Nerve Gas Attack in Damascus - Up to 1300 Dead - As Usual Everyone is Pointing Fingers at Eachother - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41919646][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSAMT5Pe15k[/media][/QUOTE] "Muh False Flag". Right because the rebels are gassing themselves.

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41919890]...Oh, you're probably right in all honesty if you're positing that the rebels did it.[/QUOTE] i think it's worth noting that there's a distinction between [I]some[/I] rebels and THE rebels. even if it wasn't done by Assad's forces i really, really doubt that most of the factions in the FSA would support something this horrible

[QUOTE=Aman;41919091]Doesn't even have to be faked could be real. What does Assad have to gain? Nothing. What does the opposition have to gain off of this? more than nothing that is for sure.[/QUOTE] assad has nothing to gain, maybe, but he has nothing to lose at this point how long has he been in office, 13 years?

[QUOTE=ionuttzu;41918722]I refuse to believe Assad would use it, that'd be retarded. Why would you want to give the west a reason to invade you even though you're winning the fight against the rebels?[/QUOTE] He is a sick man, he doesn't care what the west thinks about him. He just wants the people to see his "power" SERIOUSLY how can people think that this is "fake". Are you fucking kidding me or something? People are dying and here you are playing Mr. Tinfoil Hat. thinking that this is some kind of joke. You guys might as well just say that stuff like the jewish or rwandan holocaust never happened BCUZ THEY HAD NOTHING TO WIN KILIN PEOPLE

[QUOTE=Sokrates;41920540]He is a sick man, he doesn't care what the west thinks about him. He just wants the people to see his "power"[/QUOTE] He does care, what kind of leader wouldn't care about a potential enemy capable of completely steamrolling them?

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41920586]He does care, what kind of leader wouldn't care about a potential enemy capable of completely steamrolling them?[/QUOTE] I'll give you just one example which we already have seen proof of. [img]http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/kim-jong-un-hairstyle.jpeg[/img]

This is why chemical warfare is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. And several others. I have this awful feeling it's going to get worse, but i don't want to be right.

[QUOTE=Zaravan;41920773]This is why chemical warfare is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. And several others. I have this awful feeling it's going to get worse, but i don't want to be right.[/QUOTE] Not every country follows the Geneva Convention, and I'm pretty sure the soldiers(including the defectors) and rebels don't care much about it when killing each other

Things are so messed up in Syria I'm not going to take a side until more details emerge. Its still terrible though

I don't know why it took this long for it to dawn on me but think about this: Rebels have been known to have captured chemical weapon stocks, what if the rocket bombardment from the SAA ended up hitting a rebel munitions stockpile which had chem weapons present? [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;41922260]Not every country follows the Geneva Convention, and I'm pretty sure the soldiers(including the defectors) and rebels don't care much about it when killing each other[/QUOTE] I don't think there's be a single war since the creation of the "geneva convention" where anyone truly followed it or gave a fuck.

[QUOTE=Aman;41922501]I don't think there's be a single war since the creation of the "geneva convention" where anyone truly followed it or gave a fuck.[/QUOTE] Are you speaking on an individual or national level? Because obviously the individual soldier could very well be a prisoner executing, wounded torturing psychopath, but on a national level they hold the power to approve or deny such actions, which, if the chain of command holds, has the power to influence the individual soldier. I do agree that the Geneva Convention has been very widely disregarded, but I've always thought of that as less of a "It happens whatever YOLO" thing and more of a "Wow wish we could use these UN Peacekeepers for once to, you know, keep the peace according to internationally agreed upon treaties"

I doubt your average rebel or insurgent is aware of the Geneva convention, and they probably wouldn't care about it even if they did. They're already fighting the government what will happen to them if they break the convention? Things can't get any worse for them.

[QUOTE=Aman;41922501]I don't know why it took this long for it to dawn on me but think about this: Rebels have been known to have captured chemical weapon stocks, what if the rocket bombardment from the SAA ended up hitting a rebel munitions stockpile which had chem weapons present? [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] I don't think there's be a single war since the creation of the "geneva convention" where anyone truly followed it or gave a fuck.[/QUOTE] Sarin doesn't work like that. It has a complicated binary delivery system. Hitting a sarin dump would be bad, but rather limted. There was a case of insurgent IEDs trying to use sarin in the warhead. It was totally ineffective, and only put a couple soldiers in hospital with non-threatening sore eyes.

[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;41923095]Sarin doesn't work like that. It has a complicated binary delivery system. Hitting a sarin dump would be bad, but rather limted. There was a case of insurgent IEDs trying to use sarin in the warhead. It was totally ineffective, and only put a couple soldiers in hospital with non-threatening sore eyes.[/QUOTE] I know sarin doesn't, but who says its sarin.

Can the Syrian rebels harvest organs from the nerve gas victims? If not it wasn't them

This makes you wonder why didn't the previous Bush administration era go after Syria when they may clearly had WMD there 10 years ago. It was clear that the US had invade the wrong country for WMD. I think it's time that the UN and the Western nations intervene and stop both sides from using chemical weapons. Russia should back out from helping Syria.

[QUOTE=BCell;41923259]This makes you wonder why didn't the previous Bush administration era go after Syria when they may clearly had WMD there 10 years ago. It was clear that the US had invade the wrong country for WMD. I think it's time that the UN and the Western nations intervene and stop both sides from using chemical weapons. Russia should back out from helping Syria.[/QUOTE] you realize practically every country has "WMDs" right. Saddam had various gasses too.

[QUOTE=Aman;41923124]I know sarin doesn't, but who says its sarin.[/QUOTE] Syria only really has sarin and mustard gas. It sure as hell isn't mustard gas, and the symptoms are pretty classic with sarin attacks. So your arms dump theory doesn't really make much sense tbh [editline]22nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BCell;41923259]This makes you wonder why didn't the previous Bush administration era go after Syria when they may clearly had WMD there 10 years ago. It was clear that the US had invade the wrong country for WMD. I think it's time that the UN and the Western nations intervene and stop both sides from using chemical weapons. Russia should back out from helping Syria.[/QUOTE] Many countries in the middle east have chemical weapons.

[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;41923386]Syria only really has sarin and mustard gas. It sure as hell isn't mustard gas, and the symptoms are pretty classic with sarin attacks. So your arms dumb theory doesn't really make much sense tbh [editline]22nd August 2013[/editline] Many countries in the middle east have chemical weapons.[/QUOTE] I am sure they have more than just sarin and mustard, Islamists in Aleppo used chlorine something or other. Will have to research it more

Just saying, its pretty unlikely that the rebels are staging it, [s] nerve gas is a pretty tricky substance to make/find [/s] wait wasn't something about how they got a stockpile of it in the news. But same for Syria, no one gave a shit about syria before this war (maybe if you had a syrian hamster or ate falaffel but thats it). :tinfoil:

i think every UN member should combine and just go in and actually stop both sides from fighting like the UN is supposed to

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;41923469]i think every UN member should combine and just go in and actually stop both sides from fighting like the UN is supposed to[/QUOTE] Yeah but that sounds terribly efficient, Lord knows we can't have the UN doing that.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;41923469]i think every UN member should combine and just go in and actually stop both sides from fighting like the UN is supposed to[/QUOTE] oh god no that would be a clusterfuck [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] [quote]Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army's Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: [B]"None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear," [/B]he says, [B]"and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed."[/B] This would [B]seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them[/B] in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that "there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control." Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England's Cranfield University who has worked with Britain's Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that "from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in ,and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here." [/quote] [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] Can't be sarin. So what the hell went on?

Do those fucking people [i]really[/i] expect us to believe the rebels are going around gassing people just so they can blame it on the government and cry for international sympathy?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41923910]Do those fucking people [i]really[/i] expect us to believe the rebels are going around gassing people just so they can blame it on the government and cry for international sympathy?[/QUOTE] It isn't out of the realm of possibility. Although I have no idea what went on here.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;41919579]What would Assad have to gain by gunning down protesters?[/QUOTE] He's an authoritarian leader representing a small ruling class. He thinks/thought the country will fall apart without his strict control. It's a self fulfilling prophesy, as he's going to destroy the entire country before he and his right hand men get killed or give up. They should have relinquished control after the first few months but instead they've dragged it out to this point and eventually the Syrians will just be fighting for a land of corpses and rubble. [editline]22nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman;41923923]It isn't out of the realm of possibility.[/QUOTE] It's not, but the occams razor applies to this situation. It's simply not likely enough and there's two many assumptions involved in trying to p[in the attacks on the rebels. Assad on the other hand has already bombed the shit out of civilian centers, it's not a far stretch to assume that he'd go even further to demoralize and diminish the rebel public support. [editline]22nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;41920190]Uh yeah not if you're on the outter edge of the blast, shockwave, or the compressed wall of heat, you might live 5 minutes, or an hour with your body ravaged by the heat and radiation.[/QUOTE] People have a tenancy of confusing nerve gas with mustard gas and chlorine. Not the same thing, and being killed by Sarin gas is right up there with be drawn and quartered in terms of the agony it causes.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41923965]He's an authoritarian leader representing a small ruling class. He thinks/thought the country will fall apart without his strict control. It's a self fulfilling prophesy, as he's going to destroy the entire country before he and his right hand men get killed or give up. They should have relinquished control after the first few months but instead they've dragged it out to this point and eventually the Syrians will just be fighting for a land of corpses and rubble. [editline]22nd August 2013[/editline] It's not, but the occams razor applies to this situation. It's simply not likely enough and there's two many assumptions involved in trying to p[in the attacks on the rebels. Assad on the other hand has already bombed the shit out of civilian centers, it's not a far stretch to assume that he'd go even further to demoralize and diminish the rebel public support.[/QUOTE] I know, the thing that just erks me and makes no logical sense is why gas attack days after UN inspectors show up for that very reason. The damn UN inspectors are a mere ~20 minutes from the site! Especially when it gives you no military gains, like I can't even think of a single upside for doing the attack so what would the motive be? Assad is no idiot. He must know he is on thin ice and the last thing he wants is any form of intervention or even any attention drawn to his regime at all. It just doesn't add up

Assad is no idiot, and because of that he realized that the most effective method of quelling an insurgency or rebellion is to brutalize the supporting population in the most cruel ways imaginable.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41924027]Assad is no idiot, and because of that he realized that the most effective method of quelling an insurgency or rebellion is to brutalize the supporting population in the most cruel ways imaginable.[/QUOTE] While true that still doesn't refute my reasoning. If I'm a dictator who is walking on egg shells I am not going to gas a couple hundred civilians for no gain whatsoever and at the same time having so much to lose from it. If what you say is his motive he would be much better off bombing them from the air or with artillery which will bring no western attention at all.

It's also possible that this is from a splinter terrorist unit trying to derail the situation. However those wouldn't be rebels, that's more akin to neutral provocateurs trying to create an environment that favors extremism. However these were likely delivered by artillery or aerial bombing, which stacks the odds in favor of Assad's forces. The rebels have very little in the way of heavy armaments. What few armored vehicles they have are in lousy condition and they don't have the logistics to use artillery properly.