The attack on Syria

[r16]

and aimed at no one in particular , as the phrase goes

enough with this crap . Russia as a proxy is not the way forward . Faced with the ineptude the World is now readily witnessing in the Arab ranks they might cleared all the irresuction off Syria in 6 months . Even when New Turkey shoots down that Su-24 , they instead opt for juicy contracts . They defeated the West and they then agree with West . Empty buildings and empty words . Everybody wins , while Russia would have still won if it had stood firm , with the West ready to turn into that proverbial house of cards . And then they readily offer S-400 , because you know the war in Syria is the only thing that keeps Turks alive and free from being genocided . Do we look like we need S-400s ? Macron says they did great , with seperating the PM from Putin , you know , as if PM had ever left the Sunni camp . Some Islamist politican even says the attack will cost A-K-P 5% of the vote and today is the exact anniversary of the Referandum that turned 52% YES , when like it was like 52% NO during the vote count .

and as a wannabe historian and much worse tactician and much much worse technician , ı would say that building , that's claimed to be the center to be targeted by 76 cruise missiles , would look exactly same if it was hit by a Mosquito of WWII fame with two 500 pounders / completely turned into dust and powder and shards with a blockbusting 4000 pounder . It's also stealhty , you know , being made out of wood ...

 

[Akka]

So... Assad attacking rebel civilians: crime.
Erdogan attacking rebel civilians: not crime.

Who said that ?

 

[red_elk]

No. Motive is unimportant. The fact remains: Syria did it.

It's not a fact, it's your favorite version.
The OPCW experts (invited by Russia) are in the city to investigate and establish facts.

Why do you assume her statement that they were out of time was a lie?

I'm not assuming anything, there is a question mark in my post.
The only thing which is clear, that expert started to voice version which is not conforming with the official version of British government.
And his answer was shut down abruptly, which sometimes happens on TV, but not too often.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

And in a very rude way btw. You can have censorship but show some manners for God's sake. Is British etiquette dead?

Edit: my bad, it is Sky News. An american channel i think.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think "Sky News" is American cable news... at least I've never heard of it... Also, both the host and the guest are speaking in pronounced UK accents. Also, the ticker in the top left is listing figures in Pounds (or Euros?), not dollars.

 

[red_elk]

So, the Russians secured the attack site next day after the incident and immediately asked the OPCW to come for investigation.
I suppose if nerve gas was used (as White Helmets claim), it can be established by simple blood test of survivors. Like it was done in previous cases.

The Chinese are surprised why US launched the airstrikes the day before experts arrived at the scene:

It's hard to explain why the US, Britain and France, which launched more than 100 cruise missiles at Syria on Friday, could not wait for the OPCW team to start and finish its investigation.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that allegations of chemical weapons use demand an investigation. And in the past, both the Syrian government and anti-government rebels have both been accused of using chemical weapons.

Then there is the question of legality. No major US news outlet has asked whether the airstrikes are even legal under international law or whether they constitute a violation of the UN Charter.

Many countries at the emergency session on Saturday clearly believe that they do.

In fact, the presence of 2,000 US troops in Syria is also illegal under international law and the UN Charter because the sovereign Syrian government has never authorized it.

So when US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Sunday that the US would not pull its troops out of Syria until its goals were accomplished, she was literally saying that the US will continue to ignore international law and occupy Syrian territory.

It is hypocritical for the US, Britain and France to pretend that they still care about the UN process or the OPCW investigation. In launching the airstrikes by bypassing the UN, they set a bad precedent that big powers don't have to abide by international laws.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201804/16/WS5ad3c076a3105cdcf6518583.html

 

[red_elk]

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.

The "kerfuffle" was over collateral damage and civilian deaths. Should this kerfuffle start again over something, I'm not sure how Russia can use US attack which didn't kill anybody as an excuse. It's much easier to use US bombing of Mosul and Raqqa for that purpose.

 

[Hrothbern]

Macron claims he "guided" Trump into a symbolic action.... justifying by that the fast responce of France to join the US and deploying his aircraft.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/v...-macron-claims-he-guided-trump-on-syria-video

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I don't think "Sky News" is American cable news... at least I've never heard of it... Also, both the host and the guest are speaking in pronounced UK accents. Also, the ticker in the top left is listing figures in Pounds (or Euros?), not dollars.

You are right. It is a British channel. But owned by Fox Networks. That explains it all.

 

[Kyriakos]

I suppose he won't be invited back to Sky news ^_^

Though imo the BBC's analogous bias is even worse, given it is a state channel, funded by citizens, so should be more cautious and not act as May's propaganda machine.
But it did the same under Blair and the bombing of Serbia.

Funny thing about Bbc is that it's site includes a note on "why you can trust us". Maybe they should be renamed to "Cape of good hope".

 

[red_elk]

But owned by Fox Networks. That explains it all.

Yeah, I remember that sudden "commercial break" on Fox News during Georgian war.

Spoiler :

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The "kerfuffle" was over collateral damage and civilian deaths. Should this kerfuffle start again over something, I'm not sure how Russia can use US attack which didn't kill anybody as an excuse. It's much easier to use US bombing of Mosul and Raqqa for that purpose.

I'm not sure how they can use it either, but I'm sure they will, because they always have. US airstrikes on military targets in Syria are followed by Russian bombing in Syria. Russia 'accidentally' levels a city while 'targeting' rebels. Much gnashing of teeth ensues, but nothing really comes of it because there's no way to argue against "we just aren't skilled at precision bombing so a lot of stuff gets blown up repeatedly in the process."

 

[red_elk]

US airstrikes on military targets in Syria are followed by Russian bombing in Syria.

Nope. Russian activity increases during either rebels attempts to advance (like, bombing rebels stronghold in Ltamenah a few times last year), or during major government offensives, like Aleppo assault, or last months operation in Eastern Gouta. US theatrical performance doesn't seemingly affect it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nope. Russian activity increases during either rebels attempts to advance (like, bombing rebels stronghold in Ltamenah a few times last year), or during major government offensives, like Aleppo assault, or last months operation in Eastern Gouta. US theatrical performance doesn't seemingly affect it.

Sure man...we all understand that mighty mother Russia is unaffected by external events.

 

[red_elk]

Sure man...we all understand that mighty mother Russia is unaffected by external events.

I don't think so, man, but if you insist...

 

[innonimatu]

There are two famous western journalists working for mainstream media, whom I respect for their reporting on Syria, because they actually have been going there, investigating and and talking to people in the terrain. They have both been reporting for a long time from the Middle East. These ones deserve to be called journalists.

One is Patrick Cockburn, whom I already mentioned on this thread. He's currently outside Syria and so far has said the use of chlorine was plausible if the reports made to the WHO were confirmed. The other Is Robert Fisk. He has gone into Syria and interviewed personally the people at the site of this "attack" and is confirming reports that no attack happened. We already had interviews with two of the medics on the clinic that was allegedly the source of the reports to the WHO, but those were less reliable. I at least did not know who was doing the reporting. This one is done by a journalist with a known track record. Hopefully some mainstream media will carry a more complete piece by him on this, though I fear The Independent won't dare.

 

[red_elk]

From what I read, the use of chlorine is harder to detect because its traces are chlorides which naturally occur in the environment.
But nerve gas is easier to detect and hopefully we will know soon enough whether reports about gas attack were faked.

 

[Zkribbler]

So, the Russians secured the attack site next day after the incident and immediately asked the OPCW to come for investigation.

Here come the inspectors!

[Inspectors have] waited two days to enter the site of the latest suspected chemical attack, where dozens of Syrian civilians were killed.

But despite having UN clearance, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons still can't enter the city of Douma, UK officials said.

The United Kingdom said Syria and Russia have blocked OPCW investigators from entering Douma,

...and there they sit.

 

[red_elk]

If they waited two days, it means they arrived in Syria right before US airstrikes and when last rebels were leaving the city.

Britain’s Ambassador Peter Wilson said at a news conference in The Hague that the UN had cleared the inspectors to go but they had been unable to reach Douma because Syria and Russia had been unable to guarantee their safety.

Whatever that means.

 

[Mouthwash]

Didn‘t Israel just bomb Syrian targets a week ago, right after the strikes?

Not saying there is no double-standard here, but the West hast been pretty ok with Israeli air attacks so far (and they were more strategically thought through than the current Western ones...).

It was nothing so brazen as this, but plenty of people here were ranting about how Israel had 'violated national sovereignty.'