|
Red7 posted:Restrepo is probably one of the closest you'd get to the Our War style. I'd forgotten about Restrepo. That was great. Really upsetting when Tim Hetherington died last year in Libya.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
steve1 posted:I wonder what would have happened if the technology the Syrian people have now was available to Iraqis ten years ago. Who knows, when smartphone technology penetrates Waziristan it might just become a little harder politically to blow entire families to pieces over there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Because emotion driven reasoning is the best way to justify going to war (which is what an "intervention" would be.) I was under the impression that the intervention in Libya was pretty successful. Provide no fly zones, maybe destroy the Syrian loyalist army heavy weapons and let the FSA do their job. If they continue fighting, it could go on for years, like in Lebanon and put the entire population through the meat grinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
Kombotron posted:I was under the impression that the intervention in Libya was pretty successful. Provide no fly zones, maybe destroy the Syrian loyalist army heavy weapons and let the FSA do their job. If they continue fighting, it could go on for years, like in Lebanon and put the entire population through the meat grinder. Its come up before (admittedly a long time ago) but the intervention in Libya was a special case due to the poor state of Qaddafi's military and notably air defense. Syria has or had a much more capable air defense system and any air campaign might be a repeat of Yugoslavia in terms of air loses - which no one has any interest in. Additionally the NATO strikes in Libya were engaging targets mostly in rural areas and within the context of established front lines. Thats not the case in Syria, where airstrikes in cities and confused lines are going to cause more civilian or FSA causalities than what is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
The problem with a Syrian no fly zone is they've got a better air defense system which would require much more resources and a higher risk to take out than the Libyan air defense system, plus Libya was relatively isolated and Syria borders Israel and Turkey, increasing the risk of revenge attacks. It could be done, but not without significant risk and cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 09:14
|
|
|
Kombotron posted:I was under the impression that the intervention in Libya was pretty successful. Provide no fly zones, maybe destroy the Syrian loyalist army heavy weapons and let the FSA do their job. If they continue fighting, it could go on for years, like in Lebanon and put the entire population through the meat grinder. Syria isn't Libya...and the intervention in Libya is considered successful in retrospect because the best case outcome occurred. You don't (or at least shouldn't) plan for best case outcomes when it comes to war. Also, I got a kick out of this Kombotron posted:maybe destroy the Syrian loyalist army heavy weapons being right below this Invalido posted:blow entire families to pieces over there? FYI munitions the U.S. uses in Waziristan aren't baby homing death bombs while the munitions NATO used in Libya were happy fun time democracy bombs of joy. When you make a decision to use military force, no matter how precise your munitions are and how good your intel is collateral damage will still occur. This is especially true when we're talking about targeting fielded military forces in urban areas...which doesn't describe the situation with government forces in Syria at all, oh wait. I'm not saying that intervention isn't possible, I'm just saying that making it sound like intervention is as simple as shooting down a few airplanes and blowing up a few tanks and then democracy breaks out a month later is a seriously simplistic and flawed way of looking at the situation (and that's barely scratching the surface of the post-conflict situation, which is going to be a complete disaster in Syria.) E: and yeah, Syrian air defenses actually still exist, unlike Libya's decrepit non-functional systems. That's not to say that a U.S./NATO coalition don't have the capability to take them down (they do) but the problem with doing SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses) is that even when you are doing it against a relatively second rate system like Syria it is still difficult...and the thing with air defenses is that you can husband them, as the Serbs did in the various conflicts in the '90s, so instead of keeping your radars on all the time and sitting by while NATO blows up your entire air defense system, you keep them in hiding, only turning the system on when you have a good chance of catching enemy aircraft in a SAM trap. Doing this means you aren't able to deny your airspace to your adversary, but it also keeps your adversary on his toes and means that the adversary has to deploy a full up SEAD package with all the airstrikes (since instead of being able to blow up the air defenses they are now just out there, waiting to be employed), something that increases the cost and complexity of any intervention airstrikes by quite a bit. e2: And the point about neighboring countries is a very valid one, not only regarding general regional attacks but specifically regarding the risk countries allowing airstrikes from their territory would incur...any intervention airstrikes would more than likely not take place out of Israel (that's a gigantic can of worms) but the only realistic options are Turkey and maybe Jordan, with enabling assets like AWACS, ISR, and tankers operating out of the RAF airbase on Cyprus. Bottom line is that whereas with Libya the airstrikes were operated from territory that was a) either NATO soil or countries very close to NATO (Malta) and b) out of range of any possible Libyan retaliation. Not the case with Syria. And bringing up the Lebanese Civil War in a discussion of Middle Eastern foreign interventions is...ironic, to say the least. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
