Support NeoGAF

[evil solrac v3.0]

I'm sorry but that single image is not sufficient evidence. One image with an unclear visualization of a supposedly crushed tail-end of a bomb with the rest of it hidden away by someone on Twitter is not sufficient and clear-cut evidence that this was Russian attacks.

All I'm asking for is proper evidence with corroboration from multiple sources. This is a war-crime after all and it shouldn't be taken lightly in determining who the perpetrator was.

yeah you're going to have to wait a little while for the evidence to pop-up. seeing as most of it is charred and burning right now. it's reasonable to make deductions based on the level of destruction and how thorough it was and assume that rebels don't have that kind of firepower but Assad and Russia do.

 

[MisterFalcon]

I'm sorry but that single image is not sufficient evidence. One image with an unclear visualization of a supposedly crushed tail-end of a bomb with the rest of it hidden away by someone on Twitter is not sufficient and clear-cut evidence that this was Russian attacks.

All I'm asking for is proper evidence with corroboration from multiple sources. This is a war-crime after all and it shouldn't be taken lightly in determining who the perpetrator was.

Russia is already backtracking from 'there was no airstrike, the rebels set the convoy on fire' to 'there was an armed pickup truck there so everything in the general area was a legitimate target'

http://news.sky.com/story/syria-aid-convoy-travelling-with-militant-weapon-russia-claims-10586401

 

[commedieu]

Russia is already backtracking from 'there was no airstrike, the rebels set the convoy on fire' to 'there was an armed pickup truck there so everything in the general area was a legitimate target'

http://news.sky.com/story/syria-aid-convoy-travelling-with-militant-weapon-russia-claims-10586401

They are saying no airstrikes because there aren't craters and trucks are still pretty mic intact. The pickup truck had a mortar behind it, hiding on the side of the convoy.

Would a airstrike make a crater?

 

[antonz]

They are saying no airstrikes because there aren't craters and trucks are still pretty mic intact. The pickup truck had a mortar behind it, hiding on the side of the convoy.

Would a airstrike make a crater?

an OFAB-100 is a relatively tiny bomb at only around 200 pounds. Its mainly a High Explosive Fragmentation Bomb. Designed to knock out trucks, infantry etc. So not much of a crater would exist

 

[MisterFalcon]

They are saying no airstrikes because there aren't craters and trucks are still pretty mic intact. The pickup truck had a mortar behind it, hiding on the side of the convoy.

Would a airstrike make a crater?

If they used incendiary bomblets like the Russians have many times in Syria there would be no crater and very little left of the ordnance except for the bomb body.

 

[commedieu]

an OFAB-100 is a relatively tiny bomb at only around 200 pounds. Its mainly a High Explosive Fragmentation Bomb. Designed to knock out trucks, infantry etc. So not much of a crater would exist

If they used incendiary bomblets like the Russians have many times in Syria there would be no crater and very little left of the ordnance except for the bomb body.

Busted.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Busted.

Well, you got me. No crater = no airstrike.

Obviously this was not a drone strike, probably an accident.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Al Assad is really one of the most despicable figures in history.

He stopped becoming a president once he allowed outside forces to enter Syria and turn it into a Hell hole. Even many of his vocal supporters in the Syrian culture elite couldn't continue supporting him.

If he really was a president that cared for his country and people nothing of this would've happened.
He didn't trust his people and neither did they apparently. Now after seeing all this it's pretty clear. Syria has no bright future of this man is still at the helm.

 

[commedieu]

Well, you got me. No crater = no airstrike.

Obviously this was not a drone strike, probably an accident.

No, I mean Russias excuse was busted.

 

[Nivash]

Well, you got me. No crater = no airstrike.

Obviously this was not a drone strike, probably an accident.

That was no accident. Look at how undisturbed the ground is around the vehicle, the weird miscoloration on the chassis and the white powder on the hood. That was deliberate.

It's an obvious insurance scam. That's why the guy on the left looks so happy, 'cause he's getting payed. In my expert opinion as a Russian licensed Conflagration Assessment Professional Officer; Vehicular (KAPOW for short, the letters are different in cyrillic) the same thing clearly happened to the convoy. We all know that the UN is broke and in need of fast money.

Yup. This makes as much sense as the official Russian version of events and must therefore be true.

 

[FreedomFighter]

who's airstrike was it?

UN says it's not totally sure it was even an airstrike.

US now backpedaling about Russian responsibility - initial blame was just reactionary diversion for Deir Ezzer attack on SAA during a ceasefire period. Still doesn't rule out Syrian airforce. But if this is confirmed not to be an airstrike, I'm sure we know who's responsible.

This sure did change the subject nicely.

 

[reckless]

UN says it's not totally sure it was even an airstrike.

US now backpedaling about Russian responsibility - initial blame was just reactionary diversion for Deir Ezzer attack on SAA during a ceasefire period. Still doesn't rule out Syrian airforce. But if this is confirmed not to be an airstrike, I'm sure we know who's responsible.

This sure did change the subject nicely.

Sources for the US backpedaling?

From what I can see the US us very clear that it was Russia/Assad, Russian Su-24s flew over the convoy 1 minute before attacks started getting reported...

The United States has the ability to track warplanes and other aircraft in the region — through radar and other sensors — and the Pentagon has determined with “very high probability” that a Russian Su-24 attack plane was directly over the convoy less than a minute before the airstrike

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/world/middleeast/syria-cease-fire.html

 

[FreedomFighter]

Sources for the US backpedaling?

From what I can see the US us very clear that it was Russia/Assad, Russian Su-24s flew over the convoy 1 minute before attacks started getting reported...

Yeah, I saw a video of Kerry placing the blame on Assad as opposed to the Russians after reading that same NYT article yesterday. I'll try to find it.

 

[KurtSloane]

Busted.

Busted? Who said they used that ordinance?

 

[FreedomFighter]

Found the vid.

And it reminds me of this Guardian article I read earlier - has some insight on why it would be called a Russian airstrike even if the Syrian airforce carried it out:

Previously US officials had said that they would hold Moscow responsible for the attack, even if it was carried out by Syrian aircraft, as Russia had taken responsibility for the regime’s compliance with the ceasefire as part of the 9 September agreement.

But then there's the idea, again, that it might not have been an airstrike. I hope we find out conclusively.

Add to that reports that the terrorist rebels were apparently blocking the convoy and reports that the US says it was the SAA doing it (in rebel held territory no less); this has me leaning toward no airstrike. And this quote from the aforementioned Guardian article is pretty telling:

The US officials said there was no doubt the convoy was destroyed in an airstrike and that western coalition forces had no role in it.

“There are only three parties that fly in Syria: the coalition, the Russians, and the Syrian regime. It was not the coalition. We don’t fly over Aleppo. We have no reason to. We strike only Isis, and Isis is not there. We would leave it to the Russians and the Syrian regime to explain their actions,” said Capt Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

Because what they're leaving out is that al-qaeda/al Nusra (now rebranded as fateh al sham)/ahrar al sham are as well. And they've been getting a ton of cover and protection from the US for months now. They have vested interest in calling this an airstrike even if it might not have been one at all. That's why I want to see something conclusive before I make a final decision.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

https://www.facebook.com/aleppo24news/videos/1174130202625747/

Totally not an airstrike. Totally not the sound of bombs falling, of aircraft, of autocannons.

 

[reckless]

https://www.facebook.com/aleppo24news/videos/1174130202625747/

Totally not an airstrike. Totally not the sound of bombs falling, of aircraft, of autocannons.

Obviously just the rebels causing the trucks to spontaneously catch on fire somehow.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

https://www.facebook.com/aleppo24news/videos/1174130202625747/

Totally not an airstrike. Totally not the sound of bombs falling, of aircraft, of autocannons.

Just a coincidence this happens when Russian strike aircraft fly overhead...


And Russian defense of a mortar truck hidden in the convoy is hilariously reminiscent of their MH17 conspiracy theory.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Wouldn't be the first time we got fabricated White Helmet (lol) videos. I'll wait until we have something conclusive, not videos we hope and trust took place in Aleppo and at the right time. For all we know that footage could be taken at Dier Ez-zor... or Yemen.

 

[Toxi]

And this quote from the aforementioned Guardian article is pretty telling:

The US officials said there was no doubt the convoy was destroyed in an airstrike and that western coalition forces had no role in it.

“There are only three parties that fly in Syria: the coalition, the Russians, and the Syrian regime. It was not the coalition. We don’t fly over Aleppo. We have no reason to. We strike only Isis, and Isis is not there. We would leave it to the Russians and the Syrian regime to explain their actions,” said Capt Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

Because what they're leaving out is that al-qaeda/al Nusra (now rebranded as fateh al sham)/ahrar al sham are as well. And they've been getting a ton of cover and protection from the US for months now. They have vested interest in calling this an airstrike even if it might not have been one at all. That's why I want to see something conclusive before I make a final decision.

It's telling how? The US say the attack is an airstrike and that those are the groups that would be able to perform one. You say "They're leaving out the groups that wouldn't perform an airstrike." Well yeah, that's because they say it's an airstrike.

EDIT: Oh, dear, now I remember where I saw that username. You were the one defending Russia's bullshit when the plane was shot down over Ukraine. And defending Russia's annexation of Crimea. Most ironic username on NeoGAF?

 

[Dragon1893]

This is hearbreaking, I don't even know what to say at this point.

 

[FreedomFighter]

It's telling how? The US say the attack is an airstrike and that those are the groups that would be able to perform one. You say "They're leaving out the groups that wouldn't perform an airstrike." Well yeah, that's because they say it's an airstrike.

EDIT: Oh, dear, now I remember where I saw that username. You were the one defending Russia's bullshit when the plane was shot down over Ukraine. And defending Russia's annexation of Crimea. Most ironic username on NeoGAF?

Fair enough on that point. However, It wasn't that I expected them to say that, but more making a point based on the new info from the UN.

And thanks for that, linking to my post, I always like that. Perhaps I'll start to provide a hotlink for the few of you who enjoy doing so - save you a click. And if that's your take away from that specific post (re: Crimean), I'll just chalk it up to a reading comprehension fail or dyslexia (I mean no disrespect if it's the latter - no shade to anyone with disabilities). And still a ton of unanswered questions about MH17 to place blame - we're all making assessments on the given information to this day.

Anyways, later for Crimea and RIP MH17 passengers - and enough with deflections, let's get back to Aleppo.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Russian drone monitoring the convoy at the strike site in the mid-late afternoon (note long shadows). Responders and witnesses said the strikes begun some time after sunset.

 

[reckless]

Russian drone monitoring the convoy at the strike site in the mid-late afternoon (note long shadows). Responders and witnesses said the strikes begun some time after sunset.

More than just late afternoon, just around sunset. The mortar truck drives by at around 6:15, the UN trucks then drive to the area you have.

However, shadows are clearly visible in this video. This means that they were taken sometime before sunset. Using Suncalc.net, we can see that the video must have been taken very late in the day, perhaps right around 6-6:30 PM, near sunset,

This means that these UN vehicles were passed by the truck that was carrying the artillery piece at approximately sunset. They then moved from this position, down to where the Russian drone spotted them a second time at about 6:50 local time (we know this from analyzing the MOD livestream's metadata) -- and no artillery was visible in that footage. According to the Syrian Civil Defense, known as the White Helmets, the first attack on the UN convoy was made at 7:12 PM -- perhaps 45 minutes after the first video was taken and 22 minutes after the second was taken.

http://www.interpretermag.com/syria-september-20-2016/

What a coincidence, Russia is busy watching the convoy 20ish minutes before the attack.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Also worth noting that the pickup drives past the convoy whilst it is still stationary in Khan al-Asal, several miles away. Exact location.

 

[Pomerlaw]

The Kremlin denies the Earth is round.

RT Trolls explains why flat Earth is Nato's fault.

 

[FreedomFighter]

That Interpreter report is very convincing.