Syria: How could Assad potentially respond militarily to Cruise Missile strikes?

Be like Nutella

Noah Shachtman
The Cable

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas

Sierra Oscar

Interesting line coming out from Russian military officials this morning. They are claiming that they know of 1,000 missile units in Syria capable of responding to Western air strikes.

The official also did not rule out Syria having already received S-300 missile systems, pointing out that all the focus has been on Russia supplying the weaponry and forgetting that China and Belarus could have delivered their own units between 2010 and 2011.

EDIT: US army officials have been stating in private that many are concerned about Obama's plans to launch a military intervention, highlighting that American military forces are overstretched as it is. It is being said that officials are trying to advise the president against launching a strike.

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Jawgap

Some commentary from the Royal Aeronautical Society on potential air power options for striking against the regime in Syria....

Military action against Syria – the air power options

Be like Nutella

summary

• cruise missile attacks from destroyers and submarines
• perhaps augmented with US Navy air strikes with electronic jamming support
• possible long-range B-2 missions flown direct from the US to hit strategic targets
• most probable model for these attacks for the Pentagon would seem to be Operation Desert Fox in 1998, Libya 1986 or Sudan cruise missile strikes in 1998
• short, sharp warning to the regime about using WMD carried out with the least risk to US forces.
• Drones only useful for surveillance, not strikes
• hitting chemical sites/units could risk contamination, off the menu
• Stand off weapons assure safety, anything closer could risk losses because of 'better than Iraq' air defenses.

Be like Nutella

Any role for B-1 Lancers in this operation?

Be like Nutella

" Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror". "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913

426 children

How could you live with yourself after carrying out that attack - whoever fired those shells

Be like Nutella

"..We intercepted
communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed
that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.
inspectors obtaining evidence..."

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Is it reasonable to think the US is making this up from thin air and lying blatantly?

Be like Nutella

Should the US share its Intel on the attack with the Russians?

I think they should share everything they can which proves Assad's side did it... so that they can say they shared it with the Russians which puts Putin in a spot to make a decision to support Assad even though there is evidence, which they are aware of, which says Assad has gassed 426 kids in their beds?

Reports are that they haven't shared the Intel yet.

What do ye reckon? Should they?

cerastes

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I don't think Assad would attempt to strike a US Ship unless he's completely lost control. It would only bring a larger attack.


I can't personally believe some group on the rebel side carried out the gas attack. So I'm going on the assumption Assad ordered it, ok'd it or one of his units did it without his knowledge - maybe his murderous brother.

If he didn't order it why the hell would he shell the area afterwards ???
- that part definitely doesn't make any sense to me and supports the case that his forces did it.

Thats what a lot of this is though, they are just assuming Assad ordered or was responsible for it or that syrian army units are responsible. Thats a big leap from any evidence.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Any role for B-1 Lancers in this operation?

Are they delivery humanitarian aid? how will a B1 help those that are already suffering that have no say. Its hardly going to make things better.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

"..We intercepted
communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed
that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.
inspectors obtaining evidence..."

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Is it reasonable to think the US is making this up from thin air and lying blatantly?

Ive read it, its hardly definitive, it says

"which shows large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to nerve agent exposure"

That admits they dont know for sure, CS gas can cause people to water at the eyes and spew up mucous.

Im not saying dont try and ensure whoever is responsible is dealt with if its accurate, but wading in with an attack before anything definitive seems to suggest that it was already decided an attack was happening.
Nobody seems to be asking who the Syrian Army is fighting? they seem to be, and no one is really denying this for the most part a bunch of fundamentalist extremists from outside Syria? being funded by what must be one of the least democratic country's in the world.

saabsaab

Assad could launch a strike on Israel and call on Iran for support. This won't stop the attack on Syria and will invite further attacks on him from Israel and the US. What he might do is threaten this after the first 2 or 3 days of the strike this will make him seem to have frightened off the USA as they probably intend to stop anyway after this.

dav32cs

maquiladora wrote: »

There is a lot of things in your post, but one thing that is completely wrong is the Del Ponte quote. The interview was from May :



http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/08/29/russia-goes-ballistic-over-inaccurate-syria-report/

Correct, sorry if my post seemed to suggest it was about the recent attack, it was in relation to an earlier incident where the UN has already finished its investigation.

Saying that though , an AFP journalist with 20 years experience has put out a report today indicating that residents on the ground in one area are indicating rebel use of the CW.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/


Also another video emerging which claims to prove again rebel access to CW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZINtnvUD-Y&feature=youtu.be

Can't obviously verify translation but sarin is pretty clear to hear and I presume a false translation would be flagged up pretty quick.

maquiladora wrote: »

Unknown third parties? MSF calls it a "strong and reliable collaboration" with these hospitals, the idea that they wouldn't know who they are dealing with is laughable, I'm sorry.

Unknown third parties to us,known to them. Without being directly on the ground they could be getting fed a biased version in contrast to the above link posted where the journalist is on the ground interacting with individuals.

maquiladora wrote: »

I never said it was going to destroy all traces, but why on earth would you continue to shell an area of suspected chemical attack in the following days? It wasn't 'fighting'. Artillery units hundreds of meters away don't 'fight' with rebels with machine guns and RPGs.
If I was innocent, the last thing I'd want to do is pound heavy artillery at the scene of a crime that I had nothing to do with.

As stated previously, this was a planned offensive and I presume the Syrian Army had no plans just to stop and lose any ground it had gained.

maquiladora wrote: »

I have no idea where you got that figure from, but are you trying to tell me that the majority of the people killed in the conflict have been killed by the side that hasn't been using warplanes and attack helicopters, heavy artillery and Scud missiles? .... Ok.
As for drone strikes, I am totally against those. Just because I believe that Assad's forces launched a chemical attack doesn't make me some kind of catch-all believer in all US policy.

Figures from Wikipedia which are using general media sources. It also estimates rebel casualties from 21k to 45k so government forces could have either double or similar casualties to the opposition. Also 1k government officials killed.

maquiladora wrote: »

I'm certainly not claiming that the rebels are saints. The opposition is a complex group of different factions with different ideals. Some of it is Al Nusra, some of it is former Syrian army units that defected during the early months of the uprising. Painting the whole opposition as Al Nusra is not much different from right wing Americans cherry picking militant Islamists and saying all Muslims are bad....

The whole opposition are not salafists but over the course of the last year every major rebel offensive has been led and organised by the jihadists. See Menagh AirBase for the latest example. This shows that they are now the ones leading the charge no matter what the SNC or any coalition of opposition figures (some of whom have never been in Syria) try to say. Most major stories also focus on jihadist attacks while the FSA seems to be getting the role of 'public affairs' for comments afterwards.

maquiladora wrote: »

I agree. I'm hoping a cruise missile lands on their beds.

And I hope you'd feel the same way if it is found out that it was rebel controlled (from Saudi Arabia).

dav32cs

NiallSparky wrote: »

Where are you seeing this? I haven't seen anyone on here particularly criticising Russia for supplying weapons to Syria.

Only recently started looking around here again so can't comment on peoples opinions here - it's pretty wide spread if you have a nose around amongst the anti Assad camp or western govts .

'Sure it's OK that the rebels are getting weapons because Russia is still sending them to the govt'

Be like Nutella

saabsaab wrote: »

Assad could launch a strike on Israel and call on Iran for support. This won't stop the attack on Syria and will invite further attacks on him from Israel and the US. What he might do is threaten this after the first 2 or 3 days of the strike this will make him seem to have frightened off the USA as they probably intend to stop anyway after this.

Interesting. But that would again require us to believe Assad is capable of acting totally irrationally because clearly Israel and the US would destroy his forces very easily with overwhelming force which would put Syrians lives secondary to destroying Assad's forces. Also I don't believe Iran would launch all-out war with Israel just because Assad launched an unprovoked attack on Israel.

The central part to all of this in my view is whether Assad is in total control of his forces.

If he is, then it is about his psychology and his own perceived position right now.

If he ordered this gas attack and knew what it would do and knew obviously that it would force Obama to make a decision... then we may be dealing with an Assad who is just starting to act irrationally and who is moving into a vicious survivalist mode where all options are on the table.

I think we're a few steps shy of a crazy Assad but he must see the writing is on the wall at this stage. He won't fall this year but he's gotta see that arms will continue to increase in supply to the rebel side. The west will strike him soon and take a big chunk out of his air power and the rebels will get stronger. His time is coming to an end and people do crazy things when their life is finally at risk.

The most important information I would be after if I was Obama right now is 1) Is Assad in control 2) Is he acting relatively rationally ... if the answer to both of those questions is yes then the strikes will not cause world war 3 as the media is hyping.

dav32cs

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Interesting line coming out from Russian military officials this morning. They are claiming that they know of 1,000 missile units in Syria capable of responding to Western air strikes.

The official also did not rule out Syria having already received S-300 missile systems, pointing out that all the focus has been on Russia supplying the weaponry and forgetting that China and Belarus could have delivered their own units between 2010 and 2011.

EDIT: US army officials have been stating in private that many are concerned about Obama's plans to launch a military intervention, highlighting that American military forces are overstretched as it is. It is being said that officials are trying to advise the president against launching a strike.

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

Some Syrian sources say Russian ships in two ports unloading last couple of days but not confirmed...

dav32cs

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Should the US share its Intel on the attack with the Russians?

I think they should share everything they can which proves Assad's side did it... so that they can say they shared it with the Russians which puts Putin in a spot to make a decision to support Assad even though there is evidence, which they are aware of, which says Assad has gassed 426 kids in their beds?

Reports are that they haven't shared the Intel yet.

What do ye reckon? Should they?

The Russians have apparently already given evidence to the UN showing the attack a result of the rebels. Even within this though there are numerous scenarios such as if it was done on purpose , if they set off the weapons accidentally as in the AFP journalists report today or if a Syrian govt strike hit a CW storage area.

The US should share it's intelligence with the entire public if they want to fully convince everyone of the merits of their actions - but this is even susceptible to doubts as most US intelligence in the area lately comes through Mossad who obviously have a vested interest( and give the yanks fake evidence or opinion on Iraq and others). It's funny they should still have such close co operation given that the only state from the Middle East to ever attack USA directly was Israel (Egypt cinema attacks and ship attack- two different occasions at least)

Manic Moran

coolemon wrote: »

^^^

This is why the US regime like to use cluster weapons to overwhelm these defensive systems. Expect to see children being maimed from picking up brightly coloured balls for years to come after they attack.

Behold! A poster exhibits lack of knowledge and fails to distinguish between warhead and delivery method!

Be like Nutella wrote: »

But who knows, if he ordered the chemical attack he has made one bad miscalculation. Who's to say it's his last.

I'm not sure I see the point of the attack, it didn't kill that many, but I don't think it was a serious miscalculation. Nobody seems willing to take any significant action against him for it, and I doubt a few US cruise missiles is going to do much more damage to him than two years of civil war.

dav32cs wrote: »

The US can harp on about democracy all it wants - Assad won by a large majority in the last election in Syria

Given the level of opposition which must exist in order to maintain a civil war of such magnitude for such a length of time, one must really question how closely the official election results match with the mood of the populace.

Be like Nutella

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure I see the point of the attack, it didn't kill that many, but I don't think it was a serious miscalculation. Nobody seems willing to take any significant action against him for it, and I doubt a few US cruise missiles is going to do much more damage to him than two years of civil war.

not sure what you mean when you say 'not that many'

It was the single bloodiest day since 9/11. The highest casualties per day before Aug 21st was April 2nd 2013 when approx 500 died. Even during the bloodiest 4th and 5th years of the Iraq War/Insurgency, in which 52,000 died, there was never a day to come even close to 1500 casualties let alone the staggering figure of 426 massacred children. Even during the initial shock and awe 3 weeks of the Iraq invasion there was never a day which resulted in 1500 casualties. August 21st was a massacre by any standards at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Manic Moran wrote: »

but I don't think it was a serious miscalculation. Nobody seems willing to take any significant action against him for it, and I doubt a few US cruise missiles is going to do much more damage to him than two years of civil war.

As for it not being a serious miscalculation. Well IF Assad ordered the attack or knew the attack was being ordered by one of his top generals then obviously there was a calculation made in doing so IF we assume he DID NOT WANT a US punitive attack. If he didn't want a US attack and did the massacre and now it looks likely the US will fire approx 50-150 Cruise Missiles from its destroyers/subs which will take out some important command and control assets and possible put some airbases out of commission then obviously Assad has made a big miscalculation so I'm not sure I understand your point about Assad NOT making a miscalculation. In comparison to 2 years of civil war then no - 100 cruise missile strikes won't do more damage than that. But as the rebels have said all week.... 2 nights of cruise missile strikes on specific assets will do more damage than 3 months of their 'band of merry men' attacks and that is certainly true.

The number killed by the chemicals is the whole point of all of this. If they'd killed 20 it would be one thing but killing 400+ kids as they slept with nerve gas shows a willingness to carry out massive scale massacres (assuming it wasn't just a mistake). Who is to say that they wouldn't use gas to kill 10,000 next time? Killing 1500 shows the potential to massacre ten times as many as that down the road hence the opinion that a serious but limited military response is justified in order to check Assad's potential decision to use his chemicals to kill thousands. He must be given pause for thought before he carries out an even worse massacre. Even IF it wasn't him personally who ordered the attack and EVEN IF the attack which was ordered ended up killing more than was intended or EVEN IF it was some sort of error by Assad's forces.... striking his assets with force now will/should cause him to reconsider any possible future use of chemical weapons - especially on a larger scale which is the most important element of all of this. Saddam managed to kill 5000 Kurdish in a few hours with Mustard Gas. Assad's guys could massacre 10,000 in 30 mins with the right chemical and delivery. Obama's strike may be risking conflagration in the region if we take the most excitable view of all the regional actors acting irrationally such as Iran and Russia (incredibly unlikely and totally counter intuitive to their observable demeanor) but it is still justified IF it causes Assad to not to allow any further use of chemicals in this war by his forces.

Without a strike - Assad could literally just go and massacre 5,000 with Sarin in Aleppo next month. He has 1000 tons of chemical weapons at his disposal.

All of this assumes that the US Intel report is honest. If anyone thinks the report is total BS then by all means support that view.

Jawgap

The thing I don't get is that this sudden clamour for action seems to be driven by the fact that a lot of kids were killed, in a short space of time using a barbaric weapon of mass destruction.

It seems 'the West' was 'fine' with the Syrian regime killing kids as long as

(a) they didn't kill too many on any given day

(b) they stuck to doing it with 'conventional' weapons

Assad has always been an evil b@stard, he's the son of an evil b@stard and the head of regime that in the past has massacred significant numbers of the Syrian population without the West barely blinking.

I don't understand the basis for action or the objectives - punishment, retribution, support for one or other of the rebel factions?

I think the Americans (and French) are about to kick over a very big and angry hornets' nest for no good reason. There is nothing that can be done from the air, or using air power, that will change things on the ground.

Be like Nutella

Jawgap wrote: »

It seems 'the West' was 'fine' with the Syrian regime killing kids as long as

(a) they didn't kill too many on any given day

(b) they stuck to doing it with 'conventional' weapons

You're dead right about the fact that 'the west' showed much less sympathy for Syrian civilians before this massacre.

The massacre was the single biggest day of deaths in this Syrian rising by far and it's nature has shocked the world... especially the 426 kids asleep in their beds thing. Anyone not sickened by that more-so than the death of civilians caught in cross fire or killed in combat zones is a psycho.

It is precisely the nature of this nerve gas massacre which has shocked the world. It's only natural... but I do get your point about the sudden empathy of the west.

You cannot compare a nerve gas massacre to firing guns or throwing grenades. They are entirely different in every way. The very use of nerve gas to kill hundreds shows the potential to kill thousands whereas shooting somebody doesn't mean you could shoot 10,000 people because you couldn't even if you wanted to - not with just your gun - you'd need a squadron of helicopter gun ships to do that- see my point?
IF you choose to kill 1500 with 20 nerve gas shells fired in a period of minutes by a hand ful of soldiers then you COULD just as easily kill 20,000 with 30 shells in a few minutes of firing?? you get me?

This is the MAJOR difference between choosing to use chemical weapons and choosing to use bullets and artillery.

Assad has chosen to use chemical weapons to kill 1500 unarmed civilians. This is what has been observed to a level of at least 90% certainty. Therefore Assad could very well carry out a much larger attack just as easily.

People are not dealing with this discrete point.

Forget the terrorist rebels, forget the start of world war 3 crap, forget the lack of empathy up to now. The situation is - you have a guy who has 1000 tons of chemical weapons who cannot run away from his war and has shown he is increasing his level of viciousness with every passing month since this rising began right up to his use of chemical weapons to massacre 1500 people.

This curve will continue upwards unabated.

A cruise missile strike on his airbases and command and control assets will show him what the US can and will do if he continues this curve of viciousness and carries out another chemical attack.

Dick Cheney fukd up the world with the lies that brought the Iraq invasion and Colin Powell sullied forever the idea that a country should come to the aid of another population by standing there and lying in front of the U.N. and that has us all critics of any and all US action and US reports and US evidence of this or that. That's only natural but use your objective brains and consider that Assad could literally massacre 20,000 people in 2 hours with his next chemical attack if somebody (with the power) doesn't attempt to give him pause for thought.

If a clever Cruise missile attack which doesn't risk Syrian civilians can do this I say do it - the Russian will not do anything, the Iranians will not do anything they're not doing already. Assad will not just launch a crazy attack on Israel. All of that is irrational.

Jawgap

Be like Nutella wrote: »

........

You cannot compare a nerve gas massacre to firing guns or throwing grenades. They are entirely different in every way.....

This is the MAJOR difference between choosing to use chemical weapons and choosing to use bullets and artillery.


....

Not really, you're not any more dead just because it's a chemical agent that killed you.

Would there be this must posturing going on if the same number of people and children were massacred using bombs and bullets over the course of a few days, or if chemical weapons were used but by good fortune no one was killed in such an attack?

This is just political posturing. Obama set out a red line and its been crossed, now like Clinton he has to do something because he's backed into a corner by his own rhetoric. The Americans can launch all their TLAMs and AGM-158s, but when the dust settles Assad will still be there unless they get a lucky hit, and even if they do the regime won't suddenly implode.

What happens then? Cyber attacks from the 'Syrian Electronic Army'? Syria strikes Israel and/or Turkey? Israel strikes back......Iran (probably through Hezbollah) strikes Israel - Israel hits Iran.........

There's a compelling argument for some form of intervention but it's only outweighed by the argument for not intervening.

Qardaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKpUaG96amg

Qardaha

dav32cs wrote: »

Just to point quickly also, the anti Russia camp is really coming out here too. All these claims about Russian weapons when they are merely fulfilling signed contracts and even delaying some, this is the same thing America is doing in Egypt and in stark contrast to Saudi,Qatar and Turkey who are facilitating and funding arms shipments of over 400 tons to the rebels to keep the war going.
People are trying to discredit Russian decision making now by portraying the new homosexual law passed there recently. It is a very backward step but it is only banning giving information on homosexuality to under 18s (but this is probably the people that need the information the most as it is under 18s that are going through a turbulent time and trying to make life choices about themselves) but it is in no way shape or form in the same league as say Qatar where you can land in jail for 5 years for engaging in homosexual acts!!And no calls from Stephen Fry to boycott the World Cup in 2022...

The US can harp on about democracy all it wants - Assad won by a large majority in the last election in Syria , Bahrains peaceful anti govt protest were brutally crushed with US help and in Saudi Arabia it is outlawed to protest against the govt!!And guess which nation has not even had one election since its inception in 1934....yep..Saudi Arabia but all you'd hear from Hilary Clinton and the State Dept previously was they were 'concerned' by certain lack of liberties in the Gulf state...

That's without even getting into Saudis history of exporting and funding extremist ideologies around the globe for years, its state funded extremist colleges where all of the terrorist supporting clerics learn their trade and its state sponsored sectarian policy of destroying religious site and graves which do not conform with their narrow and backward religious views but that's for another day and another thread!!!

I've read most of your previous longer post. Your portrayal of the crisis and reactions is very accurate and rational.

Be like Nutella

Qardaha wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKpUaG96amg

I'm assuming you don't believe Assad's forces carried out the gas attack on Aug 21st... I'd love to hear whether you think the US Intel report is a lie or not?

If it is a lie then how could they get away with it... would that conspiracy not have to be massive and watertight?

I'm open to the argument.. I've u-turned on views before. It wouldn't be the first time.

Qardaha

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'm assuming you don't believe Assad's forces carried out the gas attack on Aug 21st... I'd love to hear whether you think the US Intel report is a lie or not?

If it is a lie then how could they get away with it... would that conspiracy not have to be massive and watertight?

I'm open to the argument.. I've u-turned on views before. It wouldn't be the first time.

Yes, I am assuming that based on testimonies from soldiers who are on that particular front line.

I guess that the "intel" report you refer to is the bunch of assumptions and lies, some of which are based on "open source, social media evidence".

I'd like to wait until the UN report tells us whether the victims (how many exactly?) were victims of a nerve agent (which experts don't agree with) or a toxic industrial chemical - which are being used by the "rebels" in a desperate aim to build chemical based weapons.

Syria is ready for the strikes and the most important equipment is being kept mobile. They will absorb the strikes and prepare for the militants to take advantage. I dont think there will be retaliation because it is not worth it. As Hezbollah said - they will assess the scale of the strikes and will act accordingl

Qardaha

If it is a lie then how could they get away with it... would that conspiracy not have to be massive and watertight?

For US and Britain standards of lying, actually, it was a really bad attempt. Why are you asking if it "massive and watertight"? Go and read iyourself and you will see that it has many holes and gaps. They keep saying "we assess that the rebels cannot use chemical weapons" - this is a big lie. Sarin was used on US troops in Iraq by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda has a big history of producing WMD

Be like Nutella

Qardaha wrote: »

They keep saying "we assess that the rebels cannot use chemical weapons"

I wouldn't believe their statement about this entirely.

Be like Nutella

Qardaha wrote: »

I dont think there will be retaliation because it is not worth it.

agree with this also

Be like Nutella

How do you assess their statement that the only rockets fired at the time in that location were fired from state positions towards rebel occupied areas according to Sat observation.

Be like Nutella

Why would they continue to shell the effected area so much, as is stated in the Intel report?

Qardaha

Be like Nutella wrote: »

How do you assess their statement that the only rockets fired at the time in that location were fired from state positions towards rebel occupied areas according to Sat observation.

I think this is bull-****. Rockets are the primary weapon of the militants second only to their rifles. Also, there would have to be a huge amount of artillery that night to kill that many (again, how many?) - they tell us 200 died... and now its 1500??

Anyway, Russia has sattalite images too and from what I gather, they have been shown to the UN.

You would be crazy to take the word as truth from the CIA! or whatever intelligence agency,

Syria does not need to use chemical weapons

Qardaha

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why would they continue to shell the effected area so much, as is stated in the Intel report?

Why are you taking away from the context? this area is being shelled for months, and likewise, Damascus is getting attacked from the area too. its a warzone and even at this moment they are fighting in the same area.

dav32cs

US congress officials who have seen the full US report describe the evidence as 'circumstantial'.

Following report is from SANA (main Syrian news agency)

Foreign Ministry: What Kerry presented is based on old stories published by terrorists over a week ago

An official source at the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said that after days of media exaggeration about what the US administration described as decisive evidence, US Secretary of State John Kerry only produced material based on old stories which were published by terrorists over a week ago and are full of fabrication and lies.

The source said that the Ministry is surprised that one of the bigger countries in the world is attempting to deceive its public opinion in such a naïve manner by relying on non-evidence, and that the Ministry denounces the US act of basing its positions on war and peace on what was published on social networking sites, which the Ministry views as a desperate attempt to talk the world into accepting the upcoming US aggression.

The source said that the numbers quoted by Kerry are fictional and produced by armed groups in Syria and the opposition abroad, both of whom instigate the US aggression, adding that this scene brings to mind the lies promoted by Colin Powell before the invasion of Iraq.

The Source said that Foreign and Expatriates Ministry confirms that all the accusations leveled by Kerry against the Syrian state are lies and devoid for truth for the following reasons:

1-Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence that it used the alleged chemical weapons, and Kerry relied on fabricated images from the internet, and the alleged call made by a Syrian officer after the alleged attack is too ridiculous to be discussed.

2-Syria never impeded or restricted the international investigation committee, on the contrary; as the UN Secretary-General has lauded the Syrian cooperation with the committee in his most recent call with the Foreign and Expatriates Minister on 30/8/2013, asserting that Syria permitted the committee to move exactly as per the agreement signed by the two sides.

3-The UN itself said time and again that the traces of using any form of toxic gas do not dissipate over time, and the proof of this is that the UN sent the investigation committee 5 months after the Syrian government requested an investigation of Khan al-Assal incident. Therefore, the Syrian government did not delay the investigation committee's access to the alleged attack site, as this occurred within 48 hours of the arrival of UN envoy Angela Kane to Damascus.

4-The Syrian government affirms that Kerry's allegations that the Syrian Army knew about chemical weapons use three days prior to the incident are lies, as proven by the fact that Syria requested the investigation committee to visit al-Baharia area where Syrian Army soldiers were exposed to toxic gas, and the committee met the affected soldiers in the hospital.

5-If the aggression on Syria, as Kerry claims, intends to halt the use of chemical weapons, we would like to remind Kerry and the United States that Syria was the first to propose a draft resolution at the Security Council to make the Middle East free of all forms of weapons of mass destruction, and that the United States was the one who prevented the draft resolution from being passed.

6-Regrarding Kerry's hints which he made to bypass the Security Council under the pretext that the investigation committee isn't responsible for determining who used chemical weapons and that it's task is only to verify that such weapons were used or not, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry would like to affirm that the committee's tasks were deiced upon by the Security Council, and that the US had pressured the committee to make its authority this limited, something which Kerry, being State Secretary, certainly knows.

The source said that the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry, while appreciating Kerry's concern over the Syrian people's security, affirms that this pretext has become exposed to everyone, and that under the pretext of defending the Syrian people, the US is paving the way for an aggression against this very people, an aggression which will claim hundreds of innocent victims whose blood will be on the hands of the United States and those who join it in this aggression morally, politically or effectively.

The source concluded by saying that this unilateral behavior only serves the political interests of the United States, not the interests of its people, and that it throws aside all international law and blatantly violates international legitimacy and the UN charter.

Al-Moallem: Syria rejects any incomplete report before UN experts wrap up investigations

Syria rejects any incomplete report by the UN General Secretariat before the UN experts wrap up missions and have the results of laboratory tests of gathered samples checked, and conduct investigations at sites where the Syrian soldiers had been exposed to toxic gases, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem said.

Al-Moallem was speaking during phone call on Friday with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that focused on the work of the UN mission investigating an alleged chemical weapons' use.

The UN Secretary-General thanked Syria for its full cooperation with the mission, saying the UN Secretariat is in the process of evaluating the results of mission's work and submitting its findings to international accredited labs.

Al-Moallem inquired about the motives behind having the experts withdrawn from Damascus before completing their mission. ''They will return to complete their mission,'' Ki-moon replied.

Syria expects the UN Secretary-General to maintain objectivity and rebuff pressure, and play his role in preserving world security and peace, al-Moallem said, adding Syria throws its weight behind his efforts to convene Geneva conference as it considers a political solution an exit route from the current situation.

''Any aggression on Syria would wreck efforts for finding a political solution, al-Moallem pointed out.

Source: Syrian Arab News Agency "SANA"
08-30-2013

Be like Nutella

I read that yes and it says what exactly?

firstofall... it's from SANA and I hope nobody here to going to say that that is not grounds for instant dismissal.

After not dismissing it and reading it - it doesn't offer anything specific it just quotes a 'source' saying everything the US is saying is untrue. Great mechanism.

It says they didn't stop the UN investigators at all from reaching the site? We'll see about that. That needs addressing. I expect it is simply a game of semantics. I'll return to that.

"Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence"
They can prove it was the rebel side who did this?

It says some of its troops were effected and were visited in hospital. So what if they were, that proves nothing at all about anything. No Syrian troops died form this attack. 1500 civilians did.

It says that the numbers quoted by the US were false - ok then... so what numbers are correct? and where did they come from?

as far as no.5 goes - are we seriously going to even address that? do we all not know they tried surreptitiously to build a reactor and they currently store hundreds of tons of chem weapons not for disposal but for potential use against foreign aggressors?

Qardaha

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I read that yes and it says what exactly?

firstofall... it's from SANA and I hope nobody here to going to say that that is not grounds for instant dismissal.

After not dismissing it and reading it - it doesn't offer anything specific it just quotes a 'source' saying everything the US is saying is untrue. Great mechanism.

It says they didn't stop the UN investigators at all from reaching the site? We'll see about that. That needs addressing. I expect it is simply a game of semantics. I'll return to that.

"Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence"
They can prove it was the rebel side who did this?

It says some of its troops were effected and were visited in hospital. So what if they were, that proves nothing at all about anything. No Syrian troops died form this attack. 1500 civilians did.

It says that the numbers quoted by the US were false - ok then... so what numbers are correct? and where did they come from?

as far as no.5 goes - are we seriously going to even address that? do we all not know they tried surreptitiously to build a reactor and they currently store hundreds of tons of chem weapons not for disposal but for potential use against foreign aggressors?

Where did the figure of 1500 come from?

It says they didn't stop the UN investigators at all from reaching the site? We'll see about that. That needs addressing. I expect it is simply a game of semantics. I'll return to that.

???

Sierra Oscar

Continues to look increasingly likely that there will be no military intervention, or that it will be very limited in nature.

Either-way the Syrian military will have had nearly three weeks to reposition its forces based on the intelligence that Western governments ill advisedly leaked throughout the last week.

Be like Nutella

The massacre happened early Wed morning, shelling continued til Sunday, after pressure and a late arrival by Angela Kane (who arrived way after the initial team) and with pressure from Russia, they stopped the shelling and allowed the inspectors to start on the Morning wherein they were shot at by a sniper.

There are endless reports of the inspectors not being allowed to the site for 4 days even though they were 10 miles away. That report you quote simply changes it around and depicts a situation where they allowed them in from the moment Angela Kane arrived. They were not allowed to the site for 4 days and Assad continued to shell the site heavier than he had been previously. I am well aware that evidence can be found even years after an attack which can prove a chemical agent was used - as in Halabja for instance but that is not the point - shelling the site destroys and disperses and complicates the site obviously and keeping inspectors out by continuing to shell the area was clearly a tactic.... why would they do that? why not stop shelling, secure the site and ensure the UN guys get in there and prove you didn't do it?? makes no sense

Qardaha

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The massacre happened early Wed morning, shelling continued til Sunday, after pressure and a late arrival by Angela Kane (who arrived way after the initial team) and with pressure from Russia, they stopped the shelling and allowed the inspectors to start on the Morning wherein they were shot at by a sniper.

There are endless reports of the inspectors not being allowed to the site for 4 days even though they were 10 miles away. That report you quote simply changes it around and depicts a situation where they allowed them in from the moment Angela Kane arrived. They were not allowed to the site for 4 days and Assad continued to shell the site heavier than he had been previously. I am well aware that evidence can be found even years after an attack which can prove a chemical agent was used - as in Halabja for instance but that is not the point - shelling the site destroys and disperses and complicates the site obviously and keeping inspectors out by continuing to shell the area was clearly a tactic.... why would they do that? why not stop shelling, secure the site and ensure the UN guys get in there and prove you didn't do it?? makes no sense

Secure the site? You do realise the area is occupied by Jihadists, yes?

Also, you are obviously relying on fox news or something, because if you weren't, you would know that Syrian government gave permission and the UN sat in their hotel "analysing security". since then, america and its friends have done everything to stall and block the UN from guiding the discussion - anyoen can see this

Donaldio

It's a war what are they gona say to the other side ok take a break lad's have a cup of tea the UN is here to have look ?

Be like Nutella

I don't know.. I can see the congressional debate and vote being a close one. Obama has stopped the 'this isn't constitutional' critics now so can focus on the evidence and argument. He will differentiate this to be only about protecting global norms, protecting anti-chemical treaty and the ltd nature of the proposed strike.

Be like Nutella

Donaldio wrote: »

It's a war what are they gona say to the other side ok take a break lad's have a cup of tea the UN is here to have look ?

sort of yeah... the rebel side were the ones crying 'chemical attack' yeah? so why wouldn't they stop attacking the site if the gov forces pulled back to allow the UN in.

Can you support the UN guys 'not being blocked from the site' and 'sitting in their rooms'?

Donaldio

Be like Nutella wrote: »

sort of yeah... the rebel side were the ones crying 'chemical attack' yeah? so why wouldn't they stop attacking the site if the gov forces pulled back to allow the UN in.

Can you support the UN guys 'not being blocked from the site' and 'sitting in their rooms'?

No i dont suport any investigation being blocked at all in fact i expect a very proper one but i think an investigation may take longer then a week and should be impartial and i dont believe it has being properly investigated yet at all there are many conflicting sides and reports on the matter.

They would not stop i imagine because that kind of act would in the very least mean a retreat what are they going to do just stop fireing and defending themselves ?

Donaldio

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I don't know.. I can see the congressional debate and vote being a close one. Obama has stopped the 'this isn't constitutional' critics now so can focus on the evidence and argument. He will differentiate this to be only about protecting global norms, protecting anti-chemical treaty and the ltd nature of the proposed strike.

He wil also argue the moral side "it is Americas duty" "We can not stand idly by while" etc As if they are the only people in this world with a conscience.
They need to know there is more to this world than simply haveing a big gun. They also need to respect that they are not they only military force in this world even if they produce by far most of its weapons.

Be like Nutella

well in real terms the US is indescribably and vastly more powerful militarily than any nation on the planet and has the ability unlike other nations to act on its own and alter the course of events out there in the world using its brute military force in ways no other country can even come close to.

As an example:

lets take aircraft carriers which allow you to project power out in the world in ways nothing else does.

America has 10 on the ocean right now with 2 on the bench ready to rock and 3 under construction.

Russia?? has 1, none on the bench and none in production.

the US has 172 thousand troops out in the world in dozens of bases. Russia has none outside of Russia/Caucasus.

The US is THE nation with the stick. It relies on the continued order of international commerce and the relative stability of oil prices which doesn't care where oil or oil supply related trouble comes from!

America is deeply connected to the troubles in the middle east, economically and strategically and requires a comprehensive proactive middle east foreign policy whether neocons, isolationist republicans or politicians of any type want one or not and whether Dick Cheney and co lied to the world or not about Iraq.

Donaldio

I disagree and some of your statements are simply untrue. If you had lived in the 80's you would have lived during the cold war when America and Russia were at loger heads and there was real threat and fear of nuclear war. Here is a model of one the ships that Russia is currently sending down to the med http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-moscow-cruiser-ship/696502 Now you tell me what do you think that could do ? It could probably wipe out Ireland in less than an half an hour ! I also think Russia produces by far most of the worlds rockets dont forget that they were the first nation to put a man into space.

Anyway i dislike the America militarily training and arming of other countries like Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. Which they spend billions on especially when it sends their own economy down the tube there are serious economic problems in America and all there military spending is definitely a contributing factor. And i dont think it makes the world a better or safer place.

In my oppinion the world simply does not need to become a police state and especially not an American led one and i dont think they offer peace or stability to anyone at all in fact i think they have been completly unsettleding everything for years.

Also even if they have the force to make an atack on Syria they simply do not have the legal right to do so. They have singed and are bound to the terms of the United Nations any act they make against UN law would be completely illegal ! So there is a much wider diplomatic issue !

let me ask do you think David Cameron will be re-elected after his current term ? I bet you he wont and it will be exactly over this. Unfortunately Obama will be around for another three and a half more years ! In which time i think he would do much better to focus on more domestic issues and fulfill some of his pre election promises.

By the way America helped Saddam Hussein in useing sarin gas against Iran in the 80's.

"In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/new-docs-show-us-involvement-saddams-nerve-gas-attacks/68698/

Jawgap

Be like Nutella wrote: »

.....
The US is THE nation with the stick. It relies on the continued order of international commerce and the relative stability of oil prices which doesn't care where oil or oil supply related trouble comes from!

America is deeply connected to the troubles in the middle east, economically and strategically and requires a comprehensive proactive middle east foreign policy whether neocons, isolationist republicans or politicians of any type want one or not and whether Dick Cheney and co lied to the world or not about Iraq.

America is not deeply connected - there is no reason for the US to strike. Syria is not an existential threat to the US, UK or any other NATO member.

.....and if stable oil prices and continued order in international commerce is the rationale for action then China rather than the US has greater imperative to act given their respective energy security statuses.

Also, if an attack is launched and it's ineffective (as it is highly likely to be) who benefits? Barring a lucky hit, Assad will continue in power only he'll have got one over on the US by making them look impotent, which would not be the worst image to be projecting when your main donors are Russia and Iran. Then what happens - another round, or successive rounds, of air strikes, all of which prove inconclusive?

Of course all that changes if a NATO member or Israel were to be attacked without warning by Syria.

namloc1980

Jawgap wrote: »

America is not deeply connected - there is no reason for the US to strike. Syria is not an existential threat to the US, UK or any other NATO member.

According to Kerry and Hagel it is a threat. They've repeatedly said in the senate committee today.

Jawgap

namloc1980 wrote: »

According to Kerry and Hagel it is a threat. They've repeatedly said in the senate committee today.

I'm sure there is a threat on some minor level but what could Assad / Syria possibly do that threatens the US as a state or any of its institutions?

namloc1980

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm sure there is a threat on some minor level but what could Assad / Syria possibly do that threatens the US as a state or any of its institutions?

Chuck Hagel: As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to America's national security interests and those of our closest allies. The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to our friends and partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. That risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends, our partners and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.

Perhaps you should ask Hagel and Kerry that question? They seem convinced.

Donaldio

Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/soldiers-protest-war-syria-facebook-article-1.1444535

Who America wants to militarily suport..
http://www.infowars.com/al-nusra-mercenaries-in-syria-slaughter-kurdish-women-and-children/

"Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-finds-sarin-gas-in-homes-of-suspected-syrian-islamists-may-report/5347523

Jawgap

namloc1980 wrote: »

Chuck Hagel: As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to America's national security interests and those of our closest allies. The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to our friends and partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. That risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends, our partners and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.

Perhaps you should ask Hagel and Kerry that question? They seem convinced.

I'm sure they are and I'm not doubting their bona fides - they are serious well informed people with a far greater understanding of what's happening than I have.

But to draw a parallel with a comparable situation, Rice and Powell were similarly persuasive about Iraq in the run up to Gulf War II, so it's not unknown for such people to get it wrong.

His final point is quite ambiguous - wouldn't striking Syria provide the very incentive for an organisation such as Hezbollah to strike at Israel or the US. Plus, if they really wanted to possess sarin wouldn't they just manufacture it (as the Aum Shinrikyo cult did) - the pre-cursors, technology and expertise are probably easier to obtain than stocks of the substance from a third party.

......and even if all that is rejected and you can in some way relate what is going on in Syria as a threat to some vital US national security interest- there still remains the point that nothing meaningful can be achieved by air or missile strikes alone - they might knock over a few buildings, but it won't have anything more than a temporary effect on the regime, and will likely be counter-productive as it will bolster support for Assad.