Syria may have better air defense systems, but a no fly zone in Syria, if instituted right this minute, would see an FSA surge that would overwhelm Assad's forces much faster than Libya, I have no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Syria may have better air defense systems, but a no fly zone in Syria, if instituted right this minute, would see an FSA surge that would overwhelm Assad's forces much faster than Libya, I have no doubt. An actual no fly zone or a Libyan style "no fly zone" that is in reality a comprehensive air campaign against all fielded military forces? Because I suspect you are talking about the second and then you are getting into the collateral damage/fratricide issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
I Libyan no fly zone, however you are making assumptions about the tactics or rules of engagement the no fly zone would entail. First and foremost, there is a massive air campaign against the Syrian populace right now stemming their movements. This would totally eliminate that and create a surge in and of itself. However, even a air to land campaign could work, and NATO has shown it can do this. Looking at priority targets, a NATO air campaign could wipe out the intelligence and military compounds in the country, and it could also create a clear safe-zone pathway from Turkey into the main cities. This alone would give the FSA momentum and control enough to support their guerrilla warfare within the cities, namely Aleppo and Damascus. The difference here is that there is already a massive campaign inside Damascus, unlike Libya's Tripoli which had to be taken from outside forces from other cities and towns before an uprising within the city could take place. Another factor is that there are no tribal towns loyal to Assad that make any kind of difference to the outcome, and lastly there is that the level of massacre that has taken place has far exceeded Libya, and the populace is without a doubt more likely to manage an uprising, given NATO support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
This  video shows a group of badly beaten prisoners receiving even more of a beating from what appears to be Syrian soldiershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d4TANdu93s
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
Interesting video of some very new looking "captured" weapons and ammo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Qnmugk9gk
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Interesting video of some very new looking "captured" weapons and ammo If that's the entire stash, it's likely to be smuggled weapons - where would one capture a single crate of artillery rockets? Interesting video of what to my eyes looks like much more airworthy diy drones than we've seen thus far? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo0F45uV75U
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
Invalido posted:A little bit of everything! Invalido posted:Interesting video of what to my eyes looks like much more airworthy diy drones than we've seen thus far?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think the question is why would they need artillery rockets when they don't have anything to fire them from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
Invalido posted:If they care about desroying something specific, they could always modify them into these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lob_bomb Interestingly two examples of those have been recorded, but apparently used by Syrian government forces, not the opposition. Widely used by Iranian backed insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHlfvJgJVqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNte7QQIWaE There's more to come on that on the At War blog, should be an interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think the question is why would they need artillery rockets when they don't have anything to fire them from? It would push it towards being captured in my mind, although it's always hard to know exactly what weapons they have. I'm not sure if its the same as a 'lob bomb', but many of these rockets can be fired without tubes, using improvised firing posts or just lying them on a bank. Some of the Russian ones are specifically designed so you can do this. They can be used as the main charge and initiator for an IED as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
Red7 posted:I'm not sure if its the same as a 'lob bomb', but many of these rockets can be fired without tubes, using improvised firing posts or just lying them on a bank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
More from Aleppoquote:Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says the fighting he witnessed in Aleppo was the most vicious, he has ever witnessed in almost ten years of war reporting for the Guardian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
What are the chances Iran will give up on Assad? As far as I understand things Syria is a major conduit through which Iran supplies Hezbollah. Would they be willing to lose Syria?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:This One of the soldiers was whipping them. I don't think the Syrian Army is going to implode any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Does anyone happen to still know the name of the Libyan facebook group of moderate (secular?) moslims who were against those overreacting there? It was filled with people condemning the murders and such. I want to show it to a friend to prove not all of them go into a rage every time Mohammed gets ridiculed in the west.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Does anyone happen to still know the name of the Libyan facebook group of moderate (secular?) moslims who were against those overreacting there? It was filled with people condemning the murders and such. I want to show it to a friend to prove not all of them go into a rage every time Mohammed gets ridiculed in the west. You're probably looking for The Sorry Project, although it looks like they won't be posting anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:What are the chances Iran will give up on Assad? As far as I understand things Syria is a major conduit through which Iran supplies Hezbollah. Would they be willing to lose Syria? It might get to the point where they withdraw their "advisers" and stop providing weapons, but they'll never openly give up on him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Damascus wakes to reports of a huge bomb attackquote:A large explosion is reported this morning at the Palestine branch of Syrian intelligence in Damascus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
More horribleness from Syriaquote:Syria child trauma 'appalling' - Save the Children
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
Most major news websites have been slow to report on this blast in Damascus for some reason  Edit: I am a fool to post half-minded and one-handed while babysitting. Invalido fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
That's the July blast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 10:41
|
|
|
Here's a satellite photo analysis of the fighting in Aleppo, pretty interesting stuff http://srhrl.aaas.org/geotech/syria/aleppo.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Another must read article on the fighting around Aleppo from the Guardian, Syria civil war: 'We expend the one thing we have, men. Men are dying', for example:quote:Inside the villa two rebel commanders and a chubby civilian in jeans and a T-shirt were exchanging pieces of paper, which the civilian signed. He issued a series of instructions to the men outside, who began transferring crates into the commanders' white Toyota pickup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Another must read article on the fighting around Aleppo from the Guardian, Syria civil war: 'We expend the one thing we have, men. Men are dying', for example: The mention of Americans in turkey caught my eye in this article. Is part of the FSA getting weapons from American sources. I guess they would have a few american made weapons but that would be due to the nature of the arms trade, but they wouldn't get any directly from the American government. The Americans in the article sound, at least to me, like they're government representatives. Is the American government giving resources to the fsa?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Terebus posted:The mention of Americans in turkey caught my eye in this article. Is part of the FSA getting weapons from American sources. I guess they would have a few american made weapons but that would be due to the nature of the arms trade, but they wouldn't get any directly from the American government. The Americans in the article sound, at least to me, like they're government representatives. Is the American government giving resources to the fsa? Not officially. Just like every other conflict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
I believe previous articles have said they are CIA directing support towards more westward facing elements in the FSA. Most of the weapons are more likely supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, proving Russia weapons and ammo that can be used along with all locally looted weapons. However, because of the geographical location and black markets you also see a full range of small arms from all sorts of countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Not officially. Just like every other conflict. I wonder to what degree they are actually providing aid. By the sounds of it the CIA doesn't have direct contact to the FSA within Syria. MRC48B posted:I believe previous articles have said they are CIA directing support towards more westward facing elements in the FSA. Most of the weapons are more likely supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, proving Russia weapons and ammo that can be used along with all locally looted weapons. However, because of the geographical location and black markets you also see a full range of small arms from all sorts of countries. Is Saudi Arabia that eager to jump in and support the FSA? I know they want Iran to have less influence in the area so helping take out al-Assad would make sense in that way, but providing support for rebel movements gives them more legitimacy within Saudi Arabia itself. Maybe I'm reading into this too much and they're doing it for the sweet sweet arms trade money, but I don't see the FSA having enough money to make it profitable for Saudi Arabia to sell weapons there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
By most cold war and later accounts, the CIA mostly does monetary aid. They send a few case officers over with some pallets of cash, and they start giving it out to guerrilla chiefs who are willing to cooperate. The chiefs use this cash to pay their fighters, bribe local officials, and buy equipment. Suitcases full of cash are a lot easier to smuggle than guns, and this way the fighters can use equipment that is familiar to them, easy to resupply, and totally not traceable back to the United States. When the US provides the cash, countries that do a lot of armament export, like the Saudis and Chinese, are always willing to sell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Terebus posted:The mention of Americans in turkey caught my eye in this article. Is part of the FSA getting weapons from American sources. I guess they would have a few american made weapons but that would be due to the nature of the arms trade, but they wouldn't get any directly from the American government. The Americans in the article sound, at least to me, like they're government representatives. Is the American government giving resources to the fsa? If they are, it sure isn't making much of an impact. So many stories of people going to fight with 8 bullets and a hand me down weapon, if they're lucky. BM, you know if you linked that video of the FSA fighters showing off their American 4x4's and M16's on a blog post you can easily grab the link from? I can't remember what channel it was on, and it's always applicable when it comes to American involvement in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:If they are, it sure isn't making much of an impact. So many stories of people going to fight with 8 bullets and a hand me down weapon, if they're lucky. BM, you know if you linked that video of the FSA fighters showing off their American 4x4's and M16's on a blog post you can easily grab the link from? I can't remember what channel it was on, and it's always applicable when it comes to American involvement in Syria. You mean this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV-dYnuJLDg It's probably worth taking a look at the links I collected this week if you want to know more about foreign assistance, there were a number of good article on the subject this week http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/recommended-arab-spring-and-hackgate.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
I doubt the Americans would supply M-16s covertly. M-16s are higher maintenance, more error prone, demand a higher level of training, have less familiarity with those who would be using the weapons than AK-47/74s, and positively scream "THE CIA GAVE ME THIS" whether true or not. The U.S. has overtly supplied lots and lots of m-16s to the Iraqi Army, whose gear accountability practices are probably less than perfect. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Funnily enough one group that was spotted with M16s were this Jihadi group from Derna. This video ends with an execution, so don't watch it to the end if you aren't interested in that sort of thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcZ9VPYrrx8
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
The bit about "this weapon screams CIA whether true or not" is the main reason why M16-type weapons might not be supplied, even though those already proliferated to some extent in the Middle East -- but supplying ammo and magazines would be as important a factor, not this talk of maintenance or reliability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Some pictures from the Syrian Airlines Airbus/helicopter mishap from a few days ago have surfaced on the Aviation Herald. The A320 was climbing out of Damascus, when its stabilizer came into contact with the rotor of a military helicopter at 12,000 feet, shearing half of the stabilizer off and bringing the chopper down. Surprisingly, the airplane limped back to Damascus International, where it landed safely. It's hard to view this objectively in the light of current events in Syria, but putting that bird down with such catastrophic damage is a sign of great skill and/or insane luck on the aircrew's part. Although the official report states 200 souls, the A320-200, to my knowledge, should't be able to handle more than 150. Still, that's 150 less potential casualties. There are also some intriguing problems here. First up, the chopper was operating at the departure corridor, and the fact that a collision occurred could mean that the helicopter's transponder was off - this wouldn't be unusual during a military operation, but then it does point to ineptitude on behalf of the Syrian airforce. I wouldn't be surprised if Damascus tower was staffed by military ATCO's either, and when the military starts directing civilian traffic, bad things happen (see the ATC strike in Argentina for reference - oh boy, was that fun). Also, I don't see this accident happening, unless one of them was upside down, but then, stranger things have happened in aviation. Fixing that bird will be tough - I don't see it happening without Airbus engineers on the ground and a major logistical effort. One thing for sure: this plane will not be going to Toulouse any time soon. Mokotow fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 22:19
|
|
