Voices of Reason on the Syrian gas attack and US missile strike

[Tull]

Philippians 3:19

 

[Chris1984]

Well I don't see where you see a lot about money since I was actually talking about mammon (which, while inclusive of money, is different). As for all those things you listed, I don't see those as "all...things [which] define the modern liberal".

Do you think Pope Francis, who is a liberal, is in favor of all or even most of those things? If so, think again. Perhaps the most ridiculous is the "favoritism towards Islam" one. Only conservatives can twist "Love your neighbor" into "favoritism towards Islam".

It's no more ridiculous than when you said "Conservatives put money ahead of everything". If I made any sweeping statements, then so did you.

 

[buzuxi02]

The bombing of the airbase PROVES that Asaad had NO chemical weapons. Within hours there were camera crews photographing the damage without gas masks or hazard suits. If there was chemical weapons that place would be under quarantine for days.

 

[Armoured]

The bombing of the airbase PROVES that Asaad had NO chemical weapons. Within hours there were camera crews photographing the damage without gas masks or hazard suits. If there was chemical weapons that place would be under quarantine for days.

Not really. You don't store chemical weapons in aircraft hangers.

 

[buzuxi02]

Then where from if that was the place they allegedly loaded them on the plane. They brought one canister from hundreds of miles away? But regardless we know it was a false flag. This was no where near military grade chemical weapons. Cameramen were unaffected and there seemed to have been plenty of them on the scene right away. Sarin gas would have killed all in the vicinity not a selective few. There's no reason to gas a non-strategic area with lots of kids and for some strange reason many cameras.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It's no more ridiculous than when you said "Conservatives put money ahead of everything". If I made any sweeping statements, then so did you.

It's not that it's a sweeping statement, it's that it's untrue. There is no "favoritism towards Islam" among most liberals. Conservatives twist fair treatment of muslims (and gays and other minorities) into "favoritism", which is untrue.

And conservatives do put money ahead of everything because they proudly claim to be "capitalists" and even "free-market" ones at that. That's exactly what those terms mean - putting money ahead of everything.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Then where from if that was the place they allegedly loaded them on the plane. They brought one canister from hundreds of miles away? But regardless we know it was a false flag. This was no where near military grade chemical weapons. Cameramen were unaffected and there seemed to have been plenty of them on the scene right away. Sarin gas would have killed all in the vicinity not a selective few. There's no reason to gas a non-strategic area with lots of kids and for some strange reason many cameras.

You are right. As for as any Sarin gas that the rebels had it has been reported by Seymour Hersch that they got it from Libya through Hillary Clinton's approval.

Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels

 

[Chris1984]

It's not that it's a sweeping statement, it's that it's untrue. There is no "favoritism towards Islam" among most liberals. Conservatives twist fair treatment of muslims (and gays and other minorities) into "favoritism", which is untrue.

And conservatives do put money ahead of everything because they proudly claim to be "capitalists" and even "free-market" ones at that. That's exactly what those terms mean - putting money ahead of everything.

Only a liberal could twist "free market" into "putting money ahead of everything".

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Only a liberal could twist "free market" into "putting money ahead of everything".

How is that "twisting"? "Free Market" = a market economy with few or no regulations. That means monetizing all values of goods and services and costs and labor. That is putting money in the driver's seat of the economy. Free Market or Laissez-faire economic policy puts money ahead of people.

 

[RDKirk]

Then where from if that was the place they allegedly loaded them on the plane. They brought one canister from hundreds of miles away?

They would have transferred from the storage depot exactly as many as they intended to load onto aircraft and drop. And the storage depot would not have been at or near the airfield. The US does not, for instance, store nuclear weapons at bomber airfields, but transfers only what is needed when it is needed.

But regardless we know it was a false flag. This was no where near military grade chemical weapons. Cameramen were unaffected and there seemed to have been plenty of them on the scene right away. Sarin gas would have killed all in the vicinity not a selective few. There's no reason to gas a non-strategic area with lots of kids and for some strange reason many cameras.

Depends on winds and numerous other factors calculated into the release decision. Dead air spaces created by building placements may well leave significant voids. Such things--including the design characteristics of the agents--take into account that one's own troops will be entering the area fairly quickly following successful execution.

