Alex Jones is a conspiracy nutcase but it was fun watching his passion in this video.

It disgusts me this coming strike on Syria and all this vile hypocrisy by Western leaders.

I am afraid the US/UK strike will turn the balance enough to make the rebel scum be able to overthrow the regime. I don't understand the motive this time by Western liberals. Why do they want to overthrow Assad and allow islamists to make Syria into a fascist theocracy? What's the motive? What do they gain?

I think theocracies are kinda cool, even islamic ones, they make the world more exciting lol and work as a beacon exposing liberal hypocrisy, but I don't really want Syria to become a Sunni islamic dictatorship with Christians and other minorities forced to leave the Middle-East as rats (to my country of course).

I wish Russia could do something to stop it.

So glad some of parliament have finally come to their senses for now anyway. We, British people don't want to be dragged into possibly falsified intervention. The bitter memories of Iraq intervention just over 10 years ago seemed to help with that. To think, those against only won by 13 votes as well, but it feels good to feel represented by parliament on something for once. If Obama, Kerry and everyone else in US government can't understand that then that is their own problem.

Also, if chemical weapons use in warfare is so unacceptable then why was Iraq allowed to use them against Iran in the 80's? Why can Israel use them? Why was it accepted for the US to use them back in Korea and Vietnam? Just such hypocrites, who need to learn some of their own history.

And yeah, it is horrible what is happening in Syria but it ain't our battle. We need to sort out our own problems, rather than help wage a war. Also, the biggest problem i face is that the west seems to back extremists. If we go in to help them now, we will fight against them, 20 years from now. Just like Afghanistan. We supported Ahmadinejad (some of which ended up being Taliban) against the Soviets and now fight them.

I think we need a peaceful solution rather than a military intervention. That means working with Russia and China and negotiating with Assad. I fear if the US goes in, we could head to a world war and no one wants that, not even Kim Jung Un.

I just hope the US government has the decency to listen to the public like my countries parliament has. Enough is enough. Down with imperialism!

If you want to know who is behind the gasattacks in Syria just go to "mint press news".(warning:naive people with zero sense for logic who still let them fool by the same rhetorics since the Iraq war maybe very dissapointed)

*facepalm*

08.30.2013 USG Assessment on Syria

Cream of the crop:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred... Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. localtime on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports onthis attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Now I know the ultimate sources of the US intelligence :D Satellites rented from Hollywood that could see what newspaper you read and social media.

"A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack"

I have a hard time believeing in such a high death toll no matter who did it. Almost 1,500 people killed in one attack? How has this really been confirmed?

I feel like the number is highly exaggerated.

The US is going to strike Syria tonight, right?

There won't be any strikes.

Quoting an US Army sergeant from militaryphotos.net "we fight only incompetent, preferbly unarmed enemies from safe distance", I doubt any strikes at all, unless they're idiots, or they possess some key information we don't (what could it possibly be though?). What aims the US might want to accomplish there?
- destroy enemy's military infrastructure;
- provide air support for the rebels.

None of which could be accomplished without public bloodletting, especially looking at how rushed this operation might be. They've got away in similar situation in Grenada, after all achieveing their goals, here I doubt they would be able to cover it up (too many forces that'd like to capitalize on that), nor will be able to achieve said goals. Even if they go bonkers, striking Syria, they won't be able to change anything in the battlefield on land, these will be strikes for the show only with questionable efficency, because Syria has all the equipement and experience to put up a good fight. 

If we do believe open sources Syria got SAMs, new deliveries:
- Tunguska x 6, delivered by 2008
- Buk-M2E x 18, delivered by 2008
- Pantsir-S1 x 36 delivered by 2008, additional 6 systems by the end of 2013
- Strelets of unknown quantity, delivered by 2006 (this is basically a MTLB chasis with 6 Igla MANPADS mounted on it)
- S-125 Pechora-2M x 8, delivered by 2012
- Tor-M1, unknown quantity, unknown status
- S-300, unknown quantiry, to be delivered by 2014

Older stock:
- Igla MANPADS of unknown quantity, approx. over thousand
- S-125 Neva of unknown quantity, approx. over hundred (few dozens of them were supposed to go through modernisation to upgrade them to S-125 Pechora-2M, status unknown), thoug I doubt all of them are operational
- S200VE of unknown quantity, approx. few dozens
- Multiple older SAMs

Syria got ASMs, only new deliveries:
- Bastion-P x 2 or 4 , 36 missiles per system

Won't bother to quote all of the article, this is the only info that relevant to the discsussion if we're talking about deterrents from air or sea strikes. At the moment Syria along with Algeria got the most massive air-defence in the region simply judging by the number of operational systems with sizeable part of them being new, i.e. capable working in the situation of constant EW countermeasures modern warfare is known for. Taking into account Lebanon war of 1982 I'm hoping they've got appropriate experience as well in that area, since majority of IAF losses were from SAMs.

Given current forces of 1st rank ships US Navy has got in the region, available Pantsirs alone could chew out every single Tomahawk they've got to offer -- it's relatively easy, subsonic target (there're multiple known precedents when Tomahawks were downed by portable systems not designed for the task) and more importantly there's simply not enough of them to create sufficient volume of fire. CBGs are a problem however (CVN 68, 75 -- see map posted above), but the presence of Bastions won't let them into 300 km sea zone of Syria unless in suicide run, significantly hindering their attack capabilities. Rest assured any intellegence info from Russian fleet lurking around, like target designation for missiles (i.e. mirroring situation of South Ossetia war of 2008) will be handed over to Syrian army.

I'm following almost all US Army operations for the past 10 years and the never raised any doubt in me, that they do not know their limits of competence (hence no on-land operation in Yugoslavia). Of course, there're always a moment when every empire is getting over-confident and cocky, and it's really close to that moment, but I don't think this is it. What I see is (figuratively speaking) a man, who is saying "I'm gonna punch, gonna punch, just you wait, I'm gonna punch..." -- and nothing. Why do they need this is another story.

BTW here's on of the Buks spotted in Syria back in May.

Rememering 08.08.08 war, how much pita it was destroying a single Buk-M1 of older modification and operated by Ukrainian crew, while Syrians got 18 of Buk-M2s. Good luck... That Buk-M1 (though probably guided by American AWACS) cost us one Tu-22M3, the only aircraft we lost in that war. (I mean the only not from friendly fire :D damn Ossetians, that's what you get when dealing with irregulars: "It's Su-25, shot it, shot it, it's Georgian!" -- this is funny only because none of the pilots got hurt luckly).

Is it really that easy to intercept and shoot down missiles being fired from warships? I strongly doubt it. What's the typical shoot down rate with that gear? Doubt it's anywhere near 100%. And the Americans have lots of missiles they can fire rom those ships.