Grote chemische aanval op Douma, Syrië #5 Bijna

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 00:05 schreef Klepper272 het volgende:
De Fransen zijn anders aardig overtuigd dat het een gifgasaanval van Assad is.

Die zijn niet zo makkelijk te overtuigen dus die hebben waarschijnlijk wel de goede info.

quote:

Fears of a U.S.-Russia conflict recede as Trump, Moscow and Macron dial back the rhetoric

Fears that a major war could be imminent eased across the Middle East on Thursday after a flurry of tweets and statements by world leaders that suggested they are looking for ways to de-escalate the tensions of recent days.

U.S.-led military strikes in retaliation for the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against a Damascus suburb last weekend remained a distinct possibility, but there were indications that efforts to head off a confrontation between global powers were gathering momentum.

In Moscow, the Kremlin sought to tamp down fears of a conflict with the United States by signaling for the first time in days that it might not carry out threats to retaliate against a U.S. strike.

“We still believe that it is very necessary to avoid any steps which can trigger an escalation in tensions in Syria,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. “We believe that this could have a very destructive impact on the entire Syrian settlement.”

Analysts in Russia said the focus now is on ways to ensure that any strikes are limited so that they don’t kill Russians, thereby allowing Moscow to refrain from carrying out its threats to retaliate. Thousands of Russian troops and military advisers are stationed at military facilities across Syria, where they have been supporting President Bashar al-Assad’s seven-year-old efforts to crush the rebellion against his rule.

“I rule out a scenario in which the United States will intentionally strike a facility in Syria where Russian servicemen are located,” Military Sciences ­Academy Vice President Sergei Modestov said in Thursday’s edition of the government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

The Kommersant newspaper quoted anonymous Defense Ministry sources as saying that the general staff of Russia’s military was in touch with the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and expected to receive coordinates on airstrike targets from the Pentagon to avoid Russian casualties.

“Right now, the talk is about the necessity of de-escalation,” said Alexander Golts, an independent military analyst in Moscow. “We’ve practically come to the brink of war.”

French President Emmanuel Macron gave the strongest indication yet that France is ready to join the United States in striking Syria, saying that France has “proof” that some form of chemical attack occurred.

But in a television interview, he also suggested that strikes were not imminent. He said a decision would be made “in due course, when we judge it most useful and effective.”

“France will not allow any escalation that could harm stability in the region,” he added.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 02:14 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

https://www.washingtonpos(...)m_term=.61d870117080

Voor zover ik weet was het standpunt van Moskou steeds dat ze zouden reageren als hun troepen onder vuur kwamen.
Maar goed, ziet er dus naar uit dat ze Russische locaties gaan ontzien, kunnen ze nadien de overwinning claimen omdat de Russen zich afzijdig houden...

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 02:47 schreef Hathor het volgende:

[..]

Russische huurlingen zijn al bij bosjes gesneuveld door Amerikaans vuur tijdens dit conflict, en daar is nog geen onvertogen woord over gevallen.

quote:

I’m a Tory MP and former soldier. Bombing Syria would make things worse

I trust the prime minister. Theresa May’s caution is admirable compared with Vladimir Putin’s macho conduct or the infantile tweeting of Donald Trump. I also understand that our alliances dictate that she now has to support the US and France – in some way – if action is taken against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. They have recently supported the UK over the poisoning of Sergei Skripal.

However, serving in military campaigns, as I have done in Afghanistan and Iraq, one sees both the utility and the futility of force. Success lies in recognising the difference. Bombing the Assad regime makes ethical sense, but I have seen no evidence to show it makes strategic or practical sense.

Here’s why I’m a sceptic. First, Assad has won. Supported by Russian airpower and Iranian/Hezbollah military advisers and soldiers, his forces are mopping up pockets of opposition. Bombing would not change that basic fact. It might prevent him using chemical weapons for a period. But Assad will continue to kill his own people using different means, such as barrel bombs.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Second, the Douma attack was the 34th recorded use of chemical weapons in Syria. At least two dozen attacks have been blamed by the UN on the regime. All but one have gone unpunished, and that punishment changed little.

That doesn’t make the use of chemical weapons OK. They are despicable weapons designed to spread fear. To win a war, you need to control territory and govern. Chemical weapons on civilian targets cause mass panic, forcing populations to flee, “weaponising” displaced persons, if you like. But let us be honest with ourselves, we are in danger of being seen to act now because we are reacting to a tweet.

The time to have acted was in 2013. Assad was weaker. Syrian opposition moderates had more sway. The Russians weren’t in the country. Shamefully, Labour’s leader, Ed Miliband (remember him?), tried to play politics with disastrous results. Parliament voted no.

Third, we are on weak ground, legally and physically. US, UK and French forces in Syria are not there at the invitation of the Assad regime, but to defeat Isis, which has been largely done. Assad’s is the legally recognised government, however much we wish it wasn’t. Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, will order the US and its allies out. Pressure will grow. We will have to leave anyway. When we do, Russia will claim it threw us out.

There is a theory that we are being led into a trap. Putin wants us to act because in Syria he and Iran are strong, the US and its allies weak. It is not impossible that the Kremlin would welcome the deaths of Russian soldiers. They would instantly become martyrs, opposition in Russia to Putin would become ever more difficult and it would give the president carte blanche at home and abroad.

Fourth, talk to Syrians and they’ll say: we are being killed in our hundreds by barrel bombs, what’s the difference how we die?

Fifth, the opportunities are modest. Either the US bombs a little, like last time, and it doesn’t make much difference, or the US bombs a lot – and risks armed confrontation with Russia.

And that’s the biggest point. The dangers are profound. There is a chance of war now with Russia. I do not make moral equivalence between the US administration and the Kremlin, but both leaders seem to be thinking with their egos. Expect threats of war – and even nuclear war – from Russia if bombing takes place.

There is an unstable dynamic between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which have backed different sides in Syria. Ditto Israel and Iran. Any of these actors could complicate the situation further. And our relationship with Moscow will be poisoned. Putin and the Russian security elite appear to believe that the west brought down the USSR and have tried to impoverish Russia ever since. They behave as if they want to replay the cold war and have been preparing for conflict in difference theatres: in cyberspace, they have repeatedly broken through western defences and penetrated the US National Security Agency. In eastern Europe, Russia is aiming for conventional dominance, and in the rest of Europe for missile dominance and tactical nuclear dominance. They are masters of information and subversive warfare. In the Balkans the Kremlin has been arming the Bosnian Serbs, in Afghanistan it has been allegedly arming the Taliban.

We need to understand Russian warfare and act to defend ourselves. Instead, we are in danger of stumbling into using lethal force without thinking through the consequences. Even if we get through the next few weeks without actual conflict between Russia and the west, the new cold war will have become considerably hotter for the next few years. Without a coherent and articulated strategy the western alliance risks “gesture bombing”. To paraphrase the great Chinese military thinker Sun Tzu, war without strategy is noise before defeat.

• Bob Seely is a Conservative MP

quote:

After the United States' missile strikes against Syria last year, a group made up primarily of former Obama administration lawyers, "Protect Democracy," filed a Freedom of Information Act request to demand the legal justification for the strikes.

When the government did not comply, the organization sued.

Uncovered as part of the subsequent litigation was the existence of a seven-page memo produced by the White House on the day of the 2017 Syria strikes. While one page containing background is classified, the remaining six pages featuring the White House's legal rationale is not.

On Monday, as the administration signaled that strikes could be imminent, Protect Democracy filed an update with the court asking for a speedy resolution of its lawsuit.

The Trump administration argues that the memo was prepared for the purpose of giving advice to the president and says in a court filing that disclosure could "chill the open and frank expression of ideas."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from NPR.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who has become a leading voice advocating for Congress' responsibility to approve military action, said the president should release the memo before any strikes.

[..]

Debate over the privileges and responsibilities of ordering military action have dogged presidents since the Vietnam War. In 2011, for example, Republicans complained that Congress hadn't been adequately consulted about the military operations that President Barack Obama ordered against Libya.

Later, when confronting the crisis Syria, Obama found himself painted into a corner after having declared that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line." When Assad used them, Obama decided that he had the authority to order an attack against the Syrian regime, but also decided, out of principle, to ask Congress to authorize it.

Lawmakers did not; the measure went nowhere. The United States joined a coalition of nations in attempting to remove Syria's chemical weapons, which ultimately did not stop such attacks there.

At the time, Trump demanded that Obama secure the approval of Congress.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 03:00 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Daar zijn het huurlingen voor. In Afrika vochten tijdens de jaren '50 tot '80 honderden of duizenden Belgische huurlingen, heeft België nooit officieel op gereageerd. Enige waar we ons druk over gemaakt hebben waren de 10 para's die in Ruanda vermoord werden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 03:42 schreef Hathor het volgende:

[..]

ja zo lust ik er nog wel een.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 03:45 schreef Hathor het volgende:
Die papieren tijger gaat niks doen, helemaal niks.

quote:

Pentagon Urges Greater Caution on Imminent Strike Against Syria

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought on Thursday to slow down an imminent strike on Syria, reflecting mounting concerns at the Pentagon that a concerted bombing campaign could escalate into a wider conflict between Russia, Iran and the West.

During a closed-door White House meeting, officials said Mr. Mattis pushed for more evidence of President Bashar al-Assad’s role in a suspected chemical attack last weekend that would assure the world that military action was necessary.

Despite the caution, two Defense Department officials predicted it would be difficult to pull back from punishing airstrikes, given President Trump’s threat on Twitter a day earlier of American missiles that “will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart.’”

Mr. Mattis publicly raised the warning on Thursday morning, telling the House Armed Services Committee that retaliation must be balanced against the threat of a wider war.

“We are trying to stop the murder of innocent people,” Mr. Mattis said. “But on a strategic level, it’s how do we keep this from escalating out of control — if you get my drift on that”

quote:

US-Russia ‘hotline’ for Syrian air strikes could help avoid conflict escalating

Planned airstrikes on Syria are being co-ordinated with Russia, it has emerged, as Theresa May reassured her Cabinet that any military response to last week’s chemical attack will not escalate into war.

The US has identified eight potential targets in Syria, it was reported on Thursday evening, as the Kremlin claimed a secure hotline for the US and Russia to communicate over their operations in Syria was “active” and being used by both sides.

Russian President Vladimir Putin expects allied forces to reveal the location of the targets in advance, to avoid bloodshed and restrict damage to legitimate military assets. According to reports in the US, the targets selected include two Syrian airfields, a research centre and a chemical weapons facility.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 00:58 schreef alilami het volgende:

twitter:

ggreenwald twitterde op woensdag 11-04-2018 om 17:03:35 One year, five days ago: https://t.co/frIpNUM6m1 reageer retweet

Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to bomb Syrian air fields
https://www.reuters.com/a(...)fields-idUSKBN179058

twitter:

ChrisMurphyCT twitterde op woensdag 11-04-2018 om 16:32:12 Let me get this straight: we're going to bomb Syria because Assad attacked civilians, but next door in Yemen we are eagerly participating in a bombing campaign that has killed thousands of civilians? reageer retweet

twitter:

ggreenwald twitterde op donderdag 12-04-2018 om 14:02:50 This is why American officials who pretend that they're using military force to save people from attacks should be - and, in most places around the world outside the U.S. - are scornfully laughed at (the US is also helping Israelis occupy and slaughter Palestinians): https://t.co/DMST7DSWf6 reageer retweet

En niet te vergeten, de Amerikanen hebben 150 voornamelijk kinderen gedood op 2 april 2018 in Afghanistan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 07:51 schreef tailfox het volgende:

[..]

was wel een andere tijd

quote:

Intervening in Syria risks 'helping al-Qaeda', warns Tory chair of Defence Committee

Julian Lewis spoke out amid growing calls for Western governments to intervene following last week's atrocity in Douma, which left dozens dead.

He said it was clear that Islamist extremists were in charge of the forces battling the "brutal" Assad regime and described the choice facing Western governments as "between monsters on the one hand and maniacs on the other".

"What is being proposed is that we should intervene massively on the side of the opposition in Syria against Assad and the truth is very different from the suggestion there is a wide range of opposition groups," Dr Lewis told BBC Newsnight.

"It is absolutely untrue to say that apart from the Kurdish-led forces the Salafists and the Jihadists are not in control of the opposition groups - they are and we will be helping al-Qaeda if we help them to do a sustained military campaign against the brutal Assad regime," he added.

And he drew a parallel between the invasion of Iraq and the prospect of military action against the Syrian government.

"The point about this is if you want to say we should bring down Assad now then you've got to justify what we did in Iraq and you've got to be prepared to spend 15 years turning Syria round."

quote:

Op donderdag 12 april 2018 21:27 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Je trapt met open ogen in de hoax. Er waa helemaal geen gifgasaanval. Dit is de zoveelste in scene gezette 'gasaanval'. Als er al gas is geweest, hebben de jihadisten hun eigen mensen vergast.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 08:16 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

https://www.politicshome.(...)eda-warns-tory-chair

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 08:42 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Gelukkig ben jij lekker kritisch, want jij volgt immers de lezing van Assad en Poetin.

Lijkt mij dat nader onderzoek nodig is, maar feitelijk verschil jij in niks van de burgers die jij verwijt alles te geloven wat ze op tv zien. Alleen kies jij ervoor om blindelings een andere lezing te geloven.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 08:42 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Gelukkig ben jij lekker kritisch, want jij volgt immers de lezing van Assad en Poetin.

Lijkt mij dat nader onderzoek nodig is, maar feitelijk verschil jij in niks van de burgers die jij verwijt alles te geloven wat ze op tv zien. Alleen kies jij ervoor om blindelings een andere lezing te geloven.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 08:48 schreef BadderHaring het volgende:
Wat is toch de drang bij sommige mensen om per definitie de officiële lezingen van feiten niet te geloven en maar van alles te verzinnen aan bizarre bronnen om, welke andere lezing dan ook, tot meer plausibel te verklaren.

Ik snap dat echt niet. Ja, je moet kritisch zijn naar wat je hoort bij de NOS en wat er vanuit de VS wordt geroepen, maar om dan maar gelijk het exacte tegengestelde te geloven zonder daar ook maar een enkel feit voor te hebben.....Beetje bizar.