That'd ruin all of the feel good "We saved the Syrian people!" crap.
Syria Gas Attack- What Now?
- Thread starter goon175
- Start date
That'd ruin all of the feel good "We saved the Syrian people!" crap.
RetPara
SOF Support
Syria is a true 'come as you' affair. Just because you snagged chemicals, explosives, etc ; does not mean you could or thought to snag a delivery system that was precise, elegant, and professional.
News babe was interviewing people about Syria. The Pro-action folks didn't strike me as someone who has served, was willing to serve, or knew anyone serving.
Guess it's easy when you don't have a dog in the hunt.
Guess it's easy when you don't have a dog in the hunt.
I read on Fox that apparently some SIGINT was captured that the Syrian gov was responsible for the chemical attack, and that is what POTUS & SECSTATE are basing the "evidence" claim on.
@Marauder06 do you have some open source info you can share outside of wikipedia and news? I'm at a bit of a loss with your post regarding "people who know and the interventionist use of wikipedia". As wikipedia and news/blogs are about the only sources I have to research with. But if you have some other stuff, I would love to read it....
@SOWT I think the argument of "all fine and dandy b/c your not the one going into harms way" stuff is a bit off based. I haven't seen anyone call for boots on the ground in Syria and mostly from what I've seen its all calls for an air strike and a no-fly zone.....
Anyway, looks like we're going to be involved soon enough. I guess we will see what happens.
@Marauder06 do you have some open source info you can share outside of wikipedia and news? I'm at a bit of a loss with your post regarding "people who know and the interventionist use of wikipedia". As wikipedia and news/blogs are about the only sources I have to research with. But if you have some other stuff, I would love to read it....
@SOWT I think the argument of "all fine and dandy b/c your not the one going into harms way" stuff is a bit off based. I haven't seen anyone call for boots on the ground in Syria and mostly from what I've seen its all calls for an air strike and a no-fly zone.....
Anyway, looks like we're going to be involved soon enough. I guess we will see what happens.
We're not joining with AQ, come on dude, hell I'm not even sure AQ is in Syria. From what I've been reading AQ has given money and weapons to rebels and asked them to fight under the AQ banner. Mujhadeen is there, but they are not the main FSA force.
JAB - do a search on Al -Quaeda Syria... I only got through about 20 pages of return on it before I had to stop...
Any ubiquitous organization in the ME will have at least a presence once anything happens, and currently there is no more ubiquitous organization than AQ ... it gets them funding from the ME Moneymen in the war against the great western Shaitan... AQ has been there since they were founded, at least partially as an adjunct to the Muslim Brotherhood.
followed by a UN Mandate to create a Peace Keeping force.
Brill
SOF Support
I've been reading about Al Nusra, but nothing I've read says that the are AQ. Also what I've been reading says that the FSA propper has been fighting Al Nusra. So if that is the case, rebels fighting the AQ supported Al Nusar, why would we claim all rebels are AQ or that by bombing the Sryian gov, we would be supporting AQ?
From what I've gathered, our benevolent provision of arms to rebels hasn't exactly been discriminatory in nature. If you're fighting against Assad, we want to arm you. The MSM has done a good job of portraying the rebel factions as several groups fighting for the same cause, with Al Nusra getting the most attention as the leaders of the cause. Not many people make the association between Al Nusra and Al Qaeda without doing some more research. They profess many of the same values as AQ, harass non-Muslims like AQ, and fly the black flag of AQ.
I'm pretty sure what I said was something about some peoples' knowledge being Wikipedia deep, I made no comment about legitimate news outlets. I'm not sure I made the comment in quotes above that you appear to attribute to me.
At any rate, I have access to no additional information than that which is publicly available to any other member here, and even if I did, I wouldn't say what that information was or even that it existed. But news sources are news sources... Wikipedia isn't. Blogs usually aren't legit sources either, although they often reference legit sources, as does Wikipedia. But too often, people either go with the first thing they see on the Internet that supports their pre-conceived notions, or they see something and don't consider it critically before passing it off to others as fact. As an example in this very thread, you mentioned the "CIA sniper in Syria" thing. The link you provided looked a lot like an Arabic-language propaganda video, with no reliable sourcing or context. Digging into it just slightly, I found several references saying that the video was, in fact, NOT taken in Syria... but Tunisia, back in 2011. Might that be why this story wasn't taken up by the mainstream press? I have no idea when or where the events depicted took place, but in absence of evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe the simplest answer, which in this case is that the "CIA/Syria" thing is a fake.
There are more than enough legit info sources out there that I don't feel obligated to list them all. But here's an example of what I would consider a legit information source related to the conversation we're having in this thread.
lol, come on bro, the AQ connection is evident in even a cursory review of the evidence, it's even in Wikipedia you just have to dig into it a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war#Jabhat_al-Nusra
Legitimate sources:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...r-hard-li/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-behind-benghazi-attack-trains-jihadists-for/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
Moreover, if you're receiving money, weapons, training, and advisors from someone, and fighting under their banner, how are you NOT that? If you are funded by AQ, and you're supplied by AQ, and the people who train and assist you are AQ, and you fight under AQ's banner... I've got to think that makes you AQ.
That's how it starts... that's not always how it ends up. No-fly zones are pretty ineffective w/o a viable ground force. How effective were air (missile) strikes against AQ in Afghanistan before 9/11? How long did we have a no-fly in Iraq before 2003? The only thing these measures are good for is to shore up domestic political strength. They are pretty much useless strategically.
Last edited:
JHD
Member
Pessimist that I am, even though it may start out as an air strike and no fly zone, circumstances could easily change to where tensions are escalated, resulting in boots on the ground.
It's all good, no need for the international war machine to get involved; the bears are here to sort shit out.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/syria-conflict-intensifies-as-bears-enter-war,33659/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/syria-conflict-intensifies-as-bears-enter-war,33659/
Stuff just got real... we better double our commitment to a total of four airsoft battalions.
OPSEC BRO WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!
At least I will be able to be in 4 places at once, you know, with all the mannequins out there with perfectly styled coifs and maroon berets.
No fly zones.
Northern Iraq to protect the Kurds, how did that work out?
Southern Iraq to keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait safe (you can call this one a success, just ignore the Armored Bde in Kuwait and the Marine ARG off the coast).
Bosnia to protect Muslims, how did this end?
Kosovo to protect Muslims, ended a lot like Bosnia, except it hasn't ended yet.
Northern Iraq to protect the Kurds, how did that work out?
Southern Iraq to keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait safe (you can call this one a success, just ignore the Armored Bde in Kuwait and the Marine ARG off the coast).
Bosnia to protect Muslims, how did this end?
Kosovo to protect Muslims, ended a lot like Bosnia, except it hasn't ended yet.
Also, what are the other consequences likely to be, aside from it not working? How are other regional powers (Russia and Iran, primarily) going to react? What is Iraq going to do? These things have to be thought through before we start lobbing missiles willy-nilly or sending in our fighters.
Hey, F-22's want to play too! You haterz just don't understand how airpower can win wars. /sarcasm.
Reed
Similar threads
