Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Tony EH

The UN report simply states that Sarin was used. It does not offer any conclusion on who it was that carried out the attack and rightly so, as there is zero, I'll say that again, zero evidence to show who carried it out.

There are allegations. But that is all.

And that is certainly not of any use to base a conclusion upon and there are no honest brokers offering a conclusion on the matter.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

The UN report simply states that Sarin was used. It does not offer any conclusion on who it was that carried out the attack and rightly so, as there is zero, I'll say that again, zero evidence to show who carried it out.

There are allegations. But that is all.

And that is certainly not of any use to base a conclusion upon and there are no honest brokers offering a conclusion on the matter.

What would constitute evidence?

The UN report set out to make observations - not to draw conclusions. Those observations do constitute evidence as to where the munitions were fired from, who was known to have that type weaponry, what weapons they were fired from and so on

Tony EH

But the UN report is useful only in as much as it confirms that sarin was used.

It's no use whatsoever in determining who staged the attack. The UN have been very careful not to get entangled in that game, because they know that there is no real evidence produced to point a finger at anyone.

As for what evidence...well anything at all would be good, other than mere allegation and accusation, which is all we have been given at present. That's certainly of no use, especially when it's coming from nations who wish to destroy Assad and his power structure.

Something more substantial is needed.

As Hersh has said, Obama backed off, because he had nothing. There's been nothing. Despite all the bogus claims from the White House officials regarding surveillance and communications intercepts. Only allegation has been put forward and anyone can allege anything against another party.

We're talking here about a nation's decision to bomb another nation and for that you need strong evidence.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Something more substantial is needed.

Some of the information we have

e.g. acc. to information from UN (I haven't gone over report recently so some might be other sources - I don't want to have to lawyer up in this thread)

The munitions were fired from gov territory into rebel territory
The munitions fired were in line with weapons from Syrian military
The type of weapon used to fire some of these munitions are not known to be in the hands of the rebels
The Syrian gov is known to have Sarin as a chemical weapon

This information points to the claim that Assad's forces carried out the attack rather than the rebels

If, in your eyes, this cannot be counted toward evidence what-so-ever, then what would constitute evidence?

Tony EH

None of that is conclusive.

The attack was staged from just inside government held territory, certainly not beyond the reach of rebel forces.

The rebels have been seen using captured Syrian army material. The rebels do not have a standardised military equipment line. That point is utterly meaningless, as the rebel forces have been using what they can get there hands on.

Not known, but not it's not impossible that the rebels could have gotten hold of it. They operate largely on an ad hoc basis.

And it's claimed that the rebels have the capability to produce the gas themselves and, or may have used captured stock.

As for more solid evidence, as I've said, there's supposed to be surveillance evidence. Satellite imagery would be supportive. Positive transcripts of intercepted military traffic, recon photos, even eyewitness testimony can be used in corroboration.

But, there's been nothing.

That's the salient issue. There's nothing. Not even a hint of real evidence. And it simply isn't good enough to form a conclusion.
None of the points in favor of Assad's forces being the culprit are solid enough.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

As for what evidence...well anything at all would be good, other than mere allegation and accusation

There is evidence however. The UN investigators determined the trajectory of the shells, which tallies with launches from government held territory. The shells could only be fired from launchers held by the government forces - there's no evidence of rebels having access to them. The quantity and quality of sarin used was beyond the capability of the rebels to produce, and the facilities that could produce the sarin were available to the government.

Tony EH

None of that is conclusive.

Also, show me in the report where the UN inspectors mentioned the trajectory of the shells please.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

None of that is conclusive.

It's quite a volume of evidence that has nothing to do with allegation or accusation though.

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, show me in the report where the UN inspectors mentioned the trajectory of the shells please.

“The projectile, in the last stage of its trajectory, hit the surface in an area of earthy, relatively soft, ground where the shaft/engine of the projectile remained dug in, undisturbed until investigated.

The said shaft/engine, presenting to form of lateral bending, pointed precisely in a bearing of 285 degrees that, again, represent a reverse azimuth to the trajectory followed by the rocket during its flight. It can be, thus, concluded, that the original azimuth of the rocket trajectory had an azimuth of 105 degrees, in an East/Southeast trajectory.”

“In the final stage of this trajectory, the projectile hit and pierced through a vegetal screen existing over one of the adjacent walls, before impacting on the ground producing a shallow crater. The line linking the crater and the piercing of the vegetal screen can be conclusively established and has a bearing of 35 degrees. This line represents an inverse azimuth to the original trajectory or the rocket, that is to say, the original trajectory of the projectile, as it hit the ground, had an azimuth of 215 degrees.”

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

As for more solid evidence, as I've said, there's supposed to be surveillance evidence.

The Israelis have passed evidence of this on to the US

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

Sierra Oscar

The conflict has moved on significantly since this occurred, in fact the conflict has changed quite dramatically since then. I don't think western states will be too keen to reopen this issue given that they are seemingly now only realizing that there is a very serious Islamist threat on the ground. If there is to be intervention, which there wont be, then it will be targeted at Islamist rebel groups - which will aid Assad.

Chemical weapons have probably been used by both sides, although their possible use down the line is not as likely as it once was given that Assad is disarming.

I would not be surprised to see the Syrian Arab Army fight alongside the Free Syrian Army to combat the Islamist threat within six months time. There is a growing realization that the 'revolution' is over, and that the Free Syrian Army does not have the capability to topple Assad and defeat the Islamist extremists. Desertion rates amongst moderate rebels are soaring.

Seaneh

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Desertion rates amongst moderate rebels are soaring.

A lot of them aren't just deserting. They are leaving the FSA and joining militias fighting alongside the SAA against the foreign Islamists.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

And, conveniently, this is an issue which relates, centrally, to the use of specific munitions in Syria. His area of expertise.

Since we all agree that Sarin was used having that "expertise" is now redundant.

What hasn't been established beyond any doubt is who used the Sarin, and THAT is the central issue here. Hersh has a proven track record at uncovering more than those in power want us to know, that is his "area of expertise" if you will.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

It's quite a volume of evidence that has nothing to do with allegation or accusation though.

No, it's not. That's the problem. It's extremely flimsy, especially as a pretext to bombing another nation.

Is your quote from the actual UN report? Where are those maps from? Because I don't recall such things when I read the UN report in September.

Besides, trajectory is one thing, but how would they know the distance traveled?

Tony EH

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The conflict has moved on significantly since this occurred, in fact the conflict has changed quite dramatically since then. I don't think western states will be too keen to reopen this issue given that they are seemingly now only realizing that there is a very serious Islamist threat on the ground. If there is to be intervention, which there wont be, then it will be targeted at Islamist rebel groups - which will aid Assad.

Chemical weapons have probably been used by both sides, although their possible use down the line is not as likely as it once was given that Assad is disarming.

I would not be surprised to see the Syrian Arab Army fight alongside the Free Syrian Army to combat the Islamist threat within six months time. There is a growing realization that the 'revolution' is over, and that the Free Syrian Army does not have the capability to topple Assad and defeat the Islamist extremists. Desertion rates amongst moderate rebels are soaring.

Not only that, but does anyone think that Israel, would be fine with a radical Islamist government next door. Because if the rebels topple Assad, this guys from Al Nusra etc aren't simply going to pack their bags and walk away.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Since we all agree that Sarin was used having that "expertise" is now redundant.

We do? Oh wait - we don't. Since the delivery mechanism and logistics for the sarin is key to determining who fired it - expertise (no scare quotes required) on the rockets, the rocket launcher, their operation, reach, etc are very much central to the subject.

cyberhog wrote: »

What hasn't been established beyond any doubt is who used the Sarin, and THAT is the central issue here. Hersh has a proven track record at uncovering more than those in power want us to know, that is his "area of expertise" if you will.

Who used the sarin is defined by the evidence relating who launched the rockets, where they were and what weapons they had access to. All of which points to the culpability of Assad's forces.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it's not. That's the problem. It's extremely flimsy, especially as a pretext to bombing another nation.

You say flimsy. I say pretty compelling.

Tony EH wrote: »

Is your quote from the actual UN report? Where are those maps from? Because I don't recall such things when I read the UN report in September.

The quotes are from the report. The images are from the Independent, accurately reflecting the trajectory indicated in the report.

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides, trajectory is one thing, but how would they know the distance traveled?

For that you need to know the reach of the rocket launchers and the weight of the payload - cue the munitions expertise of Higgins and WMD expert Kaszeta. They're clear that the launchers reach would place them squarely in Assad held or dominated territory.

Jonny7

Worth a read for this debate

A view on Hersh's piece from Richard Spencer

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100250185/ignore-the-conspiracy-theories-assad-was-behind-the-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack/

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

You say flimsy. I say pretty compelling.

Most people would require higher standards.

alastair wrote: »

The quotes are from the report. The images are from the Independent, accurately reflecting the trajectory indicated in the report.

Then the images don't hold much value. Their "red lines" are misleading in the extreme. They give a false impression.

alastair wrote: »

For that you need to know the reach of the rocket launchers and the weight of the payload - cue the munitions expertise of Higgins and WMD expert Kaszeta. They're clear that the launchers reach would place them squarely in Assad held or dominated territory.

No, to know how far they traveled, you would need to know exactly where they were fired from and that's something that impossible to say, unless you've seen the ordnance actually fired.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Worth a read for this debate

A view on Hersh's piece from Richard Spencer

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100250185/ignore-the-conspiracy-theories-assad-was-behind-the-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack/

"Ingnore the conspiracy theories..."

I didn't read beyond that. :rolleyes:

Reducing uncomfortable reading to "conspiracy theory" is a poor excuse for a rebuttal.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Most people would require higher standards. .

You've taken a poll? I think you'll find most people form the same conclusion from the evidence.

Tony EH wrote: »

Then the images don't hold much value. Their "red lines" are misleading in the extreme. They give a false impression..

How exactly are they misleading? They follow the trajectory defined by the UN investigators - trajectories, let's recall, that you seem to had forgotten about.

Tony EH wrote: »

No, to know how far they traveled, you would need to know exactly where they were fired from and that's something that impossible to say, unless you've seen the ordnance actually fired.

Not at all. the distance travelled would be determined by the weight of the missiles, the angle of impact, and the study of the power of the launchers used. The available evidence is that the launchers are capable of a two mile reach with the weight of sarin canisters fired.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

"Ingnore the conspiracy theories..."

I didn't read beyond that. :rolleyes:

Reducing uncomfortable reading to "conspiracy theory" is a poor excuse for a rebuttal.

It is a conspiracy theory though. Hersh quite openly demands a belief in a conspiracy, if you're to buy his story.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

You've taken a poll? I think you'll find most people form the same conclusion from the evidence.

Legally, it wouldn't stand a chance.

alastair wrote: »

How exactly are they misleading? They follow the trajectory defined by the UN investigators - trajectories, let's recall, that you seem to had forgotten about.

Because they give the impression of distance traveled and that's misleading. Therefore their worth is minimal.

alastair wrote: »

Not at all. the distance travelled would be determined by the weight of the missiles, the angle of impact, and the study of the power of the launchers used. The available evidence is that the launchers are capable of a two mile reach with the weight of sarin canisters fired.

No, the distance traveled is only assessed by the point of firing and the point of impact.

A "two mile reach" does not give an exact firing point.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

It is a conspiracy theory though. Hersh quite openly demands a belief in a conspiracy, if you're to buy his story.

Reduction of argument to "conspiracy theory" is no rebuttal.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

You've taken a poll? I think you'll find most people form the same conclusion from the evidence.

I think you'll find they don't.

[A] poll, conducted in 15, mostly European countries, also found that only about a third of respondents held Syria’s government accountable for using chemical weapons despite Western efforts to blame Assad for an Aug. 21 sarin gas attack.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-10/234152-poll-finds-low-western-support-for-military-intervention.ashx#axzz2hIPAj4VI

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Who used the sarin is defined by the evidence relating who launched the rockets, where they were and what weapons they had access to. All of which points to the culpability of Assad's forces.

No, it doesn't, actually.

While the UN report attempted to hint at regime culpability, the evidence it provided actually contradicts this claim.

http://whoghouta.blogspot.ie/2013/09/the-un-report.html

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

"Ingnore the conspiracy theories..."

I didn't read beyond that. :rolleyes:

Reducing uncomfortable reading to "conspiracy theory" is a poor excuse for a rebuttal.

It's just a title - you can ignore it for personal reasons

It's a decent rebuttal and explains why Hersh's piece wasn't published (sources)

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

I think you'll find they don't.



http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-10/234152-poll-finds-low-western-support-for-military-intervention.ashx#axzz2hIPAj4VI

this would be the same poll that found only 8% believed the rebels were responsible for the sarin attack?:o

Tony EH

He repeats the catchphrase twice in the first paragraph.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Legally, it wouldn't stand a chance.

Probably not. But people can make up their own minds.

Tony EH wrote: »

Because they give the impression of distance traveled and that's misleading. Therefore their worth is minimal.

Their worth is in establishing what direction the shells came from. Which is useful.

Tony EH wrote: »

No, the distance traveled is only assessed by the point of firing and the point of impact.

A "two mile reach" does not give an exact firing point.

It doesn't need to point to an exact firing point - it just needs to determine the general area the rockets were fired from - and in this case, it happens to coincide with an area that had been utilized by Assads forces for a conventional bombardment ahead of the sarin attack.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Reduction of argument to "conspiracy theory" is no rebuttal.

Good thing he didn't do that then, isn't it? He follows up with a point-by-point take-down of Hersh's case.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

No, it doesn't, actually.



http://whoghouta.blogspot.ie/2013/09/the-un-report.html

Sorry - the credibility of this guys blog is somewhat lacking. He claims that the UN report suggested a 9km reach for the shells, which it did not - it simply indicted the trajectory of the shells. And he states that the UN report was intentionally biased on it's reporting. A blog with an agenda.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

Probably not. But people can make up their own minds.

Yes, they can. Unfortunately for you though, it was seen as flimsy and not voted for. Otherwise there would have been bombs falling

alastair wrote: »

Their worth is in establishing what direction the shells came from. Which is useful.

That's all. They have no worth to determine where exactly they were fired from or who fired them.

It's a rough estimate of direction.

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't need to point to an exact firing point - it just needs to determine the general area the rockets were fired from - and in this case, it happens to coincide with an area that had been utilized by Assads forces for a conventional bombardment ahead of the sarin attack.

No, it doesn't. It's an area of a couple of miles in a pretty fluid front line. It has no power whatsoever to accurately suggest who fired the warheads.

In fact, anybody in possession of the warheads could have driven to any spot with the radius and used them.

It's useless as support for determining who fired the weaponry.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

Good thing he didn't do that then, isn't it? He follows up with a point-by-point take-down of Hersh's case.

What...like "Washington has denied the existence of the documents Hersh cites. It doesn't really make sense: we are supposed to believe that the Obama administration lied in order to justify a military intervention in Syria..."

:pac:


Ok, that's me convinced so. It's not like lies and with-holding certain contradictory information has ever occurred in Washington before.

Jonny7

Hersh's article was rejected by both the New Yorker (whom he typically writes for) and the Washington Post (citing issues with sources)

Spencer's piece in the Telegraph, whether the writing style is to our liking or not, highlights more issues with Hersh's claims

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, they can. Unfortunately for you though, it was seen as flimsy and not voted for. Otherwise there would have been bombs falling

That, or the removal of Assad's chemical warfare potential was seen as a suitable alternative to an unpopular military intervention. None of the NATO states believes for one moment that Assad's forces were not responsible for this attack.

Tony EH wrote: »

That's all. They have no worth to determine where exactly they were fired from or who fired them.

It's a rough estimate of direction.

It's enough to estimate the constrained area that the shell were fired from.

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It's an area of a couple of miles in a pretty fluid front line. It has no power whatsoever to accurately suggest who fired the warheads.

In fact, anybody in possession of the warheads could have driven to any spot with the radius and used them.

It's useless as support for determining who fired the weaponry.

Of course it can't determine who fired the shells, but it can point to the territory from which they were fired, and what logistics were required. Both of which indicate Assad's forces were responsible. There's no evidence whatsoever that rebel forces had the launchers, or access to the volumes of sarin used. Not a sausage.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

What...like "Washington has denied the existence of the documents Hersh cites. It doesn't really make sense: we are supposed to believe that the Obama administration lied in order to justify a military intervention in Syria..."

:pac:


Ok, that's me convinced so. It's not like lies and with-holding certain contradictory information has ever occurred in Washington before.

But wait... I thought you said the article consisted purely of a dismissal on the basis of it being a conspiracy? Could it be that there's rather more within the article that you're simply ignoring? Surely not?

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

It's enough to estimate the constrained area that the shell were fired from.

You're not very good at this are you.

I'll say only one more time, because it's getting tiresome.

It's ONLY use is a rough determination of what direction the rocket came from. That's all.

It's of no use in determining how far, or what exact spot it came from, or who fired it.

Besides, the report only mentions an estimate for 2 rockets

alastair wrote: »

Of course it can't determine who fired the shells, but it can point to the territory from which they were fired, and what logistics were required. Both of which indicate Assad's forces were responsible. There's no evidence whatsoever that rebel forces had the launchers, or access to the volumes of sarin used. Not a sausage.

There's no evidence to prove who fired anything, neither the rebels or the government forces.

Not a "sausage".

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Not a "sausage".

Simply incorrect and subjective on your part

Because this argument is clearly politicised..

The information we have clearly points to entity X, not Y or Z firing the weapons

Tony EH

Again...no, it doesn't.

And any objective observer has to come to that conclusion.

There simply isn't any evidence to point a finger at any party yet. Whether you like it or not.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Again...no, it doesn't.

And any objective observer has to come to that conclusion.

There simply isn't any evidence to point a finger at any party yet. Whether you like it or not.

Arguing that the evidence isn't a case for punitive strikes is one thing

but dismissing it as absolutely nothing is another entirely

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Sorry - the credibility of this guys blog is somewhat lacking.

His analysis is more plausible than anything I've read from you.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

You're not very good at this are you.

I'll say only one more time, because it's getting tiresome.

It's ONLY use is a rough determination of what direction the rocket came from. That's all.

It's of no use in determining how far, or what exact spot it came from, or who fired it.

Besides, the report only mentions an estimate for 2 rockets

Sorry you're becoming tired, but the trajectory is known, the weight of the shells are known, the angle of fall is know, and the capability of the launchers is partially known. It's not a difficult calculation to therefore define the launch location down to a small enough area to determine who's territory it resided within. The evidence here is that it resided within Assad-forces territory. Does that prove who fired it? No it doesn't, but when you add in the fact that there's only evidence of Assad forces having the particular launchers, and only Assad forces having access to the volume of sarin required, then you can start to form a pretty clear opinion as to who was culpable.

Tony EH wrote: »

There's no evidence to prove who fired anything, neither the rebels or the government forces.

Not a "sausage".

Aside from the evidence outlined.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

His analysis is more plausible than anything I've read from you.

Ah well - I wouldn't rate my analysis as authoative either, and at least I'm not writing off the best investigation to hand as flawed propaganda, so at least my analysis is agenda-free.

cyberhog

Both the US and UK have admitted they don't have concerte evidence linking Assad to the attack.

White House: U.S. Lacks 'Irrefutable, Beyond-A-Reasonable-Doubt Evidence' On Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/white-house-syria_n_3893223.html

David Cameron told lawmakers:" there is no 100-percent certainty about who is responsible."


...the vast majority of the evidence of Assad regime culpability presented by both Cameron, the Obama administration and their allies in France, Turkey and other nations, is circumstantial in nature.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

And we have an expert from Janes's saying the evidence presented doesn't prove who carried out the attack.

Nick Brown, editor in chief of IHS Jane's Defence Equipment and Technology Centre, said that though the U.N. report appears to prove that high-quality, weaponized sarin was used in significant quantities in Syria, "I have not personally seen any compelling data that proves beyond doubt who the weapons were used by."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/18/world/meast/syria-civil-war/


People like alastair and Jonny7 have created their own reality in which evaluations issued by experts like Nick Brown are continuallly ignored and circumstantial evidence is hailed as "compelling". :rolleyes:

It's as if they made up their minds to blame Assad from the moment the news broke and not even the lack of irrefutable evidence is going to sway them.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

Sorry you're becoming tired, but the trajectory is known, the weight of the shells are known, the angle of fall is know, and the capability of the launchers is partially known. It's not a difficult calculation to therefore define the launch location down to a small enough area to determine who's territory it resided within. The evidence here is that it resided within Assad-forces territory. Does that prove who fired it? No it doesn't, but when you add in the fact that there's only evidence of Assad forces having the particular launchers, and only Assad forces having access to the volume of sarin required, then you can start to form a pretty clear opinion as to who was culpable.

As I said, it's the last time I'm answering this nonsense...

Repeat step 1.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Arguing that the evidence isn't a case for punitive strikes is one thing

but dismissing it as absolutely nothing is another entirely

But, it IS nothing. It's speculation at best.

The ONLY facts are that Sarin was used in warheads on small rocket projectiles.

That's it. That's all.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

As I said, it's the last time I'm answering this nonsense...

Repeat step 1.

Well, I'm glad you've seen the light.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

But, it IS nothing. It's speculation at best.

The ONLY facts are that Sarin was used in warheads on small rocket projectiles.

That's it. That's all.

Large rocket projectiles, from a known trajectory, delivered by a specific (and unique) delivery system and using sarin that required a specific infrastructure to create in he first place. All pointing to one source.

Jonny7

It all counts as evidence

Unfortunately the US/France/UK miscalculated public/opposition skepticism. Pre-Iraq they could have said that they had transcripts of x military unit discussing chemical attacks before the attack and orders higher up the chain of command ordering those units to cease fire - however post-Iraq, it's not enough to claim they have, the info must literally be released directly to the public

Also, they are now expected to produce "irrefutable" proof - difficult enough domestically, but in a foreign conflict, esp. of that nature - nigh on impossible

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

Large rocket projectiles, from a known trajectory, delivered by a specific (and unique) delivery system and using sarin that required a specific infrastructure to create in he first place. All pointing to one source.

Only if you want that way.

And you're showing your ignorance again.

They aren't "Large rocket projectiles". They were mainly 5.5in light/medium ordnance. They can be fired from the back of a truck.

Plus, if elements of the rebel groups have the chemicals to make sarin, as Hersh alleges (and it isn't that hard), they could have easily added it to captured Army stock (which they utilise all the time), driven out to a particular spot and fired them off.

Anybody with a little enterprise, could have done it.