Should Obama kill Bashar Assad?

clairefontaine

Ok, something needs to be done, but Nutella, surely you could be in the European politics section demanding that Europe do something? It's not as if the Brits, the Germans and the French don't have a military.

It's not as if the Brits and the French haven't been all over the Middle East and half of them living in their countries!

Be like Nutella

Actually I wish it were the Germans and French leading the effort... there would be less blow back afterwards.... but they haven't got the gear or the people to carry it out between them in a manner which would put their pilots at minimal risk as the American's have. Like I said it would be played as if the Europeans were leading it and then a NFZ could be maintained by gulf partners and Turkey but it would require a lot of US help/work in the background and as a (large) supporting role. If there was anything above the expected level of resistance then the US would step in and strike necessary targets from its platforms out there. The US can send 20 F22s off carrier groups from the gulf or Indian Ocean or Mediterranean or fly B2 stealths from Trieste or non-stop from Missouri or even use Reapers to a certain extent to take out hardware.

62% of Americans in a Wash Post survey said they'd favor the US getting a NFZ going (but 72% don't want any boots on ground) and McCain and his two amigos in the Senate demanded a US enforced NFZ on 30th September in an Op Ed in the Wash Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-descent-into-hell/2012/12/30/abc244bc-511f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

Jonny7

The Libyan approach was consensus and a "simple" (less complex) military plan.

The consensus was pushed by France, UK and the US with heavy influence and support from the Arab League. Was validated by the UN and broad support across the world. The Chinese and Russian abstained from the vote but crucially didn't veto.

The geography of Libya and the large open gaps between towns and cities meant that NATO could be effective in catching Gadaffi armour en-route between population centres. The Libyan military was dated, weak, less morale and well known about.

Yet Gadaffi held off for 6 months.

And the rebels needed a huge amount of luck and quite a bit of "grey area" in the UN mandate to make a final successful push.

Even more amazing is that the peace has held considering the tribal nature of the country and the vicious spate of reprisals that civil war and decades of dictatorship can trigger.



Syria, on the other hand, has the geography from hell, even after almost 2 years of civil war the military is very powerful, has good tech, and is also being prepared for the eventually of outside intervention.
The whole area is a tinderbox.
Russia and China will veto, they don't have public opinion to worry about (when do they ever)


What the US, UK, France, Turkey and other countries are doing is tacitly supporting the rebels, ranging from vocal support all the way to indirect military support (Saudi, Qatar) whilst putting all pressure possible on Assad.

Without support from Russia and China, even the most basic peaceful UN resolutions are virtually impossible (as so far proved) and military is completely off the cards.

Unilateral military action would be extremely unpopular (mirrors of Iraq) and would be exceptionally difficult.. what is the aim? how long would it take to achieve? how well prepared are Assad's forces for this? - would almost definitely be a quagmire.

The most logical way forward is to keep putting pressure on Assad, keep tacitly supporting the rebels, keep bribing and enticing Assad's inner circle to berak away from the dynasty and to keep up negotiations with and recognition of the opposition representatives (who are a little more disjointed than the NTC were in Libya)

Syria is now reaching a crucial phase with two years of civil war taking a huge toll on basic food supplies, infrastructure, and the mass exodus of refugee's..

The most likely outcome is that all this pressure will force Assad to conceed and make a deal with the int. community to step down. This surrender would be much more desirable and lessen the chances of a bloody showdown in the capital or wherever

Be like Nutella

well I hope that happens

but the general opinion thus far and even more so since his speech on Sunday is that he won't give in or make a deal or do anything but increase his killing. He will not deal with the fighting rebels. I actually think he believes all the mental sh1t he's saying. From his perspective literally everyone fighting is a terrorist and an enemy of the Syrian nation and needs to be beaten militarily WHILE he offers things like a new constitution and more say to the non fighting groups who have remained at the table. He feels the world is against him and all the gulf states are helping these 'terrorists' dethrone him. He wont back down to international pressure especially if there's virtually no teeth to the threats of being 'held accountable' which means fuk all to him because he knows this all ends in bloodshed in Damascus. In the meantime all these obvious reasons why the Intl community CANNOT make a difference will just be repeated in the media day in day out as expert after expert appears on news shows saying how this is going to be a quagmire if we jump in and so forth right up to the point when Assad feels he is forced to rain down some serious death on these rebels using much greater force than we've seen. And at that point the Intl community and Congress and the UN will vote for imposing a No Fly Zone but not before the massacre happens. This is my gut feeling based on Assad's clever killing thus far in numbers each day, week and month which simply test the boundaries of what the Intl community will accept which seems to be a lot.

