|
PleasingFungus posted:Didn't the US (help) fund the Croatian weapons shipment? I was under the impression that was all-but-officially confirmed. The Saudi's set that deal up, and given the precedent the US set in regards to strict vetting of rebel soldiers that were given weapons and trained in Jordan, the willingness of the moderate Islamists to scuttle relations with the US (implying that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze on their end), the steady flow of complaints from Syria about the lack of Western support, the moderates filled those weapons with bullets in ziploc bags, etc etc, I'm inclined to believe that they played a complementary role in that deal. Still, if it was a big enough transfer, the US might have contributed a lot. I have no idea how much the total value of what was sent over from Croatia was, but it was enough to get spotted on video, obviously.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:it'll buy enough RPGs and mortars to blot out the sun, which is what the rebels actually need. Then we will fight in the shade - Bashar al-Assad in sunglasses on r/NO2War Remember the people creating these 'incentives' are probably the same creative minds who thought Mubarak stepping down would convince Putin to make Assad step aside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
What I could never understand is why the Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc) that have been supporting the rebels haven't really gone all in on arming them. I mean yes, they obviously have been sending them weapons but considering how wealthy and well armed the Gulf countries are I'm amazed they haven't completely flooded the rebels with weapons. Is it because they are afraid of blowback? It would be a legitimate fear for the gulf countries (especially SA) Arming battle hardened islamists to the teeth could end up coming back to bite them in the rear end. Or do they just not want to make it so obvious that they are arming the rebels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:What I could never understand is why the Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc) that have been supporting the rebels haven't really gone all in on arming them. I mean yes, they obviously have been sending them weapons but considering how wealthy and well armed the Gulf countries are I'm amazed they haven't completely flooded the rebels with weapons. Is it because they are afraid of blowback? It would be a legitimate fear for the gulf countries (especially SA) Arming battle hardened islamists to the teeth could end up coming back to bite them in the rear end. Or do they just not want to make it so obvious that they are arming the rebels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:What I could never understand is why the Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc) that have been supporting the rebels haven't really gone all in on arming them. I mean yes, they obviously have been sending them weapons but considering how wealthy and well armed the Gulf countries are I'm amazed they haven't completely flooded the rebels with weapons. Is it because they are afraid of blowback? It would be a legitimate fear for the gulf countries (especially SA) Arming battle hardened islamists to the teeth could end up coming back to bite them in the rear end. Or do they just not want to make it so obvious that they are arming the rebels? Gossip as filtered through a Turkish friend of mine has it that the Saudi monarchy is viciously divided on who they want to support in Syria and how, so what's moving at present is relatively perfunctory. No, I do not have a source other than "I heard from this one Turk".
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
quote:The Obama administration is willing to consider supporting an expanded Syrian rebel coalition that would include Islamist groups, provided the groups are not allied with al-Qaeda and agree to support upcoming peace talks in Geneva, a senior U.S. official said Thursday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...0323_story.html I'm lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
I guess it depends where the dart lands when they throw it at the Syria policy dartboard. I'm doing a series of posts on my blog about the UN report into chemical weapons in Syria, with several chemical weapon experts giving their opinions on the report, but it starts with my post on three of the attacks detailed http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/responses-to-final-un-report-into-use.html I'm also doing an interview Amanpour on CNN International on Monday, so that'll be interesting. And I've agreed funding for my new website as well, hurrah! All I need now is a good name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
"Pretty please give back your weapons. And promise not to get along with those guys right over there. If you do these things, we'll maybe consider helping you." Yeah, only good things will come from this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
quote:All I need now is a good name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I guess it depends where the dart lands when they throw it at the Syria policy dartboard. It really needs to refer back here. Imagine the freakouts by Hersh if he found out that you were an admin for a site that hosted bronies, troons, and other "undesirables"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Seymour Hersh is a journalist who has won a Pulitzer prize for his reporting (He helped expose My Lai) whereas Brown Moses is, as far as I know, an unemployed man who relies on posters from "Goons In Platoons" for his weapon expertise while he aggregates youtube videos and generally piggy backs off other people. Who has more credibility? Unemployed man or Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? I'd go with Seymour Hersh here. I don't think that is an argument from authority: its just a matter credibility. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Selected_stories Brown Moses can't hold a match, much less a candle, to that. I'm aware of the criticism of Seymour Hersh but I still think he's a lot more credible than a moderator on Somethingawful. I'd like to make it clear I'm not Mod Sassing: I'm just honestly confused as to why people are treating a mod on somethingawful as being more credible than an investigative journalist with a long and distinguished career. It's like he's massively inflated his self importance or something. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
It's an argument from authority because you're determining the veracity of their statements based on who they are, and not, say, the degree to which their statements are supported. Saying that one journalist is more correct in a specific case because he has a Pulitzer is basically the definition of argument from authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
I actually rely on a wide network of contacts including chemical weapon experts and arms experts with decades of experience for my work, which is part of the reason my work is so widely respected among NGOs, think-tanks, governments, departments at the UN, journalists, etc. One simple thing you could do is read the article I wrote for Foreign Policy, which presents evidence from a variety of sources that you can review yourself and see if that fits with what Hersh is hinting at in his piece, regarding who was responsible for the attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
e: removing most of this post (beaten to the punch) -- People are treating a mod on Something Awful as being more credible than Seymour Hersh because the evidence he presents is better. His data is more up-to-date, and he's backed by experts in the field; as opposed to Hersh, whose arguments rely on (1) obsolete, debunked misunderstandings of the situation, and (2) an 'anonymous source'. PleasingFungus fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
In fact, I have daily email correspondence with Richard Lloyd, one of the specialists Hersh writes about, and our work is shared with Ted Postol who I also occasionally talk to and whose work Hersh refers to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
When Hersh did his excellent reporting on My Lai, he want an authority or expert either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
This is excellent. "We're open to considering possibly supporting a rebellion in which Islamist groups exist, as long as they refuse to ally with anyone we don't like, and also let us have full control over the peace negotiations and let us only involve the groups we support in said process. Also, we demand that the Islamist groups return any US aid they managed to get their hands on." I can tell this is going to work splendidly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:When Hersh did his excellent reporting on My Lai, he want an authority or expert either. They are both equally credible as journalists - but Hersh has alot more personal/historical baggage at this point. It becomes a contest between 'established' and 'crowd-sourced', the reality gets lost and the only thing to keep in mind is everyone has an agenda 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Hersh relies a lot on his confidential sources, which is what makes him so good but also what makes him so bad. It can be hit/miss. I'm surprised he went ahead and published his story even though The New Yorker refused it, since it's they who do the fact-checking and editorial work. He obviously should have killed it there and then, but I guess someone had him convinced. This is "old journalism" in a nutshell in a way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Gnoll Pie posted:generally piggy backs off other people. As an aside though that is pretty much journalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Hersh relies a lot on his confidential sources, which is what makes him so good but also what makes him so bad. It can be hit/miss. I'm surprised he went ahead and published his story even though The New Yorker refused it, since it's they who do the fact-checking and editorial work. He obviously should have killed it there and then, but I guess someone had him convinced. This is "old journalism" in a nutshell in a way. One thing to keep in mind, I was fact-checked by the New Yorker, a process that took nearly 2 hours, and was incredibly thorough. This included examining my claims about the August 21st attack, and the munitions used, so maybe the same fact-checkers saw Hersh's piece and remembered what I had just explained to them thoroughly a few weeks earlier. I actually emailed Seymour Hersh about the piece, replying to the email he sent me about Vile Rat. I was incredibly polite in it, but didn't get any sort of reply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Gnoll Pie posted:Seymour Hersh is a journalist who has won a Pulitzer prize for his reporting (He helped expose My Lai) whereas Brown Moses is, as far as I know, an unemployed man who relies on posters from "Goons In Platoons" for his weapon expertise while he aggregates youtube videos and generally piggy backs off other people. I think the amount of troops America has had to keep on the ground in Iran for so long has just kind of thrown off everyone's perspective when it comes to what's even real any more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I think the amount of troops America has had to keep on the ground in Iran for so long has just kind of thrown off everyone's perspective when it comes to what's even real any more.  What the hell are you even talking about? There aren't any troops in Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
More like people are so use to their own worthlessness on the internet they actively seek to tear down and deride even the concept of becoming an authority on a subject through hard work and effort. Stupid little internet nihilist who project their own lack of importance on to everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I think the amount of troops America has had to keep on the ground in Iran for so long has just kind of thrown off everyone's perspective when it comes to what's even real any more. I am almost certain you meant to say Iraq instead of Iran. If that is the case, well you are pretty wrong. The Iraq war ENDED in 2011 (Am I the only one that can't believe how many people think the Iraq war is still ongoing?). We pulled out all the combat troops and the only soldiers left are a few to defend the embassy. And if you actually meant Iran then I don't even know what you mean. We have no troops in Iran. Maybe a few special forces are roaming around monitoring nuclear facilities but thats a big maybe. Either way I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
I like how whether or not BM was formally employed or working freelance when he was breaking stories about weapons in Syria with the NYT is somehow relevant in some people's minds. This isn't forums mod vs Pulitzer winner. Hersh is on the wrong end of a firing squad from credible journalists all over the world. He's getting no support anywhere, specifically because his theories based on "sources" are countered by VIDEO. EVIDENCE, and most of his talking points were thriving before being discredited in October. BM is just one of the many guns. If it's important to you that there be some fragile narrative implicating the rebels with the Ghouta attack, you should drop this line of attack, because you're just emphasizing how little substance Hersh's article brought to the table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Bashar al-Assad is a democratically elected leader (over 90% of the popular vote) who has peacefully presided over a multi-ethnic and sectarian country and ascribed important freedoms to all of the country's citizenry. That was, of course, before al-Qaeda terrorists destroyed the cosmopolitan utopia that was Syria. Brown Moses is an unemployed man who relies on the opinions of "weapons experts" to determine his conclusions for him. I know this may be considered mod sass, but why should I believe the unemployed Englishman over the Syrian President?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
I can't wait to read Hersh's piece about how Martin Luther King was assassinated by the NAACP, I'm sure he's going to use reliable sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:I know this may be considered mod sass, but why should I believe the unemployed Englishman over the Syrian President? This question has actually been answered several times in the past 2 pages or so, FYI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:This question has actually been answered several times in the past 2 pages or so, FYI. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
It can be difficult to tell sometimes if someone is asking a question sarcastically, or if they're just showing up at the tail end of a conversation and ask the exact same thing the previous guy asked instead of clicking the left arrow at the top of the page a few times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
Chechen author Mairbek Vatchagaev has posted a new article on the Jamestown Foundation about Chechens in Syria. Interestingly there's likely agents of Ramzan Kadyrov (Russia's Chechen puppet leader) in Syria identifying Chechens and other North Caucasians, ready to target them upon return to Russia (In Ramzanstan usually meaning torture and execution). I don't think he will be succesful because if his agents are amongst the Jihadists they would be in constant fear of being exposed. Furthermore most of the Chechens aren't actually living in Russia. However Kadyrov's forces have more often carried out assassinations of Chechens in Turkey, Qatar and Austria. Pieter Pan fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
To be fair, I've had that same argument used for real multiple times, scare quotes and all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:To be fair, I've had that same argument used for real multiple times, scare quotes and all. Alright, let's talk about these "videos" that you "sorted through." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Part two of my series on the chemical report, this time so-called "chemical weapon" "expert", Hamish "de" Bretton-Gordon "OBE", Former "Commander" of "UK" CBRN Forces and "COO" SecureBio, takes a look at the report.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
I don't know if I should trust you, I heard you were unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I don't know if I should trust you, I heard you were unemployed. The funny thing about the unemployed thing is in 2014 I'm going to be incredibly employed, to the point I'm turning down really well paid work because I've got so much to do already. I'm launching my new website, which is fully funded, wages and all; I'm working on a big consultancy; I'm involved with a big tech project that I'll hopefully be able to talk about at some point in the near future, cause it's awesome; I'm working on bringing together various NGOs and think tanks together for another project I can't detail; and I've been approached by an agent from ICM Partners about writing a book. Add to that various paid speaking engagements I've been invited to, I'm going to be very busy in 2014. [edit] I'm currently digging through the Facebook pages of one of the friends of one of the Syrian soldiers wounded in the alleged August 24th chemical attack, and there's some pretty alarming stuff on those pages, for example 
Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:[edit] I'm currently digging through the Facebook pages of one of the friends of one of the Syrian soldiers wounded in the alleged August 24th chemical attack, and there's some pretty alarming stuff on those pages, for example I'm desperately telling myself that those are dummies, but it's harder to do the same for the gun and loose shotgun shells also within easy reach of the toddler. fake edit: And the loving handgun nestled in the couch cushions behind him. Christ, I'm surprised they aren't casually tossing combat knifes and vials of sarin at that kid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
I've got a collection of them now   
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
That's right up there with that youtube video of the guy filming his three kids sitting on top of the unexploded bombshell in Homs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 14:27
|
|