Military Interventions in Syria and 2024 Syrian regime change

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobbymike said:
Avimimus said:
Further reports... there are claims that only 23 of the missiles hit their intended targets. The runway was being resurfaced and Russian helicopters have been stationed there. Uncertain about other Russian equipment or what equipment was stationed there at the time of the attack.
Links would be nice. Tomahawks with only 39% accuracy find that hard to believe.

I think this is coming from the Russians, so it should be taken with a fair grain of salt. It's just turnabout for the US claims that Russian cruise missiles fired at Syria crashed in Iran last year.
 
If that is the case it wouldn't be long before pictures of 3 dozen TLAM's that missed surface.
 
bring_it_on said:
If that is the case it wouldn't be long before pictures of 3 dozen TLAM's that missed surface.

This is the latest I could find:

A US defense official told CNN Friday morning that an initial battle damage assessment from the strike was that 58 of the 59 missiles "severely degraded or destroyed" their intended target. The official cautioned that this is just the earliest assessment using radar and that more robust assessments using satellites and other surveillance is still pending.
Thirty-six of the Tomahawks were fired from the USS Ross and the other 23 were launched from the USS Porter, the official added.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/

The Russian Ministry of Defense and the United States Department of Defense need to provide evidence to substantiate their claims.
 
Triton said:
bobbymike said:
Avimimus said:
Further reports... there are claims that only 23 of the missiles hit their intended targets. The runway was being resurfaced and Russian helicopters have been stationed there. Uncertain about other Russian equipment or what equipment was stationed there at the time of the attack.
Links would be nice. Tomahawks with only 39% accuracy find that hard to believe.

The claims are being made by the Russian Ministry of Defense and being reported by the usual suspects:

" ‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield, Russian MoD says"
Published time: 7 Apr, 2017 09:41
Edited time: 7 Apr, 2017 16:46

Source:
https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/

The strike on the Shayrat airfield in Syria’s Homs Province destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station.

The runway, taxiways and the Syrian aircraft on the parking apron remained undamaged, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman said in a statement.

The ministry described the combat efficiency of the strike as “quite poor.”

“On April 7, 2017, between 3:42am and 3:56am Moscow time, two US Navy destroyers (USS Porter and USS Ross) fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Shayrat airfield in Homs Province, Syria, from an area near the Island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea.

“According to our sources, only 23 of them reached the Syrian airbase,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said, adding that the points of impact of the other 36 cruise missiles remain unknown.

RT is a bit jumpy in making up stuff, but given that the audience which reads such stories will believe anything, its no surprise.

Satellite imagery shows 44 targets were hit in the airbase. This does not include missiles which struck the runways (there were several of those apparently), or targets struck by multiple missiles (one image shows at least 3 missiles having hit a single HAS).

So certainly 23 missiles wasn't all that reached the target. RT is just BS-ing, as usual.

Additionally, we haven't yet seen satellite images of the AD site that is about 1km north of the base. According to Bing Maps images of that site (which are better than Google maps images of the site), there appears to be at least 2 SAM sites in that base 1km north of the runway: 1 Sa-6 and what...appears...to be 1 Sa-11 Buk site.

Untitled.jpg
 
The site north of Shayrat is an SA-6 garrison and deployment site, those are all SA-6 TELs.

Syria got the SA-17, not the SA-11.

The runway was resurfaced at least a year ago.

Russian helos were operating there as recently as February.
 
SOC said:
The site north of Shayrat is an SA-6 garrison and deployment site, those are all SA-6 TELs.

Syria got the SA-17, not the SA-11.

The runway was resurfaced at least a year ago.

Russian helos were operating there as recently as February.

Those launchers look different, however. Sa-6 appears longer and more narrow, those (4 in total) appear shorter and wider. It's hard to make out how many missiles are on those, while the other ones can be clearly identified as Sa-6 with 3 missiles each.

I could be wrong, but they look different.
 
It's poorly processed imagery, Bing and Google have this problem in a lot of places. Properly corrected imagery will show these as SA-6 TELs with consistent dimensions.
 
Pentagon Says All 59 Tomahawks Hit Syrian Targets


Pentagon officials say all 59 Raytheon-built Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles fired against a Syria’s Shayrat airfield on April 7 reached their intended targets and the 60th was waved off. One missile failed, but another was launched in its place.
A surface-to-air missile site, radar and about 20 aircraft plus various ammunition bunkers and suspected chemical weapon storage facilities were damaged or destroyed in the attack.

That is the assessment of the U.S. Defense Department. Speaking to the media at the Pentagon, two officials involved in the mission who declined to be named said the late-night naval strike was executed with 100% accuracy. “We’re very positive that 59 missiles hit,” they said.
 
Could someone ID these...
 

Attachments

  • Missile.png
    Missile.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 141
  • Vehicle.png
    Vehicle.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 135
SOC said:
It's poorly processed imagery, Bing and Google have this problem in a lot of places. Properly corrected imagery will show these as SA-6 TELs with consistent dimensions.

Could be. I find it strange that 4 launchers look different than the other 4 clearly identifiable Sa-6 launchers there, even though they are only a few meters away from each other. One looking different due to angle or image processing, but 4?

bring_it_on said:
Pentagon Says All 59 Tomahawks Hit Syrian Targets


Pentagon officials say all 59 Raytheon-built Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles fired against a Syria’s Shayrat airfield on April 7 reached their intended targets and the 60th was waved off. One missile failed, but another was launched in its place.
A surface-to-air missile site, radar and about 20 aircraft plus various ammunition bunkers and suspected chemical weapon storage facilities were damaged or destroyed in the attack.

That is the assessment of the U.S. Defense Department. Speaking to the media at the Pentagon, two officials involved in the mission who declined to be named said the late-night naval strike was executed with 100% accuracy. “We’re very positive that 59 missiles hit,” they said.


There are some contradictory reports on this, some saying 58 of 59 hit the targets, others as the source you give saying 59 of 59 but 1 missile failed somewhere, another launched in its place, and a 60th was "waved off". So between 60 and 61 may have been launched in total.

Although apparently 1 unexploded BGM-109 warhead was found in Syria. This could have been the one that was "waved off" or "failed".

USN_BGM-109_warhead_Karto_Tartous_7_Apr17.jpg


Either way, Russian media is in full swing with ridiculous propaganda, and as usual its working very well on the internet.
 
Arian said:
Either way, Russian media is in full swing with ridiculous propaganda, and as usual its working very well on the internet.

Russia made a tall claim of 23 missiles that struck targets with dozens that did not. It wouldn't be long before social media is flooded with TLAM missile parts videos and photographs in the Syrian countryside if indeed their claim is true. Unless the new narrative is that all of them were shot down or took a dip in the ocean.
 
bring_it_on said:
Arian said:
Either way, Russian media is in full swing with ridiculous propaganda, and as usual its working very well on the internet.

Russia made a tall claim of 23 missiles that struck targets with dozens that did not. It wouldn't be long before social media is flooded with TLAM missile parts videos and photographs in the Syrian countryside if indeed their claim is true. Unless the new narrative is that all of them were shot down or took a dip in the ocean.

It's working very well for their target audiance
 
Arian said:
bring_it_on said:
Arian said:
Either way, Russian media is in full swing with ridiculous propaganda, and as usual its working very well on the internet.

Russia made a tall claim of 23 missiles that struck targets with dozens that did not. It wouldn't be long before social media is flooded with TLAM missile parts videos and photographs in the Syrian countryside if indeed their claim is true. Unless the new narrative is that all of them were shot down or took a dip in the ocean.

It's working very well for their target audiance

It's actually pretty scary how deeply members of the far ends of the political spectrum are buying into Russian Propaganda sources. Especially the faithful of Alex Jones. They've been regurgitating RT news stories like no tomorrow, and have been for awhile. I know Western Media is a joke more times then not, but sheesh! The crap being pumped out by Russian sources is downright hilarious, if not insulting.
 
As Oscar Wilde said: 'The truth is rarely pure, and never simple'.
 
RobertWL said:
Especially the faithful of Alex Jones.

This Guy?

https://media.giphy.com/media/11TDeGPwWTuBb2/giphy.gif
 
NYT is reporting that F-22's are back in the region

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/politics/us-islamic-state-syria.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
 
https://www.csis.org/analysis/recalibrating-us-strategy-toward-russia
 
RobertWL said:
Arian said:
bring_it_on said:
Arian said:
Either way, Russian media is in full swing with ridiculous propaganda, and as usual its working very well on the internet.

Russia made a tall claim of 23 missiles that struck targets with dozens that did not. It wouldn't be long before social media is flooded with TLAM missile parts videos and photographs in the Syrian countryside if indeed their claim is true. Unless the new narrative is that all of them were shot down or took a dip in the ocean.

It's working very well for their target audiance

It's actually pretty scary how deeply members of the far ends of the political spectrum are buying into Russian Propaganda sources. Especially the faithful of Alex Jones. They've been regurgitating RT news stories like no tomorrow, and have been for awhile. I know Western Media is a joke more times then not, but sheesh! The crap being pumped out by Russian sources is downright hilarious, if not insulting.

Unfortunately there are a number of that type of faithful on this site.
While it's human nature (confirmation bias) to prefer sources of information that corresponds to your pre-existing opninions and prejudices the more extreme these are the more you have to retreat into your chosen conspiracy-theory hinterland and attack the "crooked mainstream media".
The likes of Alex Jones are in some worse than RT; the later are essentially a propagandist tool of the Russian state (a modern Pravda with higher production values), the former is doing similar harm out of pure malignant greed and ego.
 
Clearly most journalists (mainstream or fringe) lack the expertise to do more than repeat the talking-points they are fed. This is why it is important to pool information from direct analyses in places like this.

This is also why it is good to keep threads like this apolitical and not locked! ;)
 
Arian said:
Could be. I find it strange that 4 launchers look different than the other 4 clearly identifiable Sa-6 launchers there, even though they are only a few meters away from each other. One looking different due to angle or image processing, but 4?

It's likely due to overcompensating for terrain. Bad processing can cause funny things to show up, like wavy runways and the like.

At any rate, the Russian video released from the UAV disproves the whole "23 missiles hit Shayrat" nonsense. I first looked at post-strike imagery, calculated the number of impact points, and then used the UAV footage to find others that weren't as obvious. Yeah, way more than 23 hits. Russian propaganda might not be as completely hilarious as, say, Iranian propaganda, but it's equally useless. Remember when they tried to pass off a faked satellite image as evidence showing a Ukrainian FLANKER shot down the Malaysian airliner?
 
At this point and time why would Assad decide to use chemical weapons, and how would that be a strategic benefit? Wouldn't someone have figured out the pissed world community and/or USA would do something like fire 50 Tomahawks in response? Is this what really happened or are the Russians (back channel) finally had enough of Assad and are looking to a future without Assad while giving the US some role in the war to look good?

And when I mean Russia might see a future without Assad, even if Assad "wins" he still loses and someone will have to replace him for a fresh start.
 
SOC said:
Arian said:
Could be. I find it strange that 4 launchers look different than the other 4 clearly identifiable Sa-6 launchers there, even though they are only a few meters away from each other. One looking different due to angle or image processing, but 4?

It's likely due to overcompensating for terrain. Bad processing can cause funny things to show up, like wavy runways and the like.

At any rate, the Russian video released from the UAV disproves the whole "23 missiles hit Shayrat" nonsense. I first looked at post-strike imagery, calculated the number of impact points, and then used the UAV footage to find others that weren't as obvious. Yeah, way more than 23 hits. Russian propaganda might not be as completely hilarious as, say, Iranian propaganda, but it's equally useless. Remember when they tried to pass off a faked satellite image as evidence showing a Ukrainian FLANKER shot down the Malaysian airliner?

Where are Syria's Buk sites located? Anyone locate them, so we can take a look?

Multiple Pechora-2M and Sa-3 sites can be found along the path the missiles supposedly followed, and those can be clearly identified. But finding Buk sites seems hard.
 
Buk sites are located along the coastline and near Damascus. What path did the missiles supposedly follow? Coming in at 100 m, if they overflew Lebanon they stay out of range of any Syrian or Russian SAM, including the S-400 at Humaymim.
 
SOC said:
Buk sites are located along the coastline and near Damascus. What path did the missiles supposedly follow? Coming in at 100 m, if they overflew Lebanon they stay out of range of any Syrian or Russian SAM, including the S-400 at Humaymim.

Supposedly one wing flew over Lebanon and one wing flew from Syria between Tartus and Lebanese border.
 
If it does turn out that the Russians and Syrians were actually telling the truth about that chemical attack, all hell will break lose.
 
Grey Havoc said:
If it does turn out that the Russians and Syrians were actually telling the truth about that chemical attack, all hell will break lose.

Seems like a dumb thing to lie about. It's not as though it can't be verified.
 
Grey Havoc said:
If it does turn out that the Russians and Syrians were actually telling the truth about that chemical attack, all hell will break lose.

They weren't. So don't worry. All is already forgotten.
 
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
If it does turn out that the Russians and Syrians were actually telling the truth about that chemical attack, all hell will break lose.

Seems like a dumb thing to lie about. It's not as though it can't be verified.

It smacks of not being a military planned operation. The report was that a rocket was fired which contained the CW agent. The military tends to believe in the use of firepower and would have fired multiple rockets in order to saturate an area with sufficient strength of Sarin to overcome any defences/shelter that the target might have had...
 
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
If it does turn out that the Russians and Syrians were actually telling the truth about that chemical attack, all hell will break lose.

Seems like a dumb thing to lie about. It's not as though it can't be verified.

It smacks of not being a military planned operation. The report was that a rocket was fired which contained the CW agent. The military tends to believe in the use of firepower and would have fired multiple rockets in order to saturate an area with sufficient strength of Sarin to overcome any defences/shelter that the target might have had...

We would have to factor in how many chemical munitions the Su-22 can carry. Additionally, looking at the response a 'small' attack has had, a large attack might have drawn a more serious response. Assad was likely 'testing the waters'.
 
The one downside of the internet is that it exposes people to all the conspiracies of the world.

In the UK we have plenty of people who rate RT and Sputnik as highly as they rate the domestic media. It is sad, but unfortunately true. Life was I'm sure so much easier when news was digested in one print column snippets.

The instant and creative denunciation of the ability of the US to fire dozens of TLAMs at a target and hit what they were aiming for, is reminiscent of the counter information campaign during the Malaysia Air shoot down.

Life is not simple, but Assad has tested the water before and appears to have done so again.
 
Lets be honest:

- We don't know what delivery mechanism was used (artillery, artillery rocket, or type of aerial bomb e.g. unitary, aerosol dispersing, or cluster). It isn't even easy to get information on the types of air-dropped delivery mechanisms available to Syria (even though Israeli intelligence believes there are large stockpiles - past chlorine attacks were done using improvised bombs, and even the 2013 Sarin equipped artillery rockets had non-standard warheads).

- I know of a bunch of industrial processes that could lead to similar symptoms if breaches occur. Such a scenario is outwardly plausible until the processes from the factories in the area are known. Similarly, capture of a government stockpile of Sarin is somewhat plausible given how large stockpiles were prior to 2014 and the difficulty deploying it.

- We can'y trust any assessment done in Erdogan's Turkey, which means that only detailed data from the autopsies as examined by 3rd parties could be trust

- The Syrians/Russians claim that there was a second air-attack on the site, which may complicate the picture.

That said, I typically assume the Russian state media is lying (the only question is how much and where) and my personal assumption is that it was some form of nerve gas.

My basic point is that many foreign leaders, and certainly all of the press, have rushed to a consensus on exactly what happened - and we don't really have solid information yet. The U.S. government might have a lot more data of course, as would the Syrian, Turkish, and Russian governments - but it hasn't be released to show a compelling case in terms of evidence.

Some data:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/04/10/khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-bombed/
 
NEWS: National Security Council officials just held a background briefing with reporters on the declassified intel assessment of last week's chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, Syria. Full story coming soon, but a few takeaways:

Sarin confirmed as the nerve agent used via testing on victims as well as symptoms. Secondary responders also suffered exposure symptoms.

Su-22s from Shayrat airfield dropped the sarin on Khan Shaykhun; conventional weapons were dropped about six hours later on hospital treating sarin victims - "no comment" from officials on if Russia did latter.

No ISIS or other terrorists in area have sarin (just mustard gas) - attack was "not a terrorist holding of sarin or a terrorist use of sarin"

WH official on if Russia, present at airfield, knew of sarin attack: "We don't have information on that per se... still looking into that." Adding: "We do think that it is a question worth asking" Russians how they were with Syrian forces at airfield "and did not have knowledge" of the attack in planning/prep stages.

"Leakage inconsistent" with Russians saying sarin came from opposition stocks on ground - "we don't see a building with that chemical residue"

On Syria hoax conspiracy theories: Body of evidence "too massive" for anyone to fabricate. Official added that videos released of attack did correspond with that date, time, location.
 
Avimimus said:
- and we don't really have solid information yet.

You don't. Do you think the Pentagon is privy to some information you're not?
 
Arian said:
Avimimus said:
- and we don't really have solid information yet.

You don't. Do you think the Pentagon is privy to some information you're not?

If you re-read the post I already acknowledged that various governments likely have a lot more information.

I don't include the Pentagon as part of 'we' (I don't work there in case you are mistaken as to who I am). From you're comment I assume you are privy to their information though and can make clear deductions from it?
 
mrmalaya said:
The one downside of the internet is that it exposes people to all the conspiracies of the world.

In the UK we have plenty of people who rate RT and Sputnik as highly as they rate the domestic media. It is sad, but unfortunately true. Life was I'm sure so much easier when news was digested in one print column snippets.

The instant and creative denunciation of the ability of the US to fire dozens of TLAMs at a target and hit what they were aiming for, is reminiscent of the counter information campaign during the Malaysia Air shoot down.

Life is not simple, but Assad has tested the water before and appears to have done so again.

It doesn't look like a very good military strike by Assad unless Assad's goal was to get more negative attention and give the US an excuse to bomb him. Russia/Putin is standing by: "This was a false flag (by the rebels) and there is more to come".
 
kcran567 said:
Russia/Putin is standing by: "This was a false flag and there is more to come".

Well good luck with that. Do you honestly believe Russia would say, "yep, our man Assad gassed those people"?
 
Avimimus said:
From you're comment I assume you are privy to their information though and can make clear deductions from it?

No of course not. So I'll differ to those who do. The rest is just pointless (and dangerous, as can be seen) speculation.
 
Believe it or don't.

"U.S. Lays Out Case For Assad's Culpability In Chemical Weapons Attack"
by Camila Domonoske
April 11, 20173:46 PM ET

Source:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/11/523427866/u-s-lays-out-case-for-assads-culpability-in-chemical-weapons-attack

White House officials say the U.S. intelligence community is confident that Syrian President Bashar Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons on April 4 — and that an alternative explanation offered by Russia is an effort to deflect blame and "confuse the world community."

Senior administration officials "suggested that the attack may have been motivated by rebel gains in the surrounding area, as rebel forces approached a strategic Syrian air base," NPR's Scott Horsley reports.

"They said there was no consensus on whether the Russians were involved in the attack or had foreknowledge of it," he adds.

The attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun killed scores of people, including numerous children. Soon after the strike, experts said that victims' symptoms suggested a toxic chemical was used — specifically the potent nerve agent sarin.

World leaders, including President Trump, immediately accused Assad of using chemical weapons against his own people, again, in violation of international accords. But Russia maintained that a conventional weapons strike by the Assad regime accidentally hit a stockpile of chemical weapons that belonged to rebels or terrorists.

In response to the attack, the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles Thursday in a strike targeting a Syrian air base.

Now a declassified report released by the National Security Council reiterates that the U.S. is confident Assad's forces carried out the April 4 chemical attack and lays out the intelligence community's reasoning — without including classified information used in the analysis.

The report says the U.S. relied on "signals intelligence and geospatial intelligence, laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims, as well as a significant body of credible open source reporting."

"We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos and other reporting of chemical attacks," the report reads.

The report says that "pro-opposition social media reports" began suggesting an attack shortly before 7 a.m. local time on April 4, while Russia's explanation maintained an airstrike occurred around noon local time.

There's also video and satellite imagery suggesting the attack hit "in the middle of a street," not a storage depot, the NSC report says. And while ISIS has used some chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, there's no evidence that this attack "involved chemicals in ISIS's possession," the White House says.

The report cites previous Russian attempts at distraction, deflection and obfuscation, identifying a pattern of "attempting to undermine the credibility of its opponents" and bolster the Assad regime.

The report does not come to a conclusion about whether Russia bears culpability in the attack itself — that is, whether Russia had advance knowledge of the attack or cooperated in it. But it states strongly that Moscow was attempting to "create confusion and sow doubt" to distract from the evidence against Assad.

At a White House press briefing on Tuesday, press secretary Sean Spicer said Russia was "isolated" in its support for Syria.

"Russia is on an island," Spicer said. "The facts are on our side."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom