Syria conflict: UN suspends all aid after convoy hit

[Shalcker]

There seems to be some evidence that whatever it was in "convoy night bombing video" shows distinct blast from Hellfire:

http://theduran.com/evidence-mainstr...issile-strike/

...the blessing/curse of being ex-military is sounding like a nut to most of you when I bring up these minute details that I think are terribly significant. Given that, take this for what it’s worth:

There are several variations of the Hellfire missile fired from U.S. drones like the Predator. As evidenced by vidoes of Hellfire strikes beginning with the Iraqi war, one very popular flavor seems to be the AGM-114N variant. It contains a pretty energetic PBX-112 explosive charge surrounded by a layer of metal particles. Fine-mesh fluorinated aluminum in case you were curious. Without getting into the physics of it all, I’ll just say that this design came out of research to produce a ‘better’ fuel-air explosive.

The Metal-Augmented Charge (MAC) Hellfire AGM-114N belongs to the thermobaric category of weapons – ones designed to kill/destroy by an extended blast overpressure wave rather than conventional explosive’s overpressure spike. A secondary effect of a MAC/thermobaric weapon’s hotter, longer-duration blast wave is that it’s more likely to set things on fire than a conventional explosive. Not as much as a incendiary-purpose weapon, but more so than conventional explosives.

Isn’t killing people efficiently by more clever designs fascinating? It is to Lockheed-Martin shareholders, but I digress. At any rate, plenty of info out there on the AGM-114N and theromobarics if you’re interested.

Now, the MAC-enhanced blast of the U.S. Hellfire missiles produces an interesting visual effect at night. After the decay of an intensely-bright and well-consolidated blast flash, you can see what look like little sparkles at the edge of the receding explosion. The sparkles are residue of the burnt fluorinated aluminum that undergo a secondary burning, of sorts. It’s very distinctive once you notice it. The Russians have thermobaric bombs as well, but they are of a different design and the blast usually looks different – non-existent sparkles because of a micronized metal powder, or long-duration sparkles on very large charges for whatever reason.

So (sorry, TLR already) I notice that many of the MSM-replays of the supposed rebel convoy attack video was edited in a particular way to mask what is plainly (to me) a MAC blast. The BBC reports are a good example. Their version is enlarged, shaky and blurry consistent with the poor head-chopper production standards. But it is an edited version of the much clearer original video. ABC must have produced their report before the censorship memo went out. If you look at only the first second of this ABC video and try to pause it during the blast, you can see a few frames with the visual effect I’m talking about.

So what am I yammering about that has any relevance here? This: If this video was shown to me outside the context of the convoy attack, I would guess it was a Hellfire strike somewhere. Now we hear from Russia that a Predator drone (typically Hellfire-armed) was loitering around the ‘bombed convoy’ area immediately before and after the attack. An attack that produced no crater (typical of the air-blast of a thermobaric Hellfire) and numerous fires (also more likely from a thermobaric Hellfire). Then I see the curiously-edited video on most MSM seemingly intended to obscure the signature blast of a thermobaric Hellfire. [adjusts tin-foil hat] I think you know where I’m going here.

Just to set the stage for the next chapter of lies, CENTCOM or the U.S. DoD will undoubtedly deny that a U.S. drone attacked the convoy (not that any journalist will bother asking). AS we saw in the SAA/Deir EzZor attack though, it’s not necessarily a U.S. aircraft. The U.S. can deny responsibility if needed because 1) any of a number of ‘coalition partners’ have Hellfire-armed Predators violating Syrian airspace every day, and 2) all Predators of coalition partners are not necessarily under the command of their military or the CJTF-OIR coalition. The CIA, for instance, has plenty of armed drones in the Middle East. Not that these potential loopholes will be needed or used – the U.S. isn’t bashful about flinging outright lies when convenient and difficult to disprove.

This isn’t offered as any kind of proof the U.S. did it – it’s just reasonable speculation. I’m sure our inquisitive and unbiased investigative journalists in the press will get to the bottom of this in no time.

[Deleted]

Unreal that you have no idea that "japs" is an offensive term, considering your permanent residence is in montreal. BS.

Classy post.

[Ulmita]

There seems to be some evidence that whatever it was in "convoy night bombing video" shows distinct blast from Hellfire:

http://theduran.com/evidence-mainstr...issile-strike/

Lavrov asked UN to retrieve the munitions used to destroy the convoy. Who bets non will be found?

[Crispin]

Classy post.

Got any idea in what context it's posted?

[Deleted]

Syria is essentially broke at this point. The war itself has cost 255 billion. The economy this year alone shrunk 18 or 19% in Syria. They lost much of their tax base that fled to EU or elsewhere. Any treasure they have is likely looted by now. There are 4 factions fighting so they cannot secure their own borders. Obama never committed really anything outside propaganda so we could just abandon at this point leaving Russia holding the bag and the headache of propping their ally back up. You could say the US looks like idiots by doing this but we can just blame Obama's ineptitude in dealing with war much like Clinton already has. So not much is lost for us. It's a big clusterfuck at this point and not much to be gained staying involved in this.

One thing is being broke. Another is being a hopeless hellhole. As long as Syria as a state stays up in place, it will have a chance at recovering.
The problem is when the state collapses. Iraq and Libya come to mind.
Having said that, I'm not sure how Syria's economy is a sign that Russia is the party most damaged if things end now.
US has spent money, built relations and invested a lot of time AND face in this proxy war. Backing away would have serious repercussions at a political level.
While Assad keeping Syria would be viewed as a victory for the ones that supported him.

[downnola]

Proxy war against who?

[Deleted]

It must be the chemtrails

How is this related? Or argumentated? Can I dismiss every argument with ''aliens did it'' and a sarcasm emoticon?

You can't honestly believe this was an accident. Deir ez Zor was a prettyx well known outpost, which resisted rebel forces for years. The surveillance and technology available to US makes it impossible for them not to know this. The strike was not one bombshell or salve. It lasted for quite some time, so it wasn't one guys accidental mistake. It was deliberate with nobody trying to interrupt it. Then we also have the rebels launching an attack within minutes of the strike.

It was a calculated attack by the USA, whose only purpose was to break the ceasefire. This is a fact.

[Barnabas]

One thing is being broke. Another is being a hopeless hellhole. As long as Syria as a state stays up in place, it will have a chance at recovering.
The problem is when the state collapses. Iraq and Libya come to mind.
Having said that, I'm not sure how Syria's economy is a sign that Russia is the party most damaged if things end now.
US has spent money, built relations and invested a lot of time AND face in this proxy war. Backing away would have serious repercussions at a political level.
While Assad keeping Syria would be viewed as a victory for the ones that supported him.

We have already lost political capital in Syria because of Obama's ineptitude. You don't think the Russians aren't already trying to use capital in hopes EU will drop the sanctions? It's the goal of them joining in the fight in Syria in the first place. If Russia fights alone they could very well fail. The Russian playing captain kirk strategy won't work out. They will see it this way eventually. When the dust settles the US has more to offer Syria than the Russians do.

[Deleted]

We have already lost political capital in Syria because of Obama's ineptitude. You don't think the Russians aren't already trying to use capital in hopes EU will drop the sanctions? It's the goal of them joining in the fight in Syria in the first place.

Uh? It's not.
Russia is backing up one of the few allies remaining they still have. And by doing that, they also gain political importance. Iraq was ready to ditch the US led coalition and ask Russia to help them against ISIS. That's just an example.

Syria is a perfect opportunity for Putin to show the world they are still right there. And the funny thing is we GAVE Russia that opportunity.

There's no victory in sight for anyone when it comes to Syria. US lost, Syria lost, the Saudi lost, Europe lost. The only ones without a TOTALLY negative deficit is Russia, believe it or not.

[Ulmita]

We have already lost political capital in Syria because of Obama's ineptitude. You don't think the Russians aren't already trying to use capital in hopes EU will drop the sanctions? It's the goal of them joining in the fight in Syria in the first place. If Russia fights alone they could very well fail. The Russian playing captain kirk strategy won't work out. They will see it this way eventually. When the dust settles the US has more to offer Syria than the Russians do.

So defending an ally isn't a possible scenario? just asking stupid questions here.

[Barnabas]

Uh? It's not.
Russia is backing up one of the few allies remaining they still have. And by doing that, they also gain political importance. Iraq was ready to ditch the US led coalition and ask Russia to help them against ISIS. That's just an example.

Syria is a perfect opportunity for Putin to show the world they are still right there. And the funny thing is we GAVE Russia that opportunity.

There's no victory in sight for anyone when it comes to Syria. US lost, Syria lost, the Saudi lost, Europe lost. The only ones without a TOTALLY negative deficit is Russia, believe it or not.

Obama gave them a lot over the past 7 1/2 years. If you thought he was pro Russian you'd be on to something. Maybe he's a colossal idiot in reality? Either way Russia has gained big because of his decisions. Our thanks in return isn't even a cease fire to make them look good again. I say fuck them at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

So defending an ally isn't a possible scenario? just asking stupid questions here.

It's something but it's propaganda for the Russians. Look at us we end the Syrian war. If it wasn't for us...

[fumblz]

Say Crispin, easy question.
Who bombed that Syrian outpost killing 70 soldiers right in the middle of a ceasefire?
I can't remember, was it Russia or the US?

And who is currently bombing Aleppo, killing civilians willy-nilly, as well as the rebels, during the ceasefire? Even if the US struck first, Russia, and Syria are both breaking the truce. As it is still ongoing, since there has been neither side has called off the truce.

Not to mention that the bombing of Aleppo has killed 91 civilians in a single day, and has shut off water to the city due to the constant bombardment.

[Deleted]

And who is currently bombing Aleppo, killing civilians willy-nilly, as well as the rebels, during the ceasefire? Even if the US struck first, Russia, and Syria are both breaking the truce. As it is still ongoing, since there has been neither side has called off the truce.

Not to mention that the bombing of Aleppo has killed 91 civilians in a single day, and has shut off water to the city due to the constant bombardment.

The ceasefire was called off after the US bombing on Saturday.
It's a loss for everyone that a diplomatic solution couldn't be found. A loss at all levels from all points of view.

[Mavett]

The ceasefire was called off after the US bombing on Saturday.
It's a loss for everyone that a diplomatic solution couldn't be found. A loss at all levels from all points of view.

What ceasefire and diplomatic solution are you talking about? there are too many groups that wouldn't abide any truce in the slightest because there is no leverage on them by neither Russia or the US, the so called "ceasefire" agreement is not worth the paper it was written on, the fighting in Syria will end ONLY when one side completely annihilates the other with Assad and Russia finally realizing it with their relentless bombing on Aleppo, they will keep bombing it until it's both ethnically cleansed from the Sunni population who will flee the city, and until they completely wipe out the opposing forces.

Diplomacy in Syrian situation is absolute rubbish and will never work.

[Deleted]

What ceasefire and diplomatic solution are you talking about? there are too many groups that wouldn't abide any truce in the slightest because there is no leverage on them by neither Russia or the US, the so called "ceasefire" agreement is not worth the paper it was written on, the fighting in Syria will end ONLY when one side completely annihilates the other with Assad and Russia finally realizing it with their relentless bombing on Aleppo, they will keep bombing it until it's both ethnically cleansed from the Sunni population who will flee the city, and until they completely wipe out the opposing forces.

Diplomacy in Syrian situation is absolute rubbish and will never work.

That doesn't change what I'm saying.
It's a pity that a diplomatic couldn't be found.

[Ulmita]

Man i watched some vids of the aftermath and i hope UN fucks whoever is behind this attack. Some seriously sickening stuff right there.

[downnola]

The ceasefire was called off after the US bombing on Saturday.

And? Syria called off the "ceasefire" because they claim the rebels never adhered to it. Syria and Russia never stopped bombing during the ceasefire either, and they never allowed aid into Aleppo. You, like every other Assad/Putin groupie, want to pin this on the U.S (some will even blame the entire war on the U.S). It's hilarious how you accused me of treating this shit like a football match pages ago when you're one of the least objective apologists on this board.

Allow me to quote you directly before you try to evade and deny things you've said like you always do.

Well US... Mission accomplished. Ceasefire is over. You can keep destabilising yet another country at your will.

Saying this despite Syria never adhering to the actual agreement by continuing the bombing, and never allowing aid into Aleppo. It should be crystal clear to everyone who bombed those 20 trucks by the way, who is the only participant in this war that has refused aid into the city? If anyone but the Assad regime comes to mind, then you're a fool or a cheerleader.

You never answered me who's participating in this "proxy war" either.

[Deleted]

And? Syria called off the "ceasefire" because they claim the rebels never adhered to it. Syria and Russia never stopped bombing during the ceasefire either, and they never allowed aid into Aleppo. You, like every other Assad/Putin groupie, want to pin this on the U.S (some will even blame the entire war on the U.S). It's hilarious how you accused me of treating this shit like a football match pages ago when you're one of the least objective apologists on this board.

Allow me to quote you directly before you try to evade and deny things you've said like you always do.



Saying this despite Syria never adhering to the actual agreement by continuing the bombing, and never allowing aid into Aleppo. It should be crystal clear to everyone who bombed those 20 trucks by the way, who is the only participant in this war that has refused aid into the city? If anyone but the Assad regime comes to mind, then you're a fool or a cheerleader.

You never answered me who's participating in this "proxy war" either.

The rebels themselves refused to accept the ceasefire. What are you talking about. "Claimed" the rebels never adhered to the ceasefire? The rebels never accepted it.

Please provide proof of bombings in Aleppo happening during ceasefire and not allowing aid in.

Yes. Us bombed a Syrian Army camp. Syrian called for the end of the ceasefire. Who caused the end of the ceasefire?

Please provide proof of what you're claiming.

[downnola]

The rebels themselves refused to accept the ceasefire. What are you talking about. "Claimed" the rebels never adhered to the ceasefire? The rebels never accepted it.

Please provide proof of bombings in Aleppo happening during ceasefire and not allowing aid in.

Syria claimed to accept the agreement, but never adhered to it. You have to play by the rules of an agreement for it to mean anything.

The Syrian government embarked on a wave of intense airstrikes against opposition-controlled areas Saturday, killing scores of people only hours after the announcement of a new cease-fire deal between Russia and the United States.

The attacks, which killed more than 80 people in the rebel-held cities of Idlib and Aleppo, compounded skepticism expressed by the opposition that this deal will work where others have failed to end the war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...754_story.html
And another source with disturbing video of the aftermath: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...135209691.html

The Syrian government has not granted the United Nations “a single permit” to bring aid to the besieged city of Aleppo as part of a cease-fire that took effect this week, a senior U.N. official said Thursday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...4bb_story.html
If that's not enough: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...082941999.html

Yes. Us bombed a Syrian Army camp. Syrian called for the end of the ceasefire. Who caused the end of the ceasefire?

Please provide proof of what you're claiming.

Ok.

The Syrian Army’s statement blames “terrorist groups” for jeopardizing the cessation of hostilities, Reuters reports. "It was assumed that the ceasefire will present a real chance to end the bloodshed, but terrorist groups did not adhere to any of the points of the agreement on a ceasefire, the number of violations on their part has exceeded 300," reads the statement published by SANA news.

According to the statement, the Syrian Army has "shown the highest level of endurance in confronting the abuses by terrorist groups."

https://www.rt.com/news/359892-syria...ire-over-army/

The Syrian military statement placed the blame on the rebel groups. Damascus refers to all armed opposition groups as terrorists.

"This step (cease-fire) was to constitute a real chance to stop the bloodshed. But the armed terrorist groups didn't take it seriously and didn't commit to any of its articles," the military command statement said. "The armed terrorist groups took advantage of the declared truce system and mobilized terrorists and weapons and regrouped to continue its attacks on civilian and military areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016.../ap-syria.html


It's usually common practice for the people that initially make bold claims then back them up with sources. I'd like to see some evidence that the U.S is working to destabilize the country when the facts show that Assad has been responsible for this bullshit since day 1.

[Deleted]

Syria claimed to accept the agreement, but never adhered to it. You have to play by the rules of an agreement for it to mean anything.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...754_story.html
And another source with disturbing video of the aftermath: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...135209691.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...4bb_story.html
If that's not enough: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...082941999.html



Ok.

https://www.rt.com/news/359892-syria...ire-over-army/


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016.../ap-syria.html


It's usually common practice for the people that initially make bold claims then back them up with sources. I'd like to see some evidence that the U.S is working to destabilize the country when the facts show that Assad has been responsible for this bullshit since day 1.

From your link

Meanwhile, battles erupted across Syria as both sides took advantage of what may be the last opportunity to kill opponents and grab territory ahead of the implementation of the cease-fire, due to begin Monday.

Your links talks about air strikes on Saturday, before the implementation of the ceasefire.
Before is not "during".

What do you mean you want proof that us is trying to destabilise the country.
Is it or is it not giving support to antigovernment rebels?
Then it's trying to upset the stability of the country. Aka destabilise.
US is not alone mind you. There's still the saudis, Qatar, Turkey, France and whoever is taking part in the coalition that is actively targeting the government in place in Syria.