Syria watch...

[raspberry-blower]

Erm...excuse me, there you go again, expecting others to pay the tab for your liberal guilt.

It wasn't my war.

Oh it wasn't my war either. I had the 'Not in my name' sticker so feel no guilt. And the refugees should not have needed rehousing anywhere since we should never have caused them to be refugees in the first place.

I was just pointing out another contributory cause of the present conflict. Like the draught, the war in Iraq was not of Assad's making, but of ours. (though it looks as though he has hopelessly mis-managed the situation).

Biff

When describing political actions that have been carried out by our country that you and others here disagree with (myself included) it is best to couch these terms in quotation marks.

For example

Since it was "our" war, why did we not offer a home to these 1.2 million displaced refugees instead of relying on Syria to clear up our mess?

Then fill in your own interpretation of the word "our" in this particular context i.e. something along the lines of TPTB are still prosecuting for war when everyone else wants peace.

Hopefully, that will stop a few brickbats being thrown in your direction ( although it certainly won't stop all of them )

[JavaScriptDonkey]

As the text on Brown Moses makes clear

Eliot Higgins is not a weapons expert. Eliot Higgins gets all his data from YouTube videos.

The fact that relatively undamaged rocket debris are being inspected by UN staff,
with the video giving the sound of their CW agent warning sensor consistent with traces of Sarin being present,
and with no images of an unexploded warhead being found by them at any target site,
makes your suggestion rather implausible, as in far fetched.

That detector clicks for an awful lot of reasons. They are designed that way. As Sarin is one of the more volatile NAs available I doubt that traces were hanging around in the environment a week afterwards. You might want to research the Japanese experience for details.

Given that the CW rockets were accurate

How do you know what they were aimed at? Rockets generally hit something but not always the thing aimed at.

The perpetrators of the atrocity were able to deploy a launcher (shown mounted on a truck on B-M)
and had a large volume of the precursor chemicals for Sarin,
and had men trained both in the lethally hazardous warhead-loading,
and in the assembly, loading, aiming and firing of the rockets,
and, crucially, they had to know that those rockets were a tried, tested and reliable system,
as opposed to being home-made knock up rockets that might veer off course and hit govt-held areas.

That truck is just an example. There are many others from WW2 Soviet to modern day IRA. Basically all you need is a tube.

As there is no record of the SFA having ever run trials of or used a ground to ground missile system,
let alone of them having obtained and learnt to use the one used by the Syrian Army,
the Syrian Army rocket debris found at target sites by UN inspectors is one strong line of evidence of the dictatorship's culpability.

I may have missed the point where the UN inspectors identified Syrian Army rockets. Calling them 'ground-to-ground' is a bit pompous really. OK technically they are as they are not designed to track moving targets and look to be as technically advanced as a Bonfire night whizzer but they hardly warrant the term.

[Billhook]

As the text on Brown Moses makes clear

Eliot Higgins is not a weapons expert. Eliot Higgins gets all his data from YouTube videos.

Elliot is expert enough that the professionals in the field take his site seriously as a collection point for info on munitions used in the conflict, and are willing to give him long quotes for posting on it, knowing they will not be subject to partisan interpretation. Where helpful, he uses other sources besides video, in particular a host of links to relevant sites.

The fact that relatively undamaged rocket debris are being inspected by UN staff,
with the video giving the sound of their CW agent warning sensor consistent with traces of Sarin being present,
and with no images of an unexploded warhead being found by them at any target site,
makes your suggestion rather implausible, as in far fetched.

That detector clicks for an awful lot of reasons. They are designed that way. As Sarin is one of the more volatile NAs available I doubt that traces were hanging around in the environment a week afterwards. You might want to research the Japanese experience for details.

"with the video giving the sound of their CW agent warning sensor consistent with traces of Sarin being present"
I didn't say it was detecting Sarin. The things can give false positive alarms, as Elliot made clear, so they're used to identify areas worth taking samples from.
The reason the UN inspectors are there is that various nerve agents including Sarin do linger for well over a week - hence the inspectors telling people to keep back, and ordering some to leave after one minute at another location.

Given that the CW rockets were accurate

How do you know what they were aimed at? Rockets generally hit something but not always the thing aimed at.

They were accurate to the extent stated - all 12 landed in rebel held areas on or near the front line, spread across more than 10 miles of the city.

The perpetrators of the atrocity were able to deploy a launcher (shown mounted on a truck on B-M)
and had a large volume of the precursor chemicals for Sarin,
and had men trained both in the lethally hazardous warhead-loading,
and in the assembly, loading, aiming and firing of the rockets,
and, crucially, they had to know that those rockets were a tried, tested and reliable system,
as opposed to being home-made knock up rockets that might veer off course and hit govt-held areas.

That truck is just an example. There are many others from WW2 Soviet to modern day IRA. Basically all you need is a tube.

No, you don't just need a tube. You need a precisely sized tube with fittings that is mounted on a massive metal stand, that can be very accurately aligned both horizontally and vertically, with the stand set on something that can maneuvered around a war zone. The Syrian Army have them mounted on trucks. You also need a mobile crane for loading the missiles. The Syrian Army are shown using a truck-mounted Hiab.

As there is no record of the SFA having ever run trials of or used a ground to ground missile system,
let alone of them having obtained and learnt to use the one used by the Syrian Army,
the Syrian Army rocket debris found at target sites by UN inspectors is one strong line of evidence of the dictatorship's culpability.

I may have missed the point where the UN inspectors identified Syrian Army rockets. Calling them 'ground-to-ground' is a bit pompous really. OK technically they are as they are not designed to track moving targets and look to be as technically advanced as a Bonfire night whizzer but they hardly warrant the term.

The UN inspectors have made no statement on the rocket debris yet; Elliot on the other hand makes clear that it is indistinguishable from the dual purpose Faluq 2 missile system that is quite widely use by the Syrian Army.

Sorry to hear you have a problem with the technical term "ground to ground chemical warfare missile."

Now, about that attitude of mind called impartiality . . .

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Elliot is expert enough that the professionals in the field take his site seriously

That depends on your field. I doubt the professionals involved in weapons research actually do spend much time on blogs based on videos.


Firstly you say,

....giving the sound of their CW agent warning sensor consistent with traces of Sarin being present.....

and then you say...

....I didn't say it was detecting Sarin.

That's a very Biff like turn of phrase you have there Lewis.

They were accurate to the extent stated - all 12 landed in rebel held areas on or near the front line, spread across more than 10 miles of the city.

We know what they hit but how do you know what they were aimed at?

No, you don't just need a tube.

Yes, really, really. All you need is a tube. The obvious example is the IRA attack on No 10.

Sorry to hear you have a problem with the technical term "ground to ground chemical warfare missile."

'ground-to-ground chemical warfare missile' isn't a technical term. It is a media term. There are surface to surface delivery systems on mobile launchers with and with out guidance either pre-loaded, adaptive in flight or dynamically responsive. There are fly-by-wire, laser guided, GPS guided, thermal signature responsive and all manner of other systems.

And then we have a metal tube with a bean can on one end and a fuse on the other. More Katyusha or Congreve than anything else.

I'm NOT saying that either side did or did not fire them but I reject your YouTube base assertion that it is impossible for the FSA to have such weapons.

Now, about that attitude of mind called impartiality

Indeed.

[Billhook]

In order to ignore a description of the vehicles and equipment used to launch a Faluq 2 missile, it seems you're trying to conflate
an IRA mortar-bomb, that flew less than 300 yards and missed a house, with the 12 Faluq 2 missiles that flew to targets
spread across more than 10 miles, with each hitting just one class of target - an area of rebel held territory near their front line.
If that isn't sheer stupidity on your part, then it's just more prevarication.

I'm NOT saying that either side did or did not fire them but I reject your YouTube base assertion that it is impossible for the FSA to have such weapons.

As you know, I have made no such assertion.

Your need to distort what others write is not only tedious - it also shows an unwillingness to discuss the evidence impartially,
indicating a fear that it points to a conclusion whose implications for policy you'd rather deny.

As for U-tube being the basis of my assertions, perhaps you'd rather the watercolour pictures technology used during the Crimean War ?
In fact a rather tiny fraction of what I've learned on Syria since 2011 has been via Utube.
But as strawmen go, this one of yours has to be as pathetic as any I've seen from the climate deniers.

But if that's the kind of profile you want, that's up to you.

[AndySir]

Your need to distort what others write is not only tedious - it also shows an unwillingness to discuss the evidence impartially, indicating a fear that it points to a conclusion whose implications for policy you'd rather deny.

Uh oh, Steve disease is catching. I bet you beat dogs as well, don't you JSD? You're arguing because you're guilty about your dog beating habit, aren't you?

[biffvernon]

....I didn't say it was detecting Sarin.

That's a very Biff like turn of phrase you have there Lewis.

Take it as flattery.

[Little John]

Your need to distort what others write is not only tedious - it also shows an unwillingness to discuss the evidence impartially, indicating a fear that it points to a conclusion whose implications for policy you'd rather deny.

Uh oh, Steve disease is catching. I bet you beat dogs as well, don't you JSD? You're arguing because you're guilty about your dog beating habit, aren't you?

This dog ain't biting today...

Knobhead

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Your need to distort what others write is not only tedious - it also shows an unwillingness to discuss the evidence impartially, indicating a fear that it points to a conclusion whose implications for policy you'd rather deny.

Uh oh, Steve disease is catching. I bet you beat dogs as well, don't you JSD? You're arguing because you're guilty about your dog beating habit, aren't you?

It's always good news when the descend to attack me personally as it means they have nothing left.

Woof!

[raspberry-blower]

Interesting analysis from David Malone on the Syrian situation - far more nuanced than what is being portrayed in MSM:

GolemXIV: Syria - Cui Bono Part 1

And our media have talked about virtually nothing else but these red lines and whether we have proof or not that they have been crossed. They have been so focused on this quest for proof they have offered nearly no deeper analysis. A simple cover has been pulled over all the real complexities of who is after what.

Of course having proof sounds so right. Who could argue with it? The problem is that in the real world proof in human affairs is often so elusive that the quest for it quickly degenerates into claim and counter-claim. What I belive we are in danger of losing sight of, as a result of this insistence on proof, is analysis. Proof that some action or event took place does not guarantee that you understand WHY it happened. For that you need analysis. But I have begun to feel that our governments don’t like analysis because anyone can do it. It is democratic. Whereas insisting on proof is a convenient thing for those who claim to have it but cannot show it to us because it is too…secret.

Golem XIV: Syria - Cui Bono Part 2: Qatar, Saudi, Russia and Gas

So what does all this mean for Syria? As far as I can see it means half a dozen countries have huge and conflicting financial and political interest in trying to make sure whoever is governing Syria in a year’s time is pro their particular needs. Whatever else, Simple World it is not.

Russia wants Assad to stay. Qatar would like him replaced with a pro-Qatar pipeline government. While Saudi doesn’t really like democratic rebels of any stripe, but if Assad does go, they do NOT want Qatar to run the show and thus are trying to ensure an anti pipeline government. I do not believe anyone is primarily moved by humanitarian interests, or particularly concerned with the fate of Syrian civilians, nor particularly outraged about the use of gas. None of the countries in the region shouted loudly when Iraq used gas.

[raspberry-blower]

One thing that may occur in the next few days is that there may well be some concerted selling of US Treasuries:

At this point, China owns approximately 1.275 trillion dollars of our debt, and Russia owns approximately 138 billion dollars of our debt.

So what would happen if China, Russia and other foreign buyers of our debt all of a sudden quit purchasing our debt and instead started dumping the debt that they already own back on to the market?

In a word, it would be disastrous.

More here

Keep an eye out for this - the race to the bottom would then well and truly be on

[Little John]

Interesting analysis from David Malone on the Syrian situation - far more nuanced than what is being portrayed in MSM:

GolemXIV: Syria - Cui Bono Part 1

And our media have talked about virtually nothing else but these red lines and whether we have proof or not that they have been crossed. They have been so focused on this quest for proof they have offered nearly no deeper analysis. A simple cover has been pulled over all the real complexities of who is after what.

Of course having proof sounds so right. Who could argue with it? The problem is that in the real world proof in human affairs is often so elusive that the quest for it quickly degenerates into claim and counter-claim. What I belive we are in danger of losing sight of, as a result of this insistence on proof, is analysis. Proof that some action or event took place does not guarantee that you understand WHY it happened. For that you need analysis. But I have begun to feel that our governments don’t like analysis because anyone can do it. It is democratic. Whereas insisting on proof is a convenient thing for those who claim to have it but cannot show it to us because it is too…secret.

Golem XIV: Syria - Cui Bono Part 2: Qatar, Saudi, Russia and Gas

So what does all this mean for Syria? As far as I can see it means half a dozen countries have huge and conflicting financial and political interest in trying to make sure whoever is governing Syria in a year’s time is pro their particular needs. Whatever else, Simple World it is not.

Russia wants Assad to stay. Qatar would like him replaced with a pro-Qatar pipeline government. While Saudi doesn’t really like democratic rebels of any stripe, but if Assad does go, they do NOT want Qatar to run the show and thus are trying to ensure an anti pipeline government. I do not believe anyone is primarily moved by humanitarian interests, or particularly concerned with the fate of Syrian civilians, nor particularly outraged about the use of gas. None of the countries in the region shouted loudly when Iraq used gas.

Excellent find R

[nexus]

David Malone's blog is always worth reading;he makes great documentaries too.

Edit: His fantastic documentary about waves can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _of_Waves/

[biffvernon]

Joe Romm is catching up
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 ... r-drought/

[Billhook]

From the Guardian: "US open to Russian Proposal . . ."

"The White House gave a cautious welcome on Monday to a Russian proposal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons, opening up the first real chance of a political settlement to the crisis since hundreds of civilians died in an attack on a Damascus suburb last month.

US deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said "it would be terrific" if Syria followed through on a reported offer by its foreign minister to place chemical stockpiles under the control of international observers. But he nevertheless expressed scepticism whether it would do so. "Unfortunately, the track record to date does not inspire a lot of confidence," Blinken said.

The White House said it would now work with the Russians to explore the deal proposed earlier on Monday by foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, after an apparent off-the-cuff remark by US secretary of state John Kerry. The administration stressed that these discussions would take place "in parallel" with continued efforts in Washington to persuade US lawmakers to authorise the use of military force against Syria.

The diplomatic scramble began in London when Kerry suggested that the only way for Syria to avoid the threat of a US attack would be for it to hand over all its chemical weapons within a week.

At first, the significance of the remarks were downplayed by the Department of State, which said he had been speaking "rhetorically", but Kerry's language was immediately seized on by Lavrov, who raised the prospect of international observers supervising such a handover.

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said.

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem.

Whether intentional or not, Kerry's comments opened up a chance to defuse the crisis at a moment when Barack Obama was already struggling to persuade Congress of the need for US intervention. Kerry later spoke to Lavrov by phone and Washington scrambled to place its own spin on the unexpected breakthrough."
________________________________________________________

To what extent this was an accidental offer by Kerry is open to interpretation -
if the simplistic belief that the US is hell bent on war was correct,
it could certainly be argued that Kerry must be pretty exhausted after a fortnight of high intensity debate -
and a very incautious remark is not surprising -
OTOH , while it yields the credit for promoting the idea to Putin, if it comes to anything it would be a rather effective way
past the the horns of the credibility-loss dilemma that have Washington trapped -
it is a restraint from punitive action but at the price of Assad surrendering his CW arsenal.

If it comes to anything then the question turns to the deal's practical effect: with around 1,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals
being the long-held western estimate (that has not been denied by Assad) and with these being stored in around 50 depots across Syria,
the removal and stashing before US personnel arrive of just 1% (10 tonnes) would provide material
for repeated attacks on the scale of August 21st, to be blamed, of course, on the 'terrorists'.
And who then would lift a finger ?

Moreover, such a deal would effectively preclude further US intervention, which would be a major coup for Moscow, Iran and Damascus,
and a blow for Riyadh and Tel Aviv.
It would also quite likely mean selling out the Syrian people to continued tyranny under Riyadh or Tel Aviv's preference.
To my mind this would be a classic example of the US callous malfeasance in responding to those aspiring to a democratic society.

One of the things that this potential deal seems rather unlikely to generate is any acknowledgement from the passivist tendency
that have been stridently opposing a punitive strike -
that without the credible present threat of such a strike, backed by its implacable preparation,
there would now be no prospect of Syria renouncing its official chemical weapons stockpiles.

Regards,

Lewis