Mighty_Zuk

Judging by current events, 2011's rebels would probably side with Assad today. The irony is beyond description.

So China places 150,000 troops along the NK border. Possibly to protect against migration.

China sets to buy US coal instead of North Korean, hurting North Korea's single largest export.

US and Japan ready their navies along the North Korean coasts.

Pyongyang is cleansed of 600,000 people. Presumably to free bomb shelters for the elite.

Did I miss anything?

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

LoooSeR posted estimates from Russian economists on how long it would take the Syrian economy to recover to its pre-war level.  That was about a year ago, and they were estimating two decades.  Obviously, the situation has not improved since then.  @Donward's comparisons to the Thirty Years War are apt.  This is a massively confusing proxy war that has vastly exceeded the original scope of the conflict and dragged in much larger foreign actors.  It will leave the country devastated for decades.

 

On their own? Not if someone has an interest in keeping an economically stable and strong regional axis which includes Syria. Russia has previously expressed interest in assuming key role in building contracts throughout Syria (though I will not kid myself, it will take decades to rebuild everything as well).

Other than that, Syria will become a fertile ground for investments. I can imagine all sorts of companies, especially energy companies, investing a great deal in Syria's rebuilding efforts so they could get a cut of the profits. And the contracts will be massive! That is, of course, if Assad will open up to western "aid" efforts.

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

You being offended or not has nothing to do with me thinking it's a retarded statement that shouldn't have been said. This isn't the first time Spicer has said dumb shit. He said that Trump's goal is to destroy healthcare and he has said that Trump's goal is to destabilise Syria/the region twice now. A press secretary shouldn't have so many "slips of the tongue", if he can't stop saying stupid shit (and having to apologise for it), maybe he shouldn't be press secretary? 

 

1. Except the US didn't refer to it as organophosphorus chemcicals, they said nerve gas. Some organophosphates are nerve gasses, not all organophosphates are nerve gasses. So you can't simply make the jump from organophosphates to nerve gasses, but the US did do just that. WHO said "the symptoms are consistent with exposure to organophosphates (which include nerve gasses)". WHO didn't say "the symptoms are consistent with nerve gasses (which are organophosphates)". The US completely dropped the organophosphates part and went straight to nerve gasses. 

If WHO had said "organophosphorus chemicals, a category of chemicals that includes phosmet" (which is a true statement) would the US have said "World Heath Organization stated [...] the victims of the attack in Syria showed they had been exposed to phosmet" (which could be a true statement)? 

 

2. They say they have proof, an inspection can confirm that proof. It's one thing to go look for proof, it's another thing to confirm the proof you already have. You give Iran as an example, I can give MH17 as an example. I think the only country that didn't (fully) accept the JIT's findings is Russia. For as far as I know every other country has accepted JIT's findings as correct.

Syria's only demands were: International team and start in Damascus. There was nothing like "Only non-NATO countries allowed, who have to start in Damascus, cannot go anywhere without military protection, and are not allowed to visit military installations". Nothing in the two Syrian demands prevented an inspection team from visiting all military installations, airbases or factories they suspect of making and/or storing sarin.

 

3. I'm not saying that the Russian/Iranian/Syrian sides aren't sketchy.

 

Also, as soon as the two compounds come into contact, it would make sarin. Sure, properly mixing everything would make sure that the binaries are fully converted to sarin, but as soon as the binaries come into contact with each other, sarin is formed.

 

It also has to be noted that Putin didn't say it was a false flag, he said it was a provocation. The term "false flag" was a mistranslation:

This was Putin's statement:

Which, according to a Redditor translates to:

Now, I can't confirm the accuracy of that translation, but I do know that "провокации" transliterates to "provokatsii".

There's our misunderstanding. I'm talking about this very specific remark. Not about his history of similar remarks. Simply because I don't follow US politics much other than occasionally reading the headlines and having a chuckle.

What I'm saying is you shouldn't give it too much weight. It's insignificant.

1)I believe you're clinging to unnecessary small details here. The intent was clear. 

2)It's only going to keep them in the loop of "I'm right. - No I'm right. No I'm right.". The information has been validated by numerous intelligence agencies, with their own means to research it in a short time without these prolonged unnecessary inspections. There are plenty of very good ways to gather information, and an 'on the ground' inspection may not be necessary at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/middleeast/document-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.html?_r=1

There's already a declassified report on the incident. Obviously several parts are not included to prevent leakage of classified data on intelligence gathering capabilities. 

This is just a delegitimization attempt by Syria (and Russia) of the missile strike, because they know the US has already got the necessary info and won't be part of an investigation it deems redundant. This is a very common method in Russian media to be fair. They're still blaming the US for everything done in Syria because they say they offered the US to participate in their coalition, which the US later declined. Of course failed to explain that the Russian coalition included groups that are highly hostile to the US, and the US was already part of a much larger coalition. Every actor and their tactics. This just happens to be Russia's primary card.

3)In a Bellingcat's post (note, I am not an expert in chemistry, nor am I even interested in the subject), it was said that either one of the components, or a certain chemical required to mix them (can't remember which) is highly flammable and would disintegrate before the Sarin compound can be created. I'll try to find it.

Last but not least, the translation is fairly accurate (other than the first part. It was phrased incorrectly), but what do you think he means by "provocations"? Because as far as I can see, the two mean the same thing. US sets up a plan to provoke Assad into using a chemical weapon (unknowingly it is a US operation), Assad uses chem weapons and the US strikes again. EZ and PZ. If that's Russia's theory, it's damn well a false flag accusation, because then none would have known it was the US who planned it, and everyone would think it was purely Assad's fault. 

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

What. No. He's the fucking White House press secretary, not Joe from backwoods Georgia. People like him should carefully consider what they're going to say. Not run their mouth like a retard and later apologise.

Technically speaking I should be the most offended by his statement, you know, because I'm nationally Jewish and all. But I choose not to be offended by it, so surely you can find the strength to ignore it as well and see it as one man's unintentional slip of tongue.

49 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

US statement:

 

WHO report:

 

So the US went from "some cases" to "the victims", and from "organophosphorus chemicals" to "sarin". Those are quite the jumps.

 

 

Come on Don, have you read the shit that has come out of the mouths of US governmental people?

It goes from "this is a one-off strike, we won't take further action" to "Assad didn't do this" to "Trump wants to destabilise Syria" to "Trump wants to destabilise the region" to "we're looking for more military options" to "the US cannot separate Assad from ISIS". The US twists and turns just as much as Syria, just on another level and in the US' case the public eats it.

 

Like I said before, Syria almost immediately offered to accept an international inspection team, why was this denied? You can go shouting like "SYRIA HAS NOTHING TO DEMAND", but why shouldn't an inspection/investigation be from an international team? What inspection team in recent years hasn't been an international team? Syria also said it should start in Damascus, shouldn't that be absolutely perfect? Start in Damascus, drive to Shayrat, inspect that. If the US knew if came from Shayrat, wouldn't this be the easiest course of action? Of course, if you then can prove it came from the Syrian air force, you can then bomb to shit whatever you want to bomb to shit. For me this isn't about something like "The US shouldn't hamper the fight against the jihadis" but it's about the US straight up denying an international inspection and that they were the investigator, attorney, judge and the executioner. A major power doing that scares me, sugarcoat it all you want, but it fucking scares me. What if Russia had completely destroyed the Ukrainian air forces over MH17? What if we had destroyed Russian air defences over MH17? I mean, we had perfectly good (according to us) evidence to blame the Russians, and the Russians had perfectly good (according to them) to blame the Ukrainians. But none of the parties involved in that incident did that. I wonder why.

 

 

More about the Spicer remark:

Makes it a little more nuanced, but it's still a dumb statement.

1)"some cases" refers to highlighted data on the victims. So when they say "the victims", there's no "jump". They were referring to them from the beginning.

From a 5 second google search, I found out Sarin was a organophosphorous compound, which means that referring to it as "organophosphorous chemicals" is correct. 

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

2)We all know what the inspectors would find. And if you don't know, I'll give you a hint: Iran's nuclear facilities' inspection. Another hint: They found nothing harmful but also found completely closed off and covered sections in those facilities, from which they were prohibited.

This is Syrian turf. And partly even Russian turf. They can cover things up fairly easy I say. The supposed follow up strike on the hospital could serve as evidence for that.

3)There are plot holes in the Syrian/Russian/Iranian version as well. They say it was an innocent attack on an arms factory or storage facility in which chemical weapons were located (and Assad didn't know about the chem weapons, just thought there were weapons). But then, how would that create a chemical reaction necessary for the creation of Sarin gas? That would destroy the components, not mix them.

And then of course the claims that the attacks were in fact fake, which contradict the early version that a warehouse was hit. 

Let's just forget what Spicer said, okay? When you're subject to so much stress because of so many things happening simultaneously, it's inevitable to say some things you'll regret. Just take note and move on.

That is correct.

Didn't notice until now the different composition between the front and sides:

I'm hijacking this thread now.

Eitan APC in mobility trials both in the Negev and Golan (South and North respectively). Still waiting on them to have a turret and APS developed and ready for the Eitan, but given the time schedule they still got plenty of time (til 2020).

29 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

 

Just take a look at Mosul for example, it's been months and it's still not recaptured and it has already cost thousands and thousands of casualties. "Insignificant", sure.

 

What it is supposed to mean, is that ISIS is insignificant to the power struggle between the east and west.

Think the US cares about ISIS? They're only bombing them because Iraq is struggling with them.

Think the Russians care about them? They're only bombing them because they need a Syrian port. 

Russia's been bombing other terrorist groups that oppose Assad but also oppose ISIS, and none's been blaming them for supporting ISIS.

11 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Tell that to the people living in Kobane.

All sorts of groups hold all sorts of cities and villages. 

3 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Just for the record, the US has done that as well, and may still be.

That's basic knowledge. They didn't even bother hiding weapon deliveries to them. What I'm talking about is this very specific incident. People got this baseless notion that the bombing was done to aid terrorists. It could have been a side effect of it, surely, but that's not the reason for this attack as many like to believe.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Because it kinda is. This infrastructure is used for what? Deliver cakes?

 

    And speaking about Israel - i heard all sorts of Israel claims about Hezbollah receiving T-90s, Pantsirs, Yakhont missiles and so on, all of which are lies. I hear that Isreal bombing of SAA is just to prevent Hezbollah from receiving weapons... while Hezbollah have A FUCKING ARMOR BATTALION IN AL-QUSEIR FOR OVER A YEAR, even PARADING and it was never bombed.

You know very well what I meant.

What you may have heard about T-90, Pantsirs, or Yakhont, is either not reported by Israel, or reported but you misunderstood it as if Hezbollah is already in possession of these systems. Because I've never heard Israeli sources claiming they do have them.

The armored battalion is not considered a serious threat as medium to long range rockets would be. Bombing these tanks and APCs would likely prompt a war, which is something that should be prevented. Not everyone strives for constant war, you know.

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

The International Coalition just announced that they're stopping flights in Syrian airspace. Guess who benefits from this.

First time I'm hearing this. Either way, they're there to aid Iraq, who requested support. Assad can handle on his own. Especially when Russia is there to help him. 

It's never been about ISIS. They're insignificant.

4 hours ago, Belesarius said:

The only real issue I have with Dilbertmans post is this: " I didn’t realize that our military knows what every aircraft in Syria is doing at all times. That’s impressive, bordering on hard-to-believe. "

 

Uh, why?  US technical intelligence is by far and away the best in the world. Between various ground radar,  AWACS, fighter aircraft and drones, and SIGINT monitoring of enemy airbases, I'm sure the US is keeping a very close eye on things in Syria. USA/UK/Canada and a few others have gotten very good at correlation of sensor data and data sharing. I have zero disbelief in the thought that the US knows the flight path of every aircraft over Syria.

