[cryptome] Re: Geography south of Syria

  • From: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:07:25 -0400

Repugnant war mongering. These besotted militarists just
cannot forego the loss of demonstrable might in South Asia,
Middle East, North Africa and cloaked special ops elsewhere.

Weak-minded national leaders are never happier than when
a war is going on -- or threatened now endlessly -- to lift them
above cheap shit domestic squabbling. Under wartime
conditions anything can be done, fuck law, fuck public
opinion, but really fuck those condemned to lethal
obliteration by Bollywood-scripted exhibitions of

So long as we demonstrate our mighty willful seduction,
invited fucking, by media generation of hot blooded
vicariousness the militarists will reign and rain death on
those we pornographically pretend to care about.

Every story and link posted here about Syria is raw
porn inspired, nothing more popular on and off the
internet than wanking at people being slaughtered.
A grand military tradition to which we phlap in thrall.

At 07:08 AM 8/30/2013, you wrote:
All these links were stories published before British Parliament vetoed Britain’s involvement in attacks against Syria. As usual, some stories may be designed for some audiences, describing a story other than the whole truth.

Since the British vote, I have seen stories where:
* French President says they are still with USA, going to participate in any strikes against Syria.
   * Germany says they will not participate.

This first (BBC) story charts where some attacks against Syria could come from. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386

Note speculation in this first BBC story that Jordan air bases could be used.

Note the 2 US aircraft carriers to the south (USS Nimitz and Harry S Truman) & ask what path they might follow when flying to Syria, assuming any nation they fly over, other than Syria, would be asked for fly-over permission, to avoid a confrontation with that nation. There’s also stealth and drones, where traditional logic, dating back at least to the Pentagon Papers, thinks plausible deniability is possible.

There’s a French aircraft carrier called Charles de Gaulle, out of southern France. I have seen in some news stories another air craft carrier also there, labeled as being from Finland. I suspect a misprint. I tend to wonder, how many nations have aircraft carriers nowadays.

Not Jordan, per this Chinese news story.
<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2013-08/29/c_132672994.htm>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2013-08/29/c_132672994.htm This site is worth noodling around other stories to see if there’s any new info regarding China’s position beyond: * China is pro-Assad, from Syria’s perspective their largest trade partner. China gets crude oil from Syria. * China is utterly opposed to any nation’s sovereignty being violated, except when China is doing it, like recent disputes over territory now held by Japan and India. * China will veto anything in UN which might give cover to US attacks on Syria. * China has been wagging finger at the US saying not to attack Syria, but not being as vociferous as Russia, Iran, Syria, and some other nations.
   * I had heard other info, which I would like to see a confirmation on.

Not Egypt per same Chinese news site.

I have heard, from other stories, that Iraq is now on same side as Iran & Syria in the Sunni – Shiite divide, thanks to US recent memory regime change in Iraq, not producing precisely the results the US wanted … regime changes almost never do. I can’t see Russia’s immediate neighbors going against Russia’s Pro-Assad position.

Here’s part of a BBC map of the region, showing almost a wall across the region, across which aircraft from those two aircraft carriers would have to cross, along with any Saudi and Gulf allies. This story also confirms Jordan’s air bases cannot be used in any strike on Syria. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587

So the only clear path, which makes any sense to me, is over Saudi to where Israel has a port on Red Sea, over Israel, then either Golan Heights air space, or via Med to join RAF from Cyprus, assuming Cyprus is still in the fight, with Britain out of it.

I was wondering if Saudis and any Gulf states were going to be in US coalition, and what they and Israel, and other Arab states, might think about them being part of an air fleet flying over Israel. I do not believe that would be politically expedient for them.

Al Mac = Alister William Macintyre

Other related posts: