Poll: Is this a sign of progress?
Yes, it is a trend.
No, we should've used military action.
Yes, it's progress, but not indicative of a future trend.
I have no idea/Undecided
Other
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
How can you say the UN report was "oblique" and "This refers to a 105mm round. Absent further context or elaboration, this is all it refers to".

This is not absent context. The entire Appendix 5 (pages 18-23) is documenting the presumed weapon used. It goes on for several pages showing the warhead, explaining the liquid capacity, nozzles it had (I guess to spray the Sarin gas) and lots of photographs. On page 23 it states "The munition linked to this impact site, by observed and measured characteristics, indicatively matches one of the variants of the M14 artillery rocket."

Obviously they cannot say who fired it, only what was fired. And it seems to be clear it was an M14.

Nothing in my post said this proved who fired it. I only said "this seems to support Putin's claim that it was the rebels." Could the Russians have counterfeited M14, or made identical rockets? I guess. What I know about rockets is limited to what I've seen in the movies.

The issue that I found conspicuous is that the UN releases it report and concludes that an M14 was used to deliver the Sarin gas, and EVERY one of the US media leaves out that it was an M14. However, if you read the non-US media, they point this out. Even from the BBC wrote: "The delivery vehicle was a variant of the M14 artillery rocket, fired from an unspecified region to the north-west." link A war that will result in lots of civilian casualties rests on determining who fired the weapon, and the world's attention is focused on that. Thus I found it conspicuous that the US media would leave out that the weapon was US-made, and that the US doesn't sell them to the Assad regime, although it does give weapons to the rebels. You don't find it odd that all the media would leave that point out?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  How can you say the UN report was "oblique" and "This refers to a 105mm round. Absent further context or elaboration, this is all it refers to".

This is not absent context. The entire Appendix 5 (pages 18-23) is documenting the presumed weapon used. It goes on for several pages showing the warhead, explaining the liquid capacity, nozzles it had (I guess to spray the Sarin gas) and lots of photographs. On page 23 it states "The munition linked to this impact site, by observed and measured characteristics, indicatively matches one of the variants of the M14 artillery rocket."

Obviously they cannot say who fired it, only what was fired. And it seems to be clear it was an M14.

Nothing in my post said this proved who fired it. I only said "this seems to support Putin's claim that it was the rebels." Could the Russians have counterfeited M14, or made identical rockets? I guess. What I know about rockets is limited to what I've seen in the movies.

The issue that I found conspicuous is that the UN releases it report and concludes that an M14 was used to deliver the Sarin gas, and EVERY one of the US media leaves out that it was an M14. However, if you read the non-US media, they point this out. Even from the BBC wrote: "The delivery vehicle was a variant of the M14 artillery rocket, fired from an unspecified region to the north-west." link A war that will result in lots of civilian casualties rests on determining who fired the weapon, and the world's attention is focused on that. Thus I found it conspicuous that the US media would leave out that the weapon was US-made, and that the US doesn't sell them to the Assad regime, although it does give weapons to the rebels. You don't find it odd that all the media would leave that point out?

Actually no, but then I didn't bother to read the reports about the report I just went and read the actual report. From the pictures and descriptions it is a variant of M14 and is stamped with a cyrillic id on the bottom fin. I'm not a weapons expert but that seems to indicate Russian built not US built. As far as that goes it doesn't eliminate either side as Russian built weapons are practically a currency in the middle east. But as for your claims they are very disingenuous at the best and flat out dishonest at the worst.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Quote:But as for your claims they are very disingenuous at the best and flat out dishonest at the worst.

Not at all. When I read on BBC.co.uk that an M14 was used, I didn't even know that was. So I googled it. Every source I found said that M14's were US made, like this: wikipedia.

When I googled "Russian M14", I couldn't find any reference to any Russian rocket launchers that were called M14's--only a hand gun called the M14P. Every reference to "M14 rocket" I found only referred to US weapons. But I admit I know nothing about this stuff. So if I'm wrong, and the UN report is referring to a Russian M14, then it's simply a lack of knowledge.

However, the point I was making is still that the non-US news sites said the M14 was the weapon used, and the US news sites left this off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(16-09-2013 03:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:But as for your claims they are very disingenuous at the best and flat out dishonest at the worst.

Not at all. When I read on BBC.co.uk that an M14 was used, I didn't even know that was. So I googled it. Every source I found said that M14's were US made, like this: wikipedia.

When I googled "Russian M14", I couldn't find any reference to any Russian rocket launchers that were called M14's--only a hand gun called the M14P. Every reference to "M14 rocket" I found only referred to US weapons. But I admit I know nothing about this stuff. So if I'm wrong, and the UN report is referring to a Russian M14, then it's simply a lack of knowledge.

However, the point I was making is still that the non-US news sites said the M14 was the weapon used, and the US news sites left this off.

Well if that is the case then it was the BBC that was guilty of bad journalism because the report says "A variant of the M14" not an M14. Seem as though they were pushing an angle more so than the US sites that didn't mention it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 04:38 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2013 04:53 PM by cjlr.)
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  How can you say the UN report was "oblique" and "This refers to a 105mm round. Absent further context or elaboration, this is all it refers to".

That is all it says. It describes measurements and specifications in some detail (at least, so far as they may be reconstructed). It makes no claim as to origin.

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is not absent context. The entire Appendix 5 (pages 18-23) is documenting the presumed weapon used. It goes on for several pages showing the warhead, explaining the liquid capacity, nozzles it had (I guess to spray the Sarin gas) and lots of photographs. On page 23 it states "The munition linked to this impact site, by observed and measured characteristics, indicatively matches one of the variants of the M14 artillery rocket."

Yes. See above. One might, however, also note the cyrillic characters marked on the recovered weapon fragments.

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Obviously they cannot say who fired it, only what was fired. And it seems to be clear it was an M14.

No. It was similar to variants of the M14. That's all it says.

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Nothing in my post said this proved who fired it.

You said it was fired from US-made weapons. That is a positive claim. Do you retract it?

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I only said "this seems to support Putin's claim that it was the rebels."

Well,
(16-09-2013 12:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The UN just released a report that the Sarin gas was fired from US-made M14 rocket launchers, ...

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Could the Russians have counterfeited M14, or made identical rockets? I guess. What I know about rockets is limited to what I've seen in the movies.

Yes. So the conclusions you drew from the report as to the weapon type, which went beyond the conclusions of the report itself - they were based on that knowledge?

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The issue that I found conspicuous is that the UN releases it report and concludes that an M14 was used to deliver the Sarin gas, and EVERY one of the US media leaves out that it was an M14.

They didn't say "it was an M14". They said "indicative of variants of the M14".

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  However, if you read the non-US media, they point this out. Even from the BBC wrote: "The delivery vehicle was a variant of the M14 artillery rocket, fired from an unspecified region to the north-west." link A war that will result in lots of civilian casualties rests on determining who fired the weapon, and the world's attention is focused on that. Thus I found it conspicuous that the US media would leave out that the weapon was US-made

The report does not say that.

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  and that the US doesn't sell them to the Assad regime

Which is likely true but irrelevant besides.

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  although it does give weapons to the rebels.

Again, likely true, but not germane.

(16-09-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You don't find it odd that all the media would leave that point out?

What, not point out your own personal unsubstantiated speculation? No, I'm not actually surprised they left that out.


EDIT: Note, also, that the "M14 variant" was only one recovered weapon. The second was a 330mm round (unnamed).

Also: my bad on one detail: the rocket was not a 105mm round, as I'd assumed based on the M14 designation (M14 originally designated, in America, a 105mm artillery shell); it was in fact a 140mm rocket. Let the speculation commence!

Also note: the only weapon in current service by the US currently designated M14 just happens to be 4.5'' calibre (that's ~115mm). Yeah.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-09-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Kudos to cjlr and Rev!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
16-09-2013, 05:20 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
@cjlr, I read off the BBC that it was an M14, which, based on googling around indicated was a US-made weapon. However, as I read the UN report I see that it's not specific about who made the weapon.

Therefore, yes, I retract my statement that it was "US-made weapons", and concede that this is TOTALLY outside my realm of expertise and will defer to you if you know more about this. I've got no inclination to educate myself on military weaponry. Smile

However, the part of this discussion that I do spend inordinate amounts of time researching from top to bottom is the connection to the PetroDollar. And, every time I post about it I'm more and more convinced it is the right explanation since nobody has ever seriously disputed any of the facts or conclusions on this or any other forum I've talked about it. Earlier in this thread BryanS wrote that he doubted Iran really had the power to cause such damage to the US because he doubted that if oil was traded in other currencies it would topple the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. So I responded (post #65) with all the facts and statistics showing that US dollars to buy oil are the US's #1 export and asked him what theory he had for the 100% perfect correlation over the past 40 years that every time a country has started selling oil in other currencies the US has attacked, and I asked what he thought would happen to the US dollar if the blockade against Iran was lifted, thus ending the US's global monopoly as the exclusive middle-man for all oil sales worldwide. No reply. And this has repeated in every other post I've made about this. The facts are inescapable, but nobody wants to accept that this situation is very easily explained, and that the Syria conflict is just a pretext for an attack on Iran. Time will tell. I've stated my concrete prediction several times that an attack on Iran or one of Iran's mutual-defense allies is inevitable within the next few years, and this 'diplomatic option' is something Obama has to appear to support so that the Dems aren't seen as the warmongers the Reps are. The test of the theory will be how well it can predict future conflicts. So far it has a 100% perfect track record. We'll see if that holds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
@cjlr, btw, NY times headline is: Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas

Since you criticized me for concluding that because the UN report stated "M14" it means it was US-made weapons, and made me retract, pointing out the UN report was careful not to assign any blame and that there was nothing in the report to indicate which side fired the rockets, will you not agree that the NY Times is making the same leap I did, and should also retract that story?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(16-09-2013 07:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr, btw, NY times headline is: Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas

Since you criticized me for concluding that because the UN report stated "M14" it means it was US-made weapons, and made me retract, pointing out the UN report was careful not to assign any blame and that there was nothing in the report to indicate which side fired the rockets, will you not agree that the NY Times is making the same leap I did, and should also retract that story?

Yes, it is dishonest either way. At best one can draw a tentative conclusion that the rockets appear to be russian made, but as to who fired the ordinances it is not stated one way or the other.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(16-09-2013 07:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr, btw, NY times headline is: Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas

Since you criticized me for concluding that because the UN report stated "M14" it means it was US-made weapons, and made me retract, pointing out the UN report was careful not to assign any blame and that there was nothing in the report to indicate which side fired the rockets, will you not agree that the NY Times is making the same leap I did, and should also retract that story?

Absolutely. They should refrain from such editorial comments.

It's all right to quote sources saying that, as they do eventually do, but to phrase it the way they do - "strongly implicated Syrian government" in the opening paragraph - is taking a heavy slant.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: