http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/war-and-imperialism/224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria
<http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/analysis/193-ken-macleod-on-iain-banks-use-of-calculators> ** Ken MacLeod: On Iain Banks: Use of Calculators *An obituary for Iain Banks by his friend, socialist SF writer Ken MacLeod* How sections of the left came to abandon Syria<http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/war-and-imperialism/224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria> * - [image: Print]<http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/war-and-imperialism/224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=> - [image: Email]<http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&template=jp_magazine&link=eeb21eea47740f34ee8ac3ae7eacd55615a9d01b> * *How sections of the Left abandon Syria///* Category: War and Imperialism<http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/war-and-imperialism>Published on Monday, 26 August 2013Written by Martin Pravda 1 Comment<http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/war-and-imperialism/224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria#disqus_thread> [image: Submit to Delicious]<http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria&title=How%20sections%20of%20the%20left%20came%20to%20abandon%20Syria>[image: Submit to Digg]<http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria&title=How%20sections%20of%20the%20left%20came%20to%20abandon%20Syria>[image: Submit to Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria&t=How%20sections%20of%20the%20left%20came%20to%20abandon%20Syria>[image: Submit to Google Bookmarks]<http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=edit&bkmk=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria>[image: Submit to Stumbleupon]<http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria&title=How%20sections%20of%20the%20left%20came%20to%20abandon%20Syria>[image: Submit to Technorati]<http://technorati.com/faves?add=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria>[image: Submit to Twitter]<http://twitter.com/share?text=How%20sections%20of%20the%20left%20came%20to%20abandon%20Syria&url=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria>[image: Submit to LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Finternationalsocialistnetwork.org%2Findex.php%2Fideas-and-arguments%2Fwar-and-imperialism%2F224-how-sections-of-the-left-came-to-abandon-syria&title=How%20sections%20of%20the%20left%20came%20to%20abandon%20Syria> On the same day as it was announced that the ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak will be released from prison following the massacres of hundreds of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, reports circulated that the Syrian regime under the dictatorship of Bashar Al Assad had embarked on a chemical attack on its population. Disturbing footage quickly emerged of hundreds of dead and dying people in the opposition-controlled area of Ghouta just outside of Damascus. Images of some of the bodies showed skin turning yellow with visible white foaming at the mouth proving the reports to be accurate. As the hours went on it emerged that over a thousand people had died as a result of being gassed. This was immediately broadcast across Western media outlets as international pressure once again built up against the regime. These two abhorrent attacks in neighbouring Arab nations may appear to have different geopolitical significance if you focus on the relationship the perpetrating regimes have with the West, particularly the US. While both massacres have been internationally condemned by world leaders, the situation in Syria has provoked further discussions about the possibility for Western intervention, whereas the Egyptian massacres have seen no such calls. Behind this contradiction is a hypocrisy inherent in any Western strategic move in the region: it is easy to envisage Western regimes breaking future political deals with the military in Egypt (underlined by the Obama administrations initial reaction to the bloodshed when they stated that they dont take sides), while their relations with the Assad regime are historically much more inconsistent, and many governments such as the British have already publicly cut all its ties. This contradiction also sheds light on why in the past Western governments have sometimes found themselves turning a blind eye to chemical attacks<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/01/iraq1>, but are now using it as a justification to potentially intervene. For Syria, the prospect of further intervention is something they are very used to. The Assad regime could well have been toppled by the mass popular uprising long ago had it not been propped up by Russian arms. Last year it was revealed that Russia had arms deals worth around $1.5 billion<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16797818JgzTtE5QighX_VI3Q> with Syria, and in recent months the assistance from the Lebanese militia Hezbollah has turned the balance of forces strongly in favour of the Assad regime. This is backed up with unconditional political support, and it was no surprise when immediately after the attack a Russian official was quoted as saying the massacre in Ghouta was a planned provocation<http://rt.com/news/russia-syria-chemical-attack-801/> by the opposition. With the clear political support that the Obama administration along with their Western allies have offered to the opposition, and the ever increasing prospect of greater military support in the future (with both Britain and France now threatening a serious move if Assad is proven to have used chemical weapons), it is clear that Syria is being used as a political football by competing global superpowers. There is no need to explain to a generation who have lived through the appalling destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of intervention in the last decade why these Western governments should not be trusted near any humanitarian crisis. More subtle perhaps was their attempt to curb the revolutionary wave in the Middle East and North Africa with their humanitarian intervention in Libya in 2011. What was initially proposed to the world as a relatively peaceful no-fly zone against Gaddafi forces ended in a full military bombardment which resulted in strong accusations of Nato war crimes <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nato-accused-of-war-crimes-in-libya-6291566.html>against civilian targets. As with the destruction we have already seen, the ramifications of global superpowers throwing further fuel onto the fires of the current humanitarian tragedy in Syria is likely to be disastrous. The tragedy of Syria has been spawned out of decades of colonial rule, followed by competing imperialist powers arming and funding both an oppressive and undemocratic regime and regional powers who are hostile to it. The only truly peaceful solution for Syria is one where such intervention and exploitation from forces outside are removed entirely. In this context it would seem that there is a very clear and obvious position for the left internationally to take, and this has not really changed since the initial uprisings against the regime: we should stand against all global powers who wish to intervene, escalate or benefit from this crisis, including those who are already intervening and propping up the current regime. This of course should go hand in hand with offering solidarity with those who are seeking real democracy, who are opposed to and are under attack by their callous dictatorship. On the surface this seems to be a principled perspective which the left should have no problem finding agreement on, yet sadly this is where a lot have got it so abominably wrong. This was seen to be the case early on in the uprising for some influential figures in the anti-war movement. Often politically astute commentators such as Tariq Ali<http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/12/the-uprising-in-syria/> and Seumas Milne<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/07/intervention-syria-descent-into-darkness> started writing off the opposition movement as ultimately hijacked by imperialism; this was well before the conflict fully descended into the armed civil war that exists today. Neither thought it was important to focus on the already ongoing imperialist intervention from Russia and others in support of the regime. Responding to this in a thorough analysis of the balance of forces on the ground last year, Richard Seymour<http://www.leninology.com/2012/07/the-syrian-revolt-enters-new-phase.html> highlighted how absurd it was that sections of the left were branding a relatively unprofessional and poorly armed opposition born out of a genuine popular revolt as merely forces for imperialism, while well-trained and heavily armed regime forces were slaughtering them in any confrontation. This essentially led to a bleak situation where leading figures on the left simply wouldnt comment on Syria except when there was a perceived threat of Western intervention. A heavily armed and funded dictator went on massacring a popular revolt, and all the horrors which attach themselves to armed conflict amounted, and many on the left simply remained silent. Leading figures in the Stop the War Coalition at times attempted to justify this silence by talking about the situation as if it were merely a war between the dominant US empire and anti-imperialist forces. They dismissed the significance of other global powers and their differing interests, and even more problematically the mass popular protests against the regime which was of course the initial catalyst for the conflict. John Rees<http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/theory/157-international/15938-syria-empire-and-revolution-a-reply-to-the-critics-of-the-anti-war-movement>, for instance, suggested that the central dominant power in the region is US imperialism alone, particularly through the power held by its allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He suggested that as a result, movements on the ground which he accepted were popular and rooted from below are essentially limited in what they could achieve; they can either be against Western intervention or in support of Western intervention and this is how we should judge them. In making this point he placed a purist demand on those struggling against Assad: Make it clear that (you) are opposed to Assad but also opposed to Western intervention and...also oppose those within the Syrian revolution who are calling for and taking arms from Western imperialism. These demands were flawed for a number of clear reasons, and behind them lay a dubious and perhaps pernicious regard for the people of Syria. Firstly on the issue of the overarching dominance of the US empire, I have already discussed how this is not the only imperialist interest in the region: in the case of Syria in terms of directly material contributions to the current conflict, the US, Britain and Frances involvement is clearly far less than the economic and military support provided to the regime by Russia. It is of course true that the US has a strong grip over the region as a whole, particularly through its economic ties with the Gulf States, and notably Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime has of course been able to play a reactionary role throughout the Arab Spring, especially in Bahrain where it has used its military and economic weight to crush the uprising, and along with the US it has taken a position of support for the opposition in Syria. However, to suggest that Saudi support signifies complete dominance is to ignore important complexities in the geopolitics of the region. As Richard Seymour argued<http://www.leninology.com/2012/08/a-note-on-complexities-of-syrian.html> in a response to Rees, these sub-imperialisms have interests of their own which, while tendentially confluent with the strategy of the US, follow their own internal dynamics. To give evidence of this he highlights how the Saudi regime initially backed Assad against the opposition but later switched sides as their direct interests changed. To argue that Saudi Arabia is merely a US bastion in the Middle East would therefore appear to be contradicted by their sometimes different approaches. The fact that the Saudi regime has close ties with sections of the opposition far from signifies US control over the opposition as a whole. Of course it is right to be wary of the USs and their allies global power, but it is also important to consider how uncoordinated they have at times been in their approach and how this highlights possible weaknesses. Over the past two years the US has at several stages appeared to build up momentum towards some form of military intervention but they have as yet not been unable to move onto the next stage and turn it into anything materially substantial. This may be changing given the current pressure being waged, but their continual hesitance is potentially quite significant. Unlike in Libya, where the initial popular uprising was notably smaller and more regionally isolated (making it easier for the western governments to relate to), in Syria there were several protests of up to a million across the nation. The opposition to the regime while now mostly fronted by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) ever since the conflict turned into an armed struggle early on is a lot more diverse than Rees makes out and the ideologies amongst it are difficult to epitomise. The FSA appear to have close ties with the West, as they unsurprisingly look to gain as much international support as possible, but the small number who Western governments are negotiating with far from encompass the entirety of those who have at some stage played a part in the opposition against the regime. These are of course harder to track down as they are the mass of ordinary people who are rooted in communities which are now under an intense and sustained bombardment. They are an ideologically unknown entity, hoping to have their say in a post Assad Syria. This is I think one of the main reasons behind the Wests previous hesitance to fully involve itself; its control over the opposition is not entirely absolute. This was underlined by a statemen<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10257208/US-will-not-intervene-in-Syria-as-rebels-dont-support-interests-says-top-general.html>t made last week by the Obama administrations chief military adviser, General Martin Dempsey, who argued strongly against intervention claiming that the opposition does not necessarily support their interests. John Rees is right to point out that most Syrians who are against the regime are also for some form of intervention. Who wouldnt honestly call for assistance when faced with the powerful and well-funded regime forces, the ruthless Shabiha torturing squads, and the militia of Hezbollah? The one-sided anti-imperialist demands Rees places on the opposition are therefore knowingly abstract and unachievable. It also tangentially leaves him in a position which essentially sees a victory for the Assad regime as a lesser of two evils. In occupying this stance he of course chooses to neglect the matter of where this would leave ordinary Syrians. He does not consider the prospects of the millions who have shown public opposition to the regime, or those who are fighting it or under attack now. Nor does he take into account that the friends, neighbours or families of the hundreds of thousands already slaughtered are unlikely to settle for anything other than the removal of the bloodstained regime. He also neglects to consider how Syrians are actually supposed to improve their material conditions and move to greater democracy if Assad is to regain control. Given that his demands on the opposition are essentially impossible while Russia continues to support the regime, how are Syrians supposed to ever resist in the future? The gas attacks on Ghouta and the massacres which came before this have given us a glimpse of Assads strategy to assert his control. I dont see how any serious analysis can claim that Assads crushing of the opposition would be beneficial for Syrians in either the present or the future, and the assertion that his overthrow would simply signify a strengthening of imperialism is a crude dismissal of the complexities which exist within and around Syria. Of course it is important also to recognise that human rights abuses<http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-bloody-truth-about-syrias-uncivil-war-8081386.html> are being committed by some in the name of the opposition to the regime as well. As soon as the uprising turned into a civil war, there were always likely to be atrocities committed by those who claim to represent both sides. There have been brutal murders and several sectarian attacks against Alawites and Christians by some of the FSA and other groups opposed to the Assad regime, which of course the left needs to condemn. This sectarianism is born out of a regime which for decades has divided people against one another depending on race or religion, and before that French colonial rule which did the same, so it is sadly unsurprising that this has become a feature of the conflict. Importantly though, unlike the violence conducted by the regime, this sectarianism is not at all a consistent feature amongst all those who have stood in opposition. One of the most uplifting scenes from footage <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfHgFnJQumc> of the early protests was of banners and chants calling for unification between Christians and Muslims against the regime. It has also brought together marginalised groups who have been targeted by the regime, such asPalestinian refugees<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/16/syrian-rocket-palestinian-refugee-camp>. This suggests that sectarianism is not at all inherent amongst the opposition and this diversity suggests it can be potentially overcome. This of course is not something which can be said of the sectarian slaughter conducted by the Shabiha thugs<http://www.voanews.com/content/un-human-rights-report-charges-shabiha-in-syria-killings/1505535.html> under the control of the regime. Given the severity of the damage that has already been inflicted on Syria, and the prospect of more to come as the threat of military intervention builds up, it will be far from an easy path to democracy even if Assad is overthrown. This will especially be the case if it is done by Nato bombs or some other form of Western invasion, as was the case in Libya. There is also a dangerous threat from violent sectarian groups who have sought to take advantage of the anger and despair that exists in several wartorn regions. There are also undoubtedly reactionary elements within more powerful opposition bodies such as the FSA, as some of the human rights abuses have made clear. However, the fact that the opposition was born out of a mass popular revolt involving millions of ordinary Syrians demanding democracy is still significant. Their involvement at an early stage in this conflict will mean that many will feel in some way a part of an eventual overthrow of Assad, however detached they currently seem to be. For this reason, while Syria will be left devastated whatever happens in the coming months and years, and there will be severe dangers whatever the outcome, the prospects of a post-Assad nation is potentially far less bleak than one in which the current regime is able to fully assert its control. One year on, the anti-anti-Assad position continues to be pushed by large sections of the anti-war left. On the outbreak of the attacks on Ghouta, John Reess organisation Counterfire ignored this atrocity and instead published an article which aimed to discredit the opposition<http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/124-investigations/16605-lynton-crosby-selling-syrian-intervention> by showing links between British lobbyists and the Syrian National Council. There was no mention of the horrendous crimes which had just been conducted by the regime. To anyone drawn to socialist politics through a desire to challenge inhumanity, one can only imagine what effect this abandonment of solidarity for those forced to experience the atrocities in Ghouta is going to have. It is a lamentable disgrace that sections of the left have abandoned Syria and those seeking democracy to a deadly dictatorship which they deem to be a lesser evil. Ironically you can see the influence of an age where the ideologies of imperialism have seeped into everyday thinking, on those anti-war activists who think Syrians do not have the right to overthrow their own regime. The response to this article from those who continue to attack the anti-anti-Assad position will no doubt stress that there is now a very real threat of Western intervention, and that in this context to criticise the regime for human rights abuses is unhelpful. To this I point out that it is possible to be against further intervention, and at the same time not be against those who desperately seek a Syria without this deadly dictatorship. An anti-war position that does not condemn the massacres in Ghouta neither makes sense nor is credible. Today's edition of the Emirates-based newspaper, The National, has an exclusive report <http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/chemical-attack-spurs-finger-pointing-inside-assad-regime#full>claiming that Syrian military officers had not been told that the rockets they were firing contained chemical warheads. The story, by Phil Sands, quotes "a source from a well-connected family, who has contacts with both the opposition and regime loyalists" who says: "We have heard from people close to the regime that the chemical missiles were handed out a few hours before the attacks. "They didn't come from the ministry of defence but from air force intelligence, under orders from Hafez Maklouf [a cousin of Assad]. The army officers are saying they did not know there were chemical weapons. Even some of the people transporting them are saying they had no idea what was in the rockets they thought they were conventional explosives." The same report includes an account of events on Wednesday night provided by the opposition Syrian National Coalition [SNC] which is said to be "based on a timeline from residents inside the affected areas and information collected from sources inside the regime who leak information to the rebels". The SNC, obviously, is not an impartial source but the amount of detail included in this version is certainly interesting: "The SNC said rockets loaded with chemicals were delivered to General Tahir Hamid Khalil, and were later launched from a regime army base housing the 155 brigade. "After a night of fierce fighting on Tuesday in an area on the edge of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta once known for its clean natural water and lush orchards regime troops moved back, leaving only aircraft overhead, the SNC said. "At 2.30am on Wednesday, regime forces under the command of Gen Ghassan Abbas began launching the rockets, 16 of which were aimed at the eastern suburbs of Damascus, and hit Zamalka and Ain Tarma, densely populated areas in the Eastern Ghouta. "As opposition emergency services responded to those initial chemical attacks, rockets armed with high explosive warheads were fired into the same area, hitting ambulance teams as they tried to help victims of the chemical strikes. "At 4.21am, 18 more missiles were fired into eastern Damascus by troops loyal to Mr Al Assad, the SNC said. Another two missiles were aimed at Moadamiya, to the south-west of Damascus, an area known locally as the Western Ghouta. "By 6am, dozens of people from Moadamiya had been taken to a local field hospital suffering from the effects of exposure to a still unidentified poison gas. "At least five poison gas rockets were fired, according to the SNC, four landing in the Eastern Ghouta and one in Moadamiya. Strong winds pushed the gases out from their impact area in Zamalka across to Erbin, a neighbouring district, where more people died. "According to the SNC's account, loyalist forces close to the attack area were issued orders from a 'high level' to wear gas masks in anticipation of the attacks." http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/08/finding-exact-location-of-alleged.html Monday, 26 August 2013 Finding The Exact Location Of An Alleged Chemical Munition, And What It Could Mean After the alleged chemical attack in Damascus last week a number of videos<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLcqi_dE9SU&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4_ws0Xhv4O2ABwjrxYJVK9&index=1> and photographs <http://imgur.com/a/1nziC>were posted online showing the munition opposition activists linked to the attack. One of the munitions, marked 197, was particularly well documented <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r30muA1ll_k/Uhr4zd5cGqI/AAAAAAAAFE8/e6HUIyLkZLY/s1600/197.jpg> <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BNvxUgeYZ6s/Uhr46qOC8qI/AAAAAAAAFFE/deXzkPmqWGk/s1600/1184769_512817145465573_185473020_n.jpg> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f249UZFjRRY/Uhr48S4fWAI/AAAAAAAAFFM/v9otqzV2ddc/s1600/1234794_645736595451532_1185300344_n.jpg> >From these videos it's possible to extract some useful information. One blogger used photographs of the munition, and the shadows it cast at different points of the day, to estimate it had been firedfrom the north<http://thekurdishcause.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/analysis-on-origin-of-cw-missile-191.html> of it's final location. From the photograph and video imagery I believe it was even possible to find the exact location of the munition using satellite maps, so I invited my followers on Twitter to help with the Storyful Open Newsroom investigation<https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/118307175501987556985> of the site, with Twiiter user @koincheking sent me his best guess<https://twitter.com/koincheking/status/371728585607741440> of the location<https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=%2B33%C2%B0+31'+14.62%22,+%2B36%C2%B0+21'+26.81%22&ie=UTF8&hnear=0x1518e42e9b261227:0xf44b34eaeec19d6f,%2B33%C2%B0+31'+14.62%22,+%2B36%C2%B0+21'+26.81%22&gl=uk&t=h&z=19>, between Zamalka and Ein Tarma <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AjbmiMHDJns/Uhr6sROhp1I/AAAAAAAAFFY/3_d4QPjBbjo/s1600/Rocket+map.jpg> Now I had the task of confirming the exact location. Using photos<http://imgur.com/a/XM1Z1> and videos<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kllhsgFrgN0&list=PLPC0Udeof3T5crDTTJKj4bfd5gbquuVp7&index=1> of the munition I found, I began to compare images of the location to what could be seen in the map. The quality of the satellite imagery wasn't too great, but it did give an idea of the location and size of various structures, and I managed to find 5 images from the videos and photos that I matched to the area. In the below images I've used photographs or video stills to mark the field of view onto the satellite map imagery. I've then numbered each point in the map and photograph/still that's a match, and explained it in more detail below. Click the image to see it full sized. *Image 1* * * * * <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KUZ3_u7a6Qk/Uhr8qtaXoLI/AAAAAAAAFFk/L-ChNYV5UEo/s1600/Comp+1.jpg>(Click for full size)This photograph shows the area to the north of the rocket, which is position near the northwest corner of the large apartment building to the south of it's impact location. At point 1 we can see the southwest corner of the building that's just north of the field. From the satellite view this building appears to be only one or two storeys tall. At point 2 we can see a multi-storey building, and can even just make out the rows of windows on the satellite image. To the right of that building is a green area with a single or two storey building, not visible in the photograph because of the angle of the shot. *Image 2* * * <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cbp3VrIdgPU/UhsK2pj-gsI/AAAAAAAAFF0/9r7nB6n4jwg/s1600/Comp+2.jpg> * *This photograph shows the northwest corner of the apartment building south of the field, including the buildings in the distance to the south. Comparing this to the satellite view confirms there's no structures between the corner and the buildings in the southwest. *Image 3* <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7XC8J3BFVP8/UhsLSoKhC5I/AAAAAAAAFF8/t7e4ID-tVMg/s1600/Comp+3.jpg> This photograph shows the view to the north, taken from the middle of the field, east of the impact site. At point 1 we can see the structure that protrudes from the one or two storey building just north of the field. This partly blocks the view of the buildings behind it, but at point 2 we can see the multistory building behind it. You can even make out the pattern of windows on the buildings, with the balcony on the southwest of the building visible on the satellite map, then the four windows, the black area before the next building, and then the next building to it's right. Between point 2 and 3 there's a road, and a single or two storey building, resulting in a gap. At point 3 there's the same building shown in Image 1. *Image 4 * * * <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1utd1MUJdi0/UhsNWfuC0rI/AAAAAAAAFGI/YxdKv47u1Ek/s1600/Comp+4.jpg> * *This image is showing the view from the east side of the field. At point 1 we can see a small shed-like structure near to the apartment buildings south of the field. Behind that structure, at point 2, we see a pair of multi-storey buildings, behind which, at point 3, is another multi-storey building. Point 4 shows a distant building, and to the north of that, at point 5 we can see the southern edges of two large multistory buildings. Much of the view to the left hand side of the image is obscured by trees visible in the satellite image. *Image 5* * * <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ra76yiZVX2w/UhsQTtOfb8I/AAAAAAAAFGU/B_Llrav2yeA/s1600/Comp+5.jpg> * *Here the camera is position to the east of the munition, facing southwest. At point 1 we can see the multi-storey building that's taller than the building next to it, marked as point 2. Behind those two buildings, to the southwest, is a smaller structure, marked at point 3. At point 4 we see the corner of an apartment building, the alignment of which matches both on the satellite map and in the image. --------------------- Individually, none of the images would be strong enough evidence to confirm the location of the munition, but having examined 5 images that appears to match the satellite map, without any noticeable differences from what we'd expect to see from those positions based off satellite map data, it seems like this location is a very strong match. The munition itself appears to have buckled over on impact, which seems reasonable as the center section of the remaining warhead is a hollow metal tube. This would seem to strongly indicate the munition was fired from the north, where 6-8km away you'll find a number of military installations<http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.598893&lon=36.354103&z=13&m=b>, connected by a 2km road to the 155th Brigade missile base<http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.678497&lon=36.474438&z=13&m=b>. In one version of events, the Syrian National Coalition has claimed<http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/chemical-attack-spurs-finger-pointing-inside-assad-regime#ixzz2d2aN4Tyw> the rockets were launched from bases housing the 155th Brigade. *Related Articles* Preliminary analysis of alleged CW munitions used in Syria<http://rogueadventurer.com/2013/08/25/preliminary-analysis-of-alleged-cw-munitions-used-in-syria/> Images of rockets which 'delivered poison' to Damascus<http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-23/images-of-rockets-which-delivered-poison-to-damascus/> Claims Of Opposition DIY Weapons Used In This Week's Alleged Chemical Attack<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/claims-of-opposition-diy-weapons-used.html> More Videos Emerge Of Chemical Attack Linked Mystery Munitions<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/more-videos-emerge-of-chemical-attack.html> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
