ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Rroff said:
Problem with strafing runs is that (although the systems seem to have conveniently ignored some Israeli attacks) while the airbase and corridor to it for the cruise missiles was 60km out of range of anti-missile systems it was very much in the anti-aircraft range of those systems.
Click to expand...


oh of course. thatch why America did not follow up with it (Israels actions are less fortunate than they are the result of sophisticated commando/electronic warfare campaigns) which left the bases rapidly repairable.

the 6 day war the israels showed a much larger force of will than nato has.
 
Tefal said:
which is exactly what appeared to happen
Click to expand...

In my non expert opinion it would have been extremely localised so unless the storage was right in amongst domestic housing (which does tend to happen in these kind of war zones) or local civilians went poking around on the site unlikely to have affected them.

IMO (though supposedly Turkey's autopsies show signs of damage from chemical weapons) its more likely either an actual chemical weapon attack took place or the attack used something like thermobaric weapons which can cause symptoms superficially like those of nerve agents on those at the periphery of the effect.
 
Rroff said:
In my non expert opinion it would have been extremely localised so unless the storage was right in amongst domestic housing (which does tend to happen in these kind of war zones) local civilians went poking around on the site unlikely to have affected them.

IMO (though supposedly Turkey's autopsies show signs of damage from chemical weapons) its more likely either an actual chemical weapon attack took place or the attack used something like thermobaric weapons which can cause symptoms superficially like those of nerve agents on those at the periphery of the effect.
Click to expand...


yes superficial similarities aside (which is highly likely due to Russian deployment of thermobarics, as historically seen) id think that many more civilians would have been killed in a deliberate gas attack.

it seems an odd target given the densliy populated targets that are available to them.

sub 100 deaths from a dedicated chemical weapons strike?

does that not strike you as odd?
 
Tefal said:
inexperience? much like Saddam's use. if indeed he did use them at all before, ignoring all rebel groups/uncommanded actions of the syrian army


you say yourself he doesn't have a clean record, why would he risk it for literally no gain.

he gained nothing from this but a massive set back.

possible reasons are;

1) the your/nytimes opinion that he did it to look "unimpeachable/untouchable". a reach at best

2) hes a lunatic unconcerned with us/western/global interference, possible but unlikley as he's not an idiot/has russian advisors

3)some form of provocation either at the behest of Russia or inspire of Russia trying to draw them and the usa/natio into closer conflict to give him protection, potentially possible from either view point

4) the russian perspective it was a rebel/isis held mutations facility that happened to be storing chemical weapons, possible, but the question is known or unknown, no speciall attack was used so they may hav ebeen unknowing or they may have known such weapons where there and attacked conventionally in order to release and expose them at the cost of civilian lives.

the last option is the one i find most likely.

a knowledgeable strike on a chemical weapons storage facility. it leaves assad/russia blameless and victims simultaneously while offering a horrific propaganda victory.
Click to expand...

Only time will tell i suppose regarding his aim, but, lets say the US don't follow through anymore, and this civil war carries on for another 3 years, i would say Assad has been untouchable. The amount of fear something like a chemical attack generates must be enormous, remember this is just a clip round the ear, this is not a full smack, if he had killed 500 people, the outrage would have been too much, there certainly would be more intervention i feel. The fact that this is small attack indicates to me he is putting his foot down, but no so much that he gets collared by everyone else. It's clever, and horrific. Also, even if it was inexperience, if he did it, he did it, inexperience is sort off irrelevant. Obviously all of us are working off conjecture, non of us really know whats happening.
 
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of Assad, go cry tears Putin/Assad fanboys. :D

And no the alternative doesn't have to be Isis, just like Iraq isn't run by Hezbollah.
 
Tefal said:
sub 100 deaths from a dedicated chemical weapons strike?

does that not strike you as odd?
Click to expand...

No. Why do you think it should? 100 deaths from a strike is a LOT. It'd be hard to achieve that with conventional weapons let alone chemical.
 
Mr Jack said:
No. Why do you think it should? 100 deaths from a strike is a LOT. It'd be hard to achieve that with conventional weapons let alone chemical.
Click to expand...

Depends on population density and munitions used - 100 deaths ain't a lot if you hit a crowded area with FAEs or cluster high explosives, etc.
 
Trusty said:
Let's not be naive here, chemical weapons are difficult to make and store, i don't believe anyone but a government backed group have the ability to stockpile chemical weapons..
Click to expand...

foL2jIs.png

As you rightfully said - let's not be naive here. Equally important - let's better understand how naive we are.

It may just be anecdotal but certainly interesting nevertheless, that the person by Trump's side in a press conference, when he declared his change of heart regarding Assad due to an alleged use of chemical weapons, was the King of Jordan.
 
Danny75 said:
It may just be anecdotal but certainly interesting nevertheless, that the person by Trump's side in a press conference, when he declared his change of heart regarding Assad due to an alleged use of chemical weapons, was the King of Jordan.
Click to expand...

CNN? Really?

I don't doubt there's blood on both sides, if you've read my other posts, you'll see i mention we all are working off conjecture. No one really knows. I still think its very unlikely for anyone who doesn't have the proper structures in place to store and use chemical weapons.
 
Trusty said:
CNN? Really?

I don't doubt there's blood on both sides, if you've read my other posts, you'll see i mention we all are working off conjecture. No one really knows. I still think its very unlikely for anyone who doesn't have the proper structures in place to store and use chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

Well I agree it's rare but rare doesn't always mean a few aren't actually doing it. A UN investigation determined "probable use" of chemical weapons by rebels, including Sarin, on a small scale throughout 2013.

I have a similar disdain/contempt for CNN. That doesn't prevent them from sometimes being the news org a source/whistleblower chooses to alert people to something. The article can no longer be found on their website, so someone may not have been happy with the information it contained.

Putting aside "the messenger", surely any military strategist worth their salt would have plans in place to deal with rebels getting hold of chemical weapons stockpiles around Syria. So regardless of whether it was ever reported (it was, as it turns out) it should be safe to assume something like this was going on.
 
True, rare doesn't mean it's not happening and it only takes one. If you look at previous chemical weapons attacks by Assad though, there is a catalogue of abuses by him on his own people. I mentioned earlier in the thread that if he had a clean record, i could sit on the fence. He doesn't though, maybe that is me getting caught in a red herring, i admit that. All we can do is look the history of the guy and add it all up,the history of Assad and counter in the fact that chemical weapons are hard to store and weaponise, it's likely that those attacks did not come from a rebel group who wouldn't have the infrastructure to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
 
How likely do you think it is that Assad, with nothing to gain and everything to lose, would order the use of chemical weapons which the world had been made to believe had all been safely removed from the stockpiles in Syrian government-controlled areas? And thereby show himself to have lied and not kept his word just ahead of an important world meeting on Syria and funding to re-construct the country? What need was there?

People go on about Assad's "catalogue of abuses" but if the evidence for each of these is as flimsy as the next, I wonder just how bad a guy he really is. And if you do believe he's all bad, at least his smartness and the support of the majority of his people, without which he wouldn't have lasted two weeks, cannot be brought into question.
 
So are you saying he hasn't used them in the past? Have you read the wiki article i linked, where the UN say that he's done it a lot.
 
B&W said:
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of Assad, go cry tears Putin/Assad fanboys. :D

And no the alternative doesn't have to be Isis, just like Iraq isn't run by Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Hezbollah? What the **** are you talking about, they have no scope in Iraq whatsoever...

Maybe your memory is failing you but half of Iraq was taken over a few years ago and Iraqis ran away from the fight, only recently have they been useful. Go cry to your Blair/Bush warmongers. (see i can do it aswell)
 
StriderX said:
Hezbollah? What the **** are you talking about, they have no scope in Iraq whatsoever...

Maybe your memory is failing you but half of Iraq was taken over a few years ago and Iraqis ran away from the fight, only recently have they been useful. Go cry to your Blair/Bush warmongers. (see i can do it aswell)
Click to expand...

That is my point, Iraq is majority Shia so if we used his logic and said post Saddam we'd have an extremist govt in charge it would be Hezbollah.

Like you rightly said it isn't though is it hence post Assad doesn't need to be either...

There is point in war..
 
Well, Iraq is a more successful regime change than Afghanistan is, haven't heard anything about the Iraqi assembly since the last leader popped off (Maliki) for being oppressive to the Sunnis in the West of the country. I mean ISIS was brewing regardless as it was partly Saddam's Old guard coming for revenge, but perhaps it would have been different if the democratically elected leader wasn't a massively bent dick to the people who had just lost power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom