advertisement


US bombs Syria

I'm confused, has anyone actually presented any evidence it was the Assad govt that used the chemical weapons yet?
 
Lest Arye totally derails the thread with the usual propaganda there's none worse in the area than the Israelis at putting together a fight and pulling on old alliances.
 
thebiglebowski said:
I'm confused, has anyone actually presented any evidence it was the Assad govt that used the chemical weapons yet?
Click to expand...

Well nobody's denying it. Or rather the Russians and Syrians are only denying it with a preposterous claim that it was caused by an accidental leak when the Syrian jets that were over the site at the time the attack occurred were attempting to bomb rebel held chemical weapon workshops.

The only people who don't think it wasn't the Syrians are mad people on YouTube.
 
eternumviti said:
It seems to be ramping up. The UK and US governments are apparently openly accusing Russia of complicity in the use of Sarin.
Click to expand...

Its utterly nuts and I think they know it.

It just doesn't make sense, that the regime would do it, or that the Russians would like it and support them in doing it.

There was an explanation proposed from Russia, that neither was it the regime nor a planned false flag either. That the conventional bombing by the aircraft ( which isn't denied ) possibly caught rebel held stored chemicals and thus we saw the gas "attack".

It seems plausible to me and makes far more sense than saying Assad wanted it and sent it.

The regime had handed over the chemical weapons to the Russians to get rid of and this is confirmed by monitoring agencies. Also, the big red line chemical incident which nearly led to American action a few years back, turned out to be rebel action, not state action and this is widely acknowledged.

I'm still not buying that this was an Assad regime attack. It goes directly against their interests.

By the way, that airbase was useful for defending a nearby majority Christian area that remains in jeopardy from Islamist forces. Now made that bit more likely. Great thinking.

Just thought I'd point these things out to you. No doubt some smart arse will be asking me about my free Aeroflot business class tickets or somesuch. You can please yourselves.
 
chemical weapons would be destroyed by heat/fire/explosion thus that story is not really credible?
 
Classic non-binary nerve agents are potentially far more dangerous to their owners than their targets, so its very unlikely that the rebels would have had a stockpile. The Assad regimes hatred of the Syrian Sunnis is a far more likely reason, after all the more common barrel bombing of civilians requires a certain level of psychopathy
 
Some would, where it is hot enough and/or enough pressure. But what about at the periphery of blasts ? Where there is less pressure and less heat ? There could have been some dispersal by the crude means of lesser blast, rupturing the containers. Its plausible.
And its still plausible it was an out and out false flag by the extremist bastards ( remember, they are - and have done it before ).
Both explanations, still more plausible than the idea that the regime did it, which stood to gain nothing but setbacks because of such a deed.
 
thebiglebowski said:
I'm confused, has anyone actually presented any evidence it was the Assad govt that used the chemical weapons yet?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. Fallon says Russia is to blame for Syrian deaths.

We have a Tory government mouthing off about an alleged sarin attack. They have presented no evidence and seem happy to confront Russia.

Sky no longer say it is an alleged attack. Sky have turned it into a fact. No doubt the BBC are doing the same thing.

Everybody except the truly stupid remembers Blair and Bush lying about WMDs. The same kind of thing could be happening.

Why?

Iran are going sell gas to Europe. It will go via a pipeline through Syria.

Trump and May hate Iran.

Jack
 
davidsrsb said:
Classic non-binary nerve agents are potentially far more dangerous to their owners than their targets, so its very unlikely that the rebels would have had a stockpile. The Assad regimes hatred of the Syrian Sunnis is a far more likely reason, after all the more common barrel bombing of civilians requires a certain level of psychopathy
Click to expand...

I'd suggest they are reckless and unskilled. The rebels.

I don't think the regime is either irrational or illogical.

There's another possibility, that it wasn't even chemical weapons per se that were released. I'm sure if you bombed our local ICI plant there might be some kind of chemical danger to local residents. There's all sorts of possibilities.

I think the one that says Assad decided to make a chemical attack on a community which had no value in the prosecution of a war they are ahead in anyway and knowing the international reprecussions ot it, is highly unlikely.

Earlier in the thread someone called into question Assad's mental state, suggesting some kind of blind hatred of Sunnis. Really ? This is the regime bear in mind that stood for making sure that all communities could live together, including Christians, in a broadly secular system of government, give or take corruption in favour of his own, and routinely employed authoritarian measures ( which yes needed to be reformed ) to maintain this and keep at bay Islamists and others that threatened the national stability. Assad isn't any kind of blind, irrational hater. Nor is he stupid - I mean come on folks isn't it obvious to you, that they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, from doing a gas attack like this ?
 
Rodrat said:
I wonder whether the timing is anything to do with the Chinese premiers visit? Sending a message to Russia perhaps.
Click to expand...

very relevant i should think - especially seeing as it was both the chinese and russians who blocked the 2013 post-fake-gas-attack attempt to invade. They'd have a hostage I suppose (?)
 
Cloth-Ears said:
Some would, where it is hot enough and/or enough pressure. But what about at the periphery of blasts ? Where there is less pressure and less heat ? There could have been some dispersal by the crude means of lesser blast, rupturing the containers. Its plausible.
And its still plausible it was an out and out false flag by the extremist bastards ( remember, they are - and have done it before ).
Both explanations, still more plausible than the idea that the regime did it, which stood to gain nothing but setbacks because of such a deed.
Click to expand...

if it was Sarin, and like many of these nerve agents they're usually stored in a binary manner meaning they are kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use, either manually or automatically inside a weapon when launched.... the Russia view is the attack happened almost 6 hours from when witnesses saw the explosions and people started dropping... try again!
 
The Russians have suggested possible explanations. I don't have details about things like timings or what exactly happened and you have just picked up things that themselves may be wrong. Its just too early for any of us to be sure.
Again, it could well be that other option - an out and out exploitative fasle flag.
Remember, the attack that Kerry was so sure of being the regime and nearly triggered US action, is now acknowledged to have been the rebels. The logic, the sheer logic and common sense , behind it NOT being the regime remains. Plus we know the Islamist rebels are bastards enough to do it and DO have much to gain from it, just as before they did.
 
Dear god, you don't need jets to get chemicals released somewhere.

Look, neither I nor you or anyone here, really has all the facts to hand and even with time it may remain sketchy. For now, I'm going with three things :

1) Logic as to motivation and known likely consequences

2) Past form of the rebel groups ( either having stored chemicals or in making a false flag incident coinciding with the air attack )

3) Uncertainty of information and the possibility of third explanations, e.g non weapon chemical release, or even false flag interference by foreign powers ( Turkey anyone ? ),
 
witnesses saw jets dropping armaments tho... just where the folk dropped... coincidence?
 
tqineil said:
witnesses saw jets dropping armaments tho... just where the folk dropped... coincidence?
Click to expand...

The air attack was observed by eye witnesses and by outside monitoring. Yes and the attack is not denied.

That does NOT mean the jets dropped chemical munitions.

And of course it isn't a coincidence ! They could have ruptured rebel held chemical weapons or ruptured otherwise dangerous chemicals, or the rebels could have used the attack to launch their own, yes, false flag release, or some other party might have. Of course, yes of course, the jets attack is tied to it and is not a coincidence. But it doesn't mean the jets dropped chemical weapons !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top