Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[JDGRUEN]

Senator Rand Paul: Why I’m Voting No on Syria

If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate

War should occur only when America is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or threatened. I don’t think the situation in Syria passes that test. Even the State Department argues that “there’s no military solution here that’s good for the Syrian people, and that the best path forward is a political solution.”

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/#ixzz2e16fTPpU

[Ulysses G.]

And then I read this...............................

The usual conspiracy theory nonsense - featuring Wesley Clark and implicating the British, even though they have decided against joining the strike.

[H1w4yR1da]

I used to watch the PBS newscasts during the Afghanistan war. Every Friday it provided a list of dead US personnel. Heartbreaking to see those faces. the best and brightest of young people, killed and for what? The same applies here.

What utter, utter tosh!

The invasion of Afghanistan was because the Taliban had allowed Al Qaeda to have training bases on its territory. 9/11 ring a bell?

Afghanistan was a legitimate war. It's not comparable with Syria. But if Assad makes the mistake of threatening US interests, the US had every right to act.

[geriatrickid]

I used to watch the PBS newscasts during the Afghanistan war. Every Friday it provided a list of dead US personnel. Heartbreaking to see those faces. the best and brightest of young people, killed and for what? The same applies here.

What utter, utter tosh!

The invasion of Afghanistan was because the Taliban had allowed Al Qaeda to have training bases on its territory. 9/11 ring a bell?

Afghanistan was a legitimate war. It's not comparable with Syria. But if Assad makes the mistake of threatening US interests, the US had every right to act.

My point was that the listing of the names and photos was heartbreaking. I was not going off on a tangent about Afghanistan. The reality is that a country cannot just launch missiles into Syria without understanding the humanitarian consequences. It is a slippery slope and once the shooting starts, the images of dead and wounded civilians will begin to flow with demands that the USA do something. Stop now before it's too late.

The Syrian people are no friends of the USA. Long before the conflict they regularly denounced America. Now some cry out for US help. Too bad. They should have not aided and abetted Iraqi insurgents, nor should the country as a whole supported the invasion and annexation of Lebanon. The Syrian people are getting a taste of what the wrought in Lebanon. The Syrian people never wanted peace in the middle east. Fine. Now they shall reap as they have sown. I lose no sleep over the Syrian conflict. The continued civil war removes Syria as a threat to its neighbours because the Syrians are too busy massacring each other.

[NeverSure]

Report: Assad Moves Weapons Underground as U.S. Strike Looms

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has begun to move his arsenal of advanced weapons underground in preparation for a possible strike on the country by the United States, Israels Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/04/report-assad-moves-weapons-underground-as-u-s-strike-looms/

Maybe he hasn't heard about the US's latest bunker buster bomb.

June 7 2013

"Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had upgraded its bunker buster bomb.

The state of the art GBU-57 B bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), is 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg.) and has recently been upgraded with adjusted fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to improve its precision and hi-tech equipment intended to allow it to evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow nuclear enrichment complex, according to the Journal.

Each MOP bomb costs $3.5 million to manufacture and its development cost half a billion dollars, according to Yediot.

Link

As the article says, those bombs are developed and build for an attack on Iran. Syria probably hasn't the kind of bunker. Or are you suggesting to US looking for a reason to test them?

I was only making the point that it does no good to bury equipment including munitions anymore. The US has several sizes of bunker busters, and the point is that the burying will be seen by satellite and the bunkers will be destroyed if there's an attack. The point was only that Assad can't bury them deep enough and rather, he is just rounding them up for destruction IF the US goes ahead with this strike.

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

[Scott]

A post with the type of link that is not allowed has been deleted.

[mania]

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

1- No of course not

2- Maybe- Maybe not,,,But who could call killing innocents skating free? Because no matter what is claimed innocents will die.

If you mean just military wise....

Syria alone could inflict damages on a US ship & none can say they cannot with 100% certainty.

They could have decent stock of anti-ship missiles & have subs + coastal defense for delivery

Now add Russia....Say Russia gets so disgusted they park their ships between the US ships & shore?

Still worth it?

Now add Iran

Too many maybes for sticking the US in where it does not belong.

What the heck is the upside? Besides spending millions more they do not have?

If they spend even one reluctant US military life on this it will not end well.

Because it is obvious at this point the military is as reluctant as the US citizenry

over this show of stupidity foisted on the US by an ignorant excuse for a president

[lannarebirth]

Al Sabah is the family name of the Kuwaiti royal family. I wonder.....

Maybe we should check back in another 1,000 years and see if things have settled down any.

[midas]

Report: Assad Moves Weapons Underground as U.S. Strike Looms

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has begun to move his arsenal of advanced weapons underground in preparation for a possible strike on the country by the United States, Israels Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/04/report-assad-moves-weapons-underground-as-u-s-strike-looms/

Maybe he hasn't heard about the US's latest bunker buster bomb.

June 7 2013

"Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had upgraded its bunker buster bomb.

The state of the art GBU-57 B bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), is 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg.) and has recently been upgraded with adjusted fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to improve its precision and hi-tech equipment intended to allow it to evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow nuclear enrichment complex, according to the Journal.

Each MOP bomb costs $3.5 million to manufacture and its development cost half a billion dollars, according to Yediot.

Link

As the article says, those bombs are developed and build for an attack on Iran. Syria probably hasn't the kind of bunker. Or are you suggesting to US looking for a reason to test them?

I was only making the point that it does no good to bury equipment including munitions anymore. The US has several sizes of bunker busters, and the point is that the burying will be seen by satellite and the bunkers will be destroyed if there's an attack. The point was only that Assad can't bury them deep enough and rather, he is just rounding them up for destruction IF the US goes ahead with this strike.

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

I cannot understand why so many people dismiss the possibility that China, Russia and Iran will not join together militarily to support Syria because apparently there was a joint military exercise last year involving all of these countries together. If they could do it then why wouldn't they do it now under real conditions?

[simple1]

It has never made sense to me that a country which is $17 trillion in debt with 50 million people on food stamps can even pretend to afford to continue to be the world's policeman. Particularly when there are so many other nations that are listening to the people that don't want to go to war.

And then I read this...............................

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

Some of the material the Guardian have quoted from is from Rand Corporation; content link below.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf

Recommend you read Wizards of Armageddon to understand the long standing influence of Rand Corp on US strategic military and defense policy. For those of you who follow conflicts and international affairs, well worth bookmarking their URL.

[Ulysses G.]

I cannot understand why so many people dismiss the possibility that China, Russia and Iran will not join together militarily to support Syria

Because it is ridiculous. China and Russia are not going to start WW3 over a limited strike on Syria. Iran might be willing, but they would be defeated in short order.

[mania]

I cannot understand why so many people dismiss the possibility that China, Russia and Iran will not join together militarily to support Syria

Because it is ridiculous. China and Russia are not going to start WW3 over a limited strike on Syria. Iran might be willing, but they would be defeated in short order.

Would be not too funny if Russia, China etc. are all thinking that exact same thing...But instead That the USA will not risk WW3 over something this stupid. Yet they should not underestimate the stupidity available these days in the White House to prove a point/save face etc.

WW3 will likely start when countries start thinking they can get away with some blatant attack on sovereign countries

that presented no threat to them. It is never the obvious big things that surprise it is the things they think are a slam dunk

[midas]

I cannot understand why so many people dismiss the possibility that China, Russia and Iran will not join together militarily to support Syria

Because it is ridiculous. China and Russia are not going to start WW3 over a limited strike on Syria. Iran might be willing, but they would be defeated in short order.

surely that depends on who Iran would target.................. and the flow on effect of that?

[rijb]

Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.

Based on recent interviews with U.S. officials, allied intelligence officials and arms control experts, heres what is known and not known about Syrias chemical weapons arsenal and the looming showdown over what the U.S. says is its most recent attack:

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012.

