assad regime there's a huge kerfuffle at the UN, various western nations call Putin names, and trade sanctions against Russia get discussed in plenty of western parliaments. They won't risk all that just to end a civil war they care nothing about. But when the western nations interfere, the Russians are honor bound to match that interference by interfering themselves...and they can because those discussions in western parliaments will include numerous voices saying "well, the US did interfere also..."

That's why the whole 'false flag' narrative is obvious nonsense. Every event that prompts outside interference will inevitably prompt interference from both sides. The west will engage in some precision air strike and blow up a few military targets that Assad doesn't really need anyway, and the Russians will level a rebel held city and churn the ruins to a depth of fifty feet to make sure there are no survivors hiding in a basement somewhere. Go ahead and explain how you can sell a rebel leader on that outcome.

I am not sure why you think this is so. Russia is in Syria because it is invited by Assad, who sort of is the leader of the country there. It isn't there on equal footing with the US, who isn't invited by anyone - rebels aren't a country, nor do they have a UN seat. Russia isn't invading Syria; it is there as its ally, cause Syria is indeed in the sphere of Russia (and to a lesser degree, of Iran). The question is: why exactly do you think the US has to be in Syria? Is it gaining anything? Who is it helping? Why prolong the war?
I mean... US has plenty of US-tied dictators, it can do without controlling Assad too.
Israel may have a more obvious interest, though. For starters it gets to illegally keep the Golan heights, without any more fuss.

 

[r16]

Nor by Turkey.

Instead, Obama (a) gets Syria to finally admit they have chemical weapons, and
(b) convinces Syria to turn over all chemical weapons, precursors, and documentation to the US.

US wins while neither suffering nor inflicting any casualties.

easy , with the plane sent on a fool's errand , lost without support , with hopes that it will strike a raw nerve . One of the crew was like training to be the first astronaut of the country , too .

for the later part you might want to re-check Seymour Hersh , who was too early with an allegation that it was some similar sort of black flag . And what does the US actually win ; even if it took two years for Putin to arrive in Syria ? And only as a reminder , am Turkish myself , supposed to be bombed sky high by the West when the time , like finally , comes .

 

[Yeekim]

The question is: why exactly do you think the US has to be in Syria? Is it gaining anything? Who is it helping? Why prolong the war?

Those are all good questions I'm honestly struggling to answer at this point...

the west must do something, so it does the minimum

Unless, of course, the answer really isn't any more complicated than what Berzerker said.