 

[Armoured]

They would have transferred from the storage depot exactly as many as they intended to load onto aircraft and drop. And the storage depot would not have been at or near the airfield. The US does not, for instance, store nuclear weapons at bomber airfields, but transfers only what is needed when it is needed.



Depends on winds and numerous other factors calculated into the release decision. Dead air spaces created by building placements may well leave significant voids. Such things--including the design characteristics of the agents--take into account that one's own troops will be entering the area fairly quickly following successful execution.

I don't know that basic facts about weapons storage and logistics are going to be convincing here.

 

[Biblicist]

They would have transferred from the storage depot exactly as many as they intended to load onto aircraft and drop. And the storage depot would not have been at or near the airfield. The US does not, for instance, store nuclear weapons at bomber airfields, but transfers only what is needed when it is needed.

Depends on winds and numerous other factors calculated into the release decision. Dead air spaces created by building placements may well leave significant voids. Such things--including the design characteristics of the agents--take into account that one's own troops will be entering the area fairly quickly following successful execution.

It seems that this rule does not apply to Turkey's Incirlik which the US currently shares with Turkey:

"U.S. officials are loath to discuss the location of nuclear weapons, but Air Force budget documents state that “special weapons” are stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. That’s a delicate way of saying nuclear weapons, as Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies pointed out Monday on Twitter". Washington Post
​

For that matter, what happens to the nuclear weapons that the various B-52 squadrons contain, I would imagine that when they are flying around the world that some would contain nuclear weapons and where are they parked/housed when the bombers are back at base?

 

[RDKirk]

It seems that this rule does not apply to Turkey's Incirlik which the US currently shares with Turkey:

"U.S. officials are loath to discuss the location of nuclear weapons, but Air Force budget documents state that “special weapons” are stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. That’s a delicate way of saying nuclear weapons, as Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies pointed out Monday on Twitter". Washington Post
​

For that matter, what happens to the nuclear weapons that the various B-52 squadrons contain, I would imagine that when they are flying around the world that some would contain nuclear weapons and where are they parked/housed when the bombers are back at base?

I don't see anything in that statement that contradicts what I said. When the bombers return from a mission, the weapons are removed and returned to the depots, where they are also maintained (these weapons are not like library books that can just be shelved for years).

The bombers and the weapons have different levels of security protocols, which is why they are not stored together.

 

[buzuxi02]

According to most news reports the chemical weapons were stored at the base:

according to Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. The missiles destroyed aircraft, hardened hangars, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radar at the Shayrat Airfield. The chemicals used in the attack on April 4 were also stored at the base, Davis said. The missile strike was designed to deter Syria from mounting another chemical attack.

U.S. launches cruise missile strike on Syrian military airfield after chemical weapons attack

Again if they were removed within that 1-2 hour window or even between the first gassing and the strikes, there would be photos of the satellite images of them being trucked away or even before that evidence of them being transported in. The fact that U.S. government military officials claim they were stored at the base, that they were never removed from that base, yet no one on the ground required gas masks and hazard suits tells you all you need to know.

 

[RDKirk]

According to most news reports the chemical weapons were stored at the base:

according to Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. The missiles destroyed aircraft, hardened hangars, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radar at the Shayrat Airfield. The chemicals used in the attack on April 4 were also stored at the base, Davis said. The missile strike was designed to deter Syria from mounting another chemical attack.

U.S. launches cruise missile strike on Syrian military airfield after chemical weapons attack

Again if they were removed within that 1-2 hour window or even between the first gassing and the strikes, there would be photos of the satellite images of them being trucked away or even before that evidence of them being transported in. The fact that U.S. government military officials claim they were stored at the base, that they were never removed from that base, yet no one on the ground required gas masks and hazard suits tells you all you need to know.

I doubt it. That doesn't happen--nor would the actual storage facilities of use-read Sarin have been bombed. That never would have happened. Nobody in his right mind would have struck a nerve gas ready-storage area.

I'm not convinced by the Pentagon spokesman, because I was once in a group of analysts at the Pentagon during the Persian Gulf War who told General Glasson to his face, "Those are not SCUD TELs, those are gasoline trucks," and then he went right out in front of the American people ten minutes later and said, "We struck SCUD TELs."

 

[buzuxi02]

As an analyst do you see anything fishy with the american account? Do you believe that all 59 (or it may have been 58 out of 59) tomahawks reached their destination? To me thats not believable unless these tomahawks are overpriced junk. Even in this the Russian account is more believable that 23 made it out of the 59. Does not seem like alot of damage and the initial report from the government was the airbase was completely destroyed. To be quite honest i would have thought even 29 tomahawks would have cratered the entire field.

 

[RDKirk]

As an analyst do you see anything fishy with the american account? Do you believe that all 59 (or it may have been 58 out of 59) tomahawks reached their destination? To me thats not believable unless these tomahawks are overpriced junk. Even in this the Russian account is more believable that 23 made it out of the 59. Does not seem like alot of damage and the initial report from the government was the airbase was completely destroyed. To be quite honest i would have thought even 29 tomahawks would have cratered the entire field.

During the Persian Gulf war it was my job to determine whether the Tomahawk missiles struck their targets. I started each shift with the list of targets and the weapons that had been planned for them during the previous 12 hours.

Yes, unless the missile completely failed (one did), they precisely struck the square meter they were targeted to strike, pretty much every one. The aircraft bunkers were two-section bunkers, so there may have been more than one missile targeted for each of those.

As I've said before, it's very difficult to "completely destroy" an airfield. There are specially designed bombs that can only be carried by bombers that are designed to penetrate the runway and "heave up" the earth, and of course there are nuclear weapons that will do it, but the payload of a conventional Tomahawk won't do it. They wouldn't have bothered targeting a Tomahawk for the runway itself.

An airfield is very large with a lot of "targets" for missile warheads.

This is the airfield. Each Tomahawk was good for a building or an aircraft bunker. As you can see, there are lots of bunkers and lots of buildings spread over a large area.

This is what a bunker looks like before being hit by a Tomahawk:

Here is one of the ground photographs of a bunker that was struck and the incinerated aircraft inside:

 

[buzuxi02]

Is that what a million bucks gets us? I've seen the various photos and I would think they would cause more damage. I've seen car accidents worse than that.
Have you seen the news article that says officials do believe the chemical weapons are still stored at the site but they intentionally spared it as to not spread the poisonous gas? For me all this just confirms it's all nonsense. They don't even want an investigation yet they know precisely where on the base it's stored (supposedly). Do you believe those articles are fake news or are government officials lying?

Here is a quote from General Mcmaster who says they avoided bombing a facility which contained sarin gas at the airfield:

Mr. McMaster said the missile strikes would not eliminate Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, but would degrade it. He said the United States military had specifically sought to avoid hitting what it believes is a facility containing more sarin gas at the airfield.Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria - The New York Times

Here is another article claiming the airfield still has ALOT of chemical weapons stored there:
Flash - Pentagon suspects chemical weapons still at Syrian air base - France 24

To me this is proof of complete nonsense coming from the pentagon. The France article is almost comical if you read the quotes that are attributed to Colonel John Thomas:

The chemical stocks were left untouched because the Pentagon did not want to risk unintentionally sending a plume of toxic gas across parts of Syria.
Though the United States is confident Assad is stockpiling chemical weapons, intelligence analysts are not certain what these are.....
Our advice was to make sure we didn't inflict any greater damage by touching any of the chemical weapons in the area," Thomas added.... We were trying to degrade their capability to launch aircraft and to load them up with chemical weapons..... Thomas said the runways were deliberately avoided because the United States was trying to draw a clear line that its military action was in response to the suspected chemical attack, and not signal a willingness to get more involved in Syria's brutal civil war.

The statements above by the guy in charge of the U.s. Central Command is something you would think is coming from the Onion. First they are certain Assad is stockpiling chemical weapons but no one knows what they are. They dont bomb the chemical weapons storage facility (that they are sure of) because its too risky. He says they wanted to degrade his ability to carry out chemical bombing and the very next breath he says the runways were deliberately left unbombed! No sattelite photos of this facility, no sattelite photos of trucks transporting anything, not much movement by the Syrian military prior to bombing the facility even though the Russians were notified, and once again no hasmat suits or gasmasks by the firefighters and original reporters on the scene. Give me a break. The Pentagon needs to hire new propagandists they are horrible at spinning fake news.

 

[live4Christ2016]

Voices of reason, as to why the Assad govt is likely innocent and why a proper investigation needed before an illegal (in both US and international law) missile strike on a sovereign country (the 59 missiles killed a dozen civilians and half dozen Syrian soldiers by the way).

Tulsi Gabbard, Dem Senator from Hawaii and Iraq war veteran (US army major):

Former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford:

Bolivian ambassador to UN in the Security Council, see from 7 minute mark especially:

Ron Paul:

Philip Giraldi former CIA officer with intelligence contacts in Syria: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/the-impending-clash-between-the-u-s-and-russia/ in other words US intelligence in Syria according to Giraldi agree with Syrian govt and Russian reports that an al-Qaeda chemical weapons depot was hit by a normal Syrian airforce bomb.

We are a big stride closer to WW-III because of a foolish impulsive narcissistic US president acting without full investigation, or under high behind the scenes pressure from war-mongers in the Deep State.

Obviously this Syrian as well as many Syrians are happy with Trump.
Assad is not innocent by any means.

 

[RDKirk]

Is that what a million bucks gets us? I've seen the various photos and I would think they would cause more damage. I've seen car accidents worse than that.

They do what they are designed to do. Pinpoint damage is better for military uses.

Have you seen the news article that says officials do believe the chemical weapons are still stored at the site but they intentionally spared it as to not spread the poisonous gas? For me all this just confirms it's all nonsense.

I told you that much myself. Why would you think that is nonsense?

They don't even want an investigation yet they know precisely where on the base it's stored (supposedly).

I have identified chemical weapons facilities in certain countries from "national technical means" myself.

Do you believe those articles are fake news or are government officials lying?

I gave you a personal testimony of a General lying to the public.

Here is a quote from General Mcmaster who says they avoided bombing a facility which contained sarin gas at the airfield:

Mr. McMaster said the missile strikes would not eliminate Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, but would degrade it. He said the United States military had specifically sought to avoid hitting what it believes is a facility containing more sarin gas at the airfield.Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria - The New York Times

Why do you think that statement is fantastic? It's what I already told you.

Here is another article claiming the airfield still has ALOT of chemical weapons stored there:
Flash - Pentagon suspects chemical weapons still at Syrian air base - France 24

To me this is proof of complete nonsense coming from the pentagon. The France article is almost comical if you read the quotes that are attributed to Colonel John Thomas:

The chemical stocks were left untouched because the Pentagon did not want to risk unintentionally sending a plume of toxic gas across parts of Syria.
Though the United States is confident Assad is stockpiling chemical weapons, intelligence analysts are not certain what these are.....
Our advice was to make sure we didn't inflict any greater damage by touching any of the chemical weapons in the area," Thomas added.... We were trying to degrade their capability to launch aircraft and to load them up with chemical weapons..... Thomas said the runways were deliberately avoided because the United States was trying to draw a clear line that its military action was in response to the suspected chemical attack, and not signal a willingness to get more involved in Syria's brutal civil war.

The statements above by the guy in charge of the U.s. Central Command is something you would think is coming from the Onion. First they are certain Assad is stockpiling chemical weapons but no one knows what they are. They dont bomb the chemical weapons storage facility (that they are sure of) because its too risky. He says they wanted to degrade his ability to carry out chemical bombing and the very next breath he says the runways were deliberately left unbombed!

That makes sense. I've already told you that they would not have bombed what they knew (or thought) might be a chemical weapon storage facility. And I've already explained that trying to bomb the runways with Tomahawk missiles would have been futile. It takes only hours to repair a runway.

No sattelite photos of this facility, no sattelite photos of trucks transporting anything, not much movement by the Syrian military prior to bombing the facility even though the Russians were notified, and once again no hasmat suits or gasmasks by the firefighters and original reporters on the scene. Give me a break. The Pentagon needs to hire new propagandists they are horrible at spinning fake news.

You're not going to see full-resolution images from government satellites (I hope never) and I just showed you a picture from a civilian satellite. Nor are you going to see any of the real-time information that can be gathered by various methods (I hope never).