ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Video showing 200+ ISIS fighters who surrendered, the pinned comment is the best. lol
So even after Russia and the Syrian government sealed off the site and didn t let inspectors in while they destroyed evidence they still didn t manage to cover it up properly?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Truth is that both sides probably used it and to get rid of Isis not pretty things were done.
Had the US / UK been allowed to continue the entire country would have been overrun by Isis
Welcome to rules of engagement.
Oh look, it's Tefal. I wonder if he's going to post some feeble objection?
The problem for Russia and Syria is that even after they sealed off the site to keep inspectors out, there were still 500 victims showing symptoms of chlorine poisoning. They couldn't make those people disappear.
Inspectors also managed to locate two gas cylinders that tested positive for chlorine. It's not much, but it's enough to validate their findings.
The problem for Russia and Syria is that even after they sealed off the site to keep inspectors out, there were still 500 victims showing symptoms of chlorine poisoning. They couldn't make those people disappear.
Inspectors also managed to locate two gas cylinders that tested positive for chlorine. It's not much, but it's enough to validate their findings.
It's been proved that both sides have used chemical weapons. However, only one side has a consistent record of using chemical weapons against civilians, and that side is Assad's.
* continue what?
* evidence please
Indeed, hell the only reason anyone even cared about the last big news "attack" was because initial reports said sarin and by the time it was found to only be chlorine the West had already made a big show so couldn't lose face by backing down.
What are you on about?
Throughout the entire thread I've held theyve used chemical weapons on civilians never have I supported the vs from Russia.
So why are you saying some "feeble objection?
I don't know where you're getting the idea that this was the only attack anyone ever cared about, or that the West needed to save face about it.
The phrasing of your post implied skepticism about the attack.
I find it ironic Tefal he accuses you of something he himself is guilty of.
You raise a valid point my friend.
As for using it on civilians, lol. He thinks Assad is worse than ISIS (our materially, logistically and financially supported allies and by we I mean UK govt).
You raise a valid point my friend.
As for using it on civilians, lol. He thinks Assad is worse than ISIS (our materially, logistically and financially supported allies and by we I mean UK govt).
It's pretty simple really, after it happened the go to excuse from the Assad apologists was why would he start using chemical weapons now when he's winning. The reality is however that they didn't start now, neither the Syrian government nor the insurgents ever stopped. The only reason it made big news unlike all the others since Obama's red line was because the media originally reported it as Sarin not Chlorine and the west jumped on it. By the time it emerged that it was just another Chlorine attack (or an attack on insurgent Chlorine weapons supplies) the west could hardly back down and say "our bad, we thought it was something we cared about" so Trump took action to save face and bombed that airbase.
It is a really bad excuse anyway - there is still significant work to be done in the North (with Turkey a wildcard), still pockets of resistance all over the East and at the time some possibly challenging engagements to the South yet to come and while he might be on the front foot his military is exhausted from years of fighting and can't afford losses if they can avoid them - short cutting a costly fight would be very tempting (just days before their initial attack had been repulsed with not insignificant losses).
That said if there was a chemical attack I doubt it was sanctioned directly by the regime and more likely a local commander acting semi-autonomously maybe with non-specific orders to take extreme measures.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Continue trying to overthrow Assad arming the rebels who were often with it with al Qaeda based groups . Sorry the 20,000 moderates on the ground.
Had russia not intervened the war between Assad and the rebels would have continued for longer and Isis would have cemented a further foothold in the country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Not a lot of people understand this and refuse to accept it. Interfering and providing support just prolongs the war for everyone, increases suffering, casualties and deaths.
For example, take a look at this, this is an APOBS Mk-7 Mod 2 that was found in ISIS possession.
This isn't something you can buy or is exported elsewhere.
Only the US military uses this which means, the only way this got into Syria is because the US funded and supported rebel weapon programs.
The item itself got in their hands by they stealing it, taking it from the dead rebels who was equipped with this or more likely, got sold it from the rebels themselves for money or free passage through their areas etc.
And that's just one one little thing. You name a country, you likely find their weapon or equipment in Syria supplied to the rebels by the nations themselves or by third party.
Indeed, hell in the early days of the war the rebels were running around using StG 44 assault rifles made in the Third Reich which they looted from an arms depo (Bought by Assad Sr from East Germany after the war).
US army supplied over 100 of the older variant and some of the newer to Iraq (where some equipment was abandoned in retreats from ISIS, etc. not to mention it isn't uncommon for US equipment to end up on the blackmarket) and additionally the US used them in Afghan (not sure if they supplied them to Afghan but they supplied other mine clearing equipment so it is likely) but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.
It is thought others in the region such as Israel and Jordan are operators also.
EDIT: Further while it doesn't mention which variant:
EDIT: I'm not saying it wasn't supplied to ISIS or some "moderate" rebels and ended up in ISIS hands, etc. but for pity's sake show some objectivity - you really think the US would be handing around equipment to some random rebels in Syria that was so strictly US army use and was strictly never exported to other countries, etc. and leads right back to them?
Last edited: