View Full Version : The Syria question...
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the growing crisis in Syria. This is a somewhat long post so please bear with me as you read it. The Syria question is an important issue of global significance, so I'm hoping my interest in it is shared by the forum.
Without getting into a thorough analysis and historical contextualization, I'll enumerate a few of the key tensions and angles of the conflict in order to frame and guide the discussion:
Internal Factors:
-It's reasonable to call the conflict a full-fledged civil war at this point, with an estimated death toll of 15,000 - 20,000. The refugee count varies wildly, but most place the number of displaced people at around 100,000. In addition to being a source of international tension between major powers and an internal political event, it is a humanitarian crisis.
- There are sectarian overtones to the conflict, although the opposition has denied that this is their primary motivation. Bashar al-Assad's regime is primarily made up of Alawites, a sect of Shia Islam. Alawites account for only 11% of the Syrian population, but hold most major and important government positions. Security and intelligence branches of the Assad government are especially saturated with Alawite leaders. Sunni Muslims account for over 75% of the Syrian population but have little influence in government. The opposition Free Syrian Army is primarily comprised of Sunni Muslims. Their only stated goal is the removal of the Ba'ath party and Bashar al-Assad from power.
External Factors:
- Iran, being primarily a Shia country, supports the Alawite Assad regime. Iran has funded the Syrian military, provided weapons and equipment, and has Qud's Force (SOF) personnel on the ground in Syria assisting the government.
- The US is for all intents and purposes in a de-facto state of war with Iran. As such, the overthrow of a key Iranian ally in Syria is seen by many to be in the interest of the United States. A Sunni government in Syria would likely fall into the orbit of Saudi Arabia, a key US ally in the region against Iran. This would severely diminish Iran's dominance in the region. The US denies providing material, financial, or informational aid to the Syrian opposition.
- Russia is a long time ally of Syria. The Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet has its only outlet to the Mediterranean Sea is in the Syrian port of Tartus. In light of US plans for a ballistic missile shield out of Poland, the port of Tartus has become a key installation for the Russian Nuclear Plan and is widely viewed as crucial to the nation's nuclear deterrent. It would likely lose this port if the Assad government falls. Additionally, Russia has massive economic interest in an Assad lead government. Arms contracts between Russia and Syria are worth almost 5 Billion dollars. Russian firms are also heavily invested in Syrian infrastructure, telecommunications, and energy sectors.
- China has massive economic interest in Syria. Along with Russia, it is the only member of the UN Security Counsel to vote against a condemnation of the Assad crackdown.
-Turkey is a member of the EU and NATO. It facilitates the functioning of the Free Syrian Army by providing safe-haven and by directly financing and equipping them (this is not substantiated to my knowledge but is highly likely to be true). Turkey also views itself as being a part of the proxy war with other Sunni regional powers against the Shia Iranians and Hezbollah / Lebanon. The Assad government in Syria has allowed the PKK, which conducts acts of terrorism against Turkey, to operate within its borders. There is a growing sense that Turkey is volatile and may intervene in Syria unilaterally, forcing our hand.
Key questions:
- Do you think the Assad regime will fall? When?
- Is it in US interest to support the Free Syrian Army? If so, how and to what extent?
- To what extent is the Free Syrian Army opposition penetrated by extremist / terrorist elements?
- If Turkey attacks Syria, will Russia go to war with Turkey? If so, what will the NATO response be, since Turkey is a member-state?
- What are the chances of the proxy war between Syria-Iran-Lebanese Hezbollah factions and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states, turning into a full scale regional conflict?
-What are the chances that the regional conflict will grow into a global conflict between major powers (EU, US, Russia, China)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to refrain from stating my opinion because everything I say seems to be highly controversial around these parts. So instead of turning this into an argument against my positions, I'd like to just see where the discussion goes on its own. I'll probably weigh in here and there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some on the ground footage for anyone who hasn't seen any:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef7_1339466283
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=067_1339801652
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e3_1339458323
montanadave
06-16-12, 07:10
Interesting questions. Unfortunately, I am not privy to the kind of information necessary to provide any sort of informed response. That said, I do have some general opinions on the matter, based solely on my limited knowledge of the situation.
I think Assad's days are numbered. But how his departure plays out is anyone's guess. While the popular sentiments aroused by the "Arab Spring" are still evident, the bloom has definitely come off the rose as the political situation in Egypt has unfolded. It's relatively easy to foment a revolution against repressive regimes. Establishing a functioning government amidst the internecine conflicts/rivalries endemic to the Middle East is not.
The US should continue to use whatever influence it has with Russia (and China) to elicit their support in Assad's departure, for whatever that's worth. And we can provide humanitarian aid to the refugees and the Syrian opposition. I don't think we need to start arming folks that may decide to shoot at us next week. That strategy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has not served us well in the Middle East. We don't understand the culture, we don't know the players, and we always seem to end up with egg on our face and blood on our hands. Personally, I think it's about time the Saudis grew a pair and actually took steps to support their allies in the region. But that's another issue. The Saudi royal family is sitting on their own powder keg and seems content to placate their population with petrodollars rather than risk inciting any further internal opposition.
As for the terrorist/al-Qaeda angle, I imagine anytime the prevailing power structure is compromised, opportunistic elements of those groups are willing and ready to fill any vacuum which might present itself. And, again, our track record on predicting who's who is pretty dismal. Another good reason to keep Syria at arm's length.
The additional scenarios involving open hostilities between neighboring and sponsor states are a complete cipher. But I imagine there are folks working on a hundred and one different scenarios of how things might play out and I'd bet a hundred bucks every one of them would prove wrong if the shit completely hit the fan.
As inhumane as it might seem, I think this is a Syrian civil war and we should do everything possible to keep it contained to Syria. Foreign intervention will only delegitimize whoever eventually comes out on top and foment further opposition. If the Syrian people want a different form of government, they're going to have to make the sacrifices necessary to see that come about.
The United States can afford neither the blood nor treasure to midwife every political revolution against repressive regimes around the world. We would do well to lead by example and get our own house in order, rather than engaging in more interventionism while neglecting domestic concerns.
Do they have oil? No? Well there's your answer.
Do they have oil? No? Well there's your answer.
Hard to disagree with this.
I am not sure we have a strategic interest in Syria. As bad as our national strategy and foreign policy is, even our current crop Ivy League morons in the State Dept have enough sense to stay out of Syria.
The Army is broke, there is no national will for another way, and we really can't afford it. And, at the end of the day what do we gain?
If we really feel the need to do something on the cheap we could send in drones to blow up their tanks.
Do they have oil? No? Well there's your answer.
They actually do have oil. Not on the scale of the other ME countries, but according to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria
they produced 1/2% of the 2010 World Output and oil revenue accounts for about 25% of the national income, if I read it correctly.
So, you are right in the large sense, you are right, not enough oil to really matter, but enough for almost 2 days of world use...
--
Where does Israel sit on this matter??
Where does Israel sit on this matter??
Until last week, they were almost totally silent, besides offering to take in Alawite refugees should there be widespread reprisals as Assad's power to protect them diminishes.
Their silence was intentional, as they didn't want to play into the notion that the uprising was some sort of foreign / Israeli engineered plot, which would delegitimize the opposition. So, the best way to help the opposition was actually to do and say nothing.
But just in the last few days, Israel has come out strongly against the regime's actions. Support for the Free Syrian Army opposition has it a critical mass in the Arab world, so Israel jumped on the rare opportunity to be publicly allied with Arab interests. Both Israel and the majority Sunni Arabs want to diminish Iran's regional influence, and removing Assad is point number one.
The part about foreign intervention delegitimizing the opposition is particularly incisive. That is precisely what has happened over and over again when western nations have supported certain Arab factions. In fact, much of the current strife in Syria can be traced back to the French mandate period. The official policy of "divide and rule" didn't leave with the French - those who supported the imperial power had no legitimacy and those who didn't had no experience.
But I think support for the Free Syrian Army has hit a critical mass, and their legitimacy (in the eyes of the Arab street) is no longer in danger.
The only other thing I'll push back on is the al-Qaeda / extremist angle. The longer the conflict drags on, the longer it takes the FSA to topple Assad - the more Jihadists will slip in. Right now most estimates that I've heard place the number of foreign fighters operating in Syria in the hundreds. As time drags on, it's only going to go up. What concerns me is that as extremists inevitably become more mainstream in the opposition, as their guerrilla warfare / IED making experience becomes more necessary, they will infect the movement's ideology at large and slip into important governing roles in the post-Assad government. The sooner Assad falls, the less likely this is to happen.
The other reason we should hope the conflict doesn't drag on is Syria's chemical weapon stockpile. There are reports of Syrian Army units deserting bases where these weapons are stored. As organization continues to break down, so will accountability of the weapons. A swift takeover will allow the opposition to secure the weapons with a minimal chance of having munitions get lost.
Interesting questions. Unfortunately, I am not privy to the kind of information necessary to provide any sort of informed response. That said, I do have some general opinions on the matter, based solely on my limited knowledge of the situation.
I think Assad's days are numbered. But how his departure plays out is anyone's guess. While the popular sentiments aroused by the "Arab Spring" are still evident, the bloom has definitely come off the rose as the political situation in Egypt has unfolded. It's relatively easy to foment a revolution against repressive regimes. Establishing a functioning government amidst the internecine conflicts/rivalries endemic to the Middle East is not.
