Syria Again

srsly78

jackboy wrote: »

So, we can be reasonably sure that this was a deliberate chemical attack. In that case how can anyone serious argue that the American strike on the base was wrong. Surely it was a massive under reaction.

Nobody is disputing that it was a chemical attack, people are just arguing over who is responsible. Look who gains from it (NOT ASSAD). Chemical weapons are really not very effective at all, and their use for false-flag propaganda purposes is a bit of a running joke at this stage. How many times can the USA get away with using the "fake wmd" card?

Gatling

srsly78 wrote: »

How many times can the USA get away with using the "fake wmd" card?

Once but it won't stop people using it as an excuse every time Assad or some other looney leader decides to use them,

One of the problems is people trying to figure out what's going on inside assads and his inner circle heads which is a complete waste of time and effort unless your a forensic psychologist ,

Did he have anything​ to loose using chemical weapons against his own population No ,did his have anything to gain , possibly an edge by saying i will kill with any weapon at my disposal​,

It's been repeatedly proven he's used Sarin Gas in multiple attacks and all we Keep hearing is america and wmds

srsly78

He has no reason to use chemical weapons ffs, they are simply not effective. All that happens is international outrage and an excuse to get bombed by everyone. We already went through the big song and dance of decommisioning his chemical weapons a few years ago, and the other side have been caught using them as well.

Chemical weapons make more sense to the other side, easy to make and deploy - good terror weapon. All ISIS has to do is keep using sarin on everyone else and let Assad take the blame. Remember this is a chemical that has already been used by non-islamic domestic terrorists.

Gatling

srsly78 wrote: »

All ISIS has to do is keep using sarin on everyone else and let Assad take the blame. Remember this is a chemical that has already been used by non-islamic domestic terrorists.

The majority of the chemical attacks in Syria not carried out by assad used chlorine and other irritants and one of mustard gas or improvised mustard weapon,
If Isis had a large supply of sarin i get the feeling it would be used in a spectacular attack ,

Why would assad use chemicals ,the same reason he used mass tortures and killings , why would assad have thousands of civilians eyes gouged out ,

His father was an autocratic ruler with an iron fish ,and here's junior who's lost the country I'm sure junior is desperate but again I'll leave it to the mental health professionals to figure out what's going on inside his head

First Up

nacho libre wrote:

I don't see why you need to argue about the words used to describe what happened.

I know what happened and I agree that the government over-reacted and did some brutal stuff.

I'm not condoning it but you need to see these events in context. They saw what had happened in Iraq and all of the Gulf States were sh*tting themselves watching Tunisia etc. Add in the fact that Iran had previously tried to inspire a coup and that the protests were being led by well-known activists. The Bahraini authorities decided to nip it in the bud (with tacit agreement from the US - the Aramco oil fields are less than an hour away across the causeway) and that's what they did.

Christy42

srsly78 wrote: »

He has no reason to use chemical weapons ffs, they are simply not effective. All that happens is international outrage and an excuse to get bombed by everyone. We already went through the big song and dance of decommisioning his chemical weapons a few years ago, and the other side have been caught using them as well.

Chemical weapons make more sense to the other side, easy to make and deploy - good terror weapon. All ISIS has to do is keep using sarin on everyone else and let Assad take the blame. Remember this is a chemical that has already been used by non-islamic domestic terrorists.

That they have done it with no punishments before is no reason? Even this time they were hardly dealt a killer blow and the weapons are hardly ineffective. There is a reason for them to be developed. Heck why did he have them in the first place for them to be decommissioned if they were so ineffective- surely the money would be better spent elsewhere? By your logic he did not have the weapons that everyone knows he had that were decommissioned as he had no reason to have them.

Impressive logic.

You don't think it odd that not even Russia and Assad agree with you?

jackboy

srsly78 wrote: »

Nobody is disputing that it was a chemical attack, people are just arguing over who is responsible. Look who gains from it (NOT ASSAD). Chemical weapons are really not very effective at all, and their use for false-flag propaganda purposes is a bit of a running joke at this stage. How many times can the USA get away with using the "fake wmd" card?

If has been confirmed that the attack came from an aircraft then only Assad can be responsible. No one else has the capability, unless the Americans did it.

Gatling

jackboy wrote: »

If has been confirmed that the attack came from an aircraft then only Assad can be responsible. No one else has the capability, unless the Americans did it.

Russians is also a possibility

nacho libre

First Up wrote: »

I know what happened and I agree that the government over-reacted and did some brutal stuff.

I'm not condoning it but you need to see these events in context. They saw what had happened in Iraq and all of the Gulf States were sh*tting themselves watching Tunisia etc. Add in the fact that Iran had previously tried to inspire a coup and that the protests were being led by well-known activists. The Bahraini authorities decided to nip it in the bud (with tacit agreement from the US - the Aramco oil fields are less than an hour away across the causeway) and that's what they did.

I know well there motives for doing it, i just don't agree with it. I suppose for some it's acceptable once America gave their tacit approval. You cant have it both ways, If it's wrong in one theater, it was equally wrong there.

nacho libre

Christy42 wrote: »

You don't think it odd that not even Russia and Assad agree with you?

How did the American know he hadn't more weapons there when they struck the facility? The bone of contention is not that it was a false flag, the russians and syrians are not even saying that, their angle is that they hit a rebel storage facility and this dispersed the chemicals into the air. According to an ex cia man, it maybe that the intelligence has been fixed to suit a narrative of outside actors who are keen for the USA to get more involved. Certainly if you were a Jabhat Fateh al-Sham rebel leader or spokesperson of the HNC you would have been dismayed by the comments of Rex Tillerson a couple of weeks ago. This incident was certainly good timing.

It maybe that Assad ordered it, thinking he would get away with it, or another possibility is that he is not fully in command of the military- if this is the case he will obviously never admit it.
I just don't know how you, Gatling, Johndoe and others can be fully sure it was as America and the rebels say, given they both have a track record of being less than truthful.

However, if Assad's account of events is true, he should agree to hand over flight logs and other materials to a third party. I don't see any reason not to

srsly78

jackboy wrote: »

If has been confirmed that the attack came from an aircraft then only Assad can be responsible. No one else has the capability, unless the Americans did it.

Not true at all. If you were the bad actor and wanted to fake a gas attack when would be the perfect time to do it? When a syrian warplane is bombing of course! A single small jet can't carry much ordnance, dropping gas would be useless (this is why nobody bothered using it after ww1).

Everyone has the capability, you can make the stuff in a bath-tub. Admittedly this crowd had a chemist but it aint that difficult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo

Zebra3

srsly78 wrote: »

Not true at all. If you were the bad actor and wanted to fake a gas attack when would be the perfect time to do it? When a syrian warplane is bombing of course! A single small jet can't carry much ordnance, dropping gas would be useless (this is why nobody bothered using it after ww1

Not true. Iraq was gassing Kurdish civilians inside Iraq in the 1980s and gassing Iranian civilians and troops as well.

No western outrage though. Iraq was supported by the US and Britain. The gas even came from West Germany.

srsly78

And how effective was it? Not as effective as dropping normal bombs - which is why it hardly ever gets used. Ok you found an exceptional case, but look at any major war. Why did neither side bother using in ww2?

The only situations it might be effective in is enclosed spaces or underground, subways etc.

Gringo180

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not true. Iraq was gassing Kurdish civilians inside Iraq in the 1980s and gassing Iranian civilians and troops as well.

No western outrage though. Iraq was supported by the US and Britain. The gas even came from West Germany.

The Israelis gassed the Palestinians in Gaza a few years ago. The Americans did the same in Vietnam.

Gringo180

American Sec. of State saying Russia are doing themselves no favours siding with Assad, Iran and Hezbollah. Have they no shame? They side with the Saudis who are the worst of the lot :pac:

jackboy

srsly78 wrote: »

Not true at all. If you were the bad actor and wanted to fake a gas attack when would be the perfect time to do it? When a syrian warplane is bombing of course! A single small jet can't carry much ordnance, dropping gas would be useless (this is why nobody bothered using it after ww1).

Everyone has the capability, you can make the stuff in a bath-tub. Admittedly this crowd had a chemist but it aint that difficult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo

By capability I meant aircraft delivered chemical weapons. I guess it will never be possible to get to the truth as all sides lie all the time. It seems that no sources that can be trusted exist. It's depressing but it looks like Syria is just something to play games with. The nation's of the world have no intention or interest in helping.

First Up

nacho libre wrote:

I know well there motives for doing it, i just don't agree with it. I suppose for some it's acceptable once America gave their tacit approval. You cant have it both ways, If it's wrong in one theater, it was equally wrong there.

I'm not condoning any brutal behaviour and I am certainly not treating US complicity as legitimising anything the government did.

I do however take issue with conditions in Bahrain being described as "truly horrendous". Life in Bahrain is pretty good, including for the Shia majority. Bahrain's version of the Arab Spring arose from other factors and the government's nervousness about it was understandable.

Gatling

It seems putin​ gave a speech earlier saying he had information from various sources saying America was planning a false flag event somewhere is Syria and that the outskirts of Damascus would be bombed by America and now wants the UN to investigate ,

Just happens after autopsy results show Sarin gas was used in last week's chemical weapons attack on civilians ,

A very slow reaction from Russia laden with conspiracy theories

Christy42

Gatling wrote: »

It seems putin​ gave a speech earlier saying he had information from various sources saying America was planning a false flag event somewhere is Syria and that the outskirts of Damascus would be bombed by America and now wants the UN to investigate ,

Just happens after autopsy results show Sarin gas was used in last week's chemical weapons attack on civilians ,

A very slow reaction from Russia laden with conspiracy theories

Did he explain why they lied before?

Christy42

nacho libre wrote: »

How did the American know he hadn't more weapons there when they struck the facility? The bone of contention is not that it was a false flag, the russians and syrians are not even saying that, their angle is that they hit a rebel storage facility and this dispersed the chemicals into the air. According to an ex cia man, it maybe that the intelligence has been fixed to suit a narrative of outside actors who are keen for the USA to get more involved. Certainly if you were a Jabhat Fateh al-Sham rebel leader or spokesperson of the HNC you would have been dismayed by the comments of Rex Tillerson a couple of weeks ago. This incident was certainly good timing.

It maybe that Assad ordered it, thinking he would get away with it, or another possibility is that he is not fully in command of the military- if this is the case he will obviously never admit it.
I just don't know how you, Gatling, Johndoe and others can be fully sure it was as America and the rebels say, given they both have a track record of being less than truthful.

However, if Assad's account of events is true, he should agree to hand over flight logs and other materials to a third party. I don't see any reason not to

Ummm I was responding to someone who was saying it was a false flag attack and now you say the bone of contention was not about it being a false flag attack?

First Up

Christy42 wrote:

Did he explain why they lied before?

What did they lie about?

Christy42

First Up wrote: »

What did they lie about?

They said they hit a chemical weapons center first which caused the incident and are now saying it was a false flag (unless I am mistaken).

They seemed very sure of themselves before, did they lie or did they get misled from the evidence?

Luggnuts

Gatling wrote: »

It seems putin​ gave a speech earlier saying he had information from various sources saying America was planning a false flag event somewhere is Syria and that the outskirts of Damascus would be bombed by America and now wants the UN to investigate ,

Just happens after autopsy results show Sarin gas was used in last week's chemical weapons attack on civilians ,

A very slow reaction from Russia laden with conspiracy theories

2 and a half years is a long time to wait for an investigation into the Ghouta gas attack. A few days doesn't seem so slow.

Luggnuts

So can we say here, correct me if I am wrong or wildly of the mark, an ISIS arms depot was bombed and within that arms depot there were stocks of chemical weapons that affected civilians?

Is that much accurate?

el diablo

Gatling wrote: »

It's already been confirmed as Sarin Gas ,
Sarin is a binary chemical weapon (multiple parts which need a fuse and warhead )and the various parts would be stored separately to prevent such incidents ,
It's not just a simple case​ of an explosion set it off it would have to have been deployed in a shell or missle ,

jackboy wrote: »

If has been confirmed that the attack came from an aircraft then only Assad can be responsible. No one else has the capability, unless the Americans did it.

Gatling wrote: »

Russians is also a possibility

It's almost unbelievable how gullible and naïve some people are here.
You guys are literally lapping up every word the state controlled media is spewing at you. Wake up, they're lying to you.

gitzy16v

Who confirmed it was sarin gas?

el diablo

gitzy16v wrote: »

Who confirmed it was sarin gas?

Some random bloke on CNN most likely. :rolleyes:

gitzy16v

el diablo wrote: »

Some random bloke on CNN most likely. :rolleyes:

I only ask because I heard it was a very biased source and wondered where gatling got his confirmation

el diablo

If it was sarin the first responders would've had to wear full chemical suits. They wouldn't have handled the victims with their bare hands.

gitzy16v

el diablo wrote: »

If it was sarin the first responders would've had to wear full chemical suits. They wouldn't have handled the victims with their bare hands.

That I didnt know...every days a school day!!