|
Charlz Guybon posted:If Assad did begin gassing rebel positions/towns, how many people would die before the outside world could react? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Depends on the type of gas, the means of delivery, the location, and the intensity of the attack. If he slimed Resistance positions outside of Damascus, for example, it might only kill a few hundred. If he dropped a lot in someplace like Homs? It could be thousands.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
What would be the strategic upside for Assad in deploying CW? As far as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) they seem pretty indiscriminate. Seems like their deployment would multiply his enemies rather than diminish them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Depends on the type of gas, the means of delivery, the location, and the intensity of the attack. If he slimed Resistance positions outside of Damascus, for example, it might only kill a few hundred. If he dropped a lot in someplace like Homs? It could be thousands. His modus operandi for air attacks has generally been retaliatory against civilian areas. With the steady escalation including Barrel bombs and cluster weapons I think it would be a stretch to assume he intended to use chemical weapons on military targets. edit// There is no upside. Using Chemical weaponry would be a self immolation of the regime on a near unprecedented scale. Either the regime is delusional enough to think it would somehow work or they just want to burn Syria down as revenge. farraday fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:What would be the strategic upside for Assad in deploying CW? As far as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) they seem pretty indiscriminate. Seems like their deployment would multiply his enemies rather than diminish them. Good point. I really don't see a strategic upside for Assad with regards to chemical weapons. The only thing I can think of is desperation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Gadaffi had access to chemical weapons as well, correct? He didn't use them, and I think he was more desperate and even crazier than Assad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Keep in mind Saddam used his chemical weapons in desperation after his forces were pushed back. Anyone know of the current capabilities of Syria's SAM sites?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:What would be the strategic upside for Assad in deploying CW? As far as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) they seem pretty indiscriminate. Seems like their deployment would multiply his enemies rather than diminish them. Well, if he was his father (and a more ruthless and cunning bastard I've never seen) he might roll the dice and launch a chemical strike on Israel hoping to kick off a regional war. He'd probably die somewhere between A and B, but it would certainly fracture the anti-Syria alliance between NATO and the GCC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Well Assad might be delusional enough to think that using gas on rebel positions will be so incredibly demoralizing to them that they just give up fighting and become easy picking for any kind of mop up operations by the syrian military. Or, he might actually succeed in killing a large amount of rebels that are advancing on the center of Damascus (and a crapload of civilians) Which, militarily speaking, would be a victory for him. Until NATO bombs the crap out of his military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
You've been fighting your enemy tooth and nail for over 20 months, you've gutted your country, murdered countless thousands of women and children. Rape has become an institutional form of punishment against civilians. Despite your best efforts you've been pushed back further and further and your grip on power is slipping away by the day. You know there's no way out, you're a dead man already, likely your family too. The real question is why wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Chemical weapons are the worst things ever. We've been doing a lot of chemical warfare prevention type stuff lately, and even wearing the MOPP gear suit is hell in itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
How are u posted:You've been fighting your enemy tooth and nail for over 20 months, you've gutted your country, murdered countless thousands of women and children. Rape has become an institutional form of punishment against civilians. Despite your best efforts you've been pushed back further and further and your grip on power is slipping away by the day. You know there's no way out, you're a dead man already, likely your family too. Possibly, but he still has to rely on his military to carry out their use. And if they truly have Assad's back it seems Assad would have to use them much sooner than the point where all appears lost. At that point, the military may not be interested in sharing the same fate as their leader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Possibly, but he still has to rely on his military to carry out their use. And if they truly have Assad's back it seems Assad would have to use them much sooner than the point where all appears lost. At that point, the military may not be interested in sharing the same fate as their leader. I fervently hope that this is the case. My only point is that judging by his actions Assad, much like Gaddafi, is not a sane man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Possibly, but he still has to rely on his military to carry out their use. And if they truly have Assad's back it seems Assad would have to use them much sooner than the point where all appears lost. At that point, the military may not be interested in sharing the same fate as their leader. Thats a good point. Or even more importantly, his top officials may not be willing to go down with the ship if it looks like the regime is at the breaking point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Thats a good point. Or even more importantly, his top officials may not be willing to go down with the ship if it looks like the regime is at the breaking point. Hitler ordered Albert Speer to destroy everything of value in Germany and leave the survivors nothing as a punishment for losing the war. Speer asked for the sole authority to carry out Hitler's decree... and promptly did everything necessary to ensure that it was never carried out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:What would be the strategic upside for Assad in deploying CW? As far as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) they seem pretty indiscriminate. Seems like their deployment would multiply his enemies rather than diminish them. There is no advantage in the context of a global theater. At the national level it would theoretically be such a horrific attack that it would break the will of the opposition. While one could argue it would be a deterrent against foreign invasion (we'll gas our own people so what will we do to you), in reality Syria is so over matched that it doesn't matter. Chemical bombs won't stop cruise missiles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Ashmole posted:Chemical weapons are the worst things ever. We've been doing a lot of chemical warfare prevention type stuff lately, and even wearing the MOPP gear suit is hell in itself. Yeah, pretty much the only justified use for chemical weapons is that they're pretty much instant area denial. Any thing else is pretty much terrorism. Infantry assaults are slowed because the MOPP suit is heavy, limits vision, muffles sound, hard to talk in, is hot to wear, can't shoulder your gun right, etc. And you wear it because the alternative is doing the Dying Cockroach. And your enemy knows this, which is why he sauced you in the first place. Until there's an anti-chemical warfare protective suit that can be worn as all the time and doesn't hinder the soldier, or the equally-science-fiction concept of powered armor and humanoid robots, you'll still see military men justifying the use of chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
So does Assad have chemical weapons or not? Is there solid, credible evidence he has them and plans to use them? What does he have and how does he plan on delivering it? Sorry, the fiasco with Iraq and their WMDs has left me scarred for life, and now with the US moving carriers around, I'm really, really worried. Chemical weapons are a worst-case scenario for the entire world, basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So does Assad have chemical weapons or not? Is there solid, credible evidence he has them and plans to use them? What does he have and how does he plan on delivering it? Sorry, the fiasco with Iraq and their WMDs has left me scarred for life, and now with the US moving carriers around, I'm really, really worried. Chemical weapons are a worst-case scenario for the entire world, basically. Of all the countries that we know of that have chemical weapons, we probably had the shakiest "intelligence" on Iraqs possession of chemical weapons. And they are the one we invaded. As for Syria, its well established that they have an extensive WMD network not just by us but by many countries. And they pretty much admitted it recently when they said they would use them against foreign aggressors. Iraq was just such an anomoly in US foreign policy that its usually not best to use it in any context when it comes to our current foreign policy by a president with at least half a brain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So does Assad have chemical weapons or not? Is there solid, credible evidence he has them and plans to use them? What does he have and how does he plan on delivering it? Sorry, the fiasco with Iraq and their WMDs has left me scarred for life, and now with the US moving carriers around, I'm really, really worried. Chemical weapons are a worst-case scenario for the entire world, basically. Syria has all of Iraqs WMDs that is where Saddam hid them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:Syria has all of Iraqs WMDs that is where Saddam hid them. Cant tell if serious...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Cant tell if serious... There have been radio political ads that asserted exactly that from the time of the 2004 election. It relies heavily on the audience knowing nothing about the region's politics or history, the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, and "Hey they're all ragheads right? They must be on the same team!". So I guess it all depends on whether or not you think DrPlump is a drooling imbecile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So does Assad have chemical weapons or not? Is there solid, credible evidence he has them and plans to use them? What does he have and how does he plan on delivering it? Sorry, the fiasco with Iraq and their WMDs has left me scarred for life, and now with the US moving carriers around, I'm really, really worried. Chemical weapons are a worst-case scenario for the entire world, basically. We know for a fact that Syria has chemical weapon processing facilities, and that at least one of these facilities was captured by rebels along with testing kits for VX and other nerve gasses. There is a video of rebels testing chlorine gas, most likely homemade, on rabbits. There have been multiple independent reports that Assad ordered his forces to prepare to use sarin gas. Assad has warplanes capable of dropping sarin bombs, and his artillery may be able to launch sarin shells. The Syrian government is able to kill thousands of civilians in a short time, and right now the response is to wait and see what they do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Of all the countries that we know of that have chemical weapons, we probably had the shakiest "intelligence" on Iraqs possession of chemical weapons. Iraq was just such an anomoly in US foreign policy that its usually not best to use it in any context when it comes to our current foreign policy by a president with at least half a brain. Iraq was an anomaly all the way around. Saddam had massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s, and was not particularly compliant with UN inspectors who were charged with destroying the stocks after the first Gulf War. There was every possibility that he had hidden some in reserve, and Saddam gave off plenty of intimations that such had been the case. In 2003, Rumsfeld knew this and played on it, leaving Saddam looking like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. That is why it was so shocking that so little was found. It'd be like North Korea being disarmed and swearing that every secret artillery piece had been found and therefore UN inspectors had to stop looking for them - difficult to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
I'm calling the Regime out on that chemical weapons video. The account has just been created, there is no other presence for the 'Winds Isber Chemical Inscription' brigade anywhere else on the web, non of the other brigades or militias has announced any sort of affiliation, and the whole video reeks of false flag operation. The 'Takbirs' sound very spiritless, which is an easy giveaway. The Quranic Verse written on the bottom of the banner at the back mentions destruction by cold winds. The word used for cold is 'Sarsar', which is not used in modern Arabic, but could be misinterpreted as 'poisonous' by someone who isn't that knowledgeable when it comes to stuff like this. The whole video reeks of a false flag operation. The whole style is distinct from anything I've seen Islamist groups do before, both in style and content. Oh, and the name... I couldn't find out what Isber translates from in Arabic, but this is the first result on Google for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Iraq was an anomaly all the way around. Saddam had massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s, and was not particularly compliant with UN inspectors who were charged with destroying the stocks after the first Gulf War. There was every possibility that he had hidden some in reserve, and Saddam gave off plenty of intimations that such had been the case. In 2003, Rumsfeld knew this and played on it, leaving Saddam looking like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. That is why it was so shocking that so little was found. It'd be like North Korea being disarmed and swearing that every secret artillery piece had been found and therefore UN inspectors had to stop looking for them - difficult to believe. I think the bigger surprise was the lack of skepticism with which many exiled Iraqi sources of intelligence were treated when they were saying Iraq had weapons. That's what bugs me the most about all of it. We'd essentially gotten embroiled in a war based on a deliberate confirmation bias applied to intelligence and induced to the media. Instead, basically everything we've found out since lines up with the stuff Blix/UNSCOM/UNMOVIC were saying, as well as what Saddam's son in law said back in the 90's when he defected and told the UN he'd ordered and overseen the complete destruction of their bio and chem stocks. Essentially, Iraq had no weapons stockpiles of consequence but was not unconditionally declaring disarmament. Statements from the regime regarding disarmament are rife with evidence to this, and point towards the regime possibly believing that unconditional/complete disarmament would be interpreted by certain parties to mean conventional disarmament as well. As for Syria and Assad, there is no question about the possession of chemical weapons, and quite likely bio as well. While you can't really be Nero-level crazy and maintain a stable country for as long as Assad did, long-term dictators can be pretty unpredictable when faced with rebellion/revolution, since their power doesn't get questioned on that level. Assad really seems like an unknown on that front. He's ordered some heinous poo poo, refuses to abdicate or flee, and it's an open question why. Does he have a Romney thing going where he's surrounded by yes-men? Or does he have broad knowledge of the fight yet still believe himself to be capable of victory? Who knows. Unchecked and unquestioned power breeds some hosed-up people. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:10
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I think the bigger surprise was the lack of skepticism with which many exiled Iraqi sources of intelligence were treated when they were saying Iraq had weapons. That's what bugs me the most about all of it. We'd essentially gotten embroiled in a war based on a deliberate confirmation bias applied to intelligence and induced to the media. * (is that a word?) quote:Instead, basically everything we've found out since lines up with the stuff Blix/UNSCOM/UNMOVIC were saying, as well as what Saddam's son in law said back in the 90's when he defected and told the UN he'd ordered and overseen the complete destruction of their bio and chem stocks. Essentially, Iraq had no weapons stockpiles of consequence but was not unconditionally declaring disarmament. Statements from the regime regarding disarmament are rife with evidence to this, and point towards the regime possibly believing that unconditional/complete disarmament would be interpreted by certain parties to mean conventional disarmament as well. When I took a seminar on the Iraq War, I remember my prof suggesting that Saddam's refusal to admit total disarmament was because: he didn't want to be regarded as weak (regionally) and, more probably, that he viewed the threat of these weapons as a deterrent against regime-change, whether domestically or via international intervention.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:28
|
|
|
