Chemical Weapons

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Syrian rebels could've launched M14 artillery rockets. Here's a BM-14 launcher : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-14

 

Note the list of countries and you'll see Egypt. Then you simply note that the Muslim Brotherhood are all over the place in the middle-east, and could easily manage to get one of those things into Syria. That's just one of many examples of how they could've got one of those launchers too, there's plenty of other countries listed. Just because we've not seen images of rebels using those things, it doesn't mean that they don't have them.

 

That wiki page also links to a page that says the Taliban have those launchers. I'm sure that if the Taliban can manage it, some of the rebels in Syria could also manage it.

That is so unbelievably ropey, mate. Sure, just because there's absolutely no proof, no evidence, no indicators, nor even tenuous suggestions that the opposition has 140mm launchers or rockets with Russian markings and official military numbering, it doesn't mean they don't have them. That's technically true. Even despite independent analysis from those following solely the munitions - not the politics, not the death toll, not America's response, just the weapons and munitions - that have been used in the civil war saying they've never once seen or heard of the opposition having 140mm launchers, they technically 'might' have them.

 

Lots of things are technically possible, but considering your high level of skepticism, even with credible and impartial sources, why would you believe such a load of baseless suggestions with unlikely possibilities? You wouldn't, you'd wait for evidence. There's nothing to say they have ever had 140mm launchers, much less the rockets with chemical warheads, so why suggest it. It's no more relevant that the possibility that Israel has sent them nuclear weapons with which to fight a proxy war. Both 'might' happen. Neither is likely.

 

There's no 'maybe' about the Syrian Army having them though, is there. They've hundreds. They have the chemical weapons too. If we're talking about 'possibilities', I'd say the possibility that they did it is a tad stronger. The UN spoke about the large scale of the attack. Leaving aside the evidence that various global intelligence agencies have given to congresspersons, which purportedly show the rockets being fired from regime-held areas, which would you say is more likely? The rebels launching an absolute fuck load of chemical weapons via weapons and launchers there's absolutely no evidence they have, or the regime that has already killed a fuck load of people, has the weapons, and the means of delivery?

 

You're absolutely right to set a high bar for evidence - nobody can make 100% definitive statements at this point - but it only seems like you only require that level of evidence from one side. I don't think you're skeptical of the UN's very credible, detailed report because of a high standard or skeptical nature towards authority, I think you're dismissive of it because you've made up your mind based on some 'alternative' websites. I purposefully not engaged you much in this thread, because some of the stuff you were posting was way too left-field for me to be arsed with, but now that you're being skeptical of the UN report whilst making strange posts about the opposition with nothing really to back it up, I wanted to express my opinion on it.

 

I'm not totally ruling out the possibility that the opposition forces might have procured an absolute shit load of chemical weapons, snuck into areas controlled by the Syrian regime, and launched an attack on their own areas and some of their own fighters. I'm just saying I don't see a lot of evidence that it was either possible or likely.

[Sugar Ape]

I see no evidence that Red Phoenix doesn't touch cats inappropriately whilst listening to Helter Skelter backwards.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I see no evidence that Red Phoenix doesn't touch cats inappropriately whilst listening to Helter Skelter backwards.

Totally different scenario. I've got video of him doing exactly that.

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

I see no evidence that Red Phoenix doesn't touch cats inappropriately whilst listening to Helter Skelter backwards.

If he is fingering pussies it would be a good thing. But as you said, there is no evidence this has ever happened.

[Sugar Ape]

Totally different scenario. I've got video of him doing exactly that.

Maybe Charles Manson is his real dad and he was born in a UFO hovering above the Bermuda Triangle. Due to the lack of evidence this is what I now believe.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

They're specifically not saying it is the Syrian Army. However, they're not mugs. You know when you don't trust somebody and you want to get somebody in who you know will do a thoroughly independent and professional job? That's where the UN scientists come in.

 

Just because something could have happened, it doesn't mean it did.

 

.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

 

They're specifically not saying it is the Syrian Army. However, they're not mugs. You know when you don't trust somebody and you want to get somebody in who you know will do a thoroughly independent and professional job? That's where the UN scientists come in.

