Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Agreed, no nation can hold a candle to the US navy, my concern is if those nations care though.

I did find it interesting that about a month ago Russia sent off four fleets to the Med for "oceanic training" when the country has nothing but ocean to conduct training. Posturing for sure but still.

China really isn't within a position to militarize from their own shores, mostly because of the US destroyers currently in a Asia pacific. The recent changes in China's defense strategy leads me to believe they are not too happy about this. Basically they are feeling crowded and have said as much, I will try and find the article that stated this.

I don't disagree that any nation willing to poke the US bear may get annihilated, my concern is that they may not care. Russia has been VERY vocal in their displeasure of a US gov't that seemingly dictates foreign undertakings and in doing so making the UN null and void. Especially since they are supposed to play by the same rules.

If the US starts an attack and Russia doesn't back their strong words with strong actions, well you may as well raise a American flag in the center of Moscow. I don't know if Russia would risk backing down and making themselves look weak, especially considering their strong ties to Syria.

What are your thoughts? I guess I'm thinking that if the opposition to the US in that region during a attack comes from nations other than Syria itself the results could be catastrophic and all world encompassing. I really hope I'm wrong, but history buffs will attest to having heard this story before.

I doubt that the Russians will do much more then attempt to be a distracted nuisance. Putin can't afford to back down here to be honest. But he can't afford to do much militarily that could result in the humiliation of his forces.

He's really in a weak position here, he's not on the side of angels as he ties up the UN reaction to his allied nation that is slaughtering their own people in the most horrific manner possible.

He can't really engage the American's in a shooting war to protect his ally, as his naval forces will get whacked. What I will find interesting is if the American's choose to engage Syrian forces, the first thing that will happen will be the American Navy establishing probably 1000 mile maritime exclusion zone around their battle group. Basically what's called a circle of death where any planes or ships or subs live and die by the Group Commanders decisions and the rules of engagement set out by the President and the Joint Chiefs.

If the Russians make a show of breaching it, sending planes to shadow the American carrier groups or have submarines running acquisition and firing drills in the middle of the American exclusion zone, it could make Putin look like a a victor in the region without shots getting fired.

However it will be equally humiliating for Putin if he tries this, the American's mercilessly prosecute their subs. Blow fighters through the middle of Russian air formations and do so flybys by the Russian navy and simulated bomb runs on their naval bases it could be a loss of prestige for the Soviet Navy.

The Med has always been a hot spot between the Russians/Soviets and the American's leading back to the cold war when we had subs running into other subs and ships in close proximity.

All it takes is one chowderhead on either side to screw up and we have a serious situation.

I fully expect and hope that the Russian's and Chinese back down on their veto power when it comes time for a vote.

The other thing is that Putin is almost trying to re-establish the type of Military attitude that the Russians had post WW2 early cold war where they believed that they were America's equal militarily Putin has spend a ton of money in trying to rebuild his navy, and update his frontal naval aviation forces and to drastically redesign his submarine fleets.

Its also interesting that the Russians basically have a division of Russian Naval infantry troops on amphibious landing ships in the med. I would assume they would be called on to fight into Syria to save Asaad's a$$ if the government fell to the rebel groups.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I think it's time to send in Jack Bauer to clean this mess up and expose the real culprits.

Screw that send in John Clark and Domingo Chavez.

[Knut]

This thread is like a Tom Clancy novel.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by NBC

This is a classic misinterpretation.

You think they are developing deadlier strains of anthrax and methods of spreading it purely in the interest of developing better antidotes and countermeasures? I admire your faith sir.

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Why would the US fake evidence to get into a war they don't want to get in to?

That's a reasonable question. I would like to point out however that I did not suggest they did.

My guess is that they are reacting the situation with little concern for such trivialities as who actually made the chemical attack. When you think about it, it's not really a very interesting question to them. They have picked a side already, and they will stick with that side. So far what they have done is mostly just throw their propaganda weight behind the rebels, which doesn't really cost them anything.

They are propably also free to give/sell the rebels more serious armament if they feel like it.

Why would Russia or China risk a major war over Syria?

Hmm? Why would there be a major war over Syria?

Why argue complex issues of morality and world politics with people who believe that the world is run by a shadow government that uses vaccines/chemtrails/fluoride to control your mind?

I'm sure you found the talk about US government following all internet activity pretty funny too. And hey, it's not like the US has ever before faked WMD evidence to attack another country in the Middle East.

[FlamesAddiction]

I could see more of a proxy war situation.

Russia arms and give logistical support to Assad. The Americans arm one of the rebel groups.

There is no way that either risks a larger conflict over this though.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I could see more of a proxy war situation.

Russia arms and give logistical support to Assad. The Americans arm one of the rebel groups.

There is no way that either risks a larger conflict over this though.

It all sounds so familiar.

[NBC]

I can tell you first hand that this is absolutely not what happens in western BSL-3/4 facilities. The work that is done is on pre-existing samples and not on new, genetically altered strains or novel types of chemical agents.

This was something that the Soviets were more interested in with their chimera strains and 3rd generation Novichok organophosphate compounds.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by NBC

3rd generation Novichok organophosphate compounds.

Those are the worse type of compounds, I hate them.


This thread makes me feel so slow

[Tinordi]

Crackpot realists:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...ntion-in-Syria

Crackpot realists are amoral men and women of worldly affairs who possess exceptionally banal minds. These are the "serious people" who populate government, the higher tiers of corporate America, the think tanks, the televised political talk shows, and other props of the national power structure.
What they do best is perform alchemy: they take reckless and foolish ideas and transmute them into rhetoric that is perceived as the tough, pragmatic, and common-sense wisdom of purported experts.

And to quote C. Wright Mills directly:
They know of no solutions to the paradoxes of the Middle East and Europe, the Far East and Africa except the landing of Marines. Being baffled, and also being very tired of being baffled, they have come to believe that there is no way out -- except war -- which would remove all the bewildering paradoxes of their tedious and now misguided attempts to construct peace. In place of these paradoxes they prefer the bright, clear problems of war...

[NBC]

Originally Posted by Kavy

Those are the worse type of compounds, I hate them.

This made me laugh.

But in all seriousness you should hate them. They are terrible weapons that were developed by a paranoid government who believed that everyone else was doing the exact same thing. Luckily for us, no one else was.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Putin can't afford to back down here to be honest. But he can't afford to do much militarily that could result in the humiliation of his forces.

He's really in a weak position here, he's not on the side of angels as he ties up the UN reaction to his allied nation that is slaughtering their own people in the most horrific manner possible.

Again, we don't know who did the attack.

Here's the idea presented by actual experts
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...emical-weapons

Jean Pascal Zanders, who worked for the European Union Institute for Security Studies from 2008 to 2013 and concentrated on the non-proliferation of chemical weapons says until the U.N. investigative team presents its report, "we need to keep our minds open that the events of last Wednesday could in whole or partially have alternative explanations."

"I have been asking myself the same question ever since it happened, because it was difficult to find a rationale [for an Assad-led attack]," says Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of , a magazine that covers biological and chemical weapons for the industry.

"[A rebel attack] is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield.

What Winfield means is that this seems like a lose-lose situation for Assad. A chemical attack by the regime would seem to bolster the opposition, because it could mean an international intervention. As for the rebels, there are huge questions about whether they could have pulled off such an attack.

So if I'm crazy in thinking that neither the FSA or Assad seem like obvious options, at least I'm not a lone nut

Both sides have been accusing each other of doing this for a good while now. Nothing has turned up so far to indicate which side is right. Maybe both sides are right? Maybe neither is, and it's been the jihadists all along?

(Syria has previously warned that the jihadists took control of a plant capable of producing toxic chlorine near Aleppo, for example.)

As to Putin, if all the UN inspectors can say is that chemical weapon X was used, but offer no opinion on who did it, as they should according to their mission, the Russians and Chinese can stick with their version that it's the rebels who are doing it. This would not surprise me at all.

(Putin propably already knows whether or not Assad did it, since I would imagine he can just ask Assad about what happened. Putin doesn't strike me as the humanitarian type that would flinch if Assad admitted doing it, and I'm assuming that Assad would not want to BS their primary ally.)

I fully expect and hope that the Russian's and Chinese back down on their veto power when it comes time for a vote.

I don't see it happening until the UN inspectors give their report, and even after it I doubt it will happen unless the weapons used strongly implicate Assad; and I have no idea how likely that is.

Its also interesting that the Russians basically have a division of Russian Naval infantry troops on amphibious landing ships in the med. I would assume they would be called on to fight into Syria to save Asaad's a$$ if the government fell to the rebel groups.

Yup. But I can also imagine some other uses.

They do have that naval base in a country with a rather active war on, with multiple parties involved. Nobody expects it to be attacked at this point, but you never know how things are going to develop there. Those jihadists don't like the Russians either.

Also, there might come a point when securing some of those chemical weapons storages by outside forces becomes necessary.

[NBC]

JP Zanders is saying what most expert commentators should be saying, that we should wait for the inspectors report on the UN. Good old Iron Maiden-loving JP.

As for the other expert in the field, his magazine is nothing more than advertisements on the latest cutting edge CB detection equipment and where to buy it. Not sure I'd put too much stock into his opinions. JP, absolutely. Decent bloke.

This all hinges on the findings of Sellstrom's team. The fact that they have been denied access, doesn't strengthen the regime's case.

[edslunch]

British Parliament votes against military action

[Knut]

More disturbing Syria news.

Incendiary bomb dropped on a school in North Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped onto a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Hesla

More disturbing Syria news.

Incendiary bomb dropped on a school in North Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The five Ws of "Who, What, Where, When, Why" are always in my mind when I see something like this.

Who and Why are the clear questions here.

This doesn't scream of government, however in the chess game that this has become, who knows. In the grand scheme, misdirection and false flags are known tactics.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

The five Ws of "Who, What, Where, When, Why" are always in my mind when I see something like this.

Who and Why are the clear questions here.

This doesn't scream of government, however in the chess game that this has become, who knows. In the grand scheme, misdirection and false flags are known tactics.

So is bombing your own citizens when they don't listen.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So is bombing your own citizens when they don't listen.

In particular...by Assad.

I think many are reading WAY to much into things here.

Assad is a really bad guy who is doing really bad things. Sometimes the simplest explanation gets lost in rhetoric.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by transplant99

In particular...by Assad.

I think many are reading WAY to much into things here.

Assad is a really bad guy who is doing really bad things. Sometimes the simplest explanation gets lost in rhetoric.

Tranny, I am going to disagree with you on this big time.

I base this solely on bigger world events, patterns of (dis)information, profiterring, and logical analysis.

I am not an Assad fan-boy, but I do think he is being played. He has held his own against opposition for a long time. Without threats of new attacks, all of a sudden he uses CM and attacks a school?

No. Even after all this time, the people have not risen up sufficiently to counter him.

My gut instinct is this is BS. He may not be a nice guy, but he isn't going to condone the chemical or this particular school attack.

S

[Knut]

School attack is likely a mistake I bet. Bomb in the wrong spot. Occam's Razor.

[Blaster86]

Rarely do I start hopping on the conspiracy train. And I don't think this is that much of a conspiracy but Assad can't possibly be this dumb?

Then again, why would the Taliban say "Yeah, we got the guys that blew those towers up. YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE US BROS?! HUH!? YOU THINK YOU GO-- oh we're dead."

It seems so unfathomable and ridiculous. I can't believe someone would do the one thing that all but ensures they get their head on a pike. He was winning without the CW, wasn't he?