US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise 227
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joshua Mitnick reports that Israel and the U.S. carried out a missile test over the Mediterranean Sea on Tuesday morning that was detected by Russian surveillance systems. Israel's defense ministry eventually said a Sparrow rocket had been fired to simulate a ballistic missile attack on the Jewish state to test the Arrow interceptor system. The Arrow – which wasn't fired Tuesday – has been developed to defend against long range rockets primarily from Iran, a main patron of the Syrian regime. Arieh Herzog, a former Israeli missile defense director, says that the Sparrow missile is developed to simulate 'the worst threats' in the region so Israel can hone the capabilities of the Arrow III missile interceptor. Herzog speculated that the launch Tuesday was done at a considerably long range. Another Israeli expert said the incident could be seen as muscle flexing by the U.S. and Israel. 'You could say perhaps its show of strength to Syria and its Iranian ally — that Israel has a range of options at its disposal. And to place pressure on Assad and Iran that Israel takes [retaliation threats] seriously,' says Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer on Iranian politics at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. Pentagon press secretary George Little said the U.S. 'provided technical assistance and support to the Israeli Missile Defense Organization flight test of a Sparrow target missile over the Mediterranean Sea.' 'The United States and Israel cooperate on a number of long-term ballistic missile defense development projects to address common challenges in the region,' added Little. 'This test had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack.'"
Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just swinging my fist 1mm from your face, I'm not touching you, you can't stop me, there's no law against swinging your arms, stop touching my hands with your face, ha ha ha!
Except that in this case instead of getting kicked by an irate sibling some stuff might be blown up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah that's the typical American attitude. Reminds me of their cops in full SWAT uniform with 5 of his buddies repeatedly slamming someone's face into the ground while yelling "STOP RESISTING!". And THEN they charge you for assaulting an officer, for bleeding on him.
You know the US has milked 9/11 so much it makes me sick. Sept 12 2001, America had the world's sympathy. Those days are long long gone. In fact many are now thinking it's time America got put in its place. Either stop the constant aggression,
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
Regional strategic ally. Most of the middle east hates the US - there are some fundemental social tensions involved, as well as political and historic reasons for hostility. But it's still a region of great global importance (ie, oil), so it can't just be forgotten. Israel is an ally in a place where an ally is a very useful thing.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Most of the middle east hates the US - there are some fundemental social tensions involved, as well as political and historic reasons for hostility.
With sentences like that you could be a politician. What you mean is that the US screws with governments and creates racial tensions in the region, and has been doing so for as long as most people living there have been alive.
Re: (Score:3)
The significance of 9/11 (for the jihadists) likely dates back to a failed Muslim invasion of Europe in 1683.
If you think this is just about the US, you're just kidding yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most of the middle east hates the US"
Why do they hate the US?
Yes, and (Score:2)
But mainly as a crucial catalyst to bring back Jesus Christ for the closing speech of the Apocalypse.
In all frightening seriousness, this is a fundamental tenet in not-so-far-Right-Wing foreign policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The world is divided based on culture and religion. America could shit all over the Middle East and Europe isn't going to disown us and China isn't going to stop trading with us. They're just not connected.
Mistake in Article (Score:5, Funny)
By Missile we mean Democracy Spreading Device.
International Dickwaving. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we stay the fuck out of syria. Neither side likes us. We can't 'win' anything.
We're going to piss away a bunch more lives and money we don't have, for what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we stay the fuck out of syria. Neither side likes us. We can't 'win' anything.
We're going to piss away a bunch more lives and money we don't have, for what?
Because Israel was always under threat from Iran/Syria and... surprise... the house of Saudi doesn't like them either (Sunni vs Shia). So, they need somebody with enough clout to handle the hot potato, even against UN council, and the US of A seem vain [globalresearch.ca] (or, is it moronic already?) enough to think they can do it, perhaps even doing it alone.
This will be a good business period for Saudis (selling more oil) and Russia (keeping Syria armed enough), awful for Turkey, Lebanon and possibly Jordan (dealing with re
Re: (Score:3)
Re:International Dickwaving. (Score:4, Interesting)
Syria - Shia/Alawite govt in spite of a Sunni majority (which is what irritates Saudi Arabia), sustained in power mainly by Iranian support. Now, I wonder if you remember this [theworld.org]?
Other than that, if you really want to lose your mind, have a nice day, sir. [washingtonpost.com]
I really think the best strategic move for USA is to stay out of it: in such a nightmarish overlapping/conflicting seas of interest, it wouldn't take too much for the players to want a simplification: what would be easier than to explain to a population driven crazy by war than "The US devils are to blame" - they'll forget quite quckly about their internal quibbles.
Re:International Dickwaving. (Score:4, Interesting)
Under threat? Tell me when the last Israeli-Syrian war was again? That's like saying the US is always under threat from Mexico. You realize at one point you have to have neighbors, right?
The last Israeli-Syrian war was in 1973... formally. There have been almost continual exchanges of fire between the two countries since that war, however. During most of the several invasions of Lebanon that happened later, Syria backed one or more of the groups involved (Lebanon has been a total basket case of a country for some time). It also doesn't help that from a Syrian point of view Israel is sitting on some of their land (the Golan Heights specifically) and wouldn't mind taking some of that back if the opportunity presented itself. There isn't really much trade that moves between Israel and Syria as well I might add.
Then again there is talk of the "reconquista" in Mexico too, but that is based off of a claim from a war that happened 170 years ago and isn't really taken all that seriously for a great many reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we might as well...
I mean, we've got most of the people over here, why shouldn't we get the land that goes with them too?
Re: (Score:2)
> Tell me when the last Israeli-Syrian war was again?
The last one never really ended.
The only one of Israels neighbors that ever actually formally declared an end to hostilities is Egypt.
Carter gets lots of "street cred" for being the guy that brokered that treaty. You remember Carter? He still wanders around the world building houses for poor people and making speeches at national monuments.
Hardly comparable to a war that ended 150 years ago.
Re:International Dickwaving. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, Syria was until quite recently one of our supporters in the region. We've had generally decent to good relations with the Assad regime. It cooled a bit since he started killing his people, but we tend to take a dim view of those who would kill their people because they started talkng democracy.
Re:International Dickwaving. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, Syria was until quite recently one of our supporters in the region. We've had generally decent to good relations with the Assad regime. It cooled a bit since he started killing his people, but we tend to take a dim view of those who would kill their people because they started talkng democracy.
A fair point to make. Even more oddly is how Syria was even a military allay during the Gulf War.... where Syria fielded a full division of soldiers and took orders directly from an American general (Schwarzkopf) in that war.
The funny thing about Syria is how there are numerous photos and videos of Assad having dinner with both John Kerry and Barack Obama, not to mention an official state visit by Assad to the White House.... and Obama going to Syria himself. Yeah, it was a close relationship. You wonder what Assad did to piss off the Obama administration?
No I don't think the gas attack, at least by itself, was the act. Heck, the Obama administration has been funding "rebels" in Syria for awhile now... well before that supposed gas attack.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it was a close relationship. You wonder what Assad did to piss off the Obama administration?
He did nothing; others, however, may have made an offer US seems unable to refuse.
Re:International Dickwaving. (Score:4, Interesting)
To distract the rest of the world from our spying programs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think as much as anything else...it is because Obama shot his mouth off about drawing a "Red Line" in the sand without first thinking through the implications.
If he doesn't act, he loses face in the world theater.
I think it may also be as much about his ego as anything else.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad analogy. You're choosing an evil target and a sympathetic target - that is not the case in Syria. On one side, you have Assad. On the other side, you have a coalition of rebels, a significant portion of whom align themselves with al-Qaeda (they are referred to as "al-Nusra" in media reports)
Better analogy: you have two neighbors, Assad and al-Nusra. You hate them both, they're both deadbeats, they leave garbage all over their lawn, beat their wife and kids, etc. You see Assad and al-Nusra get into
They initially denied it. (Score:2)
'This test had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack.'
HAHAHHAHHAHA
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Sparrow missile, which is normally air-to-air and radar-guided, fired on a ballistic path toward an ally, so the ally could calibrate the radar (can't see any other test of an anti-missile system that does NOT fire that makes any sense).
Big whoop....
NPR is banging the drums for war... (Score:5, Informative)
Now that Dear Leader Obama is the president and has decided that we all need to give war a chance, NPR has taken to calling anyone who doesn't want his war to be an "isolationist."
You'll note that this term was never used against people who disagreed with wars in Afghanistan or Iraq... instead those people were "anti-war" or "pro-peace". We basically need another Republican as president so that the press can go back to attacking the president instead of being his trained lapdog.
Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll note that this term was never used against people who disagreed with wars in Afghanistan or Iraq...
Yeah, they were called traitors by the same right wing propaganda outlets you get your talking points from. Can you be anymore obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
again, you're conflating those who say one thing now with those who said another thing before, in order to put a left/right them/us spin on it.
most of the people saying one thing now, said the same thing before. most of us actualyl have principles that we stick to (not counting politicians)
Wait, what? (Score:2)
If you were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you were a terrorist or pro-terrorists by Bush's statements. Did you forget the whole "you are either for us or against us" speech used and intended to stifle questioning policy? MSM labelled many people unpatriotic as well as pro-terrorist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We do not owe Bush an apology. The whole premise for getting us involved in a war was a lie! Fake intelligence supporting a fake threat. Yellow cake was proven to be a fabrication contrived by Italian intelligence agencies. "Mobile Chemical Weapons Plants" were proven to be a lie. The only chemical weapons Iraq had was what we sold them in the 80s, and trained them to use against Iran and the Kurdish people (which they did and the US supported them).
Bush gained house support for Gulf 2 because of a lon
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm, I'm a liar which is why the yellow cake scare is in Snopes [google.com] as well as thousands of other articles debunking the alleged "intelligence" from Italy on Iraq purchasing yellow cake like Wiki. [wikipedia.org]. Too bad you don't have enough balls to post with a name for public ridicule.
Please go ahead and quote me more easy to debunk main stream media war propaganda under a real name you coward!
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Dear Leader Obama is the president and has decided that we all need to give war a chance, NPR has taken to calling anyone who doesn't want his war to be an "isolationist."
You'll note that this term was never used against people who disagreed with wars in Afghanistan or Iraq... instead those people were "anti-war" or "pro-peace". We basically need another Republican as president so that the press can go back to attacking the president instead of being his trained lapdog.
Troll much?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Alright.
One side is killing the other side with chemical weapons. The other side is killing the first side, cutting them up, and eating them. Atrocities are off the chain on both sides. Which human right violations do you support? Which group of bad people do you support? Do you prefer cannibalism and torture or chemical weapons?
Which side is the U.S. supposed to get behind?
There is no winning here. There are no good guys. This is no different than if we were to support one of the Mexican drug cart
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides are bad.
Both? This must be the understatement of the year: count them again, please [washingtonpost.com].
Other than that, the PP is spot on
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than if we were to support one of the Mexican drug cartels in exterminating another.
There is some evidence that the Obama administration was doing that as well. I read some preliminary stories on that and then the story just dried up. I cannot tell if that happened because there was nothing to the story, or if it disappeared into the black hole that most of the Fast & Furious gun running story went into.
Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score:2)
Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea, unannounced, with all of the threats of a US strike on Syria. What could possibly go wrong?
Or perhaps the idea was to see if someone would fire back. It sure would be a lot more convenient to fire off a bunch of Tomahawks "in self defense" right now.
Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score:5, Informative)
1. There was a NOTAM filed for the test. It was not unannounced. Russia just said they detected it and not that they where surprised by it.
2. This is an anti-ballistic missile that was tested and not a ground attack missile. It shoots down other missiles. AKA it is a defensive weapon.
I have to wonder if this is why we have not found any other intelligent life. Once a planet develops the internet people find news sources that reinforce their world view and fears. As a group we become dumb and dumber because we keep seeking sources that tell us we are right. The divisions become greater and greater and people dumb and less tolerant all the while believing they are more informed and open minded until it all falls apart.
Re: (Score:2)
A "defensive" weapon. What does that even mean, when the context here is explicitly that of repelling a counter-attack to our first strike?
Re: (Score:2)
It means that it specifically targets incoming missiles, in fact so specific that Israel has at least three different systems for different classes of projectiles.
And while Israel is perfectly fine with staying out of conflicts fought between the different brands of Arabs and Muslims (who usually proceed to accuse each other of being in league with Israel anyway) it seems that since we're the only target in reach, we're the ones who are going to be repelling a potential counter attack to your first strike.
S
Re: (Score:2)
So how does it feel to be the boogieman? I really do not mean to make light of it but frankly if the Jewish people had as much power as some groups gave them credit for I think their history would have been very different.
Maybe after WWII the US should have just offered North Dakota as the Jewish homeland. Then you would only have to deal with cows, Minnesota Norwegian Framer Lutherans, the 8 people that lived in South Dakota, the 6 people that lived in Montana and the Canadians. As a bonus I could get get
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, if what you posted is correct score one more for 21st century Slashdot dumbing down the conversation. About 50% of the discussion here is predicated on both those points being unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is correct. Also the test missile was air launched by an IAF F-15 and is made by Israel. The Arrow is a joint US Israeli project but the US probably had little to do with the test. We did not launch the target or the interceptor. The target would look nothing like a cruise missile so it would not be likely to be mistaken for one it is even unlikely that Syria would detect it. Russia detected it because they were working hard to monitor the test. AKA spying. The thing that every nation does.
It is not
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere is in the article or the submission did it say the test was unannounced. It just didn't say it was announced and talked about what it could "mean". It let the mob draw conclusions that are now being taken as fact. It is propaganda and not even all that skillful And you will notice almost no one is correcting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I live in Israel.
Fire back where exactly, at the sea, for a missile not aimed at anyone?
I'd think there's a little bit more subtlety to these things than "OMG, missile launch detected, quick, fire everything we've got at everyone we don't like!".
And while the situation might be a bit tense at the moment in the area, that is often the case, and missile tests are still done, satellites are still launched and military drills still performed, often without prior notice to anyone who might be interes
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know it was fired from an aircraft.
And while the US has the privilege of fighting armed conflicts in other people's back yards and being able to postpone or pack up and leave without any effects on its civilian population, Israel generally doesn't, and with the situation in the region being tense to some extent every other week things still have to get done.
It was part a test of Israel's missile interceptor system (though I'm not sure if that's the operational one or one that's in development),
Hard to believe (Score:3)
First: shortly after Russia reported that they detected a missile launch, Pentagon denied having anything to do with that. Now it is reported that both USA and Israel conducted the test together. Is USA just stepping in for Israel? Don't they not even pretend to be impartial?
Second: who in their right mind approves to test a ballistic missile in Syria's backyard in this situation? Do they also give matches to kids with "go, play somewhere in some stacked hay"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine.
What would you think if you were Syria's army? And what would you do?
It was just a US test of the Russian systems (Score:4, Interesting)
The US fired the missile unannounced . . . to see if the Russian surveillance systems could spot it . . . and if the Russians could warn their Syrian pals about it.
They're just probing the target's defenses at this point. Nothing new here. The US military folks just want to see how good the Russian made stuff is, before they do anything for real.
Re: (Score:2)
It was not unannounced. NOTAMs where filed. Nowere was it said that it was unannounced.
Re: (Score:2)
It was not an AIM-7 Sparrow. It was a Silver Sparrow target missile. It has nothing in common with the AIM-7 Sparrow except for the name. This model was the Silver Sparrow. Yea this is a terrible write up and summary.
Theoatmeal got it about right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that comic was simplistic. The international community has a limited mandate for intervening in the affairs of another country. Take away from that what offenses are severe enough to rally a group of nations willing to use force and commit enough resources to do something substantial. It's not like people are sitting around not caring about what's been going on in Syria.
Uh huh... (Score:2)
I'm sure it was, um, just a coincidence. Yeah, that's it, a coincidence. A previously scheduled anti-missile test that just happened to not actually test the "anti" part of the anti-missile system.
no coincidence (Score:2)
Limited strike (Score:2)
Is 'limited strike' against Syria something like how Osama launched a 'limited strike' against the USA by striking the WTC?
Re:Entirely Sensible (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. It's difficult to believe they really think they can intimidate these guys. The one running Iran is crazy and the one in Syria is desperate. They aren't going to be put off by a missile test. Of course it's possible Israel is just trying to iron out the kinks in the system in preperation for the shit that is about to hit the fan. I think that a strike is almost inevitable at this point.
Re:Entirely Sensible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because of this, right at the top of the link:
In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:
At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]
Who is trying to mislead, then?
Re: (Score:2)
For someone accusing others of misleading, your sure going out of your way to mislead people yourself.
Re:Entirely Sensible (Score:5, Informative)
This account, however, has come into sharp dispute with an internal NSA historical study[7] which stated on page 17:
At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]
The Maddox when confronted, was approaching Hòn Mê Island, three to four miles (6 km) inside the twelve-mile (19 km) limit claimed by North Vietnam. This territorial limit was unrecognized by the United States. After the skirmish, President Johnson ordered the Maddox and Turner Joy to stage daylight runs into North Vietnamese waters, testing the twelve-mile (19 km) limit and North Vietnamese resolve. These runs into North Vietnamese territorial waters coincided with South Vietnamese coastal raids and were interpreted as coordinated operations by the North, which officially acknowledged the engagements of 2 August 1964.[22]
So please, if you have issues with the historical account as it currently stands, take it up with the professional historians - plenty of them standing by on wikipedia and elsewhere to rip your blatant fact manipulation to shreds. Also lets not get into the long list of other false flag operations [startpage.com] that have been used to start wars - not like it is anything new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're also not even aggressive. They've been bombed and threatened and all kinds of bullshit by the US for so long, and they've done barely anything in retaliation.
I mean, the fucking CIA used chemical weapons on them in the Iraq-Iran war, then the US blamed Iran. A US ship illegally entered Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not
Re: (Score:2)
They're also not even aggressive.
[...]
The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not even a good country - but compared to the aggressors here, it's practically Hello Kitty.
Pretty much this.
Iran has more to fear from Israel than vice versa, given recent history and present rhetoric. Naturally the regime in Tehran had to counter this, for selfish reasons to save face in the eyes of their electorate.
I might add, pre-emptively as it were, that the typical charge that they are antisemites is patently false -- Iran is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, and they would appear to thrive and get along just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The one running Iran is crazy
And what "one" would that be? The word is Dinner Jacket is just a civil administrator; the nation is run by a council.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Entirely Sensible (Score:5, Insightful)
The one running Iran is crazy
If you're talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, he's not crazy at all: He acts crazy to try to keep the US from attacking his country. And pursuing a nuclear weapon also isn't a dumb move, because the US has made it clear that it leaves countries with nukes and crazy-seeming leaders (e.g. North Korea) alone while attacking countries without nukes (e.g. Iraq).
If you're talking about the current guy running Iran, Hassan Rouhani, he ran on a campaign of negotiating with foreign powers and more centrist policies, and is decidedly not crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Khamenei isn't crazy either, he's just doing his best to hang onto the power he has, even if he has to be cruel to his citizens to do it. Your typical person with power and no term limits, in other words.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahmannadinijad [sic] was never running the country. He was nothing more than a Secretary of State analog. The clerics run Iran. But, it's an ingenious setup because it kept the Western world focused on the short, loud one (didn't he lose his last election?).
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, they're so real they didn't have to include the headers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the irony. If the US is behind this attack, shouldn't the rest of the world gather and attack them? Didn't Obama argue that international law must be enforced?
http://youtu.be/o2TmDtj9oPg?t=3m10s [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal was to gather and eliminate the current leadership in Washington DC, I think you might find a few supporters even in America itself. I would prefer to do that at a ballot box, but if the armies from around the world are coming anyway there could definitely be some internal domestic support too.
Heck, there are currently some deep divisions within the U.S. military itself. There is a distinct possibility that if military units are ordered to action, they may not follow orders. Then again the Ob
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But
data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly
reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?
I don't see how you get your first question, no comments here even imply that the videos were faked. The question that is pertinent is "who used the chemical?". Are you perhaps confused by the term "False Flag"? The term does not imply that an event did not happen, but rather implies that the event was staged. This is the Hegelian dialectic (problem => reaction => solution).
John Kerry last week stated that it did not matter who used chemical weapons. That statement is absolutely wrong, and I real
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the parent link, you'll see that the claim is that the videos are fake. E.g.
"From the Anthony’s wife dialog with her friend it’s clear the video with the children killed in the chemical attack near Damascus was staged by U.S. Intelligence."
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't see it, but that's okay. Try searching for "Egypt Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Then "Syria Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Or hell, have some fun and just search for "crisis actor".
Re: (Score:2)
troll. fake.
Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't an American general and his friends speak English? This looks like fake to me. The language seems unnatural for a native speaker. Some examples:
"Hope to see you soon again."
"Thanks God, they are alive. I hope they got a kind of present or some cash."
"I saw it either and got afraid very much."
"I see their faces when in sleep. What did Tony say you about this?"
Re: (Score:2)
Yea this is a load of crap. People need to think more. You get to be in political power by always coming out on the winning side of the risk to benefit equation. The risk to president Obama that would come from giving the rebels chemical weapons is through the roof. The benefit is at best tiny. Just not in the cards folks.
Re: (Score:3)
The risk to president Obama that would come from giving the rebels chemical weapons is through the roof. The benefit is at best tiny. Just not in the cards folks.
Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them. I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either).
Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them. I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either)."
1 Actually it doesn't here. The UN will not invade because China and Russia will not agree to it. They will veto any massive UN action.
2 The US will not invade because the US is war weary and the President doesn't have the support.
3 The US did nothing when Iraq used them.
So the worse is that the US will fire some cruise missiles to make a show of it. The Syria under their brave leaders took the "worst" that the Imperialist US dogs and their lackeys could dish out and stood firm. In other words we slap the on the wrist and they stick out their tongue at the world. In other words President Obama mucked this up because frankly he just is not a good president. I am not saying that he is evil or anything like that. He seems like a good guy but he should have done a few terms in Congress to get educated about the world outside of being an "activist organizer".
Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (Score:4, Insightful)
THIS
Re: (Score:2)
The US didn't make a fuss over Iraq using them against Iran because of the little disagreement the US had with Iran in 1979.
Re: (Score:2)
And they made little fuss when Iran used them back. That is what the Syrian government was hoping for and even if we don't they know we will not take them out so the risk seems worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them? I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either).
This is the one question I keep asking myself too. What possible benefits might be coming to Syria if they actually used the chemical weapons? If their back was against the wall and Assad was saying "eff this, let's throw everything we have at these infidel rebels!".... yeah, I could see that as a reason. Unfortunately Syria has a whole lot to lose and not much to gain by doing this kind of stupid gas attack. For crying out loud, Syria has access to jet fighter-bombers, artillery cannons, and a whole ra
Re: (Score:2)
Syria has access to jet fighter-bombers, artillery cannons, and a whole range of explosives of a modern military at their disposal. If the goal was simply to kill a bunch of people, there were literally dozens of ways to get that accomplished without resorting to the "weapons of mass destruction".
The problem is that the explosives route doesn't command territory, and it doesn't have a high enough body count.
It's like the "you have 6 bullets, I have 20 people" equation. You will kill the 6 ( maybe ), but the remaining 14 will get you.
Of course, you have to have a mad enough "20".
Weapons like gas add to the body count and add to the terror in the minds of the opponents, and might be able to take out the "20".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to read anything about mercenaries and imported religious fanatics.
Can you substantiate this?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the explosives route doesn't command territory, and it doesn't have a high enough body count.
It's like the "you have 6 bullets, I have 20 people" equation. You will kill the 6 ( maybe ), but the remaining 14 will get you.
Of course, you have to have a mad enough "20".
Weapons like gas add to the body count and add to the terror in the minds of the opponents, and might be able to take out the "20".
Bullshit. If you want to build a bigger bomb, you just go ahead and build it. The question isn't 6 bullets and 20 people, but rather 6k bullets and 20 people, wondering if after the first couple hundred bullets into each person should the commander be reprimanded for simply wasting ammunition. Assad has a large enough army and is well supplied enough to hunt down and wipe out each of these rebel groups with vastly superior and overwhelming military force.
That really isn't a problem.
The real problem is th
Re: (Score:2)
What Assad was doing was scaring the opposition shitless with the chem. weapons. According to intelligence from several different countries, he's done this over 10 times. It was just that he happened to do it in close where there were (a) people with cameras, and (b) medical facilities to record the casualties. He was simply upping the ante because the West didn't do anything after his previous gas attacks and he knows Russia and China don't have the ethics or morals to stop him. Iran certainly won't mind a
Re: (Score:2)
wars are HUGELY profitable for politician's portfolios, to say nothing of the large corporations that have our politicians in their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't thinking enough like a conspiracy theorist. These are either a carefully crafted code to their Illuminati brothers or the colonels have been removed from the earth and alien doppelgangers have been put in their place.
See, it's all very obvious when you think it through.
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like fake to me.
Maybe this whole thing is a false flag false flag!! Did you ever think about that??
Oh no, of course not. You sheeple don't know how to spot a conspiracy even when it's hovering menacingly right over you.
Re: (Score:2)
it's hovering menacingly right over you.
That's the FSM.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unlike pithy and anal comments sometimes made on Slashdot?
It doesn't sound like you've been around here much.
Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (Score:5, Insightful)
The cynicism amongst some people is so strong that they'll blindly believe any shred of evidence regardless of how fake it looks. It's a good and healthy thing to question, but to buy into every stupid conspiracy theory that comes along is idiotic. They're only capable of being cynical in one direction which means the right interests will be able to easily exploit their naivete.
I bet the guys who posted those supposed emails read the summary and in their gleeful rush to share this crap neglected to dig any deeper. But I guarantee you that a year from now people will continue repeating this story and all blog links will lead right back to this particular site. When it comes to this sort of thing blogs tend to be a circle jerk where everyone uses everyone else's blog as proof for their claims.
Re: (Score:2)