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012

. . .

U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials tell NBC News that Maher Assad, Bashars younger brother, authorized the attack, and Syrian rebels confirm that the 155th and 127th brigades of the 4th Armored Division, both of which are under his command, played key roles in carrying it out.

P

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

These experts . . . where were they when this happened and why didn't the US intervene then? Why the brouhaha now? (Oh and repeating the same thing doesn't give it more credence)

In this day and age of how can anyone get away with the use of 'multiple times' as a determining factor with something as serious as this.

All this shows is an incredible hypocrisy from the US . . .

It has never made sense to me that a country which is $17 trillion in debt with 50 million people on food stamps can even pretend to afford to continue to be the world's policeman. Particularly when there are so many other nations that are listening to the people that don't want to go to war.

And then I read this............................... alt=rolleyes.gif width=20 height=20>

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

Make up your mind. Either the U.S. is trying to be the world's policeman or they're following a self-serving policy about oil interests.

"You're smart enough to recognize how shitty the world is but not smart enough to do anything about it" - unknown

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. The topic is Syria.

[JDGRUEN]

Sen. David Vitter says he'll vote no on Syria military resolution

"As horrible as events in Syria are, they do not pose a direct threat to the United States or our allies," Vitter continued. "U.S. military action could spark a broader war and/or entangle us in Syria's protracted civil war in which elements of the opposition are even worse than the Assad regime, all while our troops are underfunded.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/sen_vitter_says_hell_vote_no_o.html

[Exsexyman]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

[simple1]

Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.

Based on recent interviews with U.S. officials, allied intelligence officials and arms control experts, heres what is known and not known about Syrias chemical weapons arsenal and the looming showdown over what the U.S. says is its most recent attack:

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012.

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012

. . .

U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials tell NBC News that Maher Assad, Bashars younger brother, authorized the attack, and Syrian rebels confirm that the 155th and 127th brigades of the 4th Armored Division, both of which are under his command, played key roles in carrying it out.

P

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

These experts . . . where were they when this happened and why didn't the US intervene then? Why the brouhaha now? (Oh and repeating the same thing doesn't give it more credence)

In this day and age of how can anyone get away with the use of 'multiple times' as a determining factor with something as serious as this.

All this shows is an incredible hypocrisy from the US . . .

It has never made sense to me that a country which is $17 trillion in debt with 50 million people on food stamps can even pretend to afford to continue to be the world's policeman. Particularly when there are so many other nations that are listening to the people that don't want to go to war.

And then I read this............................... alt=rolleyes.gif width=20 height=20>

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

Make up your mind. Either the U.S. is trying to be the world's policeman or they're following a self-serving policy about oil interests.

"You're smart enough to recognize how shitty the world is but not smart enough to do anything about it" - unknown

Not just longer term energy supply stability, but also the following from the Rand analysis

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations"

[lannarebirth]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

Yes, they're all liars but really it's not so confusing. Watch what happens when Jews get killed.

[rijb]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

Wake up! It's not about Al Qaeda. It's about Iran (and Russia)...

[NeverSure]

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

1- No of course not

2- Maybe- Maybe not,,,But who could call killing innocents skating free? Because no matter what is claimed innocents will die.

If you mean just military wise....

Syria alone could inflict damages on a US ship & none can say they cannot with 100% certainty.

They could have decent stock of anti-ship missiles & have subs + coastal defense for delivery

Now add Russia....Say Russia gets so disgusted they park their ships between the US ships & shore?

Still worth it?

Now add Iran

Too many maybes for sticking the US in where it does not belong.

What the heck is the upside? Besides spending millions more they do not have?

If they spend even one reluctant US military life on this it will not end well.

Because it is obvious at this point the military is as reluctant as the US citizenry

over this show of stupidity foisted on the US by an ignorant excuse for a president

OK, now we're back to the "can" the US pull this off. The US has stealth submarines that the opponent can't even see. They are nuclear powered and have multiple attack capabilities. Neither Russia nor China nor anyone else wants to have ships in the water with those around.

The opponents have subs which aren't stealth, and the US has destroyers designed to detect them and take them out. There are also other multiple anti-sub weapons including planes.

The US believes it can shoot down any missiles fired at it, including anti-ship missiles.

This wouldn't all happen in the water. The US has stealth bombers which can penetrate unseen and inflict enormous damage with 80 individually GPS guided bombs per plane. It has stealth fighters and stealth drones. You can't hit what you can't see.

The US has a high level of capability to destroy anti-aircraft and anti-ship installations. In fact, that's usually job 1. This is why the US rules the air in all recent wars. This is partly why the US can declare a "no fly" zone in places like Iraq and Afghan and so on, against Russian built equipment.

If the US didn't think it could pull this off, it wouldn't be debating it. The debate isn't about "can we," but rather all about "should we."

No, it shouldn't.

Peace.

[rijb]

This is not the time nor the place (Syria) for a show down with Iran. But, it will come.

[midas]

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

1- No of course not

2- Maybe- Maybe not,,,But who could call killing innocents skating free? Because no matter what is claimed innocents will die.

If you mean just military wise....

Syria alone could inflict damages on a US ship & none can say they cannot with 100% certainty.

They could have decent stock of anti-ship missiles & have subs + coastal defense for delivery

Now add Russia....Say Russia gets so disgusted they park their ships between the US ships & shore?

Still worth it?

Now add Iran

Too many maybes for sticking the US in where it does not belong.

What the heck is the upside? Besides spending millions more they do not have?

If they spend even one reluctant US military life on this it will not end well.

Because it is obvious at this point the military is as reluctant as the US citizenry

over this show of stupidity foisted on the US by an ignorant excuse for a president

OK, now we're back to the "can" the US pull this off. The US has stealth submarines that the opponent can't even see. They are nuclear powered and have multiple attack capabilities. Neither Russia nor China nor anyone else wants to have ships in the water with those around.

The opponents have subs which aren't stealth, and the US has destroyers designed to detect them and take them out. There are also other multiple anti-sub weapons including planes.

The US believes it can shoot down any missiles fired at it, including anti-ship missiles.

This wouldn't all happen in the water. The US has stealth bombers which can penetrate unseen and inflict enormous damage with 80 individually GPS guided bombs per plane. It has stealth fighters and stealth drones. You can't hit what you can't see.

The US has a high level of capability to destroy anti-aircraft and anti-ship installations. In fact, that's usually job 1. This is why the US rules the air in all recent wars. This is partly why the US can declare a "no fly" zone in places like Iraq and Afghan and so on, against Russian built equipment.

If the US didn't think it could pull this off, it wouldn't be debating it. The debate isn't about "can we," but rather all about "should we."

No, it shouldn't.

Peace.

China has the J-20 which is a stealth aircraft, Russia has the T-50 which is also a stealth aircraft and China has a brand-new submarine which is suspected of having stealth abilities.

[NeverSure]

I see two debates happening in this thread, both on topic when reading the OP headline.

1. SHOULD the US strike?

2. CAN the US strike and skate free without involoving Russia or Israel or Iran or whatever?

My personal views on the subject are that yes, the US has the ability to pull it off and NO, it shouldn't. So, a person could quickly misunderstand my views on the entire subject.

1- No of course not

2- Maybe- Maybe not,,,But who could call killing innocents skating free? Because no matter what is claimed innocents will die.

If you mean just military wise....

Syria alone could inflict damages on a US ship & none can say they cannot with 100% certainty.

They could have decent stock of anti-ship missiles & have subs + coastal defense for delivery

Now add Russia....Say Russia gets so disgusted they park their ships between the US ships & shore?

Still worth it?

Now add Iran

Too many maybes for sticking the US in where it does not belong.

What the heck is the upside? Besides spending millions more they do not have?

If they spend even one reluctant US military life on this it will not end well.

Because it is obvious at this point the military is as reluctant as the US citizenry

over this show of stupidity foisted on the US by an ignorant excuse for a president

OK, now we're back to the "can" the US pull this off. The US has stealth submarines that the opponent can't even see. They are nuclear powered and have multiple attack capabilities. Neither Russia nor China nor anyone else wants to have ships in the water with those around.

The opponents have subs which aren't stealth, and the US has destroyers designed to detect them and take them out. There are also other multiple anti-sub weapons including planes.

The US believes it can shoot down any missiles fired at it, including anti-ship missiles.

This wouldn't all happen in the water. The US has stealth bombers which can penetrate unseen and inflict enormous damage with 80 individually GPS guided bombs per plane. It has stealth fighters and stealth drones. You can't hit what you can't see.

The US has a high level of capability to destroy anti-aircraft and anti-ship installations. In fact, that's usually job 1. This is why the US rules the air in all recent wars. This is partly why the US can declare a "no fly" zone in places like Iraq and Afghan and so on, against Russian built equipment.

If the US didn't think it could pull this off, it wouldn't be debating it. The debate isn't about "can we," but rather all about "should we."

No, it shouldn't.

Peace.

China has the J-20 which is a stealth aircraft, Russia has the T-50 which is also a stealth aircraft and China has a brand-new submarine which is suspected of having stealth abilities.

You are describing prototypes which aren't in production or service yet. China's newest is actually the J-31 but it has problems. Russia doesn't have a stealth engine design yet and probably won't until 2020. I don't know if China does.

All subs are stealth subs if one wants to call them that. First, they hide under water. Then they are dark gray color, they are smooth and now lacking even periscopes, they have rubber engine mounts, and so on. It's the degree of stealth. But more important is the technology to detect them.

Since before WW1, weapons have been a game of leap frog in technology. Everyone was afraid of the German's Fokker, but it would be a joke today. So it's a race for technology, and who is most advanced in technology? Have the Chinese or Russians ever invented a computer or a cell phone or smartphone or an internet or any mainstream software to run it? No, they copy.

And this is what Russia and China are doing today. They are trying to copy, just as they do in their daily commercial manufacturing. China manufactures things that were invented in the West, and so does Russia, and they both copy.

This is what's keeping them behind. The West leapfrogs forward, and China and Russia try to play catch up by copying.

Then if China or Russia actually develops anything worrisome, the West has to develop something to counter it. So far, the West thinks it has countered.

[newsummerday]

Google translation again:

September 5, 2013 , 19:26 ( MSK )
The Chinese military ships approaching Syria

Despite the fact that the political decision to send warships , apparently , it was decided a long time ago, we know about it is only now from informal sources, said the publication " Military Review "
This information appeared in the Chinese military blog that specializes in articles about military equipment the United States, Russia and China, as well as on the testimony of eyewitnesses.
Blog with reference to its sources in the PLA reported that several Chinese ships already close to the coast of Syria. The authors recognize that the ships would not be in any way involved in a potential conflict , but only observe the actions of NATO and Russian ships .
What kind of ships were sent to the coast of Syria , is unknown. Meanwhile , - the " Military Review " referring to the confidential source - was reported in the area of ​​the Suez Canal during passage of the Red Sea in the direction of Chinese ship Seen project Jinggangshan. " 2:00 back (...) walked past us toward the Suez Canal.
http://news.mail.ru/politics/14638358/?frommail=1

[I Like Thai]

Colbert on Syria.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/colbert-on-syria-if-america-cared-about-shooting-people-wed-be-invading-chicago/

Syrians are volunteering to act as human shields.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23966147#FBM281451

Let me guess ? When the bombs are dropped and civilians are murdered, they can be labelled as suicide shields by the US media

[hawker9000]

Colbert on Syria.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/colbert-on-syria-if-america-cared-about-shooting-people-wed-be-invading-chicago/

Syrians are volunteering to act as human shields.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23966147#FBM281451

Let me guess ? When the bombs are dropped and civilians are murdered, they can be labelled as suicide shields by the US media

If they do so willingly, as the article & BBC report suggest, then call 'em whatever you want, they're essentially combatants, or at least sympathizers, as far as I'm concerned. All civilian deaths are regrettable, but less so if out of sympathy for the thug-murderer Assad, they place themselves in harm's way. They do that, and they're part of the problem, and accomplices after-the-fact to Assad's atrocities. If they do so unwillingly or unaware of the risk they're actually taking, then they're yet more victims of the Assad regime.

PS - Why is it there seems to be more discussion of "bombing", as if it's some given, here on TV than anywhere else? (But it does get a bit more academic when human shields come into the picture, because then it doesn't matter as much that the strike planners do all possible to avoid civilian casualties when Assad does all possible to cause civilian casualties.

[I Like Thai]

Colbert on Syria.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/colbert-on-syria-if-america-cared-about-shooting-people-wed-be-invading-chicago/

Syrians are volunteering to act as human shields.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23966147#FBM281451

Let me guess ? When the bombs are dropped and civilians are murdered, they can be labelled as suicide shields by the US media

If they do so willingly, as the article & BBC report suggest, then call 'em whatever you want, they're essentially combatants, or at least sympathizers, as far as I'm concerned. All civilian deaths are regrettable, but less so if out of sympathy for the thug-murderer Assad, they place themselves in harm's way. They do that, and they're part of the problem, and accomplices after-the-fact to Assad's atrocities. If they do so unwillingly or unaware of the risk they're actually taking, then they're yet more victims of the Assad regime.

PS - Why is it there seems to be more discussion of "bombing", as if it's some given, here on TV than anywhere else? (But it does get a bit more academic when human shields come into the picture, because then it doesn't matter as much that the strike planners do all possible to avoid civilian casualties when Assad does all possible to cause civilian casualties.

The article comes across as very "Life of Brian" ish

[Exsexyman]

This is news just coming in.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians-111350473.html#Td7pxJl

But Mr Kerry stood up a day ago and swore that there was no Al Qaeda in Syria whilst giving testimony. Surely he cannot be a liar? Can he? I always understood that America was a christian country, how on earth can they justify aligning themselves with these sorts of people? Just a few short years ago we were all being warned that Al Qaeda were a threat to all of us, now they are apparently our allies, who deserve our arms and military support. It's all very confusing!

Wake up! It's not about Al Qaeda. It's about Iran (and Russia)...

Oh believe me i woke up long ago. Probably a few hours before you!

[NeverSure]

Colbert on Syria.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/colbert-on-syria-if-america-cared-about-shooting-people-wed-be-invading-chicago/

Syrians are volunteering to act as human shields.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23966147#FBM281451

Let me guess ? When the bombs are dropped and civilians are murdered, they can be labelled as suicide shields by the US media

If they do so willingly, as the article & BBC report suggest, then call 'em whatever you want, they're essentially combatants, or at least sympathizers, as far as I'm concerned. All civilian deaths are regrettable, but less so if out of sympathy for the thug-murderer Assad, they place themselves in harm's way. They do that, and they're part of the problem, and accomplices after-the-fact to Assad's atrocities. If they do so unwillingly or unaware of the risk they're actually taking, then they're yet more victims of the Assad regime.

PS - Why is it there seems to be more discussion of "bombing", as if it's some given, here on TV than anywhere else? (But it does get a bit more academic when human shields come into the picture, because then it doesn't matter as much that the strike planners do all possible to avoid civilian casualties when Assad does all possible to cause civilian casualties.

There has been a lot of talk of bombing. There has also been a carrier group moved into the area. Here is just one reference, and also stealth bombers have several advantages and a long, long range:

"...I don’t think it’s an accident that the aircraft carrier is moving over in the region," he (McCain) told reporters, suggesting that a series of remote strikes by cruise missiles was likely not to be the only use of force the president would end up enjoying..." LINK