The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Chemical weapon missiles from Syria's Shayrat Airbase ?

Chemical weapon missiles from Syria's Shayrat Airbase ?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Do you know if there are any satellite vidoes showing the launching of chemical weapon missiles from Syria's Shayrat Airbase.
We've been shown heaps of satellite images of the airfield after the USA bombed it.
Posted by feardbeard, Thursday, 13 April 2017 9:20:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear feardbeard,

I'm not sure of the delivery method of the latest chemical weapons but the earlier ones were via missile. Investigations on trajectory and impact were made by Human Rights Watch and they indicated the approximate area from which the missiles were launched. This was withing Syrian government controlled areas.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-path

Hopefully a similar investigation will confirm the origin of the latest attack.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 13 April 2017 9:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
False information feardbeard is your source true or is this one or maybe another version is the true one.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/U.S._Intelligence_Source%3A_Syria_Chemical_Weapons_Attack_Launched_From_Saudi_Base/57898/0/38/38/Y/M.html

U.S. Intelligence Source: Syria Chemical Weapons Attack Launched From Saudi Base

Award-winning Iran-Contra journalist Robert Parry says the chemical weapons attack in Syria was launched from a joint Saudi-Israeli special operations base in Jordan, according to his intelligence sources.

U.S. intelligence analysts determined that a drone was responsible for the attack and “eventually came to believe that the flight was launched in Jordan from a Saudi-Israeli special operations base for supporting Syrian rebels,” according to the source.

“The suspected reason for the poison gas was to create an incident that would reverse the Trump administration’s announcement in late March that it was no longer seeking the removal of President Bashar al-Assad,” writes Parry.

WHAT ABOUT 2013

As we highlighted back in 2013 after another chemical weapons attack in Ghouta that was blamed on Assad, rebels freely admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they had been given the weapons by Saudi Arabia but had “handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions.”

Parry’s background lends the information credibility. He covered the Iran-Contra scandal for the Associated Press and Newsweek and was later given a George Polk award for his work on intelligence matters.

The contention that the incident was a “false flag” to create a justification for air strikes has also been voiced by former Congressman Ron Paul as well as numerous other prominent voices, including Vladimir Putin himself, who went on to warn that rebels could now stage a similar incident in Damascus to goad the U.S. into toppling Assad.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 13 April 2017 11:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux - HRW biased or unbiased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch

HRW has been criticized for perceived bias by the national governments it has investigated for human rights abuses,[12][13][14] and by NGO Monitor,[15] and HRW's founder, and former Chairman, Robert L. Bernstein.[4] Bias allegations include undue influence by United States government policy, and claims that HRW is biased both for Israel and against Israel. HRW has routinely publicly responded to, and often rejected, criticism of its reporting and findings.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 13 April 2017 11:43:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
feardbeard: the reason why there's no satellite video of the attack is because that's NOT the way the satellite surveillance works.

For specific satellite surveillance you need to know in advance about the event. This is because you have to set-up the satellite to be looking in the right direction at the place of interest *before* the event happens. An out-of-the-blue missile attack can occur in just a few seconds without any warning. This is not enough time for you to get the satellite organized, unless you just happen to have by luck a surveillance satellite in the right place looking the right way at the right time (which would be very unlikely since there are not that many functioning satellites in orbit -I believe it is something like 1 or 2 thousand in total- and most of them aren't in the business of taking pictures of war zones anyway).
By-the-way, the vast majority of surveillance satellites don't take long continuous video, but rather they just take static photos. This is because most orbit in LEOs (low-earth-orbits). Since they orbit so close to Earth (just a few hundred kms) they require very high speeds to maintain orbit, which means that they pass over the terrain they are photographing very quickly, ie. they move out of range too quick to be taking any long videos.

The reason why it is easy to get surveillance footage of the damage caused by an attack is because it is *after* the event, so you have plenty of time to arrange the satellites to document the destruction that resulted from the attack.
Posted by thinkabit, Friday, 14 April 2017 5:59:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,

Whenever you see an article where the first piece of information tells you the journalist is "Award-winning", its a pretty safe bet you're about to get a whole bunch of evidence-free assertions which rely on the alleged qualities of the journalist himself.

But in journalism these days, "Award-winning" is like a primary school participation award - eventually everyone gets one.

And so we have this article which has zero evidence. The whole thing is based on "his intelligence sources" , unnamed, unidentifiable, and quite probably fictitious.

Hilariously Parry complains about the report from the US "being heavy on assertions but lacking actual evidence" while himself making pure assertions with zero evidence.

If you check this guys background you find someone who is way out on the anti-US derangement spectrum. He thought a few years back that the Supreme Court was about to reintroduce "white rule" in the US. He thinks the Russian conquest of Crimea was a thoroughly good thing and looks forward to Ukraine also being so blessed.

Not exactly a reliable source in my books.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 15 April 2017 7:51:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy