If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Russia comes to the defense of the Syrian government, says U.N. chemical report on the attacks is a bunch of hooey   (nytimes.com) divider line 8
    More: Interesting, Syrians, Russia, hooey, poison gas, Secretary of State John Kerry, Sergey V. Lavrov  
•       •       •

538 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 4:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-18 10:53:08 PM  
3 votes:
Oh, and ya'll want citations? From pretty much the most reputable newspaper in the world?

How about this? Or this?

This is not an open question. Putin is lying. This should not come as a surprise to anybody who knows anything about Vladimir Putin. We are talking about the guy who kills journalists when they disagree with him or point out any flaws he or his government may have, remember? It serves Russia's strategic interests to keep Assad in place, and they don't mind launching a propaganda campaign to do it. They're also giving him lots of weapons- Putin is not some disinterested observer merely seeking the facts. He's an active participant who is trying to maintain control over a military base that gives Russia its only direct access to the Mediterranean ocean, which is kind of important to them, and he can only ensure that by keeping Assad in place.

Please don't be naive enough to think that Putin just wants peace and truth. He's playing you.
2013-09-18 10:54:41 PM  
2 votes:

enemy of the state: cptjeff: enemy of the state: 3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

I haven't seen any information about missiles. It sounds like heresay to me, after the fact. It could be true, of course. But it sure hasn't had a high profile in the news. Are there any reliable Western journalists in that part of the country who know enough to say what kind of missiles they were?

As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.

I'm sure that Syrian soldiers could be bribed, or killed, or just going over to the rebels' side. I just don't see rebels getting hold of sarin or even small missiles as a big stretch.

As far as al ...


A well established discipline (U.S. Army Arty Periodical from `44 - with illustrations): http://sil-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/1944/NOV_1944/NOV_1944_ FULL_EDITION.pd f (no direct link - sorry - you can find it)

However:   http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-121/f m 612_9.htm
2013-09-18 05:31:26 PM  
2 votes:

Apik0r0s: Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?


Based on the impact crater, you can determine information about where the projectile came from.  Physics is our friend.
2013-09-18 05:10:09 PM  
2 votes:

rosebud_the_sled: sprawl15: qorkfiend: "U.N. chemical report"?

To be fair, it was basically a report that "hello this is chemical weapons" and didn't try to say who committed the attack.

You mean the part where they calculate the trajectory from one of the Syrian made missiles carrying ~500Kg of a chemical agent back to a compound of the Syrian Republican Guard?  Or are you writing about some other part of the report.


No, wrong report.

The UN report on the August 21st chemical weapons attacks are, by the terms negotiated by the Syrian government as a precondition for allowing UN inspectors into the country, not allowed to assign blame to either Syria or the rebels.

The report, however, did note the areas where the weapons landed and the general directions they were traveling from before delivering its payload.

Third party analysts were the ones who took all of the directions and the data about the locations where the munitions were found and traced it back to the Syrian Republican Guard base.
2013-09-18 05:06:16 PM  
2 votes:

enemy of the state: Almost Everybody Poops: Graspin' at straws now.  I'm eagerly waiting for the farkers convinced it's a rebel attack to come into this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised that it was a rebel attack:

1) Assad was winning the war. He had alot to lose by using chemical weapons and little to gain.
2) The attack was a few miles from the presidential palace on the day that UN inspectors were coming into the country. That's remarkably poor planning if the Syrian government did it.
3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.
4) Easy to dress rebels up in Syrian army uniforms and launch an attack from area the government controls.
5) alQaeda, for example, wouldn't be too finicky about killing hundreds of innocent civilians. That's sort of their forte. So no problem taking out a rebel area. They were probably the wrong sect anyway.
6) The rebels have a huge amount to gain by bringing in foreign intervention.

As I said, I haven't heard or seen any evidence proving or even strongly indicating which side did the attack. We're just supposed to take the word of our leaders. Right.

All I'm saying is that objectively, there's good reason to think a really bad group of rebels, like alQaeda, did this.


Those are valid points, but the forensic evidence in the report is pretty damning. types of rockets described in the report are large enough that only a battery would be able to launch them, and I don't believe the rebels have been able to acquire such weapons.  Also, given the amount of sarin gas used (55 liters I believe) the rebels would have had to capture a significant and most likely heavily guarded base, and given the direction of the war that's highly doubtful.

And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.
2013-09-18 11:26:36 PM  
1 votes:

Crazy Lee: cptjeff: Crazy Lee: As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.

Fortunately, they're basing it on more than just one hole in the ground. They have multiple holes to go off of. We know how a missile arcs. Tell me, is two points and a defined curve enough to determine a trajectory?

I was pointing out, to the original poster (not my quote), that he needs to review real world applications of his `specialty'... (see the links).


Sorry, I thought it would pull him in on the quoting too. I just like to quote the most recent post in a discussion so that everyone involved gets the notification, not just one party.

tinfoil-hat maggie: cptjeff: Hint: The Russians are lying because it serves their strategic interests to keep the Assad regime in place.

What did the Russians lie about? I know the Russians wanna keep Assad and don't want the rebels to take control, and the US is fine with Israel having nukes because it serves their interest. Granted they haven't used them yet, but the US likes to talk about the region destabilizing effects of nuclear weapons when it comes to Iran.


They lied when they asserted that it's still an open question of whether the regime ordered the attacks. It's not. We have the evidence, both from public and non-public sources, both from UN data and US data. Russia almost certainly has the same intel, but, well, they're lying about it. Iran certainly knows it, and that's almost certainly why they're backing off of their support for Assad. See, Iran has a thing about chemical weapons, having been victims of some of the only CW attacks since WWI.

And I really don't see how Israel's nuclear capability comes into this, it's been an open secret for years. We're talking about Syria and the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. Yes, our nuclear nonproliferation stance is hypocritical. What does that have to do with Syria and the fact that Assad gassed a largely civilian population?

It seems to me that a lot of people are grasping for any way to avoid admitting to themselves that a true atrocity has occurred. Because if you do admit to yourself that this actually happened, it gets really hard to reconcile opposition to an intervention to a belief in peace and human rights. It strikes me that the crowd most vocal about not intervention in Syria is comprised of many of the same people that were raising holy hell about the fact that the US was doing nothing in Darfur. Or Somalia. You want hypocrisy? Forget about the US stance towards Israel's nuclear policy and look in a mirror.
2013-09-18 10:58:38 PM  
1 votes:

Crazy Lee: As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.


Fortunately, they're basing it on more than just one hole in the ground. They have multiple holes to go off of. We know how a missile arcs. Tell me, is two points and a defined curve enough to determine a trajectory?
2013-09-18 09:35:29 PM  
1 votes:

enemy of the state: 1) Assad was winning the war. He had alot to lose by using chemical weapons and little to gain.
2) The attack was a few miles from the presidential palace


So Assad was winning...but the rebels had gotten within a few miles to the presidential palace?

enemy of the state: 4) Easy to dress rebels up in Syrian army uniforms and launch an attack from area the government controls.


So you're saying that the rebels dressed up in Syrian army uniforms, then took over Syrian army artillery, accurately aim them to their own rebel side, load them up with Sarin gas (and the rebels have no experience with these weapon systems), then bombard 10-11 rebel-held areas, and sneak away with no evidence of their activities? Doesn't that seem a little..crazy?
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report