Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote from that link:

"Reports from Damascus say the Syrian military has been moving equipment to civilian areas, including near schools and mosques, "

They want to provoke collateral losses. America will try to avoid them and thus will scratch plenty of targets off their list now. Making any already limited strike even more ineffective.

Wouldn'T be surprised if they start to move huge civilian crowds onto their airfields and imprison them there around the bunkers and aircraft. Saddam did install plenty of human shields in Kuwait.

No doubt the satellites and Mossad are pretty busy correcting co-ordinates.

[Packlife]

I'm watching meet the press and Secretary Kerry broke the news that, blood hair an tissue samples taken from victims from east Damascus have tested positive for Sarin gas.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Packlife

I'm watching meet the press and Secretary Kerry broke the news that, blood hair an tissue samples taken from victims from east Damascus have tested positive for Sarin gas.

Indeed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918889

1 September 2013 Last updated at 13:22 GMT

Sidenote:

Mr Kerry also said he was confident that Congress would give its approval for the US to launch strikes against Syria.

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

[mapuc]

I had many thoughts when I heard that Russia was sending to more Warship to Mediterranean. Why did they send them, what could be their purpose

Have just been reading an article in a Swedish newspaper. According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by mapuc

According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

.....

President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.

Of course can we believe an ex-KGB?

The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.
"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0GU1B420130829

[mapuc]

We are getting lots of information and disinformation from several sources

It's very difficult to see what's correct and what's not correct among all this information we get.

I guess the only way to find out what the purpose is regarding these two russian warship, we will first find out the day USA attack Syria.

Markus

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

No full scale invasion of Syria, but a clear UN scripted conquest of rather small areas to create save zones for civilians. All civil war parties should agree with it, should they? There would be no fighting necessary, if they would support the safety of the people.

That statement makes no sense.

Turkey, Jordan and Israel should be no problem, and even Iraq would probably join the club. Lebanon would be difficult, but maybe the Russian harbour at Tartus could be a beachhead for a safe zone. I guess Tartus is Assad's playground right now and his forces could leave the area.

So you have two countries that are backing rebel factions, one whose masters are allied with the Syrian government, one that is still at war with it and one which is run by Syrian/Iranian proxies.
Then you have the "beachhead" which is a Russian base, which happens to be a country that supports the Assad regime.

Edit: well, there are already safe areas on the other side of the borders in Turkey and Jordan. All people can decide, wheather they want to leave the battle grounds or not.

Are there? who is running the camps in those "safe" areas?

The international community should stay out of Syria and stop all support for any party. Simply wait for the last man standing. Those who stay in the combat zones are on their own.

That also makes no sense.
You views seem to contradict your own views, as well as run counter to reality.

[Vince82]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I had many thoughts when I heard that Russia was sending to more Warship to Mediterranean. Why did they send them, what could be their purpose

Have just been reading an article in a Swedish newspaper. According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

Early warning will be usefull to the Assad forces in two ways:

-they will be able to move their mobile forces
-and to get ready to eliminate incoming missiles


It's possible that the Russians will try to defend Syria against cruise missiles in a more active way aswell.

[Armistead]

My guess is Obama wants to shoot a 100 Tomahawks, but any action will cost billions. I think right now with assets there, it's a billion a month. The problem is any action could cost much more. You've got to have all the assets in case they attack Israel, take out air, radar, command.

A mere missle prick will solve nothing and would be a political punch that solves nothing. I don't think Assad would attack Israel over missles, but if they start launching scuds, then it will be a war that we will have to get involved.

Again, stay the hell out, let the muslims go back to killing each other in mass like the old days, instead of fighting us.

[TLAM Strike]

Curious... anyone know what the legality would be if say a Russian warship shot down a US cruise missile in international waters?

A cruise missile is basically an unmanned aircraft, so it's more an act of destroying property.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Father Goose

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

What a load of political BS!! You should be Assads PR Manager

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

A cruise missile is basically an unmanned aircraft, so it's more an act of destroying property.

And war is a bad joke where the laughing just got out of hand.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And war is a bad joke where the laughing just got out of hand.

It was a serious question, we just saw Iran force down one drone and shoot down another with little other than a protest from the US.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Curious... anyone know what the legality would be if say a Russian warship shot down a US cruise missile in international waters?

That is a most interesting question.

I don't think there are any international laws that prohibit one country from interfering with the attack by another country. The worst that can happen is that the attacking country could declare war on the intercepting country.

Would the US risk going to war with Russia over this if it happened?

If the POTUS gets statutory authorization, from Congress, to launch missiles, Russia is in no way bound by such an authorization. Now if the UNSC authorizes action through the Military Staff, then Russia would be in violation of several treaties.

A most interesting question.