The US should continue to use whatever influence it has with Russia (and China) to elicit their support in Assad's departure, for whatever that's worth. And we can provide humanitarian aid to the refugees and the Syrian opposition. I don't think we need to start arming folks that may decide to shoot at us next week. That strategy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has not served us well in the Middle East. We don't understand the culture, we don't know the players, and we always seem to end up with egg on our face and blood on our hands. Personally, I think it's about time the Saudis grew a pair and actually took steps to support their allies in the region. But that's another issue. The Saudi royal family is sitting on their own powder keg and seems content to placate their population with petrodollars rather than risk inciting any further internal opposition.
As for the terrorist/al-Qaeda angle, I imagine anytime the prevailing power structure is compromised, opportunistic elements of those groups are willing and ready to fill any vacuum which might present itself. And, again, our track record on predicting who's who is pretty dismal. Another good reason to keep Syria at arm's length.
The additional scenarios involving open hostilities between neighboring and sponsor states are a complete cipher. But I imagine there are folks working on a hundred and one different scenarios of how things might play out and I'd bet a hundred bucks every one of them would prove wrong if the shit completely hit the fan.
As inhumane as it might seem, I think this is a Syrian civil war and we should do everything possible to keep it contained to Syria. Foreign intervention will only delegitimize whoever eventually comes out on top and foment further opposition. If the Syrian people want a different form of government, they're going to have to make the sacrifices necessary to see that come about.
The United States can afford neither the blood nor treasure to midwife every political revolution against repressive regimes around the world. We would do well to lead by example and get our own house in order, rather than engaging in more interventionism while neglecting domestic concerns.
SW-Shooter
06-16-12, 16:02
After GW1 we should have left the region. After 9/11/2001 we should have dropped two tactical nukes on Afghanistan and called it a day. We don't belong in the region and we damn sure don't need to lose anymore brave Service Men and Women in that backwards ass culture anyway.
We would have shown more strength and power by doing that in the first place. **** with the U.S.A., you are not punished you are handed an extinction level event.
As a0cake stated the Chemical Weapons stockpile is vulnerable, just like the Egyptian and Libyan MANPADS was. It's no coincidence that we've had a few rotary wing aircraft shot down lately. I'm not believing for one second they were RPG's, I do believe that the former dictators portable Air Defense have made their way to the AF aka AFG theater now.
The syrian civil war is a conflict the US should not get involved in. Period. A humanitarian crisis ? Perhaps, to me its muslim on muslim violence and the less haji scum that inhabit the world, the better. Heartless and uncaring ? So be it. As mentioned previously, the only reason "The West" got involved in Libya was oil, not out of humanitarian concerns.
The United States can afford neither the blood nor treasure to midwife every political revolution against repressive regimes around the world. We would do well to lead by example and get our own house in order, rather than engaging in more interventionism while neglecting domestic concerns.
+1000
Use influence and pressure for the time being. As far as a wider conflict, I don't see it happening. If it does, we'll cross that bridge when/if we get there. I'm sick of wars in which the enemy never presented a realistic threat to the U.S. Let the nations in their backyard spill blood and treasure for a change.
I said the same thing to my girlfriends' sister when she got after me about Kony 2012 shit. "South Africa has a modern military. Why don't they help?". She didn't have an answer to that.
I said the same thing to my girlfriends' sister when she got after me about Kony 2012 shit. "South Africa has a modern military. Why don't they help?". She didn't have an answer to that.
I don't want to get too far off track and derail the thread, but Uganda is doing our dirty work, fighting al-Qaeda and its al-Shabab affiliate in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Uganda has also been the largest source of manpower for private force-protection contracts in Iraq. Ugandan support for the US and the Global War on Terror has exposed the country to Islamist aggression, so if they want us there to help quell a domestic problem, it is not unreasonable for us to do that. This is nothing more than the concept of reciprocal altruism at work in foreign relations.
"Reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."
ETA: Now, of course you can make a sound argument that the entire GWOT has been and continues to be misguided...but in the context of current US foreign policy, whether it's right or wrong, assisting the Ugandans in a FID role is not a bad move.
And that's an argument that I do make myself (that interventionism is running amok among policy makers), so I'm not justifying any of this. Just maybe making it more understandable - unless you already understood the US-Uganda dynamic.
Moose-Knuckle
06-17-12, 03:01
General Welsey Clark; "Seven countries in five years" (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTdx1nPu3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s
They actually do have oil.
Then we'll be there by the end of summer. But somehow the "turmoil" will be used as an excuse for gas prices to go higher.
We would have shown more strength and power by doing that in the first place. **** with the U.S.A., you are not punished you are handed an extinction level event.
And there in lies the problem. American leaders wield the power of the most awesome war machine in human history, but lack the fundamental understanding of the metaphysics of violence.
Street Savvy 101 - someone messes with you, you beat them savagely to send a message to all of the other screw heads.
Our nation is forced to deal with some of the most dangerous people on Earth but our political leaders still think they are at the Harvard/Yale debating club.
http://img.tapatalk.com/a6895813-96fe-d925.jpg
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882
Oh, this has been in the works for a while now.
VooDoo6Actual
06-21-12, 22:24
General Welsey Clark; "Seven countries in five years" (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTdx1nPu3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s
Geez,
Moose I think we shared that one easily more than 2 years ago IIRC ?
I'd like to know what our upside is on intervention in Syria. So we help overthrow Assad. Who takes over? Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and a pawn of Iran. Will they suddenly not be a sponsor of terrorism? Will they become a hardline Islamist regime?
I'm not for intervening in the civil wars of a country that hasn't declared war on the US. In this case, I don't even see any positive opportunities coming out of it. :(
VooDoo6Actual
06-21-12, 23:49
"The Grand Chessboard"
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/694906.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
Wonder of Wonders.
At the same time of Obama’s attendance at Columbia, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was also at the Columbia as head of the “Institute of Communist Affairs.”
Brzezinski was national security adviser under Jimmy Carter. He left Columbia to found the TRILATERAL COMMISSION along with David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission is a private organization with members from the U.S., Europe and Japan.
“Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief” (Page 72). He called for a deliberate management of the American future (Page 260), a “Community of Nations” (page 296) and a “World Government” (Page 308).
Barry Goldwater writes in his book “With No Apologies”
“In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. All this to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future”
The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations. The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone. At least 3 billion in U.S. dollars were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons. Together with similar programs by Saudi Arabia, Britain's MI6 and SAS, Egypt, Iran, and the People's Republic of China, the arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.
No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen. The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala." Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time.
With U.S. and other funding, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents. On July 20, 1987, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country was announced pursuant to the negotiations that led to the Geneva Accords of 1988,[43] with the last Soviets leaving on February 15, 1989.
The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.
Moose-Knuckle
06-22-12, 03:18
Geez,
Moose I think we shared that one easily more than 2 years ago IIRC ?
Roger that, interesting to see these things come to fruition.
"The Grand Chessboard"
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/694906.jpg
Hah, Brzezinski is the first person that popped into my head when I read this thread.
Another *phenomenal* book is:
FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE
By F. William Engdahl
Reading Brzezinski is mandatory as is Sir Halford Mackinder (so-called father of Geopolitics), Kissinger and Alfred T. Mahan, author of THE INFLUENCE OF SEAPOWER UPON HISTORY.
VooDoo6Actual
06-22-12, 05:29
Another *phenomenal* book is:
FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE
By F. William Engdahl
Reading Brzezinski is mandatory as is Sir Halford Mackinder (so-called father of Geopolitics), Kissinger and Alfred T. Mahan, author of THE INFLUENCE OF SEAPOWER UPON HISTORY.
Indeed Mackinder "the man who dug the well" along with Ratzel & Mahan
The Imperial Vision of Halford Mackinder
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00133.x/abstract
here's another good one:
free too
Realism and the spirit of 1919: Halford Mackinder, geopolitics and the reality and the League of Nations
http://mun.academia.edu/LucianAshworth/Papers/412894/Realism_and_the_spirit_of_1919_Halford_Mackinder_geopolitics_and_the_reality_of_the_League_of_Nations
Here's an abstract that talks about Hackler's vision of The Empire of Britain as it relates to Russia / China / Germany (look vaguely familiar)
The Geopolitical Implications of Environmental Change
http://geography.uoregon.edu/murphy/articles/murphy%20hommel%20with%20figures.pdf
What's amazing to me is : Hackler knew in 1904 what exactly would happen & it is what is exactly manifesting right now...
Ready for this :
Here's a map Hackler made in 1904 & does it look vaguely familiar with the current events of today etc. Almost too incredible to be believed... Ya think ?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/9-7769d128c4.jpg
Here is a part of it: Seeds of Destruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKyRAy48qBk
Here's a recent little piece about Syria : LOVE the spin he puts on it all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvbd1QLBzpg&feature=fvwrel
Indeed Mackinder "the man who dug the well" along with Ratzel & Mahan
The Imperial Vision of Halford Mackinder
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00133.x/abstract
here's another good one:
free too
Realism and the spirit of 1919: Halford Mackinder, geopolitics and the reality and the League of Nations
http://mun.academia.edu/LucianAshworth/Papers/412894/Realism_and_the_spirit_of_1919_Halford_Mackinder_geopolitics_and_the_reality_of_the_League_of_Nations
Here's an abstract that talks about Hackler vision of The Empire of Britain as it relates to Russia / China / Germany (look vaguely familiar)
http://geography.uoregon.edu/murphy/articles/murphy%20hommel%20with%20figures.pdf
What's amazing to me is : Hackler knew in 1904 what exactly would happen & it is what is exactly manifesting right now...
Here's a map Hackler made in 1904 & look at the current events etc.
Here is a part of it: Seeds of Destruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKyRAy48qBk
Here's a recent little piece about Syria : LOVE the spin he puts on it all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvbd1QLBzpg&feature=fvwrel
Thank you much, brother! Good to find someone who has a thirst for this type of knowledge. Damned few.
Thanks for the links.
Both The Grand Chessboard and The Influence of Seapower Upon History can be downloaded (free) online, too.
PM me if you cannot find them.
Try the title, .pdf
VooDoo6Actual
06-22-12, 06:30
check.
You notice all the Sea Fleet AO TT&P changes / media pinging etc. along w/ Sea Treaty recently on the radar etc. ?
MY research is starting to sway / indicate that Brzezinski plagiarized Mackinder LOL !
This lays it out fairly well & concisely:
http://exploringgeopolitics.org/Publication_Boon_von_Ochssee_Timothy_Mackinder_and_Spykman_and_the_new_world_energy_order.html
More theory/background here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Mjolnir check this out:
Prof. Spykman later refined Mackinder’s strategy to adapt it to the new post-World War Two reality of the Cold War, doing so as early as 1944. Spykman came to the conclusion that the US was bound to face off with a strong Soviet Union on the Eurasian landmass in the aftermath of World War Two. The basic premise of Spykman’s geopolitical school of thought is that the balance of power in Eurasia directly affected US national security. Under President Truman, containing the Soviet Union became a top priority for US foreign and security policies in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Spykman reasoned that a prerequisite for the US to be able to maintain its supremacy in the world, just like the British Empire did before it, is developing a strong navy and maintaining a strong presence in what he called the ‘rimland’ (or Mackinder’s inner crescent) either through military outposts or pro-US allied governments.
The NATO alliance system hinges geographically on the Western portion of the landmass and constituted the western flank of the US containment effort. In the south lay the Middle East and the southern portion of Central Asia (as for the Gulf, for some time Iran was a pro-US ally under the Shah until the Islamic Revolution in 1979), and to the East lay Japan as well as other countries in the US camp as well as naval bases, all positioned, in fact, to prevent any one power in the pivot area from dominating the Eurasian landmass through the rimland. The result of this strategy or at least its purported goal was to prevent the heartland (or Mackinder’s pivot area) from being dominated by a single power or coalition of powers (just as Mackinder prescribed).
What cha thunk resonate ?
More on this switched on Cat here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_J._Spykman
"The Godfather of Containment" lmao !
Amen!
Zbigniew and Henry, and others, proscribe to the same line of thought: the British(-American) Empire should dominate the world - initially via sea power and then combining this with controlling the Eurasian landmass.
In short: the de facto NEW WORLD ORDER.
I therefore see the Arab nations defending their sovereignty - and essentially being CRUSHED (who among the nations dare challenge the Beast?). The very sad thing is that American courage-daring-intellect, etc., is being used for negative purposes and few seem to notice.
VooDoo6Actual
06-22-12, 12:40
Mjolnr,
You notice this interesting tidbit ?
Influence on Nazi strategy
The Heartland Theory was enthusiastically taken up by the German school of Geopolitik, in particular by its main proponent Karl Haushofer. Whilst Geopolitik was later embraced by the German Nazi regime in the 1930s, Mackinder was always extremely critical of the German exploitation of his ideas. The German interpretation of the Heartland Theory is referred to explicitly (without mentioning the connection to Mackinder) in The Nazis Strike, the second of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series of American World War II propaganda films.
Who is Karl Haushofer ?
Karl Ernst Haushofer (August 27, 1869 – March 10, 1946) was a German general, geographer and geopolitician. Through his student Rudolf Hess, Haushofer's ideas may have influenced the development of Adolf Hitler's expansionist strategies, although Haushofer denied direct influence on the Nazi regime.
What is Geopolitik ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik
The it really seems like it gets off tangent on it's face but not really as it's all about survival etc. into Social Darwinism aka Survival of the Fittest etc. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here's a free link to "The Grand Chess Board"
http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf
The Influence of Seapower Upon History
http://www.daastol.com/books/Mahan,%20The%20Influence%20of%20Sea%20Power%20upon%20History%201660-1783%20(1889).pdf
The geographical pivot of history and early twentieth century geopolitical culture
http://www.pascalvenier.com/venier2004c.pdf
Britain & the British Seas
http://ia600401.us.archive.org/16/items/britainbritishse00mackuoft/britainbritishse00mackuoft.pdf
Piplineistan Revisited
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EL24Ag01.html
Here's the Motherlode (circa1904) : Mackinder's The Geographical Pivot of History
Free pdf
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/eBooks/Articles/1904%20HEARTLAND%20THEORY%20HALFORD%20MACKINDER.pdf
Syria downed a Turkish F-4 today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18561219
montanadave
06-22-12, 18:07
Syria downed a Turkish F-4 today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18561219
Let the games begin. Perhaps you will have a definitive answer to one of your original questions soon.
SW-Shooter
06-22-12, 18:14
Do they have the capability to shoot down our aircraft, I've never known much about their ADA capability.
Do they have the capability to shoot down our aircraft, I've never known much about their ADA capability.
Initial SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) sorties utilizing standoff munitions and ARM (anti-radiation missiles) as well as cruise missiles from our Carrier Battle Groups would wipe out a large portion of Syria's Air Defense capability before the initial waves of the main strike force entered Syrian airspace. A few mobile SA-6 and SA-11 launchers and some AAA guns would likely remain and have a small chance of downing a few of our aircraft, but their C2 network (Command and Control) would be in disarray. The remaining nodes of the AD network would be operating in the dark, and have to be in the right place at the right time to shoot down one of our aircraft, as they'd be receiving no information or orders from their higher headquarters. Assuming physical C2 nodes still existed, US Electronic Warfare platforms would be actively jamming Syrian communications. So really, it would come down to dumb luck for individual SAM and AAA battery crews.
I would estimate that we'd lose a few (1-3) aircraft in the beginning, but have total air dominance and freedom of maneuver established in 48-72 hours.
I'm a "ground-guy," so I'm a little out of my breadth here, but this is IMO a pretty good assessment.
check.
Prof. Spykman later refined Mackinder’s strategy to adapt it to the new post-World War Two reality of the Cold War, doing so as early as 1944. Spykman came to the conclusion that the US was bound to face off with a strong Soviet Union on the Eurasian landmass in the aftermath of World War Two. The basic premise of Spykman’s geopolitical school of thought is that the balance of power in Eurasia directly affected US national security. Under President Truman, containing the Soviet Union became a top priority for US foreign and security policies in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Spykman reasoned that a prerequisite for the US to be able to maintain its supremacy in the world, just like the British Empire did before it, is developing a strong navy and maintaining a strong presence in what he called the ‘rimland’ (or Mackinder’s inner crescent) either through military outposts or pro-US allied governments.
Even up through the more recent 'Pentagon's New Map' type stuff, economic and social influence backed up by a functional littoral and blue water navy is still going to be the basis of power projection, and the only real update to that is pointing out that entire regions and states were not going to accept the trend of globalization, and instead become artificially insular.
I can't go into much EW detail on how much Syria is an active thing, how and what platforms would be used to cripple their C2 capability, but it stands to reason that a full NATO or even coalition of the willing involvement will involve absolute technical overmatch on our part, and once again we'll be back in the same conundrum of how much resolute political will is going to be available at key times to actually solidify whatever progress is made to creating a legitimate authority in the power vacuum left by thousands of JDAMs.
Moose-Knuckle
06-22-12, 19:44
Concerning Turkey in all this mess. . .
Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses SYRIA - with a little advice for Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvbd1QLBzpg
Concerning Turkey in all this mess. . .
Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses SYRIA - with a little advice for Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvbd1QLBzpg
Man, I thought he was actually going to say something substantive. All of that was blatantly obvious. I'd like to hear what he's really thinking.
VooDoo6Actual
06-22-12, 20:39
Even up through the more recent 'Pentagon's New Map' type stuff, economic and social influence backed up by a functional littoral and blue water navy is still going to be the basis of power projection, and the only real update to that is pointing out that entire regions and states were not going to accept the trend of globalization, and instead become artificially insular.
I can't go into much EW detail on how much Syria is an active thing, how and what platforms would be used to cripple their C2 capability, but it stands to reason that a full NATO or even coalition of the willing involvement will involve absolute technical overmatch on our part, and once again we'll be back in the same conundrum of how much resolute political will is going to be available at key times to actually solidify whatever progress is made to creating a legitimate authority in the power vacuum left by thousands of JDAMs.
copy & agreed.
I would add to your thoughts that armed UAV's will be working in synergy w/ Navy's Fleet presence making an unprecedented game changer & case w/ the eventual realization for more than projection ;-/. I submit for your thoughts that unprecedented UAV RTS coupled w/ a response time & precision strike capability on target that would have Spykman / Mackler et al shit their respective beds. What cha think ?
Appreciate your input & perspective in terms of real time SITREP w/o OPSEC compromise. Corroborates what's come across my radar as well. This is (unless someone hits a keystroke ;-/) going be a long hump considering economic & trade sanctions, natural resource containment & choke points & abetted food supply lines etc. Most of America has no clue ;-/
SW-Shooter
06-23-12, 00:02
copy & agreed.
I would add to your thoughts that armed UAV's will be working in synergy w/ Navy's Fleet presence making an unprecedented game changer & case w/ the eventual realization for more than projection ;-/. I submit for your thoughts that unprecedented UAV RTS coupled w/ a response time & precision strike capability on target that would have Spykman / Mackler et al shit their respective beds. What cha think ?
Appreciate your input & perspective in terms of real time SITREP w/o OPSEC compromise. Corroborates what's come across my radar as well. This is (unless someone hits a keystroke ;-/) going be a long hump considering economic & trade sanctions, natural resource containment & choke points & abetted food supply lines etc. Most of America has no clue ;-/
This would be the first time our drones would go deep into a highly armed country that wasn't allowing it with a wink and a nod. One with a real ADA and Air Force. Game changer.
This would be the first time our drones would go deep into a highly armed country that wasn't allowing it with a wink and a nod. One with a real ADA and Air Force. Game changer.
The vast majority of our drones are not able to be operated in a non-permissive environment and would not be put to use until air superiority was established and ground threats largely mitigated.
The less numerous, more expensive, and more advanced "Low Observable" drones can and would be used as part of the initial entry in the way that HOPLOETHOS alluded to (and it's hard to imagine that they're not at least collecting data even right now over Syrian soil), but at this current point, manned-aircraft would still be the centerpiece of an offensive aerial campaign.
SW-Shooter
06-23-12, 01:12
The vast majority of our drones are not able to be operated in a non-permissive environment and would not be put to use until air superiority was established and ground threats largely mitigated.
The less numerous, more expensive, and more advanced "Low Observable" drones can and would be used as part of the initial entry in the way that HOPLOETHOS alluded to (and it's hard to imagine that they're not at least collecting data even right now over Syrian soil), but at this current point, manned-aircraft would still be the centerpiece of an offensive aerial campaign.
You also have to know that wasn't our first attempt of running drones into Iran. Iran got hip to it after a long while and either finally got lucky or it really did just "lose signal". Although, since we are running them from orbiting satellites I don't think it lost its Mama.
You also have to know that wasn't our first attempt of running drones into Iran. Iran got hip to it after a long while and either finally got lucky or it really did just "lose signal". Although, since we are running them from orbiting satellites I don't think it lost its Mama.
Yeah I'm tracking on that - the RQ170 is one of the advanced drones I was speaking of, and I'm sure it operated with impunity in Iranian airspace for a long time.
It's not inconceivable that Iran (likely with outside help) took control of the A/C and brought it down.
Hell, let's be serious, it's not even inconceivable that we INTENTIONALLY let them get control of it. It's not unimaginable that Skunkworks (or similar) has just made a serious breakthrough in a new form of Stealth or LO technology. So, knowing that the Iranians would share data about the RQ-170 with Russia and China, we "lose control" of it. Now Russia and China could be developing the wrong kinds of countermeasures for our future stealth aircraft based off of what they think is once in a lifetime access to some of our latest and greatest.
Of course, I just made up this whole scenario. There's no reason to believe any of it is true. But the point is - who really friggen' knows what actually happened with that drone? Not this guy.
SW-Shooter
06-23-12, 01:46
Yeah I'm tracking on that - the RQ170 is one of the advanced drones I was speaking of, and I'm sure it operated with impunity in Iranian airspace for a long time.
It's not inconceivable that Iran (likely with outside help) took control of the A/C and brought it down.
Hell, let's be serious, it's not even inconceivable that we INTENTIONALLY let them get control of it. It's not unimaginable that Skunkworks (or similar) has just made a serious breakthrough in a new form of Stealth or LO technology. So, knowing that the Iranians would share data about the RQ-170 with Russia and China, we "lose control" of it. Now Russia and China could be developing the wrong kinds of countermeasures for our future stealth aircraft based off of what they think is once in a lifetime access to some of our latest and greatest.
Of course, I just made up this whole scenario. There's no reason to believe any of it is true. But the point is - who really friggen' knows what actually happened with that drone? Not this guy.
I wish it were true, but we aren't forward thinking enough under this administration to make it feasibly believable.
Mjolnr,
You notice this interesting tidbit ?
Influence on Nazi strategy
The Heartland Theory was enthusiastically taken up by the German school of Geopolitik, in particular by its main proponent Karl Haushofer. Whilst Geopolitik was later embraced by the German Nazi regime in the 1930s, Mackinder was always extremely critical of the German exploitation of his ideas. The German interpretation of the Heartland Theory is referred to explicitly (without mentioning the connection to Mackinder) in The Nazis Strike, the second of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series of American World War II propaganda films.
Who is Karl Haushofer ?
Karl Ernst Haushofer (August 27, 1869 – March 10, 1946) was a German general, geographer and geopolitician. Through his student Rudolf Hess, Haushofer's ideas may have influenced the development of Adolf Hitler's expansionist strategies, although Haushofer denied direct influence on the Nazi regime.
What is Geopolitik ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik
The it really seems like it gets off tangent on it's face but not really as it's all about survival etc. into Social Darwinism aka Survival of the Fittest etc. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here's a free link to "The Grand Chess Board"
http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf
The Influence of Seapower Upon History
http://www.daastol.com/books/Mahan,%20The%20Influence%20of%20Sea%20Power%20upon%20History%201660-1783%20(1889).pdf
The geographical pivot of history and early twentieth century geopolitical culture
http://www.pascalvenier.com/venier2004c.pdf
Britain & the British Seas
http://ia600401.us.archive.org/16/items/britainbritishse00mackuoft/britainbritishse00mackuoft.pdf
Piplineistan Revisited
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EL24Ag01.html
Here's the Motherlode (circa1904) : Mackinder's The Geographical Pivot of History
Free pdf
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/eBooks/Articles/1904%20HEARTLAND%20THEORY%20HALFORD%20MACKINDER.pdf
I knew that's exactly what Germany was pursuing with the railroad to Baghdad. The Germans were and remain a very industrious people so I ASSUMED that they either independently came to the same conclusion or analyzed Mackinder's works and decided to beat the Anglos to it.
We have a similar reading room.
I wonder how seriously Russia and China are. If they lose Syria - by default Lebanon, too. Iran would then stand alone in the Middle East and that would be DISASTROUS for both China and Russia as all of those military bases are surrounding them. Add the BMD OFFENSIVE network surrounding them... They are far from ignorant and have never been stupid.
The Cold War could "go hot". Add the rearming of Georgia (see their commercials on CNN?), Azerbaijan and other movements in the Caucasus.
VooDoo6Actual
06-23-12, 08:00
Mojolnr,
I'm trackalackin w/ you 100%.
Seems we do have similar reading interests. Helps me connect the dots. I always been analytical. Probably started from years of MA's when I always wanted to know what made it so, why does the body react that way (auto kinematics). I'm admittedly one of those why, what, who, where, how, how come etc. Which makes me at least feel better about things in general (read Bravo Sierra filter) that I know rather than Kool Aid drinker etc.
I have some very interesting abstracts/data etc. related tangentially to the Nazi agenda, Operation Paper Clip etc. The vast majority of people have no idea & would be blown away. I simply not going to waste my time here posting it due to the climate / environment. Outside the Box thinking executed at it's finest.
Interesting that Karl Haushofer's son was implicated in the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler and was executed by the Gestapo; he himself was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp for eight months; and his son and grandson were imprisoned for two-and-a-half months. Additionally he served in the Imperial Army, taught at Bavarian War Academy IIRC, implications & evidence that he was a Alchemist, Zen Buddhist and was sent to Tokyo to study w/ the Japanese Military establishing political/interpersonal relationships that were further exploited.
His beliefs regarding Geopolitks espoused Pan-regions (Panideen) based upon the British Empire, and the American Monroe Doctrine, Pan-American Union and hemispheric defense, whereby the world is divided into spheres of influence. He embraced Eurasinainsm German-Russian hegemony etc. & the notion of Anglo-Saxon world dominance/influence along with Mackinder's Heartland theory.
Fascinating history when you peel back the layers etc. Way too deep to get into here. Funny how they never even remarked or broached the topic about him in my classes where I matriculated @.
Hit me w/ a PM your POC vectors. I want to disseminate some data that perhaps you have not seen to further you down this lovely azimuth. If the vast majority of American people knew they would soil themselves w/o question.
Moose-Knuckle
06-23-12, 14:16
NATO attempted a little Gulf of Tonkin style incident?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18562210
This is why I posted the interview with Brzezinski, his comments in regard to POTUS going after Syria by way of Turkey and now we have a downed Turkish fighter. False flag op???
VooDoo6Actual
06-23-12, 14:50
This is why I posted the interview with Brzezinski, his comments in regard to POTUS going after Syria by way of Turkey and now we have a downed Turkish fighter. False flag op???
Anythings' possible Moose at this point & dissect it all. We have financed (printed $), funded, sold Military equipment & carried proxy countries et al for how many years all with our USD's that were printed out of nothing (illusion) from the bogus Fed. Res. We're calling in our markers now looking to spark Middle East conflagration, exerting pressure & influence for one of our proxy whores oops, I meant wars to be the bad guy. Whether it's KSA, Turkey, Jordan etc. Whether people want to admit it or not it's a global takeover for the Mackinger's Center of Power & no matter what their ill & misperceived perceptions are, that is how it will play out. Some people just don't have strategic vision or think dimensionally like that & see the big picture. They have been conditioned to drink the kool aid or too busy w/ TMZ, Kardashian's, Jersey Shore, Dr. Drew's dysfunctional misfits of society etc..
Social Darwinism is coming to roost & will be witnessed on a larger scale. It's on like Donkey Kong & people will soon be connecting the dots....Mackinder's Geographical Pivot of History for the Natural Seats of Power is coming to fruition & will soon be under conflagration or ?
The region's natural resources bounty/motherlode is under siege no doubt.
We are not only living in the most interesting times in our recent countries' history @ a micro level, but possibly witnessing our planet's last Terra Firma conquest on a macro level. Nobody knows the outcome in reality. The vicissitudes are almost infinite, the irony is it's a fascinating period to be living in as much as it sucks !
Right on, HOPLOETHOS.
Here is something for (all, really) those who think it's "the people of Syria" fighting Assad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/22/saudi-arabia-syria-rebel-army
VooDoo6Actual
06-24-12, 09:03
I wonder how seriously Russia and China are.
The Cold War could "go hot". Add the rearming of Georgia (see their commercials on CNN?), Azerbaijan and other movements in the Caucasus.
We're about to find out like it or not. It's on like Donkey Kong.
VooDoo6Actual
06-24-12, 14:46
This is why I posted the interview with Brzezinski, his comments in regard to POTUS going after Syria by way of Turkey and now we have a downed Turkish fighter. False flag op???
As you were saying .....
Turkey calls for Nato meeting, files official protest to Syria over downed jet
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/24/222415.html
"Turkey had downplayed the matter, saying the plane unintentionally violated Syria's airspace. According to Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc the plane was on a reconnaissance mission."
http://www.albawaba.com/news/more-200-dead-syria-over-weekend-430981
Something that makes no sense about the Turkish F4 incident...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davutoglu (Turkish Foreign Minister) said the jet was unarmed and had been on a solo mission to test domestic radar systems, but acknowledged it had briefly crossed Syrian airspace in the area close to both countries' maritime frontiers 15 minutes before it was hit.
"Our plane was shot at a distance of 13 sea miles from Syria's border in international airspace." - Davutoglu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the story is that AAA fire brought down the F4, not a SAM. No AAA system out there can bring down a fighter at a distance of 13 miles. So either the facts are getting reported wrong, there is internal confusion, or Turkey's Foreign Minister is being less than truthful about where the F4 was when it was initially engaged (more likely it was engaged within Syrian airspace but made it 13 miles before crashing - so Davutoglu might be misrepresenting the incident).
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
ETA: Or, I suppose it could have been brought down by a Naval AAA platform.
VooDoo6Actual
06-25-12, 09:31
Another clue:
Moscow Fears Shift in Central Asia’s Strategic Balance Post-2014
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39523&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=2b3b6b4a8febd5333cb726610acff622
Moscow has reacted with concern after learning about the ongoing talks between Washington and three Central Asian countries aimed at agreeing on the handover of equipment linked to the NATO drawdown in Afghanistan. Russian officials fear that such equipment donations to the Armed Forces in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan not only go way beyond the existing arrangements to assist in reverse transit using the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) but could upset the strategic balance in Central Asia post-2014. In diplomatic circles in Moscow, this development is portrayed as entirely unacceptable to Russia and may indicate a worsening in US-Russian relations. A potential diplomatic crisis between Washington and Moscow is brewing precisely in this area due to a number of inter-related factors, but with President Vladimir Putin under pressure domestically he may choose to use this at some stage to boost his image at home by confronting the United States more directly (Kommersant, June 15).
US and UK efforts to promote reverse transit deals with the Central Asian states intensified in recent months, and during talks between London and Bishkek in late March the issue was raised by the Kyrgyzstani government about possible military equipment donations to Kyrgyzstan’s Armed Forces. British officials told Jamestown that they were reluctant to hand over assets that may give the Kyrgyzstani Armed Forces capabilities not possessed by neighboring countries. Washington also pursued similar talks in addition to NDN negotiations aimed at offering equipment from the International Security Assistance forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
According to Kommersant, Moscow learned through its own channels that Washington has opened talks with Bishkek, Dushanbe and Tashkent concerning leaving some US military equipment behind and agreeing a handover and storage of other items on a bilateral basis. Kommersant’s Russian diplomatic interlocutors made clear that this was seen as taking place behind Russia’s back and is unacceptable. Moscow believes that Washington wants to provide military equipment free of charge and agree to store additional assets. The hardware referred to includes armored vehicles, transporters for tanks, tow trucks, fuel tankers, bulldozers and water carriers. Moreover, it would extend to medical equipment, communications facilities, fire equipment and mobile gyms to support the daily lives of the local military (Kommersant, June 15).
The article explored various rationales for US policy in this initiative, which also portrayed the plans in connection with Washington wanting to avoid the equipment falling into the hands of the Taliban should the Karzai government fall post-2014. The main objection to such plans, relates to an agreement reached between the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) at the Moscow Summit in December 2011. The allies agreed that foreign military basing would require discussion and consensus among all CSTO member states, as would any large-scale re-equipping from a foreign source (Kommersant, June 15).
However, Moscow’s concerns run much deeper. It fears any move that may undermine its traditionally strong security ties with the Central Asian states, while also remaining anxious about future US military basing policy in the region. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has criticized Washington’s plans to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia after the completion of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. On June 15, Ryabkov stated: “The prospect of maintaining an American military presence in Central Asia after the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan concerns us. It is not clear to us why the US must keep their bases if the responsibility (for ensuring security) will be delegated to the Afghan forces” (RIA Novosti, June 15).
Similarly, on March 21, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sounded a warning about US basing policy post-2014: “The establishment of several major military bases in Afghanistan without any deadlines and without any clearly declared goals surely causes questions. These plans are not only limited to the establishment of bases in Afghanistan: the Americans are also actively seeking to acquire more military facilities in Central Asian countries for the long term. We want to understand the goals of this presence” (Interfax, March 21).
Lavrov referred to the fear commonly expressed in Russian security parlance linked to the appearance or strengthening of foreign military infrastructure close to the country’s territory. This anxiety is also enshrined in the 2010 Military Doctrine and clearly refers to US and NATO infrastructure moving closer to Russia’s borders (www.scfr.ru, February 5, 2010).
Russia’s Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoliy Antonov and the Chief of the Russian General Staff Army-General Nikolai Makarov have declared as an objective of state security policy strengthening stability in Central Asia by making the CSTO a genuinely combat-ready organization, capable of repelling existing and future threats (RIA Novosti, April 24, 2011; Interfax AVN, March 13, 2011; Interfax AVN, November 17, 2011).
Moscow also refers to the agreement reached during the CSTO Moscow summit on December 20, 2011 making it necessary to achieve agreement by all members before any CSTO country agrees to host a foreign military base. This clause effectively gives Moscow the right to veto any new base in Central Asia. At a political level, CSTO members also agreed to coordinate their stances on various foreign policy issues, and this can already be seen by Moscow’s allies issuing negative statements on US missile defense plans (Interfax AVN, December 20, 2011; www.odkb.gov.ru, December 20, 2011).
However, there is a distinction between real security fears and Moscow’s penchant to cluster a number of international security developments together in order to boost its own security agenda in Central Asia. By persistently referring to the Arab Spring, changes in the security environment and the possibly negative impact of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, Moscow seeks to enhance and justify its efforts to boost the CSTO. In this regard there are Russian defense industry interests at stake, particularly by securing a long term near monopoly on the sale of weapons and equipment to its Central Asian allies. During the past two years, Russian officials claim that Moscow has sold $500 million in military hardware to CSTO members (www.lenta.ru, April 12).
Although the US or ISAF military hardware that may be donated to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is not intended to change the regional military balance, Moscow is appealing to fears within the region concerning the motives behind this shift in US policy. Meanwhile, Moscow is trying to remind its Central Asian allies that mechanisms already exist, which give Russia a powerful voice in its neighbors’ foreign arms purchasing decisions; yet, the ultimate decision on how this plays out lies in the hands of Vladimir Putin.
VooDoo6Actual
06-25-12, 14:44
Pretty much sums it up as well...
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/a-hot-summer-in-syria
Mauser KAR98K
06-26-12, 12:47
Not looking good.
Turkey is mobilizing on the Syrian Border
http://www.timesofisrael.com/turkey-mobilizes-troops-to-syrian-border/
VooDoo6Actual
06-26-12, 13:27
Ah yes, more spin control & Sabre Rattling
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/can-turkey-force-u-s-and-other-nato-countries-to-attack-syria/
Proxy Wars w/ Helgelian dialectic in play.
"I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it."
davidjinks
06-26-12, 17:30
I find this all too funny.
There was a blurb a few days back confirming that the CIA is arming select groups of the SFA. I caught it on the way out the door.
How much would you want to bet that one of these douchebags from the SFA decided to get some tone on a jet flying over head and burned a Stinger or SA-7 up its tail pipe…….
In turn, Turkey says WTF?!?! Syria attacked us?!?! It's on bitches!
With all that being said, maybe it was a planned and calculated attack to bring Turkey into the fight. It's very possible the SFA is getting their asses handed to them by the Syrian Army and they need some help. What better way to get help then by pulling in a country who has bigger and better weapons and is a US ally.
Another clue:
Moscow Fears Shift in Central Asia’s Strategic Balance Post-2014
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39523&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=2b3b6b4a8febd5333cb726610acff622
Moscow has reacted with concern after learning about the ongoing talks between Washington and three Central Asian countries aimed at agreeing on the handover of equipment linked to the NATO drawdown in Afghanistan. Russian officials fear that such equipment donations to the Armed Forces in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan not only go way beyond the existing arrangements to assist in reverse transit using the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) but could upset the strategic balance in Central Asia post-2014. In diplomatic circles in Moscow, this development is portrayed as entirely unacceptable to Russia and may indicate a worsening in US-Russian relations. A potential diplomatic crisis between Washington and Moscow is brewing precisely in this area due to a number of inter-related factors, but with President Vladimir Putin under pressure domestically he may choose to use this at some stage to boost his image at home by confronting the United States more directly (Kommersant, June 15).
US and UK efforts to promote reverse transit deals with the Central Asian states intensified in recent months, and during talks between London and Bishkek in late March the issue was raised by the Kyrgyzstani government about possible military equipment donations to Kyrgyzstan’s Armed Forces. British officials told Jamestown that they were reluctant to hand over assets that may give the Kyrgyzstani Armed Forces capabilities not possessed by neighboring countries. Washington also pursued similar talks in addition to NDN negotiations aimed at offering equipment from the International Security Assistance forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
According to Kommersant, Moscow learned through its own channels that Washington has opened talks with Bishkek, Dushanbe and Tashkent concerning leaving some US military equipment behind and agreeing a handover and storage of other items on a bilateral basis. Kommersant’s Russian diplomatic interlocutors made clear that this was seen as taking place behind Russia’s back and is unacceptable. Moscow believes that Washington wants to provide military equipment free of charge and agree to store additional assets. The hardware referred to includes armored vehicles, transporters for tanks, tow trucks, fuel tankers, bulldozers and water carriers. Moreover, it would extend to medical equipment, communications facilities, fire equipment and mobile gyms to support the daily lives of the local military (Kommersant, June 15).
The article explored various rationales for US policy in this initiative, which also portrayed the plans in connection with Washington wanting to avoid the equipment falling into the hands of the Taliban should the Karzai government fall post-2014. The main objection to such plans, relates to an agreement reached between the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) at the Moscow Summit in December 2011. The allies agreed that foreign military basing would require discussion and consensus among all CSTO member states, as would any large-scale re-equipping from a foreign source (Kommersant, June 15).
However, Moscow’s concerns run much deeper. It fears any move that may undermine its traditionally strong security ties with the Central Asian states, while also remaining anxious about future US military basing policy in the region. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has criticized Washington’s plans to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia after the completion of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. On June 15, Ryabkov stated: “The prospect of maintaining an American military presence in Central Asia after the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan concerns us. It is not clear to us why the US must keep their bases if the responsibility (for ensuring security) will be delegated to the Afghan forces” (RIA Novosti, June 15).
Similarly, on March 21, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sounded a warning about US basing policy post-2014: “The establishment of several major military bases in Afghanistan without any deadlines and without any clearly declared goals surely causes questions. These plans are not only limited to the establishment of bases in Afghanistan: the Americans are also actively seeking to acquire more military facilities in Central Asian countries for the long term. We want to understand the goals of this presence” (Interfax, March 21).
Lavrov referred to the fear commonly expressed in Russian security parlance linked to the appearance or strengthening of foreign military infrastructure close to the country’s territory. This anxiety is also enshrined in the 2010 Military Doctrine and clearly refers to US and NATO infrastructure moving closer to Russia’s borders (www.scfr.ru, February 5, 2010).
Russia’s Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoliy Antonov and the Chief of the Russian General Staff Army-General Nikolai Makarov have declared as an objective of state security policy strengthening stability in Central Asia by making the CSTO a genuinely combat-ready organization, capable of repelling existing and future threats (RIA Novosti, April 24, 2011; Interfax AVN, March 13, 2011; Interfax AVN, November 17, 2011).
Moscow also refers to the agreement reached during the CSTO Moscow summit on December 20, 2011 making it necessary to achieve agreement by all members before any CSTO country agrees to host a foreign military base. This clause effectively gives Moscow the right to veto any new base in Central Asia. At a political level, CSTO members also agreed to coordinate their stances on various foreign policy issues, and this can already be seen by Moscow’s allies issuing negative statements on US missile defense plans (Interfax AVN, December 20, 2011; www.odkb.gov.ru, December 20, 2011).
However, there is a distinction between real security fears and Moscow’s penchant to cluster a number of international security developments together in order to boost its own security agenda in Central Asia. By persistently referring to the Arab Spring, changes in the security environment and the possibly negative impact of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, Moscow seeks to enhance and justify its efforts to boost the CSTO. In this regard there are Russian defense industry interests at stake, particularly by securing a long term near monopoly on the sale of weapons and equipment to its Central Asian allies. During the past two years, Russian officials claim that Moscow has sold $500 million in military hardware to CSTO members (www.lenta.ru, April 12).
Although the US or ISAF military hardware that may be donated to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is not intended to change the regional military balance, Moscow is appealing to fears within the region concerning the motives behind this shift in US policy. Meanwhile, Moscow is trying to remind its Central Asian allies that mechanisms already exist, which give Russia a powerful voice in its neighbors’ foreign arms purchasing decisions; yet, the ultimate decision on how this plays out lies in the hands of Vladimir Putin.
Are you sure you didn't leave anything out?
In all seriousness, it's not funny and surely a bad situation getting worse quickly. Much like Egypt, who is passing under the radar for now due to the leftist media and may continue to do so for a while because of their badly needed tourist monies.
Imagine being an Israeli with all of this surrounding your tiny country adrift in a sea of hostiles? I truly pity them and hope we never abandon their overall innocent populace. After all, the enemy of my worst enemy is my friend and we have a massive common interest at this time.
VooDoo6Actual
06-26-12, 18:40
Are you sure you didn't leave anything out?
In all seriousness, it's not funny and surely a bad situation getting worse quickly. Much like Egypt, who is passing under the radar for now due to the leftist media and may continue to do so for a while because of their badly needed tourist monies.
Imagine being an Israeli with all of this surrounding your tiny country adrift in a sea of hostiles? I truly pity them and hope we never abandon their overall innocent populace. After all, the enemy of my worst enemy is my friend and we have a massive common interest at this time.
You know Safetyhit,
Somedays I truly look around me because you know I'm a big proponent of CSA (Comprehensive Situational Awareness) lol
& all I honestly see on a worldly level is CHAOS. I truly mean that. I have the curse of good INTEL contacts (despite what my pesky detractors espouse & try to put words in my mouth) I'm blessed w/ lots of good sources, people, friends etc. & ability to sift through the minutae to see it for what it is. I try to share it as best I can, some I cannot.
It's there & it is what it is...
Oh & don't pity Israel despite Obama's rhetoric (that's a smoke screen) the US has it's Zionistas' (lmao) back NO DOUBT. Additionally that's their cover story & has been for years, Innocent little country persecuted by Muslims blah blah blah ad nauseum (it's been conditioned & their repetitive mantra for decades). Makes for a compelling tone of sympathy right ? The reality is they have our Proxy bitches surrounding their enemies & the Chess game is ON like Donkey Kong. Think about all the Proxy countries, bases, assets (KSA, Jordan, Iraq, Astan, COS, Egypt Turkey (they are under control regardless of the smoke screen regarding the incidents w/ Israel as they, Turkey need the $) et al etc. It's unprecedented historically & impressive. Expensive as well but soon some of the "people in the dark" will see the light of what has been planned for many years. Some are in denial, some are ignorant, some are stubborn etc. Makes no difference. The truth is where you find it.
Shhhh, don't tell anyone but they have NUKES too (that's not CIPA or CI either) & JDAMs (http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/mpr%20500%20jdam.pdf), PGMs, LGBs, LGRs, APKWS, Bunker Busters, big fuel tanks in their US made Jets, RQ-1's, RQ-9's, MQ-1's to name a few & others I can't say. There's lots of layers involved & it is a complicated labyrinth to unravel. But it looks like things may be revealed soon.
Iran & Syria are ones left with no chair when the music stops. The Port of Tartus is Russia's only Mediterranean base, that makes Tartus a vital strategic asset beyond the Bosporus in the Black Sea.
Does Russia want to lose that strategic asset it's had since 1971 after it abandoned the Egyptian bases it had in the 70's ? Does Russia want to lose that strategic base they have spent Boo Coup (oops wrong word) $ on ?. As a deep water port, it can dock nuclear submarines. Moscow is reportedly planning to expand the facilities so it can accommodate the Russian Navy's flagship -- the "Admiral Kuznetsov" aircraft carrier -- after 2012. As a deep water port, it can dock nuclear submarines. Moscow is reportedly planning to expand the facilities so it can accommodate the Russian Navy's flagship -- the "Admiral Kuznetsov" aircraft carrier -- after 2012.
Can you say conflagration Mr. Rogers ? Didn't think so....
Seriously this is an outstanding resource I'll link below: it's all right here......it's HUGE militarily & going to forge the future no doubt. Any news media pick it up ? you know the answer already ;-/
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=74460&pageid=13&pagename=Analysis
Now you know why we want Syria so bad. Some will be astounded in disbelief, other's won't. Some will be honest some will not, such is life.
"The Godfather of Containment" lmao ! it's pure genius as much as I hate to admit it...
RogerinTPA
06-26-12, 19:33
Something that makes no sense about the Turkish F4 incident...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davutoglu (Turkish Foreign Minister) said the jet was unarmed and had been on a solo mission to test domestic radar systems, but acknowledged it had briefly crossed Syrian airspace in the area close to both countries' maritime frontiers 15 minutes before it was hit.
"Our plane was shot at a distance of 13 sea miles from Syria's border in international airspace." - Davutoglu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the story is that AAA fire brought down the F4, not a SAM. No AAA system out there can bring down a fighter at a distance of 13 miles. So either the facts are getting reported wrong, there is internal confusion, or Turkey's Foreign Minister is being less than truthful about where the F4 was when it was initially engaged (more likely it was engaged within Syrian airspace but made it 13 miles before crashing - so Davutoglu might be misrepresenting the incident).
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
ETA: Or, I suppose it could have been brought down by a Naval AAA platform.
I'm inclined to agree with your hypothesis. It's what I suspected right off the bat. Not surprised though. It's all Turkish CYA while trying to collect ground intel and move chess pieces. 15 minutes of flight is quite a distance into someone's border. They probably hit their target area, then got hit on the egress.
I'm blessed w/ lots of good sources, people, friends etc. & ability to sift through the minutae to see it for what it is. I try to share it as best I can, some I cannot.
PGMs, LGBs, LGRs, APKWS, Bunker Busters, big fuel tanks in their US made Jets, RQ-1's, RQ-9's, MQ-1's to name a few & others I can't say.
This is about the 10th time I've heard you claim to be privy to classified information in VASTLY different areas.
Organizations and agencies setup to handle classified information are sufficiently compartmentalized, even at upper echelons, so that there isn't wide cross-program knowledge of classified material.
This leads to one of three possibilities:
1) You are a high level government employee or civilian working in or for the intelligence community, and as such, probably shouldn't be CONSTANTLY spouting off about what you know on the internet, even if you don't say what it is that you know. Standard stuff. Example: A CIA employee on the OBL team couldn't have said "I know where OBL is, I just can't say."
2) You are just lying and want to feel cool on the internet.
3) Somebody is giving you unauthorized access to information that you have NO NEED TO KNOW. This is a crime.
One of those options HAS TO BE TRUE. None of them are good. This is concerning.
davidjinks
06-26-12, 21:35
Editing this to keep from detracting from the topic at hand.
Wow!
That's some straight up bullshit right there.
False. I know how this shit works and something is off. When somebody claims (in a public forum) to have non-public, classified information in MULTIPLE AND DIVERSE AREAS, then one of those three options HAS TO BE TRUE.
It's a classic catch. Seriously think about it. Why the actual **** would HOPLOETHOS have information about UAV's that Israel has that he CANNOT SHARE ON A PUBLIC FORUM? One of three things MUST LOGICALLY BE TRUE. He must either be in a position to have information that he shouldn't even be talking about having, be lying, or be receiving information from somebody giving it out illegally.
****ing think about it.
Mauser KAR98K
06-26-12, 21:46
This is about the 10th time I've heard you claim to be privy to classified information in VASTLY different areas.
Organizations and agencies setup to handle classified information are sufficiently compartmentalized, even at upper echelons, so that there isn't wide cross-program knowledge of classified material.
This leads to one of three possibilities:
1) You are a high level government employee or civilian working in or for the intelligence community, and as such, probably shouldn't be CONSTANTLY spouting off about what you know on the internet, even if you don't say what it is that you know. Standard stuff. Example: A CIA employee on the OBL team couldn't have said "I know where OBL is, I just can't say."
2) You are just lying and want to feel cool on the internet.
3) Somebody is giving you unauthorized access to information that you have NO NEED TO KNOW. This is a crime.
One of those options HAS TO BE TRUE. None of them are good. This is concerning.
+1,000 squared.
What the heck is with all this "zionist" conspiracy theory bull shit? I thought that crap went into the crazy file after Adolf Hitler off'ed himself.
Gimme' a foking break. With a chance to get ride of the Assad regime, who are much worse than Saddam and damn close equal to Iran, people are coming up with this ideologue crap that sounds like the stupid talking points of Alex Jones and his ilk.
What can an Assad free Syria do:
A good chance Hezbollah looses a good portion of its backing.
A good chance Lebanon will be strangled. Good and bad.
Iran looses a key alley. Big ass plus.
Russia and China loose a warm water Port of Call. Really good thing considering where those two nations are heading.
Another brutal dictator is gone. Mubarak not quite withstanding.
A chance for Israel the breath easier and for those people to get on with their lives with better safety.
What bad things can happen when Assad is gone:
Muslim Brother gets another new president. From the frying pan into the fire.
A rogue terrorist group takes command of Syria and becomes the supreme leader. Taliban in Afghanistan.
Another Iraq insurgency/civil war among different religious sects.
This is where a joint nation/military aid and offensive can really help in providing a better outcome. After the Russians left Afghanistan, there was a period of civil war and the rise of the Taliban. This happened as we, the US, decided not to help and rebuild they country. Guess what happened a little over a decade later?
We HAVE to influence the right people to get into the right positions in this volatile region. We have to back and stay loyal to some of these people in order to help create a stable region. Didn't happen in Afghanistan the first time, (could be a lot better with this second go around) and it is not really going well in Egypt as of now.
If we don't do this, if we stay in the shadows with our tails between our legs and watch, what I fear this "Arab Spring" will turn into is a Islamic Fundamentalism Urban Renewal Program: kicking the dictators out under the guise of democracy and electing in radical Islamist that will instill harsher Islamic laws that really need to be left in the history books.
Instead of theorizing conspiracy theories or why we need to stay out of other people's business, which, as history has shown, will become our business, try coming up with an end game solution for the right dicks to fok these shitty assholes. Lord knows we got enough of that crap lying around as it is that we are still cleaning up from the Cold War.
I have to hold a TS Clearance for my job. The only way I learn about TS stuff is by need to know.
Even if two guys are TS cleared, they can't necessarily talk freely about everything they know with each other. There must be a need to know.
Compartmentalization keeps the circles small, which in turn helps stop leaks.
Sorry if this is elementary
VooDoo6Actual
06-27-12, 07:22
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/XWCwS.png
Mr. David Jinks writes:
"Wow!
That's some straight up bullshit right there"
You are 100% correct Sir.
What was written is all open source info. The rest is crystal clear & speaks for itself.
Sorry I could not respond earlier. That Troll has been on my IGNORE list (see above) as I stated earlier a long time ago when it became clear that he had sand in his Gina. I even have some of the PM's saved he sent to other M4C members here, that he sent them talking smack behind my back in his puerile sophistic behavior etc.
He THINKS he's sneaky & covert.
'nuf said as I respect their confidentiality
Wait, what's that I hear, BLACK Heliocopters over my head.
We're done here.
VooDoo6Actual
06-27-12, 07:24
Mauser KAR 98K,
You might want to read what I actually wrote.
1) I made no reference to Alex Jones. Your assertion is incorrect.
2) If you read my post it makes no reference to a Nazi connection whatsoever.
3) The definitions listed below are readily available on the net.
Zion definition:
zi·on/ˈzīən/
Noun:
1) The hill of Jerusalem on which the city of David was built.
The citadel of ancient Jerusalem.
2) Zion \zion\ as a boy's name is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Zion is "highest point". In the Christian religion, Zion is the name for heaven.
3) Zion or "Shion", meaning literally "The Pure In Heart" 2. A place, defined in scriptural texts as a hill, city or continent, where the holy dwelling...
My reference to & use of "Zionista" is the meant in the highest complimentary way.
Again, pure Bullshit & YOUR spin.
VooDoo6Actual
06-27-12, 07:25
Please delete
VooDoo6Actual
06-27-12, 07:27
Please delete
1) You are a high level government employee or civilian working in or for the intelligence community, and as such, probably shouldn't be CONSTANTLY spouting off about what you know on the internet, even if you don't say what it is that you know. Standard stuff. Example: A CIA employee on the OBL team couldn't have said "I know where OBL is, I just can't say."
I believe this may be the case to some extent, except for the implication that he is divulging classified information of any sort. This concept is likely derived from your jealousy compiled with your need to feel superior to others intellect wise. If you think it isn't obvious, you're wrong.
One of those options HAS TO BE TRUE. None of them are good. This is concerning.
Seriously, take a moment and get a grip. While I don't agree with all of HOP's viewpoints, he is relaying information from his specified field of expertise to a safe and even neutered extent. Whether every word is true or not, you sound like a drama queen bitching about it all of the time.
You take yourself way too seriously here. So as someone who made the same mistake years ago, take my advice and stop it rather than embarrass yourself any further.
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-12, 19:27
This concept is likely derived from your jealousy compiled with your need to feel superior to others intellect wise. If you think it isn't obvious, you're wrong.
Seriously, take a moment and get a grip. While I don't agree with all of HOP's viewpoints, he is relaying information from his specified field of expertise to a safe and even neutered extent. Whether every word is true or not, you sound like a drama queen bitching about it all of the time.
You take yourself way too seriously here. So as someone who made the same mistake years ago, take my advice and stop it rather than embarrass yourself any further.
I didn't see what he had to say due to him earning a singular spot on my ignore list, but you just hit the X-ring there my friend! ;)
Seriously think about it. Why the actual **** would HOPLOETHOS have information about UAV's that Israel has that he CANNOT SHARE ON A PUBLIC FORUM? One of three things MUST LOGICALLY BE TRUE. He must either be in a position to have information that he shouldn't even be talking about having, be lying, or be receiving information from somebody giving it out illegally.
****ing think about it.
We can't even have a ninja assassin on the board without people complaining.
VooDoo6Actual
06-28-12, 08:33
We can't even have a ninja assassin on the board without people complaining.
That's some funny poop right there.
Here's a few sources of the "Ninja Classified" data related to UAV's:
Note date of: Monday 23 March 2009
#1 ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/gaza-war-crimes-drones
The attack on this home in Gaza City is just one of more than a dozen incidents recorded by Amnesty International where Israel's unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – or drones – killed one or more civilians.
During the 23-day offensive, 1,380 Palestinians perished, 431 of them children, according to figures published by the World Health Organisation.
A Guardian investigation into the high number of civilian deaths has found Israel used a variety of weapons in illegal ways. Indiscriminate munitions, including shells packed with white phosphorus, were fired into densely populated areas, while precision missiles and tanks shells were fired into civilian homes.
But it is the use of drones in the killing of at least 48 civilians that appears most reprehensible.
The drones are operated from a remote position, usually outside the combat zone. They use optics that are able to see the details of a man's clothing and are fitted with pinpoint accurate missiles.
Yet they killed Mounir's family sitting in their courtyard, a group of girls and women in an empty street, two small children in a field, and many others.
Chris Cobb-Smith, a senior military analyst in Gaza to advise Amnesty in its investigation, is at a loss to explain how these killings occurred.
"With a weapons system that is so accurate, and with such good optics, why are we experiencing so many civilians being killed? There should be no excuse for these numbers," he said.
The Guardian asked the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) about their use of armed drones but they declined to be interviewed on the subject. Instead they issued a written statement: "The IDF operated in accordance with the rules of war and did the utmost to minimise harm to civilians uninvolved in combat. The IDF's use of weapons conforms to international law."
Israel still refuses to confirm whether it is using armed drones over Gaza but, in the online version of an Israeli army magazine, Major Gil, the deputy commander of the first UAV squadron, describes using the drones to carry out attacks during this offensive.
"We were able to monitor each of the soldiers at any minute and identify any threats to them," he said.
He also describes being able to clearly distinguish fighters from women and children and other civilians: "When there were innocent people around, we would wait for the terrorist to leave the child and then hit him," he said.
Lieutenant Tal, an operator and intelligence officer in the UAV squadron, describes the details the drone cameras can see.
"We identified a terrorist that looked like an Israeli soldier. Our camera enabled us to see him very clearly. He was wearing a green parka jacket and was walking around with a huge radio that looked exactly like an army radio. It was very clear he wasn't a soldier."
According to Robert Hewson of Jane's Defence Weekly, who has been monitoring armed drones and their role in assassinations in the occupied territories since 2004, most of Israel's armed drones use a modified anti-tank weapon called a mikholit ("paintbrush" in Hebrew) that delivers a small but intense explosion like the one in Mounir's courtyard.
Teams of human rights investigators and international law experts are now building the case for war crimes charges against Israel and trying to decipher why so many innocents were killed in this offensive.
The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz discovered that the IDF's international law division (ILD,) the body responsible for advising Israeli forces on the legality of their actions, had authorised an easing of the rules of engagement in Gaza.
A copy of the rules of engagement for Operation Cast Lead was obtained by Ha'aretz in the days before the offensive began. According to a journalist who saw the document, the new, less stringent rules were approved at the highest levels of the Israeli military.
Ha'aretz was repeatedly blocked from publishing the document by the military censor.
In recent days, striking testimony has emerged from Israeli soldiers involved in the Gaza fighting, in which they described the shooting of civilians and the low regard held among the troops for Palestinians.
The soldiers, all graduates of the same Israeli college, gave their testimony in a session in mid-February. It was published last week in the college newsletter, forcing the Israeli military to announce another investigation into the conduct of the war.
In one of the worst cases, a soldier described how an Israeli sniper shot dead a Palestinian mother and her two children. He said the soldiers around him believed the lives of Palestinians were "very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers".
Another soldier said a company commander had given orders to shoot an elderly Palestinian woman who was walking on a road about 100m from a house the soldiers had taken over. Others talked about the influence of military rabbis and the sense among soldiers that they were fighting a "religious war".
Some efforts to explain the large number of civilian deaths have focused on the aggressive conduct of the war by Israel. But other explanations look at a broader shift in military philosophy.
The former head of the ILD, Colonel Daniel Reisner, spoke frankly to the Israeli media in the aftermath about the role the body plays in pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in war.
"What we are seeing now is a revision of international law," Reisner said. "If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries.
"International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it."
The United Nations human rights council is preparing to launch an inquiry into allegations that Israel committed war crimes during its offensive against Gaza. Israel has already dismissed the inquiry, accusing the UN of bias. It says Palestinian fighters committed war crimes by firing mostly crude homemade rockets into civilian areas.
Amnesty International says Palestinian militants should be prosecuted for war crimes, but insists the vast majority of offences were committed by Israel. "Only an investigation mandated by the UN security council can ensure Israel's cooperation and it's the only body that can secure some kind of prosecution," said Amnesty's Donatella Rovera, who spent two weeks in Gaza investigating war crimes allegations.
"Without a proper investigation there is no deterrent. The message remains the same: 'Its okay to do these things, there wont be any real consequences'."
# 2) http://www.rferl.org/content/drones_who_makes_them_and_who_has_them/24469168.html
1) "The United States and Israel are the two most important manufacturers of military drones."
2) "Israel was the first country which developed military drone technology after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war , during which its air force sustained large losses."
3) It manufactures a wide array of drones, including one of the largest and most advanced models in the world -- the Heron TP Eitan, which costs an estimated $35 million.
4) With a wingspan of 26 meters it is the size of a Boeing 737 passenger jet and can reach an altitude of 12,000 meters.
5) It can also stay in the air for more than 20 consecutive hours -- making it possible for Israel to fly surveillance missions above Iran.
6) Israel is also a top drone exporter. Despite a recent deterioration in diplomatic relations with Israel, Turkey is reported to use Israeli-made drones in surveillance operations in northern Iraq.
7) Israel has reportedly sold components and technology for as many as 60 of its Orbiter 2M and Aerostar drones to Azerbaijan, one of Israel’s closest Muslim allies.
#3) Israel’s drone dominance
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/israels_drone_dominance/
Stark Aerospace of Mississippi is perhaps the only foreign-owned company with FAA permission to fly a drone in U.S. airspace. Based in the town of Columbus, not far from Mississippi State University, Stark is a subsidiary of the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries — not that you could tell from looking at the company’s website, executive leadership or affiliations. You have to go to the Mississippi secretary of state website to learn that two of Stark’s three directors are Israelis.
So too with the America’s drone industry. The Israeli influence is not visible but it is real, documented and extremely relevant to the future of drones in America. If you want to know how drones may change American airspace in coming years, just look to Israel, where the unmanned aerial vehicle market is thriving and drones are considered a reliable instrument of “homeland security.”
“There are three explanations for Israel’s success in becoming a world leader in development and production of UAVs,” a top Israeli official explained to the Jerusalem Post last year. “We have unbelievable people and innovation, combat experience that helps us understand what we need and immediate operational use since we are always in a conflict which allows us to perfect our systems.”
Israel’s drone expertise goes back to at least 1970, according to the UAV page of the Israeli Air Force. Mark Daly, an expert on unmanned aircraft at Jane’s Defense in London, notes the Israelis were the first to make widespread use of drones in Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when the aircraft were used to monitor troop movements.
There's more but it's unnecessary.
Wait, I think I hear more BLACK Helos overhead....
Oh, so now you can talk about it? What changed? Or is that not the information you can't talk about? Why did you say that you had information about Israeli UAV's you couldn't talk about?
Why not just admit that you either tacked on the "others I can't say" part untruthfully, or that you're talking about things you shouldn't be?
There are no other options.
[Israel has]PGMs, LGBs, LGRs, APKWS, Bunker Busters, big fuel tanks in their US made Jets, RQ-1's, RQ-9's, MQ-1's to name a few & others I can't say.
I find it hilarious that a member has talked himself into a position where he must either be lying or acting inappropriately (at a minimum...probably unlawfully if someone really is telling him things he shouldn't know), and I'm the one doing something wrong.
If calling out an obvious BS artist is "taking myself too seriously," then I guess the shoe fits. But I don't see it like that, personally.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31672
davidjinks
06-30-12, 16:19
I personally think this whole Syria thing is a bullshit sham.
I personally think this whole Syria thing is a bullshit sham.
It's right there - wedged between Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and the Mediterranean. I assure you it exists. ;)
http://www.al-islam.org/ziyarat/syriamap.gif
But really, what do you think, specifically?
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
I'll thank you to leave Bob Marley out of this Sir!!!
The_War_Wagon
07-03-12, 06:38
The administration needs another war to distract from the poor economic conditions here at home, so I'm fairly confident we'll be bombing them sometime between July and October of this year.
Nothing like a minor dust-up to inflate sagging poll figures! :rolleyes:
I'll thank you to leave Bob Marley out of this Sir!!!
That's an Abe Lincoln quote, originally. Guess Marley repeated it?
Nothing like a minor dust-up to inflate sagging poll figures! :rolleyes:
It's way larger than that. The six entities that control our media will use it and all/now both candidates would be stupid not to use it as talking points.
VooDoo6Actual
07-03-12, 15:36
It's way larger than that. The six entities that control our media will use it and all/now both candidates would be stupid not to use it as talking points.
This x infinity.
A republic is supposed to "We the people", NOT "We the corporation". It does not take a rocket scientist to see the trajectory.
But some "Troll Eunuch" will find someway to argue white is black & black is white
Moose & Mjolnir check this out:
Preston James PhD. pretty much nails it below, closer to the reality than further. Starting to see more people getting it right finally.
Hijacking and Take-Down of The American Republic
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/20/hijacking-and-abuse-of-war-powers-to-take-down-the-american-republic/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.