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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
There was more to it than Death Factories too.

I wasn't able to sum up a large, complex historical event in one sentence?

The point is that conflating what is happening in Syria with The Holocaust is both naive and hyperbolic at best, and at worse completely delusional and/or agitprop.

 Ahtman wrote:

I wasn't able to sum up a large, complex historical event in one sentence?

The point is that conflating what is happening in Syria with The Holocaust is both naive and hyperbolic at best, and at worse completely delusional and/or agitprop.

The Holocaust over all, you're right, but there are instances within that broader category that it can be compared to. It's not a large preconceived effort to butcher people, it's an improvised, spur of the moment one, more akin to the Wola hospital massacre than the death camps.

Read the Full White House Document Detailing Syrian Chemical Attack

As Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the nation on the administration’s call for military action against Syria, the White House declassified a four-page document detailing the Assad regime’s chemical attack on the suburbs of capital city Damascus.

Among the details about the August 21 attacks, the paper claims that 1,429 people were killed during the chemical attack, 426 of whom were children. The document also asserts that the administration has evidence confirming that the Assad regime was “witting of” and directed the attack.

Citing intercepted communications involving a “senior official intimately familiar with the offensive,” the document claims the regime worried the United Nations would obtain evidence of the chemical attacks. Thusly, it reads, the regime ramped up its artillery barrage on the suburbs for what the administration has suggested was a way of covering up the chemical deaths.

Actual document is posted on that website above.

Interesting developments over here that further support the theory given earlier.

Apparently a number of Government Ministers voted AGAINST action in Syria. And another two senior Ministers simply didn't show up to vote despite being in the building at the time. They claim they didn't hear the bell, but it seems extremely coincidental that nobody noticed them missing, their meeting ran the same length of time as the vote, and the House of Commons staff insist all the systems are working perfectly.

Some of the other Conservative MP's who were absent have given some scarcely believable reasons as well.

Now six or seven ministerial votes might not sound like much total, but when the motion was only lost by thirteen votes? And when this was supposedly on something so important? And those six or seven votes make up roughly a third of the Cabinet? I smell a rat.

It's also interesting to note Cameron is now basically saying to Washington that his hands are tied because the Commons took a vote. Yet curiously enough, the motion for discussing it later on was also shot down by Conservative MP's, meaning it won't come up again unless there's a massive change of circumstance.

BBC wrote:David Cameron and US President Barack Obama have discussed Parliament's block on UK involvement in possible military action in Syria, the BBC understands.

The men spoke by phone for 15 minutes, and the tone of the conversation was said to be friendly.

The prime minister reiterated he still wanted to see a strong response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.

But he also explained the parliamentary process to the US president, who said he understood the PM's predicament.

Well played Mr Cameron, methinks.

 Easy E wrote:
A gfew token cruise missiles and a few token air raids and the U.S. involvement in Syria will be over. All Obama needs to do is show that crossing the "Red Line" has some price.

Does this really feel like Armageddon to anyone? [/quote

Don't know about feel, would smell like Impeachment to the United States Congress....there is growing support from both parties for it.

There is no such thing as token when you are killing people in another country for political face....

If Mr Obama does attack with out getting permission from Congress then he will be impeached and most likely put in prison afterward.

I am not sure if we would turn him over to the UN Commission on War Criminals or not.

Put me on that jury and he goes in the jail cell next to the former army sergeant who lost control and killed a few civilians.

He at least had the excuse of traumatic brain injury from getting blown up 4 times in combat. Mr Obama's is he would lose face over his red line statement?

His " political advisers" will be screaming and pulling their hair out all the way to the other prison cells and that will be the wake up call that this nation has had it with both political parties.

From the BBC live feed of events.

Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.

I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
From the BBC live feed of events.

Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.

I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.

Destroying the weapons will be near impossible without a full scale invasion. That's not the goal. The goal will be to make the message "Do this again, and we'll make sure what just happened looks like a good day."

Spending weeks hemming and hawing over "what to do" is certainly going to lighten the impact though...

You may not be able to ensure destruction of ALL of it without an invasion, but you can damned sure destroy the known stockpiles, many of the delivery systems, and the C2 nodes by air/missile strikes. Any targeteer worth a darned can work up the target list and best means of hitting them.

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
From the BBC live feed of events.

Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.

I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.

Destroying the weapons will be near impossible without a full scale invasion. That's not the goal. The goal will be to make the message "Do this again, and we'll make sure what just happened looks like a good day."

Spending weeks hemming and hawing over "what to do" is certainly going to lighten the impact though...

Whatever loose coalition is assembled, that message is going to be near impossible to deliver within Obamas self asserted 'narrow scope' . Might as well just draw another red line for all the good it will do.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
From the BBC live feed of events.

Michael Corgan, an international relations professor at Boston University, tells BBC Mundo's Thomas Sparrow the US faces a difficult conundrum.
"How do we attack something that doesn't bring down the Assad government, doesn't cause collateral damage and doesn't force one of the outside players to try to up the ante to counter what the US has done. No easy answers on this one.

I would add how do you ensure that Chemical weapons will not be a future factor? Bearing in mind the points above.

Destroying the weapons will be near impossible without a full scale invasion. That's not the goal. The goal will be to make the message "Do this again, and we'll make sure what just happened looks like a good day."

Spending weeks hemming and hawing over "what to do" is certainly going to lighten the impact though...

Whatever loose coalition is assembled, that message is going to be near impossible to deliver within Obamas self asserted 'narrow scope' . Might as well just draw another red line for all the good it will do.

Our Bungler In Chief, at his best.

 CptJake wrote:
You may not be able to ensure destruction of ALL of it without an invasion, but you can damned sure destroy the known stockpiles, many of the delivery systems, and the C2 nodes by air/missile strikes. Any targeteer worth a darned can work up the target list and best means of hitting them.

Good and accurate intel may prove to be the most effective weapon.

In an ideal world I would love for the US to just specifically target individual units. Maybe just taking out the odd commander responsible for authorising use of Chemical Weapons. That kind of surgical strike would speak volumes to Assad and to the leadership in Iran.

@Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.

Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault. In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division. Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?

It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.

Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault. In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division. Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?

It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.

I'm not in the military... but, I consider UK our battle-brothers!
EDIT: link fail
This is how we should feel 'bout each other:

Well, I'm not in the military either (But I'm mere months away from applying for a place in the Royal Air Force!), but I still have the highest regard for the US military - you share the risks our men do, and I'm sure as hell you'd give your lives for our lads as quick as we'd give ours for you. Even so, it amazes me the attitude the some Americans have when it comes to the British - it's almost as if they're still stuck in the War of Independence mindset...

 Warpig1815 wrote:
Well, I'm not in the military either (But I'm mere months away from applying for a place in the Royal Air Force!), but I still have the highest regard for the US military - you share the risks our men do, and I'm sure as hell you'd give your lives for our lads as quick as we'd give ours for you. Even so, it amazes me the attitude the some Americans have when it comes to the British - it's almost as if they're still stuck in the War of Independence mindset...

Pah! The filthy colonials should never have left the glory of the British Empire!

You got that right Shrike!

EDIT: @whembly - Lets not get too overboard - stiff upper lip and all that...

 Warpig1815 wrote:

EDIT: @whembly - Lets not get too overboard - stiff upper lip and all that...

No problemo...

In the interest of camaraderie... let us be mesmerized by Hayek's goods:

Was it just me, or did this just get so OT?...

EDIT: Not that I'd be complaining (Other than the fact that I'm now glued to the screen )

 Warpig1815 wrote:
Was it just me, or did this just get so OT?...

OT in the OT forum?

You don't say?!?!

Okay... I'll behave. I'll post something constructive in a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Warpig1815 wrote:

EDIT: Not that I'd be complaining (Other than the fact that I'm now glued to the screen )

That was the point!

Unfortunately, now nobody is gonna be able to get past page 20...

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You may not be able to ensure destruction of ALL of it without an invasion, but you can damned sure destroy the known stockpiles, many of the delivery systems, and the C2 nodes by air/missile strikes. Any targeteer worth a darned can work up the target list and best means of hitting them.

Good and accurate intel may prove to be the most effective weapon.

In an ideal world I would love for the US to just specifically target individual units. Maybe just taking out the odd commander responsible for authorising use of Chemical Weapons. That kind of surgical strike would speak volumes to Assad and to the leadership in Iran.

With Isreali airstrikes and US dronestrikes against Hamas and Taliban leaders that shouldnt even be such a big problem. It seems better than to risk personnel on such missions if you could just send a missile or a drone. I would guess the US has some intel on the possible unit that used chemical weapons, seeing as they are trying to keep track of those weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

I wasn't able to sum up a large, complex historical event in one sentence?

The point is that conflating what is happening in Syria with The Holocaust is both naive and hyperbolic at best, and at worse completely delusional and/or agitprop.

The Holocaust over all, you're right, but there are instances within that broader category that it can be compared to. It's not a large preconceived effort to butcher people, it's an improvised, spur of the moment one, more akin to the Wola hospital massacre than the death camps.

This is were its starts to get wrong. ''Instances within that broader category''? So we could start comparing a single murder with such things? After all its an instance that can be compared. There are very few events on the scale of the Holocaust, very few. Starting to compare every random conflict that has not even had 1.66% (100.000) of the victims that died in those horrible years is madness. Were talking about the size of a country like Denmark full of people that are just gone. Syria hasnt even reached the points were it rivals the war in Former Yugoslavia in the 90's, which even had larger single warcrimes committed. Why immediatly start to compare it with an event like the Holocaust to begin with, if there are easier ''instances within that broader category that it can be compared to'' in other wars?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This is were its starts to get wrong. ''Instances within that broader category''? So we could start comparing a single murder with such things?

Because people have a tendency to lump every atrocity the Germans committed against civilians under that broad umbrella. Particularly when the same perpetrators are involved such as SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger. Point of fact, not all of their inhumanity had any relationship to a broader 'plan', they were just sent in whenever the command felt they needed to send a message and let Dirlewanger make it up as his men went. He was, after all, a man sent to the concentration camps for raping children, only to be released, given a brigade made up of men guilty of murder and worse, and turned loose on Eastern Europe, specializing in pacification via slaughtering every living human being in the area. This really does not fall under the holocaust proper, as they made no real distinction victims, they raped and killed everyone they found, committing crimes that even horrified their fellow SS. Estimates run between 30k and 120k civilians were tortured and killed before he was charged with suppressing Warsaw, where they achieved 40,000 killed in just two days, including the incident at Wola Hospital.

While Syria has not yet becomes this bad, the same inhumanity is at work. I have little doubt that if they had released such weapons to a man like Dirlewanger, he'd have used gas as well. Give the men who ordered the civilians in Syria gassed three years and means to do it, and you'll see them piled up a pyramid of skulls to rival anything Dirlewanger managed.

 whembly wrote:


In the interest of camaraderie... let us be mesmerized by Hayek's goods:

"Touch please"

So Syria has accomplished or are we predicting that Syria is capable of out doing the "Final Solution"? Chemical warfare does not care who, what, or where you are from. Its use so far is on a tactical scale and not on a strategic whole sale slaughter scale. Saddam did a version of the "Final Solution" on the Kurds and all we did was establish a "No Fly Zone". Implementing a "No Fly Zone" over Syria is pointless being that it seems they have used a 155mm delivery system (artillery) already. Lets stick with Tomahawk strikes on military units and logistical hubs.

 Jihadin wrote:
Lets stick with Tomahawk strikes on military units and logistical hubs.

Best thing would be to take out their air-force on the ground. This has been a major issue for the opposition and it's elimination combined with hitting their logistics would cripple them. I think that would be a firm enough 'message' that Assad would get the point. Attacking individual units would be less effective, I think, unless you're hitting their armor. The Opposition have captured a number of T54/55s they've been using street fighting around Damascus. Not a great tank, but better than no tank.

What happens if evidence shows that the rebels were responsible for the gas attacks?

Does the USA start targeting rebel strongholds?

 Warpig1815 wrote:
It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces

I don't think you should be extrapolating Seaward's attitude out to be representative of the US as a whole. I for one have always found the UK & Australia to be the peanut butter to our jelly, the Pancho to our Cisco, the Necrons to our Blood Anholy crap look at that Salma Hayek gif.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I have little doubt that if they had released such weapons to a man like Dirlewanger, he'd have used gas as well. Give the men who ordered the civilians in Syria gassed three years and means to do it, and you'll see them piled up a pyramid of skulls to rival anything Dirlewanger managed.

Unlike Dirlewanger, I don't believe that the Assad government has any particular desire to kill anyone. This seems more like a power group that wishes to maintain power because it knows that if it fails to do so the repercussions will be severe. So severe that the use of chemical weapons cannot exacerbate them. Hell, if it leads to direct intervention by the West it may even ameliorate them.

After all, there are lots of people in the Arab World who hated the Ba'athists well before they began to commit atrocities.

 Ouze wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces

I don't think you should be extrapolating Seaward's attitude out to be representative of the US as a whole. I for one have always found the UK & Australia to be the peanut butter to our jelly, the Pancho to our Cisco, the Necrons to our Blood Anholy crap look at that Salma Hayek gif.

Aye, the Brits are a fun bunch to work with. Aussies as well. We've got an RAAF Officer in my unit here, and I have to keep myself from giggling like a girl everytime he talks. Australian accents are so awesome.

cadbren wrote:
What happens if evidence shows that the rebels were responsible for the gas attacks?

Does the USA start targeting rebel strongholds?

The only fair thing to do is target everyone in Syria. We know Gas Attacks happened, but aren't 100% sure who did them. Only Fair.


Or our leaders could learn to keep their mouths shut, let Syria have it's civil war, and let the Syrian people work out the details of "what to do to whom" later.