And like arab regime's armies are normally really tied to the head power, not able to act independently, which has been in the past one of its biggest drawbacks in conflicts.
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion.
There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl.
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic.
CBRNe piece of the difficulties of disarming chemical weapons.
Which way now?
...inaction over what is now universally agreed was a chemical attack (though the agent and actor still has some speculation) is a ‘very bad thing.’ Yet what happens next is less obvious. Shall we take the issue of airstrikes, or cruise missiles, let us say, for sake of argument, that they get to their target, what happens to the agent? In the ideal world of the tub-thumpers it is destroyed, job done. Sadly real life CBRN doesn’t work that way, what is more likely is that the Syrians get a ‘sub-optimal chemical release,’ ie Western activity releases an enormous plume which affects many square kilometres...
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion.
There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl.
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic.
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic.
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion.
There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl.
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic.
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic.
'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels.
On August 28 2013 11:33 FallDownMarigold wrote: Ya know, it's possible that Assad did not directly issue an order to use chems on civilians. Even if it's ultimately true that Assad's military or supporters did use such weapons, it doesn't necessarily follow that Assad himself wanted it done. For example, it's possible a mid level officer with access to the weapons went ahead and executed the move without conferring with Assad, perhaps in a stupid but desperate final decision during a combat operation. In this case it would be possible that Assad and other higher ups don't know why/how it happened, while remaining true that it was not done by the rebels.
This is in response to some of the "Assad didn't want to use chems, it's a bad move, therefore it necessarily must have been a rebel false flag style operation"
I find this the most likely scenario too. Could have even been an accident where no one on Assad's side really meant to use chemical weapons but they accidentally deployed them instead of conventional munition.
Not possible. Chemical weapons are kept by a distinct division and access to them is very hard (only specialized people do it) because of its consequences, misuse means not only an explosion but can kill your entire unit or even worse. And they are marked, it's impossible to mistake them.
But we still don't know what chemical was used, all we know is that there are a lot of dead and injured, and haven't heard about the number of SAF or rebels killed/injured by it. I believe we need to know what was used first so we can extend or restrain the options.
Edit: Syrian army is organized not chaotic and they are much better now than they were in the beginning. May not be the best but they definitely have some clear command channel and procedures.
Almost a quarter of the Syrian forces has defected or deserted, including high ranking officers in the chemical warfare program. If one in four disappear it is not a stretch to imagine there will be plenty of chaos within the Syrian army.
Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Here is an impartial depleted Uranium bomb they dropped on Syria in May
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion.
There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl.
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic.
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic.
'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels.
On August 29 2013 02:42 dsousa wrote: Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
Key takeaway: It does not explode! And is generally used in rifle or machine gun ammunition, not in bombs. What you saw there was simply a bomb, nothing uranious about it.
On August 29 2013 02:42 dsousa wrote: Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
Key takeaway: It does not explode! And is generally used in rifle or machine gun ammunition, not in bombs. What you saw there was simply a bomb, nothing uranious about it.
The depleted uranium is used not because it is radioactive, but because it is more dense and can penetrate steel.
Yeah... Depleted Uranium isn't some unique Israeli invention/tool. I think a lot of our tanks fire depleted uranium shells. Think that's also what goes in a warthog's cannon
On August 29 2013 02:42 dsousa wrote: Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
Key takeaway: It does not explode! And is generally used in rifle or machine gun ammunition, not in bombs. What you saw there was simply a bomb, nothing uranious about it.
The depleted uranium is used not because it is radioactive, but because it is more dense and can penetrate steel.
On August 28 2013 11:34 Nachtwind wrote: i don´t even believe that either of both sides are responsible for this.
Yes, it's also possible that the CIA or Mossad secret agents did it. Or Saudi Arabia. Maybe Canada. Or was it Jamaica? Perhaps it was the illuminati, or aliens.
Joking, but on a more serious note, one lacking component in identifying that chemical weapons were used is that it doesn't definitively reveal who was responsibile. Each side blames one another and onlookers all have their own opinions on who else it might have been. The best route seems like it's waiting for a UN team to assess all the facts and to form a conclusion from there, which if done properly is the closest anyone can come to knowing what happened/who did it
Yes, that sounds reasonable... but thats not what the US is doing. They are claiming they already have proof Assad did this and they are preparing an attack.
What you are saying is the response of someone looking to gather information, the US is acting like its got its mind made up.
Its almost like this was the opportunity the US was looking for... they seem rather eager to get involved.
It all seems like poor stage play to me. Fool me once.....
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion.
There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl.
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic.
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic.
'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels.
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic.
Lose the "Jew", and then what ?
I hope you do realize that Jewish scumbags are scumbags because they are *drumroll*.....scumbags. Not because they are Jews.
On August 29 2013 02:42 dsousa wrote: Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
Key takeaway: It does not explode! And is generally used in rifle or machine gun ammunition, not in bombs. What you saw there was simply a bomb, nothing uranious about it.
The depleted uranium is used not because it is radioactive, but because it is more dense and can penetrate steel.
So an eyewitness concluded from the color of the explosion that the shell of the bomb was encased in DU. OK, sure. What more proof do you need.
Ya, your right. We need proof like we have that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people before we get too serious about it.
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc).
People look for a reason to believe NATO and they look for reasons to disbelieve the opposition. When the US/Nato does something, people find the "good" in it... they justify it first and fill in the pieces later.
If you step back and look at these event from a 100 year historical perspective its pretty obvious that the US wants to be involved here.... Israel wants them involved.... they want to clear out the Syrians and then the Iranians. The media and the general consensus would have you believe that the US is reluctant and only doing this because they "have" to for humanitarian reasons.
I think people should be smarter than to think that.
Seriously, stop and think. What if we aren't the good guys?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/to-learn-who-rules-over-you-simply-find-out-who-you-are-not-allowed-to-criticize.-voltaire.jpg)
