Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Chemical weapon attack in Syria

598 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#571

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:53 AM

You seem to forget that the very reason the Security Council has been unable to act decisively on the entire Syria issue is that two of its permanent members have a vested interest in the rebels being defeated and the status quo of oppressive despot being maintained. There was no time at which Russia was going to do anything other than sit back in their chair and watch the regime crush the opposition, such is their interest in keeping possibly their only strategic point of influence in the entire North African, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean region intact.
  • D- Ice and Irviding like this

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#572

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:04 AM

@GTAvanja Of course. But the problem is with public perceptions you've mentioned before. Public perception was that US messed up acting against regime in Libya. While doing something about Assad earlier would have been the right thing, it'd be a political suicide for many. And politicians think of short term goals and personal careers. Not saving lives of foreigners in distant lands.

The problem is with people. People in US, people in Europe, and people in Middle East. People are selfish, stupid, and don't see the big picture. And so they don't vote for political candidates who can implement good foreign policy. They can't even vote on good domestic policy, and that's something that impacts them directly.

In US, a huge part of the problem is crappy education system. Europe is not much better off in that regard. The rest of the world, with few exceptions, are just totally in the gutter. The one advantage US has is a good constitution and some political structures that prevent the people from making a total mess of everything, stripping down the military, and running economy into the ground like what's happening in most of Europe. But even that's slipping a bit lately.

It's a global problem. No need to point fingers. If you have any solutions, speak up. I doubt it's all roses wherever you are.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#573

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:15 AM Edited by GTAvanja, 10 September 2013 - 11:17 AM.

You seem to forget that the very reason the Security Council has been unable to act decisively on the entire Syria issue is that two of its permanent members have a vested interest in the rebels being defeated and the status quo of oppressive despot being maintained. There was no time at which Russia was going to do anything other than sit back in their chair and watch the regime crush the opposition, such is their interest in keeping possibly their only strategic point of influence in the entire North African, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean region intact.

Yes, but America has a track record of not really needing Security Council's aproval. But as long as they can get everyone else involved and possibly NATO forces, Russian vote in the council is not so relevant. The US is willing to attack even now regardless of what Russians say.

 

And the solution is quite simple and elegant. I'm only afraid that you're just not able to see it as clearly as I am. All it takes is to put me in charge of the planet. Trust me, things would be so much better if I were the emperor of this planet.

 

In US, a huge part of the problem is crappy education system. Europe is not much better off in that regard.

Personally, as flawed as it might be, I think the US education system is miles ahead of what we have in Europe. Your problem lies more in the financial aspect of it. It's too expensive.


K20
  • K20

    suckmyrocket

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012
  • None

#574

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:52 PM

Anyone see the news report on Channel 4 News today [UK]?

 

It was about how Islam and Christianity both state in historical books that the end of the world will start in Syria, Damascus. When the city turns into dust and is no longer in habitable [which is what is happening] it will set a chain reaction that will lead to the end of the world and the birth of a new Christ [end of the world could mean the end of everything we know, mass dead, mass destruction of resources, a basic apocalyptic scene, not the actual world exploding or extinction].

 

Googled some stuff and came up with these links:

 

http://www.usatoday....rouble/2780827/

 

http://www.alamongor...e-end-of-times/

 

It's quite scary. Knowing that sh*t can get out of hand. And if a world war starts, it will most likely be nuclear/large chemical weapons.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this theory?


Majestic81
  • Majestic81

    We are Mot÷rhead, and we play Rock & Roll!

  • The Lost MC
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2012
  • Unknown

#575

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:12 PM

lol that damascus theory thing again? thanks for bringing it up, i needed a laugh. and the city isnt about to be turned into dust, far from it. so i dont know what you're talking about when you say its happening right now.


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#576

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:49 PM

One can always count on media to do some fearmongering. Like K^2 said, people are idiots.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#577

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:14 PM Edited by Irviding, 10 September 2013 - 08:15 PM.

 

You seem to forget that the very reason the Security Council has been unable to act decisively on the entire Syria issue is that two of its permanent members have a vested interest in the rebels being defeated and the status quo of oppressive despot being maintained. There was no time at which Russia was going to do anything other than sit back in their chair and watch the regime crush the opposition, such is their interest in keeping possibly their only strategic point of influence in the entire North African, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean region intact.

Yes, but America has a track record of not really needing Security Council's aproval. But as long as they can get everyone else involved and possibly NATO forces, Russian vote in the council is not so relevant. The US is willing to attack even now regardless of what Russians say.

 

And the solution is quite simple and elegant. I'm only afraid that you're just not able to see it as clearly as I am. All it takes is to put me in charge of the planet. Trust me, things would be so much better if I were the emperor of this planet.

 

What are you even on about in this post? You keep going back and fourth - first you start jumping on the US for not doing anything before, meanwhile people with your beliefs are the one who blast the US for involving themselves in anything, even if it is non militaristic in nature. Furthermore - now you say the US should get the security council's approval, then K2 and Sivis correctly state that the security council is useless in this case since two of the veto holding members have great interest in the Assad regime staying in power - and NOW, you are back to saying the US doesn't listen to the security council anyway.

 

The solution is NOT simple and elegant. You are naive to sit here and think that the Russian government truly wants peace in the region and happy flowers for all and the US/France/Germany are evil nations.

 

The amount of love in this thread for the Kremlin from a bunch of people who aren't even Russian is quite interesting. The US has a sphere of influence across much of the middle east - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey... the Russians have Syria and to a lesser extent Iran. Right now we are threatening to take that away from them and that is why they are fighting so vigiliantly to maintain Assad's regime. Get it through your heads and stop reading bullsh*t on Russia Today.

  • sivispacem likes this

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#578

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:41 PM Edited by GTAvanja, 10 September 2013 - 09:41 PM.

What are you even on about in this post? You keep going back and fourth - first you start jumping on the US for not doing anything before, meanwhile people with your beliefs are the one who blast the US for involving themselves in anything, even if it is non militaristic in nature. Furthermore - now you say the US should get the security council's approval, then K2 and Sivis correctly state that the security council is useless in this case since two of the veto holding members have great interest in the Assad regime staying in power - and NOW, you are back to saying the US doesn't listen to the security council anyway.

 

The solution is NOT simple and elegant. You are naive to sit here and think that the Russian government truly wants peace in the region and happy flowers for all and the US/France/Germany are evil nations.

I mean that the US wouldn't have needed Russia's vote in the Security Council. But if they had France and UK that would perhaps be enough to intervene, ad Obama wouldn't have to go to Congress. But that's all over now.

 

As for the simple and elegant solution, I was referring to the idea of putting me in charge of the planet.

 

Anyway, here's some potentially good news for warmongers: http://www.washingto...eace-talks.html

 

What the hell? Just back down. Accept the peaceful resolution and let it go. Does anyone know why they insist on this so much? They have to know that Assad is not going to admit that he did something they have no evidence of. If they had evidence, why would they ask him to admit it? It sounds very suspicious to me that this attack would remain limited when they seem so hellbent on having this war.


Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#579

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:05 PM

So peaceful resolution?

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#580

Posted 11 September 2013 - 12:32 AM Edited by D- Ice, 11 September 2013 - 12:33 AM.

 

Russia and Syria are ready to settle this like adults

You are seriously missing the big picture. This whole outcome is the very reason the chemical weapons were used in the first place. It leaves US with egg on their face and gives Russia and Iran ability to do whatever they want in Syria. Pretty much anything they do there now, neither US, EU, nor UN are going to be able to do sh*t about. Assad is going to be strengthened with support from Russia and Iran. Rebels will get exterminated with who knows how many civilians, and the regime is going to stay.

 

Very interesting point bro, so are you saying that Assad used the Chemical Weapons for the very outcome we are seeing now, so that to undermine the US and it's influence?

 

Assad knows Russia will support him, and veto a UN Security Council Resolution against Syria. But how would he have known that NATO won't act unilaterally? Do you think he was planning to give up the Chemical Weapons after the failed UN Resolution anyway?

 

Thanks.

  • Irviding likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#581

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:18 AM


mean that the US wouldn't have needed Russia's vote in the Security Council. But if they had France and UK that would perhaps be enough to intervene, ad Obama wouldn't have to go to Congress. But that's all over now.

Sorry, what? To pass a security council resolution there must be unanimity amongst
 the five permanent members, of which China and Russia are two.

 

 


What the hell? Just back down. Accept the peaceful resolution and let it go. Does anyone know why they insist on this so much? They have to know that Assad is not going to admit that he did something they have no evidence of. If they had evidence, why would they ask him to admit it? It sounds very suspicious to me that this attack would remain limited when they seem so hellbent on having this war.

They have plenty of evidence... evidence that has been detailed in this thread and in numerous official statements/conferences yet you continue to ignore. The resolution is not peaceful by any means... and it is not much of a resolution if you ask me anyway. Reread K2's posts above.


darthYENIK
  • darthYENIK

    Born to kick your ass

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2002
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Movies/TV] 2015
    Best Poster [Movies/TV] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Movies/TV] 2013

#582

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:53 AM

I want to trust Russia. I mean, this isn't the Cold War anymore. And I definitely want a diplomatic solution. But I don't know, some things I'm hearing about them playing the US sounds right. What can you do? Launch tomahawks to spite Russia? That's just childish.

Rown
  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#583

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:17 AM Edited by Rown, 11 September 2013 - 04:17 AM.

Transcript of President Obama's address tonight.

 

I am glad we're taking the time to pursue the voluntary disarmament option. It worries me that it nearly escaped our collective thought to suggest it. Offering surrender before an engagement should be a common courtesy.

 

@kb2084: Prophecy is too vague and easily manipulated to be of much use. Consider the Great Disappointment. Also consider this. If that prophecy were correct there should be at least one 2000+ year old person wandering about waiting for the world to end so they could finally die and stop watching all their loved ones die before them. Their entire miserable existence would be to satisfy a line in a book.

 

Rown :rampage:


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#584

Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:59 AM Edited by GTAvanja, 11 September 2013 - 09:01 AM.

Sorry, what? To pass a security council resolution there must be unanimity amongst

 the five permanent members, of which China and Russia are two.

On paper, sure. In reality, not so much.

 

 

They have plenty of evidence... evidence that has been detailed in this thread and in numerous official statements/conferences yet you continue to ignore.

No they don't. And no I'm not. Even the Congress wasn't impressed by their evidence. And now we have chemical weapons experts that are skeptical as well.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#585

Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:50 AM

There's a difference between healthy scepticism and denialism though. Off-hand I can't think of a viable alternative theory other than the use of a nerve agent which would explain the consistent lack of pupil dilation response to light stimulus in clearly still living but unconscious victims nor some of the other indicators. There's a wealth of evidence to suggest that a chemical weapon attack took place and a wealth of evidence plus the conclusions of rational analysis which hold the Syrian army responsible- which isn't to say categorically or undeniably that Assad was culpable for the attack but is certainly a reasonable conclusion based on medical and circumstantial evidence, understanding of capability and other factors.

rudy
  • rudy

    Mack Pimp

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2013
  • France

#586

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:26 AM

I really really wonder what percentage of inventory US'd have to use and how many millions of dollars worth it'd be if they were to strike at Assad with cruise missiles and whatnot. And also how long it would take to regenerate their inventory. I'm pretty sure whatever they hit of Assad's would be worth less in total dollar amount than the cost of using those PGMs. Not counting the cost in lives, of course. Is there some sort of military calculation as to cost vs target value in some sort of combat cost efficiency as to how much cost and effort it would be to do or not do things?

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#587

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:57 AM

There's a difference between healthy scepticism and denialism though. Off-hand I can't think of a viable alternative theory other than the use of a nerve agent which would explain the consistent lack of pupil dilation response to light stimulus in clearly still living but unconscious victims nor some of the other indicators. There's a wealth of evidence to suggest that a chemical weapon attack took place and a wealth of evidence plus the conclusions of rational analysis which hold the Syrian army responsible- which isn't to say categorically or undeniably that Assad was culpable for the attack but is certainly a reasonable conclusion based on medical and circumstantial evidence, understanding of capability and other factors.

So are you denying that forces opposed to Assad could have carried out this chemical weapons attack?


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#588

Posted 11 September 2013 - 11:43 AM

 

There's a difference between healthy scepticism and denialism though. Off-hand I can't think of a viable alternative theory other than the use of a nerve agent which would explain the consistent lack of pupil dilation response to light stimulus in clearly still living but unconscious victims nor some of the other indicators. There's a wealth of evidence to suggest that a chemical weapon attack took place and a wealth of evidence plus the conclusions of rational analysis which hold the Syrian army responsible- which isn't to say categorically or undeniably that Assad was culpable for the attack but is certainly a reasonable conclusion based on medical and circumstantial evidence, understanding of capability and other factors.

So are you denying that forces opposed to Assad could have carried out this chemical weapons attack?

 

Essentially, yes, and sivis has explained why in previous posts. Simply put chemical weapons are pretty complex pieces of kit which need specialist handling, deployment and preparation. The probability therefore is that these expertise lie with Assad's regime, not the various rebel groups.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#589

Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:22 PM

As above really. I'm not denying that forces opposed to Assad may have obtained chemical weapons and used them in other instances but for an attack of this scale to take place you would probably need a majority airborne deployment or the use of theatre-level ballistic missiles like the SS-1 Scud and given that the rebels are known not to possess any air-to-ground combat capability and would struggle to use a Transporter-Errector-Launcher even if they did possess one-and I've seen no evidence they do-the only rational conclusion in the absence of any new evidence that fundamentally disputes either of these capability assessments is that the regime did it.
  • Irviding likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Gabon

#590

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:05 PM

As above really. I'm not denying that forces opposed to Assad may have obtained chemical weapons and used them in other instances but for an attack of this scale to take place you would probably need a majority airborne deployment or the use of theatre-level ballistic missiles like the SS-1 Scud and given that the rebels are known not to possess any air-to-ground combat capability and would struggle to use a Transporter-Errector-Launcher even if they did possess one-and I've seen no evidence they do-the only rational conclusion in the absence of any new evidence that fundamentally disputes either of these capability assessments is that the regime did it.

 

My knowledge of military technique is practically 0. I see you making a lot of claims concerning weapons and such. Could you post links that could help me learn about these matters so I can verify your claims?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#591

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:24 PM

I can certainly provide various analyses of chemical weapon capability and deployment in relation to this. Much of my own personal analysis is derived from previous, similar events in Iraq and the intelligence documents published by the Is and several independent bodies like FAS and Rand on known CW capability. Statements like those regarding the lack of airforce or ballistic missile capability held by the rebels are based on the complete absence of evidence that they possess such arms-I.E no reported use in the conflict so far and no-verifiable claims to the contrary. I'll dig out some references when I get a chance.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#592

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:51 PM

 

Sorry, what? To pass a security council resolution there must be unanimity amongst

 the five permanent members, of which China and Russia are two.

On paper, sure. In reality, not so much.

 

 

They have plenty of evidence... evidence that has been detailed in this thread and in numerous official statements/conferences yet you continue to ignore.

No they don't. And no I'm not. Even the Congress wasn't impressed by their evidence. And now we have chemical weapons experts that are skeptical as well.

 

Like who? What experts? You're done here - you are grasping at straws in every single way possible. 

 

What do you mean on paper? That makes zero sense. A security council resolution CANNOT pass without unanimity amongst the five perm. members - PERIOD. That's it. That's how it works in reality and on paper. 


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#593

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:53 PM

 

 

Sorry, what? To pass a security council resolution there must be unanimity amongst

 the five permanent members, of which China and Russia are two.

On paper, sure. In reality, not so much.

 

 

They have plenty of evidence... evidence that has been detailed in this thread and in numerous official statements/conferences yet you continue to ignore.

No they don't. And no I'm not. Even the Congress wasn't impressed by their evidence. And now we have chemical weapons experts that are skeptical as well.

 

Like who? What experts? You're done here - you are grasping at straws in every single way possible. 

 

What do you mean on paper? That makes zero sense. A security council resolution CANNOT pass without unanimity amongst the five perm. members - PERIOD. That's it. That's how it works in reality and on paper. 

 

You didn't read the article I posted, I see.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#594

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:37 PM

The article you posted above from a sensationalist anti-America blog? That has nothing to do with UN security council policies.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#595

Posted 11 September 2013 - 06:32 PM

Right, as I promised some references and information sources:

Rand's recently analyses- as good a starting point as any, expert comment and analysis.

Global Security article on Syrian weapons of mass destruction. Quoted directly from this source, in relation to Syrian chemical weapon delivery mechanisms

  • Four SSM brigades: 1 with FROG, 1 with Scud Bs, 1 with Scud Cs, and 1 with SS-21s.
  • "several thousand aerial bombs, filled mostly with sarin," and between 50 to 100 ballistic missile warheads.
  • New long range North Korean Scud Cs, with ranges of up to 600 kilometers and possible nerve gas warheads.
  • May be converting some long range surface-to-air and naval cruise missiles to use chemical warheads.
  • SS-21 launchers and at least 36 SS-21 missiles with 80-100 kilometers range.
  • Scud B launchers and Scud B missiles with 310 kilometers range.
  • Short range M-1B missiles
  • SS-N-3, and SSC-1b cruise missiles.
  • Su-24 long range strike fighters.
  • MiG-23BM Flogger F fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-20 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-22 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Multiple rocket launchers and tube artillery.

The only capability of which amongst that list the rebels have been demonstrated to have are MRLS, and then only in small numbers.

Terse Examiner article

Stratfor analysis- this is of particular interest.

RUSI Syrian crisis briefing paper

Chatham House comment on security Syrian chemical weapons

Global Post analysis comparing Syrian chemical weapons attack with Halabja

Arms Control confirmation of the use of Sarin by Saddam Hussein in 1991- this provides a detailed breakdown of the capability requirements to conduct such an attack as we saw in Syria and strongly supports the idea that the required capability for the attacks is only possessed by the Syrian regime and/or their military forces.
  • Eutyphro and Irviding like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • None

#596

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:21 PM

Man, I bet ^this guy^ is just a barrel of laughs on a night out..

 

His intriguing and fascinating social qualities make even the thought of discussing Stick Insect fertility seem remotely interesting.

 

Bravo sir.

  • Irviding likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#597

Posted 11 September 2013 - 11:07 PM

Right, as I promised some references and information sources:

Rand's recently analyses- as good a starting point as any, expert comment and analysis.

Global Security article on Syrian weapons of mass destruction. Quoted directly from this source, in relation to Syrian chemical weapon delivery mechanisms
 

 

  • Four SSM brigades: 1 with FROG, 1 with Scud Bs, 1 with Scud Cs, and 1 with SS-21s.
  • "several thousand aerial bombs, filled mostly with sarin," and between 50 to 100 ballistic missile warheads.
  • New long range North Korean Scud Cs, with ranges of up to 600 kilometers and possible nerve gas warheads.
  • May be converting some long range surface-to-air and naval cruise missiles to use chemical warheads.
  • SS-21 launchers and at least 36 SS-21 missiles with 80-100 kilometers range.
  • Scud B launchers and Scud B missiles with 310 kilometers range.
  • Short range M-1B missiles
  • SS-N-3, and SSC-1b cruise missiles.
  • Su-24 long range strike fighters.
  • MiG-23BM Flogger F fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-20 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Su-22 fighter ground attack aircraft.
  • Multiple rocket launchers and tube artillery.

The only capability of which amongst that list the rebels have been demonstrated to have are MRLS, and then only in small numbers.

Terse Examiner article

Stratfor analysis- this is of particular interest.

RUSI Syrian crisis briefing paper

Chatham House comment on security Syrian chemical weapons

Global Post analysis comparing Syrian chemical weapons attack with Halabja

Arms Control confirmation of the use of Sarin by Saddam Hussein in 1991- this provides a detailed breakdown of the capability requirements to conduct such an attack as we saw in Syria and strongly supports the idea that the required capability for the attacks is only possessed by the Syrian regime and/or their military forces.

 

brb jacking these sources for a paper i have due in november


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#598

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:08 AM

Man, I bet ^this guy^ is just a barrel of laughs on a night out..
 
His intriguing and fascinating social qualities make even the thought of discussing Stick Insect fertility seem remotely interesting.
 
Bravo sir.

You don't appear familiar with how discussions work, do you? Someone asked me for sources for their own personal reading:

As above really. I'm not denying that forces opposed to Assad may have obtained chemical weapons and used them in other instances but for an attack of this scale to take place you would probably need a majority airborne deployment or the use of theatre-level ballistic missiles like the SS-1 Scud and given that the rebels are known not to possess any air-to-ground combat capability and would struggle to use a Transporter-Errector-Launcher even if they did possess one-and I've seen no evidence they do-the only rational conclusion in the absence of any new evidence that fundamentally disputes either of these capability assessments is that the regime did it.

 
My knowledge of military technique is practically 0. I see you making a lot of claims concerning weapons and such. Could you post links that could help me learn about these matters so I can verify your claims?

So kindly toddle of back to whatever rock you crawled out from under and leave the adults to their discussion.
  • Irviding likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Gabon

#599

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:35 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 12 September 2013 - 12:36 PM.

Thanks, cool  :^:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users