Chemical Weapons

[Red Phoenix]

Have been having a quick look around, and it seems like some people are having issues more with the way the UK, US and France are talking their usual shite after the UN report, than actually having issues with the report itself. One thing that was pointed out on one site though (I'm getting past even being bothered about linking other sites if people are just going to discredit them, etc, unless it's quotes from actual writers.) was this from the report :

 

 

The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

 

 

That's from page 18 (21 on the .pdf I think.) of the report here : http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

 

Another part is this from page 25 on .pdf, 22 of report :

 

 

During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.

 

And it's right that these areas were still in rebel hands as the UN team did their job, right? Just saying, because even what they found might not have been so straightforward.
 

It's also kind of strange how hardly anybody seems to wonder about what the Syrian people think of all this. If it came down to a vote with the choice as : Would you rather al-Assad stayed in power if the rebels left, or would you rather al-Assad leave and the rebels take power? I don't think the rebels would have things going so well for them. If most of the people wanted the rebels to win, I think the BBC and the other idiots would be regularly talking about it.

 

Will probably be back later, because I'm 99% sure it won't be long until a lot more problems with this are found.

[Red Phoenix]

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.

 

I didn't know who Nile Bowie was, but after looking I guess you mean RT News as Russian state controlled media. I don't really mind RT News most of the time, because as much as they're clearly pointing out the issues with the US, it's not as if they need to make up anything to do that properly, as the US gov are fucked in the head.

 

As for the next part, I don't think they're one person's opinion when linking to other sources so much. Someone who just writes their opinion on Syria isn't really what I'm interested in either, and I doubt many others will be either when it comes to news on issues like this, unless they're also pointing to/linking to other sources to show that what they're saying makes sense.

[Red Phoenix]

From Reuters, Fri Aug 23, 2013 :

 

 

Earlier this month, opposition fighters widely believed to include Al Qaeda-linked elements captured a major military air base at Mannagh near the border with Turkey. They also pushed deeper into the Assad government's ethnic Alawite heartland of Latakia.

 

While there is no sign the rebels have the capability to operate the government attack helicopters they claimed to have captured at Mannagh, analysts say online videos have shown them increasingly using T-54 and T-62 Soviet-built tanks.

 

The Free Syrian Army - as well as the Al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and other groups - have also been using increasingly potent captured artillery. This has included Grad surface-to-surface rockets analysts say were vital to the Islamist-led push into Latakia.

 

FOREIGNERS HOLD BACK

 

As with militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebel fighters in Syria appeared to have become increasingly adept at designing their own weapons. One set of online videos shows rebel commanders showing off their "Hell Cannon", a 4-metre long rocket said to be capable of delivering 120 kg of high explosive more than 3 kilometers (1.9 miles).

 

One image showed one such launcher apparently built into an industrial digger, perhaps for stability. ( here )

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-weapons-conventional-idUSBRE97M0FH20130823

 

Yet we're supposed to believe they couldn't possibly have M14 launchers.

[Red Phoenix]

Looks like a BM-14 launcher :

 

 

This looks similar to the other type of rocket that the UN report mentioned (watch out for the noise of the rocket at the end, turn your volume down if it's high!):

 

 

Only the Syrian Army can fire the rockets in the report? Seems very unlikely now.

 

The only real question now is where the rockets were fired from, and if it's possible that they could've been fired from areas that the rebels were in. I'd guess that's probably going to turn out to be possible too.

 

As for the sarin, I'm not even doubting that western agencies could help them get hold of some, no matter what quality it is.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Have been having a quick look around, and it seems like some people are having issues more with the way the UK, US and France are talking their usual shite after the UN report, than actually having issues with the report itself.

 

 

 

 

 

France,UK and the US or more  collectively known as FUKUS.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Have been having a quick look around, and it seems like some people are having issues more with the way the UK, US and France are talking their usual shite after the UN report, than actually having issues with the report itself.

I'm sure 'some people' have all sorts of problems with what the UK, US and France are saying. I've no issue believing that at all. Thanks for clarifying, though. There’s nothing wrong with the report, I just wanted to pick you up on what you said, which was ropey at best, with nothing to back it up. That sort of thing can’t be allowed to sit, all uncontested like. If you've got genuine issues with the report, that's fine. Best not to talk about it being problematic without having found anything problematic with it yourself, though.

 

“The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

 

During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.”

You’re going to have to make a point on this one, mate. I can’t extrapolate what you’re saying from those, because I don’t really understand what you think they’re saying? Do you know why the time was ‘very limited’? It was because the Syrian regime ordered them out after 90 minutes, after making them wait for the best part of a week to get in there whilst they bombed the place. I don’t think it says what you think it says.

 

And it's right that these areas were still in rebel hands as the UN team did their job, right? Just saying, because even what they found might not have been so straightforward.

Nope, it’s the opposite of right. Do you think the UN scientists are idiots? That they’ve gone in there, seen a couple of rocket casings and then, with hay hanging out of the side of their mouth, declared there to have been chemical weapons use. If you’ve read the entire report, you’ll see exactly what the UN say and how they’ve come to that conclusion. It’s all there. They’ve not gone in and been fooled by somebody moving bits of metal.

 

The UN are saying that the rockets' were either original or improvised with some having the capacity of 56 litres. That is a fucking load of sarin. Considering there’s no fucking hint of the opposition having sarin – and my contention is that if they had it, they’d try to use it on the regime – and no hint of evidence that they could fire the fucking things even in the event that they did had stockpiles of CW, it's a stretch to think they have such a fuck load of sarin or the ability to use it.

 

 

Will probably be back later, because I'm 99% sure it won't be long until a lot more problems with this are found.

I’m rubbing my face like Hodgson here. 99%, eh? That’s pretty sure. That’s a lot of sureness. It’s almost 100% sure. Of course, you might have made it up and you’re not sure, you’re just guessing. As for ‘more’ problems, there haven’t been any problems outlined by you yet.

 

 

I didn't know who Nile Bowie was

He’s the blogger you linked to on the first page of this thread. The guy paid but the only two nations claiming it’s the rebels, without ever having presented one shred of evidence. I guess it’s up to you whether or not you believe Nile Bowie over many intelligence agencies, an NGO report, and a UN report.

 

Yet we're supposed to believe they couldn't possibly have M14 launchers.

Who said that? Who said you should believe that? Actually, who said ‘they can’t possibly have BM-14 launchers? I didn’t, the UN didn’t. It’s just that there’s absolutely nothing to say they do have them. They might have them. It’s far more likely that they have the launchers than they have the CW, certainly in anywhere near the amount required by the UN report. Still, nothing to suggest they do have even the ability to fire them, much less the sarin itself.

 

As for your link, do you know how far Latakia is from Damascus? It’s somewhere in between fucking far and very fucking far. It’s about as far away from Damascus as fuckin’ Cyprus is.

 

Looks like a BM-14 launcher :

Fucking hell, mate. Do you actually do any research at all before buying into this stuff? I’d honestly have much preferred you to stick with the ‘just because there’s no evidence it doesn’t mean it’s not possible’ thing, because at least that was technically right. Sorry, I’m getting a bit frustrated here. Don’t take that personally. It’s 5:50am in the morning and I’ve just finished some work I’d been behind on, so I’m probably a little snarky. I’m not aiming any of this at you personally, but at what you’ve said. At the argument you’re presenting.

 

You’re right, it does look ‘like’ a BM-14, but only in the same way a Feast ice-cream looks like a Snickers bar. If you take the stick out and smoosh it up a bit, to a Martian it might look ‘like’ a Snickers bar.

 

I knew I should have just carried on by-passing some of the things you posted because I knew I’d get into a protracted debate about it and there was no way I could possibly say anything you’d accept. I think this has to be my last reply on this particular point (the UN report and opposition), because what you’re saying just doesn’t make sense to me and no matter how solid the case is, you’re not going to accept that it’s dramatically more likely that the regime did this.

 

With that in mind, I’ll be as thorough as possible, because unless some new evidence comes up to suggest anybody other than the regime did it, I’m not going to spend too much time going over the same ground: That’s not a BM-14, or anything ‘like’ a BM-14. It’s a fuck load smaller, for a start. It has totally different bore diameter (when the size difference is that big, it’s not difficult to tell). Most obvious, though, is that it has three rows of four cylinders. The BM-14… well, I’ll let you google that. What you’ve got there is a fucked-looking, rubble-covered, Chinese made, 1960s era Type 63 107mm multiple rocket launcher. They have those, and apparently some Croatian RAK-12s.

 

Only the Syrian Army can fire the rockets in the report? Seems very unlikely now.

Now? Now what? Now you’ve posted a video of a broken Type 63 rocket launcher, calling it a BM-14 and a pitch black video that is in a series of three pitch black videos that have been roundly debunked? Yeah, now you’ve done that I think it’s pretty clear. Come on, mate.

 

The only real question now is where the rockets were fired from, and if it's possible that they could've been fired from areas that the rebels were in. I'd guess that's probably going to turn out to be possible too.

You’ve convinced yourself, based on absolutely fuck all, that you’ve proven something here. Videos showing fuck all, you professing videos showing something they don’t, and you saying ‘stuff’. It’s not ‘the only real question’ at all. All of the questions still remain. You know, like where's something to indicate that this might be true. At all. Anything. It's everything vs nothing and you're siding with nothing. Your choice, but I'm not going along for the ride.

 

'For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way.

 

One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex.'

 

As for the sarin, I'm not even doubting that western agencies could help them get hold of some, no matter what quality it is.

Argh. Is there anything that exists anywhere to back that up. At all. It’s just come out of your mind. Well, 'mind' is as polite as I can be when suggesting where you got it from. Weaponised sarin warheads aren’t a packet of twinkies, mate. You can’t just shove them in your pocket and give them to whoever you like to use how and when they like. They’re not the most safe, stable things to have around. The fact you don’t doubt something with no proof and has been made up on the spot, yet are heartily skeptical of the UN report is genuinely baffling to me.

 

The Intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, United States, Turkey, France, Germany, and Israel, as well as the report by the NGO, Human Rights Watch, have all said with a high degree of certainty that it was the Syrian regime. The UN report makes it clear that it came from Syrian controlled areas, using 140mm and 330mm rockets – which backs up everything HRW said – and the scale of the attack was large. The UN report stops short of saying ‘well, obviously it was Syrian forces, you fucking idiots’, but that’s because it wasn’t the objective of the report.

 

Now, as I keep saying, all the intelligence agencies might be lying, the NGO reports might be brilliantly falsified, the UN might really be making it all up - they could all be working in cahoots - and I’ll go along with that if you’d just show something, anything, that is credible that the opposition had the ability to fire 56 fucking liters of sarin from inside the Syrian regime controlled areas – or inside their military instillation – from 140 and 330mm rockets. Sorry, but a video of some guy putting the fucking cylinders of a 50 year old 107mm rocket launcher on back to front – seems like he might be qualified to handle 56 liters of CW, inside multiple warheads - isn't going to cut it. You believe it if you like, rather than you than me, mate.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

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

Other than the obvious reasoning, you mean? I'd imagine the Syrian regime would use CW much for the same reason they've extensively used conventional weapons: To kill lots of people. I'd imagine it's the same reason why the Syrian regime are systematically targeting, attacking and bombing hospitals and using them as makeshift torture centres. I don't think it's for fun, I think it's because they want to crush a rebellion. They've already used many tactics to kill people, what more rationale do you need?

 

I'm not saying they definitely did it, but I'm saying that all the available evidence and logic is pointing directly to it. Every intelligence agency is pointing to it, HWR are pointing directly to it, the UN report backs up their comments. If there was a similar, contrary body of evidence that the rebels had done it, I'd say there'd be a fair debate to be had. But there's nothing. Not one piece of evidence saying they have sarin, not one piece saying they have the ability to fire those weapons, not one piece of logic saying they could have gone in unnoticed into regime held areas/military camps. The evidence is weighted very heavily one way.

[zigackly]

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

 

Oppressive dictatorships being well known for their measured and rational actions.

[Red Phoenix]

Numero, as much as you seem to be getting confused with me, I've been kind of at the same point with you for half of/most of the thread, but have managed to (and will hopefully carry on managing to.) try not to let it get into my posts too much and just put forward the research I've found.

 

I'm glad that you've found a mistake in the videos I linked, because it helps me check better next time, so thanks. I also admit that that was pretty fucking daft, but that's also fine, because I know there's plenty more things I've added to this thread that clearly aren't daft. When you keep mentioning people like Nile Bowie though who I linked at some point, who I still don't even really know, (and yes I'll check who he is again shortly.) then you leave me as confused with you as you seem to be with me.

 

I've linked writing about these issues so far :

 

 - The UK, US and France (or as Scouse Tapas said : the FUKUS trio.) being what could easily be the main cause of problems in the middle east since the end of the Ottoman Empire.

 

 - The Shia cresent, which FUKUS, Israel and other countries would love to see disrupted, even if it is for their own selfish interests.

 

 - Research about planned pipelines that probably play a part in this. If Iraq was for oil, then yes, the pipelines might be a factor. I remember you said the sources weren't good enough so I linked Forbes and the WSJ but you still didn't seem happy about it? Or maybe you moved on to something else, I'd have to go back and check.

 

 - The history of the CIA, which shows how the US government are completely screwed up, and have ripped through countries all over the world to install murdering fascists who leave tens of thousands of dead in their wake.

 

  - How the US are going mental about chemical weapons when they said nothing about Saddam using them, because it was ok as long as it was in their favour in the Iran Iraq war.

 

  - How the US use DU in their own weapons, as well as we do, but pretend that there's nothing wrong with it despite huge opposition and scientific evidence that show otherwise.

 

 - US links with Saudi Arabia, and notably Bandar Bush, who's also said to be a huge part in this.

 

 - How the CIA and various other agencies are operating out of Jordan, but you still seem to think that it's impossible that the rebels could get hold of sarin. Well, if you think about it the CIA could have helped do it themselves. Do you honestly, given their track record, think that they wouldn't help rebels (or should we just say terrorists at this point.) use sarin? Or even do the whole thing themselves, which could be why it was done without any detection so well.

 

I could list plenty more but I'll leave it for now. To carry on going on about someone called Nile Bowie though while conveniently passing over every other bit of research I've linked from several other sources, maybe because it doesn't fit into your own view of how you think this happened, boggles my mind as much as yours seems to be boggled by my mistake with the launcher back there.

 

Oh and sarin?

 

 

 

The US military have reportedly proved that sarin gas production is going on among some Sunni salafists in Iraq, and via Turkey, can reach Syrian rebels, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT, citing classified sources.

 

RT: France, the US and UK are saying the UN report clearly points to the Assad government's involvement in the August attack . But how can they be so sure, especially as the document states that improvised rockets may have been used, possibly pointing to rebel involvement?

 

Michael Maloof: I have a report from a source who has direct connections with classified information and he basically told me that [the] US military did an assessment based upon 50 indicators and clandestine interviews that the sourcing of sarin originated out of Iraq and into Turkey before some of it was confiscated in May in Turkey. He believes that since that report was disseminated in August in 2013, that there has actually been a more significant amount of sarin production both in Iraq and in Turkey going to the opposition, principally Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra.

That was their specific target, to see to what extent Al-Qaeda was actually involved in production, in research and dissemination. He says what was confiscated was bench level or small specimens at the time, but that the production now they believe is much more robust and that the non-proliferation, genie, as he says, is no longer exclusive. So there's quite an increasing concern that this is still ongoing, that production is occurring among some Sunni salafists in Iraq and continues to be transported into Turkey.

 

RT: Can you tell us more about that classified document you’ve seen, which shows that the US knew that Al-Qaeda linked rebels in Syria had sarin gas? 

 

MM: The document itself was published in August 2013 by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). It’s part of the intelligence community. The fact that some of it was actually captured in May along the border in Turkey and it was actually Al-Qaeda, and since it was disseminated my sources are telling me that production has probably increased significantly and sarin gas is being produced quite widely now.  That it's actually ongoing and there's actually a Saudi financier whose name I’m trying to obtain right now.

This raises a whole host of questions, and even though Mr Kerry says we know what the origin of the August 21 shot was into the outskirts of Damascus that killed hundreds of people including children, he tells me that they have been scouring Syria for more than a year looking at all the Syrian military activities and that they have no information on any artillery having been fired that day at that time into that location. So this raises all kinds of further questions as to what this information is which Kerry possesses, but refuses to share with the world.

 

 

http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-rebels-have-sarin-980/

 

Apologies (to you and a couple of others, I doubt most have a big problem with it.) for linking Russian state owned news, but I personally don't have a big issue with them, they've linked a decent amount of truth in the past, but it's not friendly to western governments, obviously. In this case that's probably an advantage. But don't worry, I'm sure there'll be plenty of other decent sources when it comes to this part of the whole Syria conflict, which is basically the CIA and other agencies causing yet more thousands of lost lives, which they seem to be very familiar with over the decades.

 

If they hadn't have helped the rebels, or what we'd call if they were in one of our countries : terrorists, so much from the off, it might've saved most of the lives lost since this whole conflict started.

 

And yes, I'll make sure to link more about sarin if and when I find it. You never know though, maybe the worst will happen and it'll be hushed from the western pro-war outlets until we're ready for the next war and it'll be too late to do anything about it. In that case I'll add it to the ever growing list of previous western wars that ended in massive failure, as we're arguing the same type of shit about an upcoming strike on Iran or something. They're making nukes, you know! (Tell that to the fucking Israeli government, who are said to have plenty of them, and who are 'coincidentally' the main ones in the middle east barking on about another country potentially making them instead.) Oh and National Iranian Oil Company.

[Red Phoenix]

You’re going to have to make a point on this one, mate. I can’t extrapolate what you’re saying from those, because I don’t really understand what you think they’re saying?

 

What I think they're saying? No, I quoted what they said.

 

 

Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

 

During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.

 

You can paint anything you want over those words, but when they're clearly saying evidence had been moved, and they also had indications that potential evidence was being moved and manipulated, some of us will make sure to remember it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm glad that you've found a mistake in the videos I linked, because it helps me check better next time, so thanks. I also admit that that was pretty fucking daft

You're welcome. I'm not sure I can address the rest of your post without being rude, so I'll leave it alone. Not because it's 'convenient' - picking apart things that are 'pretty fucking daft' is a hobby of mine, so I think I've shown great restraint in not picking up on all of your links - but because I'd prefer to be civil. I honestly don't think I could reply to some of them without mockery and rudeness.

[Red Phoenix]

You're welcome. I'm not sure I can address the rest of your post without being rude, so I'll leave it alone. Not because it's 'convenient' - picking apart things that are 'pretty fucking daft' is a hobby of mine, so I think I've shown great restraint in not picking up on all of your links - but because I'd prefer to be civil. I honestly don't think I could reply to some of them without mockery and rudeness.

 

If you can't reply to so many of the points I'm trying to make without having a go I'd guess it's partly because it's not so easy to refute them. You questioned me so much about sarin for instance, but then I link information about it and you say you can't reply without mockery or rudeness? Fair enough.

 

The evidence at the end of the day will become clearer unless the western governments decide to attack before the UN team can get back into the country to do what they originally turned up for :

 

 

UN Inspector: Team to Return to Syria Within Weeks

STOCKHOLM September 18, 2013 (AP)

 

The chief U.N. chemical weapons inspector says his team will return to Syria "within weeks" to complete the investigation it had started before the Aug 21 gas attack of other alleged chemical weapons attacks in the country.

 

Ake Sellstrom told The Associated Press Wednesday the team will evaluate "allegations of chemical weapons use from both sides, but perhaps mainly from the Syrian government's side."

 

He said he doesn't currently think there is a need for more investigations of the Aug. 21 attacks, but said "if we receive any additional information it will be included next time we report."

 

He declined to specify where the inspectors would go or which specific events they would look more closely at.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/inspector-team-return-syria-weeks-20289382

 

 

This of course has the potential to unravel the plans of the UK, US, France and Israel, so don't be too surprised if they don't get to investigate those sites. Will we still be backing rebels if it's proven they're using chem weapons? I'd like to see some votes on that one.

 

By the way : got to love the way they piss around for ages when it's accusations of rebels using chem weapons, but if it's the Syrian government supposedly doing it they're made to enter within days.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

If you can't reply to so many of the points I'm trying to make without having a go I'd guess it's partly because it's not so easy to refute them.

That must be it, mate.

[DooooodekNo5]

My arse is a chemical weapon, cleared the whole pub out the other week after the pear cider got to work, people were running for the doors with their tops pulled up over their noses, i was left at the dart board on my own apart from the barmaid who came over spraying air freshner in my direction.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

.

[BCM]

.

 

I concur

[polymerpunkah]

Other than the obvious reasoning, you mean? I'd imagine the Syrian regime would use CW much for the same reason they've extensively used conventional weapons: To kill lots of people. I'd imagine it's the same reason why the Syrian regime are systematically targeting, attacking and bombing hospitals and using them as makeshift torture centres. I don't think it's for fun, I think it's because they want to crush a rebellion. They've already used many tactics to kill people, what more rationale do you need?

 

I'm not saying they definitely did it, but I'm saying that all the available evidence and logic is pointing directly to it. Every intelligence agency is pointing to it, HWR are pointing directly to it, the UN report backs up their comments. If there was a similar, contrary body of evidence that the rebels had done it, I'd say there'd be a fair debate to be had. But there's nothing. Not one piece of evidence saying they have sarin, not one piece saying they have the ability to fire those weapons, not one piece of logic saying they could have gone in unnoticed into regime held areas/military camps. The evidence is weighted very heavily one way.

Logic doesn't point to it. Whatsoever.

 

There have been 100,000 deaths so far, with no real threat of US intervention.

 

And my guess is Assad has plenty of conventional weapons left with which to kill many many more.

 

Why would he use a weapon that might bring a response that threatens his regime?

[polymerpunkah]

Oppressive dictatorships being well known for their measured and rational actions.

 

He and his old man have been in power for a long long time. Four decades worth, in one of the more unstable regions of the world.

 

Within the frame-work of oppressive dictatorships, they haven't made too many mis-steps.

[General Dryness]

You're welcome. I'm not sure I can address the rest of your post without being rude, so I'll leave it alone. Not because it's 'convenient' - picking apart things that are 'pretty fucking daft' is a hobby of mine, so I think I've shown great restraint in not picking up on all of your links - but because I'd prefer to be civil. I honestly don't think I could reply to some of them without mockery and rudeness.

 

Voted this up for having more front than Blackpool. Nothing at all against Red Pheonix, he's entitled to debate without this kind of thing.

 

When you debate with people "in person", do you find yourself getting punched in the face very often?

[zigackly]

He and his old man have been in power for a long long time. Four decades worth, in one of the more unstable regions of the world.

 

Within the frame-work of oppressive dictatorships, they haven't made too many mis-steps.

 

They both pulled some pretty nasty stunts and got away with it countless times as well.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

They both pulled some pretty nasty stunts and got away with it countless times as well.

Yes they have.

But so have most countries and by that I mean the stuff we have been told to get us to into conflicts, or what America has and still does in the middle east and south American countries.

I know this will sound bad but the likes of them countries in the middle east who have leaders etc carrying out horrendous acts ,they usually keep it in house so to speak.

Not like western countries who are behind countless atrocities not in there own countries but other countries.

Its a bit of a fucked world mate and its sad to say this but it wont get any  safer for our children or grand children as they go through life.

Mankind  since say the 60 or 70s and more so since then are progressing so much faster than previous generations and causing more damage to not only mankind and animals.the destruction of the planet itself has spiraled out of control.

It seriously needs sorting out somehow as not to sound like a doom monger but its all going to come to ahead at some point if we dont.

[Coro]

 

 Considering there’s no fucking hint of the opposition having sarin

 

 

 

Through all your empty bluster, this did jump out.

Is it OK to link the LA Times or will they be dismissed, too? http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,4224285.story

 

You got me going in circles, after reading your posts in this thread I have to check I haven't imagined some of these headlines

 

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

 

Before the UN report you talked about evidence showing the regime was guilty of the CW attack in Damascus but you failed to produce any source. Moving on and we now know one of the favoured 'experts' of the Obama administration has been fired for not having the proper credentials, not to mention her ties with the rebels. You've talked about limited military intervention yet former US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said a strike would be like "throwing gasoline on an extremely complex fire in the Middle East." He brought up past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as examples of how American military action can lead to unintended consequences. He also dismissed attacking Syria to enforce a red line. "I believe to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple of days to underscore or validate a point or principle is not a strategy,"

 

 

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was head of the Central Command when missiles were launched against Iraqi and Afghan targets warned (Ernesto Londoño and Ed O’Keefe, “imminent U.S. strike on Syria could draw nation into civil war,” The Washington Post, August 28, 2013) that “The one thing we should learn is that you can’t get a little bit pregnant.”

 

I've yet to see you qualify the idea of limited intervention. Going on expert opinion like the above, the idea seems truly absurd.

 

This thread could do with someone who supports the idea of intervention whilst providing some substance to their argument.

 

Save me from a clicking and a googling, I just wanna scroll.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Voted this up for having more front than Blackpool. Nothing at all against Red Pheonix, he's entitled to debate without this kind of thing.

 

When you debate with people "in person", do you find yourself getting punched in the face very often?

I thought it preferable to actually replying to his Michael Maloof post. Having been told by Red Phoenix that Intelligence agencies can't be trusted because of fabricated information leading to the Iraq war, to then see him cite Michael fucking Maloof, who was heavily implicated in the total fabrication of information that lead to the Iraq war is a bit more than my hair-trigger temper can take. I know Red Phoenix isn't totally daft, but the words in his last few posts drifted dangerously close. Furthermore, I'm honestly not sure I can see 'I have a report from a source who has direct connections with classified information and he basically told me that...' used as evidence by somebody who had their security clearance revoked for his ties to gun runners without slapping somebody with a wet fish. That post, and others, deserved absolute derision. I chose to step away instead. Still, it's only because so difficult to refute, and so en ponte, that I left it.

 

Through all your empty bluster, this did jump out.

Is it OK to link the LA Times or will they be dismissed, too? http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,4224285.story

Ah, my empty bluster. Good. Let me apologise for all my empty bluster. I'm assuming, with an opening statement like that, you've got some hard and fast evidence - the opposite of empty bluster - to counter what you quoted me as saying. I assume that's why you posted that link? Once I click that link, it's going to make a cool, clinical, forensic case - you wouldn't want to be accused of empty bluster, would you? - that what I've said is wrong and there's evidence showing the opposition forces in the area, now known as the Ghouta, had the ability to fire lots of rockets each filled with upto 56 litres of Sarin, which is incredibly difficult to built in its weaponised form?

 

*click*

 

Right so somebody in "southern Turkey have alleged that Syrian rebel groups were seeking to buy materials that could be used to produce highly toxic sarin gas". Thanks for the link. I don't doubt that the more nefarious, disgusting, terrorist element within the opposition would absolutely love sarin. I think they'd like nuclear weapons if they could get them. I think if they had sarin they'd be using it all over the place, to kill anybody who got in their way: Army, Navy, Police, civilians, women, children, and themselves. So I could definitely believe the suggestion in the article that somebody in Turkey alleged that somebody else was in turkey was looking to buy materials for somebody else in Syria which may or may not have been used to produce sarin.

 

I've no issue with that being possible. What it doesn't show - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the source - is that: 1) Those alleging it were right. 2) That they actually bought some materials, much less the amount required to carry our the 21st attack. 3) That those in al-Nusra have the first idea how to make sarin. 4) That they have the first idea how to make and store weaponised sarin, which needs to be mixed in the warhead because it degrades quickly 5) Most importantly it doesn't show they have sarin, certainly not in the form or the amounts required for the Ghouta attack. It doesn't show anything like it. Even if they had purchased 'materials', making those materials into sarin that is dispersible from a warhead is something entirely different. It's like me buying petrol and being accused of dropping napalm on Vietnam.

 

You got me going in circles, after reading your posts in this thread I have to check I haven't imagined some of these headlines

 

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

I'd suggest you read beyond the headlines. I actually don't have too much problem believing they might have acquired some sarin at some point, although I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest they have. What I do have an issue believing is that they have the large amounts of sarin required for the large scale attack on 21st of August, or the ability to both launch that attack and to do so from Syrian military controlled areas.

 

If any credible evidence appears to the contrary, I'll accept it. If HRW produces a report as convincing as the one they produced claiming it was the Syrian forces, and that report points to the opposition forces being responsible for the attack, I'll accept it. My problem at the moment, as surely any right-minded person can see, is that there's nothing credible, and certainly nothing anywhere near as strong as the evidence against the Syrian regime, to suggest it was the opposition. There's nothing I've seen at all that suggests they did or could do it. If there was, people on here - including me - would be posting it.

 

Before the UN report you talked about evidence showing the regime was guilty of the CW attack in Damascus but you failed to produce any source.

This isn't the FF. You're going to have to be a little bit accurate in your portrayal of what I said, which was that evidence exists, but it's the credibility of the evidence that needs to be questioned. Unless, of course, you think the Americans, British, French, German, and Israeli intelligence agencies are just saying they have evidence, and those who have seen it, like Barbara Mikulski - who serves on the senate intelligence committee and has done since before she was one of just 23 to vote to oppose war in Iraq because she didn't unquestioningly believe the information, and said the evidence made 'a compelling, forensic case' - are all in a massive global conspiracy. I think it's pretty clear that evidence exists. It might not be as credible as some are making out, I said and accept that's a technical possibility.

 

That body of classified evidence has now been supplemented by the UN and HRW, so I think it's fair to say there's a strong case being made, by agencies from different nations - including nations which were against the Iraq war - and by skeptical people who have seen the evidence, and now by independent NGOs, and by the UN. There's nothing credible the other way. How could anybody, at least at the current time, fall on the side of nothing and no evidence, but crassly dismiss the side with all the evidence? Why would somebody do that?

 

Moving on and we now know one of the favoured 'experts' of the Obama administration has been fired for not having the proper credentials, not to mention her ties with the rebels. You've talked about limited military intervention yet former US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said a strike would be like "throwing gasoline on an extremely complex fire in the Middle East." He brought up past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as examples of how American military action can lead to unintended consequences. He also dismissed attacking Syria to enforce a red line. "I believe to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple of days to underscore or validate a point or principle is not a strategy,"

He's not the only one to say it, I said it in this thread too. I read the article myself, and I don't necessarily disagree with him or Panetta. What I talked about was supporting a limited military intervention if certain criteria are met. Criteria like legality, multi-lateralism, exhausted diplomacy, and other provisos. Maybe you, like some others in this thread, think I'm saying, 'fuck it, blow them sand niggers to hell, Dubya. Yeehaw'. I'm not, I haven't, and I wouldn't. What I would tentatively support, if all the criteria required for a just military intervention had been met (and they haven't been), is a clinical, well planned, well executed operation to inhibit the use of chemical weapons on civilians. That might sound absurd to you, and I respect your right to an opinion on that. Or anybody who is against military action, actually. It's my position, though. Respect it, don't respect it, that's up to you.

 

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was head of the Central Command when missiles were launched against Iraqi and Afghan targets warned (Ernesto Londoño and Ed O’Keefe, “imminent U.S. strike on Syria could draw nation into civil war,” The Washington Post, August 28, 2013) that “The one thing we should learn is that you can’t get a little bit pregnant.”

 

I've yet to see you qualify the idea of limited intervention. Going on expert opinion like the above, the idea seems truly absurd. This thread could do with someone who supports the idea of intervention whilst providing some substance to their argument. Save me from a clicking and a googling, I just wanna scroll.

He - Zinni - was talking about unilateral attack, which I've said I don't support. He makes some very good points, and I agree with them. He makes a superb point about people uprising with the knowledge that if things get too heavy they'll be saved by the Americans, and that is a dangerous mindset to support. However, he says something at the end of the interview which doesn't really back up the 'truly absurd' tag you've attributed to his opinion.