 

Just because something could have happened, it doesn't mean it did.

 

 

The UN is as usuful as a paper hat in a storm. All they will do is tell you if it was a chemical attack and what chemicals, they wont tell you who used it.

Certain parts of the UNO do a great job in the particular area of there expertise.The Un security council set up to stop conflicts around the world by peaceful means however total joke.

America usually dont even bother informing them if they have a interest into going a country simply because they know the UN will say no to them. UK and France same as America concerning the UN and they just dont bother. The UN have failed in Somalia and Syria also Libya and the Balkans and even allowed Al Qaeda to enter Iraq against Husseins wishes of not allowing them in.

Considering it costs 17 billion dollars a year to run, it fails in practically everyway in its main job of stoping or preventing conflicts.

This is also why I said earlier on about Syria and America not being intrested into going into the country.

[Red Phoenix]

Numero I'm not going into the parts where you question "alternative" sites, especially seeing as the last one I linked from had plenty of decent sources. As for the UN report, there's flaws as far as I can tell so far and people are pointing them out.

 

Our issue seems to be that I don't trust the mainstream media or the governments involved in this, and will look for other versions of what might've happened, but you think a lot of these alternative sources don't have the credibility and aren't worth it. So we'll probably never agree.

 

At least we haven't ended up arguing and name calling, etc, though which is obviously good, and this thread will probably roll on for a while yet. I've been looking at pages that point out a lot of issues with the UN report already but it'd maybe take an hour or so to post about it and I need a rest from this for a while now. Will probably post back later though.

 

Maybe Charles Manson is his real dad and he was born in a UFO hovering above the Bermuda Triangle. Due to the lack of evidence this is what I now believe.

 

Have always been interested in the Bermuda Triangle, so repped.

[Unrighteous]

All these fancy weapons... what happened to fighting like nature wanted us to fight...

 

 

[Mr Nando]

Ramble/rant

 

Really wish the West would stop all the meddling in middle eastern/Islamic countries.

 

You would think that the recent past of Iraq and Afghanistan shows the futility of getting involved. Unless Governments really believe the bullshit they spout about victory and democracy.

 

And just like in Libya where we got rid of a secular ruler and now have a destabilised mess with al qadea elements in the government we are now pushing to get rid of another secular ruler which will no doubt become an Islamic Religious State and guess what the rebels have.... links to al qadea... again.

 

Now is it just me or wasn't the war on terror mainly focused against al qadea but now in two successive states we have introduced them into positions of power, be it civil or military.

 

Not mention the state that Egypt is is now, another ruler we helped to shove out and Eqypt's been going so well since then.

 

And waaaaaaaa the Syrians used gas (or it was the rebs, believe the US or Russia? personally believe both sides have used them, and have ofcourse shoot prisoners captured in uniform)

Waaaaaaa the Syrians used cluster bombs (and didnt we drop cluster bombs in Libya, I really really hate the fucking media)

 

 

I know that if there was a rebellion in this country, I know i'd want the side I supported to use all the tools at their disposal to win and wouldn't be very fucking happy with some nosy cunts poking their nose into our business.

 

And does anyone really fucking think that America would have any qualms about 

using cluster bombs/ land mines /nuclear/chemical or biological agents if their country was in trouble. Would. It. Fuck

And personally I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

I just hate the hypocrisy. 

 

I mean fuck at least Russia has a reason for going into Chechnya and Georgia, former members of the USSR and on/or near to the border.

 

What the fuck reason do we and America have to do anything about Syria?

 

I mean there is genocide going on/gearing up or massive abuses of human rights on in countless states around the world, but fuck them lets get rid of Assad. Why don't we get involved in Darfur, Burma, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo or Somalia etc etc

 

Before people say for Human Rights, to stop the killing and to introduce democracy. Where in the last 20 years has a western intervention in a Islamic state actually gone well?

 

From WMD to stop the gassing of Iraqi civilians we created a situation where far people got killed then Saddam ever did or probably ever would.

 

As will doing anything in Syria, even just economic sanctions will cause more pain and suffering for the ordinary person in Syria then if we would just do nothing and just let the Russians supply Assad to crush the rebels.

 

And did it surprise anyone when the French said they were in favour of action?

 

I wonder why that would be then, oh thats right Syria was a  former colony of the French.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

As for the UN report, there's flaws as far as I can tell so far

What flaws, RP?

[Sugar Ape]

What flaws, RP?

Haven't you read the latest blog? It was wrote by a blind Iraqi with 5 nipples and gout and translated from Arabic into French, then from French into Klingon and from there into Chinglish.

 

I don't want to spoil the surprise though so I'll let RP reveal it to you.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Haven't you read the latest blog? It was wrote by a blind Iraqi with 5 nipples and gout and translated from Arabic into French, then from French into Klingon and from there into Chinglish.

 

I don't want to spoil the surprise though so I'll let RP reveal it to you.

I don't trust anybody with fewer than 6 nipples.

[Sugar Ape]

I find when things are converted into Klingon all context is lost.

[BCM]

Ramble/rant

 

Really wish the West would stop all the meddling in middle eastern/Islamic countries.

 

You would think that the recent past of Iraq and Afghanistan shows the futility of getting involved. Unless Governments really believe the bullshit they spout about victory and democracy.

 

And just like in Libya where we got rid of a secular ruler and now have a destabilised mess with al qadea elements in the government we are now pushing to get rid of another secular ruler which will no doubt become an Islamic Religious State and guess what the rebels have.... links to al qadea... again.

 

Now is it just me or wasn't the war on terror mainly focused against al qadea but now in two successive states we have introduced them into positions of power, be it civil or military.

 

Not mention the state that Egypt is is now, another ruler we helped to shove out and Eqypt's been going so well since then.

 

And waaaaaaaa the Syrians used gas (or it was the rebs, believe the US or Russia? personally believe both sides have used them, and have ofcourse shoot prisoners captured in uniform)

Waaaaaaa the Syrians used cluster bombs (and didnt we drop cluster bombs in Libya, I really really hate the fucking media)

 

 

I know that if there was a rebellion in this country, I know i'd want the side I supported to use all the tools at their disposal to win and wouldn't be very fucking happy with some nosy cunts poking their nose into our business.

 

And does anyone really fucking think that America would have any qualms about 

using cluster bombs/ land mines /nuclear/chemical or biological agents if their country was in trouble. Would. It. Fuck

And personally I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

I just hate the hypocrisy. 

 

I mean fuck at least Russia has a reason for going into Chechnya and Georgia, former members of the USSR and on/or near to the border.

 

What the fuck reason do we and America have to do anything about Syria?

 

I mean there is genocide going on/gearing up or massive abuses of human rights on in countless states around the world, but fuck them lets get rid of Assad. Why don't we get involved in Darfur, Burma, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo or Somalia etc etc

 

Before people say for Human Rights, to stop the killing and to introduce democracy. Where in the last 20 years has a western intervention in a Islamic state actually gone well?

 

From WMD to stop the gassing of Iraqi civilians we created a situation where far people got killed then Saddam ever did or probably ever would.

 

As will doing anything in Syria, even just economic sanctions will cause more pain and suffering for the ordinary person in Syria then if we would just do nothing and just let the Russians supply Assad to crush the rebels.

 

And did it surprise anyone when the French said they were in favour of action?

 

I wonder why that would be then, oh thats right Syria was a  former colony of the French.

 

Great post mate, agree with a lot of it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I find when things are converted into Klingon all context is lost.

Oh, Sug, your naiveté is shining through in that post. Klingon adds context.

[Barney_Rubble]

There's no 'maybe' about the Syrian Army having them though, is there. They've hundreds. They have the chemical weapons too. If we're talking about 'possibilities', I'd say the possibility that they did it is a tad stronger.

Which proves what, exactly? Them having a stockpile of chemical weapons doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to use them, or do so against their own people, does it?

 

Again I ask, where is the motive? There isn't one. Why would Assad do it? What is he or his government going to gain from this? Absolutely nothing, nada!

 

If I ask you to cut off your left bollock would you do it? Of course you wouldn't (unless you are a loon, but I don't think that's the case). So why is Assad going to gas his own people, particularly if he has these rebels on the run, knowing full well the consequences of committing such an act?

 

The UN spoke about the large scale of the attack. Leaving aside the evidence that various global intelligence agencies have given to congresspersons, which purportedly show the rockets being fired from regime-held areas, which would you say is more likely?

Which "global intelligence agencies" are these? Ah, yes, the likes of NSA, FBI and so on. The same ones, who had (and still do) European Governments - supposed allies, no less - under surveillance for their own nefarious purposes.

 

This "evidence", as you put it, comes from a party which isn't independent nor is it known to be trustworthy. Simply put, it comes from the same side that wanted Assad taken out at all costs, regardless of the circumstances.

 

I'm not totally ruling out the possibility that the opposition forces might have procured an absolute shit load of chemical weapons, snuck into areas controlled by the Syrian regime, and launched an attack on their own areas and some of their own fighters. I'm just saying I don't see a lot of evidence that it was either possible or likely.

Right, so ask yourself this - what are the rebels going to gain from this and what is their motive for committing such an act, hypothetically speaking?

 

I see no evidence that Red Phoenix doesn't touch cats inappropriately whilst listening to Helter Skelter backwards.

I see no evidence that Sugar Ape is a tory-loving cunt, who listens to past David Cameron conference speeches before going to bed, or reading Margaret Thatcher memoirs during breakfast.

[Sugar Ape]

Wow. Stupid, unfunny and riddled with bad aids. Sucks to be you.

[General Dryness]

On balance of evidence presented in this thread, I would say that either Numero or Red Pheonix are responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. They're both spending far too much time arguing about who it could have been. The posters doth protest too much, methinks.

[Red Phoenix]

Haven't you read the latest blog? It was wrote by a blind Iraqi with 5 nipples and gout and translated from Arabic into French, then from French into Klingon and from there into Chinglish.

 

I don't want to spoil the surprise though so I'll let RP reveal it to you.

 

Glenn Greenwald started out with a blog, I guess he must be full of shit too? You can't just reject a source because it's a blog, you have to try reading what's there. Just because a site isn't well known or established it doesn't mean it's unreliable. It's too easy to attack something because it's a blog, or because you haven't heard of it before, etc. It's basically attacking the messenger instead of the message, which doesn't really help things. It also means you limit yourself to mainstream media, and a lot of it is clearly corrupt with an agenda.

 

Besides, if the blog writer is mainly quoting sources in a post that include the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and so on, what reason is there for you to try and discredit it?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

There's nothing to say a blog can't be the most reliable source of information in the world. Usually a platform for those who want to spread an opinion, a bias, or get click-throughs. It's no different to a forum post really. No more or less credible. If I were you, I'd be way less worried about what sources you 'trust' and way more concerned with veracity.

[Red Phoenix]

What flaws, RP?

 

Will post back either later or early tomorrow. Am going to have to find the stuff again I saw earlier and then check to make sure it makes sense. If it doesn't, will just leave it for the time being.

[Red Phoenix]

There's nothing to say a blog can't be the most reliable source of information in the world. Usually a platform for those who want to spread an opinion, a bias, or get click-throughs. It's no different to a forum post really. No more or less credible.

 

That's why it's best to check it first like I said, I just though Sugar Ape was ripping into it having not even really checked it properly. No big deal either way.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's why it's best to check it first like I said, I just though Sugar Ape was ripping into it having not even really checked it properly. No big deal either way.

As nice as I'm sure the likes of Nile Bowie - a blogger who occasionally contributes opinion pieces to Iranian and Russian state controlled media - and whoever writes the articles that WashingtonBlog leaves unsourced and unnamed are, I'm not sure why these have been used as something other than one person's opinion. As for the mass media, I've rarely mentioned them. I don't trust them either. Again, veracity is more important.

 

Like I say, I've no issue with you posting whatever you like (not that it would matter a fuck if I did have an issue with it, I'm just a random cunt on t'internet), because I can ignore it and move on. What I didn't particularly like was the intense scepticism of the UN report coupled with unquestioning repetition of the likes of Nile Bowie and friends.

 

Anyway, mate, I look forward to seeing your issues with the UN report. That's something worthy of a bit of debate.

[polymerpunkah]

I still have yet to see any rational reason given for Assad doing it.