SYRIA thread

[Sarmatian]

And physics in this case being "because it suits the current narrative"?

[Crandar]

I wonder how many people realize that there are no physics here, just claims, who firstly need to get approved by the faction controlling the town, al-Qaeda.

It's actually an improvement, a few months ago, the town was controlled by Jund al-Aqsa, the proxy of daesh in W. Syria.

There are many activists in rebel-controlled areas, but if the rebels don't like your activism, you end up being treated exactly like how the captives of the coalition were treated by the Syrian torturers, to whom the US delivered them. Not nicely. T

oo early to reach conclusions and I doubt we will learn the truth before the end of the civil war. In Ghouta, we still don't know what happened and two members of the UN mission have expressed contradicting opinions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d

[Fragony]

We (well we) have absolutily no idea what is going on sounds right to me

[Montmorency]

At the least, if it is the case that Assad has intermittently employed chemical weapons for terror over the past 3 years, then the timing to employ chemical weapons recently would have been perfectly reasonable,, even auspicious.

Without other information though, and unless conflicting eyewitness accounts of color/odor can be clarified, rebel provenance is also plausible.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d

Interesting quote from Obama, that use of force to demonstrate willingness to use force is a bad reason to use force.

[Husar]

We (well we) have absolutily no idea what is going on sounds right to me

Yeah, isn't it "funny" how we call it the information age and yet we seemingly can't trust anything? :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

Yeah, isn't it "funny" how we call it the information age and yet we seemingly can't trust anything? :dizzy2:

I would probably be even more clueless if I knew everything

[Elmetiacos]

And physics in this case being "because it suits the current narrative"?
Physics being that all the Sarin in Syria so far discovered has been binary - two chemical mixtures ("precursors") stored separately which could not combine to form Sarin because a bomb drops on a warehouse. Unless we suppose that Tahrir as-Sham has an advanced chemical research facility which found a way to purify the prescursors and incorporate a stabiliser (something only one US laboratory successfully did prior to the ban on chemical weapons) nobody would have just "tanks full of sarin" sitting around. Of course, it's possible the rebels deliberately released poison gas coinciding with a government/Russian airstrike in false flag operation, but nobody has so far been sufficiently tinfoil hatted as to suggest this.

[Fragony]

Comes from the Netherlands, guy who sold it to Iraq and Syria is in jail atm

[AE Bravo]

At the least, if it is the case that Assad has intermittently employed chemical weapons for terror over the past 3 years, then the timing to employ chemical weapons recently would have been perfectly reasonable,, even auspicious.
Why? If you are referring to the US letting off pressure recently, I don't think Assad ever looked past the possibility that they can reverse it at any time. I am not seeing any sane reason in this thread about why this pencilneck would do something so counterproductive.

Though even with the rogue commander theory, employing chemical weapons at this level must have required some sort of set military procedure and orders.

Who knows.

[Sarmatian]

Physics being that all the Sarin in Syria so far discovered has been binary - two chemical mixtures ("precursors") stored separately which could not combine to form Sarin because a bomb drops on a warehouse. Unless we suppose that Tahrir as-Sham has an advanced chemical research facility which found a way to purify the prescursors and incorporate a stabiliser (something only one US laboratory successfully did prior to the ban on chemical weapons) nobody would have just "tanks full of sarin" sitting around. Of course, it's possible the rebels deliberately released poison gas coinciding with a government/Russian airstrike in false flag operation, but nobody has so far been sufficiently tinfoil hatted as to suggest this.

1) You're again ignoring numerous testimonies that mention strong odor and yellow brownish cloud. Sarin is odorless and colorless.

2) The sarin found in Syria has been that produced by the government, a higher grade. Sarin used in 2013 (and possibly now together with chlorine) has been low grade, low quality.

3) doctors didn't say sarin specifically, they said some of the symptoms were consistent with a nerve agent "like sarin".

4) OPCW released a following statement after the attack: the OPCW is investigating the incident in southern Idlib under the on-going mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic”.

So, please come again about physics...

[Montmorency]

Why? If you are referring to the US letting off pressure recently, I don't think Assad ever looked past the possibility that they can reverse it at any time. I am not seeing any sane reason in this thread about why this pencilneck would do something so counterproductive.

Though even with the rogue commander theory, employing chemical weapons at this level must have required some sort of set military procedure and orders.

Who knows.

Because he wouldn't perceive it as a significant risk, in that chain of events where he has already been dropping gas here and there since 2013 without blowback for that particular practice.

Obviously it looks crazy if you assume he's using chemical weapons out of the blue for the first time ever, or since 2013.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Physics being that all the Sarin in Syria so far discovered has been binary - two chemical mixtures ("precursors") stored separately which could not combine to form Sarin because a bomb drops on a warehouse. Unless we suppose that Tahrir as-Sham has an advanced chemical research facility which found a way to purify the prescursors and incorporate a stabiliser (something only one US laboratory successfully did prior to the ban on chemical weapons) nobody would have just "tanks full of sarin" sitting around. Of course, it's possible the rebels deliberately released poison gas coinciding with a government/Russian airstrike in false flag operation, but nobody has so far been sufficiently tinfoil hatted as to suggest this.

Right, this leaves us two or three possibilities.

1. Government Sarin Attack

2. Rebel Sarin (relatively) recently mixed but not yet deployed.

3. Rebel Sarin where the two chemical compounds were stored next to each other, both containers were ruptured and they mixed inside a fireball.

I'm not even sure if the last is actually possible, but of the other two the government explanation is the simplest the the government is at least as likely to use Sarin as the Rebels. Application of Ockham's Razor indicates that a government bomb is the most likely explanation.


Why? If you are referring to the US letting off pressure recently, I don't think Assad ever looked past the possibility that they can reverse it at any time. I am not seeing any sane reason in this thread about why this pencilneck would do something so counterproductive.

Though even with the rogue commander theory, employing chemical weapons at this level must have required some sort of set military procedure and orders.

Who knows.

One possible explanation is that Russia funnels the Sarin back to Assad from what were his own stockpiles. It's apparent Assad places no inherent value on human life, something I believe he shares with Putin.

If that is how they think, as I believe they do, then the calculation here is how far he can push the use of Sarin etc. before Western Powers (the US) intervene. Obama has mostly let Assad do what he wanted for thee past three years and when Trump took office he seemed inclined to work with Assad. So, it may be that the Syrian Dictator simply miss-calculated.

[Brenus]

My point was that there's no reason to think the regime wouldn't use gas - they have in the past.
Agree with that, but so did the rebels and so do their counterpart in Iraq...

[Montmorency]

If that is how they think, as I believe they do, then the calculation here is how far he can push the use of Sarin etc. before Western Powers (the US) intervene. Obama has mostly let Assad do what he wanted for thee past three years and when Trump took office he seemed inclined to work with Assad. So, it may be that the Syrian Dictator simply miss-calculated.

More exactly, Obama "didn't do anything" because he hoped to secure Russian participation and cooperation (on Syrian disarmament). Hence the lack of attention to the several chemical incidents 2014-2016.

I imagine had there been a high-profile incident in the second half of 2016, in the midst of the furor about Russian influence on American politics, Obama would have been likely to employ some form of military response.

[Sarmatian]

I'm not even sure if the last is actually possible, but of the other two the government explanation is the simplest the the government is at least as likely to use Sarin as the Rebels.

Not true, according to OPCW. Rebels are suspected (primarily Al Nusra) of being responsible for 2/3 of all chemical attacks so far, and numerous makeshift chemical weapon workshops have been found in Al Nusra held area so far after liberation. There have been reports of Al Nusra manufacturing low grade sarin in Iraq and moving it to Syria (google news reports from 2014, 2015 and 2016). Chlorine is apparently much more easily available/manufactured.

[Elmetiacos]

1) You're again ignoring numerous testimonies that mention strong odor and yellow brownish cloud. Sarin is odorless and colorless.

2) The sarin found in Syria has been that produced by the government, a higher grade. Sarin used in 2013 (and possibly now together with chlorine) has been low grade, low quality.

3) doctors didn't say sarin specifically, they said some of the symptoms were consistent with a nerve agent "like sarin".

4) OPCW released a following statement after the attack: the OPCW is investigating the incident in southern Idlib under the on-going mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic”.

So, please come again about physics...
The brown cloud only suggests another related G-series nerve agent, Soman, but it doesn't make any difference for our purposes, because it is also a binary weapon and can't be released accidentally by bombing. That's the problem: not that the rebels might not have chemical weapons but that they couldn't have chemical weapons stored in a way that would allow them to be released according to the Russian version of events.

[Sarmatian]

The brown cloud only suggests another related G-series nerve agent, Soman, but it doesn't make any difference for our purposes, because it is also a binary weapon and can't be released accidentally by bombing. That's the problem: not that the rebels might not have chemical weapons but that they couldn't have chemical weapons stored in a way that would allow them to be released according to the Russian version of events.

And your explanation for the smell of bleach?

[AE Bravo]

One possible explanation is that Russia funnels the Sarin back to Assad from what were his own stockpiles. It's apparent Assad places no inherent value on human life,
As opposed to his enemies?

If that is how they think, as I believe they do, then the calculation here is how far he can push the use of Sarin etc. before Western Powers (the US) intervene. Obama has mostly let Assad do what he wanted for thee past three years and when Trump took office he seemed inclined to work with Assad. So, it may be that the Syrian Dictator simply miss-calculated.
Possibly placed too much faith in the American system, that the president would not engage in unilateral acts of war without congressional approval.

https://lofgren.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398158

Strong condemnation by a House Dem there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agree with that, but so did the rebels and so do their counterpart in Iraq...

All sides are engaged in a race to the bottom - no denying that. It's one of the reasons I argued for intervention earlier, removing Assad's Air-Power and artillery might have has slowed that race or caused it to bottom out at a less horrific level.

That horse bolted years ago, though.


More exactly, Obama "didn't do anything" because he hoped to secure Russian participation and cooperation (on Syrian disarmament). Hence the lack of attention to the several chemical incidents 2014-2016.

I imagine had there been a high-profile incident in the second half of 2016, in the midst of the furor about Russian influence on American politics, Obama would have been likely to employ some form of military response.

I imagine you're right, but there wasn't.


Not true, according to OPCW. Rebels are suspected (primarily Al Nusra) of being responsible for 2/3 of all chemical attacks so far, and numerous makeshift chemical weapon workshops have been found in Al Nusra held area so far after liberation. There have been reports of Al Nusra manufacturing low grade sarin in Iraq and moving it to Syria (google news reports from 2014, 2015 and 2016). Chlorine is apparently much more easily available/manufactured.

Noted - but here's my problem:

Russia has a policy of lying, you might call it an official policy - except they'd lie about it. This being so I assume the first thing Russia says to be either a great twisting of the truth or a complete fabrication.

Now, against that backdrop I note that the first Russian story (oops, we hit a weapons dump and somehow managed to release a toxic gas that shouldn't have been able to be released like that" came after the US strike.

Convenient for Assad, as it makes the US look bad after the fact. If it was even remotely true why didn't the Russians protest this when the US informed them they were going to make the strike and thereby prevent it?

Answer - because they hadn't had time to invent the story yet.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...why didn't the Russians protest this when the US informed them they were going to make the strike and thereby prevent it?

Answer - because they hadn't had time to invent the story yet.

They were not notified all that far in advance. Time enough to get personnel out of the line of fire, but little else.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They were not notified all that far in advance. Time enough to get personnel out of the line of fire, but little else.

They knew it might be coming, if the Syrians hit the town because it was a weapons lab then the Russains would have known.

It takes about ten seconds to say, "No, comrade, it was a rebel cache of toxic gas!"

the fact Russia hasn't claimed they tried to stop the attack tells me that exchange never happened.

[Montmorency]

It takes about ten seconds to say, "No, comrade, it was a rebel cache of toxic gas!

To be fair, bureaucratic details won't be known by every member of the organization, and even important information could take longer than you expect to transmit to those who need it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair, bureaucratic details won't be known by every member of the organization, and even important information could take longer than you expect to transmit to those who need it.

So we have incompetence vs the Kremlin policy to just lie, lie, lie.

[Brenus]

So we have incompetence vs the Kremlin policy to just lie, lie, lie.

The problem here, at least for me, is, as French, the experience of US and UK lying lying lying in several occasions in order to justify illegal wars and is still alive in my memory.
The smear campaign against France before and after Iraq II "the Return with a vengeance" and the robust flow of insults (firstly against intelligence) are still in my mind. Russia didn't participate in this, but our "allies" did.
So my experience and point of view is a bit different, I admit.

[Elmetiacos]

And your explanation for the smell of bleach?
Bleach? What are you trying to say, that there was no nerve agent used?

[Gilrandir]

And your explanation for the smell of bleach?

There might have been missiles with different chemicals used some with chlorine, some with sarin.

[rory_20_uk]

Who cares if there were gas agents or not? Do civilians care if is gas, high explosive, "shake and bake" or US cruise? To a degree, who cares if the USA is lying or not? Trump barely manages a sentence without telling a few. It is a war. Every side has killed civilians, destroyed infrastructure, and they always do.

The strategic point remains - should the West get involved in Syria or not? I would say no since we just don't have the strength of will to see if through - frankly to make the sacrifices and shed the blood required to get things resolved.Frankly, it probably isn't worth it.

And lest we think that this is all about the poor children, we manage to ignore those in Nigeria / South Sudan / Burma for years / decades.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Who cares if there were gas agents or not? Do civilians care if is gas, high explosive, "shake and bake" or US cruise? To a degree, who cares if the USA is lying or not? Trump barely manages a sentence without telling a few. It is a war. Every side has killed civilians, destroyed infrastructure, and they always do.


Trump was looking for a pretext to interfere. And he killed two birds with one stone - his approval rating has soared and Americans seem ready to forgive his (and his team's) blunders to feel he made America great again.

[Sarmatian]

Bleach? What are you trying to say, that there was no nerve agent used?

I'm saying that the thing we can be most certain about is that chlorine was used (because only that explains the smell of bleach reported by everyone). Next we can say, with a little less certainty, is that additional agent was used, probably something similar to sarin. With a lot less certainty we can say maybe there were even more types of chemical weapons used.

OPCW statement mentions only chlorine based on the preliminary reports. Until an investigation is conducted by OPCW (which probably isn't happening anytime soon as the area is controlled by Al Nusra), we can't say anything for sure.

And that is only about what type of chemicals were used. After that, an investigation about who's at fault can commence.

OR, we can ignore the experts, put our trusts in politicians and media and accept their version.


There might have been missiles with different chemicals used some with chlorine, some with sarin.

Quite possibly.

[Beskar]

The problem here, at least for me, is, as French, the experience of US and UK lying lying lying in several occasions in order to justify illegal wars and is still alive in my memory.
The smear campaign against France before and after Iraq II "the Return with a vengeance" and the robust flow of insults (firstly against intelligence) are still in my mind. Russia didn't participate in this, but our "allies" did.
So my experience and point of view is a bit different, I admit.

They renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries and banned French Mustard (which is an English Mustard brand). Things got pretty serious.

[Brenus]

They renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries and banned French Mustard (which is an English Mustard brand). Things got pretty serious.

Yeah, and this kind of things and as well "we will forgive Germany and punish France".
And the usual joke about French militaries...
If you think I forgot...

[Elmetiacos]

Trump was looking for a pretext to interfere. And he killed two birds with one stone - his approval rating has soared and Americans seem ready to forgive his (and his team's) blunders to feel he made America great again.
Not true. Polls by both Gallup and CBS News show virtually no increase in his popularity after the strikes.

[rory_20_uk]

Not true. Polls by both Gallup and CBS News show virtually no increase in his popularity after the strikes.

Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean Trump didn't think that it should happen. After all, there were those lovely new reports about how great he was.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

And the news anchors almost achieving orgasm at the sight of tomahawks being fired...

[AE Bravo]

So we have incompetence vs the Kremlin policy to just lie, lie, lie.
I don't understand this. They are asking for an investigation, give it to them if they're such liars...

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-g7-syria-20170411-story.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/russia-syria-rex-tillerson-237097

Rather than breaking national (US) and international laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem here, at least for me, is, as French, the experience of US and UK lying lying lying in several occasions in order to justify illegal wars and is still alive in my memory.
The smear campaign against France before and after Iraq II "the Return with a vengeance" and the robust flow of insults (firstly against intelligence) are still in my mind. Russia didn't participate in this, but our "allies" did.
So my experience and point of view is a bit different, I admit.

The only incidence of out-and-out "lying" I can think of from the UK/US is Gulf War II and then the lie was essentially turning "he might have WMD, but probably not, but he's blocking inspections" into "He probably has WMD and he's blocking inspections!"

This is what is known in Blighty as "being economical with the Truth".

Compare to Putin in Crimea "we have no troops in Crimea."

See the difference?

Added to which, both the UK and US have been through TWO political leaders since where Russia is still ruled by Putin's iron fist, just like 2003.


I don't understand this. They are asking for an investigation, give it to them if they're such liars...

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-g7-syria-20170411-story.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/russia-syria-rex-tillerson-237097

Rather than breaking national (US) and international laws.

When the enquiry implicates Assad's regime Russia will call it filthy lies, just like the enquiry into the downing of MH17.

[Brenus]

See the difference?
Not really.
And for forgot "the Operation Horse Shoes" in Kosovo, the bodies piling-up in the Coal Mines, mass-graves to justify the final destruction of what left from Yugoslavia.
Plus I find a bit of irony for a country that use massively the Orange Agent (TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins) in Vietnam to be the chief prosecution...

[Tristuskhan]

Plus I find a bit of irony for a country that use massively the Orange Agent (TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins) in Vietnam to be the chief prosecution...

A war that got hot following the Tonkin Gulf Incident. Blattant lie.
What could we say about 89' intervention in Panama?
""necessary to safeguard the lives of U.S. citizens in Panama, defend democracy and human rights, combat drug trafficking, and secure the neutrality of the Panama Canal as required by the Torrijos–Carter Treaties" (Pdt Bush). The part about drug trafficking is not a lie. The rest.... more than so-so.

The overthrow of Juan Bosch of Dominican Republic in 1965 was made under allegations of communism and "foreign support", both a lot unsubstanciated.

What else....?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Found this via BBC:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3553049/Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.pdf

The US has declassified a four-page report on the attack, just skimming it shows there's a lot there to indicate Sarin and regime involvement.

Now, it could be a lie but cui bono suggests not, as without the report there's no discernible motivation for the US strike.

[Sarmatian]

The important thing to consider is that there is rarely one intelligence report, and politicians usually pick the one that suits their current narrative.

Often, just like Trump-Nunez fiasco, they tend to circularly support each other, ie. two separate intelligence reports sourcing each other as proof.

In this particular case, it's not a report, it's a White House paper that includes their own one page summary of an intelligence report.

Some of the stuff in there can raise some eyebrows, like how they specifically mention MSF as one of their sources that it was sarin attack but conveniently leave out chlorine which is mentioned in MSF report (http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria-khan-sheikhoun-victims-have-symptoms-consistent-exposure-chemical-substances).

Another one the conclusion that it must have been the regime, because the regime used chemical weapons in the past. OPCW on the other hand, suspects Al Nusra and other opposition groups as being responsible for far more chemical attacks. It doesn't even mention that the territory was in control of none other than Al Nusra. Again, it appeals to authority (OPCW) but cherry picks the bits that support the current narrative, like with the MSF report.

Other issues are dubious statements like "the plane dropped a payload and immediately left the area", like it is standard practice that airplanes stick around for a prolonged period of time after they drop the payload.

And, finally, the idea that Russians must be lying because they have lied in the past, not really understanding that they discredit themselves also, for the dozens of false reports they've made in the past. That part doesn't surprise me though, when even John Kerry uttered the words "it's 21st century, you can't invade a country under a false pretext". On the whole, the western politicians' heads are so far up their asses that they wouldn't understand irony unless it is something made of iron that hits them on the head.

Brenus mentioned "Operation Horseshoe". The particular operation isn't well known now, but in 1999 it was used as a pretext for bombing of Serbia and Montenegro, because it was a detailed plan for extermination of Albanian population in Kosovo. Western media raced to provide details, British, American, German and other politicians held press conferences and it was unanimously confirmed by all major intelligence agencies from multiple countries. Until someone asked an actual question, and it turned out to be a game of telephone that went tragically and horribly wrong. Bulgarian intelligence uncovered the existence of a document titled "Operation Horseshoe", stated they couldn't verify what it actually was, but that it might be a plan for ethnic cleansing of Albanians. With each passing hand, the plan grew more dark and intelligence agencies and politicians more certain of its validity, until some time later, it all started unraveling, showing those intelligence reports were all based on ONE SINGLE UNVERIFIED report, made by Bulgarian intelligence. For more reading, visit Operation Horseshoe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Horseshoe).

Now, to turn to those few parts of the document that, if true, condemn Assad pretty heavily, which are:

1) type of crater
2) presence of key personnel that tend be around when chemical weapons get used.

The second one isn't that much contradicting Syrian narrative. If suspected chemical workshops are in the area, it would make sense to have chemical weapons experts close by, but that would make the regime guilty of gross negligence if they bombed the area knowing that chemical weapons might be released on the populace.

The first one is much more damaging, as it would imply that there were no explosives in the payload. There's still the possibility of false information (or even Al Nusra firing on the civilians - less likely but a possibility) but intelligence agencies and politicians are much less likely to lie when the information is easy to verify by other sources.

[Crandar]

Meanwhile, some physics scientists seem to have become ardent followers of Putler:
https://fr.scribd.com/document/344995943/Report-by-White-House-Alleging-Proof-of-Syria-as-the-Perpetrator-of-the-Nerve-Agent-Attack-in-Khan-Shaykhun-on-April-4-2017#from_embed
The letters are somewhat blurred, but you can copy-paste it into a more readable format.

[Brenus]

What else....?

Granada? Chile? Nicaragua? Iran?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Confirmed the attack was Sarin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39648503

Really hard to see how this wasn't the regime.

[Montmorency]

If one doesn't believe Assad deployed sarin in Ghouta, then one won't be obliged to believe he deployed it here. So nothing changes for either pro or anti-Assad.

[AE Bravo]

Apparently, by now (http://carnegieendowment.org/files/ACMR_Khaddour.pdf) the Syrian Army is an Alawite-populated husk of commissioned officers and heavy weapons units that leaves most of the ground fighting to sectarian militias, i.e. more of a brand than a professional institution. Could explain why they've performed much better on the offense than defense.

I don't think this crop will ever prove up to storming the Golan Heights. Maybe the air force has improved?


Man I had to dig this up because it stuck with me. It's very interesting you put it that way but I'm skeptical, it seems hyperbolic. I've read the publication you linked but it doesn't exactly allude to this claim. I imagine every country in the middle east would take this initiative when faced with a conscription crisis.

Not sure if the example was a figure of speech, but paramilitaries are effectively part of the regime in Syria. These institutional shortcomings are common across many states in the middle east. How do we know that they are sectarian? They seem to be no more so than the regime, people of Damascus, and "Assadist" diaspora are.

Not to mention the (incorrect) implication that the actual army is inactive/not fighting.

[Shaka_Khan]

The problem here, at least for me, is, as French, the experience of US and UK lying lying lying in several occasions in order to justify illegal wars and is still alive in my memory.
The smear campaign against France before and after Iraq II "the Return with a vengeance" and the robust flow of insults (firstly against intelligence) are still in my mind. Russia didn't participate in this, but our "allies" did.
So my experience and point of view is a bit different, I admit.

They renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries and banned French Mustard (which is an English Mustard brand). Things got pretty serious.
It happened at totalwar.com, too. There was a lot of French-bashing until a mod put a stop to it.

[Fragony]

If one doesn't believe Assad deployed sarin in Ghouta, then one won't be obliged to believe he deployed it here. So nothing changes for either pro or anti-Assad.

I am neither, everyone is a scumbag there. I am however suspicious by nature, conclusions came FAST

[Montmorency]

Man I had to dig this up because it stuck with me. It's very interesting you put it that way but I'm skeptical, it seems hyperbolic. I've read the publication you linked but it doesn't exactly allude to this claim. I imagine every country in the middle east would take this initiative when faced with a conscription crisis.

Not sure if the example was a figure of speech, but paramilitaries are effectively part of the regime in Syria. These institutional shortcomings are common across many states in the middle east. How do we know that they are sectarian? They seem to be no more so than the regime, people of Damascus, and "Assadist" diaspora are.

Not to mention the (incorrect) implication that the actual army is inactive/not fighting.

My tone was uncharitable, but I just followed the conclusions of the analysis, which were that the Syrian army had since the beginning of the war become less professional, less focused on its own infantry ranks than on paramilitaries, but that this had in the specific context of the fractured Syrian battlescape allowed it to be more flexible and shield itself from the worst casualties.

I did not say that it was more inactive than in the past, but did mean to suggest that it was less conventionally effective.

Not sure what you are trying to say about sectarianism. So that's just right. As opposed to 5 years ago, the commissioned ranks clearly seem to be more homogeneous in denomination.

[Elmetiacos]

Confirmed the attack was Sarin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39648503

Really hard to see how this wasn't the regime.

Physics 1 Holy Mother Russia 0

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If one doesn't believe Assad deployed sarin in Ghouta, then one won't be obliged to believe he deployed it here. So nothing changes for either pro or anti-Assad.

There's no other reasonable explanation given that it's definitely Sarin, it is virtually impossible that conventional bombing of a lab could have resulted in this.

[Fragony]

Sarin isn't that hard to make, and the equipment not that hard to get, I can get everything you need in a day, and no I'm not kidding I am dead-serious. I can tell you where if you want, including adress and phone-number if you ask me nicely. Please don't start an xtc-trade that stuff is bad for you.

Attack could really have come from anyone

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sarin isn't that hard to make, and the equipment not that hard to get, I can get everything you need in a day, and no I'm not kidding I am dead-serious. I can tell you where if you want, including adress and phone-number if you ask me nicely. Please don't start an xtc-trade that stuff is bad for you.

Attack could really have come from anyone

The Sarin would have had to have been ready - mixed for deployment for it to be a rebel stockpile.

That's the point.

[Fragony]

The Sarin would have had to have been ready - mixed for deployment for it to be a rebel stockpile.

That's the point.

Offs I co-owner of the company that sells the means to supply the means to make that stuf, I got 200 square meters of pharmaceutical hardware instantly on your doorstep whenever you want it, and everybody knows where chemachils come from, a guy called van Amraat who is currently in jail, both Iraq and Syria. It's not hard, I can get you everything you want but I won't. But I can, not everybody shares my moral standards

[Montmorency]

Well, maybe the Syrian air force bombed them with chorine while Aum Shinrikyo remnants were releasing sarin on their village, on the behalf of the yakuza, as revenge for those Japanese hostages who were beheaded by ISIS a couple of years ago.

[Fragony]

Well, maybe the Syrian air force bombed them with chorine while Aum Shinrikyo remnants were releasing sarin on their village, on the behalf of the yakuza, as revenge for those Japanese hostages who were beheaded by ISIS a couple of years ago.

Can we agree on the notion that there were conclusions made really fast? When that M17 plane was shot down everybody went crazy, a picture was shown of a seperatist holding a pet-rabbit toy, my fellow-countryman emidiatly thought of it as if he was holding a trophy, I thought it was more 'wtf just happened', conclusions came so fast and so are they now. I was kinda dissapointed in fellow dutchies that they never considered that they might be misenterpetating things. Same situation here, we simply can't know if it was Assad who did this. First quesion, why would he, that's my first question

[Montmorency]

Consider that responding tit-for-tat to rebel groups that use chemical weapons against you is a low threshold if you've already used them in the past.

Why not? Cheaper than many explosive munitions, more easy to source internally or with less administrative trail, little infrastructure damage...

When you recall that chemical weapons are not weapons of war, as such, their occasional and selective use to cause disruption and suffering among the enemy makes more than enough sense.

[Fragony]

Would you risk tbe outrage? Ultimatily Assad wants to stay in power, other atrocities he commited never harmed that in the end, we take conventional atrocities for granted, they don't even shock us anymore, we shrug and get groceries. A chemical or biological attack is a stement, and I wonder why someone felt the need to make it. I would bereally surprised if it was Assad, he has more than enough cruelty on his hands to need such a gesture and nothing to gain from it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would you risk tbe outrage? Ultimatily Assad wants to stay in power, other atrocities he commited never harmed that in the end, we take conventional atrocities for granted, they don't even shock us anymore, we shrug and get groceries. A chemical or biological attack is a stement, and I wonder why someone felt the need to make it. I would bereally surprised if it was Assad, he has more than enough cruelty on his hands to need such a gesture and nothing to gain from it

A fair point to consider.

[Fragony]

A fair point to consider.

Please do, enough mistakes have been made already and we all lose

[AE Bravo]

My tone was uncharitable, but I just followed the conclusions of the analysis, which were that the Syrian army had since the beginning of the war become less professional, less focused on its own infantry ranks than on paramilitaries, but that this had in the specific context of the fractured Syrian battlescape allowed it to be more flexible and shield itself from the worst casualties.

I did not say that it was more inactive than in the past, but did mean to suggest that it was less conventionally effective.

Not sure what you are trying to say about sectarianism. So that's just right. As opposed to 5 years ago, the commissioned ranks clearly seem to be more homogeneous in denomination.
Makes sense.

As for the last part, that it is more homogenous in denomination makes it as sectarian as almost every military institution in the region. Assad was cornered and showed his true colors like his counterparts in the region possessed by default. It's just interesting that this has been labelled a sectarian operation mostly due to the war, or else it would be (rightfully) stamped to other states as well.

Basically, he became what the rebels have accused him of being for years and hardly by choice.

[Fragony]

What's your take? Interested in it, I'm only a clown if things aren't serious. It's all really confusing and musings won't do anymore. Where is our resident Syrian when you need him I don't understand things anymore

[Sarmatian]

One thing to consider is that sarin doesn't have to be a binary agent. All sarin Syrian government surrendered was binary, but that doesn't mean that low grade sarin terrorists produce is binary also, in which case an explosion would disperse the gas with lethal effects.


Where is our resident Syrian

We have a resident Syrian?

[Montmorency]

One was looking for computer advice in the Tech forum recently. That one? Or Dariush? I don't think he identified as a Syrian, did he?

[AE Bravo]

What's your take? Interested in it, I'm only a clown if things aren't serious. It's all really confusing and musings won't do anymore. Where is our resident Syrian when you need him I don't understand things anymore
There are many Syrians here, not one of them is pro-regime. Though to be fair, I don't think they'd let them in if they were suspected pro-regime. I have Libyan friends from both "sides," in my circle the girls are pro-Qaddafi and men pro-rebel which makes sense considering the state of women in Libya now. I think the same could be true for Syria, at least for feminists or the women who don't cover their heads.

It's a shame because Syria was such a fun place, you'd like it. Ten years ago this was the vacation spot (like Morocco) where you could go for a drink and meet all kinds of Arabs/Assyrians without fear of being spotted by some bored relative.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One thing to consider is that sarin doesn't have to be a binary agent. All sarin Syrian government surrendered was binary, but that doesn't mean that low grade sarin terrorists produce is binary also, in which case an explosion would disperse the gas with lethal effects.

Sarin won't keep when combined, so in order for it to have been from a Rebel stockpile it would have needed to be awaiting imminent deployment.

In order for the narrative to be as the Russian suggest.


We have a resident Syrian?


One was looking for computer advice in the Tech forum recently. That one? Or Dariush? I don't think he identified as a Syrian, did he?

More properly our Assyrian in America.

[Montmorency]

There are many Syrians here, not one of them is pro-regime. Though to be fair, I don't think they'd let them in if they were suspected pro-regime. I have Libyan friends from both "sides," in my circle the girls are pro-Qaddafi and men pro-rebel which makes sense considering the state of women in Libya now. I think the same could be true for Syria, at least for feminists or the women who don't cover their heads.

It's a shame because Syria was such a fun place, you'd like it. Ten years ago this was the vacation spot (like Morocco) where you could go for a drink and meet all kinds of Arabs/Assyrians without fear of being spotted by some bored relative.

When you say "here", at first I thought you meant the Org, but that can't be it. And I believe you said you're not in America any longer, right?

By and by, this video might interest you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIfiZHAJ4U


More properly our Assyrian in America.

RVG? Why? He hasn't been active in a few years.

[Sarmatian]

Sarin won't keep when combined, so in order for it to have been from a Rebel stockpile it would have needed to be awaiting imminent deployment.

In order for the narrative to be as the Russian suggest.

Actually, no. Even low grade sarin, made of impure precursors, will keep for a few weeks, but back when chemical weapons were a thing, a lot of nations kept sarin in unitary state, adding stabilizer chemicals, like tributylamine and diisopropylcarbodiimide. Nations with access to better technology kept it in binary state, because it was safer, but that required more complicated mechanism of deployment.

Even US kept both unitary and binary sarin. In the preparation for the Gulf War, CIA wrote a report that concluded that "CIA ANALYSTS BELIEVE THAT THE SHELF LIFE PROBLEM WAS ONLY TEMPORARY AND THAT THE IRAQIS CAN NOW PRODUCE UNITARY AGENTS OF SUFFICIENT QUALITY BY ADDING A STABILIZER OR IMPROVING THE PRODUCTION PROCESS."

Sarin used by terrorists is usually of low-grade, unitary kind (like in Tokyo terror attack) because they lack the expertise and technology to keep it binary and make effective firing mechanism. The unitary sarin has simple deployment - destroy the container and gas gets released.


More properly our Assyrian in America.

Well, he is really not a resident Syrian.

[drone]

One was looking for computer advice in the Tech forum recently. That one? Or Dariush? I don't think he identified as a Syrian, did he?

I believe Dariush is Iranian. And I'm pretty sure Leith has never posted in the Backroom.

[Elmetiacos]

The contortions and goalpost moving from the Putin bots...
It never happened, it was all fake footage by the rebels, who are all terrorists!
Disproven.
It wasn't sarin, it was only chlorine!
Disproven.
If it was sarin, it was rebel sarin accidentally released by the bombing!
Disproven.
If sarin can't be released accidentally, rebels must be making their own sarin! They must have found a way to store it by means of adding a stabilising chemical, yes, that's it!
When this is disproven too, no doubt they'll be blaming it on aliens.

[Husar]

The contortions and goalpost moving from the Putin bots...
It never happened, it was all fake footage by the rebels, who are all terrorists!
Disproven.
It wasn't sarin, it was only chlorine!
Disproven.
If it was sarin, it was rebel sarin accidentally released by the bombing!
Disproven.
If sarin can't be released accidentally, rebels must be making their own sarin! They must have found a way to store it by means of adding a stabilising chemical, yes, that's it!
When this is disproven too, no doubt they'll be blaming it on aliens.

Occam came to me in a dream and said his razer bet money on it having been the rebels!
He also gave me a related message for Fragony: Es muss sein!

[Brenus]

The contortions and goalpost moving from the Putin bots...
It never happened, it was all fake footage by the rebels, who are all terrorists!
Disproven.
It wasn't sarin, it was only chlorine!
Disproven.
If it was sarin, it was rebel sarin accidentally released by the bombing!
Disproven.
If sarin can't be released accidentally, rebels must be making their own sarin! They must have found a way to store it by means of adding a stabilising chemical, yes, that's it!
When this is disproven too, no doubt they'll be blaming it on aliens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
was Putin as well

[Elmetiacos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
was Putin as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX0r6DsvXAU

[Brenus]

? YOU pretend that Sarin can be produce only by a State. Who produce Sarin in Tokyo's attack... A SECT!!!.
So, come back with something better than a distraction, as funny it is, you are the one using the tactic...

[Sarmatian]

The contortions and goalpost moving from the Putin bots...
It never happened, it was all fake footage by the rebels, who are all terrorists!
Disproven.
It wasn't sarin, it was only chlorine!
Disproven.
If it was sarin, it was rebel sarin accidentally released by the bombing!
Disproven.
If sarin can't be released accidentally, rebels must be making their own sarin! They must have found a way to store it by means of adding a stabilising chemical, yes, that's it!
When this is disproven too, no doubt they'll be blaming it on aliens.


Why do you hate freedom?

[Gilrandir]

The contortions and goalpost moving from the Putin bots...


It isn't really news. The first time I saw this tactics employed at Crimea's annexation. Then it has been repeatedly used by the Kremlin the most notable (for the West) occurence being MH 17. As for representation of Ukrainian events for Russian (and Ukrainian) audience it is a must.

[Sarmatian]

It's so cute you guys believe you are so perceptive to see through that all that bs. ~;)

[Gilrandir]

It's so cute you guys believe you are so perceptive to see through that all that bs. ~;)

It is no less cute that you believe you are so perceptive you can discern us seeing through that all.

[Elmetiacos]

? YOU pretend that Sarin can be produce only by a State. Who produce Sarin in Tokyo's attack... A SECT!!!.
So, come back with something better than a distraction, as funny it is, you are the one using the tactic...
No, I have not said that only a state can produce Sarin. It is a fact, however, that the Syrian state produced chemical weapons before the war and therefore much more likely that any Sarin would be pre-existing stock, which therefore would be binary agents impossible to release by bombing the storage facilities. It's possible that one or more rebel factions have made more chemical weapons, but it's again much more likely that they would copy the established techniques including binary agents rather than successfully embark on a new research pathway to allow Sarin be stored ready for use. The Russian claims therefore stay ridiculous: again the issue is not how easy it is to make chemical weapons, but how likely it is they could be released accidentally.

[Montmorency]

The violence of revolutions is generally proportioned to the degree of the maladministration which has produced them

Something about this aphorism seems inadequate.

[Sarmatian]

No, I have not said that only a state can produce Sarin. It is a fact, however, that the Syrian state produced chemical weapons before the war and therefore much more likely that any Sarin would be pre-existing stock, which therefore would be binary agents impossible to release by bombing the storage facilities. It's possible that one or more rebel factions have made more chemical weapons, but it's again much more likely that they would copy the established techniques including binary agents rather than successfully embark on a new research pathway to allow Sarin be stored ready for use. The Russian claims therefore stay ridiculous: again the issue is not how easy it is to make chemical weapons, but how likely it is they could be released accidentally.

1) there were reports of Al Nusra making sarin and using it before (long before this attack)
2) reports mentioned sarin was being produced in Iraq
3) unitary sarin was actually produced first, a long time ago, it is not a "new research path"
4) binary sarin is more advanced, more complicated to produce and harder to deploy. To deploy unitary sarin you just break the container. For binary, you have to have a complicated mechanism to make sure the precursors mix at the right time. Even Iraqi army in the Gulf War had troubles with that. Google for reports US soldier surviving sarin attacks almost unscathed because of faulty mechanism. Iraqis used unitary sarin for the most part.
5) Al Nusra and other terrorist groups have a large number of ex Baathist in their ranks

About 2013 Aleppo attack, a UN commission concluded that there was not enough evidence to say with certainty who perpetrated the attack, but a day before, Carla Del Ponte came out and said that the available evidence, witness testimonies, medical reports etc... suggested it was the rebels who actually did it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188. Immediately after the attack, everyone was certain it was Assad. There was no other possibility. And then the investigation says, "we can't say for sure, but it was most likely not Assad".

You may wanna familiarize yourself with stuff before you take such an uncompromising stance. Seriously, just use google. It's a great start. Some interesting keywords : Assad, Syria, Iraq, gas, sarin, Aleppo, UN, Al Nusra, ISIS, OPCW... mix and match, see what you get.

[Strike For The South]

Ramzan Kadryov is the despot ruling the Chechen republic. The man is a walking vulgarity. His rule, a testament brutal hedonism. He is basically the third man in power (chronologically) since Putin shelled his own country and kidnapped his own citizens. After that Putin exploited a division between Chechen Muslims and the whabbis by hand picking Kadryovs father as leader. There's more to it than that, but that basically gets us to where we are at now.

Kadryov has been more than happy to get his hands dirty assassinating Putins political opponents while Putin has been more than happy to pump money into the republic now that it has a friendly disposition to Moscow. Nothing to surprising there, a princeling is showered with gifts when he does the Czars bidding.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chechnya-ramzan-kadyrov-gay-men-eliminate-chechen-leader-detain-torture-end-may-2017-camps-russia-a7700711.html

Recently Kardryov has been accused of rounding up the gays, which while passe, is still troubling. Allegedly, this started when a group of gay men sought permission to hold a parade. I suppose sometimes asking does have its consequences. The Chechen response has been all over the place. First, they claimed it was an April Fools joke. Then, they claimed that no gay men existed in their republic. This unassailable fact was then amended. Kadryov stated that if these men did exist (no doubt as a result of western corruption) their families would simply "take care of them". No doubt a reference to honor killings, which also permeate the republic.

Unsurprisingly, Moscow is unmoved. They are backing their strongman without so much as a curiosity about what is going on. Considering the state of gay rights as a whole in the country, this is entirely unsurprising. Putin will back his man so long as he remains his man. Sort of like how you could gas your own people and Russia will claim that you didn't. Even when France and The USA have proof that you did. Russias propaganda arm is about the only thing that works in the country. They may run out of bread, but by God can they muddy the waters when it comes to news.

The Chechen story is a great illustration of this because Russia simply doesn't care enough about gays to make up an elaborate lie. Syria is wrapped up in a humanitarian crisis and power politics. That makes things unclear for people and when things are unclear disinformation is a powerful tool.

Why should you believe anything the Russian government says?

[Sarmatian]

Why should you believe anything American and French government says?

American government has quite a record of manufacturing evidence to further their own agenda. Iraq WMD is just the most famous example, because every single politician of importance was parroting it for a year, so it stuck with people.

You're starting from a position of American government doesn't lie therefore anyone with a different opinion is lying.

Russian government lies, American government lies, Assad is a dictator, a lot of rebels aren't much better and many are worse. In that chaos, somebody gassed civilians. How can you be so sure it was Assad?

[Strike For The South]

Why should you believe anything American and French government says?

American government has quite a record of manufacturing evidence to further their own agenda. Iraq WMD is just the most famous example, because every single politician of importance was parroting it for a year, so it stuck with people.

You're starting from a position of American government doesn't lie therefore anyone with a different opinion is lying.

Russian government lies, American government lies, Assad is a dictator, a lot of rebels aren't much better and many are worse. In that chaos, somebody gassed civilians. How can you be so sure it was Assad?

I know the American government lies. You misrepresent my position, I would argue the US government tends to utilizes omission while The Russian government very much employs a brinkmanship/double down strategy. The Russian strategy is more effective but requires a stronger propaganda arm.

Stories about Israeli or Saudi atrocities simply never hit the US airwaves or are very much downplayed. The US strategy is simply not to talk about them. In this case, they are very much helped by a media that loves intervention and neo-conservative policies.

I would also argue that, on a relative scale, the American government is more trustworthy that the Russian one . Of course the scale for honesty among global powers is horribly weighted with a certain amount of lying. unfortunately, that is power politics. The French also love to disagree with the Americans, if there was something afoot, they would surely seize it. I am sure you would disagree, but that is for another time.

Assad may have been winning militarily but he is trying to re-assert control and his military will not be strong enough to help him govern. These attacks are being used to strike fear in those rebels who are weighing peace under Assad vs continued fighting.

[Elmetiacos]

1) there were reports of Al Nusra making sarin and using it before (long before this attack)
2) reports mentioned sarin was being produced in Iraq
3) unitary sarin was actually produced first, a long time ago, it is not a "new research path"
4) binary sarin is more advanced, more complicated to produce and harder to deploy. To deploy unitary sarin you just break the container. For binary, you have to have a complicated mechanism to make sure the precursors mix at the right time. Even Iraqi army in the Gulf War had troubles with that. Google for reports US soldier surviving sarin attacks almost unscathed because of faulty mechanism. Iraqis used unitary sarin for the most part.
5) Al Nusra and other terrorist groups have a large number of ex Baathist in their ranks
As you've just highlighted yourself, unitary sarin is unstable and degrades quickly while producing acid which eats at whatever it's stored in which is why everyone gave up on it decades ago. Once again, the issue is not whether rebels could have chemical weapons, it's the extremely unlikely scenario that the alleged rebel sarin was accidentally released as the Kremlin claims.

[AE Bravo]

It's April 25th and the fucking pot calling the kettle black.

[Strike For The South]

All polities are dishonest to some degree. Rampant cynicism and whatboutism are not tenable positions in a world that requires solutions beyond EU money for Syrian refugees.

It is not a high mark of critical thinking when ones only position is critique.

[Sarmatian]

I would also argue that, on a relative scale, the American government is more trustworthy that the Russian one.

I would say it depends on the issue. In domestic issues, American government is much more trustworthy than the Russian one, but the reason for that isn't that American politicians are inherently more honest than Russian ones. US has an effective system of checks and balances in place. There are different interest groups that wield a lot of influence and have a rather loud voice.
It is quite hard to push through an outright lie. Chances are, it's gonna be caught by some of them.

Foreign policy and intelligence organizations are different. They aren't as transparent, they largely fall under the influence of a small group of people. We rarely see original intelligence reports, and if we do, it's years or decades after they are relevant, at a time when nobody cares. The media and politicians are much less divided. News anchors from CNN to Fox sounded as if they were masturbating to missiles being fired. It's not so much about issues but about rooting for the home team. In foreign policy, there are no checks and balances and mainstream media tends to go along, sometimes even run ahead. That is also evident when media omits US allies' crimes, like the Israeli or Saudis you mentioned. That's not a "one off". That's been going on for decades. Hundreds of editors were changed in mainstream media over the years, it can't be a coincidence. In this case, it's not just not rooting for the home team, it's rooting against it. You're making America look bad. Why was Snowden vilified? Did he lie about something? There was a guy who exposed that American government and intelligence constitution are breaking the US constitution on a daily basis. Instead of being lauded as a hero, he was vilified. Why was it so easy to do that? Because he made America look bad.

In Russia, domestic system and foreign policy system work pretty much the same. There are no checks and balances, and the mainstream media supports the government narrative, in both domestic and foreign issues.

So, I both agree and disagree with you in this particular case. When it comes to domestic issues, I feel the American government is much more trustworthy. In foreign policy, I don't think there's a difference.


Assad may have been winning militarily but he is trying to re-assert control and his military will not be strong enough to help him govern. These attacks are being used to strike fear in those rebels who are weighing peace under Assad vs continued fighting.

That is a valid point. Counter point is that there are a lot of methods to strike fear into population, why would he choose the one that practically guarantees an international outrage?


As you've just highlighted yourself, unitary sarin is unstable and degrades quickly while producing acid which eats at whatever it's stored in which is why everyone gave up on it decades ago. Once again, the issue is not whether rebels could have chemical weapons, it's the extremely unlikely scenario that the alleged rebel sarin was accidentally released as the Kremlin claims.

Not everyone has access to the same technology. Even sarin made of low grade material has a shelf life of a few weeks. Better materials and stabilizing agents extend that to years and decades.

It is highly unlikely that sarin made by terrorists in field workshops is a quality binary variant. It is highly unlikely that they intend to store it for decades. It is highly unlikely that they have the means to make complicated firing mechanism necessary for effective deployment.

So, Kremlin story isn't illogical at all. Whether it's true, that's another issue.

[Montmorency]

why would he choose the one that practically guarantees an international outrage?

Because international outrage is very selective and opportunistic, including on chemical weapons.

Anyway, it remains to be seen if there was any genuine threat behind the US reprisal, and that it wasn't just one more item in the backdoor quid-pro-quo between the US and Russia, and something for the domestic media to approve of. What has Assad lost now?

[Strike For The South]

I would say it depends on the issue. In domestic issues, American government is much more trustworthy than the Russian one, but the reason for that isn't that American politicians are inherently more honest than Russian ones. US has an effective system of checks and balances in place. There are different interest groups that wield a lot of influence and have a rather loud voice.
It is quite hard to push through an outright lie. Chances are, it's gonna be caught by some of them.

The checks and balances certainly help, as does the devolution to the states. However, there are also issues that simply don't get brought up. Like the fact that no one has enforced firearm regulation in 25 years. That can be a topic for later.



Foreign policy and intelligence organizations are different. They aren't as transparent, they largely fall under the influence of a small group of people. We rarely see original intelligence reports, and if we do, it's years or decades after they are relevant, at a time when nobody cares.
I agree but I also think this is true for all nation states. I think America should hold itself to a higher, more transparent standard. The core problem would still remain though, certain things can't be totally transparent. This is compounded by the fact that Americas "main" adversaries (China and Russia) tend to be a lot more secretive. Being able to hold your cards closer to your vest is a positive in international relations.


The media and politicians are much less divided. News anchors from CNN to Fox sounded as if they were masturbating to missiles being fired. It's not so much about issues but about rooting for the home team. In foreign policy, there are no checks and balances and mainstream media tends to go along, sometimes even run ahead. That is also evident when media omits US allies' crimes, like the Israeli or Saudis you mentioned. That's not a "one off". That's been going on for decades. Hundreds of editors were changed in mainstream media over the years, it can't be a coincidence. In this case, it's not just not rooting for the home team, it's rooting against it. You're making America look bad.
The cheerleading is disgusting. Brian Williams behavior in particular was akin to a 5 year old watching fireworks. 6 companies own 90% of the media in America. The people at the top of these companies are very much Neo-Liberal interventionists. It is not really a shock that they stock their companies with like minded individuals. It's not some grand conspiracy so much as symptom of unfettered global capitalism. It's why I donate to PBS.


Why was Snowden vilified? Did he lie about something? There was a guy who exposed that American government and intelligence constitution are breaking the US constitution on a daily basis. Instead of being lauded as a hero, he was vilified. Why was it so easy to do that? Because he made America look bad.

He made America look bad but also put America at a real disadvantage in the public relations sphere of the grand political game. The only countries that don't do things Snowden exposed are either are unable to do it or allow America to do it for them. Germany is the most notable example of this. I think it's telling the German people howled about it and Merkel sort of brushed it off as the price of doing business.

I think what he did was treasonous. In my perfect world, he is tried by his fellow citizens, found guilty, stripped of his citizenship, and exiled. However, the government would probably railroad him and execute him. He does not deserve to die for what he exposed, nor does he deserve permanent solitary in Levanworth. So I suppose I must make my peace with his self imposed punishment.


So, I both agree and disagree with you in this particular case. When it comes to domestic issues, I feel the American government is much more trustworthy. In foreign policy, I don't think there's a difference.

My first reaction to this was indignation. How could someone even begin to equate the Americans and the Russians? But as I thought about it more, a Serb probably has the most reason to question NATO motives. To take a step back and make it less about me and you, I think Americas greatest blind spot is its lack of personal skin in the game.

America is in its own corner of the world. I will only be bombed in some sort of over in an instant nuclear holocaust. I don't think we have ever really felt a national tragedy. This, of course, is a blessing and yet it sort of hamstrings us in the wider world.

To further illustrate my point. I grew up listening to stories about Cowboys and Indians. More specifically I grew up listenting to the stories about the Comanche, the Kiowa, and The Apache. The plains Indians loom in the Texas psyche to this day. Stories About how they took blue eyed babies and drug them threw the cactus plants, About how they raided white homesteads and took the redheaded women as sex slaves, about how they were the toughest sons of bitches this side of the Pecos. We would point to our scars and imagine they were given to us by some proud Comanche warrior (maybe even Quanah Parker himself). The Cowboys were American knights, defending us from evil.

Now Granted, the Comanche were a salty people who did do those things and did carve out an empire through subjugation. However they also only numbered about 20,000 people total and they were ruthlessly hunted by the Texas Rangers. The Rangers killed indiscriminately, burned whole bands, and when there was nothing left to destroy, they crossed the border to burn loot and rape various Mexicans villages. I guess because Mexicans kind of look like Indians.

The few Comanche left now live hundreds of miles to the East in Oklahoma. We named an attack helicopter them. As if our vanquished enemies give us power.

Now everyone grows up with stories about their national heroes and at the risk of rambling, I will get to my point. The national mythos is usually tempered by national tragedy. America doesn't have a national tragedy. There are no scars on our psyche and I think that is to our detriment. In our minds, we are good and pure. In our minds, force is a tool for a good cause. Force has given us our nation. Force freed the slaves. Force defeated the NAZIs. Force whipped the Japanese. Force never bombed out San Fransisco. Force never occupied New England. Force was never Mexican ranger raids into Texas. Force is not Pakistan violating our sovereignty killing someone in one of our cities.

Im not sure I have a wider point here beyond my own reflection I am sharing. I should make this more concise. I just feel America is too quick to use force and our own detachment is a big driver of that. If that makes sense.


That is a valid point. Counter point is that there are a lot of methods to strike fear into population, why would he choose the one that practically guarantees an international outrage?


What are their other options that don't involve mass infrastructure damage?


edit: it should be noted Pancho Villa did raid the American southwest. The Americans were fully prepared to invade and subjugate the entirety of Mexico over a Mexican rebel until cooler heads prevailed. That kind of encapsulates my point.

[Elmetiacos]

Not everyone has access to the same technology. Even sarin made of low grade material has a shelf life of a few weeks. Better materials and stabilizing agents extend that to years and decades.

It is highly unlikely that sarin made by terrorists in field workshops is a quality binary variant. It is highly unlikely that they intend to store it for decades. It is highly unlikely that they have the means to make complicated firing mechanism necessary for effective deployment.

So, Kremlin story isn't illogical at all. Whether it's true, that's another issue.
Unitary Sarin (or similar) isn't easier to make than the binary form; it's the same chemical process, but storage of it in that form has been abandoned as it is too unstable. Why would anyone go back to that? The only way the Kremlin version could be true is if the airstrike hit at the very time the reagents had been mixed just before being used - in an unconventional form of munition since Syrians are used to dealing with the binary form. As I said before, it's possible that the rebel faction deliberately released poison gas in a 'false flag' operation, but nobody has claimed that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

French Intelligence fingers the regime for the Sarin attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/26/syria-assad-forces-carried-out-sarin-attack-says-french-intelligence

[Brenus]

French Intelligence fingers the regime for the Sarin attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/26/syria-assad-forces-carried-out-sarin-attack-says-french-intelligence

We are part of NATO now, little lap dog following USA...

[Sarmatian]

I agree but I also think this is true for all nation states. I think America should hold itself to a higher, more transparent standard. The core problem would still remain though, certain things can't be totally transparent. This is compounded by the fact that Americas "main" adversaries (China and Russia) tend to be a lot more secretive. Being able to hold your cards closer to your vest is a positive in international relations.

I'm not saying it should be transparent, it's just that I don't find America more trustworthy than Russia or even China when it comes to foreign policy. There had been too many outright lies and questionable policy decisions. The international fora are dominated by NATO members. The only international forum not dominated by NATO is UN. Even with all its flaws, it is the only one left. Sure, it devolves often to "reality by consensus" rather than "by facts" and it is most often rendered impotent by permanent SC members, but at least that system makes it impossible for any one side to dominate.


The cheerleading is disgusting. Brian Williams behavior in particular was akin to a 5 year old watching fireworks. 6 companies own 90% of the media in America. The people at the top of these companies are very much Neo-Liberal interventionists. It is not really a shock that they stock their companies with like minded individuals. It's not some grand conspiracy so much as symptom of unfettered global capitalism. It's why I donate to PBS.


I'm not talking about conspiracies. It's business. Very few people in America want to read about America being the bad guy. I was watching some clip of Bill Maher's show on youtube. He was listing crazy things Trump said. Among others, there was his answer to a journalist to a question how he can praise Putin when Putin has done such terrible things. His answer was "we (US) have done terrible things, too". It would probably pass unnoticed if there wasn't a British MP on the show who asked "what's so crazy about that statement?", and threw everyone off track.

