Parašė Eimantas
Rodyti pranešimą
-
Manau, kad veikia pagal galimybes. Nors tiesa sakant, man pačiam dažnai keista iš kur toks pasiaukojimas. Vietname prakišo, Irake prakišo. Kaip bebūtų žūsta daug tų pačių JAV kareivių, kenčia pačios armijos prestižas. Niekas nebenorės eiti tarnauti ir patekti į karą. JAV galimybių kaip ir yra gyventi neblogai, niekas prievarta nevaro į kariuomenę, armija samdoma. Kaip supratau, po Irako lyg ir nebekariauja tiesioginio karo, iš lėktuvų pamėto bombų ir tiek. -
Įdomi Julijos Latyninos laida apie tai kas įvyko:
Latynina sako, kad cheminę ataką įvykdė Asadas, nes jis puikiai supranta, kad Rusija Sirijoje yra tik dėl to, kad nutaikiusi progą už labai brangiai galėtų Asadą parduoti Vakarams. Asadas, be abejo, nenori būti parduotas. Cheminė ataka atlikta prieš aukšto JAV pareigūno vizitą į Maskvą tam, kad JAV ir Rusija nesusitartų. O esminė mintis - po JAV smūgio Putino ir Rusijos reputacija nučiuožė žemiau plintuso.
Comment
-
Yra abejonių dėl JAV galimybių nuversti Asadą tik panorėjus?Parašė andyour Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
-
Nes JAV dėl jiems žinomų priežasčių taip nenusprendė. O priežastis galim nebent spėlioti. Tikėtina, kad prasidėtų etniniai valymai ar net genocidas (Šiitų/Alavitų ir kitų grupių). JAV galimai nenori tokios moralinės atsakomybės.Parašė Lettered Rodyti pranešimąPaskutinis taisė John; 2017.04.10, 11:27.Comment
-
Ne viskas taip paprasta. Sadamą Huseiną irgi mėgino nuimti taikiais metodais, bet nepavyko. Be to, Sirija ko gero dar prastesnėje politinėje padėtyje nei Afganistanas kadaise.Parašė Eimantas Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
Nekilinta karta kartoju, Assada "nuvertus", valdzia isliks. Nera taip lengva sekuliaria valstybe paversti sektarine islamo valstybe valdoma sharia
Bet nuvertus Assada bus pasiekta tik tai, kad salis buv priverstinai suskaldoma. Kurdai gaus savo Rojava, jihadistai savo islamo valstybe Idlibe, o vienokiu ar kitokiu vardu veikiantys NySA (New Syrian Army) - naftos laukus Sirijos dykumoj nuo Abu Kemal iki Palmyros ir Ghouta ribos.
Reik politinio sprendimo? Prasom - pradet stirpiai remt SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), isstraukt FSA likucius is al qaeda elementu (kad ir kaip skaiciuosi, ne daugiau 25 000 like is normaliu FSA, arba kitaip - +-25% tarp visu non-ISIS jihadistu). Prijungus normaliu FSA likucius prie SDF, gautume civilizuota buri sekuliariu, daugiau maziau protingu ir respektabiliu kovotoju, kuriu tikslas ir butu normali demokratine salis. Esant stipriai SDF, galima jau spaust ir Assada su Sirija sutikt federalizuotis ar isvis paleist esama valdzia (priminsiu, jog nuo konflikto pradzios konstitucija jau ir taip 7 kart keista).
Siuo metu turim 4 puses su skirtingais tikslais:
Sirija - Senoji Sirija iki jihado
SDF - laisva Sirijos federacija su Rojavos daline autonomija, siaures Sirija ir rytu arabiskaja Sunni Sirija.
"Sukileliai" - Islamo valstybe
ISIS - Islamo valstybe
The Huffington PostWag The Dog — How Al Qaeda Played Donald Trump And The American Media
Once upon a time, Donald J. Trump, the New York City businessman-turned-president, berated then-President Barack Obama back in September 2013 about the fallacy of an American military strike against Syria. At that time, the United States was considering the use of force against Syria in response to allegations (since largely disproven) that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Trump, via tweet, declared “to our very foolish leader, do not attack Syria – if you do many very bad things will happen & from that fight the U.S. gets nothing!”
......
Trump, breaking from the mainstream positions held by most American policy makers, Republican and Democrat alike, declared that the United States should focus on fighting and defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) and not pursuing regime change in Syria. “My attitude,” Trump noted, “was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria... Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.” Moreover, Trump observed, given the robust Russian presence inside Syria, if the United States attacked Assad, “we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.”
....
This new policy direction lasted barely five days. Sometime in the early afternoon of April 4, 2017, troubling images and video clips began to be transmitted out of the Syrian province of Idlib by anti-government activists, including members of the so-called “White Helmets,” a volunteer rescue team whose work was captured in an eponymously-named Academy Award-winning documentary film. These images showed victims in various stages of symptomatic distress, including death, from what the activists said was exposure to chemical weapons dropped by the Syrian air force on the town of Khan Sheikhoun that very morning.
Images of these tragic deaths were immediately broadcast on American media outlets, with pundits decrying the horrific and heinous nature of the chemical attack, which was nearly unanimously attributed to the Syrian government, even though the only evidence provided was the imagery and testimony of the anti-Assad activists who, just days before, were decrying the shift in American policy regarding regime change in Syria. President Trump viewed these images, and was deeply troubled by what he saw, especially the depictions of dead and suffering children.
....
Normally, such major policy change could only be explained by a new reality driven by verifiable facts. The alleged chemical weapons attack against Khan Sheikhoun was not a new reality; chemical attacks had been occurring inside Syria on a regular basis, despite the international effort to disarm Syria’s chemical weapons capability undertaken in 2013 that played a central role in forestalling American military action at that time. International investigations of these attacks produced mixed results, with some being attributed to the Syrian government (something the Syrian government vehemently denies), and the majority being attributed to anti-regime fighters, in particular those affiliated with Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate.
....
Moreover, there exists a mixed provenance when it comes to chemical weapons usage inside Syria that would seem to foreclose any knee-jerk reaction that placed the blame for what happened at Khan Sheikhoun solely on the Syrian government void of any official investigation. Yet this is precisely what occurred. Some sort of chemical event took place in Khan Sheikhoun; what is very much in question is who is responsible for the release of the chemicals that caused the deaths of so many civilians.
No one disputes the fact that a Syrian air force SU-22 fighter-bomber conducted a bombing mission against a target in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017. The anti-regime activists in Khan Sheikhoun, however, have painted a narrative that has the Syrian air force dropping chemical bombs on a sleeping civilian population.
A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population.
.....
The Russian Ministry of Defense has claimed that Liwa al-Aqsa was using facilities in and around Khan Sheikhoun to manufacture crude chemical shells and landmines intended for ISIS forces fighting in Iraq. According to the Russians the Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapons facility was mirrored on similar sites uncovered by Russian and Syrian forces following the reoccupation of rebel-controlled areas of Aleppo.
In Aleppo, the Russians discovered crude weapons production laboratories that filled mortar shells and landmines with a mix of chlorine gas and white phosphorus; after a thorough forensic investigation was conducted by military specialists, the Russians turned over samples of these weapons, together with soil samples from areas struck by weapons produced in these laboratories, to investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for further evaluation.
Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend. If the Russians are correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high.
The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor. Likewise, why would Russia, which had invested considerable political capital in the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons capability after 2013, stand by idly while the Syrian air force carried out such an attack, especially when their was such a heavy Russian military presence at the base in question at the time of the attack?
Such analysis seems beyond the scope and comprehension of the American fourth estate. Instead, media outlets like CNN embrace at face value anything they are told by official American sources, including a particularly preposterous insinuation that Russia actually colluded in the chemical weapons attack; the aforementioned presence of Russian officers at Al Shayrat air base has been cited as evidence that Russia had to have known about Syria’s chemical warfare capability, and yet did nothing to prevent the attack.
To sustain this illogic, the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the “White Helmets,” the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message (Donald Trump has all but acknowledged that these images played a major role in his decision to reevaluate his opinion of Bashar al-Assad and order the cruise missile attack on Al Shayrat airbase.)
Many of the fighters affiliated with Tahrir al-Sham are veterans of the battle for Aleppo, and as such are intimately familiar with the tools and trade of the extensive propaganda battle that was waged simultaneously with the actual fighting in an effort to sway western public opinion toward adopting a more aggressive stance in opposition to the Syrian government of Assad. These tools were brought to bear in promoting a counter-narrative about the Khan Sheikhoun chemical incident (ironically, many of the activists in question, including the “White Helmets,” were trained and equipped in social media manipulation tactics using money provided by the United States; that these techniques would end up being used to manipulate an American President into carrying out an act of war most likely never factored into the thinking of the State Department personnel who conceived and implemented the program).
Even slick media training, however, cannot gloss over basic factual inconsistencies. Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a “Sarin nerve agent” attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a “pungent odor” and “blue-yellow” clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.
And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions “filled to the brim” with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account. Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by “White Helmet” rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the video provided by the “White Helmets” is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a “White Helmet” base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there.
The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)
Labai rekomenduoju perskaityt pilna straipsni pries pasakojant apie konspiracijos teorijas
Ir vis dar laukiu irodymu, kaip SU22 galejo paleisti tris skirtingus uztaisus: mortara, duju baliona ir raketa
Ir kur irodymai, kad isvis buvo Zarinas.
Taip pat, kaip galima paaiskint, jog skrydzio planas nesutampa su "chemines atakos" vieta? JAV turi 24/7 ore 2 AWACS, vienas virs Irako, o kitas virs Jordanijos. Todel matyt, kaip juda Sirijos lektuvai gali beveik tobulai
Comment
-
/\ Irakas jau lyg ir suskilęs? Afganistane niekas lyg ir nepasikeitę nuo karo pradžios. Tikėtina, kad veikiant tais pačiais metodais ir Sirijoje gausis kažkas panašaus.Comment
-
Afganu reikalais beveik nesidomiu, tik tiek, kad ten po bisky grizta Talibanas...
Irakas federalizuosis, bet jie nuo pat pradziu neturejo problemos, jog AQ yra vadinama sukileliais. Tie AQ elementai, kurie buvo iki ISIS, iskaitant Sadamo kariuomenes likucius - prisijunge prie ISIS. Taciau Sirijoje yra AQ, kurie yra persipyne ir susilieje su "sukileliais". O 70-75% "sukileliu" sudaro AQ arba teroristinemis laikomos organizacijos (JAV, Vokietija, Iranas ir ruskiai laiko tas pacias grupes teroristais - Hayat Tahrir al Sham; Ahrar al Sham; Jaysh al Islam. Jie sudaro 70-75% visu non-ISIS kovotoju)Comment
-
Alkaidukai pasalino sviedinio likuciusis kraterio, bet nuo interneto nieko nepaslepsi:
Dabar isiziurekit, kaip atrodo tas apvalus sviedinio likutis...
Ir kaip atrodo 152mm haubicos dvinaris sviedinys, galintis nesti chemini ginkla, kuriu buvo naudojami Irake:
Taigi, turim du dalykus:
1. Nesutampanti skrydzio plana su smugio vieta.
2. Haubicos sviedini, kurio su SU22 nei per joki stebukla negaletum panaudot
Kuo toliau, tuo itartinesnis atrodo visas reikalasComment
-
Labai neblogai išdėliotos strategijos - kam ir ko Sirijoje reikia. Kaip jau seniai sakyta, viskas sukasi aplink vamzdynus. Na, ir Izraelio norus.
1983 CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria, Foreshadows Current Crisis
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...current-crisis
We judge that US interests in Syria probably would be best served by a Sunni regime as it might well include relative moderates interested in securing Western aid and investment.
Such a regime probably would be less inclined to escalate tensions with Israel.We believe Moscow's interests would be seriously jeopardized if Sunnis came to power through a civil war. Many Sunnis resent the Soviets because they are closely identified with Alawi dominance, and Sunnis would be especially hostile toward the Soviets if they had supported Alawis with military equipment and advisors in a civil war.Comment
-
gal pirma išsiaiškinkit, kas čia per žemėlapiai, kas kairėje, kas dešinėje, ir ar gali čia kokia sutampanti projekcija gautis.Parašė ViR2 Rodyti pranešimąTaip pat, kaip galima paaiskint, jog skrydzio planas nesutampa su "chemines atakos" vieta?Русский военный корабль, иди нахуй!Comment
-
Izraelis, tiksliau žydai, yra visos žmonijos istorijos kūrinys. Kitas momentas, arabai yra priešiški žydams. Tai reiškia, Izraeliui pašonėje turėti neprognozuojamus arabų režimus yra labai rizikinga.Parašė senasnamas Rodyti pranešimą
O kur tu matai vamzdynus Afganistane? Pvz. Irako nafta šiame gyvenime neatpirks karo patirtų išlaidų. JAV kompanijos tik siurba naftą, bet nafta priklauso Irakui.Comment
-
Apie Afganistaną čia ir nekalbama.O kur tu matai vamzdynus Afganistane? Pvz. Irako nafta šiame gyvenime neatpirks karo patirtų išlaidų. JAV kompanijos tik siurba naftą, bet nafta priklauso Irakui.
Valstybei ir neturi atsipirkti. Valstybė yra reikalinga karo išlaidoms padengti ar karių parūpinti, o pelnui nusigriebti yra privačios įmonės.
Comment
-
/\ Su Afganistanu buvo pvz., kad nebūtinai tai turi būti susiję su ištekliais. Tu tik pats sau kaip patogiau priskiri karo priežastimi išteklius.Comment
-
Izraeliui nėra parankiui turėti įsisiautėjusių arabų / musulmonų daugumą ne tik Artimuosiuose Rytuose, Šiaurės Afrikoje, bet dar ir Europoje.
Tiesiog Izraeliui nėra parankiui, kad muslumonai užimtų dar vieną žemyną.
Nebent tai aiškinti taip, kad visa tai vyksta dėl žydų, visi muslumonų žudymai, ir kaip ir viskas "ėjo pagal planą", kol Putinas neaktivizavo sau lojalių ES/Vokietijos lyderių ir žiniasklaidos, kad viešąją nuomonę suformuotų taip, kad in general liaudis būtų "už jų priiminėjimą".
Bet vėlgi musulmonų imigracija, kaip ir antimigracinės nuotaikos Europoje jau buvo pradėję įsisiūbuoti dar iki Sirijos.
Esu girdėjęs apie argumentą, kad USA susipliekė su Rusija dėl Sirijos dėl vamzdžių: Amerikiečių/saudų vamzdynas, kuris sutrukdytų South Stream'ui ir kitiesm Rusijos vamzdynams Pietų Europoje. Bet nesuprantu, kodėl to vamzdyno negalima būtų pravesti pro Iraką, jeigu Sirija taip sunkiai "paguldoma".Paskutinis taisė R.A.M.; 2017.04.11, 11:49.Comment
-
Kad neramumai Sirijoje dėl vamzdynų ir dujų sakė net kažkas iš Rusijos , tiksliai dabar nepamenu, bet berods Žirinovskis ar toks "istorikas" Ševčenko. Konkrečiau net sakė, kad Rusija ten būtent dėl to ir yra ilindusi, nes ji ten turi "atstovėt" savo interesus, kad nebūtų ten vamzdyno ir nesutrukdytų Rusijai su savo projektais ir išteklių pompavimais. Kalba buvo jei gerai pamenu ir apie naujų gamtinių telkinių telkinių Sirijoje radimąParašė R.A.M. Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
/\ Tai jeigu kalbame apie kažkokių naujų išteklių radimą ir jų išgavimą tai jo.
Bet ko nesuprantu, tai to, kodėl tas vamzdynas turi būtinai eiti pro Siriją jei jo pradžia būtų Gulf'e. Kodėl jis negali eiti pro Iraką?Comment
-
-
Turkija turi. Egiptas galų gale šalia, aplenkiant Izraelį, jei reikia, Akabos įlanka.Parašė Lettered Rodyti pranešimąComment
Comment