Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
arknor said:
until he tried to stop the iraq invasion.

oh look another countries ruler dares defy america and suddenly has problems on it's hands.

seems to be quite the coincidence happening over the last 30 years
Click to expand...

Agreed if I didn't know that UK/USA were the good guys I'd say it was more than a coincidence, ha there's nowt stranger than statistics but it can only be a statistical anomaly... Can't it?:confused::eek::(
 
its does seem wierd timing


assad is winning in military terms
the un chemical weapons inspectors are in the country for the first time and close by to the site

whats in it for the syrian govt if they were already winning and theres a team ready to go on your doorstep to look into it?
 
Sundance said:
Not sure how they have messed it up, can you explain please? That "leak" doesn't seem particularly credible..?
Click to expand...
The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
Click to expand...
it does if he has passports and resumes?
 
arknor said:
it does if he has passports and resumes?
Click to expand...

I think the credibility thing is that all that's been leaked is an email between two colleagues at a British company speculating on something the USA may or may not be planning to do. It's about as credible as most queen wasps (my uncle kills them for a living).
 
I'm skeptical. Second-hand sources on Al Jazeera reported strong smells in the area of the attack but chemical weapons are usually odorless. The rebels are caught up with in-fighting and Assad is winning. The idea that he'd order a chemical attack in his position, with the UN in the area, is pretty laughable.
 
Its most likely that either a facility has been hit during the general fighting which has released toxic chemicals or the rebels did it themselves. Remember the "red-line" for foreign intervention(things like a no fly zone) was the verified use of chemical weapons. Moreover,the UN themselves and the Russians(IIRC) indicated that the rebels themselves probably have chemical weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Iraqi rebels were also implicated in a chemical weapons plot too with labs uncovered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-five-in-al-Qaeda-chemical-weapons-plot.html

A number of the rebels support the Syrian rebel cause too.

People forget that the timing is "very" fishy indeed as only recently have UN inspectors entered Syria(under the invitation of the government) to investigate other claims of chemical weapons use in the past,and that the rebels are now starting to lose ground to the Syrian military anyway. Why would the Syrian armed forces launch massive chemical attacks,when it would mean direct foreign intervention which would destroy any advantage they had over the rebels??

One of these would be their air force which would be permanently neutralised by a no fly zone.

Another thing is that the attack is near Damascus which is where the many of Syrian senior officials are located including el presedente and family,which would mean that they would be potentially downwind of any chemical attack themselves.
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
The Normans were not French in the modern sense.
Click to expand...

That's like saying the the British Empire was not British in the modern sense, or that BMW isn't German in the modern sense. The Normans came from a region which is part of what we today call France, saying a country isn't allowed its history/legacy because its not the same place anymore is just silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom