It's on

Joe Fan said:
There is a 4-page report coming out on this prepared by the National Security Council --...
Click to expand...

I dont know if this is the paper I referenced above. And it might not be the final draft. It is supposed to be "press guidance" given to Administration spokespeople. Hard to say whether this is is based upon any formal legal advice

International

The targeted U.S. military action against the Syrian military targets directly connected to the April 4 chemical weapons attack in Idlib was justified and legitimate as a measure to deter and prevent Syria’s illegal and unacceptable use of chemical weapons. The U.S. action was only taken after careful consideration of the following:

–Severe humanitarian distress, including the suffering caused by this and other previous unconscionable chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian military;

–Widespread violations of international law by the Syrian government, in particular the repeated use of banned chemical weapons against civilians in direct violation of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it acceded to in 2013, as well as UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2118, which was adopted by the Security Council under its Chapter VII authority, and which required Syria to cease using chemical weapons and eliminate its chemical weapons program in its entirety;

–Syria’s contempt for multiple UNSCRs including UNSCR 1540 and those seeking to give effect to UNSCR 2118, specifically UNSCRs 2209, 2235, 2314, and 2319.

The recognition in UNSCRs that the proliferation and use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to international security and a violation of international law;

–Syria’s indiscriminate use of such banned weapons to kill and inflict other horrific injuries on civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict, which tragically has been something that Syria has shown little respect for;

–Regional destabilization and international security concerns produced by the Syrian government’s actions, which include large and growing flows of refugees and the potential proliferation of chemical weapons;

–Widespread international condemnation of the Syrian government’s conduct, including its use of chemical weapons;

–A convincing body of reporting that the Syrian Government has committed widespread violations of international law during the conflict;

–The exhaustion of all reasonably available peaceful remedies before using force, including extensive and intensive diplomatic efforts both to end armed conflict in Syria and to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile;

–The U.S. use of force is necessary and proportionate to the aim of deterring and preventing the future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government; and

–The U.S. efforts to minimize civilian casualties in the planning and execution of the strike.​

Can read all of it here https://www.justsecurity.org/39803/apparent-administration-justifications-legality-strikes-syria/
 
Trump: ‘We’re not going into Syria’

Amid complaints that his aides are saying different things about Syria and his policy is confusing, President Trump emphatically cleared the air.

“We’re not going into Syria,” he told me yesterday in an exclusive interview. “Our policy is the same — it hasn’t changed. We’re not going into Syria.”

The president, speaking by phone Tuesday, called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a “butcher” and a “barbarian” for using sarin gas on his own people, but said last week’s successful missile strike was not the start of a campaign to oust the dictator.

“Our big mission is getting rid of ISIS,” Trump said. “That’s where it’s always been. But when you see kids choking to death, you watch their lungs burning out, we had to hit him and hit him hard.”

He called the attack, which involved 59 cruise missiles fired from two Navy destroyers, “an act of humanity.”

I asked if he, as a new president, found it difficult to make the final decision, knowing the stakes.

“It’s very tough to give that final go-ahead when you know you’re talking about human life,” he said. “We went back and forth, and also back and forth about severity. We could have gone bigger in terms of targets and more of them, but we thought this would be the appropriate first shot.”

Later, he added, “We hope he won’t do any more gassing.”

The interview was scheduled to last 15 minutes, but ran nearly twice as long. Throughout, the president was gracious, energized and focused. He answered every question, and invited me to ask more as aides tried to get him to his next appointment. So I did.

How seriously does he take the threats from Russia, and does he think there is still a possibility for cooperation in the region with Vladimir Putin?

“We’re not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly,” Trump answered. “Putin must see what a barbarian this guy is, and it’s a very bad symbol for Russia with this guy gassing children and using barrel bombs.”

With Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Moscow as we spoke, Trump said he hoped for Putin’s cooperation, but added, “I don’t know.”
 
Joe Fan said:
Autopsies/test results?

In any event, the drone watching the hospital before it was bombed is pretty damning
Click to expand...
I
Brad Austin said:
Trump: ‘We’re not going into Syria’

Amid complaints that his aides are saying different things about Syria and his policy is confusing, President Trump emphatically cleared the air.

“We’re not going into Syria,” he told me yesterday in an exclusive interview. “Our policy is the same — it hasn’t changed. We’re not going into Syria.”

The president, speaking by phone Tuesday, called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a “butcher” and a “barbarian” for using sarin gas on his own people, but said last week’s successful missile strike was not the start of a campaign to oust the dictator.

“Our big mission is getting rid of ISIS,” Trump said. “That’s where it’s always been. But when you see kids choking to death, you watch their lungs burning out, we had to hit him and hit him hard.”

He called the attack, which involved 59 cruise missiles fired from two Navy destroyers, “an act of humanity.”

I asked if he, as a new president, found it difficult to make the final decision, knowing the stakes.

“It’s very tough to give that final go-ahead when you know you’re talking about human life,” he said. “We went back and forth, and also back and forth about severity. We could have gone bigger in terms of targets and more of them, but we thought this would be the appropriate first shot.”

Later, he added, “We hope he won’t do any more gassing.”

The interview was scheduled to last 15 minutes, but ran nearly twice as long. Throughout, the president was gracious, energized and focused. He answered every question, and invited me to ask more as aides tried to get him to his next appointment. So I did.

How seriously does he take the threats from Russia, and does he think there is still a possibility for cooperation in the region with Vladimir Putin?

“We’re not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly,” Trump answered. “Putin must see what a barbarian this guy is, and it’s a very bad symbol for Russia with this guy gassing children and using barrel bombs.”

With Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Moscow as we spoke, Trump said he hoped for Putin’s cooperation, but added, “I don’t know.”
Click to expand...
If Trump sticks to his word great. If not, he will justify his flop by saying he prides himself on changing positions as facts change. In other words, watch what he does, not what he says.
 
Pretty funny so many still don't understand how DT negotiates to get what he secretly set out for.

He comes in guns blazing and threatening the worst outcome for the adversary. Then slides back to more rational demands, achieves his goal, and the other party is glad to save face.

The whole Syria squabble was to get Russia to back off propping up Assad and instead focus on removing ISIS with us. The same approach is being used to secure China's help in denuclearizing NK.

In both cases he signaled regime change by military means. Words are words, so he took major action on both fronts to jack up the credibility.

In each case he has/will walk back intended regime change by military force and land an advantageous solution for U.S. interests.

With China it's already working in a big way. The Russia nut will be harder to crack but it's in process. Watch and learn as all the knee-jerk overreactions look silly in the end.
 
Last edited:
Brad, Russia has been asking the US to collaborate with them in fighting terrorists for a long time but the US refuses to make it a joint undertaking. One reason the US has refused to join forces is that Putin doesn't discriminate between ISIS and Al Qaeda whereas the US calls the latter "opposition" forces and has supported them in the past while trying to classify some as good and some as bad. Putin just says a terrorist is a terrorist.

The US. notion that Russia isn't fighting ISIS is a false statement used to sway public opinion. It's an outright lie. It was Russia that identified the oil trade between ISIS and Turkey and first bombed ISIS and it was the Russia who spearheaded the liberation of Palmyra.

ISIS is not as big a threat to Assad as is Al Qaeda (opposition) because ISIS mainly controls sparsely populated areas whereas the other terrorists threaten the major population and industrial centers such as Aleppo.
 
Musburger1 said:
ISIS is not as big a threat to Assad as is Al Qaeda (opposition) because ISIS mainly controls sparsely populated areas whereas the other terrorists threaten the major population and industrial centers such as Aleppo.
Click to expand...

An alternate interpretation would be that Assad simply doesn't want to fight a 2-front war against ISIS and the rebels. He's happy to let the rebels fight that 2-front war. ISIS is certainly a greater overall threat to Assad but he'd rather leverage Russia to defeat the rebels first then move on to ISIS. The fact that ISIS isn't currently a major problem for Russia bolsters the strategy.
 
Seattle Husker said:
An alternate interpretation would be that Assad simply doesn't want to fight a 2-front war against ISIS and the rebels. He's happy to let the rebels fight that 2-front war. ISIS is certainly a greater overall threat to Assad but he'd rather leverage Russia to defeat the rebels first then move on to ISIS. The fact that ISIS isn't currently a major problem for Russia bolsters the strategy.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Syrian army doesn't have the manpower to effectively fight a two front battle so most of the effort is directed against the most critical areas. Even with Hezbollah and Iranian support, Syria's army is limited.
 
Aren't we proud?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/0...ikhun-summary-report-by-prof-postol.html#more

The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur - Khan Sheikhun Summary Report by Prof. Postol
April 19, 2017

MIT Professor Theodore Postol, a well known missile expert and former scientific advisor to the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, analyzed the available evidence of the alleged April 4 Sarin attack on Khan Sheikhun in Syria. He comes to the conclusion that the White House allegations and its report are false. The White House report was not created or vetted by knowledgeable intelligence analysts. This confirms our own analysis published earlier on Moon of Alabama.

Here is Prof. Postol's summary report: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur, April 19 (pdf, 18 pages).

Previously three preliminary versions of Prof. Postol's analysis were released by him:

Pic: NOT the site of a Sarin missile impact as claimed by the White House

allegedsarinimpactsite-s.jpg
source - bigger

Prof. Postol sent the following covering letter with his summary report:

The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur - Summary of Findings
This analysis contains a detailed description of the times and locations of critical events in the alleged nerve agent attack of April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria – assuming that the White House Intelligence Report (WHR) issued on April 11, 2017 correctly identified the alleged sarin release site.

Analysis using weather data from the time of the attack shows that a small hamlet about 300 m to the east southeast of the crater could be the only location affected by the alleged nerve agent release. Video data of suffocating and dead victims lying on the ground shows a different location from the predicted sarin dispersal site if it had been correctly identified by the White House.

The conclusion is that the nerve agent attack described in the White House Intelligence Report did not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass casualties from some kind of poisoning event, but that event was not the one described by the WHR.

The findings of this expanded analysis can serve two important purposes:

1. It shows exactly what needs to be determined in an international investigation of this alleged atrocity.

In particular, if an international investigation can determine where casualties from the nerve agent attack lived, it will confirm that the findings reported by the White House Report are incompatible with its own cited data.

2. It also establishes that the White House Report did not utilize simple and widely agreed upon intelligence analysis procedures to determine its conclusions.

This raises troubling questions about how the US political and military leadership determined that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack. It is particularly of concern that the White House Report presented itself as a report with “high confidence” findings and that numerous high-level officials in the US government have confirmed their belief that the report was correct and executed to a standard of high confidence.

postolsig.png

Theodore A. Postol

Professor Emeritus of Science,
Technology, and National Security Policy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

blamed on the Syrian government, did not happen - at least not in the way that was claimed. They Syrian government had no motiveat all to mount such an attack. It was in the mid of a winning streak. The incident benefited al-Qaeda in Syria which dominates the area in question but was losing on the battle field. In "response" to the claimed attack the U.S. bombed the Syrian military airport Al Syairat. This was the main air base for the Syrian airforce involved in fighting the Islamic State in eastern-Syria. The attack amounted to U.S. air support on request of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The Trump administration initiated these events for domestic purpose. They let Trump to look sufficient belligerent and presidential and dispelled false allegations of association with Russia by the Democrats and the media. To justify the attack the White House released a report written by the National Security Council, not by intelligence services. The report was full of holes and ridiculous assertions.
In the Moon of Alabama analysis of the White House Report on April 12 we wrote:

That "intelligence community assessment" chapter title is likely already a false claim. [...] The summary assessment the White House releases has no such [intelligence] heritage. It is likely a well massaged fast write up of some flunky in the National Security Council. The release was backgrounded by dubious statements of an anonymous "Senior Administration Officials" not by "Intelligence Officials" as has been the case on other such issues.
Professor Postol writes in his Final Comments (pdf) (pg11):

t is clear that the WHR was not an intelligence report. No competent intelligence professional would have made so many false claims that are totally inconsistent with the evidence. No competent intelligence professional would have accepted the findings in the WHR analysis after reviewing the data presented herein. No competent intelligence professionals would have evaluated the crater that was tampered with in terms described in the WHR. Although it is impossible to know from a technical assessment to determine the reasons for such an egregiously amateurish report, it cannot be ruled out that the WHR was fabricated to conceal critical information from the Congress and the public.
 
Musburger1 said:
Aren't we proud?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/0...ikhun-summary-report-by-prof-postol.html#more

The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur - Khan Sheikhun Summary Report by Prof. Postol
April 19, 2017

MIT Professor Theodore Postol, a well known missile expert and former scientific advisor to the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, analyzed the available evidence of the alleged April 4 Sarin attack on Khan Sheikhun in Syria. He comes to the conclusion that the White House allegations and its report are false. The White House report was not created or vetted by knowledgeable intelligence analysts. This confirms our own analysis published earlier on Moon of Alabama.

Here is Prof. Postol's summary report: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur, April 19 (pdf, 18 pages).

Previously three preliminary versions of Prof. Postol's analysis were released by him:

Pic: NOT the site of a Sarin missile impact as claimed by the White House

allegedsarinimpactsite-s.jpg
source - bigger

Prof. Postol sent the following covering letter with his summary report:

The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur - Summary of Findings
This analysis contains a detailed description of the times and locations of critical events in the alleged nerve agent attack of April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria – assuming that the White House Intelligence Report (WHR) issued on April 11, 2017 correctly identified the alleged sarin release site.

Analysis using weather data from the time of the attack shows that a small hamlet about 300 m to the east southeast of the crater could be the only location affected by the alleged nerve agent release. Video data of suffocating and dead victims lying on the ground shows a different location from the predicted sarin dispersal site if it had been correctly identified by the White House.

The conclusion is that the nerve agent attack described in the White House Intelligence Report did not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass casualties from some kind of poisoning event, but that event was not the one described by the WHR.

The findings of this expanded analysis can serve two important purposes:

1. It shows exactly what needs to be determined in an international investigation of this alleged atrocity.

In particular, if an international investigation can determine where casualties from the nerve agent attack lived, it will confirm that the findings reported by the White House Report are incompatible with its own cited data.

2. It also establishes that the White House Report did not utilize simple and widely agreed upon intelligence analysis procedures to determine its conclusions.

This raises troubling questions about how the US political and military leadership determined that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack. It is particularly of concern that the White House Report presented itself as a report with “high confidence” findings and that numerous high-level officials in the US government have confirmed their belief that the report was correct and executed to a standard of high confidence.

postolsig.png

Theodore A. Postol

Professor Emeritus of Science,
Technology, and National Security Policy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

blamed on the Syrian government, did not happen - at least not in the way that was claimed. They Syrian government had no motiveat all to mount such an attack. It was in the mid of a winning streak. The incident benefited al-Qaeda in Syria which dominates the area in question but was losing on the battle field. In "response" to the claimed attack the U.S. bombed the Syrian military airport Al Syairat. This was the main air base for the Syrian airforce involved in fighting the Islamic State in eastern-Syria. The attack amounted to U.S. air support on request of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The Trump administration initiated these events for domestic purpose. They let Trump to look sufficient belligerent and presidential and dispelled false allegations of association with Russia by the Democrats and the media. To justify the attack the White House released a report written by the National Security Council, not by intelligence services. The report was full of holes and ridiculous assertions.
In the Moon of Alabama analysis of the White House Report on April 12 we wrote:

That "intelligence community assessment" chapter title is likely already a false claim. [...] The summary assessment the White House releases has no such [intelligence] heritage. It is likely a well massaged fast write up of some flunky in the National Security Council. The release was backgrounded by dubious statements of an anonymous "Senior Administration Officials" not by "Intelligence Officials" as has been the case on other such issues.
Professor Postol writes in his Final Comments (pdf) (pg11):

t is clear that the WHR was not an intelligence report. No competent intelligence professional would have made so many false claims that are totally inconsistent with the evidence. No competent intelligence professional would have accepted the findings in the WHR analysis after reviewing the data presented herein. No competent intelligence professionals would have evaluated the crater that was tampered with in terms described in the WHR. Although it is impossible to know from a technical assessment to determine the reasons for such an egregiously amateurish report, it cannot be ruled out that the WHR was fabricated to conceal critical information from the Congress and the public.
Click to expand...
Now he only needs to explain all those dead people.
 
Musburger1 said:
Yes. Russia vetoed the proposal put forth at the UN by the US. Russia wants an on-site investigation with representation from multiple countries. The US proposal is to accept the video presented by the "white helmets" and lab reports from Turkey.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politi...-submits-evidence-new-resolution-unsc/ri19455
Click to expand...

I understand Russia's position. It's also pretty isolated in that position with only Bolivia standing with them on the UN Security Council. It's pretty disingenuous and biased for you to claim that the US or any of the other 10 members that voted for an investigation stood in the way of that investigation though.

Russia didn't like their own lack of control in the investigation or investigation sources.
 
The MH-17 investigation was done by Ukraine and the Dutch. Ukraine never released transcripts from the control tower. The US never released satellite images. Why would the Russians trust the US? All they are asking for is an INDEPENDENT on-site investigation.
 
Oh boy...the Dutch had a vested interest in conducting that investigation because it was a KLM flight. When the Russian's sole purpose is to obfuscate any investigation that would implicate them it's not surprising they wouldn't assist in the investigation and ultimately try to poke holes in the outcome.
 
While he's on the conspiracy tip, he should also explain how Turkish autopsies overseen by World Health Organization officials concluded the bodies from the attack were exposed to Sarin. I guess Turkey and the neutral WHO are in on it too. :rolleyes1:
 
Brad Austin said:
While he's on the conspiracy tip, he should also explain how Turkish autopsies overseen by World Health Organization officials concluded the bodies from the attack were exposed to Sarin. I guess Turkey and the neutral WHO are in on it too. :rolleyes1:
Click to expand...
The conspiracy is exactly what we have. The video evidence doesn't support sarin as the agent. Assuming sarin was the actual agent, why does the video provided contradict the finding?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Oh boy...the Dutch had a vested interest in conducting that investigation because it was a KLM flight. When the Russian's sole purpose is to obfuscate any investigation that would implicate them it's not surprising they wouldn't assist in the investigation and ultimately try to poke holes in the outcome.
Click to expand...
Especially if this was a false flag. By the way, it's hasnt seen coverage in the MSM, but there have been chemical attacks in Mosul attributed to ISIS of late. Why do you suppose the news is t all over this story?
 
Musburger1 said:
Especially if this was a false flag. By the way, it's hasnt seen coverage in the MSM, but there have been chemical attacks in Mosul attributed to ISIS of late. Why do you suppose the news is t all over this story?
Click to expand...

It was covered. Mustard gas is a far cry from Sarin and much less lethal (5% casualty rate in WWI). The UN has already confirmed Syria's use of Sarin in 2013 so it's not a leap to assume they used it again. While you look for any reason to absolve Syria/Russia in this ordeal, I'll go with Occam's Razor.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It was covered. Mustard gas is a far cry from Sarin and much less lethal (5% casualty rate in WWI). The UN has already confirmed Syria's use of Sarin in 2013 so it's not a leap to assume they used it again. While you look for any reason to absolve Syria/Russia in this ordeal, I'll go with Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...
Reread the article. The UN confirmed sarin was used. It did not confirm that the Syrian government was the guilty party.

Most recently used: Sarin

In September 2013, the UN confirmed that a chemical weapons attack involving specially designed rockets that spread sarin over rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital took place the month before. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon stated that this was the “most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988.”
 
Musburger1 said:
Reread the article. The UN confirmed sarin was used. It did not confirm that the Syrian government was the guilty party.

Most recently used: Sarin

In September 2013, the UN confirmed that a chemical weapons attack involving specially designed rockets that spread sarin over rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital took place the month before. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon stated that this was the “most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988.”
Click to expand...
And there you have it. Russia and Syria are not killing babies or bombing hospitals. We should invite the two dictators over for dinner to celebrate their virtues. I'll break out the high chair for little Vladimir so he can reach the table.
 
Musburger1 said:
Reread the article. The UN confirmed sarin was used. It did not confirm that the Syrian government was the guilty party.

Most recently used: Sarin

In September 2013, the UN confirmed that a chemical weapons attack involving specially designed rockets that spread sarin over rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital took place the month before. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon stated that this was the “most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988.”
Click to expand...

I changed the color of the key passage that should be a clue to who was responsible.
 
If anyone has interest beyond "We know Assad is responsible because he is an animal," here's a short interview of Putin and a longer video from Newsbud.



 
Musburger1 said:
If anyone has interest beyond "We know Assad is responsible because he is an animal," here's a short interview of Putin and a longer video from Newsbud.



Click to expand...
Serious question: in between standing in line for your weekly loaf of bread and mandatory political "training", do Russians have a class on how to spew lies so ridiculous that no one will take you seriously? You and little rootin tootin Putin both have a severe credibility issue. It wouldn't be so obvious if Vlad were tall enough to ride the big roller coaster, but his diminutive stature exacerbates the issue.

I think General Patton was right. While we're taking out lil fatty in Korea, we might as well toss a few your way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top