There have been too many examples not to notice a trend here.


He made America look bad but also put America at a real disadvantage in the public relations sphere of the grand political game. The only countries that don't do things Snowden exposed are either are unable to do it or allow America to do it for them. Germany is the most notable example of this. I think it's telling the German people howled about it and Merkel sort of brushed it off as the price of doing business

That again requires a higher level of understand of foreign relations, espionage, data collection... than Average Joe has. There was a guy who proved that government was violating the constitution, the very same constitution American politicians swear by (some even claim it is so pure and perfect that it must be a result of a divine intervention), but nobody cared. He made America look bad. The end. He was rooting against the home team, he deserves all the bad things that happened to him.


My first reaction to this was indignation. How could someone even begin to equate the Americans and the Russians? But as I thought about it more, a Serb probably has the most reason to question NATO motives. To take a step back and make it less about me and you, I think Americas greatest blind spot is its lack of personal skin in the game.

I wouldn't want to say that my personal experience had nothing to do with it, but I wouldn't say it made me hate America, or NATO. Sure, I am anti-NATO (most people often regard me as pro-Russian, while that is merely a reflection of my anti-NATO position). I just don't accept their explanations at face value, I like to dig a little deeper.


America is in its own corner of the world. I will only be bombed in some sort of over in an instant nuclear holocaust. I don't think we have ever really felt a national tragedy. This, of course, is a blessing and yet it sort of hamstrings us in the wider world.

To further illustrate my point. I grew up listening to stories about Cowboys and Indians. More specifically I grew up listenting to the stories about the Comanche, the Kiowa, and The Apache. The plains Indians loom in the Texas psyche to this day. Stories About how they took blue eyed babies and drug them threw the cactus plants, About how they raided white homesteads and took the redheaded women as sex slaves, about how they were the toughest sons of bitches this side of the Pecos. We would point to our scars and imagine they were given to us by some proud Comanche warrior (maybe even Quanah Parker himself). The Cowboys were American knights, defending us from evil.

Now Granted, the Comanche were a salty people who did do those things and did carve out an empire through subjugation. However they also only numbered about 20,000 people total and they were ruthlessly hunted by the Texas Rangers. The Rangers killed indiscriminately, burned whole bands, and when there was nothing left to destroy, they crossed the border to burn loot and rape various Mexicans villages. I guess because Mexicans kind of look like Indians.

The few Comanche left now live hundreds of miles to the East in Oklahoma. We named an attack helicopter them. As if our vanquished enemies give us power.

Now everyone grows up with stories about their national heroes and at the risk of rambling, I will get to my point. The national mythos is usually tempered by national tragedy. America doesn't have a national tragedy. There are no scars on our psyche and I think that is to our detriment. In our minds, we are good and pure. In our minds, force is a tool for a good cause. Force has given us our nation. Force freed the slaves. Force defeated the NAZIs. Force whipped the Japanese. Force never bombed out San Fransisco. Force never occupied New England. Force was never Mexican ranger raids into Texas. Force is not Pakistan violating our sovereignty killing someone in one of our cities.

Im not sure I have a wider point here beyond my own reflection I am sharing. I should make this more concise. I just feel America is too quick to use force and our own detachment is a big driver of that. If that makes sense.


We can debate the philosophical aspect of the influence of a national tragedy on a national psyche, but that is too broad a subject for this discussion, although I don't disagree.


What are their other options that don't involve mass infrastructure damage?

Not many, true. Incarcerations, show trials, but in this case we're talking about a city that is in control of Al Nusra, that has been bombed quite a few times already.



Unitary Sarin (or similar) isn't easier to make than the binary form; it's the same chemical process, but storage of it in that form has been abandoned as it is too unstable. Why would anyone go back to that? The only way the Kremlin version could be true is if the airstrike hit at the very time the reagents had been mixed just before being used - in an unconventional form of munition since Syrians are used to dealing with the binary form. As I said before, it's possible that the rebel faction deliberately released poison gas in a 'false flag' operation, but nobody has claimed that.

You are again assuming everyone has unlimited access to technical expertise and means of production. Long term storage isn't much of an importance if you're in an actual conflict. Iraqis made low grade unitary sarin during the gulf war that had a shelf life of only few weeks. They didn't care because they were gonna use it within those few weeks.

There are two advantages binary sarin has over unitary. It safer to handle and it safer to store for very long periods of time. Neither of them are important to terrorists.

For them, the ease of deployment is more important. Why would they care about long term storage? They don't have the logistic base to produce, move and store large amount of sarin. They create small amounts in field workshops that will used shortly after production, in the simplest way possible - break the container. It is quite illogical to think they would go to trouble to create special shells that will fire precursors with a complicated mechanism that would ensure that precursors match at the right time.

This is really like saying why would anyone buy fresh meat, when canned food will last for decades. Since the plan is to eat in the next few days, the longer duration of canned food is not a relevant factor. Or why would meth addicts buy low quality meth when they could buy the ingredients and make their own? They are limited in their knowledge and facilities.
Why are they driving old Toyotas when there are better cars?

Seriously, what's so hard to understand?


French Intelligence fingers the regime for the Sarin attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/26/syria-assad-forces-carried-out-sarin-attack-says-french-intelligence

So far, the most conclusive report that incriminates Assad, but there are a few rather large holes, if one bothers to read the actual intelligence report, or more precisely, political interpretation of the actual intelligence report.

1) the entire thing is based on one single thing - that three "unidentified" shells that were recovered a few years back were indeed dropped by Syrian army. The evidence for that is circumstantial at best.
2) why would they compare it to the three unidentified shells when Syria surrendered its stockpiles? OPCW must have analyzed it, if for no other reason than to make sure Assad isn't surrendering air freshener. The documentation still exists.
3) They consider proven that 2013 gas attack was made by Assad - UN commission reached a different conclusion. Why would they withhold conclusive and incontrovertible evidence from UN commission?
4) How did the French analysts gain access to the site when the town is in control of Al Nusra Front?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We are part of NATO now, little lap dog following USA...

Cute little poodle....

[AE Bravo]

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The states have managed to push national tragedy after national tragedy like everyone else for a while, depending on your definition of national tragedy. Soldiers that die overseas, hostage crises, assassination of political figures, etc. are all national tragedies with occasionally foreign perpetrators.

I would not think being a victim in a political narrative would make much of a difference. It is the aim of having overkill with disproportionate government funding of the military that makes the US have an insanely itchy trigger finger compared to the rest of the world.

[a completely inoffensive name]

America is in its own corner of the world. I will only be bombed in some sort of over in an instant nuclear holocaust. I don't think we have ever really felt a national tragedy. This, of course, is a blessing and yet it sort of hamstrings us in the wider world.

To further illustrate my point. I grew up listening to stories about Cowboys and Indians. More specifically I grew up listenting to the stories about the Comanche, the Kiowa, and The Apache. The plains Indians loom in the Texas psyche to this day. Stories About how they took blue eyed babies and drug them threw the cactus plants, About how they raided white homesteads and took the redheaded women as sex slaves, about how they were the toughest sons of bitches this side of the Pecos. We would point to our scars and imagine they were given to us by some proud Comanche warrior (maybe even Quanah Parker himself). The Cowboys were American knights, defending us from evil.

Now Granted, the Comanche were a salty people who did do those things and did carve out an empire through subjugation. However they also only numbered about 20,000 people total and they were ruthlessly hunted by the Texas Rangers. The Rangers killed indiscriminately, burned whole bands, and when there was nothing left to destroy, they crossed the border to burn loot and rape various Mexicans villages. I guess because Mexicans kind of look like Indians.

The few Comanche left now live hundreds of miles to the East in Oklahoma. We named an attack helicopter them. As if our vanquished enemies give us power.

Now everyone grows up with stories about their national heroes and at the risk of rambling, I will get to my point. The national mythos is usually tempered by national tragedy. America doesn't have a national tragedy. There are no scars on our psyche and I think that is to our detriment. In our minds, we are good and pure. In our minds, force is a tool for a good cause. Force has given us our nation. Force freed the slaves. Force defeated the NAZIs. Force whipped the Japanese. Force never bombed out San Fransisco. Force never occupied New England. Force was never Mexican ranger raids into Texas. Force is not Pakistan violating our sovereignty killing someone in one of our cities.

Im not sure I have a wider point here beyond my own reflection I am sharing. I should make this more concise. I just feel America is too quick to use force and our own detachment is a big driver of that. If that makes sense.

I see where you are coming from, but I think the point is too black and white and doesn't quite capture reality.

A. The US has never seen destruction on the scale of Post-War Europe, but there are events which did fundamentally alter the American psyche. Both 9/11 (and the War on Terror in general) and the Vietnam War made profound impacts on day to day living in American society.

B. There are counter examples of countries which have seen plenty of national tragedies and have gladly taken up interventionist foreign policies. See the UK under Blair and for the reasoning you could take a look at PVC's posts in the Libya thread from a few years back.

America does have its scars, but the way we have dealt with them is less modern European and more akin to the Romans who stayed committed to a given conflict mentality at any cost. I am in no particular position to give an accurate breakdown beyond these points however.

[Montmorency]

A. The US has never seen destruction on the scale of Post-War Europe, but there are events which did fundamentally alter the American psyche. Both 9/11 (and the War on Terror in general) and the Vietnam War made profound impacts on day to day living in American society.


Civil War deserves a mention, surprised Strike didn't.

I hate the Yankee nation, and everything they do. I hate the Declaration, of Independence too.
I hate the glorious Union - 'tis dripping with our blood. I hate the striped banner, I fought it all I could.

And I don't want no pardon, for what I was and am. I won't be reconstructed, and I don't give a damn.

[Strike For The South]

I see where you are coming from, but I think the point is too black and white and doesn't quite capture reality.
You're not real man.


A. The US has never seen destruction on the scale of Post-War Europe, but there are events which did fundamentally alter the American psyche. Both 9/11 (and the War on Terror in general) and the Vietnam War made profound impacts on day to day living in American society.

9/11 simply whipped us into a frenzy and our response was wholly disproportionate. Vietnam is a footnote in the wider change of the 60s. The war is a mere cog in that change machine.


B. There are counter examples of countries which have seen plenty of national tragedies and have gladly taken up interventionist foreign policies. See the UK under Blair and for the reasoning you could take a look at PVC's posts in the Libya thread from a few years back.

The UK is much more comfortable with realpolitik. We still like to feel as if we are ideologically pure.


America does have its scars, but the way we have dealt with them is less modern European and more akin to the Romans who stayed committed to a given conflict mentality at any cost. I am in no particular position to give an accurate breakdown beyond these points however.
I agree with this and our enemies constantly think we wont see things through. Bin Laden thought we would withdraw from the middle east and now he is directly responsible for two decades worth of muslim deaths. The Japanese thought we would be brought to the bargining table, instead nukes and firebombs.


Civil War deserves a mention, surprised Strike didn't.

I hate the Yankee nation, and everything they do. I hate the Declaration, of Independence too.
I hate the glorious Union - 'tis dripping with our blood. I hate the striped banner, I fought it all I could.

And I don't want no pardon, for what I was and am. I won't be reconstructed, and I don't give a damn.
The civil war is too wrapped up in the Politics White Supremacy to be considered a true national tragedy. It certainly was a tragedy in the south. The Class of 64 from ole Miss suffered a 100% causality rate. Mass property was seized and/or destroyed. (other than slaves). A southern hold on the national government was broken. To top it off, industrialization accelerated in the north.

One also has to realize that Southerners are a very insular people. They were more concerned with keeping power in their states and keeping their states with power in the wider union to really concern themselves foreign policy. Americas foreign policy has been dominated by Northerners and later Jews and Catholics (from all corners).

[Strike For The South]

Now I have an itch for a new civil war book.

[Elmetiacos]

You are again assuming everyone has unlimited access to technical expertise and means of production. Long term storage isn't much of an importance if you're in an actual conflict. Iraqis made low grade unitary sarin during the gulf war that had a shelf life of only few weeks. They didn't care because they were gonna use it within those few weeks.

There are two advantages binary sarin has over unitary. It safer to handle and it safer to store for very long periods of time. Neither of them are important to terrorists.

For them, the ease of deployment is more important. Why would they care about long term storage? They don't have the logistic base to produce, move and store large amount of sarin. They create small amounts in field workshops that will used shortly after production, in the simplest way possible - break the container. It is quite illogical to think they would go to trouble to create special shells that will fire precursors with a complicated mechanism that would ensure that precursors match at the right time.
People in Syria who know how to make and deploy nerve agents are going to be used to doing it this way. If they have munitions designed for a chemical attack, they will be the sort that mix binary agents. It would be easier to use pre-existing stock or to have any arms plants you have seized to continue to manufacture according to the processes they already use. Maybe Tahrir as-Sham are using trebuchets to fling soft drink bottles full of Sarin at government forces, but somehow I doubt it. I'm getting bored with this now.

[Sarmatian]

I'm getting bored with this now.

I'm not surprised.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're not real man.

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



9/11 simply whipped us into a frenzy and our response was wholly disproportionate. Vietnam is a footnote in the wider change of the 60s. The war is a mere cog in that change machine.

Perhaps it is still too early to make the call, but do you think the 9/11 'frenzy' has died down? Do you think we will ever take the Patriot Act off the books? The point I am trying to make is that, yes, America got riled up and massively overplayed itself BUT our national security policy seems to be on a new path that is not temporary and is sustained by a new mentality born out of 9/11 hysteria. I definitely consider it as big of a mental scar on the country, if not a physical scar.

As for Vietnam, I have not heard that viewpoint before. Typically, Vietnam is portrayed as the catalyst for much of the 60s counter culture, not a cog in a bigger machine.



The UK is much more comfortable with realpolitik. We still like to feel as if we are ideologically pure.
Well, on a relative scale we do give liberal democratic views the most lip service than anyone else. That counts for something right?




I agree with this and our enemies constantly think we wont see things through. Bin Laden thought we would withdraw from the middle east and now he is directly responsible for two decades worth of muslim deaths. The Japanese thought we would be brought to the bargining table, instead nukes and firebombs.

I stopped reading after the 4th word. :blush:

[Gilrandir]

More on chemical attacks:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/01/syria-new-evidence-shows-pattern-nerve-agent-use

[Crandar]

http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/05/could-you-open-a-pharmacy-in-islamic-state

[Gilrandir]

http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/05/could-you-open-a-pharmacy-in-islamic-state

And? Does it surprise you? Such guys are like that. In "Donetsk People's Republic" if you want to borrow a book in Ukrainian from a library you are to file an official request to the director of the library with an appended explanation why you need this book.

[Crandar]

And? Does it surprise you? Such guys are like that. In "Donetsk People's Republic" if you want to borrow a book in Ukrainian from a library you are to file an official request to the director of the library with an appended explanation why you need this book.
I just found it interesting and funny. And I don't see why you compare the need to check whether pharmacists know their job with an obviously negative example, surprisingly concerning Russia.

I suspect you didn't bother to read the questions. They don't ask them to write by heart the verses of Quran.

[Gilrandir]

I just found it interesting and funny. And I don't see why you compare the need to check whether pharmacists know their job with an obviously negative example, surprisingly concerning Russia.


It doesn't concern Russia. It concerns quasi-states of Donbas. But thank you for thinking of Russia so nicely.



I suspect you didn't bother to read the questions. They don't ask them to write by heart the verses of Quran.

I read the questions and found it stupid to demand from those who want to open a BUSINESS to have such specific knowledge. Such questions should be asked of those who apply for a job at the pharmacy, but not of the owners of it who might have nothing to do with medicine. It is like to demand from the owners of McDonald's to be able to make a Big Mac.

[Sarmatian]

And I don't see why you compare the need to check whether pharmacists know their job with an obviously negative example, surprisingly concerning Russia.


There's got to be a connection... Wait...

......
.........
.........
.........
.........

... there are books in library in Donetsk in which Syria is mentioned and there are books about pharmacology. There you go, that's the connection.

[Crandar]

It doesn't concern Russia. It concerns quasi-states of Donbas. But thank you for thinking of Russia so nicely.
Well, I never denied Russia's intervention in Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism's obsession with Russia.



I read the questions and found it stupid to demand from those who want to open a BUSINESS to have such specific knowledge. Such questions should be asked of those who apply for a job at the pharmacy, but not of the owners of it who might have nothing to do with medicine. It is like to demand from the owners of McDonald's to be able to make a Big Mac.
The owner is also in 99% of the cases the one who operates the pharmacy. Don't think of them like large corporations eploying half a dozen of workers.

In Greece, also the owner or one of his associates needs to possess a certificate associated with pharmaceutical studies, just like people working in engineering offices or having pesticide jobs. Probably, that's the same clause predicted by daesh' legislation.

Anyway, to lighten the mood a bit, VD celebrations in Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khdFu22fM4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nExfNWztM24&feature=youtu.be

[Gilrandir]

There's got to be a connection... Wait...

......
.........
.........
.........
.........

... there are books in library in Donetsk in which Syria is mentioned and there are books about pharmacology. There you go, that's the connection.

I never pretended there was any connection. I just gave another example of stupid rules introduced by another violent regime.



Well, I never denied Russia's intervention in Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism's obsession with Russia.


It is natural not only for nationalists to pay a close attention to a country who bit away one part of your land and keeps the pot boiling in another part of it.



The owner is also in 99% of the cases the one who operates the pharmacy. Don't think of them like large corporations eploying half a dozen of workers.


The article mentioned "opening the pharmacy" which is quite different from "working as a pharmacist".



In Greece, also the owner or one of his associates needs to possess a certificate associated with pharmaceutical studies, just like people working in engineering offices or having pesticide jobs.


So in Greece if you open a bus company taking people on tours around the country you are to know the history and the date of building Parthenon and if you want to become the dean of the department of English you are to know the differences between the gerund and the participle?

There should be a difference in requirements between those who apply for administrative jobs and jobs presupposing preliminary special training and skills. Owning/running a business is clearly the first.

[Shaka_Khan]

Iraq is also still having an ISIS problem:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-q0MIPfV_Q

[Fragony]

Well that was really terrifying. They are so calm, I don't think I could be of any use when stressed so much I am a total wuss and I know it

edit, kudos for the reporter as well, going in when you know what could happen to you

[AE Bravo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4515324/Iraqi-soldier-rammed-bulldozer-ISIS-car-bomb-Mosul.html

Iraqi soldiers have built some serious steel over the years.

[Montmorency]

The Iraqi government is pushing to declare victory by the holy month of Ramadan, expected to begin on May 27, even if pockets of resistance remain in the Old City, according to military commanders.

There have always been elements of "steel" in the Iraqi armed forces - among the insurgents as well - but old-fashioned political meddling will overcome.

[Fragony]

There have always been elements of "steel" in the Iraqi armed forces - among the insurgents as well - but old-fashioned political meddling will overcome.

And how exactly do you see that working favourably, without knowing all that much about the situation I find what you said pretty stupid

[Montmorency]

And how exactly do you see that working favourably, without knowing all that much about the situation I find what you said pretty stupid

If you think I was saying that political interference will benefit military affairs, you misunderstood me.

[Fragony]

If you think I was saying that political interference will benefit military affairs, you misunderstood me.

I am sorry I said what I said you didn't deserve it. Overreaction from me, apoligies

[Crandar]

So now that Trump has bombed the Syrians twice, I wonder how all these far-right partisans, who idolised Assad and Trump, while they were disgusted at FSA, feel.
Has their hero betrayed them? Is SAA Islamist, too?

Do they try to rationalise the fact that the objects of their worship are dishonest or have they accepted their mistake?
Golden Dawn is very lucky that her fanbase is illiterate or otherwise the disillusionment would be fatal.

[Fragony]

I am not that type but do I feel stupid in retrospect, yes

[Crandar]

https://youtu.be/GKqqOfPkPWw

[Dâriûsh]

Meanwhile, in Raqqa. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40271450)


'Staggering' civilian toll in strikes on IS

[Crandar]

Meanwhile, in Raqqa. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40271450)
We should start praying for Raqqa. I eagerly wait for the time a 7 year old will tweet urging President Putin to initiate WW3, so that we can avoid a second Dresden.

[Dâriûsh]

We should start praying for Raqqa. I eagerly wait for the time a 7 year old will tweet urging President Putin to initiate WW3, so that we can avoid a second Dresden.

I'm afraid I do not understand that comment. Would you care to elaborate?

[Crandar]

I'm afraid I do not understand that comment. Would you care to elaborate?
It's a reference to the Bana Alabed controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bana_al-Abed#Scripting_incident). When Eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated, the Qatari-sponsored activists had gone amok, crying about the second Grozny and the inevitable Rape of Aleppo we are still waiting for. They had even found a girl (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/aleppo-conflict-latest-waiting-to-die-last-messages-from-east-aleppo-s-activists-as-the-revolution-a7471641.html)with hipster glasses. It was hysterical.

[Dâriûsh]

It's a reference to the Bana Alabed controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bana_al-Abed#Scripting_incident). When Eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated, the Qatari-sponsored activists had gone amok, crying about the second Grozny and the inevitable Rape of Aleppo we are still waiting for. They had even found a girl (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/aleppo-conflict-latest-waiting-to-die-last-messages-from-east-aleppo-s-activists-as-the-revolution-a7471641.html)with hipster glasses. It was hysterical.

I fail to see anything hysterical about the destruction in Aleppo. Do you deny that government (and their allies) and rebel forces (an their allies) destroyed the city and killed thousands?

[Crandar]

I fail to see anything hysterical about the destruction in Aleppo. Do you deny that government (and their allies) and rebel forces (an their allies) destroyed the city and killed thousands?
Yes, of course. There was one single, unverified report about a massacre following the liberation of the eastern half and another one, about a mass killing of over a hundred Syrian Army POWs by the rebels
.
Generally, the pro-opposition SOHR, which has a history of attributing rebel massacres to government, reported that 465 civilians were killed by the government and 149 by the rebels, in Western Aleppo, which didn't exist in Western media.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1302622/hundreds-of-civilians-rebels-evacuated-from-aleppo
There is always the chance that the rebels are indirectly responsible for a portion of the 465 dead, by stopping civilians to run away, in order to use them as human shields.

[Dâriûsh]

To address one of your earlier statements, being an anti-government activist does not automatically mean you are bought by the Gulf. Likewise not all activists on the government side are stooges for the regime.

Anyway, we may be arguing about two different points. I agree that the statements about genocide and holocaust and such hyperbole was out of proportion. I understand why, though, as I guess proportion gets muddy when you are stuck in a warzone and shelled by all sides. The brutality of the Syrian government is well documented. Unfortunately the rebel crimes less so (at least in the West).

Aleppo has suffered enormous damage, I doubt anyone can deny that. We may never know what happened in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Aleppo, but the time up until its fall was stained with blood and having your family blown apart by government/Russian/rebel high explosives is still a massacre.

[Crandar]

I don't disagree with anything you said.
Qatar was a reference to Charles Lister, one of the most vocal advocates of war, and the fact that the first contact of Bana Alabed twitter account was a journalist from al-Jazeera.

[Dâriûsh]

I don't disagree with anything you said.
Qatar was a reference to Charles Lister, one of the most vocal advocates of war, and the fact that the first contact of Bana Alabed twitter account was a journalist from al-Jazeera.

Indeed. Qatar is heavily involved in Syria. This of course makes the current Saudi campaign borderline hilarious for its copious amounts of hypocrisy. But still. The regime of Qatar has as much Syrian blood on its hands as the regime of Iran, and so on.

[Dâriûsh]

Russia claims to have killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-dead-isis-leader-russia-raqqa-air-strike-killed-syria-islamic-state-chief-a7792801.html).

Pictured: the next Caliph in line

19703

[Pannonian]

Russia claims to have killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-dead-isis-leader-russia-raqqa-air-strike-killed-syria-islamic-state-chief-a7792801.html).

Pictured: the next Caliph in line

19703

And in their next statement, ISIS vows vengeance on Britain and France for this outrage.

[Dâriûsh]

And in their next statement, ISIS vows vengeance on Britain and France for this outrage.

Possibly. But if they play it smart, they should just take credit for this as well!


With God's grace and support, a soldier of the Khilafah managed to hijack a Russian bomber and launch explosive devices upon the dear leader, in revenge for his inability to dunk at the annual IS basketball tournament, and in response to his transgressions against the basketball-pride of the Muslims. All praises due to God.

[Montmorency]

Looks like Old Mosul is become numbered among the lost Old Cities of Central and Eastern Europe.


IRAQI GOVERNMENT VICTORY IN MOSUL (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/world/middleeast/mosul-isis-liberated.html)

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/10/world/10MOSUL1/10MOSUL1-superJumbo.jpg

[Fragony]

Great more 'refugees'. Leftist intellectolocos know, for a fact, that defeated IS travelers need a hug house and breakfast. Let these Kurdish revenge-crew women handle this, women are more unforgiving, just what's needed

[Pannonian]

No more admissions of refugees. We're not legally obliged under international law.

[Montmorency]

I haven't found anything more of interest on this in the past couple weeks, so I'll mark a controversy around the end of the Battle of Raqqa.

The details: SDF Kurdish and Arab forces negotiated a deal (with US leadership deferring to the wishes of the ground forces) allowing several hundred fighters (~250), including at least some foreigners, to evacuate the city in a very large motorized convoy. The fighters took with them a weapons cache and 3,500 civilians, mostly hostages, sex slaves, and children. Coalition aircraft monitored the convoy's progress for some time but did not interfere.

The BBC called it a "dirty secret" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret). OTOH The Region (http://theregion.org/article/12036-bbc-should-admit-that-raqqa-never-had-a-039-dirty-secret-039) pointed out that the agreement was publicized for weeks ahead of time.

Now, I assume (as others have) that the premise of this deal was to avoid further costly siege warfare, and spare civilians from violence. Indeed, this tactic appears to have been relied upon by all major state factions in the conflict. It was employed a few months ago near the Lebanese border by Syria/Russia and Lebanon/Hezbollah. In that case though, the US forces expressed consternation at the deal (which stipulated the convoy move from SW Syria to the SE border near Deir Ez-Zor) and harried the convoy with air attacks targeting individual combatants and vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qalamoun_offensive_(July%E2%80%93August_2017)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-isis-convoy-us.html

A little earlier than that, the US Coalition secured a similar deal in the Battle of Tabqa (Dam), perhaps to prevent the IS rearguard or Coalition artillery from damaging the dam structure or mechanism. The Coalition also harried escaping IS convoys and units in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabqa_(2017)


This article (http://russia-insider.com/en/us-allowed-isis-evacuate-raqqa-thats-not-problem-its-syria-presence/ri21729) on Russia Insider is critical of the US mission in the region but notes:


So if anything Americans should be congratulated here for beginning to understand it doesn’t pay to break safe passage deals, or to corner an enemy in a heavily-built up area, with no escape routes, but plenty of hostages. Congratulations cowboys!

The reality however, is that not forcing your enemy to fight to the last man in a urban setting is just the smart way to fight. In fact, the Syrian army has made the greatest number of such deals, including with ISIS.

Recall that over 5,000 al-Qaeda and allied rebel fighters and family members were bused out from encircled eastern Aleppo in December, 2016 in the biggest evacuation deal of the war.

Yet, when its Kurdish proxies allow ISIS to retreat in a similar fashion the US says nothing, and its bombers stay grounded. That’s understandable. While the US-Kurdish forces were bogged down in the fighting for Raqqa, the Syrian army was making good progress in the race for the Euphrates.

To get back in the race the US-augmented Kurdish militias had to wrap up Raqqa quickly. But it doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.




What it does demonstrate is the futility of the "destroy IS" narrative. It would never be possible to destroy a movement this extensive by military means. At this point the obvious way forward for the elite, battle-hardened IS survivors is to largely disperse to hotzones around the world and lend their tradecraft and experience to regional jihadist movements. In the meantime, the ever-present Al Qaeda networks will continue to infiltrate the power vacuum and realize their long-term strategies between the Tigris and the Nile.

That mosque attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Sinai_mosque_attack) on Sinai Sufis, by the way, is just one milestone in Egypt's collapsing security situation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency).

Fun fact (https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/34075/Sinai%E2%80%99s-Al-Rawdah-loses-22-of-its-male-residents-in): the mosque attack killed a fifth of the town's male population.

[Crandar]

Initially, it was claimed that no foreigner was allowed to exit Raqqa, but that obviously a lie, as BBC suggests.
It didn't happen in order to spare civilian lives and buildings (which were already destroyed).

The SDF had trouble advancing forward, despite extensive air-support and they also needed to rush to the south, before the Syrian army captured the entire region.
A ceasefire was necessary for strategic purposes.

[Shaka_Khan]

An old video.. I didn't that there were people like him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JjALmtrBXY

[rory_20_uk]

For the forseeable future, there will be people who want to fight against "the man". It's not a new thing - we used to have Anarchists in Europe and the USA and they even killed the President of the USA. And Communists. And so on.

Having an arena where they can be drawn out to fight and - crucially - die is the best way of limiting the impact. If there is no foreign war they're more likely to start local terrorist acts. If the foreign war is being lost those there return and no more will join them.

Yes, probably somewhat 1984-ish, but alongside all other methods of trying to sort out the problem, getting the most committed, extreme, violent ones to leave our societies to die for their beliefs is an acceptable solution.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

See?


Thousands of ISIS Fighters Flee in Syria, Many to Fight Another Day (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/world/middleeast/isis-syria-al-qaeda.html)

Gen. Paul J. Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters last week that the remaining Islamic State leadership, even while on the run, still had “fairly robust” communications with its shadowy network of fighters now on the lam.

[...]

Estimates of how many fighters may have escaped into the deserts of Syria or Iraq and beyond are difficult to pin down, but American and other Western intelligence and counterterrorism analysts with access to classified assessments put the number in the low thousands. Many are traveling with spouses and children who are likely to have been radicalized during more than three years of Islamic State control of the region and could pose security risks as well, analysts say.

[...]

Some 40,000 fighters from more than 120 countries poured into the battles in Syria and Iraq over the past four years, American and other Western officials say. While thousands died on the battlefield, officials say many thousands more probably survived to slip away to conflicts in Libya, Yemen or the Philippines, or have gone into hiding in countries like Turkey. About 295 Americans are believed to have traveled to Iraq or Syria, or tried to, American officials said.

Of more than 5,000 Europeans who joined those ranks, as many as 1,500 have returned home, including many women and children, and most of the rest are dead or still fighting[...] But the new assessments, bolstered by reports from analysts and smugglers in the region, suggest that Islamic State fighters are fleeing to more hospitable parts of Syria and Iraq, or to third countries where they can lie low.

[spmetla]

Happens after every war, was gonna happen at some point with this one too. Just hope that like many 'old soldiers' types in formal wars that they count themselves lucky and try and put their war behind them. Sadly we know that no shortage of them will continue their fight for ideological reasons, as mercenaries, or just because they don't know or want to know another way of living.

At least it's no longer a recruiting beacon to assemble more followers, at least until the next radical Islamist cause requires another jihad.

[Fragony]

Focus should be on what Turkey is currently doing now, Kurds are so fucked

[Shaka_Khan]

https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-fighter-jet-crashes-during-strikes-against-iranian-targets-in-syria-11243648

Israeli fighter jet crashes after being 'shot down' during strikes against Iranian targets in Syria

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/10/middleeast/israel-military-jet-crash/index.html

Israeli F-16 jet shot down by Syrian fire, military says

Syrian anti-aircraft fire shoots down Israeli fighter jet, Israeli military says

Syrian anti-aircraft fire shoots down Israeli fighter jet, Israeli military says


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qiMTKlBh0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKWUkZMIqU

[Crandar]

They had it coming. Not that this incident will stop them from meddling in Syria, it will only lead to more Syrian deaths in Israel's retaliatory airstrikes.

Meanwhile, Islamist twitter accounts previously crying over the Trump-Jerusalem issue are now calling for Israel to multiply the help it offers to rebels (including al-Qaeda). Shows how much hypocrisy is not monopolized by politicians, according to the dominant, populist narrative.

[Gilrandir]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/u-s-strikes-said-to-kill-scores-of-russian-fighters-in-syria

And Russian officials are denying everything.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't recall the USA regulating what their mercs did in Iraq and elsewhere.

I doubt Russia would be so stupid as attacking a base where USA troops were based.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Russian mercenaries does not equal Russian Regulars.

[Crandar]

The article is a hilarious failure, it talks about more than 200 dead Russians , while even the Americans estimated a bit less than 100 in total. The source of Bloomberg is an anonymous official and a nationalist outlet that exaggerates the "humiliation", to escalate the situation. The real number is probably around 30 guys.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/middleeast/russians-killed-us-airstrikes-syria-intl/index.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-the-us-really-kill-200-russians-in-syriaor-just-a-few?ref=scroll

The details of the incident remain unknown, although Kurds have already criticized the local Deir ez-Zhor military council (Arab deserters under the umbrella of SDF) for being more interested in raiding Syrian territory than fighting daesh.

[Montmorency]

Isn't loss by the offense, in a single action, in this proportion unheard of in contemporary warfare? Was it an assault, or a marching column?


Most of the casualties, according to local sources, appear to have been members of a pro-regime Christian militia from the town of al Suqaylabiyah. Earlier this week, there was a mass funeral for about 30 members of the militia -- which often describes itself as the "ISIS hunters" -- in the town.

Syllogism: Trump is anti-Christian.


The Baltic Cossack District said in a statement that Loginov was a Russian citizen who was killed in an "unequal battle" while "heroically defending our Fatherland in its far reaches from crazy barbarians" when he died on February 7.

"Vladimir died for the Fatherland, the Cossacks and the Orthodox faith!" the group said.

I support the beardy men killing each other. Just keep away from the rest of us.

Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the attack:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/?utm_term=.4944cc4d8b6e


“We told them there is some movement, and we don’t like to … attack on this movement. They [the Russians] don’t accept our offer and denied, said there’s nothing happening,” Hassan said through an interpreter. He was speaking to several reporters who traveled here Thursday with Maj. Gen. James B. Jarrard, who oversees U.S. Special Operations forces in Syria and Iraq.

U.S. commanders attempted a similar de-confliction. According to a Pentagon statement Thursday, “Coalition officials were in regular communication with Russian counterparts before, during and after” the attack. “Russian officials assured coalition officials they would not engage coalition forces in the vicinity,” the statement said.

The attack began about 10 p.m., Hassan said, with pro-regime advancing troops under a volley of tank and artillery shells that landed about 500 yards from the positions occupied by the SDF and the American soldiers. Hassan said the ground-attack force included some Russians, who he believed were mercenaries. (Russia officially doesn’t have ground troops fighting here.)

Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

[Crandar]

It has happened before. According to reports, no shooting took place, only a marching column got bombed into oblivion. Keep in mind, of course, that most estimations talk about around 50 and 60 dead. The deadliest single action belongs to the Otaiba ambush, where 200 jihadists were eliminated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Otaiba_ambush

[Gilrandir]

The article is a hilarious failure, it talks about more than 200 dead Russians , while even the Americans estimated a bit less than 100 in total. The source of Bloomberg is an anonymous official and a nationalist outlet that exaggerates the "humiliation", to escalate the situation.
The real number is probably around 30 guys.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/middleeast/russians-killed-us-airstrikes-syria-intl/index.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-the-us-really-kill-200-russians-in-syriaor-just-a-few?ref=scroll

The details of the incident remain unknown, although Kurds have already criticized the local Deir ez-Zhor military council (Arab deserters under the umbrella of SDF) for being more interested in raiding Syrian territory than fighting daesh.

This post is a hilarious failure. You deny the 200 and acknowledge 30, although you admit that the "details of the incident remain unknown" and both sources you refer to give 100 as a probable number. Though such confusion is to be expected, after an accurate account of Ukrainian nazis attacking a Mongol on a Barcelona subway train.

I have an access to a number of Russian sources (inofficial, of course) and all of them give approximately matching accounts of what happened and give the same number of casualties -from 150 to 200. Officially, no Russians are there, so there couldn't have been any casualties.

[Crandar]

The fact that you are still salty about me not sympathizing with the struggle of poor little and divided Ukraine undermines the quality of your arguments.
You didn't add anything new, you just repeated the claims of these unofficial Russian sources, whose credibility now you appreciate a lot, I wonder why. I already refuted the value of their testimony.

Meanwhile, another interesting analysis of the casualties (https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/u-s-strikes-and-russian-pmc-casualties-in-syria-fact-vs-fiction/). He's spot on about oil, the mercenaries of the Wagner group are more controlled by oil businesses than evil Putler, the Scourge of the Sons of Mazepa.
Around 60 to 80 casualties in total (similar to the US estimation), a quarter of which are probably Russian or Ukrainian citizens.

[Gilrandir]

The fact that you are still salty about me not sympathizing with the struggle of poor little and divided Ukraine undermines the quality of your arguments.


There are some people on these boards who share your attitude yet I have no problem with that. My attitude to you is determined by the manner of your debate: you are prone to throw about empty accusations which, when refuted by me, are not confirmed by the one who forwarded them.

As for the quality of my agruments, I may say the same about yours - your bias does the same to them. So in this we are equally unreliable. And since most people generally can't be free from having some emotional attitude to what they discuss their argument is always shadowed by it.



You didn't add anything new, you just repeated the claims of these unofficial Russian sources, whose credibility now you appreciate a lot, I wonder why. I already refuted the value of their testimony.


You gave 30 as the number, now it is 60-80. I see the tendency. If you go on refuting like that, in some time we may arrive at a different figure.

As for reliability of the sources I mentioned, I have been following them for several years (concerning war at Donbas), and they always gave figures later confirmed by many other sources from different quarters. If they generally agree on some figure it is a safe bet to abide by it. The data on the casualties in question were given by those who participated in the debacle and were aired (among others) by Strelkov/Girkin who is in the know of the fortunes of his former colleagues.

[Crandar]

Here we go again and again and again, and by then, it's like usual routine. Last time I repeat the same things.

I already addressed the reliability of Strelkov. My source clearly mentioned that the 60 to 80 victims corresponded to the total number of victims. Anticipating the difficulties certain someone faces when reading articles that oppose his worldview, I even explained that a quarter of them were Russians and Ukrainians. Explicitly.
So, you may reexamine the tendency. You are not going to like the conclusions, I am afraid.

Try to respond with substance, which will involve either you refuting my sources or claiming that Strelkov is the utlimate authority on the subject.

[Gilrandir]

Here we go again and again and again, and by then, it's like usual routine. Last time I repeat the same things.

I already addressed the reliability of Strelkov. My source clearly mentioned that the 60 to 80 victims corresponded to the total number of victims. Anticipating the difficulties certain someone faces when reading articles that oppose his worldview, I even explained that a quarter of them were Russians and Ukrainians. Explicitly.
So, you may reexamine the tendency. You are not going to like the conclusions, I am afraid.

Try to respond with substance, which will involve either you refuting my sources or claiming that Strelkov is the utlimate authority on the subject.

I can't respond with substance in your understanding of the word, I don't have any videos with mongols on Barcelona subway trains.

If you were attentive, you couldn't have missed my remark about multiple sources, and Strelkov was especially mentioned because this name says at least something to you. Here is a list of Wagnerian MIA on 7th of February in Hisham.
20569
Pay attention to the number and to the fact that those were not KIA, but just missing AFTER all bodies and the wounded were accounted for.

As for reliabilty of my sources (uncluding the one that published the photo), I believe they are as (un)reliable as yours.

[Crandar]

Please don't denigrate the debate further. An internet image, at which everyone laughs (https://twitter.com/JohnArterbury/status/964969042904743936), is not a proper answer to articles and professional analysis.
Let whoever is genuinely interested in the conflict discuss it peacefully, without being regularly perturbed by the latest invention of salty Ukrainian nationalism.

It was an action made by some rogue oil merchants, without the approval of the Russian command, so trust me, there's nothing exploitable for this. Crimea is gone and no inflated numbers of dead Russians in the Syrian desert is going to change that.

[Gilrandir]

Please don't denigrate the debate further. An internet image, at which everyone laughs (https://twitter.com/JohnArterbury/status/964969042904743936), is not a proper answer to articles and professional analysis.


Like EVERYONE? Absolutely EVERYONE? :laugh4: In your link there is only ONE person (John Arterbury) who expresses A DOUBT whether the list can be genuine because of "high percentage of uncommon or even anachronistic" names on it. Others don't doubt or laugh, they just wonder.

So:
1. I'm not 100% sure of the list being genuine either.
2. I'm equally not 100% sure of the motifs of this John Arterbury and his attitude to the issue. As we know, it can greatly influence his take on the events.
3. I have no idea what qualification he has to judge about the typical and nontypical Russian names. For your (and his) information, recently (since perestroika and after) in Russia there has surfaced a fashion for antiquated names and many celebrities (and not only) call their children by names which were popular a couple of hundred years ago. I counted only five such names: Kondrat, Efim, Demyan, Eremey, Gordey - do you call it a high percentage? If half (or a quarter) of them were like that I might consider this argument.

Conclusion: as usual, there is much manipulation and slanting on your part, which you nevertheless call "professional analysis".

But if you wish something serious, here you go:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-casualties-and-moscow-s-intent



Let whoever is genuinely interested in the conflict discuss it peacefully, without being regularly perturbed by the latest invention of salty Ukrainian nationalism.


I see. Only Greek imperial Putinists have the right to express their opinionated thoughts on any question.



It was an action made by some rogue oil merchants, without the approval of the Russian command, so trust me, there's nothing exploitable for this.


Who said it was otherwise? I (and many others - which you would probably call "everyone') only differ in the number of casualties.



Crimea is gone and no inflated numbers of dead Russians in the Syrian desert is going to change that.

And this statement isn't denigrating the discussion in any way. What does Crimea have to do with Syrian events? If you want to continue in this line, let's say that Constantinople is gone and stop including mentioning it into the names of Greek football clubs.

[CrossLOPER]

1. I'm not 100% sure of the list being genuine either.
Unless there has been a spike in using really old names in the past 20 years, I don't think it is. I swear it looks like a list of my grandfather's friends from decades ago.

Gil, I know you're passionate, but please use reliable resources. Chukchik Chuckcha al-Chuchrik the mememaker is not an acceptable source.

[Gilrandir]

Unless there has been a spike in using really old names in the past 20 years, I don't think it is.


You don't know if there was a spike yet you put forward a claim?



I swear it looks like a list of my grandfather's friends from decades ago.

Gil, I know you're passionate, but please use reliable resources. Chukchik Chuckcha al-Chuchrik the mememaker is not an acceptable source.

If so, enumerate those names from your list. But one so passionate about using reliable sources would surely base his judgement on something more solid than the list of his grandfather's friends. So compare your list with this one, for example: http://www.babynamewizard.com/name-list/russian-boys-names-most-popular-names-for-boys-in-russia

And also please enlighten me where I referred to the mememaker source.

[Fragony]

Why aren't we discussing what Turkey is doing?

[Gilrandir]

Why aren't we discussing what Turkey is doing?

Because it has been doing it for quite a time?

[Fragony]

Because it has been doing it for quite a time?

Providing IS with weapons yes, but not fully invading to whipe out Kurdish-militia's with very little concern for civilians. Syrian army is moving up Ingram and is bound to clash with Turkey, maybe even Russia will get involved then. The middle-east is such a mess it makes the Holy Roman Empire look stable

[rory_20_uk]

Leave the locals to it - no more Eeeeevil Western Imperialism! Treat them as equals in charge of their own destiny: sell them as much weaponry as they can afford. TO do anything else would be Paternalistic and probably discriminating.

Why on earth should we keep up to date which lot is killing which lot? We don't care about the wars in Africa or Asia and this hell hole seems self contained at the moment.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Providing IS with weapons yes, but not fully invading to whipe out Kurdish-militia's with very little concern for civilians. Syrian army is moving up Ingram and is bound to clash with Turkey, maybe even Russia will get involved then. The middle-east is such a mess it makes the Holy Roman Empire look stable

Do you forget the Shield of Euphratus? The Turkish have been in Syria for more than a year. So im Westen nichts Neues.

[CrossLOPER]

You don't know if there was a spike yet you put forward a claim?
This would be where YOU provide proof that there WAS a spike, so that you can solidify YOUR claim that the list that YOU provided wasn't mememagic.



If so, enumerate those names from your list. But one so passionate about using reliable sources would surely base his judgement on something more solid than the list of his grandfather's friends. So compare your list with this one, for example: http://www.babynamewizard.com/name-list/russian-boys-names-most-popular-names-for-boys-in-russia

And also please enlighten me where I referred to the mememaker source.
Gilrandir, what age would those boys be right now?

[Fragony]

Do you forget the Shield of Euphratus? The Turkish have been in Syria for more than a year. So im Westen nichts Neues.

Different operation, this is operation Olive Branch. Turkish troops are going to clash with Assad's troops who come to the aid of the Kurdish forces, bad. Turkey is a wild dog lately, hopefully a stray soon as the Nato can't get involved, the risk of pissing of Russia is too high

[Gilrandir]

This would be where YOU provide proof that there WAS a spike, so that you can solidify YOUR claim that the list that YOU provided wasn't mememagic.


Using the same logics one would say that a list of celebrities at an Oscar ceremony was a fake because it had Elijah Wood, Channing Tatum, Garth Brooks and Benedict Cumberbatch.

My proof is what I see and hear from the media and around me. When I was a kid all the names around me and those I heard on TV were usual Sergeys, Alexanders, Andreys, Olegs, Vyacheslavs and so on (with an admixture of typical Ukrainian Bogdans, Tarases and Oxanas). Starting with Perestroyka I began to encounter names which I could have seen before only in Russian classical literature of the XIXth century - Anastasia, Arhip, Agafya, Varvara, Nikita, Gleb, Agnia and so on. I can't say they were numerous - but they were in evidence which wasn't spotted before. Now I hear such names from time to time as well.

Now in the list I counted 5 out of 74 such names - which is not a pecentage to make a conclusion on the artificial nature of the list. If the compilers of the "fake" list were that stupid they would have included at least 20 of such strange names. And if they were wise they would have included none of them filling it with Vladimirs, Vladislavs, Antons, Igors and the like.

So even if the list is fake (which I don't rule out) the names on it can't serve as a clue to determine whether it was so.



Gilrandir, what age would those boys be right now?

You are right, this list is from 2015, but it only underscores the tendency that I noticed about 25 odd years ago.



Different operation, this is operation Olive Branch. Turkish troops are going to clash with Assad's troops who come to the aid of the Kurdish forces, bad. Turkey is a wild dog lately, hopefully a stray soon as the Nato can't get involved, the risk of pissing of Russia is too high

Operations are different, yet the pattern is the same - overrunning a part of another country.

[rory_20_uk]

Different operation, this is operation Olive Branch. Turkish troops are going to clash with Assad's troops who come to the aid of the Kurdish forces, bad. Turkey is a wild dog lately, hopefully a stray soon as the Nato can't get involved, the risk of pissing of Russia is too high

It would be hard to claim defence when you mount an offence in a different country. Unless you're the USA of course and then invading on the other side of the planet is defence.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Operations are different, yet the pattern is the same - overrunning a part of another country.

Turkey has a history of doing a bit more than just that

[Crandar]

What the hell is a "Greek Imperial Putinist"? A Byzantine on kryptonite?

Anyway, an assault against the Islamist warlords of eastern Ghouta is probably imminent. Brace yourselves for the upcoming media propaganda.

The equivalent of Bana Alabed has already been invented and Guardian is dropping innumerable tears for the civilian casualties caused by the Syrian Army, conveniently omitting those of the other side or forgetting to mention that we are talking about a siege, where the besieged are Islamists, including al-Qaeda.
I predict many pundits, paid by the Emirs of the Persian Gulf, appearing out of the woodwork to cry about Obama's red lines and how morally bad is that we don't invade countries anymore. For the sake of the children and democracy, of course!

[CrossLOPER]

So even if the list is fake (which I don't rule out) the names on it can't serve as a clue to determine whether it was so. Fair enough.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It would be hard to claim defence when you mount an offence in a different country. Unless you're the USA of course and then invading on the other side of the planet is defence.

~:smoking:

It's been a yank mantra for years that the best defense is a good offense. We would much rather combat terrorists with Hellfire missiles in Yemen than in New Jersey.

[Gilrandir]

What the hell is a "Greek Imperial Putinist"? A Byzantine on kryptonite?


Much simpler than that: an Imperial Putinist from Greece.

[Kagemusha]

When the opposing sides are Assad and Putin versus Al Qaida, Al Nusra and Saudi´s. It starts to go little at the meh department. When the bombing was at the Isis controlled cities. Press did not print a word about the human catastrophe looming. Now we are supposed to be bleeding our hearts out when it is Saudi backed Wahhabist areas. Sorry but the hypocrisy is just too much..

[Crandar]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think it would be more accurate to say Syria and Russia, instead of Assad and Putin.
I am sure you didn't do it intentionally, but the tendency of many journalists to describe the governments in Damascus and Moscow, by mentioning only the heads of state is a clever propaganda tactic.

You can dehumanize your opponent much more easily, if you identify him with a single authoritarian figure, instead of saying the government, the state, the people or the society.

Much simpler than that: an Imperial Putinist from Greece.
I am not going to insist, if you feel generous enough, please do explain your cryptic message, especially the imperial part, appropriately.

If not, so be it, I am going to survive, even if my curiosity remains unsatisfied.

[Montmorency]

I am sure you didn't do it intentionally, but the tendency of many journalists to describe the governments in Damascus and Moscow, by mentioning only the heads of state is a clever propaganda tactic.

I'm pretty sure this is a general journalistic practice, to refer to countries by the head of government or by the capital of the country.

[Gilrandir]

I am not going to insist, if you feel generous enough, please do explain your cryptic message, especially the imperial part, appropriately.

If not, so be it, I am going to survive, even if my curiosity remains unsatisfied.

This is thread derailment, but since I didn't initiate it i will respond.

I didn't ask you to explain why you consider me a nationalist, though in no post of mine I wrote about supremacy or flawlessness of Ukrainians. To tell the truth, my general opinion of Ukrainians is far from overly positive. I was and am concerned with the country, not with the nation which qualifies me as a patriot. Yet you persist in your misconception.

Now about imperialism: in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia you took the side of Russia because Ukraine is infested with evil nazis (never paying attention that at the war in Donbas Russian nazis were aplenty). Current Russian leader (Putin) took/resumed a course to rebuilding the empire and gathering back all lands where Russian is spoken. Since you took the side of Russia you support this course which makes you an Imperial Putinist.

[CrossLOPER]

If not, so be it, I am going to survive, even if my curiosity remains unsatisfied.
He calls people things like that when he runs out of youtube footage filled with "proof", sort of like when Fragony starts using terms like "cultural marxism" or mentions anything related to Angela Merkel or arranged Muslim marriages.

[Gilrandir]

He calls people things like that when he runs out of youtube footage filled with "proof", sort of like when Fragony starts using terms like "cultural marxism" or mentions anything related to Angela Merkel or arranged Muslim marriages.

I call people things ONLY after they do the same to me.

As for youtube footage proofs, talk with Crandar. He was the one to show such footage entitled "Ukrainian nazi beating a Mongol on a Barcelona subway train".

[CrossLOPER]

I call people things ONLY after they do the same to me.

As for youtube footage proofs, talk with Crandar. He was the one to show such footage entitled "Ukrainian nazi beating a Mongol on a Barcelona subway train".

You two should marry. You would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cute. <3

[Crandar]

Hey, you know what they say about teenagers that argue a lot, right?https://imgur.com/e64f3a09-b776-4af0-bbff-4daa008018b6.gif

...
So you just misspelled Imperialist (and misused, but OK). I am fine with that, it's just your personal opinion, with which I do not agree, but why didn't you explain it in the first place, instead of leaving it unchanged, except for changing the second adjective to genitive? Also, lighten up a little and let the Mongol affair, which I don't even remember, go. It's been already like 4 years since France became again the 2nd largest European state since the '90s.

I'm pretty sure this is a general journalistic practice, to refer to countries by the head of government or by the capital of the country.
Is it though? My personal impression is that the baddies (North Korea, Iran under Ahmadinejad, Russia, Syria and etc.) tend to be referred by the head of government in a disproportionate manner. Even cases where the surname is used as an adjective to nouns like government or administration seem much rarer. It's just my opinion, though, so take it with a pinch of salt, but I think it would be an interesting subject ot search.

[Gilrandir]

So you just misspelled Imperialist (and misused, but OK). I am fine with that, it's just your personal opinion, with which I do not agree, but why didn't you explain it in the first place, instead of leaving it unchanged, except for changing the second adjective to genitive?


:dizzy2:
I wrote "Greek Imperial Putinist" then made the meaning clearer by changing it into "Imperial Putinist from Greece".

Please, tell me:
1. Where did I use "imperialist"?
2. How could I have misspelled it if I never used it. If you mean that I misspelled "Imperial", please give the correct spelling of this word.
3. What second adjective did I change to genitive? I changed the first adjective to a personal noun in the common case.

As for the absence of initial explanation, I had thought the meaning clear, but after your inquiry I realized that there could be two readings of the phrase I used. Just like "Second language acquisition conference" can be understood as "A conference on acquisition of a second language" and "The second conference on language acquisition". Or famous examples like "Visiting relatives can be annoying", "Flying planes can be dangerous", "Anyone who cooks ducks out of the washing" which can be ambiguous or misleading (so called garden path strategy). That's the problem of analytical languages.



Also, lighten up a little and let the Mongol affair, which I don't even remember, go.

I just wanted you to realize that before accusing others of referring to unreliable sources one must be absolutely sure that he is exempt from such blunders.



It's been already like 4 years since France became again the 2nd largest European state since the '90s.


Officially - not. Even Greece doesn't acknowledge it.

But I don't understand why you don't "let go" the Crimea annexation. Do you think you can prove something when you bring it into dicussing Syria? Or do you think that you can hurt me with a reminder and score some point? Or do you wish me to reciprocate every time with Constantinople?

But if we for a moment forget about our squabble and remember the thread topic: on how "private" are the mercenaries from Wagner:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-billionaire-who-does-putins-dirty-work/2018/02/20/e5b4b39e-1686-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html?utm_term=.b914c8d477af

[CrossLOPER]

Here's what happens when you don't properly brainwash the random children you kidnap off the street for your propoganda:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43196397

[rory_20_uk]

The numbers of people who joined the armies of Europe in WW1 show that this is a well-trodden road: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Every state would like the populace to lie down their lives for the good of the state.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

I can stomach a lot, comes with the territory (in this case literally) but (ab)using children is definitely not one of them. Go and make a martyr out of yourself, you sick, crazy ****.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I can stomach a lot, comes with the territory (in this case literally) but (ab)using children is definitely not one of them. Go and make a martyr out of yourself, you sick, crazy ****.

Sadly, teaching kids to revere martyrs has been a part of the Islamo-terrorist playbook for a while now. Sad to see a NATO leader playing the same card.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The numbers of people who joined the armies of Europe in WW1 show that this is a well-trodden road: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Every state would like the populace to lie down their lives for the good of the state.

~:smoking:

States MUST have a cadre of persons willing to risk such a sacrifice to be successful in an armed conflict. Patton's comments about dying for your country apply though.

Prior to WW1, most of the great powers had mandatory conscription followed by reserve status for all male citizens. Only the UK began the war with a volunteer army and no draft.

[Husar]

States MUST have a cadre of persons willing to risk such a sacrifice to be successful in an armed conflict. Patton's comments about dying for your country apply though.

Prior to WW1, most of the great powers had mandatory conscription followed by reserve status for all male citizens. Only the UK began the war with a volunteer army and no draft.

Yes, but volunteers were everywhere:

https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/recruitment-conscripts-and-volunteers


However, even countries with long traditions of conscription also had large volunteering movements. In Germany, around half a million men came forward. The great rush was at the start of the war: in the first 10 days 143,922 men enlisted in Prussian units alone. France’s voluntary enlistments were smaller but steadier, reaching 187,905 men by the end of hostilities. In multinational Austria-Hungary, men appear to have been less willing to volunteer for the Emperor’s army, although they promptly obeyed call up orders. Some nationalist movements did recruit successfully, however. The Polish Legionaries, the largest of these forces, had 21,000 volunteers by 1917.

[spmetla]

Sadly, teaching kids to revere martyrs has been a part of the Islamo-terrorist playbook for a while now. Sad to see a NATO leader playing the same card.

Under Erdogan Turkey has become the NATO ally we need but don't really want. He can push pretty far because he has a lot of leverage with NATO and with the EU (flow of migrants and cooperation with FRONTEX, Black Sea access, Incirlik airbase).
Would we fare better with Turkey in the camp of present day Russia or remain with NATO/EU being a sort of check on its behavior?

Here's another sad story on the enduring Syria problem:
Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43206297


Women in Syria have been sexually exploited by men delivering aid on behalf of the UN and international charities, the BBC has learned.

Aid workers said the men would trade food and lifts for sexual favours.

Despite warnings about the abuse three years ago, a new report shows it is continuing in the south of the country.

UN agencies and charities said they had zero tolerance of exploitation and were not aware of any cases of abuse by partner organisations in the region.

Aid workers told the BBC that the exploitation is so widespread that some Syrian women are refusing to go to distribution centres because people would assume they had offered their bodies for the aid they brought home.

One worker claimed that some humanitarian agencies were turning a blind eye to the exploitation because using third parties and local officials was the only way of getting aid into dangerous parts of Syria that international staff could not access.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) conducted an assessment of gender based violence in the region last year and concluded that humanitarian assistance was being exchanged for sex in various governorates in Syria.

The report, entitled "Voices from Syria 2018", said: "Examples were given of women or girls marrying officials for a short period of time for 'sexual services' in order to receive meals; distributors asking for telephone numbers of women and girls; giving them lifts to their houses 'to take something in return' or obtaining distributions 'in exchange for a visit to her home' or 'in exchange for services, such as spending a night with them'."

Syria conflict: Will powers end up in direct war?
Why is there a war in Syria?
It added: "Women and girls 'without male protectors', such as widows and divorcees as well as female IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons), were regarded as particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation."
............

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Under Erdogan Turkey has become the NATO ally we need but don't really want. He can push pretty far because he has a lot of leverage with NATO and with the EU (flow of migrants and cooperation with FRONTEX, Black Sea access, Incirlik airbase).
Would we fare better with Turkey in the camp of present day Russia or remain with NATO/EU being a sort of check on its behavior?

Here's another sad story on the enduring Syria problem:
Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43206297



Turkey is still trending Islamist. I do not see that changing. That airbase is not gonna be worth it if things continue.

Women in war zones are exploited sexually. That will not change.

[Montmorency]

France24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20180223-russia-fighters-syria-exclusive-interview-mercenary-wagner) published quotes from a "paramilitary chief" or recruiter for Wagner. This fellow claims 218 dead Russians (not overall fatalities), with about 150 bodies recovered.


“If you sign up with a private military company, you have sold yourself to them for money,” he said. “The company can use you however it wants. What will happen to you after your death? If you’ve been turned into mincemeat, so what? They put you in a bag, close the coffin and – in the best-case scenario – send you home. In the worst, they bury you there. If you are ready to earn money by killing people and defending the commercial interests of others, then that’s fine.”

“The goal is financial revenue and the possibility of taking control of a large market for oil resources so our country can control it,” he said. “I think that’s a good thing."

"We didn’t start this war. But it’s up to us to finish it."

Seems not quite legit, so what's going on? Disinformation from Moscow? Any more new scoops?


Meanwhile, Putin is putting out campaign ads to make Roy Moore proud.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8cYK-ZApws

[Sarmatian]

I don't understand,why is this a Putin ad? This is "go out and vote" ad.

Do you mean because of the gay guy?

[Montmorency]

It's not a non-partisan PSA, and it's not from a Western-oriented leftist.

But you're right. To be more precise, I should say "pro-Putin". I don't suppose he involves himself with such minutiae.

Reminds me of this (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-the-future-that-liberals-want).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's not a non-partisan PSA, and it's not from a Western-oriented leftist.

But you're right. To be more precise, I should say "pro-Putin". I don't suppose he involves himself with such minutiae.

Reminds me of this (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-the-future-that-liberals-want).

But we didn't get an "I'm Vlad Putin and I approved this message..."

[Montmorency]

But we didn't get an "I'm Vlad Putin and I approved this message..."

:brood:

:coffeenews:

Why so coy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/19/homophobic-video-warns-russians-of-dangers-of-not-voting


Russians who don’t vote in next month’s presidential elections risk seeing their country transformed into a gay-friendly state where people in their 50s are eligible for military conscription, a homophobic and xenophobic viral video has warned.

The three-minute video, which features professional actors, was uploaded to social media on Friday and Saturday and has been watched by millions of people. The actors say they do not know who ordered the video.

The video is set on 17 March, the eve of the presidential election, and starts with a middle-aged man mocking his wife, who wants to set an alarm clock to get up and vote. “As if they won’t elect someone without you,” he says.

He then falls asleep and dreams that a military official, flanked by two soldiers, including a black man, attempts to conscript him into the army. “I’m 52,” he protests. “Excellent. The conscription age has been increased to 60.”

He then goes into the kitchen, where a tattooed gay man sits filing his nails. “Who’s this?” he asks his wife. “I’m a gay on a homestay,” the man tells him, after which his wife reminds him that under a new law, Russian families are obliged to take in gay people who have been abandoned by their partners.

Shocked, the man rushes into the toilet, where an intercom says “toilet time is restricted”. In the tradition of classic horror films, he apparently wakes up, only to find himself in bed with the gay man. He then wakes up for real, and urges his wife to come with him to the polling station “before it’s too late!”

Opposition journalists believe the video was produced by either President Vladimir Putin’s campaign team or the government-controlled election committee. The Kremlin is eager to see a big turnout to underscore Putin’s legitimacy. Alexei Navalny, the opposition figurehead, has been urging Russians to boycott the election, which he says is rigged. Putin’s campaign slogan is A strong president. A strong Russia.


The implication in not voting is pretty clear. Presumably the ones who funded this ad aren't aligned with people boycotting the elections, critical of their legitimacy, or supportive of gay marriage and other LGBT rights. So your options are Putin's campaign/regime (he's running as an independent (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-opposition/putin-says-will-run-as-independent-candidate-for-new-kremlin-term-idUSKBN1E812L)) or supporters, the United Russia party (which dominates the government and presumably retains substantive ties to Putin) or supporters, and the regional governments (kleptocrats complicit with Putin's governance) or supporters. In American analogy, if an ad like this played here without any disclosures or name-dropping, would you assume it was for: (A) a Democratic candidate; (B) a neutral PSA to increase turnout; (C) an alt-right/Trumpist candidate?

https://i.imgur.com/ZbeXAGU.jpg

["You see, rabbit, what a generous selection you have"]

[Sarmatian]

Well, if you focus on gay part, you may get an impression that this purely for Putin's benefit. Or anti opposition as they tend to be more lax on gay issues.

At the same time, if you focus on conscription part, you may get that this is anti Putin, as he's seen as personally responsible for Russian military interventionism as of late. And the video actually says "THE president" ordered conscription up to 60 years, not "new president". Putin pretty much personifies the office of the president. Or that it is pro opposition as they tend to be against military interventionism.

[Gilrandir]

Well, if you focus on gay part, you may get an impression that this purely for Putin's benefit. Or anti opposition as they tend to be more lax on gay issues.

At the same time, if you focus on conscription part, you may get that this is anti Putin, as he's seen as personally responsible for Russian military interventionism as of late. And the video actually says "THE president" ordered conscription up to 60 years, not "new president". Putin pretty much personifies the office of the president. Or that it is pro opposition as they tend to be against military interventionism.

It is only a superficial conclusion that the video is politically neutral, it just urges to participate in the elections.

From what I hear and see I can gather that the main challenge the Kremlin faces is the low turn out. Most likely Putin wants to put his claim to legitimacy beyond any doubt. The turnout of 50% or about that is likely to give grounds for such doubts. So most local governors received the 70/70 assignment: they are to ensure the turnout of 70% and 70% out of those must vote for Putin. In some regions, though (like Chechnya), both figures are above 90% so the local authorities don't have to worry much. Moreover, the opposition leader (Navalny) whose participation in elections was banned exhorted everybody to abstain.

So the call to go and vote is in fact what Putin needs.

[Strike For The South]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-blamed-airstrike-syria-after-suspected-ghouta-chemical-weapon-attack-n863821

Syria launches Chemical attack
Israel launches air strikes
Israel Kils Iranians
Russia says they can't find any evidence of chemical attack.

What a shitshow, and of course the people who died so heinously had no voice with which to stop it. The pictures are disgusting and heartbreaking. My blood pressure rises just thinking about it.

The more and more this plodding excuse for an administration continues, the more and more it looks like that its lasting legacy will be a resurgent and angry Russia.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As always in history, the "regular folk" caught up in events generally bear the harshest suffering. This is another sad example.


Strike: While this administration's reactive and somewhat disjointed foreign policy (outside trade at least) has certainly contributed, a resurgent Russia was largely inevitable and has been Putin's consistent aim since reaching a position of national prominence in the late 1990s. The anger -- Russia's "chip on the shoulder" that they are not viewed as equals or accorded the respect they deserve -- goes back at least to Peter I and probably earlier. Trump can claim no more than to be the latest focus for it.

[rory_20_uk]

We hear about it here, and not about it elsewhere in the world - which doesn't make it right but does show really really don't care very much and would rather it could happen without us being told about it.
One large problem is most Syrians have no particular love for the place and certainly not enough to endanger their own lives. And I completely understand that. I'd not be prepared to lay down my life for my country - and my country is almost infinitely better than Syria.
But without hundreds of thousands of armed and motivated troops who can if not outfight all comers then at least make the fight not worth the effort it will remain a game of Chess with human pieces: no one really wants to win and no one wants anyone else to win either.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

It's looking like the runup to iraq all over again.

[Fragony]

Things are getting needlesly worse

[Sarmatian]

Well, maybe we have reached "it was nice knowing you stage". Total Relism is back, so if anyone is finding religion appealing all of a sudden...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's looking like the runup to iraq all over again.

I do not agree. There will be no coalition of the willing this time (lacking an willing). There really ARE WMDs in use in Syria. The directly involved parties include a NATO "ally." One of the other directly involved parties has a goodly number of nuclear warheads available (a fair number of which are likely to still work).

This is a chance for Trump to lob missiles at a problem, with the usual good camera footage and limited efficacy.

[Sarmatian]

Yes, but in this case, Russia has hinted that the missiles will be targeted, along with launch platforms from which they are fired.

I don't really like this "who's gonna blink first" competition.

Also, coalition of the willing last time included US and UK. The other were willing in name only. Maybe Monaco can be willing again.

[rory_20_uk]

Russia would find it extremely difficult to target missiles - which are of unknown sizes going at unknown speeds heading towards unknown destinations from unknown launch pads most likely in international waters.

Does Russia really care? Most likely the USA will quietly either target things there are no Russians at, or tip them off beforehand. Boom some infrastructure gets demolished... and nothing really changes apart from Donald gets to play real life video games with some big guns and strut around for a day or so.

Worst case scenario, the USA gets really involved. OK, that would annoy Russia - but even the USA's might is not infinite. This would tie up a lot of materiel in a war as of a few days ago Donald was trying to leave. And then would again be having to try and get the hell out of an extremely complex war where there are shifting alliances and priorities.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Maybe Monaco can be willing again.

This really made me laugh, highest GDP per capita in the world, but too cheap to afford its own security beyond patrolling to keep poor people out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco#Security

[Crandar]

Last time many missiles managed to miss, killing a couple of civilians in the process.
That will teach that Gas-Bombing Animal to kill civilians!

Anyway I ain't gonna take the bait. Everyone is playing it tough to satisfy his domestic audience.
At worst, the US will fire some missiles at that poor base in the desert, after having politely warned the Russians to remove themselves. Five Syrian soldiers and an equal member of civilians will get murdered and a Brezhnev-era MIG will loose one wing.

Trump will tweet how much manlier and braver than Obama is, Saudi-paid lobbyists and their Islamist followers will cry incessantly for another missed opportunity to invade Syria and Douma will eventually be liberated from its jihadists.

[Sarmatian]

Russia would find it extremely difficult to target missiles - which are of unknown sizes going at unknown speeds heading towards unknown destinations from unknown launch pads most likely in international waters.

Of course it is hard. Removing a human kidney is hard, but there are experts who do it. Do you really think that Russian army has no anti-missile capabilities?

That doesn't mean they're gonna hit all of them, but they can take down a fair number certainly.


Does Russia really care? Most likely the USA will quietly either target things there are no Russians at, or tip them off beforehand. Boom some infrastructure gets demolished... and nothing really changes apart from Donald gets to play real life video games with some big guns and strut around for a day or so.

I don't know. If it's gonna be a missile or two somewhere in the middle of nowhere, probably not. But it's gonna be hard not to respond if it ends up being a bit more serious.


Worst case scenario, the USA gets really involved. OK, that would annoy Russia - but even the USA's might is not infinite. This would tie up a lot of materiel in a war as of a few days ago Donald was trying to leave. And then would again be having to try and get the hell out of an extremely complex war where there are shifting alliances and priorities.

So, you don't expect Putin to do anything, even if Trump goes in very hard? Not sure I agree with that.

Hopefully won't come to that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course it is hard. Removing a human kidney is hard, but there are experts who do it. Do you really think that Russian army has no anti-missile capabilities?

That doesn't mean they're gonna hit all of them, but they can take down a fair number certainly.



I don't know. If it's gonna be a missile or two somewhere in the middle of nowhere, probably not. But it's gonna be hard not to respond if it ends up being a bit more serious.



So, you don't expect Putin to do anything, even if Trump goes in very hard? Not sure I agree with that.

Hopefully won't come to that.

Russian systems for ballistic missile interception are not quite as accurate as the Patriot system, but pretty darn close and certainly on a par with the Iron Dome. The USA does not, however, usually use ballistic missiles for this kind of strike. Instead, a cruise missile is the typical choice. Success percentages are much lower against cruise missiles because of the terrain following qualities of such missiles.

[Husar]

Yes, they use cruise missiles and there are systems to defend against them.
Sarmatian is probably correct in that they're not fool-proof, but I'd think they can take down a few before they reach their target. Might also depend on the terrain and other factors. These systems even have a name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Depending on the size of the cruise missile, the flight path, terrain, etc., it's also possible that airplanes can intercept them.
Of course one question might just be how much gear capable of doing this does Russia have close to the target in the first place?

Even mortar and artillery shells can be targeted by some modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, they use cruise missiles and there are systems to defend against them.
Sarmatian is probably correct in that they're not fool-proof, but I'd think they can take down a few before they reach their target. Might also depend on the terrain and other factors. These systems even have a name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Depending on the size of the cruise missile, the flight path, terrain, etc., it's also possible that airplanes can intercept them.
Of course one question might just be how much gear capable of doing this does Russia have close to the target in the first place?

Even mortar and artillery shells can be targeted by some modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar

Actually, the longer and higher the ballistic arc, the easier the targeting (at least until you get up to near-orbital speeds). True even of small targets like a mortar round. Lower and more obstacles in the way is much tougher to target.

Though, of course, NOT impossible. Cruise missile have been shot down before and would be in such a strike. I was noting that the 90% interception rates achieved (in some cases) by multiple GTA systems against ballistic missiles was not a realistic percentage expectation.

[Sarmatian]

I don't think it matters much whether it's 1% or 99%. The point is that Russia and USA are shooting at each other. And, if that happens, all bets are off.

[rory_20_uk]

Of course it is hard. Removing a human kidney is hard, but there are experts who do it. Do you really think that Russian army has no anti-missile capabilities?

That doesn't mean they're gonna hit all of them, but they can take down a fair number certainly.

So, you don't expect Putin to do anything, even if Trump goes in very hard? Not sure I agree with that.

To use the removal of an organ analogy, you have a known patient, the operation is at a known time and at a known location. I am sure there are weapons that are capable, but does Russia have them in Syria, in the number required at the sites that are to be targeted (the CIA et al might have some knowledge about their placement and therefore choose alternate sites) - and do they even want to let the USA and allies conduct a live-firing exercise against their tech? That would be invaluable data.

I would expect Putin to do something in a way that benefits him the most. And sometimes the thing that provides most benefit is to not respond at all - to look like the responsible statesman and stir the pot that is this further evidence of how he's in cahoots with the White House. I don't expect him to start firing missiles at American bases, for example. What would Russia gain from that?

Even attacking the Kurds might be counter-productive since some are now joining Assad to fight against the Turks.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Doubt anything will happen

[Husar]

Actually, the longer and higher the ballistic arc, the easier the targeting (at least until you get up to near-orbital speeds). True even of small targets like a mortar round. Lower and more obstacles in the way is much tougher to target.

Though, of course, NOT impossible. Cruise missile have been shot down before and would be in such a strike. I was noting that the 90% interception rates achieved (in some cases) by multiple GTA systems against ballistic missiles was not a realistic percentage expectation.

While Sarmatian is correct about the actual big thing being the overall situation of two nuclear superpower shooting at eachother, I do like to talk about details in this case.... :sweatdrop:

I'm pretty sure that the radars or other sensors play a very important role in this. One of the most important factors is the time it takes from the detection of an object until it can be effectively engaged. Some ballistic missiles reduce this time by coming in at very high speeds as you say, but that's not the case with cruise missiles and mortar rounds.

In the case of cruise missiles, they tend to fly relatively low above the ground to avoid early radar detection, but the terrain is obviously a factor in how well that works. In the middle of a valley, you're more likely to end up toasted than when you're in the middle of a flat desert where the radar isn't blocked by hills.

When it comes to mortars, I think the overall flight time of a round is relatively short and the rounds are also very small compared to airplanes or large missiles.
First of all your search radar needs a sufficient resolution to "see" the round in the first place and then it might be one of those radars turning around. So in the worst case, the radar takes a few seconds to see the round for the first time. Then the gun or missile launcher needs a few seconds to aim at the round and in between the tracking radar has to track the round, the exact trajectory needs to be calculated, there might be humans involved making decisions and so on.

In a Bundeswehr ad about the new MANTIS system they say the crew has about 20 seconds to engage a missile, on some other page the average flight time of a mortar round is given as 20 or 30 seconds depending on the round used.

Artillery rounds probably fly a bit faster, aren't much larger, but are launched at a longer range as well (radar range/resolution limits may apply here), so I'd think they're not much easier to engage. Not to forget that your gun or missile needs the mechanical precision to hit the projectile, even if exploding rounds can help there.

Considering you're unlikely to spot the round the moment it leaves the barrel, that gives you maybe 15 seconds or so to engage it. I'm sure AI and other modern computer systems may fully automate some of that already or in the near future, but it's probably still harder than engaging a missile that behaves very similar to a low-flying aircraft and people are probably hesitant to remove human decisions for fear of friendly fire. The engagement of low-flying aircraft is in the realm of better developed techniques since AA guns could already do that in the 80s and it was already done manually (though probably with terrible accuracy) before that.

Inthis video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xxcW8H1mfo) you can see the MANTIS system engage a missile, at 4:48 one can see that they spray quite a bit.
Of course in reality it might as well be a luxury just having to intercept one incoming projectile/missile at once, could be 20...

The best course of action is usually not to (try to) kill people in the first place, but that does not appear to be everyone's favorite. :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

The Thalys-system om Dutch frigates can shoot down any rocket, but if a lot are shot at the same time and most are duds probably not

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I doubt that any US strike will target known locations for Russian personnel. I doubt the Russians would shoot at our missiles, though they would probably coach/let the Syrians do so (as did that group of separatists in Ukraine who waxed those poor Dutch). Plausible deniability etc.

Putin wants the USA as a vague threat/obstacle to keep up the Russian 'need' for his strong leadership. I do not think he wants an actual firefight. Cui bono?

[Fragony]

These poor Dutch were only half of the casualties, and I do not think the seperatists did it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

These poor Dutch were only half of the casualties, and I do not think the seperatists did it

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all. ~:rolleyes:

[rory_20_uk]

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all. ~:rolleyes:

I'm sure that MI6 and the CIA (I name these two since I don't have the right acronyms to hand for all the other countries who could equally be accused) have done exactly the same the world over. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it a pretty standard wrong to do.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I doubt that any US strike will target known locations for Russian personnel. I doubt the Russians would shoot at our missiles, though they would probably coach/let the Syrians do so (as did that group of separatists in Ukraine who waxed those poor Dutch). Plausible deniability etc.

Putin wants the USA as a vague threat/obstacle to keep up the Russian 'need' for his strong leadership. I do not think he wants an actual firefight. Cui bono?

https://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/bono-2016-billboard-1548.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/bono-2016-billboard-1548.jpg

lol

[Fragony]

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all. ~:rolleyes:

It was shot from behind, Ukraine pronanly did it, they have the same systems. Not intentionaly, just a horrible mistake

[Gilrandir]

It was shot from behind, Ukraine pronanly did it, they have the same systems. Not intentionaly, just a horrible mistake

It seems you aren't aware of the investigation undertaken by Bellingcat and later corroborated by the official commission. They traced all the way Buk came from Kursk (Russia) and back there and even enumerated the staff of Russian regular army servicemen that operated Buk.

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dutch-tv-program-jit-knows-names-of-7-suspects-involved-in-downing-of-mh17/

[Fragony]

Cockpit has exit damage, no way it could have come from upfront, I don blame Ukraine if they did it because it wasn;t intentional, I do blame our minister of foreign affairs who quikly took a fake-job in Brussels, that plane should not have been there, all other countries knew the dangers but that boy was too busy shining (even tried to use it at first with an open solicitation for a job at the UN, fake tears). With the association-treaty, and the (diplomatic) hostility against Russia that would certainly been have capitalised itś kinda hard to think otherwise.

[Gilrandir]

Cockpit has exit damage, no way it could have come from upfront,

The source, please.

[Fragony]

https://www.google.com/search?q=m17+cockpit+damage&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix1PeBgrfaAhWPJ1AKHaGDCe0QsAQIKg&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=TAD12-3C7Vi4QM:

That is exit damage. The investigation-report comes from Kiev, of whoś all radars 'had maintanance'. In a war.

[Gilrandir]

https://www.google.com/search?q=m17+cockpit+damage&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix1PeBgrfaAhWPJ1AKHaGDCe0QsAQIKg&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=TAD12-3C7Vi4QM:

That is exit damage. The investigation-report comes from Kiev, of whoś all radars 'had maintanance'. In a war.

:laugh4: You are an expert on modern missiles and damage they cause and in the veracity of random photos one can find in the internet?

But even if we, for a second, believe (in spite of JIT report and other investigations) that it is exit damage, how does it prove that Ukraine is to blame? If there was exit damage then it would clearly indicate that something blew up INSIDE the cockpit - which would mean that there was explosive on the plane. And why would Ukrainians shoot at flying objects when separatists never (before the accident or after) had any air forces?

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't matter who did. Yes, theoretically, both sides could have done it to blame it on the other side. That carries huge risks, though, and I'm not convinced either would accept those risks, simple as that.

There was nothing to gain, militarily or politically, from shooting the plane down.

So, the most reasonable conclusion is that it was a mistake, probably by the pro-Russian forces.

Don't see how it is relevant for this discussion, though.

[Fragony]

:laugh4: You are an expert on modern missiles and damage they cause and in the veracity of random photos one can find in the internet?

But even if we, for a second, believe (in spite of JIT report and other investigations) that it is exit damage, how does it prove that Ukraine is to blame? If there was exit damage then it would clearly indicate that something blew up INSIDE the cockpit - which would mean that there was explosive on the plane. And why would Ukrainians shoot at flying objects when separatists never (before the accident or after) had any air forces?

Because it was simply not intentional, and the political stakes were high at the moment

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.google.com/search?q=m17+cockpit+damage&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix1PeBgrfaAhWPJ1AKHaGDCe0QsAQIKg&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=TAD12-3C7Vi4QM:

That is exit damage. The investigation-report comes from Kiev, of whoś all radars 'had maintanance'. In a war.

Frags, it is evidence of some form of explosive force directed outwards from the cockpit.


At exactly 16:20:03 local time (13:20:03 UTC) a Buk Surface to Air missile (which had been launched a few miles east from the aircraft) detonated just above the cockpit to the left. An explosive decompression occurred, resulting in both the cockpit and tail sections to tear away from the middle portion of the fuselage. All three sections disintegrated as they descended rapidly towards the ground.

Thus we have both missile fragments (beginning as a spheroid explosion altered by forward momentum imparted from the missle) that likely went all the way through the cockpit at squirrely angles (and ask any combat veteran and they will confirm high explosive does weird things), accompanied by explosive decompression as the pressurized cabin popped when suddenly cracked open at more then 10k meters. Just as with Kennedy's head seemingly going the wrong way relative to Oswald's shot, it is the expulsion of the contained whatever from within resulting from the breach that creates the effect.

Somebody with more skill at the math's could point you to the relevant physics equations.

[Husar]

What does the location of the explosion tell us about who fired the missile anyway?

And I find it hard to believe that this was done by a trained radar operator because I'm pretty sure they could differentiate a commercial airliner from an attack aircraft. You know, the airliner is quite a bit LARGER and may also fly in completely different patterns, at different heights, etc.

It all hints towards a barely trained crew of amateurs with itchy trigger fingers. Like a bunch of redneck separatists eager to score a kill...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Air strikes as predicted. Source (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-orders-strikes-against-syria-over-chemical-weapons-attack/ar-AAvRrWC?ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz)

[Husar]

As predicted?

I'm sure I saw some people say he's going to hit some backwater air field and the article says:


As he spoke, explosions rocked Damascus.

I don't think Damascus is some insignificant place in the Syrian countryside. :inquisitive:

[HopAlongBunny]

3 targets, apparently chosen for connection with chemical attacks and lack of nearby civilians:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43762251

USA, France and UK all participated. Russia is reportedly "not amused".

The start of WW3? Well some thought the Middle-East would light the fuse. Can either of the strong leaders (Putin/Trump) bring themselves to back down? ~:argue:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We won't fire at Russians on purpose or first.

Nor would we be the first to use a WMD.

Russia isn't foolish enough to think they could win such a war.

So WW3 is hyping it a lot.

[Fragony]

Don expect anything, but nothing good can come from it either. It is better to keep relationships relatively normal

[HopAlongBunny]

So WW3 is hyping it a lot.

Yes :yes:
OTOH, it strikes my sense of whimsy to think a pissing contest between Trump/Putin would be the spark.

[Fragony]

Yes :yes:
OTOH, it strikes my sense of whimsy to think a pissing contest between Trump/Putin would be the spark.

Nah Putin is going to go for being the most resanable stateman, that isn that hard a role to play

[Sarmatian]

We won't fire at Russians on purpose or first.

Nor would we be the first to use a WMD.

Russia isn't foolish enough to think they could win such a war.

So WW3 is hyping it a lot.

Yeah, but mistakes can happen.

Although it appears that the sites were empty or mostly empty.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course mistakes can happen. But it would take a series of mistakes, followed by escalation, with NOBODY pulling back and saying 'hey wait a moment.'

Possible yes, but not probable at all.


Now, if we were in pre-World War One mode, with everyone looking for an excuse, then it might happen. Heck, even Europe worked through the war scares of 1905 and 1912 before they decided not to pull back from the brink in 1914, and they were primed for it.

[Fragony]

Yeah the incident that led to WW1 was the cause for a war that everybody was already waiting for to happen. The incident in the Balkan was not really all that much of an incident but more a game of chess but that is another discussion. Diplomatic relations are bad now though

[Montmorency]

We won't fire at Russians on purpose or first.

Nor would we be the first to use a WMD.

Russia isn't foolish enough to think they could win such a war.

So WW3 is hyping it a lot.


A senior official in a regional alliance that backs Damascus told Reuters the Syrian government and its allies had "absorbed" the attack. The sites that were targeted had been evacuated days ago thanks to a warning from Russia, the official said.

"If it is finished, and there is no second round, it will be considered limited," the official said.

French Defence Minister Florence Parly said the Russians "were warned beforehand" to avoid inadvertant escalation.

Mattis, who U.S. officials said had earlier warned in internal debates that too large an attack would risk confrontation with Russia, described the strikes as a one-off to dissuade Assad from "doing this again."

Textbook posturing. Go big or go home, ya profligate bastards.

But - it almost seems like France (http://www.france24.com/en/20180414-syria-france-usa-uk-trump-macron-bromance-military) was the driving participant in this one.


The bombing represents a major escalation putting the West in direct confrontation with Assad's superpower ally Russia,

That's quite striking. I don't think I've ever seen contemporary Russia referred to as a "superpower" in general news media before. A good question for a corporal study.

[Agent Miles]

For what it's worth:

We have a report that two Hip helicopters took off from an airbase in Damascus and flew over Douma around the time of the gas attack. We have another report that one Hip dropped one "barrel bomb". We have another report that an aircraft fired a missile at another target at a front line position near Douma. As a result, the front line and three neighborhoods were exposed to chlorine gas and possibly Sarin nerve agent. We have video taken by the rebels of innocent men, women and children suffering from the attack. What we don't have is any hard evidence of this and none has been presented. Because some of the people I would like to see burn in hell may be responsible is not a factor in finding the truth of what happened.

One barrel bomb and one missile filled with a chemical agent do not disintegrate on impact. Actual chemical tainted debris should exist. The bodies of the victims were apparently burned and buried. Hmmm... Speaking of the victims that were filmed...by the rebels, the dramatic detox although visually effective was useless. The rebels and the medical personnel should know what to do, since this has happened before (about 35 times). All the victims should be taken to an enclosed area where their clothes are removed and bagged to prevent the agent from spreading. They are scrubbed down with simple cleanser. Dumping water on their heads at the medical facility would be a real mistake as any remaining residue would just be released. The video is incredibly disturbing, if it portrays something that actually happened as described.

Most likely, Israeli sources again confirmed the attack as being from Assad's regime and not from chemicals that we know the rebels also have. Macron stated that he had proof. Syria still has a Catholic population descended from French crusaders and they may be his HUMINT source. Of course, Israeli intelligence and Catholic rebels are totally disinterested parties in the conflict (I keep forgetting, which font is it for sarcasm?). A fact-finding team from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) arrived in Syria on Saturday, the same day the US, UK and France carried out airstrikes against Syrian government targets. However, when JFK took us to the brink of WW3, he brought out recon pictures of the missile sites in Cuba so that there would be no question of the reason for the blockade. In this case, the horse is squarely behind the cart.

As sabres rattled, lots of well-meaning people explained how blowing up empty buildings in retaliation would change the world and make it possible for a diplomatic settlement of the civil war, allowing a Syrian George Washington to be elected. Meanwhile, the rebels are going to be brutally, viciously and mercilessly crushed with conventional barrel bombs dropped on innocent men, women and children.

Students, scholars and other useful idiots tried to bring the "Arab Spring" to Syria. Assad emptied his prisons of the people who started ISIS so that he could label the resistance as terrorists. With the help of Russia and now Iran, he was thus able to do anything he wanted against them. A hundred million dollars worth of munitions won't fix this. Syria is diplomacy's Gordian Knot, don't get me wrong. However, whenever free people refuse to find a difficult solution, then brutal dictators will always have a default solution.

[rory_20_uk]

Isn't it odd that we are completely fine with thousands dying every day from starvation, ethnic cleansing, machetes, small arms. But the Red Line is as soon as it is a chemical that kills people from a chemical reaction to the body as opposed to indirectly (e.g. explosives). It is INSANE!

I do not see there to be a "solution" to this one. After WW2 many Germans were ethnically cleansed from Poland and elsewhere. And there appears to be no rancour (barring a small minority). Even if by some miracle every there was the way to sort people in that area by ethnic / religion / political outlook they'd of course instantly be a war to claim more land that was viewed as "ancestral" by one or all of the groups.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Isn't it odd that we are completely fine with thousands dying every day from starvation, ethnic cleansing, machetes, small arms. But the Red Line is as soon as it is a chemical that kills people from a chemical reaction to the body as opposed to indirectly (e.g. explosives). It is INSANE!

Yes and no.

With these small-scale attacks, the use of chemicals seems rally weird even since it's not doing a whole lot. In general, I think chemical weapons are so scary for a number of reasons. They're potentially very deadly to a whole lot of people in a relatively short amount of time. They bypass a lot and the medium they use to spread is the same air that we need to breathe, it's like an almost inescapable attack on our most fundamental and precious resource. Plus imagining people screaming in horror as they burn inside out or whatever is just terror-inflicting. :shrug:

I know a bomb and a rifle and so on can also kill you slowly and painfully and turn half your organs into ground meat, but I think most people imagine them to kill more instantly due to illusions of accuracy and so on. With the gas it's more like getting killed by a ghost, something about it is scary as.....
I would assume the people who wanted it banned after WW1 did have their reasons as well and I never heard about it having been deployed against civilians there. Perhaps it is also more "thorough" as in where other weapons can be more easily evaded or the battle group retreats after some losses and surrenders later, the gas would kill all of them before anyone can retreat. I'm really just guessing though. :shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isn't it odd that we are completely fine with thousands dying every day from starvation, ethnic cleansing, machetes, small arms. But the Red Line is as soon as it is a chemical that kills people from a chemical reaction to the body as opposed to indirectly (e.g. explosives). It is INSANE!....

I am not sure of this rory. In purely logical terms, death via a nerve agent is unlikely to be any more horrific for the decedent that would burning to death following the use of an "accepted" weapon based on thermobaric principles. So I get your point about one painful death being about the same as another.

Yet I have heard vets talking about such issues and they seem to think that such weaponry is inappropriate on some level, that it somehow makes things worse. Maybe that is the same thinking behind men-at-arms not taking Arquebussiers prisoner because their weaponry was "unfair." I admit that I am not sure.

Still, WMDs that have the potential for a persistent lethality -- that can leave whole areas uninhabitable -- are a qualitatively different thing. Maybe they should be treated differently?


As I recall it from the 1980s, our European Allies (among others) opposed the USA's push for a neutron-centric weapon because it would NOT have the persistent effect of a "conventional" nuke and would therefore not deter its own use through some sense of horror. Or maybe they just wanted to ___k with Reagan.

[rory_20_uk]

There is no rational link between a barrel bomb containing noxious chemicals and a missile containing a VX nebuliser over a city of your choice. Thermobaric bombs are equally bad - people shredded with overpressure.

Phosgene is degraded by water, especially if alkaline. Pretty easy to remove- and that is a really old one. I am sure newer ones have a very short half life.

I would hope that our politicians are above the Id of the general public - chemical weapons have been recently used to assassinate people both in Asia and Europe and that was pretty much ignored and the agents used were far nastier. Before that was the Polonium assassination.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

You're both wrong and I'm right:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line/index.html


"Modern weaponry, while it's grown more lethal, has also grown more precise," says Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official now with the American Enterprise Institute. But chemical agents disperse to affect large numbers of people and "can produce horror for a lifetime."

Some conventional attacks do the same, he acknowledges.

But there's another reason that it makes sense to view a chemical attack as a reason for international intervention, Rubin says.

"We want to establish the parameters of warfare. If you don't, combatants will keep pressing the boundaries. Ultimately, the question is, should we have any boundaries in war or not?"

It's a slippery slope, he says. If a chemical weapons attack goes unchecked, what about some other form of weapon of mass destruction -- a biological or nuclear attack?
[...]
Tierney, in The Atlantic, suggests a "strategic self-interest" for the United States to oppose chemical weapons.

"Powerful countries like the United States cultivate a taboo against using WMD partly because they have a vast advantage in conventional arms," he writes. "... Washington can defeat most enemy states in a few days -- unless the adversary uses WMD to level the playing field."

Rubin rejects that argument, saying the U.S. advantage in weapons of mass destruction precludes any possibility of a level playing field.

https://theweek.com/articles/460452/why-are-chemical-weapons-worse-than-conventional-weapons


Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told Mother Jones that he found no reason why those restrictions should be lifted or ignored:

Holding the line against further chemical weapons use is in the interests of the United States and international security, because chemical weapons produce horrible, indiscriminate effects, especially against civilians, and because the erosion of the taboo against chemical weapons can lead to further, more significant use of these or other mass destruction weapons in the future. [Mother Jones]

While sarin gas might actually kill you faster than, say, bleeding out from a bullet wound, it has become a "weapon of terror" that we are "hard-wired" to fear because of how unexpectedly and quickly it begins to work, Charles Blair, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, told the National Post.

"They couldn't smell it, see it coming and 'wham,' next thing you know they're in convulsions, frothing at the mouth and they're dead," he said.