Shock Video: Syrian Rebels Test Chem Weapons On Rabbits As Warning To Civilians

So essentially, the USA is backing an army of Luka Magnottas.

reply to post by Bakatono


You haven't seen crazy yet, odds are good that you will soon.

I totally read "rabbits" as "rabbis" so I was expecting the video to be much worse...

Not really surprising that they have access to certain chemicals. It's not really clear what the gas is, and testing it in a glass box is significantly different than testing it outside, so I don't think it's all that worrying.

Definitely looks like they could stage a chemical weapon attack and blame assad so the U.S. can step in.

Hmmm Tekkim laboratories

www.tekkim.com.tr...

The fine print

Organize San. Bölgesi Mavi Cad. 8. Sk. No:1 Bursa / Türkiye +90 224 243 21 71

Sarin, blister agent, cyanide etc...the little jihadist would be wearing a chemical suit. This I know.

The labels I read were salts and potassium....oh...and the scary tube bank on the kitchen sink....spooky!!!

A surgical mask....I thought people here had a higher intellect.

MG

Originally posted by missed_gear
Sarin, blister agent, cyanide etc...the little jihadist would be wearing a chemical suit. This I know.

The labels I read were salts and potassium....oh...and the scary tube bank on the kitchen sink....spooky!!!

A surgical mask....I thought people here had a higher intellect.

MG

Ok, so those were some incredibly trained rabbits.

Again, not the point. The point is that the "rebels" are being sold to us as the "good" guys. Now there is a video wherein the "rebels" are threatening the "civilians". Making them "bad" guys. I am really talking more about this interesting threat against the civilians by the rebels, not necessarily the tool which they use to make their threat.

reply to post by Bakatono


Nope.. pure propaganda.

Can you read the poster in the background, I bet not.

Trained rabbits, no they are dead.

If there was an actual chem weapon, a surgical mask will not help....use your brain.

Sarcasm...still spooked by the boiling water on the sink, Wooooooh, omg!

It's all crud....I am shaking in my shoes....

MG

reply to post by missed_gear


good..was waiting for someone with some knowledge to actually evaluate what they saw in the video. I agree if that was really some serious stuff they would be wearing hazmat suites, not a simple surgical mask, that was laughable.

For all we know they could have mixed bleach and ammonia.. or who knows what else to kill the rabbits..I feel bad for the rabbits :/

reply to post by snapperski


You have no idea what is out there for use.

Deny Ignorance?

You just made the denial a fact that needs to be addressed


MG

Can I ask, since the debate is about whether Syria has them or not(It's common knowledge that they do BTW), what happens if either the rebels or the government use them?

Has anyone pulled their heads out of their conspiracy theory butts long enough to think about this? Would the death of civilians be the only thing to satisfy your conspiratorial anti-media predeterminations on the information being disseminated from this conflict?

When talking about WMDs one should certainly tread carefully. But the notion that we should disregard claims of the use of WMDs because the Bush admin lied about it is ridiculous and dangerous.

Dangerous in that it breeds a certain atmosphere of complacency toward the issue that can one day lead to the deaths of thousands if not millions.

Tread carefully, consider the information, and realize that despite the prevailing opinion of the conspiracy world that there are no dictators or evil in the world other than western powers, sometimes, there is a bigger evil far more willing to kill innocent people.

reply to post by missed_gear


Nope, can't read the sign in the background, can you read this?

てめぇ ばか チンピラ, このやろう!

Anyone want in on a little secret?

The threat supposedly presented by chemical weapons is blown way out of proportion, and much of this chemical weapons talks is sensationalist BS. Both US and Russia got rid of or demilitarized the vast majority of their stockpiles in the last few decades. Why? It is not because they were afraid of how terrible these weapons are. It is because their military and strategic use is not that great and has been over-emphasized. There are many disadvantages to chemical weapons used in military scenarious. Sure they could kill large amounts of civilians in a localized area. But they are not all that effective against enemy military forces or against rebels/insurgents scattered over a large area or an entire country.

Chemical weapons are difficult to target, and to contain, given things like wind, precipitation, geography. They can quickly and unexpectedly mix with other elements and lose some effectiveness. The speed of effectiveness and radius of impact is largely unpredictable. They are expensive to maintain. Countries like Syria also do not possess effective delivery methods, while countries like US and Russia long ago retired their delivery methods for these weapons.

They certainly would not help Assad achive military objectives against the rebels, or political objectives for that matter. Nor would they help the rebels. There is a reason why there has been very limited use of Chemical weapons in conflicts. They have only been used in large quantities in Iraq-Iran war, and they didn't achive the intended objectives.



It is very unlikely that chemical weapons will be used in Syria. Both sides know that they will not achive anything with them that they can't achive with conventional weapons. Nor will they save either side in the event that side is losing.

You see, "chemical weapons" sound scary. That is why everyone keeps bringing them up, including the endless parade of delegates and ministers from NATO. But dig a little deeper, and they don't make much of a difference.

reply to post by toepick


I wouldn't call what MG imparted as knowledge. More like a smart-assed response. He also is apparently too dense to understand the point. It is not whether or not there is chemical weapons in the room. It is the fact that the "rebels" are supposed to be threatening the "civilians". This is contradictory to the story we are begin given by the government. So, if the rebels are "good" guys why are they threatening to gas people? That is the point.

Doesn't matter if the guy farted in the cage and the smell caused the rabbits to simply pass out from all the methane.

MG is just being a tool and hasn't actually stated anything of relevance to the thread.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Can I ask, since the debate is about whether Syria has them or not(It's common knowledge that they do BTW), what happens if either the rebels or the government use them?

They will kill mostly civilians, in the amount of hundreds to perhaps thousands. Very unlikely to kill more than ten thousand given the fact that neither side has very effective delivery systems.

This civil war already seen casualties well into thousands. While chemical weapons sound scary, actual impact will likely not be all that tremendous, especially from a strategic perspective.

It's not like trench warfare is going on in Syria, where each side knows exactly where large troop concentrations of the enemy are. What are they going to target?

Originally posted by projectvxn
Would the death of civilians be the only thing to satisfy your conspiratorial anti-media predeterminations on the information being disseminated from this conflict?

Civilians are already dying by the thousands by conventional weapons. Do you care more if a hundred civilians die from bullets and bombs, or from chemical weapons?

Originally posted by projectvxn
But the notion that we should disregard claims of the use of WMDs because the Bush admin lied about it is ridiculous and dangerous.

No one has used chemical weapons yet in Syria. NATO claims that someone supposedly "intends to use them". Well that is a very subjective call in my opinion.

Originally posted by projectvxn
there is a bigger evil far more willing to kill innocent people.

One doesn't need chemical weapons to accomplish that task.

The wabbit kicked the bucket?

reply to post by maloy


I'm afraid your response takes the context of out what I was trying to get across.

Basically I'm trying to tell people not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Chemical weapons are the most evil thing to hit this planet. They are worse than nukes.

Do you have any idea what it is like to die from your average chemical weapon? It is the most painful death we can fathom. You literally spasm until you break every bone in your body and break your own back. That is how you die.


That being said, I do not know which side this is coming from, or if it is even half way legit. I just had to comment on the person who downplayed chemical weapons. They are worse than anything we have invented thus far.

Get Bleach and some think to react with it.
maybe vinegar? you get chlorine gas.
One dead rabbit. and fools think its chem weapons.

reply to post by missed_gear


I checked my inbox and noticed your comment was a direct response to me.

A surgical mask....I thought people here had a higher intellect.

What do you call this then? Grow a pair of eyes before you call me out.