Chamale posted:There have been multiple independent reports that Assad ordered his forces to prepare to use sarin gas. Every article I have seen calls back to the NBC News piece which only cite unnamed "U.S. officials." I'm not going to speculate on why this story was put out there, but almost all of the news on this traces back to that one NBC report. I went to see Al-Jazeera's coverage on this. The front page only mentions Syria once in a broader context. The only mention of chemical weapons I can find are on their live blog http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153 quote:Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, has warned that France would take a very strong position in the face of any threat of Syrian chemical weapons use, but said such reports needed to be checked out first. For whatever it is worth, I did find this to answer dorkasaurus_rex's question quote:Experts, though, are unable to define the extent of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, emphasising that little public information exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:28
|
|
|
cymbalrush posted:Don't forgot that Congress, bipartisanly* and with very few exceptions, failed to even minimally question the poo poo intelligence they were given. That's probably even more damning than an expectedly jingoist media drumming up for a war. Yeah, basically everyone was itching for war by that time, for different reasons I would imagine, but yeah, confirmation bias applies to practically everyone who had access. There's clear evidence it was editorialized to make Iraq seem a threat that they actually weren't, but that doesn't excuse the bullshit greenlighting they did. As for Iraq, that's also what I had discussed in a few of my policy/modern mideast classes back in the day, where Saddam basically said 99% of what everyone wanted to hear, and held back on agreeing complete disarmament because he still wanted to seem like the tough frowny guy with the bushy 'stache, military beret, and mirror aviators. When you consider the ethnic balance in Iraq, it was a bit like Apartheid South Africa, with a ruling minority, except with the third-party Kurds who just wanted their own place anyway, and neighboring Iran being heavily majority Shi'a with the added bonus of Shi'a government, meaning a distinct possibility of war between the two flaring back up were fighting to break out between the Sunni regime and the Shi'a majority. Saddam didn't want to outright gun down Shi'a left and right, but didn't want to give anyone the idea that he was a pushover, especially considering the enmity between Iran and Iraq. Saddam was probably aware the US would not be as willing to back him in a second war with Iran, and considering we'd decimated his military in '92 he probably knew he wasn't really capable of open warfare. I like to wonder what a book would be like, written by any of history's biggest evil men, were they to survive their fall and write it long after they had nothing to hide. Were there any last-minute phone calls seeking a quiet negotiation of peace, ending in disappointment because there would be no way to save face? What about the internals of their regime? What were the last hours like? Were they continually assured victory until their front door had been kicked down? It just seems like the makings of an interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:55
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I like to wonder what a book would be like, written by any of history's biggest evil men, were they to survive their fall and write it long after they had nothing to hide. Were there any last-minute phone calls seeking a quiet negotiation of peace, ending in disappointment because there would be no way to save face? What about the internals of their regime? What were the last hours like? Were they continually assured victory until their front door had been kicked down? It just seems like the makings of an interesting read. That hypothetical book would be absolutely fascinating. With regards to Saddam, though, I think he was probably shocked that we ended up invading; that he assumed the US was "in" on the secret truth about his lack of weapons and would back down. On the other hand, such a book would probably end up looking like this: 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
cymbalrush posted:That hypothetical book would be absolutely fascinating. With regards to Saddam, though, I think he was probably shocked that we ended up invading; that he assumed the US was "in" on the secret truth about his lack of weapons and would back down. I honestly think he still saw himself as a regional counterweight to Iran and therefore ultimately indispensable. His diminished power went alongside Iran's growing diplomatic isolation, so he probably thought he'd been sent away from the table, but not sent home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
Most of the FBI interviews with Saddam have been released.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
There are certain things we know. A: Several months ago, there were CIA assets on the border, trying to arrange non-weapon logistical support for the rebels and refugees. B: The CIA agents in post-Gadaffi Libya were there to destroy MANPADs and track down loose weapons. C: The behavior of CIA agents during the Libyan revolution. I'm going to bet that there are CIA agents or assets in place in Syria, watching the chem plants carefully, and very possibly being ready to target for planes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Were there any last-minute phone calls seeking a quiet negotiation of peace, ending in disappointment because there would be no way to save face? What about the internals of their regime? What were the last hours like? Were they continually assured victory until their front door had been kicked down? It just seems like the makings of an interesting read. On that note, I kind of wonder whether Assad is trying to pull the same strategy that the Kims have used in North Korea: "look at me, I have WMDs and I'm one crazy unpredictable motherfucker, so you'd better give me what I want." If he does want a clean and relatively comfortable exit, he might be able to get it by making an implicit threat and accepting a comfortable retirement in exile in exchange for not doing something he never wanted to do in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
Raere posted:Gadaffi had access to chemical weapons as well, correct? He didn't use them, and I think he was more desperate and even crazier than Assad. No, he specifically complied with inspectors and removed all of his WMDs because he took Iraq as a warning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So does Assad have chemical weapons or not? Yes, Syria has chemical weapons and has admitted as much. AP Story dorkasaurus_rex posted:Is there solid, credible evidence he has them and plans to use them? What does he have and how does he plan on delivering it? It's been reported that the precursor chemicals for Sarin have been mixed and loaded onto bombs which will be dropped from planes. Presumably, this was seen by either drone or satellites, or by CIA agents working in Syria. If it's really serious, we should start seeing more solid evidence over the next few days as NATO starts to formulate a response. dorkasaurus_rex posted:Sorry, the fiasco with Iraq and their WMDs has left me scarred for life, and now with the US moving carriers around, I'm really, really worried. Chemical weapons are a worst-case scenario for the entire world, basically. I understand the skepticism, but it's pretty well-established that Assad has the gas and he's in a position that's bad enough to consider using it. Unlike Bush, Obama really does not want to get involved in a ME war, and the American public is really war-weary and unwilling to get involved in another fight. For that reason alone it's pretty unlikely that this is a bullshit justification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:On that note, I kind of wonder whether Assad is trying to pull the same strategy that the Kims have used in North Korea: "look at me, I have WMDs and I'm one crazy unpredictable motherfucker, so you'd better give me what I want." If he does want a clean and relatively comfortable exit, he might be able to get it by making an implicit threat and accepting a comfortable retirement in exile in exchange for not doing something he never wanted to do in the first place. I think you may be on to something there. The usefulness of CW is in the threat of using them, not in actually using them. If you do use them, the international response pretty much ensures that your goose is cooked. Using them as a bargaining chip is the only way I can think of where Assad comes out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
The German government has now officially agreed to send the Patriot-missiles. Parliament (Bundestag) will follow soon. The mandate is comprised of around 400 German soldiers. The two batteries Germany will send are comprised of 8 mobile launchers each. The mandate is restricted and will run out on 14th January 2014. Since that's not much news on its own, here is a video: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kabinett-billigt-einsatz-von-patriot-raketen-in-der-tuerkei-1.1543313 It's in German, but contains a nice sequence of German soldiers working on Patriot-launchers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
RE: WMDs and Iraq Chemical and biological weapons are actually fairly easy to make for an industrial nation, it's just cheaper and easier to buy Russian or US equipment off the shelf. In a few cases there are biological agents that only the US, UK, Russia or some major player has. There is no way for another nation to get it's hands on a custom virus or say smallpox, and these weapons aren't sold to third parties. Nuclear is the big one. It's fairly hard to actually manufacture a proper nuclear weapon and building a proper delivery system is even more complex. Take North Korea, the on going joke being we use nukes like that for maibox pranks because of how pathetic their tests are (conventional weapons make a bigger boom now). Then take a look their delivery system, their missile launches are always a hilarious failure. The problem with Saddam was that we sold him the weapons, we knew we sold him x and he used y and x-y was not 0. And while he did destroy or ship out the weapons he pretended it wasn't the case out of paranoia. Syria has chemical weapons full stop. quote:On that note, I kind of wonder whether Assad is trying to pull the same strategy that the Kims have used in North Korea: "look at me, I have WMDs and I'm one crazy unpredictable motherfucker, so you'd better give me what I want." If he does want a clean and relatively comfortable exit, he might be able to get it by making an implicit threat and accepting a comfortable retirement in exile in exchange for not doing something he never wanted to do in the first place. Won't work at all. It's not WMD's that prevent us from turning NK into a giant crater. The problem with NK is three things. First their conventional artillery could incinerate Seoul and cost millions of lives along with crippling SK, even though SK would steam roll them in a military conflict. Second any sort of war with NK would have a staggering cost in life lost, nobody wants it (Clinton came closer than anyone till Powell talked him out of it). Lastly China does not want to dealing millions of brainwashed and starving North Koreans streaming over it's border.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Possibly, but he still has to rely on his military to carry out their use. And if they truly have Assad's back it seems Assad would have to use them much sooner than the point where all appears lost. At that point, the military may not be interested in sharing the same fate as their leader. Could it be a gamble? He is loading up the jets in order to get an offer of asylum from somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:Could it be a gamble? He is loading up the jets in order to get an offer of asylum from somewhere? That's the only strategy that makes sense for Assad, but it's also possible that he is irrational and just wants to slaughter people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:22
|
|