- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
So many things we hear and read are White House and/or MSM lies that it is very difficult to accept "Proof" of anything without some sort of firsthand confirmation.
Every hour, I am more convinced that we do need to intervene. But how we are going to do that without causing some serious tension in international politics is beyond me. For that reason alone, I still favour abstaining.
As I understand it the upcoming strikes are mostly going to be punitive - they are not intended to necessarily influence the outcome of the war in Syria. The strategic aims are much broader than simply the outcome of the civil war - namely to discourage continued escalation of chemical weapon attacks by Assad (or any nation for that matter) and, probably more importantly, to send a message to Iran regarding the US's willingness to resort to military force.
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
Actually
Q: Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?
SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.
ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.
Source: Defense.gov News Transcript: DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon
Look here as well: Russia Intel Satelite shows Gaddafi Did NOT Attack His People - YouTube
And this:
Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.
Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.
An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.
Source: Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent
An IDF intelligence unit listened in on senior Syrian officials discussing a chemical attack that allegedly took place on the outskirts of Damascus and left hundreds of Syrian civilians dead last Wednesday, a major German publication reported.
According to the report Saturday in Focus magazine, a squad specializing in wire-tapping within the IDF’s prestigious 8200 intelligence unit intercepted a conversation between high-ranking regime officials regarding the use of chemical agents at the time of the attack. The German report, which cited an ex-Mossad official who insisted on remaining anonymous, said the intercepted conversation proved that Bashar Assad’s regime was responsible for the use of nonconventional weapons.
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
Very level headed summary, with the exception of the bolded sentence. Waiting does create some problems. I would imagine that Syria is relocating their CW stock to areas likely to be targeted, i.e., radar installations and similar probable target areas. This effectively removes such targets from the targeting list. The longer we wait, the more likely they'll have those targets covered. I'm not advocating for a strike at all - just pointing out that waiting does have consequences.I reserve judgment about the reports concerning the possible intercepted communications. What would be critical are the contents and the context of the communications, if they were intercepted. There would be a difference between President Assad's authorizing the use of such weapons and a military unit independently deciding on their use. Perhaps the President's forthcoming release of information will provide insight into the veracity of those reports, as well as their substance if such communications were intercepted.
The second story you cite, the CBS account, reveals:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led off the three-hour White House meeting with detailed analysis of the evidence about the chemical weapons attack, the disposition of victims and what the administration now believes is a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it.
I underlined the selected text. If the Administration is talking about a circumstantial case, that would suggest that even if such communications were intercepted, they do not provide the kind of "smoking gun" that would give certainty to who was responsible for the use of such weapons. Instead, it suggests that if such communications were intercepted, there is a degree of uncertainty involved and that they are being interpreted in a fashion that adds to what is described as a circumstantial case.
Also, the UN investigation should be concluded by Saturday. It will be interesting to see if the findings of the UN team, which was on the ground, support the arguments being made in Washington, London, and Paris. If major gaps exist, that would be an argument for caution. In any case, even if one supports military action in response to a use of chemical weapons, there's no need to rush before the facts are established. Waiting won't give the party or parties responsible time to develop an approach that materially impacts possible U.S.-led military operations.
Very level headed summary, with the exception of the bolded sentence. Waiting does create some problems. I would imagine that Syria is relocating their CW stock to areas likely to be targeted, i.e., radar installations and similar probable target areas. This effectively removes such targets from the targeting list. The longer we wait, the more likely they'll have those targets covered. I'm not advocating for a strike at all - just pointing out that waiting does have consequences.
Yeah, and I would expect Syria to move CW assets to the airfields if that's the case. It's a shell game that's always played, but we're giving too much away in advance, I think.I expect that there could be some consequences, just not material ones. In the cost-benefit perspective, I believe the benefits of waiting (better information) outweigh the costs (some Syrian countermeasures). It's my understanding from news reports that Syria remains under satellite surveillance, which has some limitations, and also that the U.S. had not been planning to target the chemical weapons facilities (environmental and health risks). Instead, from what has been revealed is that air bases are among the possible targets.
Yeah, and I would expect Syria to move CW assets to the airfields if that's the case. It's a shell game that's always played, but we're giving too much away in advance, I think.
The US intelligence services intercepted phone calls amongst members of the Assad regime which prove the regime was responsible. Now, please can we put this silly conspiracy theory nonsense that the opposition did it to rest? (Of course the answer to that is going to be "No!", but I can dream can't I? :lol
Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable
Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike - CBS News
I expect that there could be some consequences, just not material ones. In the cost-benefit perspective, I believe the benefits of waiting (better information) outweigh the costs (some Syrian countermeasures). It's my understanding from news reports that Syria remains under satellite surveillance, which has some limitations, and also that the U.S. had not been planning to target the chemical weapons facilities (environmental and health risks). Instead, from what has been revealed is that air bases are among the possible targets.
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
In case anyone had questions on exactly what the administration is thinking...
Syria chemical weapons response poses major test for Obama - latimes.com
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground.
But even without hard evidence tying Mr. Assad to the attack, administration officials asserted, the Syrian leader bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of his troops and should be held accountable.
With respect to the case for U.S. military intervention, The New York Times reports that there is no "smoking gun" and that the case will not involve declassifying reported intercepted electronic communications. The latter issue makes it difficult to for the American public to understand how strong those possible intercepted messages are. However, the suggestion that there is no smoking gun indicates that they do not provide irrefutable evidence. Instead, they fall short of that standard. How short? One won't know for sure, unless they are released.
Relevant excerpts follow:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/w...ing-test-on-data-to-back-action-on-syria.html
Typically, sources and methods of intelligence gathering are not declassified. Critical substance is different and, in this case, reported intercepted messages that might contain important substance won't be released. That outcome argues for caution. Evidence needs to be gathered. Evidence should drive the decision making. Raw emotion and a desire to "do something" should not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?