Wow that's cutting edge analysis. Loon.
Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
Wow that's cutting edge analysis. Loon.
Soldato
Well if the americans stopped funding these terrorists the fighting would end a lot sooner, there would be less casualties.
But that doesn't interest you ....you use the words civilian deaths as an argument tool and not because you actually care about the civilians.
Permabanned
Looks like someone couldnt even read the rest of my post.
Any actual evidence to support your assertion that the rebels have the numbers and popular backing? I've only seen two reports suggesting it's the other way round so I'm interested to know if there are reports suggesting the opposite.
You also have to remember that the nature of rebel fighting in general. It's normal people taking up arms and fighting. They generally go round in disorganised groups, no uniforms and use natural cover. The Assad fighters have tanks abd uniforms, the rebels are more likely to use buildings and hide amongst the civilian population leading to.more collateral damage caused by the larger weapons.
So two major reasons why it makes sense that assads loyalists are more likely to kill innocent civilians as collateral than the rebels. Not just because they are "evil" and don't care...
Then there is the question of whether rebel fighters shot/killed, without weapons and uniform are classed as innocents killed. It's easy to tell a uniformed soldier amongst the dead than a fighter that dresses the same as a civilian.
All of the above problems are exactly the same problems we had in Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside conflicts back to the American civil war!
I've said this before but IMO the only way to get Assad and the senior staff to step down/allow a transition government is to grant them pardons for any past "crimes". If you don't then they have no reason to step down and will always fight to the death, hlknowing the only other option would be to stand down, be arrested and either spend their life in jail or be executed...
Ill try and dig up that article tonight. basically, worked on the presumption that the SAA had 220K at the start of the war, suffered around a 100K in desertions, was losing about 1K a month and couldnt trust major chunks of the army remaining because they were the wrong sect - whilst the rebels were gaining numbers, had three quarters of the population on their side (through religious ties) but were too spasmodically disorganised to actually achieve anything coherent for any length of time. I dare say lots has changed.
Yes, theres no doubting that Assad has to go. the problem is the same that makes up the population imbalance in Syria, that only 10% are Alawites who will no doubt be massacred by the victorious rebels unless we have that self-same outside interference. I read that the Alawite region in Syria was preparing for siege so unless theres a government in place heavily indebted to the West and committed to peace in whatever form, all other scenarios just equal lots more death.
Interestingly there has been some argument today that only the russians can realistically enforce the type of security needed to take forward the securing of chemical weapons. I have no idea how this would work with the rebels but I cant see it being a particularly peaceful outcome.
Last edited:
Lets make this simple, Team "A" walk around in uniform, congregate in army bases/camps and hide behind sandbags. Team "B" walk around in plain clothes, congregate in crowds of civilians and buildings and hide behind civilians. Which team do you really think is going to inadvertently kill the most civilians in a firefight? Don't blame the loyalists for collateral damage brought about by the rebels insurgency tactics
Yes they do, they have the means/ability to make them and the means/ability/desire to deliver them, repeatedly saying they don't wont make you right, just wrong multiple times.
No it wouldn't as he would still have superior military might and greater public support.
And what are you doing? Lets look at the facts - assad has chemical weapons, has admitted he has chemical weapons, there is scientific data about the use of these weapons - but what youre saying is the rebels have all the laboratories necessary to produce Sarin, along with the manufacturing facilities to produce the rockets necessary to deliver it?
Heres my proof from the horses mouth - http://news.sky.com/story/1139734/syria-regime-to-declare-chemical-weapons
There is nothing to suggest that the rebels could field that kind of weaponry even if they did want to - there is just no producing this stuff on the fly. If you have some evidence to the contrary, post it.
Last edited:
Soldato
Do you think the rebels make their own weaponry ON THE FLY ?
Be interesting to read as so far the suggestion is that the rebels have support only on religious grounds (assuming all everyone but alawites are against Assad, assuming christains and other non Muslim religions - just under a quarter of the population - support a broadly Muslim rebel alliance rather than a secular government of Assad).
Considering just over half the population is actually Sunni, the rest made up of about half and half alawite and Christian/other, on religion alone only half the population support the rebels, which isn't that far off the reports that ~60% support Assad.
I'd agree with you though about the Russians, they will be the best option to go in and secure the chemical weapons, however we know the US would never agree to that... As for what happens later, that is why you need a transition government where both sides have influence, unfortunately for those that want "justice" that would almost certainly mean letting those senior in assads government off any previous crimes committed (along with any crimes committed by the rebels - of which there are also many).
I didn't even make this myself:
For reference you don't need a laboratory to make Sarin unless you want grade A stuff that will keep for a few months, generic stuff can be brewed as easily as crystal meth.
Of course not, were descending back to standard GD level now. They have used what was brought by defectors, captured from SAA depots or supplied by sympathetic arab nations across the turkish border. the highest order weapons theyve managed to get going to date are Kornet ATGs and some SAMs, but not enough to make a substantial difference.
However, chemical weapons such as Sarin have to be produced ON THE FLY because they degrade quickly, and need to be mixed close to the time of use. They need specialist ingredients, knowledge, facilities and personnel, none of which there is any evidence the rebels have.
Caporegime
Soldato
Now if you already know they are getting supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar then why are you acting like poor rebels are ill equipped and fighting with swords and spears which they have to repair after every battle.
You know they get supplies from elsewhere...so their sarin could have come from elsewhere too.
Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months.
For reference you don't need a laboratory to make Sarin unless you want grade A stuff that will keep for a few months, generic stuff can be brewed as easily as crystal meth.
Be interesting to see what the UN have to say about the stuff that hit Damascus then.
By the way, that photo is of the rebels, however its not a chemical weapon . Actually its rather a sad propane canister bomb and shows just how far away the rebels are from producing anything more serious.
Awakenthemind is infamous for faking photos and is really the rubbish propoganda everyone seems to warn us not to look at, before they look at it!
So what youre saying is its more likely that foreign powers smuggled chemical weapons and the delivery mechanisms to the rebels witht he express aim of framing the SAA?
Look lol, I dont think we're going to convince each other!
Last edited:
Caporegime
No hotlinking
For reference you don't need a laboratory to make Sarin unless you want grade A stuff that will keep for a few months, generic stuff can be brewed as easily as crystal meth.
Still clutching at straws I see
Yes I'm pretty sure that the Syrian rebels can't launch a chemical attack, except by doing really smelly farts. A calor gas bottle on an improvised mortar surrounded by people not wearing gas masks and NBC suits is not credible evidence of a chemical weapons capability.
Soldato
Just look at the motives...the rebels cannot win without the aid of the USA and its allies.
The USA has already stated that if chemical weapons are used then they will come in.
As soon as weapon inspectors enter Syria there are claims of chemical weapons being used.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
THe hilarious part that gets overlooked is, killing people is wrong. Governments make a big deal about mines and chemical weapons because they can in the same move make "normal" weapons used to kill people look somehow better.
It's not, there is no good way to murder someone, or bad ways, and local civilian populations who die don't care if it was a smart bomb, a drone, a soldier with an M16 or a chemical weapon that killed them... they're dead.
Chemical weapons aren't a problem, it's a weapon full stop, it's propaganda and frankly, lack of ability to reason these days that somehow makes people think they are worse simply because we're told they are worse. America/UN/whoever want to look more considerate and moral and right by campaigning against things like mines and chemical weapons(things they come up with in the first place) and for some reason the general public just hears this kind of horse manure and believes it without thinking it through.
Do you care by which type of weapon you get murdered, or is it the murdered part that would probably anger you. Why is killing people with drone attacks fine and moral but a chemical weapon horrendous and evil? Can you not see the general intent that governments want you to think chemical weapons are insanely immoral for the sole reason of making other weapons seem more moral and their actions using them more acceptable?
Currently the US is trying to bully the world into letting them kill thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people over time in Syria because "chemical weapons are soooo evil". It's a pretense, it's likely there was no chemical attack or at least Assad didn't do it. using chemical weapons is apparently we're being told, less moral than using chemical weapons that killed a few hundred(supposedly) as an excuse to wade into a war and kill many times as many people with conventional weapons.........
The discussion based off previous government/media insistence that chemical weapons are so evil, goes directly to should we go in to get rid of the a regime(and all the collateral damage that goes with it), rather than, wait, are chemical weapons even worse than other weapons.
It's not, there is no good way to murder someone, or bad ways, and local civilian populations who die don't care if it was a smart bomb, a drone, a soldier with an M16 or a chemical weapon that killed them... they're dead.
Chemical weapons aren't a problem, it's a weapon full stop, it's propaganda and frankly, lack of ability to reason these days that somehow makes people think they are worse simply because we're told they are worse. America/UN/whoever want to look more considerate and moral and right by campaigning against things like mines and chemical weapons(things they come up with in the first place) and for some reason the general public just hears this kind of horse manure and believes it without thinking it through.
Do you care by which type of weapon you get murdered, or is it the murdered part that would probably anger you. Why is killing people with drone attacks fine and moral but a chemical weapon horrendous and evil? Can you not see the general intent that governments want you to think chemical weapons are insanely immoral for the sole reason of making other weapons seem more moral and their actions using them more acceptable?
Currently the US is trying to bully the world into letting them kill thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people over time in Syria because "chemical weapons are soooo evil". It's a pretense, it's likely there was no chemical attack or at least Assad didn't do it. using chemical weapons is apparently we're being told, less moral than using chemical weapons that killed a few hundred(supposedly) as an excuse to wade into a war and kill many times as many people with conventional weapons.........
The discussion based off previous government/media insistence that chemical weapons are so evil, goes directly to should we go in to get rid of the a regime(and all the collateral damage that goes with it), rather than, wait, are chemical weapons even worse than other weapons.
Ingredients: Sarin = isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) + methylphosphonic difluoride (the ingredients for this compound can easily be sourced).
Knowledge: the ability to use Google, or know what goes in Sarin.
Facilities: A room and a gas mask or two.
Personnel: have you seen the retards that cook crystal meth?
The was a case a few years back where a newspaper managed to order all the ingredients for Sarin just by faxing around orders to a couple of companies.
As for evidence, the Russians were actually complaining to the UN that the rebels were using makeshift Sarin rockets back in July, but the US dragged their heels on it.
----------------------------
You do understand that a gas canister welded to a mortar round can carry any gas the user decides to put in it yeah?
Last edited:
Caporegime
Motive is not evidence of anything. The Syrian regime also had a motive for using chemical weapons against the rebels, plus there's actual evidence of having huge chemical weapon stockpiles and blocking the UN weapons inspectors' access to ground zero for 48 hours.
Caporegime
You do understand what evidence is?