Israel launches airstrikes within Syria

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Soladrin**

Well, there's been a lot of reports today about the Rebel's being the ones using the gas.

**Grey Templar**

Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan

I don't follow.
If you are trying to reference my post, I strongly recommend you learn about the US-USSR conflict by proxy in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Because that's what my point alluded to, in the sense that I wouldn't be surprised to see Syria used as a proxy between Israel and Iran in a similar manner.

**Dreadclaw69**

Soladrin wrote:
Well, there's been a lot of reports today about the Rebel's being the ones using the gas.

I posted a link earlier. but for the sake of completeness I'll post it again here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Syria crisis: UN's Del Ponte says evidence rebels 'used sarin'

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve gas agent, sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.

Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons, but said she had not seen evidence.

The US and UK have said their inquiries suggest the government has used them.

British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the evidence was quite compelling last week, but that it would need to be incontrovertible before the case for an international response could be made at the UN.

On Monday, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said it was "deeply concerned by signs that world public opinion is being prepared for possible military intervention" in Syria.

On the question of whether chemical weapons had been used, he called for an "end to the politicisation of this issue" and to the "whipping up of an anti-Syrian atmosphere".

'Stupefied'
On Monday, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria issued a statement saying it wished to clarify that it had "not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict".

"As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," it added.

The statement came a day after Ms Del Ponte, one of its commissioners, told Swiss-Italian TV: "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.

"According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

Sarin, a colourless, odourless gas which can cause respiratory arrest and death, is classed as a weapon of mass destruction and is banned under international law.

Ms Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did not rule out the possibility that troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad might also have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was needed.

"I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition," she said.

Ms Del Ponte gave no details of when or where sarin may have been used.

The UN Commission of Inquiry was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian conflict since March 2011. It is due to issue its latest report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next month.

Ms Del Ponte's comments might also complicate matters for the US Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his visit to Moscow this week, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.

If Mr Kerry was hoping to cite fears that the Assad regime was now using chemical warfare as a reason why the Russians should shift their position, that argument will not be so easy to make, our correspondent adds.

Mutual accusations
A separate United Nations team was established to look specifically into the issue of chemical weapons.

It is ready to go to Syria but wants unconditional access with the right to inquire into all credible allegations.

Both the Syrian government and the rebels have in the past accused each other using chemical weapons.

The US and the UK have said there is emerging evidence of Syrian government forces having used sarin, with Washington saying it had "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been deployed.

President Barack Obama called in April for a "vigorous investigation", saying the use of such weapons would be a "game changer" if verified.

President Assad's government says the claims do not have any credibility, denouncing them as "lies".

Israeli raids
Ms Del Ponte's allegations concerning the use of sarin by rebels came after Israel carried out a series of air strikes on Syrian military targets early on Sunday.

The Israeli government made no official comment, but security sources said the strikes were aimed at preventing the transfer of advanced Iranian-made missiles to Lebanon's Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah.

The Syrian government said the Jamraya military research centre, north-west of Damascus, was hit.

A later statement gave more details, saying military positions in the Jamraya area were struck along with other facilities at Maysaloun, near the Lebanese border, and a military airport at Dimass.

The statement said there was massive damage at those locations and nearby civilian areas with many people killed or injured. It also denied that the targets had included missiles for Hezbollah.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad said the Israeli air strikes amounted to a "declaration of war" and threatened retaliation.

The New York Times quotes an unnamed senior Syrian official as saying dozens of elite troops stationed near the presidential palace had been killed. The AFP news agency quoted the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group, as saying 42 soldiers had died and another 100 were unaccounted for.

Images on state TV showed large areas of rubble with many buildings destroyed or badly damaged

The Arab League condemned the raids and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon expressed concern.

He said all sides should "exercise maximum calm and restraint" and "act with a sense of responsibility to prevent an escalation of what is already a devastating and highly dangerous conflict".

Russia's foreign ministry warned that the "further whipping-up of armed confrontation" sharply increased the risk of "pockets of tension" in Syria and Lebanon, and along their shared border.

Now, for all those who were eager to intervene does this affect your opinion whether we should get involved, who we should support, how we should support them etc.?

**Grey Templar**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan

I don't follow.
If you are trying to reference my post, I strongly recommend you learn about the US-USSR conflict by proxy in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Because that's what my point alluded to, in the sense that I wouldn't be surprised to see Syria used as a proxy between Israel and Iran in a similar manner.

Ahhh, that makes more sense.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Grey Templar wrote:
Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan

To be fair to Azazel, I think his point was about mission creep and how things can easily escalate. If you use Vietnam as an example, the trickle effect ended up becoming a flood, and before you know it, you have Westmoreland and 100,000 US troops in the country.

Israel attacking Syria (for reasons which I can understand) risks dragging in more Iranian involvement through Hezbollah and of course, a certain US fleet that just so happens to be bobbing along the waves nearby.

**Dreadclaw69**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To be fair to Azazel, I think his point was about mission creep and how things can easily escalate. If you use Vietnam as an example, the trickle effect ended up becoming a flood, and before you know it, you have Westmoreland and 100,000 US troops in the country.

I'm hoping Azazel can clear that up for us.

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To be fair to Azazel, I think his point was about mission creep and how things can easily escalate. If you use Vietnam as an example, the trickle effect ended up becoming a flood, and before you know it, you have Westmoreland and 100,000 US troops in the country.

I'm hoping Azazel can clear that up for us.

While it does apply, it's not exactly what I meant. See my previous post with the graphic for an explanation.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
While it does apply, it's not exactly what I meant. See my previous post with the graphic for an explanation.

So did you mean mission creep then?

**azazel the cat**

While mission creep was certainly an element included in the debacle to which I alluded, it wasn't the core.

**Dreadclaw69**

What is the difference between mission creep ( the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes) and slippery slope (a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another)?

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:What is the difference between mission creep ( the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes) and slippery slope (a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another)?

One is historical and factual; the other theoritical and uncertain.

The first can only been viewed with hindsight (or sometimes during the event) whereas the second is purely speculative and future-looking.

Are you seriously trying to trick me into making a slippery slope argument in this thread so that you can use it against me in another one?

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Are you seriously trying to trick me into making a slippery slope argument in this thread so that you can use it against me in another one?

Nope, just showing that yet again you are consistently inconsistent

**azazel the cat**

Consistently inconsistent? How do you figure?

I made a comparison between Afghanistan in the 1980s, wherein the USSR was attacking it, and the USA thus supplied the rebels with supplies and arms so that they could fight the USSR. It generally resulted in everything turning to crap, even more so than before (arguably). This, I compared to Syria now, where Israel has just attacked them, whilst the rebels are being supplied by Iran, and then made a very general and sarcastic statement about how excellent this will leave Syria, and everyone involved.

If you want to incorporate the element of mission creep, well, the USA's funding ballooned up pretty high from what was originally going to be a small funding operation, so mission creep was definitely a factor there.

I even differentiated between "mission creep" and a "slippery slope" argument, just for you, to clarify so that you don't feel like I would hold CaptJake to a standard that I don't hold myself to. I know how desperately you want me to be hypocritical (and I am in some things, admittedly) however I'm not in my arguments, and I'm afraid your childlike attempts at being clever are not up to the task of making it seem otherwise.

But keep trying, kiddo! Chin up and all that!

EDIT: I just noticed you said "yet again". When was there ever an instance to begin with? Please link it, or else I should just start making things up about you.

**Dreadclaw69**

I'm just showing how you like to shift the goalposts when it suits you and your arguments. We already had the discussion about your inconsistencies elsewhere so I don't think that needs covered again.

Nice to see the insults and talking down to others creeping in. Bit ahead of your usual timeline though.

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm just showing how you like to shift the goalposts when it suits you and your arguments. We already had the discussion about your inconsistencies elsewhere so I don't think that needs covered again.

Nice to see the insults and talking down to others creeping in. Bit ahead of your usual timeline though.

Do you claim false accomplishment elsewhere, too? Actually, ya know what? I don't care. But please note that I have yet to insult you; I'm just showing how you don't actually understand the required foundations for all the claims you make.

And it's nice to see your martyr complex kicking in. Definitely right on time.

Anyway, I don't really have anything more substantial to contribute to this now that I've clarified myself beyond reasonable expectation. The Syria-1980s Afghanistan comparison was all I had to begin with; I'm still uncertain why you wanted to pick a fight with me on that, as you've yet to actually voice an opinion on anything other than me personally. So if you want to drag this further off-topic, you're on your own.

**Dreadclaw69**

Do you often respond when you don't care? Its just that you seem to make it a habit when replying to me.

Your consistent inconsistency can be seen in several threads that we've debated in, you may remember me using your own arguments against you and asking you how you square them. Do I need to find you links that you're likely going to ignore?

Also, martyr complex? Really?? Is this like your instance that people were being jingoistic (as in aggressive foreign policy) by opting to stay out of a civil war??

But if you want to keep this on topic maybe you'll answer the question that I posted rather than continue to ignore it;
"Now, for all those who were eager to intervene does this affect your opinion whether we should get involved, who we should support, how we should support them etc.?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not sure though that asking you to clarify what appears to be two conflicting statements is an attempt to pick a fight. Had I worked off the assumption that your base argument was one or other you would have claimed "strawman".

**NuggzTheNinja**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc

This could easily escalate into a god awful mess.

I for one hope the UK does not get bogged down in the middle east (again) It is amazing how much of the middle east's problems can be traced back to guys in London drawing lines on a map in the 1920s.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.

Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.

Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?

Above any criticism? No.

Above criticism by ignorant people in the West who have no knowledge of the operational realities faced by the IDF, and the ROEs it forms in response? Of course. I doubt that any of the people in this thread criticizing Israel have any experience in a combat infantry unit, let alone any insight into the true moral character of the IDF, the institutionally accepted ROEs, or the operational constraints placed upon its soldiers for the purpose of avoiding civilian casualties. They watch Arab propaganda and flock to it like flies to gak without critically evaluating the sources that produce demonstrable fabrications.

In short, some criticism is valid. This criticism, made mostly by ignorant people, is not. My involvement in this thread begins and ends with the illumination of the ignorance of said ignorant parties. Further involvement is a waste of time

**Jihadin**

Don't forget to breathe you two

**Melissia**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Above criticism by ignorant people in the West

If you want to rant about ignorance, I would point out that you have shown vast amounts of ignorance of the plight that Palestinians and Syrians face. Knowing only about one side and assuming the other side is somehow evil and deserves to die does not make you an expert

**Jihadin**

No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.

**Melissia**

Jihadin wrote:
No one heere is an expert

Exactly my point.

Although I would also argue that an unbiased third party observer is more of an expert than someone who has lived and breathed the issue but only ever sees it from one side. But I wouldn't call myself or anyone else in this thread either unbiased or an expert

**Jihadin**

Third party views though are questionable because of their perception. I'm going to use the possible gas attack in Syria. Already the US and other power countries are convincrd Assad launched the attack. Though now we have a possible....A "Strong P" that the rebels used it. Have a UN team actually gone in and inspected the site? I'm taking it the sarin gas was non persistant since it went harmless after a certain time. We have to find the smoking gun.....but if the rebels did use it...and AQ are in their ranks....then we might have a bigger problem...

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Do you often respond when you don't care? Its just that you seem to make it a habit when replying to me.

Your consistent inconsistency can be seen in several threads that we've debated in, you may remember me using your own arguments against you and asking you how you square them. Do I need to find you links that you're likely going to ignore?

Yeah, you should definitely find links, as you've yet to use my arguments against me. You've certainly attempted to use strawmen, though. If you disagree, then by all means, find a link to the posts you're referring to; I'm quite certain you'll only find your own errors, as kettle logic isn't really my thing.

And for what it's worth, I usually respond when I'm online, even if only out of habit. You are right, however: I should stop responding to you and just let you have your argument from repetition

And if you really want to continue this discussion/argument, maybe we should hash it out via PM so as to not completely derail this thread? I'm more than happy to clarify for you any inconsistency you think you've ever uncovered.

**Ratbarf**

This may be going off topic but I prefer it when two people have a disagreement on a forum that they hash it out publicly. That way we all get to witness the literary thrusts and ripostes of those involved in the pseudo-intellectual gladiatorial arena that is the internet.

That may just be me though.

**azazel the cat**

Ratbarf wrote:This may be going off topic but I prefer it when two people have a disagreement on a forum that they hash it out publicly. That way we all get to witness the literary thrusts and ripostes of those involved in the pseudo-intellectual gladiatorial arena that is the internet.

That may just be me though.

Yeah, I'm perfectly fine to do that as I know what I've said is lacking in fallacious arguments (though I've been sometimes proven to be factually wrong in my data); but I'd just as soon not be the one responsible for having the thread locked.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc

This could easily escalate into a god awful mess.

I for one hope the UK does not get bogged down in the middle east (again) It is amazing how much of the middle east's problems can be traced back to guys in London drawing lines on a map in the 1920s.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.

Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.

Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?

Above any criticism? No.

Above criticism by ignorant people in the West who have no knowledge of the operational realities faced by the IDF, and the ROEs it forms in response? Of course. I doubt that any of the people in this thread criticizing Israel have any experience in a combat infantry unit, let alone any insight into the true moral character of the IDF, the institutionally accepted ROEs, or the operational constraints placed upon its soldiers for the purpose of avoiding civilian casualties. They watch Arab propaganda and flock to it like flies to gak without critically evaluating the sources that produce demonstrable fabrications.

In short, some criticism is valid. This criticism, made mostly by ignorant people, is not. My involvement in this thread begins and ends with the illumination of the ignorance of said ignorant parties. Further involvement is a waste of time

There are plenty of people on this site who have infantry combat experience. There are also people on this site who spent time on an island to the west of Britain standing around checkpoints all day. The bad guys (or good guys depending on your viewpoint) didn't wear uniforms then either.

Point is, some people on this site can relate to what you are saying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:This may be going off topic but I prefer it when two people have a disagreement on a forum that they hash it out publicly. That way we all get to witness the literary thrusts and ripostes of those involved in the pseudo-intellectual gladiatorial arena that is the internet.

That may just be me though.

Yeah, I'm perfectly fine to do that as I know what I've said is lacking in fallacious arguments (though I've been sometimes proven to be factually wrong in my data); but I'd just as soon not be the one responsible for having the thread locked.

Console yourself with the fact your avatar is one of my favourites. That face reminds me of an old school teacher!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.

I'm an expert at drinking alcohol and falling over. Wait, what are we talking about here?

War?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, let's get this thread back OT before a mod's foot connects with our rears.

John Kerry is in Moscow to thrash things out with the Russians over Syria. Chances of anything getting done = America tearing up the declaration of independence!

**NuggzTheNinja**

Melissia wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Above criticism by ignorant people in the West
If you want to rant about ignorance, I would point out that you have shown vast amounts of ignorance of the plight that Palestinians and Syrians face. Knowing only about one side and assuming the other side is somehow evil and deserves to die does not make you an expert

I didn't say either of those things. Thanks for playing though.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.

Hey I may not be an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn, so lets do this!

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.

Hey I may not be an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn, so lets do this!

Not a Holiday Inn Express, so your opinion is still invalid.