Right here's a black and white question for ya Johnny...

If Assad killed massive numbers starting tomorrow say, 2-3000 people in some area of Aleppo for instance with a massive air raid do you think we'd be looking at a No Fly Zone within weeks? and if so how soon could he be toppled after that? and what would it take in your opinion to invite an international ground force of some sort? How many dead? what's you take on this?

Forget the military complications about what to do after for the moment.

Be like Nutella

"...If we remain on the current course, future historians are likely to record the slaughter of innocent Syrians, and the resulting harm done to America’s national interests and moral standing, as a shameful failure of U.S. leadership and one of the darker chapters in our history...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-descent-into-hell/2012/12/30/abc244bc-511f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Right here's a black and white question for ya Johnny...

If Assad killed massive numbers starting tomorrow say, 2-3000 people in some area of Aleppo for instance with a massive air raid do you think we'd be looking at a No Fly Zone within weeks? and if so how soon could he be toppled after that? and what would it take in your opinion to invite an international ground force of some sort? How many dead? what's you take on this?

Forget the military complications about what to do after for the moment.

Very very unlikely, but hypothetically, perhaps a massacre of women and children caught clearly on tape or the likes..

Then I think the Russia and China could be then pressured into passing a tough resolution.

The strictest I'd imagine would be a pure nofly zone with less bite than the one passed on Libya, just to keep Assad's jets out of the skies.

Obviously much more would go on in the background such as passing intel and info to the rebels and facilitating more arms.

In these conflicts.. the key rule from history, a very slow lesson, is that the opposition or rebels must be seen to achieve victory.

The US, NATO, Eurocpean countries, Arab League, etc should only ever play a supporting role. They couldn't roll tanks into Damascus.

They must also always have the higher moral ground, and world opinion on their side.. the success of intervention is highly dependant on this.

Be like Nutella

Is there a risk a Rebel group may enact such a slaughter and blame it on Assad given the media blackout in Syria?

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Is there a risk a Rebel group may enact such a slaughter and blame it on Assad given the media blackout in Syria?

Absolutely, the more desparate and depraved and vicious the fighting gets, the more screwed up things get.

There are still quite a few reporters in Syria, they all generally paint the same picture, the rebels are still mainly Syrian, however the foreign fighters are increasing. The atrocities on both sides are also increasing. No side is immune to revenge and retribution.

These foreign fighters (and some domestic) have a huge range of motives.

Some are expatriates who fight in solidarity to overthrow Assad. Others fight because they believe it is their duty to support Sunni against Shia oppression. Some are a range of mild to extreme fundamentalists who want to see an Islamic Syria emerge from the ashes.

There are those from the many headed and splintered Al Qaeda who have operated against the US in Iraq and elsewhere, are absolutely fearless and very good at what they do.

Two years of civil war does terrible things to a country.

Just look at the high levels of PTSD and suicides in the professional US army, volunteers for it. It is unimaginable the effects on the unprepared populace of Syria.

CollardGreens

Whatever happened to the "James Bonds"? Do any of you think it would be possible to send in someone like a loan wolf to take him out?

Money talks, couldn't somebody in assad's force be paid off to kill him?

Just tossing out ideas, seems to me that they would be looking for a large force to take over but wouldn't expect one person to do the job.

btw, Nutella I like the way you think, but the title of this thread gets under my skin (nothing personal of course). Asking obama to kill assad to me would be like asking a hungry lion to watch your chickens ~ I personally believe as many do that obama is destroying America on purpose. Really, seriously...YES WE DO! Why you may ask? Because he was raised by a communist mom & grandparents according to his bio, and he believes that America is too powerful and wants to "put us in our place" and I must admit, a bunch of mislead ppl are seeing that he gets what he wants.

Cork boy 55

http://www.understandingwar.org/press-media/graphsandstat/syrian-air-force-air-defense-overview

Syrian Air Force & Air Defense Overview from Institute for the Study of War

A few months old

Cork boy 55

http://www.understandingwar.org/press-media/graphsandstat/syrian-air-force-air-defense-overview

Syrian Air Force & Air Defense Overview from Institute for the Study of War

A few months old

Lightbulb Sun

Is it the fallout afterwards preventing the West from getting involved?

I think Assad needs to be dealt with but imagine the shitstorm that could follow if he is removed.

Extreme fundamentalists and terrorist cells battling for power in Syria. I don't think anyone would want to have to sort out that mess.

Thing about this civil war is that on the rebel side there are people just as bad as Assad. Both sides have committed terrible acts.

Jonny7

The people had no free and fair vote, they could only protest, and when they did, Assad had them shot.

The beginning of the conflict bears no resemblance to what we see now. It was very one-sided.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Actually I wish it were the Germans and French leading the effort... there would be less blow back afterwards.... but they haven't got the gear or the people to carry it out between them in a manner which would put their pilots at minimal risk as the American's have. Like I said it would be played as if the Europeans were leading it and then a NFZ could be maintained by gulf partners and Turkey but it would require a lot of US help/work in the background and as a (large) supporting role. If there was anything above the expected level of resistance then the US would step in and strike necessary targets from its platforms out there. The US can send 20 F22s off carrier groups from the gulf or Indian Ocean or Mediterranean or fly B2 stealths from Trieste or non-stop from Missouri or even use Reapers to a certain extent to take out hardware.

62% of Americans in a Wash Post survey said they'd favor the US getting a NFZ going (but 72% don't want any boots on ground) and McCain and his two amigos in the Senate demanded a US enforced NFZ on 30th September in an Op Ed in the Wash Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-descent-into-hell/2012/12/30/abc244bc-511f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

And NO one else can do that? Isreal and the European nations collectively can't do something? So it will go down in history that America didn't do anything? And what about the rest of the world?

Maybe they shouldnt do anything, I might force the ever expanding EU to build up its own military and stop relying on the US. Every complaining about the US being the bully on the playground and yet calling for it to be the global police officer.

I doubt the majority of Americans want any more soldiers sent out to die or come back destroyed. But I doubt you favor a drone strike or an assassination either?

It looks ridiculous. Fighting Al Q in one country and then arming them in another.

Be like Nutella

This Brooking/Saban Ctr Report lays out the options as they see it. The writers are very highly respected ME/Military Analysts. In order of severity this is how they view the options for the end of Assad.

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy;
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic
isolation;
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow
the regime;
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to
help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling
the regime directly; and
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort
to oust Assad and rebuild Syria.

I believe we are currently between no.3 and 4.

100's of US special forces are currently in Turkey and Jordan right now training with British and Jordanian and Turkish forces there in case they are called upon under a cover of 'training local forces to deal with the humanitarian crisis'.... as is the opinion of various journalists which I agree with.

Here is the report (only 15 pages)

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/3/15%20syria%20saban/0315_syria_saban.pdf

I like this bit.. makes sense BUT would prob fail at first... yet is still probably the way to go IMO... worth trying first before any further action.

p7 bottom right

"...arming the opposition offers many advantages.
First, because the opposition represents the majority
of Syrians, numbers are on their side, in terms
of manpower. Second, if Syrians were to liberate their
own country it would be beneficial for the post-Asad
era, giving a replacement regime legitimacy. Third,
this approach does not require intervention by the
armed forces of a neighboring country (at least in
theory), thereby limiting the chance of a proxy war
in the struggle to oust Asad or determine his replacement.
As a result, it also eliminates the risk of an
embarrassing defeat that might foster instability in
the neighboring country. Finally, America’s cost and
risk would be low: no U.S. forces would be on the
ground and providing arms to the opposition would
cost millions, not billions. U.S. allies would do much
of the heavy lifting in any event. In addition, even if
the option fails, the United States might score points
with democratic forces in the region that are looking
for proof that Washington is backing the foes of
dictatorship...."

p9 bottom left

"...the hope is that the
United States could fight a “clean” war from 10,000
feet and leave the dirty work on the ground to the
FSA, perhaps even obviating a massive commitment
to Iraq-style nation-building. Because of the much
greater cost and lengthy duration of post-war reconstruction,
as well as the obvious unpleasant experiences
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential to relieve
the United States from this task appears to be a key
selling point for some of this policy’s advocates...."

p10 bottom right

"...Washington would likely prefer to commit only
one, or at most two, carriers to a Syrian intervention.
The U.S. could also fly heavy bombers from the United
States to help out, but even the combination of
long-range bombers and one to two aircraft carriers
would likely be inadequate for the requirements of
this kind of operation. In order to be able to provide
round-the-clock and across-the-country support to
the FSA and be able to meet any regime counterattack
quickly, the United States would need a significant
number of shorter-range strike aircraft on hand
and overhead at all times, and that would mean air
bases for U.S. Air Force fighter-bombers nearby...."

problem is: IF the US convince Turkey to let them use their bases and Jordan (which will be easier) and use 2 carrier groups and a whole lot of F22's and absolutely comprehensively dismantle Syrian anti-aircraft defense thus grounding every Syrian jet over anything from 72 hours to maybe 2 weeks or more then fine... great... BUT the risk is that the effects of doing that are not great enough and do not HELP the FSA enough. In for a penny in for a pound means that if the US go for this strategy they will look weak if they then don't back it up with a boots on the ground offensive to take Damascus, if needs be, and that is what will make selling this plan of a NFZ so difficult domestically AND Internationally.

A NFZ plan has to be air tight and guaranteed to work and work fast and cost little or no Syrian civilian lives WHILE doing your best to let the Turks and Gulf partners do the lifting.... with the US in support (either in actuality or as far as is reported it's all the same really, diplomatically)

p12 mid left

"...Syria
is smaller than Iraq and it lacks the oil reserves that
make Iraq so important to the global economy. But
it is an ally of Iran and does border Turkey, Jordan,
Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq—all countries where the
United States has strong or even vital interests...."

last thought p15 bottom right

"...As a final thought, it is always important to keep in
mind that failing to act—even failing to decide—is
an action and a decision. Not choosing to intervene
is the same as choosing not to intervene, and it would
be far better that whatever course the United States
follows, that it be the product of a conscious decision
so that we can pursue it properly, rather than the outcome
of a paralyzing indecision that prevents Washington
from doing anything to protect this country’s
many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria...."


As far as how this situation will effect the USA's position and prestige diplomatically and in terms of its effects on domestic politics (which I care far less about than the bloodshed of the 100-200,000 Syrian civilians which is on the table right now) I agree totally with the last point of the Saban report.

Cork boy 55

The bulk of the civilian killing is now(last few weeks) being done by pro-regime Militia's(by rifle)
and artillery fire, rockets(grads), and tactical ballistic missiles
In fact it probably always was, as dramatic as air strikes are, most of the civilian killing where field executions by riflemen nearly everyday there is a multiple reports of these type of events during government raids or at checkpoints
6 civilians shot at checkpoint here 13 shot there and so on.

The SAAF is severely depleted and is managing only 15 fixed wing combat sorties a day on average in last few weeks my intelligence sources tell me
The Majority(60%) of his transport helicopters are lost(main heli base overrun yesterday 23 wreaked machines on site)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4C8LOfS3I
and only a handful of operational Attack helicopters are left.
They have lost scores of planes in air and in mortar and rocket attacks on airstrips
Scores others have been lost to maintenance(many where elderly to begin with (Mig 21 Mig 23))
In addition many pilots are exhausted both mentally and psychically
More and more pilots are being grounded as defection risks as the war has gone on
Morale has collapsed.
Due to the nature , intensity and duration of campaign
Less than 30% of the pre-war jet plane pilots are available for combat sorties
the rest deserted, defected(usually on foot) or have imprisioned or groudned as defections risk

Also they even have a shortage of certain types of bombs
The SAAF is not being resupplied with enough fresh pilots, planes and bombs
to keep pace with war if its getting any at all.
Of course it's possible after a rest and some major resupply(Iran maybe) the SAAF could increase tempo again
That's why they started using Tactical ballistic missiles and recently they have begun dropping naval mines and even at least one unexploded torpedo and as well as home made bomb
Naval mines
I am saying that a pure no-fly zone will only have a marginal effect at this point
on Regimes killing power.
I am just saying that a NFZ-lite now i.e. just smashing his airbases
won't be decisive or save lives.
Too little Too late
As I said earlier it's best to get the most desired outcome
end the war, peace and something that resembles a stable nice government
We want the government to surrender conditional to the SNC/FSA
not collapse in total defeat chaos and sectarian war
We don't want the rebels to win outright
Destroying the government COULD result in 100,000 deaths plus.
Implementing the Libya scenario could kill huge numbers of people depending on what way the dogs of war go or it might not.

How to get the Government to ditch Assad family and "surrender"

(1) bluff an intervention
(2) give arms and money to the good rebels (LOL)
(3) try and stop the gulf arab money going to the baddie rebels
(4) offer a way out to bulk of regime
(5) convince regime that they have lost and if they keep fighting they are going down big time
(6) give just enough aid to rebels so they win a major victory on the battlefield fall of Aleppo international airport or end the siege at Deir Ezzor jet base for example Give the rebels A dien bien phu moment
i.e. Just give the rebs enough heavy gear to smash some of the remote besieged garrison, the blow to morale should be enough to trigger surrender or a July 1944 style plot against the Assad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Be like Nutella

So the Rebels have made some decent gains and the SAAF is much weaker than I previously thought. Nice one.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I am saying that a pure no-fly zone will only have a marginal effect at this point

I don't know man I reckon it would be a great restriction and show solidarity between the Intl partners and the Rebel movement and it would at least stop Assad bombing civilians in air raids like the Bakery queue event. I'm talkin Helicopters as well. Grounding gun ships and Migs would help I reckon... great for Rebel morale too and the simple act of imposing a NFZ would show Assad who's got the power as opposed to mere words while he continues to slaughter.

I know what you're saying and I'm glad the air threat isn't all it's assumed to be but I still think that it would send a powerful message and possibly cause more defections which can only be good.

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

So the Rebels have made some decent gains and the SAAF is much weaker than I previously thought. Nice one.



I don't know man I reckon it would be a great restriction and show solidarity between the Intl partners and the Rebel movement and it would at least stop Assad bombing civilians in air raids like the Bakery queue event. I'm talkin Helicopters as well. Grounding gun ships and Migs would help I reckon... great for Rebel morale too and the simple act of imposing a NFZ would show Assad who's got the power as opposed to mere words while he continues to slaughter.

I know what you're saying and I'm glad the air threat isn't all it's assumed to be but I still think that it would send a powerful message and possibly cause more defections which can only be good.

I forgot to mention that the SAAF conducts extensive recon by Iranian made drones and a great deal of resupply by Air so a NFZ would have a big impact there on Assads resupply and recon capabilities.

Regrading A no fly zone, NFZ, ya you could be right it could well be a tipping point but even in best estimates
the war will go on and the regime killing will go on and could get worse.
Of course it is also possible it could end the war in a day I doubt it thou.
It would cost the west an another fortune and could go on for two years or more. It could have unforeseen consequences for example it could rally a lot of the population to the ASSAD that's not inconceivable, war is a strange animal and can do strange things, As I said before Assad has options to hit back He can hit the NATO bases in Cyprus and Turkey with Scuds with VX gas
if he wants for example. Who knows?

The SAAF is in a download spiral is not designed for a long war of this nature.
An alternative much cheaper and more desirable outcome is to supply the more moderate elements of the insurgency with the means to greatly accelerate this download spiral to the point where the SAAF becomes irrelevant and the regime starts to suffer a string of local tactical defeats causing it to ditch Assad clan and sue for peace.

Supplying the rebels with a modest amount of
(A) long range rockets, mortars and field guns and ammo so they can knock out all of Assads airbases they can get within range of.
(B) a ammunition for the extensive collection of AAA cannon and machine guns they have captured (12.7mm ,14.5mm , 23mm, 57mm)
+ a few more of the S-60 57mm gun type to threw up a crude but effective air defense with no risk of SAM missile proliferation.

For a modest arms shipment the rebels can degrade the SAAF to the point of collapse. I would stress only supplying weapons to the FSA not the indo Islamic brigades and only enough for them to look like they are winning not to actually win.

The whole thing is big mess.

SAAF
The SAAF campaign peaked in October they where flying about
60 Fixed wing and 40 Helo combat sorties average per day approx
now they are down to
15 FW and 20 Helo combat sorties average per day approx

In terms of airbases the SAAF
they have
5 helicopter airbases (3 captured)
2 training/auxiliary airbases ( both under siege and knocked out will fall soon)
2 Major international airports/major logistics hubs for the war both under partial siege and under threat
13 fighter jet bases (2 under siege several others under threat or vulnerable to sporadic guerrilla type attacks.




34 minute FSA walking tour of the Taftanaz airbase captured last week

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

Be like Nutella

nice one thanks for info.

Cutting off that drone surveillance is key. The FSA need some fancy gear from the outside partners to drop those drones. That university in the US last year took control of a predator with an invention that cost them about a grand as far as I remember... it was a mission given to them by the CIA to see how vulnerable drones are. They need to send some of that gear the FSA's way.

I agree with you completely that ideally you want the rebels to make gains until it looks like they can win and then stop the conflict and begin talks and maintain some semblance of government and institutions etc for the new Syria but I just feel you gotta do the NFZ at some point coz Assad could use his limited SAAF capability and gun ships and kill thousands before that point so better sooner than later and as you say - supply and surveillance would be depleted with no access to airspace.

I don't think the population would side with Assad if a NFZ was done right with enough transparency... once they trusted the Intl partners and their motivations which can only be achieved by sufficient planning and working closely with the FSA's 'good core'.

Morale-wise it would be a game changer and would commit the Intl partners to an 'ideal' outcome which would focus efforts towards achieving that outcome... hopefully without any US boots on the ground which is not going to help anything here in the long term.

Time is a major element in all this though.
How long can the regime fight for?
How long can the rebels take the punishment Assad is dishing out?
How long will it take before major top defections start rolling?
How long would a NFZ really take to impose?
How long AFTER a NFZ was imposed would Assads supplies delpetion and lack of surveillance and air power take enough of a tole on his ability to fight that we see the FSA start to win?

I assume that IF a NFZ was imposed that we would see a lot of weapons really start to flow to the rebels from everyone with an interest in seeing Assad step down.

Be like Nutella

"..Syria Has Fired More Than 20 Ballistic Missiles: NATO.."

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/new-syrian-ordnance-strikes-turkish-territory/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

"..Syria Has Fired More Than 20 Ballistic Missiles: NATO.."

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/new-syrian-ordnance-strikes-turkish-territory/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1

If one of those missiles malfunctioned and hit Turkey or elsewhere!!!!
Syria actually hit Turkey by accident with a scud in 2005 during a failed launch.

The patriot systems in Turkey will be fully operational by end of January
Once in Place Turkey will have protection from short range/tactical ballistic missiles.

It's possible Turkey is waiting on this shield before it commits to large scale military assistance to the FSA.

Assads has all sorts of missiles
Russian , Iranian, North Korean, Chinese, home made.
no-one knows for sure exact quantites wiki says 86 ??!!??!
see link

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/delivery-systems/

Be like Nutella

I wouldn't trust the exact number either and I wonder what they mean by

"..We've detected the launch of several unguided short-range ballistic missiles this month, including one on Sunday..."

?

Does that simply mean they are programmed for distance and direction only? That is not something you want to be allowing Assad to be doing....

Question: I assume imposing a NFZ does mean shooting down everything that flies including Ballistic A-B missiles? What would be shooting these down? .... surely it 'could' only be the NATO Turkish Patriot Batteries?

and if so I would agree with you that any efforts towards a NFZ couldn't happen without these batteries set up and ready to rock.

If all that is true... then Assad will use his missiles now before they can be shot down.... NTI says 20 so far.... I expect more in coming days so.

He'll try use what he can while he has access to the airspace and has the surveillance ability of those drones... which will also be grounded or shot down I assume in a NFZ scenario?

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the exact number either and I wonder what they mean by

"..We've detected the launch of several unguided short-range ballistic missiles this month, including one on Sunday..."

?

Does that simply mean they are programmed for distance and direction only? That is not something you want to be allowing Assad to be doing....

Question: I assume imposing a NFZ does mean shooting down everything that flies including Ballistic A-B missiles? What would be shooting these down? .... surely it 'could' only be the NATO Turkish Patriot Batteries?

and if so I would agree with you that any efforts towards a NFZ couldn't happen without these batteries set up and ready to rock.

If all that is true... then Assad will use his missiles now before they can be shot down.... NTI says 20 so far.... I expect more in coming days so.

He'll try use what he can while he has access to the airspace and has the surveillance ability of those drones... which will also be grounded or shot down I assume in a NFZ scenario?

Different NFZ in history have had different rules depending on how they are set up. I don't think we are going to see a NFZ unless something huge happens, something to do with Chemical weapons or Turkey
The world does not care, Obama does not want to be involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone

Regarding the guidance of Syria's missiles some are guided some are not and some are more accurate than others also some of these missiles differ greatly in payload and range. Some of the newer ones are very accurate the older ones would be only good for hitting a large town at best.
Syria has quite a few different types.

The unguided ones are going to be the old ones or cheap ones.
So if NATO is correct there that would suggest the regime is firing off his old ones and cheap missiles.
This video uploaded by activist contains footage purporting to show two Scud missiles being fired by Syrian forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4kwfSjexWA

Be like Nutella

looking at previous reports of Scud attacks it seems they are not that accurate but can kill quite a few people if they hit the right place

wiki

"...Scuds were responsible for most of the coalition deaths outside of Iraq and Kuwait. 42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[29] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. Twenty-eight members of the Pennsylvania National Guard were killed when one struck a United States Army barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.[30]..."

I wonder even if Assad fired quite a few of his old Scuds at Rebel areas and killed 100 say in one day would it motivate Intl partners towards a NFZ vote? Seems unlikely.

Assad will have to kill 1000+ in one days work if we're going to see a serious argument for a NFZ.

The news coverage of Syria at the moment seems to be very poor quality and journalists are thin on the ground.

I know Obama has no interest in doing anything but his hand will be forced sooner or later if Assad keeps escalating his killing.

Cork boy 55

On the 23rd of December in Homs there was some sort of chemical incident
in Homs. The USA investigated and

A secret State Department cable has concluded that the Syrian military likely used chemical weapons against its own people in a deadly attack last month, The Cable has learned.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria

Be like Nutella

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

On the 23rd of December in Homs there was some sort of chemical incident
in Homs. The USA investigated and



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria

I heard about this alright and I referred to it before but I don't think there were casualties and I don't think there is solid evidence or physical evidence from the attack except maybe that the shell in question could've theoretically done the job... I;m not sayin I don't believe it.... I kinda do but the data on the event is thin so not worth basing large conjectures upon.. is what I originally thought.

I suppose most info comin out of Syria including phone vids have to be classed as secondary evidence at best and decision are hard to make based on that type of info but that's all there is to work with most of the time.