 

 

It's not as easy as you think. They've got a LOT to monitor in Syria. From ISIS and other terrorists spread all over Iraq and Syria, to the Russians and Assad's troops. They don't have the means to do all that.

That's also why they rely on Israel to a great extent to monitor Syria, as Israel is already focusing on Syria at the moment. Where do you think the reports of Assad having chemical weapons come from? 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

The idiocy of some people is just stunning. People so easily equate bombing SyAF infrastructure and equipment to direct aid to terrorists.

Seems to be two separate incidents. How did this happen?

Not a Merkava but worth sharing.

This Magach seems to employ Thai armor techniques as the Blazer became outdated.

*I believe more info on the Barak program should be announced soon, as first testing of the IronVision should be done this month. 

How are they planning to have a Disneyland if everyone in it dies?

So with 44 targets hit, some of them hit twice or 3 times, the claims that 23 hits were recorded are now false.

Overall, yeah it seems really strange. But I don't think the US would go as far as doing a false flag attack and with such credibility. There's too much to lose here for the US. And I don't think they've changed their mind about Assad either. There's still no replacement for him and the west has realized that quite some time ago.

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

WTF? When Erdogan "pulled out" of Al-Bab? Do you understand that he already directly intevenied in borth Iraq and Syria? National embarrassment for fighting against declared enemies in the interest of his supporters?

Sorry, my fault. I misinterpreted the cessation of the operation as pulling out (though I remember reading they're replacing their troops with local groups). But they have, at least for now, stopped their activities there (without their main objective completed). 

The national embarrassment would be when Erdogan will try to confront Russia publicly, and get its political ass whooped. Turkey knows that not only is Russia too much to handle when it has its other problems, but it knows it may potentially get it kicked out of NATO and further away from any alliance it might have had. 

Now, if he'll try a direct military confrontation with Russian troops in Syria, or even the SAA, there might be some serious Russian retaliation.

And how could a newly made sultan explain to his people that the country is in shambles after he promised them a glorious war?

Speaking of Erdogan, I'm quite surprised he pulled out of Al Bab. If he implies he will intervene, which I doubt will happen due to possible tensions with Russia, he may risk becoming a national embarrassment. Not good for him, since becoming a sultan is his prime goal. 

Bunkers could have been hit multiple times. Due to the relatively narrow passage, they should require a second missile to be sure.

7 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

People are saying that it's a fuel depot that's burning there, which is another bad thing since Syria was already low on fuel in the first place.

That's the least of their problems if they dont have anything left to use that fuel.

This guy doesnt give the direct link to the article, so cant copy it ATM.

http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/04/opcw-report-rebels-used-chemical.html?m=1

So apparently OPCW implies it was it was the rebels who used gas (though there were 2 reported incidents lately). But their wording also leaves room for the option that Assad may have acquired chemical weapons outside the previous stockpiles.

Interesting, but what happened, happened.

You can disagree. I gave you my personal view, and I'm looking at regional effects more than global effects in this case.

I personally dont view it negatively. On the contrary.

Communication between Russia and USA was effective and none was harmed.

Trump showed strength after a long series of shows of weakness by Obama, which is needed to assure their allies that not only Russia physically acts in the interests of their allies.

Relations may have been harmed. Or not. Putin is a pragmatistic person. Surely he can respect a show of power and sees the picture.

Assad did a stupid thing and I dont think Russia was surprised by the US actually enforcing the red lines they've set.

Behind the scenes I think Putin is showing Assad he isn't pleased with him provoking external powers to intervene in an already complicated conflict.

First assad fires on Israel and nearly provokes a military operation (had the missile landed in Israel, Israel would retaliate by decimating Syria's air defenses and ballistic missile stockpiles), then uses gas and gets an airbase in ruins.

And who has to deal with all of Assad's shit? Putin, who needs Assad to survive. And the western talks about not needing Assad anymore (supposed to remain president but be part of negotiations with opposition groups) are definitely very harmful for Russia's interests.

Basically today: