International News
See other International News Articles
Title: U.S. intercepted communications of Syrian military planning chemical attack
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/ ... tary-planning-chemical-attack/
Published: Apr 13, 2017
Author: John Sexton
Post Date: 2017-04-13 12:58:59 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 2878
Comments: 22
The U.S. Intelligence Community intercepted communications in which the Syrian military is heard planning the chemical weapons attack that took place last week. From CNN: The intercepts were part of an immediate review of all intelligence in the hours after the attack to confirm responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in an attack in northwestern Syria, which killed at least 70 people. So far, no intercepts indicate that Russia had any direct involvement or advance knowledge of the attack, but CNN’s source suggests this may be because the Russians are more wary of having their communications intercepted. At a briefing, the source told CNN, “We know the Russians have chemical expertise in-country.” However, the source would only say the U.S. was still “assessing” Russian involvement. Monday an unnamed government source told the Associated Press Russia knew about the attack in advance. That judgment was based on the presence of a Russian drone over a hospital where victims of the attack were treated. There was subsequently an airstrike on that hospital in what the U.S. believes was an attempt to cover up the use of chemical weapons. The AP’s source suggested the drone and the later bombing were too much of a coincidence and must indicate Russian complicity in the attack. President Trump sounded less certain when he was asked if Russia knew about the attack. “I would like to think that they didn’t know, but certainly they could have,” the President said Wednesday. He added, “We’ll find out.” — The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) April 12, 2017 Here’s CNN’s report on the intercepts: Poster Comment: It sounds like there is some pretty damning audio against Assad's regime. The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN. Donald Trump: Certainly possible Russia could have known in advance of Syria chemical attack https://t.co/uv0JXyr3o9 https://t.co/OHVhds37kh
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Yes you just don't have 4 star flag officers recommending launching 59 TLAMs with just AWACS tracks.
It sounds like they are prepared to release the recordings. If we have these recordings, the Russians probably do too.
If they have it then let's all have it. But is it proof or just evidence that can be faked? Releasing well after the attack, assuming it's released at all, makes it look like it's saving face rather than showing just cause. Unfortunately, since the US took action, it is now highly biased in the result of any investigation on the matter, ergo any evidence the US has is suspect. I would not put it past the US intelligence community to fake evidence against a government it wants taken down. It's not like they haven't carried out assassinations, for crying out loud. And radio communications could be faked by rebels or state sponsors in any event.
I agree. By all means. It was an extraordinary strike, in that it did not involve American national security. Congress and the public should hear all of it. There is a level of skepticism you can't go beyond and expect anyone to debate you seriously. My guess is that Israel would have these recordings (they've intercepted and released such recordings before). We have them via our spy satellites. And the British would have them via their big electronic eavesdropping station in Cyprus, a very good location to spy on Syria. They have also intercepted and released recordings from Syria in the past. Telegraph UK: British military base in Cyprus 'used to spy on Middle East' At some point when you get into the he-says-she-says of it, you have to ask yourself if you find Putin and Assad more credible than various Western leaders and military/intel officials. There is a level of confidence in the accusations against Assad that this time they really do have the goods on him, maybe even recordings of him directly ordering the use of sarin. This is not like some of the previous episodes that seem similar, at least superficially. Just because we do think that the rebels used chemical weapons at least a few times doesn't mean that Assad is innocent in this recent attack. I'm thinking Assad did do it this time.
What are the rules on 'unmasking' Putin? LOL.
The rule is Don't Do It when you're trying to have good relations with Russia. The US has been doing a dance with Russia over this. Russia is not screaming and waving the bloody shirt. We both want to see ISIS done. Russia needs good relations with the US, and they need them with us. Blowing up the future of both countries over a shitty little place like Syria makes no sense.
This is true for everyone. But you cannot deny the US has covertly meddled in the affairs of other countries in dark ways, and I think believing what US "Intelligence" reports say just because it came from US "Intelligence" is naive. The US government is biased. It's clearly a fact now. That's what it comes down too. But it depends on the subject in question. I'd trust the US and West on some matters, but Russia and Syria government on other matters. And motives have to be taken into account, and I have yet to hear anyone float any motive whatsoever for Assad ordering chem weapon use, including yourself. The question is important because in addition to having no motive to use the weapons, he had every motive NOT to use them. It's kindof like finding an accusation of Bolivia attacking Switzerland credible, when both are land locked countries on different continents. Then show me a motive that supersedes what should be a desire for him to keep the policy change of the US toward him just days earlier.
In short, the conventional explanation is that throughout the Syrian civil war, Assad's regime has maneuvered to get all their enemies in one area so they could make the case that they are fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS and get help to finish them off. After the recent Syrian army victories, they are succeeding in forcing their enemies together in the Idlib area. But the Syrian army is exhausted and running out of conscripted manpower. So they used gas to try to force them out and to force as much of the Sunni population in that area to flee the country. Anyway, that is what you hear from the neocons.
It took how long to fabricate this new line of bull shit?
I think I have to agree with rlk that a sizeable shovel is needed to process this explanation. Perhaps one attached to hydraulic machinery. If you were reluctant to believe Assad was guilty, I'd say that, okay, this is just a brief recap of the theory and we'd have to really listen to the advocates to get the details. But since you do think he's guilty, then you are one of the advocates. I'm not ever sure I understand what you said. Maybe it's that Assad is using chem gas to scare away all the innocent people so they won't get hurt. Which is contradicted by the fact that gas is lethal and killing the innocent people that Assad, the evil dictator, wants to save. Or maybe the theory is that Assad is creating a ring of death using the gas to corral all the rebels into one area where finished off in Biblical fashion. Neither theory is working well for me, I'm afraid.
Why it took several days to intercept it?
The official propaganda is that they're searching through all of the spy data on everyone, stored in the Utah Data Center, so it took awhile. It's HUGE and they're still looking for Russian involvement. If they run into any legal snags, they have the Brits do the search and then pass it along to Fox News. They often release such intercepts days later. That is how they did it before. If they are correct, by now the Russians have told the Syrians to tighten up their communications or rely on messengers carrying coded dispatches.
I am interested in what the evidence, such as it is, shows us. I said that Assad is trying to drive all his enemies together in one place in Idlib. At present they are dispersed and hiding among Sunnis dispersed through the country. It is a huge advantage to dislodge them and force them all into one area where they can be bombed. (Or gassed.) This is far from novel. In any widespread civil war, you will always try to drive your enemy's main forces together to finish them off once you kill off enough of them to dislodge them from their strongholds. History shows this pattern many times. What I am saying is that in Idlib, you have the Sunni population that is hardcore anti-Assad and among them you have the al-Nusra/ISIS fighters that have been dislodged. A gas attack by Assad would likely be intended to force the Sunni civilian element to flee, exposing the radical fighters remaining so they can be targeted and eliminated (or driven back into Turkey where most of them entered Syria from).
Yeah, sure. You make a very controversial, agitating step and you take your time in leisurely pace to explain it. It took several days to get native speakers from the area and make it look authentic. That is why they did it before.
It seems to me that all parties (except the Turks with their suspiciously quick "autopsies") took a lot of time to explain or even to reject various explanations. There is some value for intel agencies in waiting, hoping your opponents make a key admission of something they shouldn't. So there is some incentive to being close-mouthed. Beyond that, the Pentagon has a general policy of withholding information to control domestic media. Much like the police, they don't want anyone to get the idea they are actually responsible for, well, anything. They have an institutional incentive to do this, a bureaucratic impulse that makes it the smart move. Unfortunately, they don't have much incentive to just be honest with the public.
History has shown that surrounding enemies is key to victory in *battle*, but that is only practical tactically, not strategically. I.e. surrounding 500 square miles of land doesn't net the same results. Last I read, Assad controls only about 1/3rd of what was formally Syrian territory so they are hardly in a position to surround any rebels at this point. In any event, unless you and/or the neocons are seriously suggesting that Assad plan to deploy gas along a 300 mile front, anyone promoting it looks pretty naive. A wholly illogical and/or arbitrary suggestion if it's intended to support the claim that Assad is an evil mass killer. It just doesn't warrant a critical response.
The control by Assad of 1/3rd of Syria doesn't tell the whole story. While Syria doesn't have the vast areas of desert moonscape found in western Iraq (outside the two river valleys), much of eastern Syria is similarly composed of rough rocky hills (like where the Yazidi live) and parched arid scrub land just a step above being desert. So controlling 1/3rd of former Syria might easily yield effective control of 3/4ths of Syria.
Probably did not. The case is probably declassification of source.
Oh yes. Those bureaucrats and their red tape.
That's part of it. There is always some risk when you release monitored communications. The adversary could determine how such was obtained.
I wonder if the intercepts are in English? If not, please have Assads personal interpreter get on Fox News and do the job for us please.
Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
It sounds like there is some pretty damning audio against Assad's regime.
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)
#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)
(Edited)
If they have it then let's all have it.
But is it proof or just evidence that can be faked? Releasing well after the attack, assuming it's released at all, makes it look like it's saving face rather than showing just cause. Unfortunately, since the US took action, it is now highly biased in the result of any investigation on the matter, ergo any evidence the US has is suspect.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)
If we have these recordings, the Russians probably do too.
#6. To: redleghunter (#5)
What are the rules on 'unmasking' Putin? LOL.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#4)
There is a level of skepticism you can't go beyond and expect anyone to debate you seriously.
At some point when you get into the he-says-she-says of it, you have to ask yourself if you find Putin and Assad more credible than various Western leaders and military/intel officials.
I'm thinking Assad did do it this time.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#7)
And motives have to be taken into account, and I have yet to hear anyone float any motive whatsoever for Assad ordering chem weapon use, including yourself.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#0)
It sounds like there is some pretty damning audio against Assad's regime.
#10. To: Tooconservative, rlk (#8)
#11. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#12. To: A Pole, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#11)
Why it took several days to intercept it?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: A Pole (#11)
Why it took several days to intercept it?
#14. To: Pinguinite (#10)
If you were reluctant to believe Assad was guilty, I'd say that, okay, this is just a brief recap of the theory and we'd have to really listen to the advocates to get the details. But since you do think he's guilty, then you are one of the advocates.
I'm not ever sure I understand what you said. Maybe it's that Assad is using chem gas to scare away all the innocent people so they won't get hurt. Which is contradicted by the fact that gas is lethal and killing the innocent people that Assad, the evil dictator, wants to save.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)
They often release such intercepts days later. That is how they did it before.
#16. To: A Pole (#15)
Yeah, sure. You make a very controversial, agitating step and you take your time in leisurely pace to explain it.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#14)
This is far from novel. In any widespread civil war, you will always try to drive your enemy's main forces together to finish them off once you kill off enough of them to dislodge them from their strongholds. History shows this pattern many times.
What I am saying is that in Idlib, you have the Sunni population that is hardcore anti-Assad and among them you have the al-Nusra/ISIS fighters that have been dislodged. A gas attack by Assad would likely be intended to force the Sunni civilian element to flee, exposing the radical fighters remaining so they can be targeted and eliminated (or driven back into Turkey where most of them entered Syria from).
#18. To: Pinguinite (#17)
Last I read, Assad controls only about 1/3rd of what was formally Syrian territory so they are hardly in a position to surround any rebels at this point.
#19. To: A Pole (#11)
Why it took several days to intercept it?
#20. To: redleghunter (#19)
Probably did not. The case is probably declassification of source.
#21. To: A Pole (#20)
Oh yes. Those bureaucrats and their red tape.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]