What type of person would use chemical weapons upon their own countrymen even in a situation of revolution. Reminds me of who directed the chem massacre of 5000+ Kurdish in Iraq at the end of the Iran Iraq war.... Saddam's half brother 'Chemical Ali' from back in Tikrit ... and similarly it's Assad's younger brother in Syria now who runs the revolutionary guard and similarly it was Qaddafi's dikhead son who ordered the heavy guns on the Libyans and now awaits trial in the Hague. This family business in the ME doesn't ever end well!

Be like Nutella

Washington Post

U.N. rules and Syrian intervention
By John B. Bellinger III, Friday, January 18, 1:14 AM

"...But when the Security Council is blocked from protecting civilians against the most egregious atrocities, the United States should be prepared to intervene when other avenues have been exhausted and there is sufficient international consensus to support intervention. If Assad’s attacks on Syrian civilians continue, the United States and other governments may soon conclude that intervention is morally, if not legally, justified. ..."

SOONER THAN LATER I HOPE !!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/un-rules-and-syrian-intervention/2013/01/17/4e8661bc-6000-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_print.html

Jonny7

Another massacre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21095192

Even when they manage to get rid of Assad, this country is going to have some terrible demons.

Be like Nutella

disgusting.

Time to get the ball rolling on international intervention. Real intervention.

I am well aware of the complexities involved - but doing nothing is a shame when there are things that can be done by those with the power to do it.

The Shabiha need to be stopped.

Shabiha wiki

"...sectarian Alawite militia or criminal gang that supports the government of Bashar al-Assad.[6][7][8] However, "shabiha" operating in Aleppo have been reported to be Sunni Muslims.[9] According to the Arab Organization for Human Rights, those identified as Shabiha include not only local criminal gangs, but "members of the security forces in civilian clothes, informants or simply unemployed and impoverished youths.”[5] The Shabiha have been active in efforts to repress the opposition in the Syrian civil war and compared to ‘Baltagiya‘ thugs in Egypt, the ‘Balatija‘ thugs in Yemen and the ‘Basiji‘ in Iran—gangs to which regimes "outsourced" repression during the mass demonstrations of the Arab Spring.[5][10] Some sources claim they have performed ethnic cleansing...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabiha

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I heard about this alright and I referred to it before but I don't think there were casualties and I don't think there is solid evidence or physical evidence from the attack except maybe that the shell in question could've theoretically done the job... I;m not sayin I don't believe it.... I kinda do but the data on the event is thin so not worth basing large conjectures upon.. is what I originally thought.

I suppose most info comin out of Syria including phone vids have to be classed as secondary evidence at best and decision are hard to make based on that type of info but that's all there is to work with most of the time.

Another update from foreign policy magazine on the Homs Xmas chemical incident

Not sure if the link can be seen I went in to it from twitter
i.e. if you follow foreign policy magazine on twitter(@ForeignPolicy) you get free access to every link they tweet to which is most of it, all the good stuff anyway, good magazine.

Cut a long story short it still inconclusive but very likely
some contradictory reports casting doubt
An chemical incident happened what exactly happened is not clear
7 dead where reported and 50 sickened,

"A secret State Department cable has concluded that the Syrian military likely used chemical weapons against its own people in a deadly attack last month," The Cable wrote. A U.S. official further told The Cable that the document made a "compelling case" that lethal poison gas was used.

The State Department and the White House disputed that contention, and the cable itself, signed by the U.S. consul general in Istanbul, Scott Frederic Kilner, notes that the consulate staff could not say definitively if chemical weapons were used in Homs last month.

It does, however, say that after their own investigation, State Department officers were able to confirm the basic facts of the deadly attack in Homs.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/22/secret_syria_chemical_weapons_cable_revealed

---

Also on the SCUDS reports of Tactical ballistic missiles landing on/near rural villages behind FSA lines. The villagers are reporting they come without warning
which is the MO of these weapons as they just scream out of sky at MACH speed whatever. This more than likely confirms he is just blasting off his crap unguided ones and they are landing at random parts of countryside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I10rT7FBeVw