Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria

he admits in this video that they are most likely fake


I think the dude probably created the video himself and used photoshop and fake screenshots from his computer. It's a game to CT'ers. To see how much 15 mins of fame they can get on YT. This guy got 200,000 views and over 70,000 likes in less than a day. That's about one of the best campaigns I've seen recently. Though, I find it hilarious that most of these fake videos are actually small conspiracy theories in themselves, where a CTer decides to sit down and dupe a whole bunch of other people. Doing the very thing, that they cry about other world leaders or whoever doing.
 
I saw an interview with a Syrian Free Army person who was pretty adamant that they are trying to marginalize the AQ-supporting elements in the opposition. It seems like they are pretty aware that al Nusr and the like are not real popular with "the west" and are keen to distance themselves from them

Which of course begs the question as to why is it that some people in "the west" do not see that the opposition is itself not unified - and that there are "moderates" who I venture to suggest even Joe would be happy to see armed.
 
I think the dude probably created the video himself and used photoshop and fake screenshots from his computer. It's a game to CT'ers. To see how much 15 mins of fame they can get on YT. This guy got 200,000 views and over 70,000 likes in less than a day. That's about one of the best campaigns I've seen recently. Though, I find it hilarious that most of these fake videos are actually small conspiracy theories in themselves, where a CTer decides to sit down and dupe a whole bunch of other people. Doing the very thing, that they cry about other world leaders or whoever doing.
Do you have any proof that it is faked or is that just what you think?
 
So Oxy. You claim we were off to war. What is your opinion now?
We were... Cameron didn't recall Parliament from holiday and hugely embarrass himself for the fun of it.

Absolute miracle and a great day for democracy :)

There was a lot of talk about how the British public are opposed to involvement and a number of MP's talked about constituents sending them YT videos showing jihadist atrocities.

Ming Campbell gave an interview afterwards 'worrying about how senators may react to our failure to help'... LOL

Great news... can lift my head up again.
 
Last edited:
I saw an interview with a Syrian Free Army person who was pretty adamant that they are trying to marginalize the AQ-supporting elements in the opposition. It seems like they are pretty aware that al Nusr and the like are not real popular with "the west" and are keen to distance themselves from them

Which of course begs the question as to why is it that some people in "the west" do not see that the opposition is itself not unified - and that there are "moderates" who I venture to suggest even Joe would be happy to see armed.
No its their problem not ours . I could care less what our enemies do to each other .
 
I think the dude probably created the video himself and used photoshop and fake screenshots from his computer. It's a game to CT'ers. To see how much 15 mins of fame they can get on YT. This guy got 200,000 views and over 70,000 likes in less than a day. That's about one of the best campaigns I've seen recently. Though, I find it hilarious that most of these fake videos are actually small conspiracy theories in themselves, where a CTer decides to sit down and dupe a whole bunch of other people. Doing the very thing, that they cry about other world leaders or whoever doing.
He has 200,000 subscribers . quite a popular channel. I find many of his videos interseting , not saying I agree with all of them but no worse then the lies and propaganda from the main stream media . His buddy http://www.youtube.com/user/CaspianReport puts up some real good videos .
 
Are you sure it will never be your problem?

And since when are the "moderate" Syrian rebels your enemy?
I dont know of any moderates . Its a civil war and most fighters are not Syrians as with Libya . When America had its civil war many Americans died as well .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The topic here is "Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria", and is still very relevant. I know we are on page 4, but still. perhaps we can leave the political sidebars, and focus on the topic. Is there a rush to strike? Does the evidence warrant it? What will the UN inspectors find? Is there any evidence it was staged?
 
David Cameron pledges not to embark on military action and acknowledges that the British public do not want it.

 
The topic here is "Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria", and is still very relevant. I know we are on page 4, but still. perhaps we can leave the political sidebars, and focus on the topic. Is there a rush to strike? Does the evidence warrant it? What will the UN inspectors find? Is there any evidence it was staged?
I expect that the priority for the UN will be to find a possible ground zero or at least where a munition has landed. There are are any ways in which to deliver nerve agents, for instance by artillery round were gas is released on impact or by aerial bomb in which the agent is released as an aerosol as the bomb descends which then breaks down to a gas. Find the munition and you can start to place blame.
 
I expect that the priority for the UN will be to find a possible ground zero or at least where a munition has landed. There are are any ways in which to deliver nerve agents, for instance by artillery round were gas is released on impact or by aerial bomb in which the agent is released as an aerosol as the bomb descends which then breaks down to a gas. Find the munition and you can start to place blame.
Apparently the weapons inspectors have no remit to attempt to establish who used the weapons, only to establish that they have been used.

Washington states 'it is not in doubt who used them'. But apparently the U.N is intending to attempt to find out who deployed them anyway. (Will post back up evidence for above later)

Just wanted to add, I am extremely proud of David Cameron for giving way to a democratic vote and also proud of Ed Milliband for being so cautious and demanding appropriate evidence. Both have gone up in my estimation. :)

In the meantime:



 
Last edited:
Doesn't the U.S. have satellite or other technology to have observed the origin point of missiles which might have delivered gas attacks?
 
Doesn't the U.S. have satellite or other technology to have observed the origin of missiles which might have delivered gas attacks?
There is no doubt that the chemical attack came during shelling from the Assad regime and they admit to using conventional weapons. But the issue is a very narrow one of 'did they use chemical weapons' which have been banned for 100 years by international agreement?

Now it is possible that Assad ordered a gas attack to coincide but if he did that would lead one to think he was pretty suicidal as he would be well aware of the likely consequences.

It is possible, (but unlikely) that a rogue officer ordered the use of chemical attacks.

Or it is possible that the 'rebels' released nerve gas, (and there are many delivery methods, including gas grenades), in order to draw the West directly into the conflict.

As there have been extensive reports of U.S training the rebels in Jordan and other places, it is possible that the U.S could even have instructed them to release the gas in order to get an excuse to become involved.

What is clear to me is the West has been manufacturing unrest and civil war in the M.E and they have a serious agenda as set out in PNAC.

It is terribly wrong (and illegal), to bomb first and ask questions later but that is their proven modus operandi.

There is also an argument that the U.S is employing double standards in attacking Assad, even if it is proved he was responsible.

Israel's use of white phosphorous in the Gazza was swiftly swept under the carpet. The U.S use of Depleted Uranium has killed and deformed masses of civilians and the U.S use of tons of Agent Orange in Vietnam has caused generations of terrible deformities and death.

But then this is a well known trait of the U.S Government... Hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy or not ? My first thoughts were this sounds like another saddam Hussein moment in history ,but the more I think about it America was very quick to start rattling the sabre (as per usual when a country has oil ) .
I do not trust anything am American government says ,the greed that, that country has or sorry demand is unbelievable .
I wouldn't be shocked if I found out that the American government set this up so as to have reason to take over a country ,put in place a leader who is favourable to the west (well America certainly)and control the oil ,like it hasn't happened before .
If a country who is in my opinion killed its own people to make a point to go to war well what wouldn't they do ?
 
It's safe to say that, should the US intervene in Syria, the resulting death toll(that is, as a direct result of involvement and not the ongoing conflict) will be much lower than that of the 10+ year conflict in Iraq. That of course does not excuse such an intervention, but then again it doesn't excuse the lack of action either.
The US is and has already intervened in Syria, having had a heavy hand in stirring up and supporting the conflict from the start. The only 'question' now is whether or not they set aside the 'by-proxy' method and actually take direct military action, which, if their considerable preparations are any hint, seems to be the goal instead of a reluctant possibility. Months and months ago we were discussing on this very site the allegations and implications that the US, who we know for a fact were training with NATO the FSA in the handling of chemical weapons 'just in case they seized any stockpiles', were actually planning the very sort of event being discussed here... staging (nyuck-nyuck) an Assadist chemical weapons attack to justify more intensive military action.

I don't know anything for a fact where these attacks are involved, and I certainly can't speak in Assad's defense, but I can say without a doubt in my mind that it's not remotely 'safe to say' that extensive US military action in Syria would result in less violence than Iraq. Russia and China are not going to simply shrug it off.
 
When did this take place?

It is disputed and counterclaimed but they did admit it but claimed it was 'a smokescreen and legal'.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/12/white.phosphorus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War

There were numerous reports of white phosphorus being used by the IDF during the conflict, which was initially denied by Israel. On January 12 it was reported that more than 50 phosphorus burns victims were in Nasser Hospital. On January 16 the UNRWA headquarters was hit with phosphorus munitions.[310] As a result of the hit, the compound was set ablaze.[311] On completion of the three-day Israeli withdrawal (January 21) an Israeli military spokeswoman said that shells containing phosphorus had been used in Gaza but said that they were used legally as a method to provide a smokescreen.[310] The IDF reiterated their position on January 13 saying that it used weapons "in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used according to the type of combat and its characteristics".[312
Content from External Source
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that during the conflict, Hamas fired a white phosphorus shell into Israel, which exploded in an open area in the Eshkol Area in the Western Negev, causing no damage or casualties.[299]
Content from External Source
 
Thanks Oxy. A white, fuzzy fungus had started spreading across my brain-matter, had to take a break from the metabunk and read myself a book. Good to see you're still at it. :)
 
Months and months ago we were discussing on this very site the allegations and implications that the US, who we know for a fact were training with NATO the FSA in the handling of chemical weapons 'just in case they seized any stockpiles', were actually planning the very sort of event being discussed here...

Sources? I know NATO and other countries have worked with some elements of the opposition. Chemical weapons in particular are dangerous to handle and maintain, much less use them, and a much more reasonable case can be made that the training was for that. Seeing as Syria is estimated to have the third largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world, I think that's entirely reasonable.

Grieves said:
staging (nyuck-nyuck) an Assadist chemical weapons attack to justify more intensive military action.

Errr, why didn't NATO use earlier reports of chemical weapon usage over the last year as their excuse instead of invaliding the claims? Let me guess, it wasn't the right time.

Grieves said:
I don't know anything for a fact where these attacks are involved, and I certainly can't speak in Assad's defense, but I can say without a doubt in my mind that it's not remotely 'safe to say' that extensive US military action in Syria would result in less violence than Iraq.

How is it not? Iraq's troubles are still ongoing, with an estimated 125-140k civilians dead. The vast, vast majority of those were killed in sectarian violence, killing each other. Note what I said:

that is, as a direct result of involvement and not the ongoing conflict

Similar to Libya, the NATO involvement there caused next to no civilian causalities, certainly not even in the same ballpark as Iraq. Of course, again, that doesn't excuse their involvement(it did lead to the deaths of civilians and the country is still in turmoil). But we can't even begin to pretend there is a valid comparison.
 
There is no doubt that the chemical attack came during shelling from the Assad regime and they admit to using conventional weapons. But the issue is a very narrow one of 'did they use chemical weapons' which have been banned for 100 years by international agreement?

It's unfortunately more complicated than that, too (VERTIC). Even if it's eventually established that the Syrian military did use chemical weapons, where did the order originate? (Foreign Policy: 1; 2.)

On Tuesday, The Cable reported that U.S. officials are basing their assessment that the Assad regime bears responsibility for the strike largely on an intercepted phone call between a panicked Ministry of Defense official and a commander of a Syrian chemical weapons unit. But that intelligence does not resolve the question of who in the government ordered the strike or what kind of command and control structures are in place for the use of such weapons. "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable Tuesday. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Because of that lack of clarity, [State Department spokeswoman Marie] Harf took a beating on Wednesday. In a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead. In effect, Harf was left arguing that because no one else could have carried out the attack, it must have been the Syrian government. "The world doesn't need a classified U.S. intelligence assessment to see the photos and the videos of these people and to know that the only possible entity in Syria that could do this to their own people is the regime," she said.
Content from External Source
Despite whatever evidence the US and allies say they have implicating the Assad regime, there's still no legal justification for a unilateral response, bypassing the United Nations. (NPR; PRI)

I still don't think there's a conspiracy involved in any of this or a need to invoke one. In my opinion, it's a case of the Obama administration having drawn a poorly-thought-out line in the sand, which they feel has been crossed and now think they're committed to act upon or risk losing credibility. To me, a greater loss of credibility is guaranteed by launching strikes which violate international law, even if a moral argument for intervention is made. Breaking the law to supposedly enforce the law is not an ethical, viable option.
 
How is it not?

The military capabilities of Syria far outstrip those of Libya, meaning a Libyan style 'no fly zone'(historically referred to as a massive bombing campaign) wouldn't work all that well. Unlike Libya, Syria has the capabilities to object to such a 'no fly zone' violently. Russia and China have 'red lines' too. What do you think might happen if Russian support for the Assad regime continued/intensified in spite of an American military intervention? What do you think the reaction of Hezbollah would be? What do you think the reaction of Iran would be? A major American offensive intent on toppling Assad could very easily put Lebanon at Israel's throat in a big way, and mount global tensions to an extreme degree. A major American offensive in Syria right now could very plausibly result in a conflict so protracted and wide-spread as to make Iraq look like a reasonably concise affair.
 
Handy map of ethnic diversity in Syria:

(Note the border of Lebanon, it initially looks like part of the Syrian coast)
 
Last edited:
The military capabilities of Syria far outstrip those of Libya, meaning a Libyan style 'no fly zone'(historically referred to as a massive bombing campaign) wouldn't work all that well. Unlike Libya, Syria has the capabilities to object to such a 'no fly zone' violently. Russia and China have 'red lines' too. What do you think might happen if Russian support for the Assad regime continued/intensified in spite of an American military intervention? What do you think the reaction of Hezbollah would be? What do you think the reaction of Iran would be? A major American offensive intent on toppling Assad could very easily put Lebanon at Israel's throat in a big way, and mount global tensions to an extreme degree. A major American offensive in Syria right now could very plausibly result in a conflict so protracted and wide-spread as to make Iraq look like a reasonably concise affair.


Firstly, Obama has already said there will be no boots on the ground, instead a "very precise" retaliation if anything(after consulting with congress). Other congresspeople are saying that fully supporting vetted elements of the opposition with lethal aid would be a better solution, which I tend to agree with vs. military action.

Secondly, Syria has a marginally better equipped and trained military than Libya - there's nothing you can do about cruise missiles without some sort of advanced CIWS, and there are but a handful of countries that operate them. Libya had some advanced Russian AA equipment(the kind that makes NATO fighter pilots wet their pants), but without the training and the rest of the military operating cohesively it's effectively useless. Libya had shot down American planes before, admittedly that was in the 80's and it was an F-111, but the point is their military was cohesive on a national level.

Russia is the only real threat, as there are reports that they are posturing by sending warships to the Mediterranean. But I personally don't think Russia will risk open conflict with the US over Syria, as they are enjoying quite a bit of economic success with both the US and China. I'm unaware of the significance of Syria that would make open confrontation cost-effective(though if someone can demonstrate what value Russia sees in Syria enough to go to war with the US in order to protect the Syrian despot, please do share).
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't an attack on military infrastructure potentially *release* any chemical weapons that may be there?
The UN inspector investigating chemcial attacks from ealier in the year said that evidence pointed to rebel forces.
From may 6th...

The rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) has rejected claims by UN investigators that it is likely to have used chemical weapons.
Carla Del Ponte, a leading UN human rights investigator, said on Sunday that a UN commission of inquiry had gathered testimony from casualties of the civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces had used the nerve agent sarin.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Monday, Saleem Edris, FSA chief of staff, said he considered the remarks a "huge injustice" and "provocation" to the Syrian people.


Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, also said that the inquiry had not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law.

"Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," she said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201356115118264895.html
Content from External Source
More recently though...


...
However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
Content from External Source
 
I'm unaware of the significance of Syria that would make open confrontation cost-effective(though if someone can demonstrate what value Russia sees in Syria enough to go to war with the US in order to protect the Syrian despot, please do share).

I don't see them putting that much on the line just to defend a minor naval facility or their arms sales to Syria. Decent insight on the matter was presented on yesterday's edition of Here & Now.
 
Firstly, Obama has already said there will be no boots on the ground,

Obama has said a lot of things... that doesn't make it so. In fact it is normally a precursor to him doing something completely different. Still he never 'lies', just changes his mind.:rolleyes:

instead a "very precise" retaliation if anything(after consulting with congress). Other congresspeople are saying that fully supporting vetted elements of the opposition with lethal aid would be a better solution, which I tend to agree with.
Vetting the terrorists... are you sure? I don't know why Obama doesn't ship the Guantanamo Bay inmates out there and arm them... Oh no, he can't do that can he, they are all innocent people who have nothing to do with any fighting and well they are only walking skeletons now anyway...

Yes we have all seen the precision strikes and the collateral damage... 10 dead civilians for each dead terrorist.

It is common knowledge that you can fire a hundred missiles in 'precision strikes' and not affect the workings of the military. It was the same in WW1... tons and tons of ordnance fired in barrage after barrage and when the troops went in they were still mown down like corn.

Similarly the bombardment of Baghdad did not do much by itself but was designed to disable command structures so troops could go in.

But the point is also... according to the statement made by Cameron in parliament whilst trying to garner votes to be allowed to aid in this offensive 'to prove his loyalty to the U.S', he stated, 'this is not about taking sides and aiding one side or the other it is only about preventing the use of chemical weapons'... so was he bare faced lying?

http://www.publications.parliament....m130829/debtext/130829-0001.htm#1308298000001
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I beg to move,
That this House:

Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and

Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
Content from External Source
What is the purpose of the 'precision missile strikes'. Allegedly it is supposed to be 'A shot over the bows'... which is a nonsense... ooh ooh perhaps it could be ... a lie????

What about... blowing up those really nasty chemical weapons... well not really, that doesn't fly either does it because it would be releasing nerve gas all over the place.

Ok, what about bombing Assad's home and family and well maybe catching him with a missile = regime change... which Cameron is on record as stating is not the plan... and as Cameron was in on the plan with Obama, he should know ... unless Obama simply told him a load of BS.
http://www.publications.parliament....m130829/debtext/130829-0001.htm#1308298000001
The question before the House today is how to respond to one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century, which has slaughtered innocent men, women and children in Syria. It is not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict, it is not about invading, it is not about regime change, and it is not even about working more closely with the opposition; it is about the large-scale use of chemical weapons and our response to a war crime—nothing else.
Content from External Source
So after the 'in and out missile strikes of short duration'... what next...Assad comes out with the white flag maybe... "I'll be good now...don't send any more missiles"... yeah right.

Secondly, Syria has a marginally better equipped and trained military than Libya - there's nothing you can do about cruise missiles without some sort of advanced CIWS, and there are but a handful of countries that operate them. Libya had some advanced Russian AA equipment(the kind that makes NATO fighter pilots wet their pants), but without the training and the rest of the military operating cohesively it's effectively useless. Libya had shot down American planes before, though admittedly that was in the 80's and it was an F-111.

I think you are vastly underestimating here and never mind if you are not... this will result in civil war continuing with all the multi factions bombing and killing each other like Iraq and Libya for years. Also they will get their hands on vast amounts of WMD's and that could wind up anywhere.

Russia is the only real threat, as there are reports that they are posturing by sending warships to the Mediterranean. But I personally don't think Russia will risk open conflict with the US over Syria, as they are enjoying quite a bit of economic success with both the US and China.

And what if you are wrong... WW3? But shit, we are happy to take the chance aren't we to make Syria a nice peaceful democracy like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and then you can sit back and say"After all we did for them... they are still killing each other... what animals".

Nice lucrative oil and infrastructure building and McDonalds all over the M.E. Yeah, gotta be worth it.

I'm unaware of the significance of Syria that would make open confrontation cost-effective(though if someone can demonstrate what value Russia sees in Syria enough to go to war with the US in order to protect the Syrian despot, please do share).

Nice one JV...How cost effective is it? Says a lot doesn't it.

But I think you will find it a bit more involved than that. How would the U.S like it if Russia/China invaded Mexico or Canada and set up its missile batteries on your border. No you underestimate people methinks. Everyone sees how rapacious, duplicitous and power hungry the U.S is and will take steps to defend themselves.

The U.S have no moral or legal authority... the U.S is engaged on empire building and land grabbing, albeit they leave a puppet Government in place to do their bidding.

The U.S fools hardly anyone anymore, apart from those who pretend to be fooled because it suits them.

No JV... put as much make up on a pig as you like and it is still a pig.
 
Last edited:
NBC evening news just now--- saying that the U.S. had spy satellites which tracked the rockets from government launchers to the strike zones. That's what I was wondering about. I figured they would have the capability to gather that sort of data.
 
Last edited:
NBC evening news just now--- saying that the U.S. had spy satellites which tracked the rockets from government launchers to the strike zones. That's what I was wondering about. I figured they would have had the capability to gather that sort of data.
How does that work though?

We know that shelling took place but how can they differentiate between a conventional shell and a chemical weapons shell, from a satellite?
 
How does that work though?

We know that shelling took place but how can they differentiate between a conventional shell and a chemical weapons shell, from a satellite?

Don't suppose they can. They would just know the time when the shells/rockets with chems hit and match with with satellite data. As I understand it, conventional weapons were maybe used at the same time.
 

Sorry, but this reads like a long rant in reply to that particular post and without the context of what I'd said earlier. I don't support any action in Syria that involves the military. Did I not make that clear? I think if that were to happen it should have happened years ago. To so openly waffle on the supposed "red line" drawn well past the huge amount of destruction that's already occurred greatly saddens me.

Also, according to RIAN, it doesn't look like the Russian fleet movement has anything to do with Syria:


MOSCOW, August 29 (RIA Novosti) – The redeployment of Russian Naval vessels in the Mediterranean Sea is part of a planned rotation and is not linked with the worsening situation in Syria, a Russian Naval spokesperson said Thursday.

The statement comes after media reports had suggested that the grouping of Russian vessels in the Mediterranean Sea was to be changed in direct connection with events in Syria. Admiral Viktor Chirkov, commander of the Russian Navy, told Zvezda TV channel Sunday that Russia "should have five or six vessels permanently deployed in the Mediterranean," but did not say how many were already there.

“The vessels in the Mediterranean, like those in other parts of the world, act under plans by the Russian Naval Command and General Staff, and fulfil tasks set,” the Naval spokesperson said.

“On completion of these tasks, the vessels then either return to their bases, or are replaced by other vessels to complete the tasks set,” the spokesperson said, adding “This does not amount to a renewal of any grouping or groupings, it is a planned rotation.”

The spokesperson for the Russian Navy did not share any further details with RIA Novosti regarding the ships involved, and said Navy General Staff decides what class of vessel to send.
Content from External Source
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/201...-Redeployment-Not-Linked-to-Syria---Navy.html
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/201...-Redeployment-Not-Linked-to-Syria---Navy.html

Note the infographic on the Russian Navy: http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20130513/181118560.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top