Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

[Johno please?]

Are you insinuating that everything is falsely blamed on the jews? Thats not the case.

I doubt you have the intellect but just in case, have you heard the Latin phrase, "cui bono"?

Have you seen Four Lions? There are people in here that remind me of barry from that movie.

I think some people in this thread watch a few youtube videos from michael moore or george galloway and think they are the beacon of all knowledge and everything they say must be 100% true.

 

[oulton]

Have you seen Four Lions? There are people in here that remind me of barry from that movie.

I think some people in this thread watch a few youtube videos from michael moore or george galloway.

Whereas your position is to attempt to completely discredit something without even thinking about the possibilty of it being true, like a petulant child screaming 'no no no' when told something they don't want to hear....

 

[SumGuy]

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2drI3uCW3


Why isn't this headline news? because they run all the media that's why, conflict of interests. Even the BBC has been the same with headlines like Assad used chemical weapons.

 

[Freddie1980]

Anyone watching John Kerrys speech on Sky News? Even though I was against getting involved Kerry makes a very impressive case for military intervention.

 

[SumGuy]

Anyone watching John Kerrys speech on Sky News? Even though I was against getting involved Kerry makes a very impressive case for military intervention.

What case is that? "Assad did it, we have proof." We've heard these lies all before.

 

[asim18]

Anyone watching John Kerrys speech on Sky News? Even though I was against getting involved Kerry makes a very impressive case for military intervention.

Of course he does . That's his primary objective after all is it not

It's a bit like saying, "Wow that maths teacher can teach maths!" and actually getting surprised.

 

[gettothechopper]

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2drI3uCW3


Why isn't this headline news? because they run all the media that's why, conflict of interests. Even the BBC has been the same with headlines like Assad used chemical weapons.

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


.... back in may, in refrence to the "chemical weapons used by both sides on a small scale" (the reason investigators were even in syria in the first place)
even the story you quoted was in may

not really sure what your point is ? or do you just not have one?

 

[scorza]

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2drI3uCW3


Why isn't this headline news? because they run all the media that's why, conflict of interests. Even the BBC has been the same with headlines like Assad used chemical weapons.

Probably because Carla del Ponte isn't exactly a good source given her history, last time I heard the name she was going on about prosecuting NATO for their role in Kosovo. If the rebels did it, why didn't Assad let the UN weapons inspectors visit the site for two days? You'd have thought they would have been rolling out the red carpet.

 

[scorza]

lol...you whinge about Russia supporting Syria and if Putin would like too comment on the plight of the estimated 2million refugees as if he were somehow responsible/connected.

When asked if allowing the terrorists to take over Syria would help the refugees(Russia withdrawing their support)...you said it doesn't.


Don't you still get it ? ? ?

Putin does share the responsibility, his unconditional support for Assad essentially gives the regime massive confidence to do whatever it wants, including use chemical weapons it seems.

Allow me to spell it out for you in mono-syllables: I don't support attacking Syria, but I do think that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in the recent attack.

 

[Danthus]

Putin does share the responsibility, his unconditional support for Assad essentially gives the regime massive confidence to do whatever it wants, including use chemical weapons it seems.

Allow me to spell it out for you in mono-syllables: I don't support attacking Syria, but I do think that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in the recent attack.

And western support for the "rebels" has done exactly the same.

 

[scorza]

And western support for the "rebels" has done exactly the same.

Slight difference in capability though.

 

[SumGuy]

Allow me to spell it out for you in mono-syllables: I don't support attacking Syria, but I do think that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in the recent attack.

What makes you think they did?

 

[Danthus]

Slight difference in capability though.

I am sure that is a huge conciliation to the families of the dead.

 

[gettothechopper]

hearsay / speculation and unfounded nonsense

"the World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure"

 

[gettothechopper]

ninja

never mind

 

[scorza]

What makes you think they did?

For the umpteenth time:

1. The Syrian regime has a huge chemical weapons capability - it has never denied it and has not signed international treaties against the use of chemical weapons. There's no evidence that the Syrian rebels have a chemical weapons capability (unless you count calor gas as a chemical weapon), I'm sure it's not easy to develop a chemical weapons capability - besides the payload, where do you start getting gas masks, NBC suits, heavy duty gloves etc?

2. In the worrying scenario that an Al-Queda affiliated group did obtain a chemical weapon, I struggle to believe they'd waste it bombing their own supporters in an attempt to draw US air-strikes - they're much more likely to attempt an attack on Western targets.

3. The chemical weapon attack came days after a rebel attack on President Assad's family, revenge is a plausible motivation especially for hot-heads like Maher Al-Assad.

4. The behaviour of the Syrian regime following the attack suggests that they had something to hide, especially denying access to the site of the chemical weapons attack to the UN weapons inspectors for two days.

5. The attack was against rebel supporters. All these false flag conspiracy theories are all well and good, but 1500 people lost their lives in this attack, what effect would it have on rebel fighters if they found out their loved ones had been killed in such a cruel and nasty way by their own side?

So in short, the Syrian regime had the means, motivation and disposition for this crime, the rebels only the motivation and disposition. Although there's nothing conclusive in the above there's even less evidence to support Putin's ridiculous assertion that the rebels carried out this attack.

 

[ubersonic]

Allow me to spell it out for you in mono-syllables: I don't support attacking Syria, but I do think that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in the recent attack.

We don't even know for certain that chemical weapons were used, if they were we have no way of knowing who used them, all we know is that both sides posses them and logically speaking it would make less sense for the side winning to use them.

For the umpteenth time:

1. The Syrian regime has a huge chemical weapons capability - it has never denied it and has not signed international treaties against the use of chemical weapons. There's no evidence that the Syrian rebels have a chemical weapons capability (unless you count calor gas as a chemical weapon), I'm sure it's not easy to develop a chemical weapons capability - besides the payload, where do you start getting gas masks, NBC suits, heavy duty gloves etc?

To be blunt, your wrong, you can find out how on the internet and buy the ingredients for a basic weapon from Tesco, how do you think they mass produced the stuff during WW1 if you need cutting edge lab equipment? (which happened 99 years ago).

4. The behaviour of the Syrian regime following the attack suggests that they had something to hide, especially denying access to the site of the chemical weapons attack to the UN weapons inspectors for two days.

The UN inspectors who arrived in the country the day before the alleged attack, and were being escorted to the site when they came under rebel fire?

Although there's nothing conclusive in the above there's even less evidence to support Putin's ridiculous assertion that the rebels carried out this attack.

Actually the is just as much evidence to say it was the rebels, plus logic.

 

[Amnesia]

For the umpteenth time:

1. The Syrian regime has a huge chemical weapons capability - it has never denied it and has not signed international treaties against the use of chemical weapons. There's no evidence that the Syrian rebels have a chemical weapons capability (unless you count calor gas as a chemical weapon), I'm sure it's not easy to develop a chemical weapons capability - besides the payload, where do you start getting gas masks, NBC suits, heavy duty gloves etc?

2. In the worrying scenario that an Al-Queda affiliated group did obtain a chemical weapon, I struggle to believe they'd waste it bombing their own supporters in an attempt to draw US air-strikes - they're much more likely to attempt an attack on Western targets.

3. The chemical weapon attack came days after a rebel attack on President Assad's family, revenge is a plausible motivation especially for hot-heads like Maher Al-Assad.

4. The behaviour of the Syrian regime following the attack suggests that they had something to hide, especially denying access to the site of the chemical weapons attack to the UN weapons inspectors for two days.

5. The attack was against rebel supporters. All these false flag conspiracy theories are all well and good, but 1500 people lost their lives in this attack, what effect would it have on rebel fighters if they found out their loved ones had been killed in such a cruel and nasty way by their own side?

So in short, the Syrian regime had the means, motivation and disposition for this crime, the rebels only the motivation and disposition. Although there's nothing conclusive in the above there's even less evidence to support Putin's ridiculous assertion that the rebels carried out this attack.

I'll give you a reason why the rebels did it.

1. To get the west to join the war they cannot win on their own.


I think that trumps all 5 of yours.

Now if you go by the May report from that UN officer she said she believes it was the rebels who used the chemical weapons in May...they have the means and know how.
Also attacking their own ? not exactly unheard of for terrorists to attack/kill themselves or their own....reminds me of that line from C&C Generals where one of the terrorist units says 'i'll make the sacrifice'.

 

[Amnesia]

....

 

[scorza]

We don't even know for certain that chemical weapons were used, if they were we have no way of knowing who used them, all we know is that both sides posses them and logically speaking it would make less sense for the side winning to use them.

Well it's slightly pre-empting the UN report but I think it's safe to say that chemical weapons were used, we can even say it was probably Sarin based on media footage. Since when do we know that the rebels posses chemical weapons?

To be blunt, your wrong, you can find out how on the internet and buy the ingredients for a basic weapon from Tesco, how do you think they mass produced the stuff during WW1 if you need cutting edge lab equipment? (which happened 99 years ago).

To be blunt, let me know how you get on with your own chemical weapon bomb.

The UN inspectors who arrived in the country the day before the alleged attack, and were being escorted to the site when they came under rebel fire?

How do you know it was the rebels who fired on them? All I read was "unidentified snipers".

Actually the is just as much evidence to say it was the rebels, plus logic.

Not by any reasonable definition of logic.