Syria - What should we do if anything?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Seymour Hersh? Lets hope he doesn't have as many imaginary friends as anonymous sources ROFL.

The report's lead author, Åke Sellström, said that the quality of the sarin used in the attack was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, implying a purity higher than the Iraqi chemical weapons program's 45–60%.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

UNMOVIC document detailing chemical weapons use and storage in Iraq (shows you what Hersh says about storage and use is nonsense, note the problems with production and purity).

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdf

I said as much back in August before the UN report was even published in response to a similar ill-informed assertion by Dwarden.........

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?135597-Syria-What-should-we-do-if-anything&p=2482883&viewfull=1#post2482883

We even had the video of Government forces firing the 330mm rocket detailed in the UN report - rebels don't have it. Also Herch states it has a maximum range of 2km when that is obviously not true for either of the types of rocket the UN recovered.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?135597-Syria-What-should-we-do-if-anything&p=2484812&viewfull=1#post2484812

Edited December 9, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Tonci87 163]

Or maybe you are the one who is ill informed. We don´t know the truth and maybe never will. What we know is that US goverments have never been shy to make up reasons for attacking a country.

[.kju 3244]

It seems you didnt read the report Mattar_Tharkari. Doesn't surprise though - doesn't fit with your view how things work in this world.

If you were to read it, you would see that Sey didn't make claims who did it or not. The whole point is something very different. But go on.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

(Did read it actually - his theory is based on the flawed belief that the US Government could not have known what they knew at the time of the attack when in reality neither Hersh or his source is likely to have the full intelligence picture. He ignores the fact that the weapons involved have been used before, there have been previous chemical attacks and he seems to think the sole source of intel are some ground based 'sensors'. It's likely the US were 90% sure who did it and the purity of the Sarin (independent testing by the UN) confirmed it.)

Seymour Hersh's claims are nothing more than gossip, mostly from a single source who may or may not be 'real'. 90% of his recent work is based on anonymous sources and he has been widely criticised for it. To verify what he says is true you would have to have access to all the intel that the US president saw. Are you 100% sure that the anonymous source or Hersh knows what took place at that level, I doubt it? Hersh's criticisms could easily be turned 180 back at himself, how can he or his source verify their story?

Regarding some of the claims about chemical weapons and rockets - it's easy to verify what he says isn't true - both from UNMOVIC documents and everyday physics.

I'll give you an example - his anonymous 'expert' claims that the rockets only have a range of 2km. 2km eh? Strange that there are web pages and videos showing HE versions of the 330mm rocket travelling around 2km, someone has even helpfully drawn a red line on a map to illustrate it. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that his expert quotes the same values the video bloggers do.....

Anyway - the science bit: TNT (a solid) has a density of 1.65g/cm³, the precursor agents of Sarin have much lower densities (both volatile liquids) of 1.3314 g/cm³ (20 °C) and 0.786 g/cm3 (20 °C). What does this tell us? The payloads differ in mass don't they? If you take the volume of the payloads as 56l, accept the widely held value of 2km, precursers are mixed 50/50 according to the equation so it means the chemical payload is roughly 2/3 the mass of the HE payload. So it's reasonable to assume that the chemical rocket has a much longer range than the HE rocket as they use the same rocket components. Now if the expert had given a range of between 2km and xkm I might have found something plausible there. Yet the lower range is given, so what kind of expert is this? Many of Hersh's claims don't add up and are contradicted by UNMOVIC.

The 140mm rocket used in the attack is a standard weapon and has a range of ~9.8km, which is conveniently forgotten.

Sorry to 'go on' but I thought you would have noticed this yourself? If he gets so much of the technical detail wrong, what makes you think the 'gossip' from his anonymous source is 100% true?

Edited December 10, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[fabio_chavez 103]

the point is, there is a difference between circumstancial evidence and evidence and to distinct between those two terms is a standard that should be consitently applyed to any information wether it supports ones own conviction or contradicts them.

Both the UN analysis as well as Seymour hersh collected circumstancial evidence, this story tells us that you have to be utterly suspicious with claims of anonymous goverment sources ESPECIALLY if they adress alleged crimes of an official enemy, that should be nothing new to anyone knows how to read.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/12/09/hersh-syria-sarin-story-was-bought-by-the-mainstream-press/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hersh-syria-sarin-story-was-bought-by-the-mainstream-press

p.s. on those ad hominems toward seymour hersh, while his reputation has no influence wether a claim he makes is factual or not, if anything, his record speaks FOR his credibility not against it.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Fabio_Chavez

[ProfTournesol 956]

Soooo, who is fighting who, that's not that easy to understand :

On the so-called Rebel side (mainly Sunni side), backed by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and to some extent by Western countries :

• The (more or less) Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), initially formed by army deserters ;
  
• The newly formed Islamic Front (aiming at building an Islamic state), claiming 45 000 fighters and grouping seven leading rebel groups (the Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Haqq, Ansar al-Sham and the Kurdish Islamic Front) ;
  
• The Al-Qaeda affiliates (Al-Nusra Front, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)) ;
  
• Some more or less independant brigades.
  

They may sometimes work and fight together, or fight against each others.

On the government side (mainly Shia side), directly backed by Iran, Iraq Shia and to some extent by Russia and China :

• The Syrian Army, leaded (and somehow formed) by the Alawites who is a Shia minority ;
  
• The pro-government militiamen ;
  
• The Lebanese Shia Islamist movement Hezbollah, armed and financed by Iran ;
  
• The Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
  

[fabio_chavez 103]

if anybody is intressted, in this context:

an outstanding article about the framework of saudi financing of militant sunni extremism, by the formidable journalist Patick Cockburn:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/09/the-deadly-pawns-of-saudi-arabia/

also something interessting about the inner(Gulf)Arab powerdynamics regarding sectarianism and Saudi leadership and the way the region is affected by the (purposefully flared up) sunni-shia divide.

(also a demonstration that Omanis are leading in who has the coolest headscarfs in the region):

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/oman-rejects-gcc-union-insults-saudi-arabia.html

p.s. Omanis also have the coolest Symphony Orchestra, Military Bagpipe Machingband AND Carribean Steeldrum(!!!) Orchestra.

The UAE even got so jeallous that they tryed to build up a spyring in Oman, assumingly to steal the secrects of Omani orchestral finesse and Sultan Qaboos of Omans fabulous headscarf wraping technique.

At least since it became public, that Oman secretly hosted the US-Iranian reconcilliation talks, the UAE got their questions about the Sultans orchestrating capabilitys answered.

I guess the Oman could also become a possible peacebroker in the Syrian proxy/civilwar.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Fabio_Chavez

[fabio_chavez 103]

i can only entrust everybody who is halfways interessted in the syrian civil war to watch this:

Edited December 13, 2013 by Fabio_Chavez

[mrcash2009 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10532134/CIA-held-Syrian-militants-responsible-for-Lockerbie-bombing.html

CIA held Syrian militants responsible for Lockerbie bombing Muammar Gaddafi's Libyan regime was publicly blamed by the US for the attack

Maybe its me but isn't this all a bit ... well timed for such a shift of blame seeing as before it was a done deal with full arrests? Chin stroking abound. I wonder if after Syria is overrun it wasn't them and linked to a splinter group from syria's militants who had links fighting in Iran, but then it wasn't them and missing documents in Iran revealed it was N.Korea all along? I joke ... sort of.

Edited December 23, 2013 by mrcash2009

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

Geez,talk about trying every thing to blame assad and syria, they failed with the gas-attacks now they go(far) back in time to find mayby something to blame syria. and indeed mrcash they might even blame iran or N-Korea for it:confused:

And again its Cia and Cia-operatives that say this,no other sources! clearly some boggus attempt to change some opinion in blaming syria!

[scrim 1]

Worst conspiracy theory ever. If you'd actually read beyond the headline, you'd have come across this:

Dr Richard Fuisz said in a sworn deposition in 2001 that he was told by up to 15 senior Syrian officials that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) had carried out the attack.

I seriously doubt that that one source saying that Palestinian terrorists who happened to be from Syria would legitimize a military intervention against the current regime today, or even the past regime when it happened.

[meshcarver 12]

Genuinely hope you all have a great New Year...

Take it easy guys and gals. :)

Edited December 24, 2013 by meshcarver

[mrcash2009 0]

Worst conspiracy theory ever. If you'd actually read beyond the headline, you'd have come across this:

I seriously doubt that that one source saying that Palestinian terrorists who happened to be from Syria would legitimize a military intervention against the current regime today, or even the past regime when it happened.

Who said this information conspired to cause anything in Syria up to now?? Its just that its all systems go for some time, then this comes to light, that was the point ... conspiracy theory, I should say so. I read beyond the headlines also, mind you thanks for the tip I may have forgotten :)

Edited December 24, 2013 by mrcash2009

[scrim 1]

You did. In the very same post where you posted the link.

And a single retired CIA employee claiming that isn't something that has "come to light", it's just a rumour that only those among us with the smallest urge to think sensibly would consider to be anything more than that, i.e. conspiracy theorists.

[mrcash2009 0]

And a single retired CIA employee claiming that isn't something that has "come to light", it's just a rumour that only those among us with the smallest urge to think sensibly would consider to be anything more than that, i.e. conspiracy theorists.

You did. In the very same post where you posted the link.

Sorry scrim but you have got complete cross wires and have utterly missed the fact that I agree and that was my point all along apart that the last part is wrong :j: Problem is this one testimony /theory (give it a name) has had its own mini documentary for the BBC to push it into mainstream as facts ... again, thats my point. "Conspiracy theorists" so say dont buy it, unquestioned will though .. again, the point.

And so this 2001 sworn deposition does in fact come out of no where to the mainstream now, thats what I meant, not sure if I made that clear or not, either way we are on the same page.

Edited December 29, 2013 by mrcash2009

[fabio_chavez 103]

from Adam Curtis Blog:

Ãœberarticle:

"Much of the debate about whether to intervene in Syria or not is taking place in a strange ahistorical vacuum. As with so much debate about humanitarian intervention the underlying world view is of a simplified story of bad dictators and good, well intentioned westerners who must somehow intervene to stop him.

But the truth is that America has a very complicated relationship with Syria which stretches back over sixty years.

Back in the 1950s America set out to intervene in Syria, liberate the people from a corrupt elite, and bring about a new democracy. They did this with the best of intentions, but it led to disaster. And out of that disaster the Assad regime rose to power.

America's actions were by no means the only factor that led to the violence and horror. But their unforeseen consequences played an important role in shaping a feverish paranoia in Syria in the late 1950s - which helped Assad, and his Baath Party, come to power.

A while ago I wrote the story of America's strange relationship with Syria and the dark and bloody twists and turns that resulted - from 1947 onwards. I thought it would be good to link to it again because so much of what happened is relevant to today's debate.

You can find the original post on Syria here."

[fabio_chavez 103]

signs of progress

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-18/244483-syrian-opposition-meet-over-peace-conference.ashx#axzz2qlR9BiZn

[Nomaden 10]

What, make a map, of course!

[walker 0]

Hi all

A false flag operation for Turkey. The operation gets blown. So Turkey bans Twitter and YouTube to prevent people finding out. We all know what happens when you do that

So the western press say its just a discussion of Syria. And that the banning of Twitter and YouTube is because there was an election. The recording and the transcripts do not bear that out, since they must have employed their own translators they must know what the recording says. Sadly our western press no longer tells the truth. :(

The problem here is that we are trying to deal with Russia and the Ukraine, but we can no longer trust what our own press says. Talk about the BBC, CNN Fox and the rest shooting themselves in the foot.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 29, 2014 by walker

[katipo66 94]

Ive recently seen footage of the BBC doctoring footage regarding the chemical attack, I have zero trust in our western media, every item makes me think what the ulterior motive is or what's been left out to push agendas.

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

Yep its funny to see how the western media go's about these days and i am glad to see ppl waking up to that fact! the press will lie,pull goverments card and views, make stories up,etc. and this storie is indeed more proof off it. and this while the syrian army is on the offensive and beating back those western and middle eastern backed "rebels" while infact they all terrorist,killing cristians,moslims,civilians woman and children. Turkey is a major supply line to those rebs, but the SAA is moving more to the border and cutting off these supplies. And thats why they wanted to stage a false flag OP to draw in the west and nato in order to attack syria and support their rebs .

[walker 0]

Hi all

Syria's current regime are not worth wiping up with toilet paper, they need an enema with a fire hose, but by doing such inept things western Governments, organisations, and media bring them selves down to the same level. If we are going to go in just say that the Syrian regime needs removing and get on with it. Oh and stop supporting the other evil regimes in the middle east like Saudi Arabia, the Qatar and Israel.

Sadly walker

Edited March 30, 2014 by walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

How Western media are covering the blown false flag operation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26773702

http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-bans-youtube-twitter-154018281.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/turkey-youtube-blocked/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590855/Now-Turkey-blocks-YouTube-Days-Twitter-ban-video-site-barred-leaked-audio-recording-Turkish-officials-discussing-Syria-appeared-online.html

Etc.

Not one of the western media puts the full transcript or tape recording up so people can judge for themselves, and that everyone has access to anyway. Instead they spin stories about how bad the Turkish Prime Minister is for banning YouTube and Twitter or about his party's election efforts or that the story is about Turkey's reaction to Syrian operations. When we can all see that the story is about a false flag operation.

Google translations of the transcript and friends who speak Turkish can tell you what the western media were told was in the conversation by their own translators yet our western media does not tell us these facts. Instead they spin the story to distract and fool us.

Where now the free western media? In Stalin's back pocket that is where. In the west we now have a soviet era Pravda for our press.

Bans on YouTube and Twitter coming to UK and US soon.

Sadly walker

POST SCRIPT

Ah a bright spark in the Darkness; a Journalist at the Washington post has the courage to speak out among a western media that largely seems to have lost its moral and ethical compass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/27/by-banning-youtube-has-turkey-revealed-just-how-damning-todays-leaked-recording-is/

Edited March 31, 2014 by walker
added post script

[vilas 477]

since media are "in hands" of someone, they not say true not comfortable /not profitable for this someone,

when government holds media (cold war eastern block, Russia now, Arab states, China) than noone would tell in such media about fraud of those governments,

when big corporations hold media (west today including my country) noone will say about things that will make profits of those corporations lower (for example social/economical/labor issues),

worldwide problem , but blocking other media is ugly thing, and Turkey want to EU with blocking other media ?

[.kju 3244]

Was Turkey behind last year’s Syrian chemical weapons attack? That is the question raised in a new exposé by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh on the intelligence debate over the deaths of hundreds of Syrians in Ghouta last year. The United States, and much of the international community, blamed forces loyal to the Assad government, almost leading to a U.S. attack on Syria. But Hersh reveals the U.S. intelligence community feared Turkey was supplying sarin gas to Syrian rebels in the months before the attack took place — information never made public as President Obama made the case for launching a strike. Hersh joins us to discuss his findings.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/7/sy_hersh_reveals_potential_turkish_role

The article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/04/06/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line