• Russia Maintains 'No Proof of Regime CW Use' While Syria Provides 'Proof' of That the Rebels Did It
    38 replies, posted
[url="http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/18/324561/syria-gives-russia-proof-on-militants-cw/"]Press TV[/url] [url="http://en.rian.ru/politics/20130918/183534828/Syria-Hands-Russia-Proof-on-Rebels-Use-of-Chemical-Weapons.html"]RIA Novosti[/url] [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE98G0G620130917"]Reuters[/url] [url="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/russia-says-no-proof-assad-was-behind-chemical-attack/article14387705/"]Globe and Mail[/url] [url="http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russia-syria-un-report-chemical-attack-20130917,0,7888176.story"]LA Times[/url] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/on-syria-lavrov-stays-on-russian-message/2013/09/17/a4d0733e-1fcf-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html"]Washington Post[/url] [img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/09/17/Foreign/Images/03838054.jpg[/img] [quote]The Syrian authorities handed over to Russia evidence proving that opposition forces were allegedly involved in the use of chemical weapons last month, a senior Russian diplomat said. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Tuesday night after the meeting with his Syrian counterpart Walid Muallem in Damascus that “this evidence must be analyzed.” UN inspectors said Monday that they had found “clear and convincing evidence” that chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, were used in an August 21 attack that killed hundreds of people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The inspectors had no mandate to determine who had launched the attack - which the US and some of its Western allies have attributed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but Moscow and Syria have called a provocation by anti-Assad rebels. The diplomat added that Moscow was “disappointed” with the way the UN mission of experts in Syria approached the report and called it as “incomplete.” "We have very serious grounds to believe that this was a provocation," Lavrov said after talks in Moscow between two countries with veto powers in the U.N. Security Council. He said there had been "many provocations" by the rebels fighting Assad's government, adding: "They were all aimed, over the last two years, at provoking foreign intervention."[/quote] Russia thinks it's 'the rebels', and the US thinks it was Assad. Great.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;42230466]As long as the arsenal is being dismantled let the bureaucrats bicker[/QUOTE] you do realise here in america with a limitless amount of resources to throw at it and no active war or transportation problems it took us decades to dismantle our stockpile. now factor in the red-tape behind this, the budgetary problems, the 2 goverments bickering, and oh ya the active warzone around, i doubt we will actually be able to secure or even transport them out of the country. basically the U.N. while the U.N. report couldn't prove 100% that it was assad, they basically said it was assad's forces because the gas was deployed in a very calculated maner from territory held by assad's forces using missle delivery systems that are not in the arsenal of the rebels [editline]17th September 2013[/editline] how do the russians explain how the rebels were trained in the most effective means and climate conditions to deploy sarin gas? or how they got a hold of rocket artillery or even the fact that they were gasing their own territory......
how bout we just send massive canisters of THC bombs over there and then they'll all be high as fuck and not feel like fighting
The UN report makes it clear without confirming that it was Assad. Who else had the money, rockets, organization, etc. to pull it off? I am not saying that the Rebels are necessarily saints. They might have done it if they could. But they can't. [editline]17th September 2013[/editline] Russia did a good job in finding a diplomatic solution, but their motives are the same, and are still fueled by lies.
[QUOTE=person11;42230878]The UN report makes it clear without confirming that it was Assad. Who else had the money, rockets, organization, etc. to pull it off? I am not saying that the Rebels are necessarily saints. They might have done it if they could. But they can't. [editline]17th September 2013[/editline] Russia did a good job in finding a diplomatic solution, but their motives are the same, and are still fueled by lies.[/QUOTE] All nations are fueled by lies and "convenient truths." Some are worse then others, but they all do it.
Yeah, the USA lies a lot too. Does not mean I can't call out Russia for obviously lying about all of this.
[QUOTE=person11;42230962]Yeah, the USA lies a lot too. Does not mean I can't call out Russia for obviously lying about all of this.[/QUOTE] I dont think Russia cares what you say.
Honestly I don't trust any country when it comes to WHODITIT
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42231038]Honestly I don't trust any country when it comes to WHODITIT[/QUOTE] It was probably the USA, they have the capacity to strike Syria, they have chemical weapons, they have the deliverance capability and they also have a large intelligence agency.
[QUOTE=laserguided;42231048]It was probably the USA, they have the capacity to strike Syria, they have chemical weapons, they have the deliverance capability and they also have a large intelligence agency.[/QUOTE] uh you have your tinfoil hat on upside down, it was clearly australia
Does that CW treaty thing work based of the honor system? As in, how do we know he's actually getting rid of them? Cause it's not like Assad, the dude who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and leveled parts of his own country doesn't sound very trustworthy... Not that he really needs CW, he was just as efficient at murdering people without them.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42231038]Honestly I don't trust any country when it comes to WHODITIT[/QUOTE] It was Colonel Mustard in Syria with the Chemical weapons.
I think both the government and the rebels had the capabilities to launch the chemical weapons attack. [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;42231142]It was Colonel Mustard in Syria with the Chemical weapons.[/QUOTE] I think it was rebels Dr Thrax.
[QUOTE=laserguided;42231030]I dont think Russia cares what you say.[/QUOTE]Russia is a big boy now, you don't need to get defensive when someone criticizes them.
Whats Syria suppose to say anyway? Of course they're going to say it was the rebels. What are they gonna say, they don't know who did it? [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;42231048]It was probably the USA, they have the capacity to strike Syria, they have chemical weapons, they have the deliverance capability and they also have a large intelligence agency.[/QUOTE] Nah it was obviously Germany, they're getting back into the habit of gassing people again
[QUOTE=person11;42230878]The UN report makes it clear without confirming that it was Assad. Who else had the money, rockets, organization, etc. to pull it off? [/QUOTE] Except it kinda doesn't make it clear. I provided some stuff in the other thread, including an article from RIA novosti (interview with an expert) which might be biased, but the facts are there. The rocket artillery used for the attack was either outdated as fuck (BM-14) or entirely makeshift. Same for the actual rockets, one of them was entirely handicraft (310mm one), it doesn't fit any existing type of rockets for soviet artillery. The other one is [b]old[/b], it was shipped to Syria in 1967 (evident by the markings on it), and if it were M14 (chemical munition for BM-14), it would've been already gone bust, so that leaves us with makeshift converted ОФД-45, High-explosive frag one. All the while Syrian army has newest BM-27 "Ураган" MLRS, or at least BM-21 "Град". These are incapable of using that kind of munition.
[QUOTE=person11;42230878] The rebels might have done it if they could. But they can't. [/QUOTE] How exactly do you know what equipment they have access to? You don't really need a super fancy delivery system for the weapons that were used.
Holy shit russia is pissed off at this UN report: [quote=BBC]Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov also said a report by UN inspectors on the alleged use of chemical weapons was "politicised, biased and one-sided".[/quote] Because it pretty much said the obvious, that only a well organised, equipped and trained force could have pulled this off - aka the regime's chemical weapon units - could have done something of this scale.
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;42232331]Holy shit russia is pissed off at this UN report: Because it pretty much said the obvious, that only a well organised, [b]equipped[/b] and trained force could have pulled this off - aka the regime's chemical weapon units - could have done something of this scale.[/QUOTE] With an outdated weaponry and straight up home made stuff? Though I'm a bit surprised at Lavrov's statement, I personally found the report (the part that was published, that is, I don't know if there's more to it) is as neutral as it gets, and the only solid stuff they concluded on - is that sarin was indeed used, in what way it was used and how it was delivered (that brings some questions though, they concluded that the angle and the way rockets impacted seems to point at them being fired from a single launching platform, but how is that possible? what kind of platform can launch both 14cm and 31cm rockets?)
maybe it was a battery of launchers at the same location [QUOTE=gudman;42232379]With an outdated weaponry and straight up home made stuff?[/QUOTE] Not even Hamas can homemake rockets of that complexity with decades of experience. Its not like the Syrian army doesn't have an indigenous secret chemical weapons programme and couldn't be manufacturing their own shitty delivery systems.
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;42232391]maybe it was a battery of launchers at the same location Not even Hamas can homemake rockets of that complexity with decades of experience. Its not like the Syrian army doesn't have an indigenous secret chemical weapons programme and couldn't be manufacturing their own shitty delivery systems.[/QUOTE] Of what complexity? No really, of what complexity, it's a simple rocket for MLRS, it's not guided - shove it on rails and it will fly to where you want it to fly. All it requires - spare parts, and there're a lot of various types scattered about in Northern Africa, anyone and their dog could've provided them. And why would Syrian army even do that when they have modern Russian MLRS platforms like "Ураган" or even old (but not as old as BM-14) "Град"? And why diffirent types of rockets, one of which is literally 50 years old? These are questions I don't know answers for, because the report doesn't provide them. And I believe these require answers in order to prove without doubt who did this.
[url]http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_1.pdf[/url] [url]http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/[/url] the 330mm rocket is actually fairly complex and well made. Not something you can whip in in a shed and is significantly far more advanced than anything the rebels have made before. Not to mention in appendix 5 of the UN report it states that the Syrian regime has used the 330mm rocket previously with conventional warheads. And there has been no evidence that the opposition have every fielded either of these two weapons ever. Unlike the regime. [quote=BBC]Appendix 5 deals in detail with the munitions used in the attacks. There are photos of the fragments and drawings and measurements describing the weapons in detail. The 140mm system (M14) clearly has Cyrillic engraving suggesting that this is indeed a munition of Russian origin. The larger 330mm calibre munition is, as mentioned above, of a type used by Syrian government forces.[/quote] along with [quote=BBC]However, in some cases the inspectors were able to make an assessment of the likely trajectory of the rockets and this again seems to corroborate US claims that they came from areas controlled by government forces.[/quote] This is why russia is acting so pissed over the report. [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;42232429]And why would Syrian army even do that when they have modern Russian MLRS platforms like "Ураган" or even old (but not as old as BM-14) "Град"? And why diffirent types of rockets, one of which is literally 50 years old?[/QUOTE] Ambiguity? How many do they actually still have operational? Do they even have them modified for their chemical weapons programme? There are so many reasons why they wouldn't just straight up use a ~"Ураган"~ just because its the latest artillery piece you read up on wiki.
maybe it was defectors what done it
[QUOTE=abcpea;42232519]maybe it was defectors what done it[/QUOTE] so a syrian chemical weapon unit defected by firing onto opposition controlled areas? What were they doing operational in Damascus in the first place? [quote]…those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. 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.[/quote]
maybe the russians did it
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;42232446][url]http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_1.pdf[/url] [url]http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/[/url] the 330mm rocket is actually fairly complex and well made. Not something you can whip in in a shed and is significantly far more advanced than anything the rebels have made before. Not to mention in appendix 5 of the UN report it states that the Syrian regime has used the 330mm rocket previously with conventional warheads. And there has been no evidence that the opposition have every fielded either of these two weapons ever. Unlike the regime. [/quote] Actually yes, it's very likely that it was fired from some variant of Fajr-5 rocket artillery complex, I just completely forgot that Iran supplied Syria with multiple types of artillery. But don't forget that Syrian rebels seized [url=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-06/world/41104813_1_syrian-rebels-air-base-aleppo]multiple[/url] [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/03/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9720DT20130803]bases[/url] and [url=http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/spending-time-in-the-fsas-tank-workshop-and-diy-weapons-studio]facilities[/url] [url=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-16/world/35864232_1_chemical-weapons-chemical-arms-free-syrian-army]including chemical weapons research programmes[/url]? So the "obvious" inability of rebels to conduct such a strike is not all that obvious. Which is why UN investigation is ongoing, and why no one invades yet. [quote]Ambiguity? How many do they actually still have operational? Do they even have them modified for their chemical weapons programme? There are so many reasons why they wouldn't just straight up use a ~"Ураган"~ just because its the latest artillery piece you read up on wiki.[/QUOTE] Digging up long withdrawn from service BM-14 for the purpose of firing home-converted rockets? Using ammunition from 50 years ago instead of something manufactured by themselves? Even better, using repurposed HE munitions, because, again, M-14 shipped in 1967 (IF they were shipped at all) would've already gone well beyond their storage life? I kinda can see how, but don't see why, since they already had their own home produced 330mm rockets for Iranian MLRS, why not just use these. It might seem like I'm going long ways to "defend" Assad, but I want to assure you that I don't care about who wins this as long as the bloodshed can be stopped, preferrably not by sides running out of people to butcher. I'm genuinely curious, maybe I don't see something that answers my questions.
Because Syria is still a 3rd world country and they still use old soviet weaponry. They've used BM-14s throughout the conflict and they come in three flavours. • M-14-OF high explosive-fragmentation; • M-14-D smoke containing white phosphorus; • A chemical warhead containing 2.2 kilograms of Sarin. You can replace the propellant and warheads in munitions you know. You keep talking like they've got an unlimited stock of everything. Why don't they only use 330mm rockets you say? Why would they only use 330mm rockets when they can use 330mm rockets and 140mm rockets as well. [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] Its like saying, oh why did the americans use 150mm howitzers and 105mm howitzers in this artillery barrage when they could have only used 150mm howitzers since they're newer and obviously better.
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;42232710]Because Syria is still a 3rd world country and they still use old soviet weaponry. They've used BM-14s throughout the conflict and they come in three flavours. • M-14-OF high explosive-fragmentation; • M-14-D smoke containing white phosphorus; • A chemical warhead containing 2.2 kilograms of Sarin. You can replace the propellant and warheads in munitions you know. You keep talking like they've got an unlimited stock of everything. Why don't they only use 330mm rockets you say? Why would they only use 330mm rockets when they can use 330mm rockets and 140mm rockets as well. [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] Its like saying, oh why did the americans use 150mm howitzers and 105mm howitzers in this artillery barrage when they could have only used 150mm howitzers since they're newer and obviously better.[/QUOTE] Good points actually, though can you provide me with some links on BM-14 being used in this conflict? My brief search for any articles containing only showed me this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHC4JoGrdg[/media]
Thats a common Type 63 rocket launcher, not a BM-14 which are much larger. I dumbed about the BM-14 being used before sorry, I got confused with the 330mm which has been used before and documented by the Syrian forces previously.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42230355]and the US thinks it was Assad.[/QUOTE] So do, IIRC, the UK and France, who claim that their intelligence agencies have independently confirmed that it was Assad's forces. Pretty much everyone who [i]isn't[/i] selling weapons to the Syrian government is saying Assad did it. This goes a bit beyond US vs Russia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.