Hague: Assad believed to behind chemical attack - Polidicks

"believed to behind chemical attack" Come on, guys, if one part of an entire post deserves at least a cursory proofread, it's the title.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;41942355]i seriously dont get how you guys think it wasn't assad by this point barely any of his army's moves have had an ounce of logic to them, why would this one?[/QUOTE] um what it seems that he is winning atm [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsm;41941914]Seems legit, I wonder why no one else has reported this.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3568731.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-syrian-rebels-used-cyhemical-weapons-in-aleppo/1698281.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/130710/chemical-weapons-clearly-used-syria-likely-rebels-rus[/URL]

[quote]"We have yet to see any evidence that backs up the assertion that anybody besides the Syrian government has had the ability to use chemical weapons or has used chemical weapons." Churkin told reporters after delivering an 80-page report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the Assad regime asked Russia, its closest ally, to investigate the attack after a U.N. team of chemical weapons experts was unable to enter the country in a dispute over the probe's scope.[/quote] from yo link

Why would Assad launch weapons that can kill 1000s when he is already winning in every basic aspect of the war? Or is that just me?

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;41943632]Why would Assad launch weapons that can kill 1000s when he is already winning in every basic aspect of the war? Or is that just me?[/QUOTE] people thought it was dumb that he ordered his military to open fire on protesters which caused the split in his army which caused this civil war in the first place he's a dumb, murderous bastard maybe he thinks opening up with chemical weapons will break what little will is left in the rebels and shorten the war by a year or two.

Choosing sides in a sectarian conflict seems like something FP would be against.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41943881]Choosing sides in a sectarian conflict? What?[/QUOTE] was the massacre of 8,000 Bosnians by Serbs at Srebrenica in 1995 that provoked outside powers to intervene decisively in Yugoslavia’s civil war ~choosing sides in a sectarian conflict~?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41943904]was the massacre of 8,000 Bosnians by Serbs at Srebrenica in 1995 that provoked outside powers to intervene decisively in Yugoslavia’s civil war ~choosing sides in a sectarian conflict~?[/QUOTE] I don't know.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41943920]I don't know.[/QUOTE] according to your criteria it was

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41943929]according to your criteria it was[/QUOTE] I commented on the fact that the playpen that is known as SH seems to be polarized when it comes to 2 religious sects killing each other in the middle east. Which doesn't make any sense considering FP is against religion in general.

I agree with the OP, but lets wait for the evidence so we can thoroughly dismiss the utterly unfounded conspiracy theories.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41943981]I commented on the fact that the playpen that is known as SH seems to be polarized when it comes to 2 religious sects killing each other in the middle east. Which doesn't make any sense considering FP is against religion in general.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure this was a chemical attack by one armed force on civilians.

It makes no sense, why do Facepunchers argue good or bad between the factions when they're clearly both religious, both insane and both disregarding common international standards. Facepunch of all forums should be taking a hardline athiest stance on this, burn them all. The only thing that unites them is their religion's sects.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41944052]It makes no sense, why do Facepunchers argue good or bad between the factions when they're clearly both religious, both insane and both disregarding common international standards. Facepunch of all forums should be taking a hardline athiest stance on this, burn them all.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry for having the opinion that chemical attacks on civilian population centers are bad and shouldn't be tolerated. That has nothing to do with religion.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41944052]It makes no sense, why do Facepunchers argue good or bad between the factions when they're clearly both religious, both insane and both disregarding common international standards. Facepunch of all forums should be taking a hardline athiest stance on this, burn them all.[/QUOTE] It's overgeneralizing to refer to 100% of the rebels as being religious extremists. There' no doubt that some of them are, but Assads regime is a homogenous nationalistic force who wish to keep him in power, whereas the Rebels are a multi-partisan force only united by their objective to remove Assad from power; and that's where the similarities in the Rebel factions end. The two sides can't be compared to each other. And to boot, Assad represents a tiny autocratic religious minority, and a tiny autocratic religious minority should not be running the country culturally and politically.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41944099]It's overgeneralizing to refer to 100% of the rebels as being religious extremists. There' no doubt that some of them are, but Assads regime is a homogenous nationalistic force who wish to keep him in power, whereas the Rebels are a multi-partisan force only united by their objective to remove Assad from power; and that's where the similarities in the Rebel factions end. The two sides can't be compared to each other. And to boot, Assad represents a tiny autocratic religious minority, and a tiny autocratic religious minority should not be running the country culturally and politically.[/QUOTE] If we took religion completely out of their brains, they might make peace. Until then, they're brainwashed.

If it wasn't religion they'd be fighting over land, political control or culture. The point is Assad represents a small autocratic minority who runs the majority of the country. As long as any scenario in Syria is vaguely similar to that, then there will be civil war, and if there's civil war there will be extremists; be they religious or political.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41944123]If we took religion completely out of their brains, they might make peace. Until then, they're brainwashed.[/QUOTE] Why would they make peace suddenly? This started because Assad shot civilians for asking for more democratic representation.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944176]Why would they make peace suddenly? This started because Assad shot civilians for asking for more democratic representation.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately religion hijacked the war.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944176]Why would they make peace suddenly? This started because Assad shot civilians for asking for more democratic representation.[/QUOTE] Uh, no? It [I]clearly[/I] didn't? It's in the [I]Middle East[/I], obviously it's a religious conflict. Dummy. Facts brought to you by Laserguided Thinking inc., beaming concentrated truth straight to your brains.

[QUOTE=Riller;41944250]Uh, no? It [I]clearly[/I] didn't? It's in the [I]Middle East[/I], obviously it's a religious conflict. Dummy. Facts brought to you by Laserguided Thinking inc., beaming concentrated truth straight to your brains.[/QUOTE] That isn't what I said, now you're just lying to yourself.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41944241]Unfortunately religion hijacked the war.[/QUOTE] You didn't answer my question or are you just going to continue shitposting with meaningless statements

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944261]You didn't answer my question or are you just going to continue shitposting with meaningless statements[/QUOTE] I didn't know I was obligated? I want your questions in list format presented to my inbox by 2:45PM PDT.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944083]I'm sorry for having the opinion that chemical attacks on civilian population centers are bad and shouldn't be tolerated. That has nothing to do with religion.[/QUOTE] i'd say we shouldn't tolerate chemical attacks on civilians when we(the usa/nato) are able to go 10 years without funding groups that kill civilians. [QUOTE=laserguided;41944123]If we took religion completely out of their brains, they might make peace. Until then, they're brainwashed.[/QUOTE] the conflict has deeper cultural and political causes than just religion.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41944280]I didn't know I was obligated? I want your questions in list format presented to my inbox by 2:45PM PDT.[/QUOTE] Your not obligated but when you are challenged on something you are generally expected to respond to it instead of posting a snarky comment

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41944316]Your not obligated but when you are challenged on something you are generally expected to respond to it instead of posting a snarky comment[/QUOTE] Why would I want to respond in the first place?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944315]i'd say we shouldn't tolerate chemical attacks on civilians when we(the usa/nato) are able to go 10 years without funding groups that kill civilians.[/QUOTE] That doesn't even make sense. We should tolerate chemical attacks because apparently nato funds terrorism?

[QUOTE=laserguided;41944324]Why would I want to respond in the first place?[/QUOTE] I guess I figured you would want to defend your dumb comment. You are on an online forum where discussions take place.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944337]That doesn't even make sense. We should tolerate chemical attacks because apparently nato funds terrorism?[/QUOTE] it's a bit hypocritical to take a stance against terrorism and then fund terrorism at the same time.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41944345]I guess I figured you would want to defend your dumb comment. You are on an online forum where discussions take place.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't want to play into somebody elses dumb comment either, right?