Syria

[quade 4]

Let's say, for example, we had a similar thing happen here in the US. A rocket attack against the civilian population and the rockets carried chemical weapons.

When those rockets disperse their chemicals the rockets aren't destroyed. In fact, for the most part, they end up on the ground pretty much intact. The casings also have extremely clear residue on them. It's a pretty damning chunk of evidence the chemicals came from the rockets.

IF the rockets had stamped on them "Made in the USA" I'm guessing it would be a pretty clear indication who used them and especially if there were a LOT of them and the munitions weren't exactly a secret.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I think it is a true example of how reasonable minds can differ. Some people quite reasonably look at use of chemical weapons as a the line in the sand which, if crossed, should bring swift and severe consequences. I cannot help but think that this approach is idealistic. There are pragmatic considerations to be taken.

This is what the President is learning. Shoot from the hip with a threat of retaliation, and then be called on it. What now? Idealism works in an ideal world. This is not that world.

An important question that is not answered is, "What would be the purpose of a strike against Syria?" Would it be retribution? Punishment? Deterrence? Until that is answered, the costs and benefits are speculative.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

An important question that is not answered is, "What would be the purpose of a strike against Syria?" Would it be retribution? Punishment? Deterrence? Until that is answered, the costs and benefits are speculative.

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

Might I suggest, to stop it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wayneflorida 0]

Can't be that bad. John Kerry just gave a 20 minute speach about Syria, but did not mention Genghis Khan.

[jclalor 12]

quade

Let's say, for example, we had a similar thing happen here in the US. A rocket attack against the civilian population and the rockets carried chemical weapons.

When those rockets disperse their chemicals the rockets aren't destroyed. In fact, for the most part, they end up on the ground pretty much intact. The casings also have extremely clear residue on them. It's a pretty damning chunk of evidence the chemicals came from the rockets.

IF the rockets had stamped on them "Made in the USA" I'm guessing it would be a pretty clear indication who used them and especially if there were a LOT of them and the munitions weren't exactly a secret.

The rebels in Syria have captured many Syrian army weapons depots, its not such a crazy leap to say they may control them and have the capabilities to use them. A large portion of the rebels are Syrian enlisted and officers who have defected. I don't think this is the case, but I want to see compelling evidence that it was Assad.

Its not unheard of in those neck of the woods to commit atrocities against your own side to garner support, The rebels have lost some serious ground lately and it's not out of the question for some of the Jihadist type to do a thing like this in hopes that we jump in. We just have to be sure that this is not the case

[shropshire 0]

So if I get shot by a gun made in the USA with a bullet made in the USA ... must be an American that shot me .. seems to be the logic that you used above...

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

shropshire

So if I get shot by a gun made in the USA with a bullet made in the USA ... must be an American that shot me .. seems to be the logic that you used above...

It's a big piece of the chain of evidence.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,452]

Bashir al-Assad appears to be a fairly evil fucker who's willing to do pretty much anything to "his people" to keep power.

That said, until he directly threatens us, if we want to act, we should do it as part of an overall world community, communicating our generalized opprobrium. That whole "united we stand" thing.

We're not asking permission -- everyone knows we don't really have to do that. But by volunteering our cooperation, we strengthen everyone, in my opinion.

If your next-door-neighbor whales on his kids, you call the cops and Child Protective Services. If they investigate and find nothing, and the neighbors say it's not their business, then you have the decision as to whether you want to individually step in. That's not an easy or clear decision.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[masterblaster72 0]

ChrisD

War is being glorified and promoted on an unprecedented scale.

See it for what it is.



Again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

C

I'm glad somebody gets it. This war has been a foregone conclusion for some time.

War has become an industry that demands consumption (more war) to perpetuate it. I've watched this Eisenhower video many times, and it breaks my heart that America didn't listen.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***An important question that is not answered is, "What would be the purpose of a strike against Syria?" Would it be retribution? Punishment? Deterrence? Until that is answered, the costs and benefits are speculative.

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

Might I suggest, to stop it.

Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence.

Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

lawrocket

******An important question that is not answered is, "What would be the purpose of a strike against Syria?" Would it be retribution? Punishment? Deterrence? Until that is answered, the costs and benefits are speculative.

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

Might I suggest, to stop it.

Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence.

Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war.

Forgive my droll legalese: So you think there's probable cause that Syrian govt actors did it, but the accusers must still prove their case beyond that to warrant sanctions for the specific offense of using chemical weapons in the most recent incident. That's pretty much where I'm at, too.

Next: what standard of proof would work for you here? "Preponderance" (at least 51%) as in a civil case? "Clear and convincing" evidence (more than preponderance, less than beyond reasonable doubt), as in many administrative cases? "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as in criminal cases?

[livendive 8]

The publicly accessible case appears to hinge on the following points (based on today's release of a declassified portion of the investigation):

Quote

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's
Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence - but what follows is an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's analysis of what took place.

Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21
A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations. A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime's preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.

Background:
The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX and has thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical warfare agents. Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision maker for the chemical weapons program and members of the program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) - which is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense - manages Syria's chemical weapons program.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons. The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21.

We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition. The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime's frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.

Preparation:
We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel - including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC - were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of 'Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

The Attack:
Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred - including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas. Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events - characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers - were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage. We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.

We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. 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. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.

To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government's responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21. As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners.

Basically it sounds to me like the foundation is members of the chemical weapons teams working in the area where chemical agents are mixed in the days leading up to the attack, and wearing gas masks in the area from which rockets were launched in the hours leading up to the attack. It's also implied that the only rockets which landed in the attacked area were launched from government controlled areas, and there's an intercept of a senior government official that apparently acknowledges the use of chemical weapons, orders it to stop, and expresses concern about evidence the UN might find.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mpohl 1]

"And Colin Powell made the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now more blather from another Washington talking head.

The people of the United States do not support our military intervention in Syria. Kerry who once campaigned against this sort of world policing role should be ashamed."

P.S.: Also, I wish Sarah Palin, "I can see Russia from my doorsteps," would have been elected President. Now we have another bobblehead whose "hope" is running out.

Except that Guantanomo is still open; and the NSA is eaves-dropping on all of us.

Obama has been an object disappointment!!!

P.S.: If Obamacare sticks, that will be his saving grace.

lawrocket

******An important question that is not answered is, "What would be the purpose of a strike against Syria?" Would it be retribution? Punishment? Deterrence? Until that is answered, the costs and benefits are speculative.

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

Might I suggest, to stop it.

Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence.

Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war.

[kallend 2,027]

quade

Spoken like a true fan of a maniacal dictator.

I agree with mpohl.

When the USA is perfect we can start lecturing other nations about their behavior.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mpohl 1]

In times, like these...I take comfort in the wisdom of those who came before us.

Harold Pinter, British Nobel Laureate, 2005. His acceptance speech on "Art, Truth, and Politics," pre-recorded, while wheel-chair bound, near death is as timely as it was then.

It is a succinct analysis of US foreign politics since WW2. If pressed for time, dial in at the 10 min mark.

http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=620

kallend

***Spoken like a true fan of a maniacal dictator.

I agree with mpohl.

When the USA is perfect we can start lecturing other nations about their behavior.

[Kennedy 0]

Andy9o8

******If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

Might I suggest, to stop it.

Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence.

Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war.

Forgive my droll legalese: So you think there's probable cause that Syrian govt actors did it, but the accusers must still prove their case beyond that to warrant sanctions for the specific offense of using chemical weapons in the most recent incident. That's pretty much where I'm at, too.

Next: what standard of proof would work for you here? "Preponderance" (at least 51%) as in a civil case? "Clear and convincing" evidence (more than preponderance, less than beyond reasonable doubt), as in many administrative cases? "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as in criminal cases?

Last I checked, the hurdle that must be cleared before going to war is laid out in Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. Take it to congress and put forth your case for acts of war against another country that's not attacking us. Let them decide how much is needed. You know, like a constitutional scholar would suggest.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skyrad 0]

quade

***Problem is that we still don't know with any certainty who did it. Investigation is ongoing.

I'll agree there is still AN investigation ongoing.

The problem is you, nor I, nor anybody outside of the "other" investigation can really ever be 100% certain, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the UN inspection team is not the only people on the planet capable of making a determination. It would be nice if they could provide independent confirmation so people like you and me can have confidence in whatever happens next.

Exactly if they have proof then show it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[quade 4]

Skyrad

******Problem is that we still don't know with any certainty who did it. Investigation is ongoing.

I'll agree there is still AN investigation ongoing.

The problem is you, nor I, nor anybody outside of the "other" investigation can really ever be 100% certain, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the UN inspection team is not the only people on the planet capable of making a determination. It would be nice if they could provide independent confirmation so people like you and me can have confidence in whatever happens next.

Exactly if they have proof then show it.

I am equally certain they've shared 99% of the information with allied heads of state, but for obvious security purposes can't show it to everyone on the planet.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Kennedy

*********If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

Might I suggest, to stop it.

Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence.

Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war.

Forgive my droll legalese: So you think there's probable cause that Syrian govt actors did it, but the accusers must still prove their case beyond that to warrant sanctions for the specific offense of using chemical weapons in the most recent incident. That's pretty much where I'm at, too.

Next: what standard of proof would work for you here? "Preponderance" (at least 51%) as in a civil case? "Clear and convincing" evidence (more than preponderance, less than beyond reasonable doubt), as in many administrative cases? "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as in criminal cases?

Last I checked, the hurdle that must be cleared before going to war is laid out in Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. Take it to congress and put forth your case for acts of war against another country that's not attacking us. Let them decide how much is needed. You know, like a constitutional scholar would suggest.

Yes, of course, and that's a very valid point. But Vietnam, as well as several more limited scuffles, exposed the existence of "military actions" which then-Administration lawyers argued fell short of "War" as contemplated by the Constitution. In response to this, the post-Vietnam war Congress enacted the the War Powers Act to help close the (arguable) Constitutional loophole. That's really the context within which I was speaking.

[lawrocket 3]

This is either scary or truly terrifying:
[Url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047542466837078.html#articleTabs%3Darticle[/url]

[Quote]After a 45-minute walk Friday night, President Barack Obama made a fateful decision that none of his top national security advisers saw coming: To seek congressional authorization before taking military action in Syria

What's scary? That the President is putting shit out there about how he's "primal" and he doesn't consider his advisors.

Why would this be terrifying? Because skydivers on this page saw coming what the Obama's own people didn't.

It's this kinda or poorly though out crap and the underlying messages it sends that got us in this trouble to begin with. Nobody saw it coming that he would go to Congress to save face? If so, then fire every one of the incompetent morons.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

+1

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Sounds to me like Obama has a lot of Chickenhawks for advisors.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?"

oversimplified nonsense.

[shropshire 0]

quade

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?".

[burrrr]Our survey says .."PUBLICITY!! Get on the the front page of every newspaper wearing the I'm a hero cape"


We're not talking about normal people here, we talking about Politicians ... what pulls their strings is way different from the rest of us 'mortals'.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[ryoder 1,590]

lawrocket

This is either scary or truly terrifying:
[Url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047542466837078.html#articleTabs%3Darticle[/url]

[Quote]After a 45-minute walk Friday night, President Barack Obama made a fateful decision that none of his top national security advisers saw coming: To seek congressional authorization before taking military action in Syria

What's scary? That the President is putting shit out there about how he's "primal" and he doesn't consider his advisors.

Why would this be terrifying? Because skydivers on this page saw coming what the Obama's own people didn't.

It's this kinda or poorly though out crap and the underlying messages it sends that got us in this trouble to begin with. Nobody saw it coming that he would go to Congress to save face? If so, then fire every one of the incompetent morons.

It is a sad commentary when everyone is caught off-guard by a POTUS following the Constitution, (for once).

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.