Attacks on Syria Imminent?

Media around the world seems to be in "ramping" mode for imminent attacks on Syria.

This is perhaps understandable given the urgent timetable spelled out in the UK this week coupled with the remarks of John Kerry and Obama yesterday.

Attacks of these type tend to commence during the night in the target state.

It is 1315 BST in the UK, 15:15 in Damascus and sunset is scheduled there at 19:02 local time.

There seems to be a strong feeling that attacks could commence today which means that we might start hearing reports in the next 6-12 hours.

What are your thoughts, do you expect an attack today? Tomorrow? Next week?

I don't see any rationale in the US point of view to hold back pending the UN report as this does not apportion blame and they believe they have the intelligence they need along with the lack of will from the Security Council to approve a motion.

My feeling is today/tonight is a strong possibility.

reply to post by citizenx1


The big question is not when but what are the targets.

Are they going straight for the jugular in Assad and his family, once again murdering a sovereign leader, in yet another public execution in front of the world.

Or the Generals really running this war, or will it be a shock and awe type bombing to put the fear of god in the Syrian people ?

The whole thing is totally wrong and can only end badly for all parties.

I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

Originally posted by snapperski
The big question is not when but what are the targets.

There is no question on the targets. FOX news had on it's website a map of Syria with the targets laid out. This is so freak'n stupid. There were about two dozen targets shown on the map. I wish I had a screen shot.

ON TOPIC - I doubt the attack is 'imminent'. The USA usually gives a 48 hour 'get the heck out of the country' notice and it hasn't done that yet. Unless Obama is skipping that. God only knows what the heck he's doing ...

reply to post by xcellante


agreed i didn't expect the U.K parliament to disagree with the PM i thought they was all paid to be yes men.

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by citizenx1

 

The big question is not when but what are the targets.

Are they going straight for the jugular in Assad and his family, once again murdering a sovereign leader, in yet another public execution in front of the world.

Or the Generals really running this war, or will it be a shock and awe type bombing to put the fear of god in the Syrian people ?

Fair question. I doubt they'll go for Assad simply because they couldn't be certain they'd get him. I suspect if they could, they would - and I wouldn't blame them.

My thoughts are it will be targets such as airbases, missile and radar sites paving the way for other attacks later.

It is widely reported that Syria has a relatively well developed airforce and as such, could be a threat to US and French warplanes if used at some point.

The whole thing is totally wrong and can only end badly for all parties.

Perhaps, but I believe that for once, the US has the moral high-ground. I'm just ashamed my country doesn't recognise this and participate.

reply to post by citizenx1


I would tend to think that we will see missiles going in before the weekend is over.

Something I'm not getting though...why the warnings? The Obama administration has been threatening for the last few days and it seems that the syrian military targets are acquired. This is just me but if I was in the syrian government, wouldn't I empty these targets before an upcoming strike? Why not telegraph them "Hey...we're about to blow the #### out of you..."

Or how about chemical facilities? If those are targets, what are the repercussions of those blowing up to dust? What about the neighborhoods surrounding those?

Something wrong here. Like we're missing something...

Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
reply to post by xcellante

 

agreed i didn't expect the U.K parliament to disagree with the PM i thought they was all paid to be yes men.

So, you're not familiar with the British parliament then?

I'm surprised he lost, but it was never going to be an easy sell.

Originally posted by xcellante
I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. It was scandalous - and will become highly controversial as time goes on. The British are a humane people and will not want to sit idly by whilst repeated images of genocide are beamed into their homes.

reply to post by FlyersFan

I doubt the attack is 'imminent'. The USA usually gives a 48 hour 'get the heck out of the country' notice and it hasn't done that yet. Unless Obama is skipping that. God only knows what the heck he's doing ...

I think Obama going for the big guy in this so called limited attack, and going straight for Assad and family, so there won't be any warning or prior notice of an imminent attack keeping the Assad advisers guessing, i believe we will get the news of a strike has taken place before the weekend is over.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Here's a map of potential targets.

I have a better one that includes chemical bases but it's really large.
Hama or Homs is my bet.

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
reply to post by citizenx1

 

I would tend to think that we will see missiles going in before the weekend is over.

Something I'm not getting though...why the warnings? The Obama administration has been threatening for the last few days and it seems that the syrian military targets are acquired. This is just me but if I was in the syrian government, wouldn't I empty these targets before an upcoming strike? Why not telegraph them "Hey...we're about to blow the #### out of you..."

Or how about chemical facilities? If those are targets, what are the repercussions of those blowing up to dust? What about the neighborhoods surrounding those?

Something wrong here. Like we're missing something...

I suspect they're saying nothing the Syrian haven't worked out for themselves. They want the world to see this happen so that others are not under the false illusion the US will stand by and allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians.

OK, I know the Israelis did and that is to both nations shame that nothing was done but for once, something justifiable and legitimate seems to be happening.

I'd be amazed if they targeted chemical weapons facilities, the risks, as you point out are unimaginable.

reply to post by SonoftheSun


In fairness, it's probably not that easy to just empty military installations. I assume Obama would be looking to damage their capability rather than kill people, so warnings might be an affective way of reducing human casualties.

Similar with Chemical Weapons - the desire it to remove the capability to produce and utilise them, so I guess it's a case of hitting labs and weapon launch sites/factories rather than the chemical stores themselves. The chemicals are probably relatively useless on their own without a weapon system to distribute them and all the back up logistics that come with that..

Maybe what they'll do in order to keep their hands clean is contact Israel and tell them to at-ake instead???

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by xcellante
I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. It was scandalous - and will become highly controversial as time goes on. The British are a humane people and will not want to sit idly by whilst repeated images of genocide are beamed into their homes.

Parliament's decision not to back Cameron is somewhat surprising (imo) but it isn't for a lack of wanting to help the Syrian people. You have to remember the previous British government had their fingers burned something chronic over the Iraq WMDs (it was a much bigger scandal here than in the US), and the PM was simply unable to provide enough evidence to confirm Assad was responsible.

The Labour opposition probably rightly suggested we wait for the UN weapon inspector's report - if that evidence is conclusive, chances are Cameron will get his mandate as the British people are shocked by events in Syria.

Realistically, there could be action occurring in Syria for quite some time before we would know. Like maybe a week, it isn't that hard to cut power to satellite uplinks, or even just cut it in the areas where the information would be transmitted.

Close the borders, cut the cables, go at it.

Targeting journalists isn't exactly an unheard of practice either today.

reply to post by KingIcarus


They all are corrupt just like my old mum used to say they all sh*it in the same pot,they just put a pantomime act on for the public,so it is probably part of an elaborate plan and it will all fit in i can guarantee if the U.S attack Syria the U.K wont be far behind they are probably already there in astute class subs hidden from the public lol.

Im not sure what the USA is thinking, but theres no point bombing the chemical storage facilities as that would cause more damage than what Assad has allegedly done, the only targets i can see being bombed if any are missile sites and hangers, but once that starts it will be all out war despite what anyone thinks, i just hope everyone is prepared for what potentially comes next after bombs start to drop.

And if all the chemical stuffs are removed, it would not achieve anything anyway, if Assad was to blame he will have plenty of chemical weapons being made or shipped elsewhere in the country, the only way around this is to invade and obliterate the whole Assad regime, and set an example for future powers, which will not happen, probably better to leave them alone, who is anyone else to say how things should be done in a foreign country anyway, yes the pics we see are disgusting and vile but what are we supposed to do, what is the end game if we go in, i don't think this has been thought out properly and I'm glad the UK has held back for the time being, no doubt the UK will participate if the evidence is there though.

An all out invasion will be the only way forward, but removing Assad will only allow other greater threats to emerge, but hey, they already are aren't they, when it comes to the middle east we just cant win under the rules that are set, well there is one way but nobody wants that...right?

Bomb a few targets. Kill a load of civillians. Liberate them..............from..........I don't know...........something!
Make a lot of money with investments in the armaments industry.........................

WAR! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? MAKING LOTS OF MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

It's all for 'The Greater Good', you know?!

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by xcellante
I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. It was scandalous - and will become highly controversial as time goes on. The British are a humane people and will not want to sit idly by whilst repeated images of genocide are beamed into their homes.

Scandalous? You think it appropriate to send British services into a war with less than 20% approval from the population? That my friend would be scandalous.

There is no convincing case made to the public that either:

-Assad ordered chemicals weapons use
-Bombing the Syrian Army and killing more people will prevent loss of life.
-There is an end game and exit strategy
- We wont degrade the Assad regime putting the Al Qaeda types in charge of Syria

As it stands at the moment the right decision was made.

Parliament delivered a 'D- , please try harder' to the executive.