Fuchs66
Ring a ding
Would depend on what exactly hits the chemical weapon depot really.
Do you now support military action against Syria's government?
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
Bull$hit. Even the Russians aren't using that line of denial, they've resorted to saying that it was done by rebels to provoke a military response, which is also a BS stance, though slightly less so.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
And what would be acceptable evidence in your opinion?
cyprusclean
Member
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have they?
cyprusclean
Member
Go away.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No they haven't.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No. Like I said no evidence that proves this was a chemical attack. None that it was Assad's forces or ordered by him.
The regime has been bombing the area for a long time now (and they continued to bomb it after the CW attack). They are low on manpower, their overstretched troops have been fighting a crucial and difficult battle with rebels in Damascus neighborhoods that are very hostile to the regime and supportive of the rebels. Wiping out a whole district with CWs is tactically very effective for them (both psychologically and militarily) and it's actually entirely in character for the regime, which has a long history of wide-scale civilian massacres in cities that dare stand up to them (see Hama in the 80s, and Homs, Deraa and Hama again today).
World public opinion and NATO response are the only obstacles to the regime using CWs against rebel areas like Ghouta, and up to now, there has been nothing substantial as far as reaction, so the Assad regime dipping incrementally deeper into their CW arsenal made sense from their perspective. Thankfully they seemed to have reached the limit as a NATO strike is now imminent.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
You've not seen the many videos I take it?
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
Medicins Sans Frontiere haven't been able to confirm chemical weapons were used either and they have a field hospital there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23827950
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23827950
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I've seen videos you haven't, most of which have never been broadcast and not once I've seen anything like this. Strange that they'd use chemical weapons now when they've had every opportunity to, particularly as they were actually losing against the rebels at one point.
cyprusclean
Member
I thought I saw it confirmed on BBC News.
OTOH, is this more what you had in mind?
"The interesting point behind every chemical attack which has unfolded in Syria is the incredibly sudden amounts of photographs and videos that surface within hours of these attacks.
Who in their right mind would physically enter an area if chemical agents were just released? Who in their right mind would risk contamination from such?
Children have frequently been used throughout the Middle East as actors and actresses willing to play dead. Photographs and videos are taken of dead children yet later it is uncovered that these children, within minutes of being used for propaganda, are seen playing next to one another."
http://kerry-patton.com/is-there-a-pallywood-production-behind-the-syrian-chemical-weapon-attacks/
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There is no other hand. Where did you see it linked to? Let's confirm that you were wrong.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Aside from whether they've been used why is it important if it is given theyve already killed 100,00 people by conventional means?
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Are they in a position to say so? And knowing full well what the response from the West would be if they categorically stated such.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
To you? To me? Or to international agreements?
cyprusclean
Member
Are you deaf? I said; go away. You're a pest.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
What haven't you seen?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thats interesting because the other day, when searching for every possible explanation for the horrendous deaths, I asked whether it was possible that normal Syrian government munitions hitting a rebel stash of chemical weapons would lead to widespread deaths and injuries of the sort we saw. The only response I got suggested that such an attack would be unlikely to spread the agents over a suitably wide area. I forgot who said it, perhaps they were wrong? This stuff is well beyond my areas of knowledge.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Do we have confirmation that such stuff has actually been supplied and installed?
And lets not forgot that Israel managed to bomb targets in Syria on some isolated occasions without losing aircraft, though I agree missile strikes seem far more likely at this point.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Support from all quarters falling into place...
That would be the foreign minister for the state that recently hospitalised thousands of its own citzens with lachrymatory agent, and water cannons laced with Jenix.
Mind you, if enough American citizens protested against their government's 'humanitarian' bombing to punish Assad, Obama's police forces would happily use chemical agents straight into their faces.
That would be the foreign minister for the state that recently hospitalised thousands of its own citzens with lachrymatory agent, and water cannons laced with Jenix.
Mind you, if enough American citizens protested against their government's 'humanitarian' bombing to punish Assad, Obama's police forces would happily use chemical agents straight into their faces.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Does it matter to you?
Support from all quarters falling into place...
That would be the foreign minister for the state that recently hospitalised thousands of its own citzens with lachrymatory agent, and water cannons laced with Jenix.
Mind you, if enough American citizens protested against their government's 'humanitarian' bombing to punish Assad, Obama's police forces would happily use chemical agents straight into their faces.
Sarin = tear gas, seriously?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
AFAIK the use of Lachrymatory agents in warfare is banned by the same treaties being cited by the US & allies as justification for their bombing. Turkish citizens did die as a result of the use of chemical agents.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
t'was me.
the real answer, the same answer that any complicated question gets is: it depends...
i saw the same piece, and it was somewhat nuanced, though i fear in a way that the journalists didn't understand, and therefore got wrong - the 'baseline' is that Chemical weapon agents will be destroyed by intense heat (burning), however there may well be peices of ordinance or continers full of this stuff that don't get the 'full' treatment of the incoming weapons effects and so therefore don't get destroyed. the calculation/gamble is over what happens to the CW that don't get destroyed, but are in a place full of fire and whizzing bits of metal.
now, when you use a chemical weapon you don't just open a barrel of this stuff and let the wind do its job - you disperse it using munitions or systems not unlike a crops-praying aircraft, and you try to achieve a happy medium of dosage vs coverage. personally my view is that if you were to have an attack on a CW facility, but where some of it was not destroyed but opened to the elements, the result would be a very heavy contamination (far beyond fatal) in a very small area (i'm hugely dubious about this '1-2km' idea..), and very light contamination over a much larger area where the undestroyed CW agents get thrown into the air by smoke/heat.
my basis for this is our own planning for CW attacks by Warsaw Pact forces, and our planning for responding to accidents involving CW.
certianly, if on our inevitable march east over the crumpled remains of the Red Army had it all gone hot in the late 1980's, we would not have deliberately driven through wrecked Soviet CW armed Artillery regiments, but we would not have avoided them by a mile either. that said, the 'heat destroys CW' thing also meant that along with airfeilds, bridgeheads, Logs bases, HQ's and Bridges, CW dumps were due for a visit from a bucket of instant sunshine...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And all the innocent people who are killed by the missiles will be 'mistakes', 'unfortunate', 'we tried not to'. 
Or even worse, 'Assad put them there'. What's the odds on them trotting out that lie and burying the truth in official secrets of the kind that get you 35 years in jail if you dare to reveal them.
Or even worse, 'Assad put them there'.
What's the odds on them trotting out that lie and burying the truth in official secrets of the kind that get you 35 years in jail if you dare to reveal them.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
not just that, but Syria is not the only country to buy this missile/radar combintion - Greece did so 10 years ago, and the US has done more than the occasional exercise against it to determine how it works and how to beat it.
its also worth going through that list of SAM networks which were heralded as a 'Sheild of Death' and which actually managed to spare their owners eventual defeat at the hands of the US Air Force.
there's .. err, um and err...
SAM networks are a waste of money, they never work.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
