• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

UN Inspectors attacked by snipers while attempting to visit chemical attack site

Status
Not open for further replies.
Snipe if old.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Damascus, Syria (CNN) -- Sniper fire hit a vehicle used by a U.N. chemical weapons investigation team in Syria multiple times Monday, according to the United Nations.

The team "returned safely back to the government checkpoint," a U.N. statement said. The team is replacing the vehicle and will return to the area, it said.

The U.N. team was on its way to inspect the scene of an alleged chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, after the Syrian government on Sunday agreed to grant the inspectors full access.

It said its army would cease all hostilities as long as the U.N. inspectors are on the ground.

An umbrella group for the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Coalition, also said last week that the opposition would ensure the safety of any U.N. personnel in the area.

The Syrian government accused "terrorists" of firing on the inspectors, Syrian state TV reported.

The United Nations has not said who may have been behind the shooting, which came after an explosion near the site the team plans to visit. Some witnesses said it was caused by incoming ordnance, perhaps a mortar shell.

The vehicle was "deliberately shot at multiple times by unidentified snipers in the buffer zone area," the U.N. statement said. "It has to be stressed again that all sides need to extend their cooperation so that the Team can safely carry out their important work."

More at at link, but most of it is covered here.
 
Its in the interests of the rebels to make sure they get there. This sounds like delaying tactics from Syrian army. The longer they keep inspectors out the better chance the evidence degrades and harder for international forces to build a case.
 
I am truly concerned that we are on a path to some seriously bad shit. Between Egypt and Syria we have two ticking time bombs that if cooler heads don't prevail could potentially push us into a Major conflict in the Gulf, throw the Ira. Situation. Along with Israel/Palestine and you have the makings of a cluster fuck of epic and unheard-of proportions.
 
*Not ready for visit*

*Fire at car(and make sure nobody is killed)*



"Come back in a week, please!"
 
Its in the interests of the rebels to make sure they get there. This sounds like delaying tactics from Syrian army. The longer they keep inspectors out the better chance the evidence degrades and harder for international forces to build a case.

Very well could be. But how do we know it's not the other way around? Bombing their own citizens is one thing. Shooting upon international forces is another. Syria would have to have big balls to the point of drawing all the blood away from their brains to do that.
 
Wasn't it that the last time chemical weapons were used in Syria is looked like it was the rebels who used them and blamed the government? Or at least it looked as if that was the case?

Am I crazy or something? I seem to recall reading that but now Google brings up nothing, like it was wiped clean.
 
Its in the interests of the rebels to make sure they get there. This sounds like delaying tactics from Syrian army. The longer they keep inspectors out the better chance the evidence degrades and harder for international forces to build a case.

Sounds like a warzone with people running around with guns shooting at things they don't like. Hard to say anything more than that.
 
Wasn't it that the last time chemical weapons were used in Syria is looked like it was the rebels who used them and blamed the government? Or at least it looked as if that was the case?

Am I crazy or something? I seem to recall reading that but now Google brings up nothing, like it was wiped clean.

Its called a false flag attack.
 
Wasn't it that the last time chemical weapons were used in Syria is looked like it was the rebels who used them and blamed the government? Or at least it looked as if that was the case?

Am I crazy or something? I seem to recall reading that but now Google brings up nothing, like it was wiped clean.

No one knows who did that one.

It's too early (IMO) to claim who did either of them.
Syria should have actual chemical munitions, but (NSFW! Rabbits being tested on/killed!) Rebels also supposedly tested out Sarin sometime late last year. I don't know if that was actually ever verified though. So take of that what you will.
 
Are you implying Syria doesn't have chemical weapons? Because there are photos of hundreds of dead children that say otherwise.

You don't even need to see those. We've known Syria has chemical weapons for years. This isn't like Iraq where all the evidence was completely fabricated. The situations are not even remotely similar in that respect.

Of course, who exactly has been using them is open for debate.
 
Sounds like a warzone with people running around with guns shooting at things they don't like. Hard to say anything more than that.

Yes, obviously. But don't you think it odd how fast Syrian goverment gave the OK for inspectors and then suddenly are forced to turn back? Its a song and dance UN inspectors have played before with Iraq.
 
Can you hear it?
It's the war drum of the liberators.
USA, spreading that democracy.
People rejoyce, you shall be free and safe for the salvation army is coming.
 
Can you hear it?
It's the war drum of the liberators.
USA, spreading that democracy.
People rejoyce, you shall be free and safe for the salvation army is coming.

The USA will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this conflict. Nobody here wants it. Get over yourself.
 
The USA will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this conflict. Nobody here wants it. Get over yourself.

They'll do a proxy war before ever going in. As you said, nobody wants it. There is nothing of interest there other than geopolitical advantage... which can be done remotely.

FYI video is rabbits being subjected to chemical testing. Don't watch if you don't want to see rabbits killed.


Why would you link to that without a warning?

Sorry. Totally forgot to. Thanks for reminding me.
 
Can you hear it?
It's the war drum of the liberators.
USA, spreading that democracy.
People rejoyce, you shall be free and safe for the salvation army is coming.
Laughable sentiment.

If we wanted to get involved, we could have joined at least a year ago... and yet we're still not fully in it with a potential chemical weapon attack. No one here wants it, besides some hawk Senators.
 

Interests in the area who would LOVE for the US to get embroiled hip deep in another sectarian conflict.

I wonder who'd love for that to happen? *hmm*

They'll do a proxy war before ever going in. As you said, nobody wants it. There is nothing of interest there other than geopolitical advantage... which can be done remotely.

I think the opportunities for a Proxy war are long behind us, I can't think of a good Proxy in this age of transparency.
 
Laughable sentiment.

If we wanted to get involved, we could have joined at least a year ago... and yet we're still not fully in it with a potential chemical weapon attack. No one here wants it, besides some hawk Senators.

Maybe it's laughable in a tragic kind of way, I agree.
 
Can you hear it?
It's the war drum of the liberators.
USA, spreading that democracy.
People rejoyce, you shall be free and safe for the salvation army is coming.

Yes, thats clearly been the voice of Congress and the American people. We can't wait to bring freedom to Syrian government and/or the AlQaeda backed rebels.
 
Interests in the area who would LOVE for the US to get embroiled hip deep in another sectarian conflict.

I wonder who'd love for that to happen? *hmm*



I think the opportunities for a Proxy war are long behind us, I can't think of a good Proxy in this age of transparency.

Care to be specific?
 
Even Russia seems hesitant to start get into this Proxy war with us.

It's like a Proxy Cold War. We're threatening each other with the idea of a Proxy war. :lol
 
Yes, obviously. But don't you think it odd how fast Syrian goverment gave the OK for inspectors and then suddenly are forced to turn back? Its a song and dance UN inspectors have played before with Iraq.

You're arguing that it's odd for a truck to get shot at in a warzone. Okay.

No, I don't think it's odd. It's just as likely to be a random act as it is to be an order from the government, if not more so. It could've been a government supporter with a rifle. It could've been a soldier that disregarded or didn't get the orders to lay off that truck. It could've been a rebel who thought it was government troops that were trying to sneak in under the guise of the UN. It could've been a nationalist that doesn't want any foreign interference. It could've been a fucking Russian. It could've been a zealot that wanted to kill some infidels. It could've been stray bullets from an unrelated incident. It could've been a teen with a gun that felt like shooting something. It could've been a rebel that used the gas and doesn't want inspectors to come in, for all we know. There's plenty of historical evidence to show that the people who fight monsters are just as likely to be monsters themselves.

The point is, we don't know and assumptions don't help anything.
 
Its in the interests of the rebels to make sure they get there. This sounds like delaying tactics from Syrian army. The longer they keep inspectors out the better chance the evidence degrades and harder for international forces to build a case.

Or perhaps the gas attack was for a large part staged and the rebels actually don't want further investigations.

I don't trust any side in this conflict.
 
You're arguing that it's odd for a truck to get shot at in a warzone. Okay.

No, I don't think it's odd. It's just as likely to be a random act as it is to be an order from the government, if not more so. It could've been a government supporter with a rifle. It could've been a soldier that disregarded or didn't get the orders to lay off that truck. It could've been a rebel who thought it was government troops were trying to sneak in under the guise of the UN. It could've been a nationalist that doesn't want any foreign interference. It could've been a fucking Russian. It could've been a zealot that wanted to kill some infidels. It could've been a teen with a gun that felt like shooting something. It could've been a rebel that used the gas and doesn't want inspectors to come in, for all we know. There's plenty of historical evidence to show that the people who fight monsters are just as likely to be monsters themselves.

The point is, we don't know and assumptions don't help anything.
Agreed. Assuming one group did it over the other is bad.

What needs to happen is that Syrian troops need to escort those UN inspectors there.
 
Soooo, what happens if the UN inspectors get there and find out the Syrian government did use the weapons? Then what happens? Do we bomb them all to death? Do we give them a slap on the wrist and tell them they are going to bed without supper? What actually happens in this scenario?
 
Care to be specific?

There are multiple groups in the region who would love for the US to get boots on the ground in Syria because they know, just like everyone else, that it would be a disaster. Hell, I bet Putin is salivating of the possibility of that war.

Soooo, what happens if the UN inspectors get there and find out the Syrian government did use the weapons? Then what happens? Do we bomb them all to death? Do we give them a slap on the wrist and tell them they are going to bed without supper? What actually happens in this scenario?

We move the Red line further out. Obama fucked up when he talked about lines because he underestimated how stupid some Syrian officials are (if they did indeed use these weapons). Either that or we get that Proxy war we were talking about up there, but with France/UK stepping in for the US.
 
This fuckboy al assad could really use a predator drone to the face. Im not a fan of American or international intervention but this guy is a monster.
 
There are multiple groups in the region who would love for the US to get boots on the ground in Syria because they know, just like everyone else, that it would be a disaster. Hell, I bet Putin is salivating of the possibility of that war.

Russia would benefit from USA invading Syria ? That seems like the opposite of what I'd expect, since Russia has had their foot in that country for a long long time.
If USA is so against touching this crisis, why is Obama already proposing several different strategies (including military) for involvment in the conflict? Is he going against the Congress and the American people on this one, if that's what you're saying (I'm not American, so I'm somewhat behind on this)?
 
Are you implying Syria doesn't have chemical weapons? Because there are photos of hundreds of dead children that say otherwise.

I'm implying that there is a lot of interest in deposing an "unfriendly" to the west regime. Just like they did with Iraq, using the nuclear weapons BS.
Fool me once...
 
Soooo, what happens if the UN inspectors get there and find out the Syrian government did use the weapons? Then what happens? Do we bomb them all to death? Do we give them a slap on the wrist and tell them they are going to bed without supper? What actually happens in this scenario?

It would be much closer to the latter than the former. Maybe some cruise missile strikes at some installations. Nothing game-changing. Mostly just so Obama can save face over his red line comments, and not making it seem like the US is giving tacit approval to chemical attacks. And also if nothing happens then there's a pretty strong risk of diluting the global taboo on CW.

Anyway, I think the UN mission there is only to confirm if CW were used, not who used them. I hardly think that's something in dispute but hey, procedure. Even then they might not find anything concrete - many chemical agents disspiate very quickly, sometimes in a matter of hours, which I guess explains why people are able to pick up the remnants of the missiles and be perfectly OK.
 
Russia would benefit from USA invading Syria ? That seems like the opposite of what I'd expect, since Russia has had their foot in that country for a long long time.
If USA is so against touching this crisis, why is Obama already proposing several different strategies (including military) for involvment in the conflict? Is he going against the Congress and the American people on this one, if that's what you're saying (I'm not American, so I'm somewhat behind on this)?

Russia would benefit at this point because the US would be stuck in Syria for years and they'd be able to wage an extremely safe Proxy war vs. the US via the Syrian government for the entirety of the conflict.

Also, Obama's proposing several different strategies for political reasons. As hesitent as everyone is to get boots down in Syria, it's one possible scenario. Another is a no-fly zone, another is simply providing aid, so on and so forth. Also, there are a small number of important political figures who DO want to go into Syria, so he has to appease them while simultaneously staying the fuck out of Syria.
 
I am truly concerned that we are on a path to some seriously bad shit. Between Egypt and Syria we have two ticking time bombs that if cooler heads don't prevail could potentially push us into a Major conflict in the Gulf, throw the Ira. Situation. Along with Israel/Palestine and you have the makings of a cluster fuck of epic and unheard-of proportions.
Meh they are all pests compare to either Germany or Japan.
 
Soooo, what happens if the UN inspectors get there and find out the Syrian government did use the weapons? Then what happens? Do we bomb them all to death? Do we give them a slap on the wrist and tell them they are going to bed without supper? What actually happens in this scenario?

Well, Clinton joined the UN and bombed the crap out of Kosovo about their ethnic cleansing. This time I don't think it's going to be anywhere near that.
 
Wasn't it that the last time chemical weapons were used in Syria is looked like it was the rebels who used them and blamed the government? Or at least it looked as if that was the case?

Am I crazy or something? I seem to recall reading that but now Google brings up nothing, like it was wiped clean.

No. That's what Assad forces and supporters suggested though. It was not confirmed, and I doubt anything has been 'wiped clean'.
 
Russia would benefit at this point because the US would be stuck in Syria for years and they'd be able to wage an extremely safe Proxy war vs. the US via the Syrian government for the entirety of the conflict.

Also, Obama's proposing several different strategies for political reasons. As hesitent as everyone is to get boots down in Syria, it's one possible scenario. Another is a no-fly zone, another is simply providing aid, so on and so forth. Also, there are a small number of important political figures who DO want to go into Syria, so he has to appease them while simultaneously staying the fuck out of Syria.

US didn't get suck in Lybia, why would it be any different with Syria?
I don't think the Syrian government, who the US doesn't support, would hold the power after a US invasion, so I can't see how Russia could possibly have any control via that.
And, what's up with your obsession with Russia, you're portraying them as the anti crist. How are they worse than the US in this matter? Same coin, different side.
 
US didn't get suck in Lybia, why would it be any different with Syria?

Syria is NOT Libya. The US wouldn't have as easy a time and the conflict in Syria's been going on for much longer with both sides being bolstered by other interests. It would take more than a few planes flying over and bombing a few strategic sites to end this.

I don't think the Syrian government, who the US doesn't support, would hold the power after a US invasion, so I can't see how Russia could possibly have any control via that.

That's the point, Russian would support the Syrian government (as they are doing now) and make it much harder for the US to flush them out. You seem to think that it would be a quick and easy prospect to topple Assad's government.

And, what's up with your obsession with Russia, you're portraying them as the anti crist. How are they worse than the US in this matter? Same coin, different side.

No, I totally agree with you. Sorry if I portrayed them any differently.

Edit:

Of course, this is all hypothetical.
 
And, what's up with your obsession with Russia, you're portraying them as the anti crist. How are they worse than the US in this matter? Same coin, different side.

Russia has, along with China, repeatedly undermined any U.N. attempt to sanction the Assad regime.

You can quite clearly blame them more than the U.S. for escalating this particular conflict.
 
Of course the so-called "rebels" wouldn't want the inspectors to get to the sites, it would likely look bad for them.

The West's proxy dogs aren't getting the job done at all, which is why we have all this saber-rattling coming out of Washington/Paris/London. Assad is winning, and they can't get rid of him by proxy, so they want to intervene directly.

It makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons when his forces are destroying the rebels' and has been for awhile now. This is a blatant 'false-flag' that anyone should be able to see.
 
Why would you rebels do it? The 'islamists' don't want western interference. Killing there own people for what exactly? Western sympathy?

All I see happening now many Syrian government officials defecting. With the threat of the west getting involved there will be guys seeing the endgame and looking after #1 and will ditch Assad.

Russia will pussy out and also ditch Assad if they have to make a choice.
 
Russia has, along with China, repeatedly undermined any U.N. attempt to sanction the Assad regime.

You can quite clearly blame them more than the U.S. for escalating this particular conflict.

From a US\GB\FR point of view, yes. Hence same coin, different side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom