"Syria Chemical Attack undeniable" - John Kerry (US Secretary of Stupid Statements) - Polidicks

[QUOTE=draugur;41980233]I'd accuse you of using a slippery slope fallacy, but judging by anyone else arguing in this thread, I'd rather not stoop to the level of stupidity being expressed on either side here.[/QUOTE] Its not a slippery slope. I was simply pointing out that if you start pointing out what something [I]could[/I] be there is no limit. Both of the things I suggested are entirely within the realms of possibilities.

Personally, I feel like the US has just as much responsibility in the Chemical Attacks on the Syrian people as Assad does. My reason is in the fact that the US has been arming Syrian Rebels. So the US gives a bunch of fucking angry dissident citizens machine guns and crates of ammunition. Assad in turn retaliates by sending bigger and badder obstacles for the people to overcome: Tanks, missiles, and... [i]Chemical Weapons[/i]. It only makes sense (From his point of view). While he still may have used them if the people had never been armed by foreign countries, I think the chance of the Country destabilizing internally first, was greater before the weapons were sold out. Now it is a violent (and potentially 'war') conflict instead of a civil conflict. All the United States did was pour gasoline on the fire, wait until shit was fucked up, and then jumped in with fire crackers. Trying to act as if we're the good guys. When a dog is backed into a corner, who is to blame for when he bites? The dog defending himself, or the thing that put him there? Assad is no different. [sp]Again, NOT that this justifies his use of Chemical Weapons, I just feel as though we (the US) are responsible for his reaction. A part of me believes that was also the intended course. Provoke, Incite, Destabilize, Privatize. *cough* Iraq *cough*[/sp]

[QUOTE=Aman;41980021]I'd like a 1st hand source not google dipshit. And all of those links are just 2nd hand crap news sites repeating the same copy and pasted article from SANA (Syrian state news, so unbiased!) which talks about "Die Welt" some German newspaper. Nothing from actually intelligence groups, just Die Welt newspaper and SANA. This is the only instance of this mythical 95%. No concrete source whatsoever.[/QUOTE]Uh? I'm pretty sure the fucking Central Intelligence Agency wouldn't release information regarding an on-going operation, so you can't just ask for a "first-hand source" from an intelligence agency. Like it or not, you'll have to accept that second-hand information is all you get. That being said, are these sources good enough for you? [url]http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-20/news/31212864_1_stratfor-provides-syrian-opposition-regime-change[/url] [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url] [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-wn-cia-syria-20130621[/url]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;41980827]Uh? I'm pretty sure the fucking Central Intelligence Agency wouldn't release information regarding an on-going operation, so you can't just ask for a "first-hand source" from an intelligence agency. Like it or not, you'll have to accept that second-hand information is all you get. That being said, are these sources good enough for you? [url]http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-20/news/31212864_1_stratfor-provides-syrian-opposition-regime-change[/url] [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url] [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-wn-cia-syria-20130621[/url][/QUOTE] I already knew all of this and what does any of this tell me? You just pasted random articles to me that aren't relevant to "95%".

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/61fp3f1.png[/IMG]

snip

Why would Assad (a fairly smart fellow) use chemical weapons when he know's that's crossing the 'red line'? Even if he did use chemical weapons, it's only in response to us arming the rebels. When one side gets better weapons, everything escalates. However, I think it's absolutely silly that the US draws these arbitrary lines. They only draw lines so they can have an excuse for war. I say we should draw a red line around America. Also, what if America or Israel or some other motivated 3rd party released the chemical weapons for a false flag operation?

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;41981088][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/61fp3f1.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] exaggerated. Only 4 destroyers. the others are within a days sailing range.

[QUOTE=Aman;41981183]exaggerated. Only 4 destroyers. the others are within a days sailing range.[/QUOTE] It really depends on your definition of surrounded.

The aircraft carriers aren't exactly 'surrounding' Syria right now but I imagine the Harry S. Truman is heading up that way [img]http://imgkk.com/i/cwd1.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.voanews.com/content/us-military-has-multiple-ways-to-strike-syria-in-potential-operation/1737526.html]source[/url]

[QUOTE=smurfy;41981254]The aircraft carriers aren't exactly 'surrounding' Syria right now but I imagine the Harry S. Truman is heading up that way [img]http://imgkk.com/i/cwd1.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.voanews.com/content/us-military-has-multiple-ways-to-strike-syria-in-potential-operation/1737526.html]source[/url][/QUOTE] By any chance, how fast could they link up with the 4 destroyers?

Can someone explain why chemical weapons are so much worse than guns? They're both just means to an end, which is to kill people. One just does it more effectively than the other. Why draw the line there?

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;41979462][url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels]USA approves arming rebels[/url] [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-secretly-providing-training-for-syrian-rebels/5340018]cia secretly Training rebels[/url] (I'd post the RT article but I'm sure you'll just pull the "omg Russian biased media" [url=https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2013%2F08%2F24%2Fus-syria-crisis-jobar-idUSBRE97N04T20130824&ei=nwIcUo_JLMmf2QWf5oDADA&usg=AFQjCNHteHwin59duf7VJfKZwUoVtwsiFw&sig2=uL4J8jeW5wv-MjriQYc5Lg&bvm=bv.51156542,d.b2I]syrian army finds chemical agents in tunnel[/url] If that doesn't suffice feel free googling. It's not hard ;) Also you're implying chemical weapons can only be used in artillery which is not the case. Also I don't believe the army is beheading their enemies and letting them bleed out like the pig terrorists. So I ask you for some evidence to support your claim[/QUOTE] The U.S isn't funding the rebels as a whole, only specific groups that are moderate. The chemical attack that occurred recently was done by shelling, which is why I mentioned it. And the Syrian Army has been documented as committing war crimes which involve torture, perhaps you should use google as well and not give me syrian state tv sources [url]http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17921390[/url]

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41981484]Can someone explain why chemical weapons are so much worse than guns? They're both just means to an end, which is to kill people. One just does it more effectively than the other. Why draw the line there?[/QUOTE] They linger in the area, they drift and hit surrounding areas (Like all the children that got caught with this attack), they don't kill quickly (depending on how much you're hit with), etc.

[QUOTE=Aman;41980847]I already knew all of this and what does any of this tell me? You just pasted random articles to me that aren't relevant to "95%".[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you want. You challenged for sources that indicate CIA training the rebels and stuff, and I provided them. I didn't know that you specifically wanted articles with "95%" in them. I'm honestly confused as fuck here, I have no idea what the hell you two are fighting about. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41981484]Can someone explain why chemical weapons are so much worse than guns? They're both just means to an end, which is to kill people. One just does it more effectively than the other. Why draw the line there?[/QUOTE]With a firearm, you point and shoot and you can specifically aim and kill/maim/hurt/make scared a specific target. This is true for pretty much every single weapon system ever. A weapon of [i]mass destruction[/i], i.e nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, completely fucks up a [i]mass[/i] area, causing widespread and indiscriminate destruction. Then there's the issue of being shot versus essentially having a seizure and dying from being unable to breathe.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41981484]Can someone explain why chemical weapons are so much worse than guns? They're both just means to an end, which is to kill people. One just does it more effectively than the other. Why draw the line there?[/QUOTE] same reason that torturing people to death is considered worse than just killing them

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41979140]The chemical attack in Syria was more advanced than a couple of guys throwing plastic bags. Please do give a source where the U.S is funding a terrorist faction and when they received chemical weapons with the artillery to use it. It's also great you call them "Head Choppers" when factions with the Syrian government are doing the very same thing.[/QUOTE] Didn't Iraqi SF recently find Al-qaeda linked chemical weapons factories in Iraq?

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003 Deja Vu all over again, except here is Kerry. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] Deleted Daily Mail Online Article: “US Backed Plan for Chemical Weapon Attack in Syria to Be Blamed on Assad” [url]http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/08/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-[/url] syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad-2543790.html Turkey finds sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamists – reports [url]http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/[/url] Syrian Rebels CAUGHT & ARRESTED With Chemical Weapons [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiaDSIxs4GM[/url] Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/[/url] UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin' [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188[/url] Edited: Obama will most likely get impeached if he makes a move (which I don't think he will). If he got any brains left, he would fire Susan Rice, Samantha Power and John Kerry immediately. Else, he will face impeachement. >>>TIMESTAMP<<< Edited: John Bolton is salivating at the thought of Obama getting impeached, his latest raving "doing nothing" worse than "doing something". Trying to get Obama to take the bait. ( src: Newsmax ) Edited: [url]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bolton-obama-syria-action/2013/08/26/id/522354[/url] Edited: Proven Chemical attacks and complicit in chemical attacks by the US Agent Orange in Vietnam Saddam gassing iranians When it comes to the definition of evidence, for US (let's leave Iraq WMD out of this, Powell has already admitted that his whole speech in the UN was a "lie") Iran Shows Captured Drone; USA Claims "No Evidence" [url]http://www.roitov.com/articles/evidence.htm[/url] (former IDF) [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] Kerry and Assad (with their wives) having a pleasant dinner. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/eKDPgHQ.jpg[/IMG] Robert S Ford presenting his credentials to Assad before sending in his Al Qaeda Death Squads [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2b2ege0.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41981484]Can someone explain why chemical weapons are so much worse than guns? They're both just means to an end, which is to kill people. One just does it more effectively than the other. Why draw the line there?[/QUOTE] The reasons other people have posted + it's an incredibly painful death afaik

Erik Draitser, West is getting desperate to move fast before evidence will prove them wrong. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w7sQb-uB6sc#t=35[/url]

It's happening. For real guys...

[url]http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/#LlLbQcpViWpQiaih.99[/url] "Evidence: Syria gas attack work of US allies"

If you want to get involved, open up your borders for refugees, maybe offer transport, and then just let those who want to fight kill each other, as they have been for the last thousand years in the region. A few cruise missiles isn't going to change anything

I don't see how it makes strategic sense for government forces to have launched the chemical attack - their counter-offensive against the rebels has been succeeding for the past several months and they had troops in the area of the chemical attack. Not to mention I'm sure they understand the scrutiny an attack like that would bring on them. Until there's some solid evidence that it was the government, I gotta assume it was an extremist/terrorist faction.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41979140]The chemical attack in Syria was more advanced than a couple of guys throwing plastic bags. Please do give a source where the U.S is funding a terrorist faction and when they received chemical weapons with the artillery to use it. It's also great you call them "Head Choppers" when factions with the Syrian government are doing the very same thing.[/QUOTE] For the record, the FSA and other groups do have artillery as well as a number of armoured units. They are fairly well equipped as far as rebels go, which is one of the reasons they've managed to hold out for so long. Makes sweeping generalisations much harder. Sicne both sides possess the means to send the attack in.

[QUOTE=joqqy;41982597][url]http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/#LlLbQcpViWpQiaih.99[/url] "Evidence: Syria gas attack work of US allies"[/QUOTE] Haha what an atrociously bad website