Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
TheNewTeddy

Syrian Civil War

Recommended Posts

FSA vs Assad's tanks. T-72s and BMPs get a few doses of RPGs, etc. Good on the monster screen. Note the LIBERAL use of WP.

Nice find....tankers hate urban warfare !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of new toys....

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/03/world-most-powerful-rifle-raising-fears-in-hands-syrian-rebels/

New YouTube video from the Syrian battlefield shows rebels firing the same high-powered sniper rifle favored by U.S. Navy SEALs, leaving some experts wondering who the ragtag army of insurgents might train the guns on in the future.

The British-made AS-50, accurate from a distance of 20 football fields, is made for British Special Forces and Navy SEALs. Video showing Syrian rebels, who are aligned with Al Qaeda, firing the guns and shouting “Alahu akbar,” has also raised questions about who is supplying such devastating hardware.

Interesting .....

The Free Syrian Army has been receiving weapons from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - all close allies of the U.S. But the U.S. has repeatedly stated that it has sent no weapons to the opposition forces.

Even more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syrian air force attacks positions in Lebanon.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/03/syrian-jet-fires-missile-into-lebanese-border-town/

Perhaps it was an "ooooops"?

Here's a quick shot of the type of aircraft: The Su-22 Fitter. An export version of the old Su-17. The footage is from an earlier attack inside Syria.

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

su22.jpg

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here's an interesting video...not for the abuse of Syrian soldiers, mind you. The tanks pictured are old M-48/60 Pattons...a 1950s-60s era US made tank. This is interesting because Syria doesn't have them. However, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and Jordan do. So...which of those countries is dishing out the classic cruiser tanks? It is air portable...barely...which makes Iran rather unlikely. Israel has used them in the past but has since converted all of them to other uses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67HyTopDeuo

Now...to fire-up GH's conspiracy bone, follow the trail of these Pattons. Note, the M-48/60 is a museum piece as far as the US is concerned. Not in service. Turkey or Lebanon seems the most likely. Perhaps you can even uncover some damning document of Obama and Erdogan colluding to send them to Syria as part of some grand NATO plan of conquest. Or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG Dog

Check this one out. Members of the Free Syrian Army snappin off a few with that AS50 .. ... pretty hot eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG Dog

Check this one out. Members of the Free Syrian Army snappin off a few with that AS50 .. ... pretty hot eh?

It is. Now can you explain how it got there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a hint to get you started: check out Accuracy International's website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused can someone explain how $2 million in funding in the chemical weapons use investigation goes to "help secure" syrian chemical weapons..?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-provides-funding-to-secure-chemical-weapons-in-syria/article10828346/

When did the mandate of the investigation turn from investigating if chemical weapons were used and by whom, into, secure syrian chemical weapons stockpiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused can someone explain how $2 million in funding in the chemical weapons use investigation goes to "help secure" syrian chemical weapons..?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-provides-funding-to-secure-chemical-weapons-in-syria/article10828346/

When did the mandate of the investigation turn from investigating if chemical weapons were used and by whom, into, secure syrian chemical weapons stockpiles?

Probably going for practical things like atropine auto-injectors.

atropine_autoinjector.png

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused can someone explain how $2 million in funding in the chemical weapons use investigation goes to "help secure" syrian chemical weapons..?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-provides-funding-to-secure-chemical-weapons-in-syria/article10828346/

When did the mandate of the investigation turn from investigating if chemical weapons were used and by whom, into, secure syrian chemical weapons stockpiles?

We will see a double standard, or not even really hear about it, if the rebels end up using the chemical weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will see a double standard, or not even really hear about it, if the rebels end up using the chemical weapons.

Didn't Assad ask for then reject UN inspectors? Originally, he wanted them to look in the north for signs of use. The UN wanted more access yo other areas of Syria and Assad said that it was an invasion of Syrian sovereignty. This makes me think both sides have been less than forthcoming as to their use of chemical weapons.

Assad: The dirty rebels have used chemical weapons in the north! Come! Look!

UN: Can we look over here, too??

Assad: Ummmm....NO...absolutely not. There are no chemical weapons. Are you trying to invade Syria or something??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Assad ask for then reject UN inspectors? Originally, he wanted them to look in the north for signs of use. The UN wanted more access yo other areas of Syria and Assad said that it was an invasion of Syrian sovereignty. This makes me think both sides have been less than forthcoming as to their use of chemical weapons.

Assad: The dirty rebels have used chemical weapons in the north! Come! Look!

UN: Can we look over here, too??

Assad: Ummmm....NO...absolutely not. There are no chemical weapons. Are you trying to invade Syria or something??

OH I KNOW, these are those ever elusive weapons they could not find in Iraq. Right? Because they were moved to Syria.... right?

You still believing the lies put forth by Curveball? Even after the fact that it was known to be lies? No wonder you can't make heads or tails of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH I KNOW, these are those ever elusive weapons they could not find in Iraq. Right? Because they were moved to Syria.... right?

You still believing the lies put forth by Curveball? Even after the fact that it was known to be lies? No wonder you can't make heads or tails of this.

You know not what I believe, GH. That you still deny Syria has a chemical weapons program is...well...pretty silly at this hour.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Assad ask for then reject UN inspectors? Originally, he wanted them to look in the north for signs of use. The UN wanted more access yo other areas of Syria and Assad said that it was an invasion of Syrian sovereignty. This makes me think both sides have been less than forthcoming as to their use of chemical weapons.

Assad: The dirty rebels have used chemical weapons in the north! Come! Look!

UN: Can we look over here, too??

Assad: Ummmm....NO...absolutely not. There are no chemical weapons. Are you trying to invade Syria or something??

I agree with Assad Nato is trying to spy on Syria to enable them to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles, and generate any dirt possible on syria for propaganda purposes.

The investigation was for that attack not all of syria. It turns it into spying which is a security risk for a country involved with massive internal insurrection.

Canada was also saying how the 25 million it is paying or 2 million it is paying into the investigation is to help nato secure syrian chemical weapons stockpiles... hello??? Syria ain't going to be cool with that.

The US for instance has the world largest chemical and biological weapons stockpiles is it going to hand them over to the UN? Hell no, why should anyone expect Syria too.

My gosh, let steroid freak USA have all the weapons of mass destruction only... god no. Them and their homeland and tendency to overthrow occupy and install undemocratic puppet regimes ain't much of an advantage over the homebrewed kind, if not worse. Why the hell would any country want the US to be the only one holding the gun, they arn't nice. They are known for human rights abuses torture, an absence of due process, extreme bias economic warfare and general disregard for even their own citizens lives. they are not the cop anyone wants.

Edited by shortlived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Assad Nato is trying to spy on Syria to enable them to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles, and generate any dirt possible on syria for propaganda purposes.

The investigation was for that attack not all of syria. It turns it into spying which is a security risk for a country involved with massive internal insurrection.

Yeah...Syria wouldn't want the world to know exactly how far they've sunk as a people. A reasonable request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...Syria wouldn't want the world to know exactly how far they've sunk as a people. A reasonable request.

It isn't the world they don't want to know, it is their enemies who put them there.

Dude nato and the arab league are openly funding terrorism in a foreign state, that is a big no no so if you talk about where people stand look no further than yourself for where the ground is.

The death of 100,000 people and a million refugees is on the hands of nato and the arab league.

Edited by shortlived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the world they don't want to know, it is their enemies who put them there.

Oh, please...OK...who is the puppet master now?

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been no denial from anyone here that Syria possesses chemical weapons. However, some are questioning the vailidity of the claims about the chemical weapons being used in Syria.

Is there a double standard regarding the use of the chemical weapons?

- International calls for boots on the ground if Assad uses them.

- No calls at all if the NATO backed rebels use chemical weapons.

And now we are going to see ramp up in the rhetoric regarding these weapons in Syria..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/

Top-ranking lawmakers on both sides of the aisle declared Thursday that the "red line" in Syria has been crossed, calling for "strong" U.S. and international intervention after administration officials revealed the intelligence community believes chemical weapons were used.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, were among those urging swift action.

McCain, who has long called for more involvement in Syria, voiced concern that the administration would use "caveats" to avoid acting on the new intelligence. He said America's enemies are paying "close attention" to whether the U.S. follows through, as the White House signaled it wanted to see more proof before responding to the new information.

"I worry that the president and the administration will use these caveats as an excuse not to act right away or act at all," McCain told Fox News. "The president clearly stated that it was a red line and that it couldn't be crossed without the United States taking vigorous action."

He called for the U.S. to help establish a no-fly zone and "safe zone" in Syria, as well as provide weapons to the "right people."

Listening to the news on CBC last night, it was stated that officials has varying degrees of certainty that chemical weapons were used. I want to make sure they know with 100% accuracy that Assad has used them, otherwise it's a no go for me.

They had varying degrees of certainty regarding Iraq, which turned out to be false in the aftermath.

I am concerned that Assad will get set up by the NATO backed rebels and blame some chemical weapon attack on Assad which means the usual chickenhawks will be calling for boots on the ground and no fly zones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they really have no solid evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/26/17926504-israel-urges-us-action-over-syrian-chemical-weapons?lite

The United States faces a test of its resolve after Syria’s apparent use of chemical weapons crossed a "red line" set by President Barack Obama, an Israeli government official said on Friday, adding to a growing chorus of calls for tougher action against Bashar Assad’s regime.

Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Zev Elkin, a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said that world powers may now conclude that there was “no avoiding” action to take control of Assad’s chemical stockpile.

The U.K.’s Prime Minister David Cameron also said Friday there was “limited” but “growing” evidence that chemical weapons had been used in Syria “probably by the regime.”

Obama has said the use of chemical weapons by Assad would be a "game-changer."

Reuters reported that Elkin told Israel’s Army Radio on Friday that "there is a question here of when you set a red line, do you stand behind it?"

So there is no solid evidence, and not even a solid consensus among the US UK and Israel about the validity of the claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that that was the first thing you learn in President's School. Never give a certified nutjob a concrete ultimatum.

Now there would have to be Sarin clouds wafting up the Med towards Sicily before the US would admit there was solid evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bcsapper, on 26 Apr 2013 - 10:26, said:

I would have thought that that was the first thing you learn in President's School. Never give a certified nutjob a concrete ultimatum.

Many of our leaders in my view are certified nutjobs.

Quote

Now there would have to be Sarin clouds wafting up the Med towards Sicily before the US would admit there was solid evidence.

Sometimes that is what it takes. If we continually do 'pre-crime' then we can nail anyone for anything on the possibility that it may happen in the future.

But we can hardly call this a civil war in Syria when the rebels are being backed by outside forces and a good deal of the rebel fighters are from other countries like Iraq and Libya.

And even if the weapons are used on the rebels, why would be concerned? There has not really been much of a concern that thousands have already died by conventional weapons. So what is the concern that a few will be killed by chemical weapons? Some double standard there as well.

If we are concerned about the death toll, then the West should not be backing the rebels trying to take down Assad. Two years after Assad is still in power and does not seem to be going anywhere. It's only going to take something like a chemical weapon incident to warrant sending troops in.

What is so special or critical of a chem weapon attack compared to the thousands already dead from conventional weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of our leaders in my view are certified nutjobs.

Then I assume you won't be giving any of them a concrete ultimatum.

Sometimes that is what it takes. If we continually do 'pre-crime' then we can nail anyone for anything on the possibility that it may happen in the future.

But we can hardly call this a civil war in Syria when the rebels are being backed by outside forces and a good deal of the rebel fighters are from other countries like Iraq and Libya.

And even if the weapons are used on the rebels, why would be concerned? There has not really been much of a concern that thousands have already died by conventional weapons. So what is the concern that a few will be killed by chemical weapons? Some double standard there as well.

If we are concerned about the death toll, then the West should not be backing the rebels trying to take down Assad. Two years after Assad is still in power and does not seem to be going anywhere. It's only going to take something like a chemical weapon incident to warrant sending troops in.

What is so special or critical of a chem weapon attack compared to the thousands already dead from conventional weapons?

My comment was about the folly of giving ultimatums when one isn't willing to back them up. Not about the situation on the ground in Syria. As far as I'm concerned, there is no good side/bad side over there any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was about the folly of giving ultimatums when one isn't willing to back them up. Not about the situation on the ground in Syria. As far as I'm concerned, there is no good side/bad side over there any more.

Gotcha, that makes more sense to me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/04/israeli-warplanes-strike-syrian-weapons-facility/

A Syrian weapons facility was struck early Friday by Israeli warplanes, a U.S. official told Fox News.

A source told Fox News that it is not clear whether the warplanes crossed into Syrian airspace or whether the missiles were fired from across the border.

The strike was confirmed by Israeli officials who said the country's air force targeted a shipment of "game changing" weapons bound for the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group.

One official told The Associated Press the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles but was not more specific.

They spoke to the news agency Saturday on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a secret military issue.

Seems like Israel has joined the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel has declared war on another country.

Oh and Israel may be behind a false flag operation involving chemical weapons, as according to a former bush official:

A former senior official in the Bush administration said on Thursday the use of chemical weapons in Syria might have been a "false flag operation" of Israel, meant to implicate Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria... or it could’ve been an actual use by Bashar Assad. But we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey," retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...