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. 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
Hey mhaze,

Robert Parry (journalist) from Wikipedia
'Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015. He has been the editor of Consortiumnews since 1995.'

I'd argue that his track record on exposing US government wrongdoing seems to speak for itself.
I'm also willing to give his word the benefit of the doubt over the US who falsely that told us Saddam had WMD's and who deliberately and consistently starts wars for the purpose of 'regime change' on bogus pretenses.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 15 April 2017 1:29:09 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
Armchair,

Wikipedia is hardly the place to go when making evaluations such as this. Its way to easily manipulated. If you look at the editing history of his page you'll see attempts to set the record right being suppressed by supporters (or himself?).

I prefer to go to the source and actually read a series of his articles. He's one of those who hasn't yet met a Republican who he doesn't think would look better at the end of a rope. An apologist for every enemy of the US. A journalist in the grand tradition of Walter Duranty.

Still if you just want what he says to be true then suspension of disbelief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief) is the way to go.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 16 April 2017 8:07:13 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
mhaze,

In your opinion who was the original source of so called intelligence about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 17 April 2017 8:36:42 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
He used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. More than once.
Posted by doog, Monday, 17 April 2017 9:12:40 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
Mass killing or murder is different to mass destruction.

http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBAU731AU731&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=destruction+meaning
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 17 April 2017 9:32:07 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
" the original source of so called intelligence about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

I'm not sure the basis or intent of this segue. Still...

The original source was based on the fact that Hussein had and had used WMD chemical weapons both on his own people and his foreign enemies. It was also based on the reports from the UN inspectors that they couldn't account for all the WMD stcokpiles. Various intelligence agencies around the world (US, Britain, France, Oz) used this and other internal data to conclude that Iraq still had WMD stockpiles.

It was also assumed that Hussein was interfering with and being uncooperative toward the the UN inspector because he had and wanted to retain WMDs.

After the second Iraq war some (most? all?) of these stockpiles were uncovered.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 17 April 2017 4:09:45 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
Mhaze,

Three points arise from the following link here.
1.
There is dispute about a chemical weapon being a weapon of mass destruction.
2.
Terrorists do possess sarin.
3.
Even though a gas weapon is degraded the chemical can still be used.

http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

It appears WMD's were never found in Iraq and the relevant intelligence was therefore wrong.

Perhaps accusation about Assad recently using chemical weapons is wrong.

Does the relevant doubt establish justification for Trump to maybe start a nuclear war?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 17 April 2017 5:28:55 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
Why would weapons not being found constitute the opposite.
The use of chemical gas is not a weapon of war.
Wars do have rules.
Sumissing what may have happened does not aid discussion.
Posted by doog, Monday, 17 April 2017 8:02:15 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
http://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 17 April 2017 9:02:41 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
Whether Saddam had (or still had) WMDs, is really irrelevant as regards the recent sarin gas attack. Of coarse you can fantasise about someone other than Assad dropping the gases but again, its beside the point. The US, and most others, believes he used them (again) and they acted. That's all that is relevant.

And fretting that this brings us close to nuclear war is just so much hysteria. But its pretty standard fare from the WIAFs. They're always raving about the potential dangers every time the US does anything.

How about fretting about the dangers of Kim testing nukes, or Putin inserting himself in the civil war. But you don't do that because you only want one side to remain passive.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 17 April 2017 10:04:01 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
There are two profound hissterriks here, ttbn and jfk. Always ahead of the game wishfully thinking of something sinister going on.

Atomic war, the Maob a weopans of mass destruction. Albeit a conventional weopans.
Ttbn will not say gassing is illegal. The other bloke is a dreamer.

No doubt these blokes are sim pathetic to N k.
Posted by doog, Monday, 17 April 2017 10:19:06 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
mhaze,
"Whether Saddam had (or still had) WMDs, is really irrelevant as regards the recent sarin gas attack."
That's BS. The fact there was no WMD's in Iraq sets a precedent to be weary of military actions justified on the basis on false or cooked-up intelligence.

There was no investigation yet into this Sarin attack, and even if or when there is the findings will be bogus.
The only voice in the media even calling for an investigation that I'm aware of was Tulsi Gabbard and she copped heaps of crap by her fellow Democrats for not towing the anti-Assad line. Calls for her to step down by those who don't care for free speech.

Trump fired missiles on a sovereign nations military base he's not even technically at war with that had Russians stationed there, and he did it without congressional approval on a country he has no legal right to even be in.

Why drugs did you take exactly to come to the conclusion that would it be irrellevant whether Assad committed the attack or not?

"The US, and most others, believes he used them (again) and they acted. That's all that is relevant."
('believes' - what the hell does that mean?)

And no, thats not all thats relevant, least of all it serves as evidence that your 'WAIF' acronym is a total load of garbage and that questioning the actions of the US government and military is most certainly justified now as much as ever.

You really shouldn't use the word 'fantasise' so casually because you really seem to be entering dreamland right now.
...Putin inserting himself into a civil war. Where do you get this BS from?
Oh that's right corporate media.. Why did I even ask...

Go look up youtube videos of Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State at that time and wife of Neocon Robert Kagan; Member of the Brookings Institute and Council on Foreign Relations) explain how they spent 5bln to depose Yanukovych and overthrow Ukraine or articles of George Soros openly admitting using his Open Society groups to help do so.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 12:26:03 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
mhaze,

Your comment about having or not having WMD's being irrelevant, is I think outrageous.
The false 'intelligence' about WMD's in Iraq led to invasion and war that has killed over 100,000 civilians, including women and children.
Is that death and lesson irrelevant?
Can nothing be learned from that disgusting occurrence in History?

Do you, mhaze, agree it's ok to fabricate excuse and go war?
Do you have investment in weapons manufacturing?

Is it beside any point (as you indicate) that an innocent person, black or white from whatever religion, can be falsely accused and convicted of murder and have their liberty taken away?

What sort of person are you, mhaze?
Do you respect and appreciate democracy and justice?

Your mention of fretting and raving indicates you have run out of sensible answers of substance.
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 8:36:43 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
JF Aus,
100,000? Here's a little reminder.
Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was "worth it" wins Medal of Freedom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 10:10:40 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
Hi Armchair,

I have never seen a confirmed account of the dead in Iraq.
My 100,000 was conservative and to tell you the truth it was too shocking for me to search and put a higher number.

I wonder what the worldwide total might be from a Trump led nuclear war.
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 2:08:43 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
You are all looking in the wrong place for answers. You are not going
to find the answers from journalists especially ones that have not had
a significant scoop for years.

I find it hard to believe that the whole area is not fully covered by radar.
The track of the aircraft will be known somewhere.
If the RAAF's wedgetail was in the air at the time then you can bet
that Malcolm Turnbull has the info.
They are just not going to let on how complete is the radar coverage.

There was even a report the next day that the aircraft was a Sukoy
and was flown by a Major. Never saw that repeated so maybe it was true.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 3:33:29 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
The only one that mentions nuclear is Jf. Let him know that nuclear weapons are banned as a warfare tool and so is gas. Anyone that goes against the rules of war will find themselves in trouble with the rest of the world.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 5:07:50 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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