Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the nothing-to-see-here-just-randomly-firing-missiles dept.

United States 227

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joshua Mitnick reports that Israel and the U.S. carried out a missile test over the Mediterranean Sea on Tuesday morning that was detected by Russian surveillance systems. Israel's defense ministry eventually said a Sparrow rocket had been fired to simulate a ballistic missile attack on the Jewish state to test the Arrow interceptor system. The Arrow – which wasn't fired Tuesday – has been developed to defend against long range rockets primarily from Iran, a main patron of the Syrian regime. Arieh Herzog, a former Israeli missile defense director, says that the Sparrow missile is developed to simulate 'the worst threats' in the region so Israel can hone the capabilities of the Arrow III missile interceptor. Herzog speculated that the launch Tuesday was done at a considerably long range. Another Israeli expert said the incident could be seen as muscle flexing by the U.S. and Israel. 'You could say perhaps its show of strength to Syria and its Iranian ally — that Israel has a range of options at its disposal. And to place pressure on Assad and Iran that Israel takes [retaliation threats] seriously,' says Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer on Iranian politics at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. Pentagon press secretary George Little said the U.S. 'provided technical assistance and support to the Israeli Missile Defense Organization flight test of a Sparrow target missile over the Mediterranean Sea.' 'The United States and Israel cooperate on a number of long-term ballistic missile defense development projects to address common challenges in the region,' added Little. 'This test had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack.'"

cancel ×

227 comments

Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag... (0)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44755135)

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755175)

The hacker uploaded a load of email correspondence [pastebin.com] for several security contractors to pastebin, their wives and a colonel or two. it is being taken offline as fast as it is being distributed... it certainly does look damning evidence. Is anybody surprised given that we know Syria has been on the chopping block ever since "The New American Century" [globalresearch.ca] was published...

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (5, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44755419)

Wouldn't an American general and his friends speak English? This looks like fake to me. The language seems unnatural for a native speaker. Some examples:

"Hope to see you soon again."
"Thanks God, they are alive. I hope they got a kind of present or some cash."
"I saw it either and got afraid very much."
"I see their faces when in sleep. What did Tony say you about this?"

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755553)

Wouldn't your average /. commenter (and his friends, if any) speak English?

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a year ago | (#44755587)

Yea this is a load of crap. People need to think more. You get to be in political power by always coming out on the winning side of the risk to benefit equation. The risk to president Obama that would come from giving the rebels chemical weapons is through the roof. The benefit is at best tiny. Just not in the cards folks.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44755803)

Yeah I agree the hacked email story does not look very credible.

The risk to president Obama that would come from giving the rebels chemical weapons is through the roof. The benefit is at best tiny. Just not in the cards folks.

Same logic could apply to Syria's leadership. What strategic military importance was there to using chemical weapons on a remote village full of civilians Vs the enormous risk of UN invasion by using them. I suspect the most likely suspects behind the attack are third parties that stand to gain by an invasion (i.e. not US, not current Syrian regime either).

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44756145)

Looks perfectly legit. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wire $1,000 to my barrister in London so he can free up the one million GBP waiting for me.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755427)

I dunno, i'd have to remain skeptical of those. A lot of the emails with lines of dialogue pertaining to the gas attack in them sound like the writer suddenly forgot how to speak english. Not at all the same flow as the rest of the emails.

Smells more like "Extremely weak fakery" than anything, but then sometimes i'm absolutely amazed at how people are completely unable to communicate in english these days so who knows.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (4, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about a year ago | (#44755863)

The cynicism amongst some people is so strong that they'll blindly believe any shred of evidence regardless of how fake it looks. It's a good and healthy thing to question, but to buy into every stupid conspiracy theory that comes along is idiotic. They're only capable of being cynical in one direction which means the right interests will be able to easily exploit their naivete.

I bet the guys who posted those supposed emails read the summary and in their gleeful rush to share this crap neglected to dig any deeper. But I guarantee you that a year from now people will continue repeating this story and all blog links will lead right back to this particular site. When it comes to this sort of thing blogs tend to be a circle jerk where everyone uses everyone else's blog as proof for their claims.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (2)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44755333)

Yup, they're so real they didn't have to include the headers.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755349)

You can download all the correspondence from pastebin (well, a few hours ago you could).. All headers are there...

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755335)

Looks very fake. Someone mentioned that the signature files don't match up

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755491)

Could be however the full email correspondence dump has a lot of stuff to go through...

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755357)

I wouldn't put it past the people who run the U.S. to lie their way into war like they have done before. But those emails look fake to me. No American writes like that.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755381)

Sorry, but did you download/read the emails? Look totally legit and there are thousands of lines for you to read... defiantly legit.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755619)

any time they get to one of the points that mentions gas attack its like the writer just had a stroke and can no longer form sentences.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755521)

"Submitted by: Said Al-Khalaki (Freelance journalist)"

Yeah Terrorists everywhere blaming Freedom Fighters for everything. We will free the living shit out of all the coutries. FOR MURICA!

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

Flammon (4726) | about a year ago | (#44755543)

Oh the irony. If the US is behind this attack, shouldn't the rest of the world gather and attack them? Didn't Obama argue that international law must be enforced?

http://youtu.be/o2TmDtj9oPg?t=3m10s [youtu.be]

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755651)

I call BS because said colonel uses "yahoo" mail instead of .mil. Right.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

leehwtsohg (618675) | about a year ago | (#44755759)

I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But
data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly
reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44756177)

I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?

I don't see how you get your first question, no comments here even imply that the videos were faked. The question that is pertinent is "who used the chemical?". Are you perhaps confused by the term "False Flag"? The term does not imply that an event did not happen, but rather implies that the event was staged. This is the Hegelian dialectic (problem => reaction => solution).

John Kerry last week stated that it did not matter who used chemical weapons. That statement is absolutely wrong, and I really hope you are intelligent enough to know that Kerry was wrong.

Re:Leaked evidence chemical attack was false flag. (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44755907)

troll. fake.

Entirely Sensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755153)

In a time of rising tensions in the Middle East, what could make more sense than an unannounced missile test which could be easily misinterpreted?

Re:Entirely Sensible (4, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44755183)

I agree. It's difficult to believe they really think they can intimidate these guys. The one running Iran is crazy and the one in Syria is desperate. They aren't going to be put off by a missile test. Of course it's possible Israel is just trying to iron out the kinks in the system in preperation for the shit that is about to hit the fan. I think that a strike is almost inevitable at this point.

Re:Entirely Sensible (4, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44755297)

Intimidate? More like trying to provoke an attack - better to claim the moral high ground over blatantly starting what will be a very bloody high civilian casualty war. "We were just running an innocent missile test, and they attacked us...". Echo's of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Entirely Sensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755539)

Makes complete sense. No, wait. They launched the missile towards the Mediterranean, away from any countries that could feel threatened. They also did it in complete media silence until Russia announced that their radars picked it up, and only then admitted to doing so.

Doesn't seem like starting a war to me...

Re:Entirely Sensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756117)

No, wait. All counties usually announce missile tests and war-games before they happen, so that there will be no misunderstandings.

Sounds like trying starting a war to me...

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755833)

I don't think anyone is intimidated. This is the Middle East, after all. It has been the subject of conquest by many "civilizations" since before recorded history. Those who live there are used to a slew of intimidation efforts.

I think the Israelis are looking to confirm that their defensive Anti-Ballistic Missile defenses have a fighting chance of working. If Syrian action were imminent, there may well be missiles aimed at Israel, just as there were during the Iraq war. I would want to know that such defensive weapons worked before launching an attack.

It is also a warning to Iran that Israel would probably survive a missile attack enough to retaliate in kind. The Iranian government may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

Re:Entirely Sensible (1, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44755869)

Any reason you didn't link to the first attack? You're not trying to mislead people, are you?

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44755999)

Probably because of this, right at the top of the link:

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:

At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]

Who is trying to mislead, then?

Re:Entirely Sensible (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44756147)

So, the Maddox really was attacked then. Thank you.

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44756447)

From the link I posted: "President Johnson ordered the Maddox and Turner Joy to stage daylight runs into North Vietnamese waters, testing the twelve-mile (19 km) limit and North Vietnamese resolve.". If that is not provoking an attack with the aim of starting a war, Id like to know what is. So yes thank you - the first "attack" also supports the case.

For someone accusing others of misleading, your sure going out of your way to mislead people yourself.

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44756537)

Once again you obscure the facts. The Maddox was attacked in international waters, not North Vietnamese waters. Just as North Vietnam was conducting a war of aggression against South Vietnam, it also engaged in aggression at sea.

Actions in the Gulf of Tonkin, August 1964 [navy.mil]

On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated.

Re:Entirely Sensible (4, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44756741)

That was the official story from 1964 until the start of this century when...

This account, however, has come into sharp dispute with an internal NSA historical study[7] which stated on page 17:

At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]

The Maddox when confronted, was approaching Hòn Mê Island, three to four miles (6 km) inside the twelve-mile (19 km) limit claimed by North Vietnam. This territorial limit was unrecognized by the United States. After the skirmish, President Johnson ordered the Maddox and Turner Joy to stage daylight runs into North Vietnamese waters, testing the twelve-mile (19 km) limit and North Vietnamese resolve. These runs into North Vietnamese territorial waters coincided with South Vietnamese coastal raids and were interpreted as coordinated operations by the North, which officially acknowledged the engagements of 2 August 1964.[22]

So please, if you have issues with the historical account as it currently stands, take it up with the professional historians - plenty of them standing by on wikipedia and elsewhere to rip your blatant fact manipulation to shreds. Also lets not get into the long list of other false flag operations [startpage.com] that have been used to start wars - not like it is anything new.

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44755625)

As crazy as the Iranian government seems, they are almost certainly not that stupid. What do you suppose would happen to the Iranian government and their ayatollahs if they shot missiles at Israel?

Re:Entirely Sensible (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755689)

They're also not even aggressive. They've been bombed and threatened and all kinds of bullshit by the US for so long, and they've done barely anything in retaliation.

I mean, the fucking CIA used chemical weapons on them in the Iraq-Iran war, then the US blamed Iran. A US ship illegally entered Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not even a good country - but compared to the aggressors here, it's practically Hello Kitty.

Re:Entirely Sensible (0, Troll)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44755805)

As crazy as the Iranian government seems, they are almost certainly not that stupid. What do you suppose would happen to the Iranian government and their ayatollahs if they shot missiles at Israel?

If they felt there was a good chance of removing Israel from the region, I'm not sure. There's a lot of glory to be had (in the jihadist mind) when it comes to mutually assured destruction. They get 70-some-odd virgins and go to paradise and their enemy gets destroyed. I don't know how many "true believers" there are in the Iranian government, but I'd guess it's more than none.

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44755657)

The one running Iran is crazy

And what "one" would that be? The word is Dinner Jacket is just a civil administrator; the nation is run by a council.

Re:Entirely Sensible (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44756355)

The one running Iran is crazy

If you're talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, he's not crazy at all: He acts crazy to try to keep the US from attacking his country. And pursuing a nuclear weapon also isn't a dumb move, because the US has made it clear that it leaves countries with nukes and crazy-seeming leaders (e.g. North Korea) alone while attacking countries without nukes (e.g. Iraq).

If you're talking about the current guy running Iran, Hassan Rouhani, he ran on a campaign of negotiating with foreign powers and more centrist policies, and is decidedly not crazy.

Re:Entirely Sensible (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44756681)

Ahmannadinijad [sic] was never running the country. He was nothing more than a Secretary of State analog. The clerics run Iran. But, it's an ingenious setup because it kept the Western world focused on the short, loud one (didn't he lose his last election?).

Childish (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44755179)

I'm just swinging my fist 1mm from your face, I'm not touching you, you can't stop me, there's no law against swinging your arms, stop touching my hands with your face, ha ha ha!

Except that in this case instead of getting kicked by an irate sibling some stuff might be blown up.

Re:Childish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755255)

This describes israel to a T. Petulent and childish. if something doesn't go the way they want it to, they stamp their feet and cry antisemitism. Why does the US put up with their shit. I know, they control most of the wealth in the US.

Re:Childish (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44755355)

Regional strategic ally. Most of the middle east hates the US - there are some fundemental social tensions involved, as well as political and historic reasons for hostility. But it's still a region of great global importance (ie, oil), so it can't just be forgotten. Israel is an ally in a place where an ally is a very useful thing.

Re:Childish (0)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44755711)

Trashing all your world credibility to please one tiny little ally. Yes, well done. Sounds logical.

Re:Childish (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44756167)

So what you're saying is that Israel isn't allowed to test their defense systems? What you probably really mean is for them to all be pushed into the sea like the peaceful Arab "Palestinians" would like.

Re:Childish (2)

stdarg (456557) | about a year ago | (#44756467)

The world is divided based on culture and religion. America could shit all over the Middle East and Europe isn't going to disown us and China isn't going to stop trading with us. They're just not connected.

Re:Childish (1, Flamebait)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44755721)

Most of the middle east hates the US - there are some fundemental social tensions involved, as well as political and historic reasons for hostility.

With sentences like that you could be a politician. What you mean is that the US screws with governments and creates racial tensions in the region, and has been doing so for as long as most people living there have been alive.

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755269)

US, Stop screwin' around. You screw around too much.

Re:Childish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755459)

US, Stop screwin' around. You screw around too much.

Will come to bite them by the ass: with Shia side of the muslim world weakened (thus less sectarian conflict), it will be easier for Sunnies to focus on their caliphate restauration dream (al'Qaeda are the extremist sunni)

Re:Childish (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755695)

Yeah that's the typical American attitude. Reminds me of their cops in full SWAT uniform with 5 of his buddies repeatedly slamming someone's face into the ground while yelling "STOP RESISTING!". And THEN they charge you for assaulting an officer, for bleeding on him.

You know the US has milked 9/11 so much it makes me sick. Sept 12 2001, America had the world's sympathy. Those days are long long gone. In fact many are now thinking it's time America got put in its place. Either stop the constant aggression, or you will be stopped.

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756599)

Except that in THIS case the missle was not AIMED at Syria. Or do you believe
that Syria gets to claim the entire Mediterranean Sea as its territory?

I just swung my fist. It was no where near you.

Are you really STUPID enough to think I was swinging at you?
It sure seems like it.

You are not simply Childish ...

  “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
  Albert Einstein

Sign the petition to stop the war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755193)

We need to end this madness, this is not Sparta!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/no-war-syria/QcTV4m0F

Mistake in Article (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755205)

By Missile we mean Democracy Spreading Device.

Re:Mistake in Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756431)

We need to take that said missile and shove it up every liberals a$$ especially John the hypocrite Kerry's. It takes a special liberal to be for this "police action", I hope they sign up their kids to go get their blood spilled for a pipe line, no blood for...

Everyone in the us government needs to be tossed in Leavenworth. Lets set the world a fire children.

International Dickwaving. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755221)

Why don't we stay the fuck out of syria. Neither side likes us. We can't 'win' anything.
We're going to piss away a bunch more lives and money we don't have, for what?

Re:International Dickwaving. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755299)

Relevance.

Re:International Dickwaving. (2, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44755609)

Why don't we stay the fuck out of syria. Neither side likes us. We can't 'win' anything.
We're going to piss away a bunch more lives and money we don't have, for what?

Because Israel was always under threat from Iran/Syria and... surprise... the house of Saudi doesn't like them either (Sunni vs Shia). So, they need somebody with enough clout to handle the hot potato, even against UN council, and the US of A seem vain [globalresearch.ca] (or, is it moronic already?) enough to think they can do it, perhaps even doing it alone.
This will be a good business period for Saudis (selling more oil) and Russia (keeping Syria armed enough), awful for Turkey, Lebanon and possibly Jordan (dealing with refugee exodus).

Re:International Dickwaving. (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44755743)

Under threat? Tell me when the last Israeli-Syrian war was again? That's like saying the US is always under threat from Mexico. You realize at one point you have to have neighbors, right?

Re:International Dickwaving. (3, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44756087)

Syria - Shia/Alawite govt in spite of a Sunni majority (which is what irritates Saudi Arabia), sustained in power mainly by Iranian support. Now, I wonder if you remember this [theworld.org] ?

Other than that, if you really want to lose your mind, have a nice day, sir. [washingtonpost.com]

I really think the best strategic move for USA is to stay out of it: in such a nightmarish overlapping/conflicting seas of interest, it wouldn't take too much for the players to want a simplification: what would be easier than to explain to a population driven crazy by war than "The US devils are to blame" - they'll forget quite quckly about their internal quibbles.

Re:International Dickwaving. (3, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | about a year ago | (#44756093)

Under threat? Tell me when the last Israeli-Syrian war was again? That's like saying the US is always under threat from Mexico. You realize at one point you have to have neighbors, right?

The last Israeli-Syrian war was in 1973... formally. There have been almost continual exchanges of fire between the two countries since that war, however. During most of the several invasions of Lebanon that happened later, Syria backed one or more of the groups involved (Lebanon has been a total basket case of a country for some time). It also doesn't help that from a Syrian point of view Israel is sitting on some of their land (the Golan Heights specifically) and wouldn't mind taking some of that back if the opportunity presented itself. There isn't really much trade that moves between Israel and Syria as well I might add.

Then again there is talk of the "reconquista" in Mexico too, but that is based off of a claim from a war that happened 170 years ago and isn't really taken all that seriously for a great many reasons.

Re:International Dickwaving. (3, Insightful)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44755939)

Uh, Syria was until quite recently one of our supporters in the region. We've had generally decent to good relations with the Assad regime. It cooled a bit since he started killing his people, but we tend to take a dim view of those who would kill their people because they started talkng democracy.

Re:International Dickwaving. (4, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | about a year ago | (#44756199)

Uh, Syria was until quite recently one of our supporters in the region. We've had generally decent to good relations with the Assad regime. It cooled a bit since he started killing his people, but we tend to take a dim view of those who would kill their people because they started talkng democracy.

A fair point to make. Even more oddly is how Syria was even a military allay during the Gulf War.... where Syria fielded a full division of soldiers and took orders directly from an American general (Schwarzkopf) in that war.

The funny thing about Syria is how there are numerous photos and videos of Assad having dinner with both John Kerry and Barack Obama, not to mention an official state visit by Assad to the White House.... and Obama going to Syria himself. Yeah, it was a close relationship. You wonder what Assad did to piss off the Obama administration?

No I don't think the gas attack, at least by itself, was the act. Heck, the Obama administration has been funding "rebels" in Syria for awhile now... well before that supposed gas attack.

Re:International Dickwaving. (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44756485)

Yeah, it was a close relationship. You wonder what Assad did to piss off the Obama administration?

He did nothing; others, however, may have made an offer US seems unable to refuse.

Re:International Dickwaving. (1)

umghhh (965931) | about a year ago | (#44756563)

This is probably not the calculation they are doing.
We do not know who triggered use of WMD in the first place - maybe these were Russians trying to see if their defense systems in Syria are up for the task or an accident (unlikely in all these places though), whoever did use WMD we may be better off if we (the West) at least try to show our muscle around. This will not fix anything in Syria and most likely than not leaves WMD capability intact or only slightly affected. So the the only positive effect we may achieve is a bit of caution on the side of Syria next time they think of using WMD and the same globally when some adversary thinks US is weak and out of breath as this is more dangerous than actual risk of Russia or China actually committing their military to attack on US.

Nothing much you may think but I doubt if more can be achieved and if more is really desired.

Re:International Dickwaving. (3, Interesting)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year ago | (#44756661)

To distract the rest of the world from our spying programs.

They initially denied it. (1)

arisvega (1414195) | about a year ago | (#44755231)

News agencies in South EU mentioned that when the Russians spotted the missile in the morning, the US denied the incident (i.e. "what missile"). Later in that afternoon (local time) Israel and the US confirmed that it was part of a joined drill.

'This test had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack.'

HAHAHHAHHAHA

Re:They initially denied it. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44755601)

Pretty much. Sparrow missile, which is normally air-to-air and radar-guided, fired on a ballistic path toward an ally, so the ally could calibrate the radar (can't see any other test of an anti-missile system that does NOT fire that makes any sense).

Big whoop....

NPR is banging the drums for war... (5, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44755291)

Now that Dear Leader Obama is the president and has decided that we all need to give war a chance, NPR has taken to calling anyone who doesn't want his war to be an "isolationist."

  You'll note that this term was never used against people who disagreed with wars in Afghanistan or Iraq... instead those people were "anti-war" or "pro-peace". We basically need another Republican as president so that the press can go back to attacking the president instead of being his trained lapdog.

Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (3, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44755385)

You'll note that this term was never used against people who disagreed with wars in Afghanistan or Iraq...

Yeah, they were called traitors by the same right wing propaganda outlets you get your talking points from. Can you be anymore obvious?

Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755775)

I don't think the label is meant as an insult and actually in both cases you mention (anti-war, isolationist) the people described would largely agree with the labels. One of the main arguments against is that what happens in Syria does not affect the US and that therefore the US shouldn't get involved - that has always been the isolationist argument. Isolationism has a long history in the US, going back at least as far as the second world war.

Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755831)

Little bit different from Iraq... we've actually got a few hundred bodies that are believed to have been exposed to some form of chemical weapon, since they don't show much sign of being attacked aside from a nasty case of being dead, as opposed to fabricated evidence and assurances that by all rights should have a bunch of ex-Bush Administration people looking at war crimes charges.

I'm not surprised that Obama's getting bipartisan support here, either. I'm pretty thoroughly fatigued by the Iraq/Afghanistan/Bush-Likes-Shooting-Brown-People wars, too, but even I'm not terribly against at least turning big portions of Syria into a glass parking lot. One has to imagine that if someone gets away with deploying nerve gas against primarily-civilian populations, there's a real chance that the next thing we'll see will be Sarin being let loose on Israel, and considering that Jewish Americans like Adelson are big donors, everyone but the hardcore "screw Obama" crowd has got to be listening real close.

Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (2, Informative)

Notabadguy (961343) | about a year ago | (#44756373)

Alright.

One side is killing the other side with chemical weapons. The other side is killing the first side, cutting them up, and eating them. Atrocities are off the chain on both sides. Which human right violations do you support? Which group of bad people do you support? Do you prefer cannibalism and torture or chemical weapons?

Which side is the U.S. supposed to get behind?

There is no winning here. There are no good guys. This is no different than if we were to support one of the Mexican drug cartels in exterminating another. Torture, rape, chopping off of heads, kidnapping, extortion, bribing, murder - it's going to happen anyway. We shouldn't encourage it. Both sides are bad.

In this case, Russia, China, and the entirety of the continent of Asia has proximity and capability. Let them sort it out.

Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44756577)

Both sides are bad.

Both? This must be the understatement of the year: count them again, please [washingtonpost.com] .

Other than that, the PP is spot on

Re:NPR is banging the drums for war... (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44755961)

again, you're conflating those who say one thing now with those who said another thing before, in order to put a left/right them/us spin on it.
most of the people saying one thing now, said the same thing before. most of us actualyl have principles that we stick to (not counting politicians)

Wait, what? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44756243)

If you were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you were a terrorist or pro-terrorists by Bush's statements. Did you forget the whole "you are either for us or against us" speech used and intended to stifle questioning policy? MSM labelled many people unpatriotic as well as pro-terrorist.

Huge stockpiles of weapons want to be unloaded (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755367)

Wars are always great news for US. So many jobs depends on it. Warehouses are so overloaded and factories working at full steam. Common brothers and sisters let's bomb someone. Let's unload it on some country.

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755387)

Why does the U.S. care about this conflict? Seems to me there's more important issues to be resolving at present.

Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44755399)

Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea, unannounced, with all of the threats of a US strike on Syria. What could possibly go wrong?

Or perhaps the idea was to see if someone would fire back. It sure would be a lot more convenient to fire off a bunch of Tomahawks "in self defense" right now.

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a year ago | (#44755649)

1. There was a NOTAM filed for the test. It was not unannounced. Russia just said they detected it and not that they where surprised by it.
2. This is an anti-ballistic missile that was tested and not a ground attack missile. It shoots down other missiles. AKA it is a defensive weapon.
I have to wonder if this is why we have not found any other intelligent life. Once a planet develops the internet people find news sources that reinforce their world view and fears. As a group we become dumb and dumber because we keep seeking sources that tell us we are right. The divisions become greater and greater and people dumb and less tolerant all the while believing they are more informed and open minded until it all falls apart.

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44756353)

My mistake. I didn't read TFA, just glanced through a couple of comments that said it was unannounced.

With all of the partisanship these days, it's hard to find anything that isn't slanted toward some extreme view. At least in the US. Frankly it's gotten to the point that I don't have the energy to sift through it to figure out the truth.

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44756371)

It shoots down other missiles. AKA it is a defensive weapon.

A "defensive" weapon. What does that even mean, when the context here is explicitly that of repelling a counter-attack to our first strike?

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44756723)

Wow, if what you posted is correct score one more for 21st century Slashdot dumbing down the conversation. About 50% of the discussion here is predicated on both those points being unknown.

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755765)

Actually it was aimed at a bird as a warning. Never, ever shit on the car again!

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about a year ago | (#44755991)

Disclaimer: I live in Israel.

Fire back where exactly, at the sea, for a missile not aimed at anyone?
I'd think there's a little bit more subtlety to these things than "OMG, missile launch detected, quick, fire everything we've got at everyone we don't like!".
And while the situation might be a bit tense at the moment in the area, that is often the case, and missile tests are still done, satellites are still launched and military drills still performed, often without prior notice to anyone who might be interested.

Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44756517)

Fire back where exactly,

The ship that fired it. I was mistaken about the fact that the test was announced. Still, I don't feel that conducting military tests like this in an already tense situation is a great idea. I'm in the US. We've cancelled military exercises in areas in the past that were less tense than this. Our government has also been very critical of other countries conducting these types of exercises too. Of course reaction is more nuanced than "ZOMG, missiles!". But in this situation, our president has been pretty clear that he wants to blow up some stuff. Skipping a rock seems pretty provocative after all of the recent talk of retaliation.

Hard to believe (2)

rastos1 (601318) | about a year ago | (#44755429)

First: shortly after Russia reported that they detected a missile launch, Pentagon denied having anything to do with that. Now it is reported that both USA and Israel conducted the test together. Is USA just stepping in for Israel? Don't they not even pretend to be impartial?

Second: who in their right mind approves to test a ballistic missile in Syria's backyard in this situation? Do they also give matches to kids with "go, play somewhere in some stacked hay"?

Re:Hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755573)

First: Nope, the USA aren't impartial and never claimed to be. Unless being impartial means threatening Syria with an attack and calling Israel an ally several times.

Second: Since when is Israel Syria's backyard? It's where they develop and plan on using their missile defense system, thus it's where they test it.

Re:Hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756637)

Israel is not Syrias backyard. But it might be very soon. If You attacked a country You'd like a friendly state to take over it.

Join the US army... and die for Israel.

Just a test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755633)

My hunch is this is was a bit like when I worked at Eglin AFB in the late 1960s. Every so often, the USAF would pull an aging ground-to-air missile out of its warehouses and use it for some purpose before it had to be scrapped. The rockets were fired up into the ionosphere creating a pretty glow for scientific purposes. The even older air-breathing ones were converted into drones and fighters would use them for target practice. It was one of the latter that, when its self-destructive system failed after being badly shot up, may have overflow Cuba, creating similarly silly furor.

Sparrows have been in our military inventory since the 1950s, going through many revisions. I suspect this was an old one that our military tweaked to act like a fast-moving, warhead-bearing missile. Using it to test Israel's anti-missile capabilities was a good move and was ho-hum ordinary to anyone who knows how the military works. They practice and test constantly.

Of course, this has also provoked hysteria in the ever-clueless press. I know the Atlantic Wire had a particularly silly story. It also got the conspiracy buffs all in a dither. They forget that no publicity accompanied this test, so it had nothing to do with intimidating Syria. And it involved a single air-to-air missile weighing perhaps 500 pounds--hardly the stuff of global power politics.

It was just a US test of the Russian systems (3, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44755671)

The US fired the missile unannounced . . . to see if the Russian surveillance systems could spot it . . . and if the Russians could warn their Syrian pals about it.

They're just probing the target's defenses at this point. Nothing new here. The US military folks just want to see how good the Russian made stuff is, before they do anything for real.

Re:It was just a US test of the Russian systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756009)

A sensible theory, except...

The Sparrow missile is not a subtle tool. - They've been around for longer than the officers that fired them last week . - back when a F117 was bleeding edge of stealth and that kind of tech was very rare and way too expensive to use on this scale.

My point being... testing somebody's air defense with a Sparrow is like testing their home security system by knocking on their front door to see if they can detect you. - It was a "softball" target for the new Israeli system; I would be stunned if the Russians had actually missed it.

limited action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755751)

I feel like I woke up on Bizarro World. Mr. Winter Soldier is promoting “limited action” ( isn’t that how Vietnam started?) attacking another country that is not a direct threat to the US (wasn’t that the left’s argument against deposing Saddam?). Listening to Lurch promoting military action and hearing nothing but crickets from Code Pink, et al is astonishing to me. It really is all about tribe with the left, isn’t it? Unilateral military action with no UN sanction is all just peaches and cream when a Dem is president.

Re:limited action (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44755845)

Except this time the "target" has powerful friends. I fully expect Russia to defend their ally. I fully expect China to defend Iran, if it comes to that, too. If the US creates the UN, creates a "Security Council", names itself a permanent member and then ignores it completely, breaking its own rules, then either international law is abandoned completely by everyone, or the US will be held to account. And believe it or not, the US (and its European bedfellows) cannot take on the world.

Re:limited action (1)

umghhh (965931) | about a year ago | (#44756725)

this is silly as fck. Last time Russia pulled the number like this then there were few Chinese units that were annihilated (along smaller number of US ones( and the only one person that benefited from all the slaughtering was Kim the Greatest. I doubt if any of the three countries would go for the same trick again. You never know of course. Still I wonder what you think would be the Russian motivation to retaliate against US in case tomahawks destroy some Syrian army barracks and presidential palace or two. Not that they had any scruples offering lives of their soldiers but what would be their motivation? And Chinese?

I think for US the main problems is choice of target for the missiles that does not affect civilians too much and has some meaning for the lunatics in power in Syria - I mean Assad has probably enough palaces and lives in bunkers judging on the footage from meetings with the chosen ones broadcast by Syrian TV so palaces are of limited use as target. Maybe the military but WMD depots are dangerous as hell because of collateral damage that does not show nicely on the TV not to mention some munition that is not destroyed may get recycled by militants there.

Welcome to World War 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755799)

The opening geostrategic positioning is being finalized.
Feints, propaganda, disinformation, prepositioning are occurring. Some hope to lure us into the bear trap. initially it's about Russian and Iranian natural gas monopolies being used to create near eastern and European hegemonic states but China and then India and Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, and the Stans all have their roles to play. Will it unfold slowly or quickly, accelerating surely. 911 was the opening gambit, will control over 03 on the moon be the final goal? Control over energy going into the next century is the ultimate prize and creates the super power axis of the next 100 years

Dirty journalism as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755819)

Its a Missile DEFENSE System. Not plainly a missile designed for destruction

Wars, We love wars in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756067)

Thank USA for taking care of Earth overcrowding. Our military complex will take care of that and bombers will drop bombs after bombs on these savages.
Your welcome.

U.S. 'and' Israel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756141)

The U.S. IS Israel! Who runs your Congress? Who runs your media? Who runs the Fed? Who prints virtually ALL the money your government borrows, out of THIN AIR, and kindly lends it to you?

Munich? (0)

dskip215 (2894551) | about a year ago | (#44756419)

I'm not a War Hawk or anything of the sort but I do believe all of us know something has to be done. We cannot allow the Syrian government to think it is the least bit acceptable to use chemical weapons. Some of you know the quote "You know what this is? It's Munich" we can't give Syrian government or the Iranian government want they want because they threaten to retaliate and we don't feel like dealing with it. There is no real right answer but the wrong answer is to do nothing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...