• 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls
    35 replies, posted
[url]http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-troops-458/[/url] [IMG]http://rt.com/files/news/20/56/a0/00/syria-chemical-weapons-troops.si.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The potential of strategic US strikes in Syria has sparked fears Damascus’ chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the government is toppled. A recent congressional report says 75,000 troops would be needed to safeguard the WMD caches. The Congressional Research Center (CRS) report, issued just one day before the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, was compiled with the aim of “responding to possible scenarios involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian chemical weapons.” It states that Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles, which a French intelligence report recently estimated at over 1,000 tons, have been secured by Syrian special forces. “Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons in the event of the Assad regime’s loss of control,” the document reads[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42087180]What was that "no foot on soil" thing?[/QUOTE] I think the idea is to make sure Assad doesn't fall so that this isn't necessary.
Why is there a picture of Australian soldiers, Australia is not even mentioned once in the article.
america is going to FUCK Syria up.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42087180]What was that "no foot on soil" thing?[/QUOTE] 75,000 UAV's
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;42087247]Why is there a picture of Australian soldiers Australia is not even mentioned once in the article[/QUOTE] RT
[QUOTE=barrab;42087332]america is going to FUCK Syria up.[/QUOTE] Not in the "America fuck yeah" type way though Seriously both Assad's forces and rebel fringe groups are going to be popping off shots at them and loads more people are probably going to get killed.
It's pretty obvious that there's an issue when the president has the capacity to start a war as he pleases, bringing us into a conflict which will ultimately require soldiers on the ground. It doesn't matter if he asks congress if he's got the ability to force their hand.
[QUOTE=The golden;42087612]STOP. POSTING. RUSSIATODAY.[/QUOTE]Sometimes I wonder if anis is just a bot that posts RT.
Why do people use Russia Today as a source, there's a reason Reddit banned it as a source of news.
[QUOTE=The golden;42087612]STOP. POSTING. RUSSIATODAY.[/QUOTE] stop posting cnn articles then
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;42087723]Why do people use Russia Today as a source, there's a reason Reddit banned it as a source of news.[/QUOTE]It is a shit source, but the subreddit banned it for an equally shit reason.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;42087723]Why do people use Russia Today as a source, there's a reason Reddit banned it as a source of news.[/QUOTE] it's no worse than the western corporate propaganda you see everywhere.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42087762]it's no worse than the western corporate propaganda you see everywhere.[/QUOTE] Oh my fucking god you actually just said that unironically.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42087762]it's no worse than the western corporate propaganda you see everywhere.[/QUOTE] So what now, do we get sources from Communal Southern Truth news sites.
I see nothing wrong with this article, it even sources something from congress. All I see is a kneejerk reaction "because russiatoday". [URL]http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf[/URL] It'd be nice if people read past the headline of the thread and the name of the site that it came from.
Facepunch needs to start it's own fair and balanced journalist network with firsthand investigation. Not a single other source is trustworthy.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;42087790]I see nothing wrong with this article, it even sources something from congress. [url]http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] b-but reddit banned it and stuff so it must be unreliable!
Damascus aint falling anytime in the near future
-wrong thrad
RT often mixes the truth with blatant lies, if you're going to use it at least back it with another source that's credible. I also find it funny RT would cite a report that believes that Assad uses chemical weapons on rebels (this was before Damascus even)
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42087180]What was that "no foot on soil" thing?[/QUOTE] The idea is that there was meant to be "no foot on soil" within the civil war against Assad. They are talking about safeguarding the WMD stockpile from everyone else (all the rebel forces (including Al-Queda) ) in case Assad lost Damascus.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42087762]it's no worse than the western corporate propaganda you see everywhere.[/QUOTE] :v: This is gold
Pffft, its only chemical weapons, whats the worst that could happen, more civilian casualties? dont be so speculative after we just had a chemical attack.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42087762]it's no worse than the western corporate propaganda you see everywhere.[/QUOTE]Because of course the only 2 options in existence are shite like Fox News on one side, and RT on the other. News isn't supposed to be some bastardised version of a team game.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42088194]Because of course the only 2 options in existence are shite like Fox News on one side, and RT on the other. News isn't supposed to be some bastardised version of a team game.[/QUOTE] well can you name any reliable news networks out there? the bbc is the closest to a good source.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;42087385]It's pretty obvious that there's an issue when the president has the capacity to start a war as he pleases, bringing us into a conflict which will ultimately require soldiers on the ground. It doesn't matter if he asks congress if he's got the ability to force their hand.[/QUOTE] It's been that way since the country began, we learned about this shit middle school.
frankly, if we are going to ban people for using shit sources we need to ban anyone that doesn't use a primary source.
no
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42089397]well can you name any reliable news networks out there? the bbc is the closest to a good source.[/QUOTE]Al-Jazeera English (although that may change in the future if the Qatari government cracks down on it) NPR. Usually lambasted by the American far-right, which is sort of like Jews being harangued by some brands of conspiracy theorist for controlling the world, with the exception that the far-right have the potential to defund them. It'd probably do them good in terms of journalistic integrity if they're not reliant on tax funds, but the transition would be painful for them. Reuters. Gets given stick for being too politically correct (i.e. a load of bollocks), and a case of false balance with global warming stories; a problem the BBC also sometimes has with other stories, with the main difference being the BBC's policy of self-flagellation. Associated Press. Their problem is generally copyright litigation, as their main source of revenue is selling their stories to other papers or news organisations. Yleisradio. The vast majority of the blemishes on their record came from the Cold War and the policy of Finlandisation. Nowadays the only controversy is them ending their shortwave programme. Rather than the BBC's TV licence, they're now directly funded by a government tax, which may cause problems in the future if the government starts to fester. Only ones I can come up with off the top of my head whose problems don't affect their journalism to the degree I would consider them to be biased. From then on, it's really a matter of quantifying a source's bias and deciding whether truth can be still be garnered, or whether it's even worth trying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.