Syria: 'napalm' bomb dropped on school playground, BBC claims

I watched a longer vid this afternoon on this, your being fed the abridged version.

I haven't been able to find a link RSOE posted it on their facebook and it's from the BBC via SBS.

It was the most stupefying thing ive ever seen it looks dodgy enough in the short version.. wait till they show you the pathetic hospital "scene" there's a 2-3 second delay between "action" and "oooooohh im hurt"

Sory, if this was Napalm, Thermite or phosphorus.. there'd be no delay, they'd be screaming in agony.. there is no screaming only zombie lurching in rather shifty costumes.

Someone attacked someone.. but it's not what's being portrayed here in this vid, this vid is bait for the masses.

What's our motto again?

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Wookiep

 

I told him to watch videos of vietnam...

Ignorance is bliss when you don't want to think..

Again I ask everybody look at the video look at all the debri laying around then look at the impact, and then look at the burn marks on the building....

You have to be dumb to not get what I mean by all this.

Think about sizes and perspective..

Someone must of dropped a tiny bomb ehh?

THey included the word napalm to scare you. It's a western known word. But do you really know?

edit on 8/30/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

Well, I for one agree with you. This does not look anywhere near what a "napalm" attack aftermath would look like, and I have never even served in the military. I'm basing this on the nightmares we've all been told about napalm and why it was banned. We've seen videos on napalm and the large area it affects since Vietnam and this makes it look like a joke. This video in the OP seems like a try-out for the walking dead. They seem to really be posing for the camera.

reply to post by Thorneblood


You are just regurgitating what the media is saying with no proof, the fact of the matter is they don't know yet and neither do you but you assign blame none the less. As I said the weapon inspectors haven't finished yet so keep your SPECULATION to minimum.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


If you leave them untouched and the rebels take those positions anyway then they get the facilities both in full working order and fully stocked.

It is one thing to have a chemical weapons plant and quite another to just have the rubble of one.

If Syria has been producing CW's for as long as they believe there is no real way of knowing what kind of weapons they have and what level of technological skill they currently possess. With China, Russia and Iran as allies i am willing to bet it is going to be rather high.

Now if we assume that Maher Assad has in fact lost it, or at least willingly pushed it to the next level for revenge (he seems to enjoy this reportedly) then it only goes further in proving neither Syria nor those who are fighting against Syria for any reason should have any access to those weapons.

The current leadership of Syria can no longer guarantee that it can protect it's own terrible weapons, regardless of whose hands they are in they are still dangerous hands and as such should be destroyed.

reply to post by Thorneblood


The USA is Supporting the REBELS....
We are trying to make the chemical weapons unsafe..

It would be much smarter to defeat the rebels and give Assad one choice.

Otherwise I think you have a bipolar view on the situation.


And to explain further. Assad would be done with Alqueda if Israel, USA, and Saudi Arabia would stop messing with them. At that point I would be ok with a missile strike if the UN was ok too.


Otherwise by your own admission you are asking for chemical strikes on Marines and Israel since we don't know where they are right?

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

If you leave them untouched and the rebels take those positions anyway then they get the facilities both in full working order and fully stocked.

It is one thing to have a chemical weapons plant and quite another to just have the rubble of one.

If Syria has been producing CW's for as long as they believe there is no real way of knowing what kind of weapons they have and what level of technological skill they currently possess. With China, Russia and Iran as allies i am willing to bet it is going to be rather high.

Now if we assume that Maher Assad has in fact lost it, or at least willingly pushed it to the next level for revenge (he seems to enjoy this reportedly) then it only goes further in proving neither Syria nor those who are fighting against Syria for any reason should have any access to those weapons.

The current leadership of Syria can no longer guarantee that it can protect it's own terrible weapons, regardless of whose hands they are in they are still dangerous hands and as such should be destroyed.

Do you propose that the U.S can strike Syrian Chemical Weapons facilities with cruise missiles alone and there will be no potential danger to civilians? Do you also consider that circumventing the Syrian defenses in order to carry out said strikes (which have been advertised) provides an excellent opportunity for islamic militants to seize these chemicals or weapons delivery systems under the opportunities provided to them?

If you could clarify further, Are you even going so far as to suggest that such systems haven't already fallen into the hand of Jihadists? Jihadists that America declared war on after 9/11? Or are those different Jihadists because they are fighting a proxy war against Assad?

How simple do you think I am? Can you provide a reasonable scenario whereby military intervention in Syria doesn't result in unacceptable risk? I don't believe you can. I know I watched an ex-General and CNN military analyst fail to do so on CNN tonight, and his credentials probably eclipse your own.

Can you provide a reasonable scenario whereby military intervention in Syria doesn't result in unacceptable risk?

Yes, Syria's chemical weapons program has created a new bio chemical weapon based on agent 15 that basically wipes out the targets memories with an amnesiac, induces vivid hallucinations and force feeds the body enough amphetamines to keep the victims awake and twisting in their madness for days on end. I am not entirely sure what this twisted form of reprogramming would actually do to the average human mind but under those conditions i imagine it would likely snap and accept whatever reality was presented to it.

So that scenario wouldn't present an unacceptable risk as the risk would be justified in ensuring this new poison never got out into the world.

Does that work?

Originally posted by Thorneblood

Can you provide a reasonable scenario whereby military intervention in Syria doesn't result in unacceptable risk?

Yes, Syria's chemical weapons program has created a new bio chemical weapon based on agent 15 that basically wipes out the targets memories with an amnesiac, induces vivid hallucinations and force feeds the body enough amphetamines to keep the victims awake and twisting in their madness for days on end. I am not entirely sure what this twisted form of reprogramming would actually do to the average human mind but under those conditions i imagine it would likely snap and accept whatever reality was presented to it.

So that scenario wouldn't present an unacceptable risk as the risk would be justified in ensuring this new poison never got out into the world.

Does that work?

edit on 30-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

Doesn't sound too different from the media narrative you've just fed me, so I suppose it works rather well.

Originally posted by Thorneblood

Can you provide a reasonable scenario whereby military intervention in Syria doesn't result in unacceptable risk?

Yes, Syria's chemical weapons program has created a new bio chemical weapon based on agent 15 that basically wipes out the targets memories with an amnesiac, induces vivid hallucinations and force feeds the body enough amphetamines to keep the victims awake and twisting in their madness for days on end. I am not entirely sure what this twisted form of reprogramming would actually do to the average human mind but under those conditions i imagine it would likely snap and accept whatever reality was presented to it.

So that scenario wouldn't present an unacceptable risk as the risk would be justified in ensuring this new poison never got out into the world.

Does that work?

edit on 30-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

Prove it..

I think they hit you first. You seem to be making up reality as it's fed to you.

BTW I'd be more worried if Alqueda got that, not Assad. Sorry Do I have the old script?

Not Napalm. It looks like Willie Pete burns.(white phosphorus chemical munitions) was the cause.
The white paste is used to stop WP from burning and cover the burns till the particles are removed and the burns are treated.

Its It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP as a weapon against civilians.
WP maybe use as a smoke screen.

Originally posted by ANNED
Not Napalm. It looks like Willie Pete burns.(white phosphorus chemical munitions) was the cause.
The white paste is used to stop WP from burning and cover the burns till the particles are removed and the burns are treated.

Its It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP as a weapon against civilians.
WP maybe use as a smoke screen.

It's it is? (it's)

maybe use as? (may be used as)

But why hasn't the US or UK mentioned this before now (after the UK vote) ?

Think of the children man. The timing.. They are grasping.

Zinc chloride: smoke screen
Titanium tetrachloride: smoke screen
Chlorosulfuric acid: smoke screen


Phosphorus:

Red phosphorus and white phosphorus (WP) are red or waxy yellow or white substances. White phosphorus is pyrophoric - can be handled safely when under water, but in contact with air it spontaneously ignites. It is used as an incendiary. Both types of phosphorus are used for smoke generation, mostly in artillery shells, bombs, and grenades.

White phosphorus smoke is typically very hot and may cause burns on contact. Red phosphorus is less reactive, does not ignite spontaneously, and its smoke does not cause thermal burns - for this reason it is safer to handle, but cannot be used so easily as an incendiary.


You are calling this accidental yes?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


How much of what i just told you would you like me to prove is possible?
The weaponization of drugs for use in chemical warfare?
The prominence of Syria as a chemical weapons state, its continuing research into a field that has grown vastly more powerful then nuclear weapons and the centralized focus of the state's research in this area?
Would you like to see the piece in the Chemical Weapons Charter that allows for the use of drugs in riot control? and how the development of drug based weaponry is considered non-lethal despite the warnings of many doctors that no such guarantees can be made?

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Thorneblood

 

Now I see the video..

I have nothing more to say, except wow they think you are dumb.

Look at the blast and think for a good long time.

They included napalm but watch some videos of napalm (Vietnam - America).. Notice the size of burnt wall.. Notice the penetration of the rock on the ground..


Then explain why America hasn't said anything about this....

I was told about Syria being a target as a joke in 2006 in the Army. I'm not laughing.

edit on 8/30/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

None of the burns looked like Napalm burns to me..Unless they were far from the wall of flame. By looking at the supposed bomb crater if it is Napalm it ain't like any I have ever seen..... Phosphorus bombs? I have had very limited experience with Willy Pete except that if it gets on you it will burn that spot to the bone and beyond...

I do not know what happened at the school but IMO the reporters and locals got it wrong as far as the cause of the burns unless someone is making very ineffective weapon systems..

It just does not seem to be as portrayed IMO

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

How much of what i just told you would you like me to prove is possible?
The weaponization of drugs for use in chemical warfare?
The prominence of Syria as a chemical weapons state, its continuing research into a field that has grown vastly more powerful then nuclear weapons and the centralized focus of the state's research in this area?
Would you like to see the piece in the Chemical Weapons Charter that allows for the use of drugs in riot control? and how the development of drug based weaponry is considered non-lethal despite the warnings of many doctors that no such guarantees can be made?

An ATS repeater
David Icke was right about repeaters.. (if he was ever right)

In case you are not in the loop, he is talking about one particular thread that he is NOT sourcing.

As in Prove Syria has that (read super advanced chemicals that Iraq had, that America definately doesn't have) .

Originally posted by 727Sky


None of the burns looked like Napalm burns to me..Unless they were far from the wall of flame. By looking at the supposed bomb crater if it is Napalm it ain't like any I have ever seen..... Phosphorus bombs? I have had very limited experience with Willy Pete except that if it gets on you it will burn that spot to the bone and beyond...

I do not know what happened at the school but IMO the reporters and locals got it wrong as far as the cause of the burns unless someone is making very ineffective weapon systems..

That is what I mean. Could it be WP? Maybe from an Artillery shell? I'm not buying the story, but just based on the video. What do you say?

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

How much of what i just told you would you like me to prove is possible?
The weaponization of drugs for use in chemical warfare?
The prominence of Syria as a chemical weapons state, its continuing research into a field that has grown vastly more powerful then nuclear weapons and the centralized focus of the state's research in this area?
Would you like to see the piece in the Chemical Weapons Charter that allows for the use of drugs in riot control? and how the development of drug based weaponry is considered non-lethal despite the warnings of many doctors that no such guarantees can be made?

How is any of this relevant in light of the very logical questions I asked you regarding the outcome of an armed intervention in Syria? If you can prove any of what you are claiming, how does that detract in any way from similar activities which the U.S government is known to have participated in? Furthermore, how does it detract from the habit of U.S foreign policy makers and their media lapdogs to fabricate lies and break international law, which is implicitly the subject of this discussion?

Are you attempting to claim the moral high ground for American interventionist policy by citing an equal degradation of those standards on the part of Syria?

Let's not get into semantics and entertain ridiculous notions of which Nation has the moral high ground when it comes to breaking international law.

The question remains:

What do YOU suggest?

hmmm, we pay all this money for our militaries to be precise. all the things that we've ever seen with airborne warfare indicates that targets are picked, and targeted, no flying around trying to find a target, what kind of sloppy military does that??

so the plane flies around, one of 'assads', looking for somewhere to bomb while making SURE that people can identify the plane? i might be a conspiracy theorist but that smacks of tardy military or someone else flying that 'assad' plane. doesn't add up to me one little bit.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Ok.
This would give you the jist of the story to begin with.
Wired

he regime of embattled Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is actively working to enlarge its arsenal of chemical weapons, U.S. officials tell Danger Room. Assad’s operatives have tried repeatedly in recent months to buy up the precursor chemicals for deadly nerve agents like sarin, even as his country plunges further and further into a civil war. The U.S. and its allies have been able to block many of these sales. But that still leaves Assad’s scientists with hundreds of metric tons of dangerous chemicals that could be turned into some of the world’s most gruesome weapons.

“Assad is weathering everything the rebels throw at him. Business is continuing as usual,” one U.S. official privy to intelligence on Syria says. “They’ve been busy little bees.”

Things like this are pretty common over the past few years when it comes to Syria, they have been called out time again for buying chemicals used to make weapons despite various sanctions that have already been imposed on them.

This makes a lot of sense as Syria is getting pulled into the arab spring as well as watching America deal with other nearby countries. Luckily it has never stopped working on chemical weapons, especially their development and has deep alliances with countries like Russia, China and Iran that can aide in procuring materials, testing products and providing sufficient weaponry to mount these warheads on.

All of this stems back to the end of the Iraq War when Bush slipped in a provision that declared Syria was selling WMD's and should be sanctioned. The weapon they were accused of selling was one called BZ. Which is largely remembered as being one of the reasons we went into Iraq to begin with.
source

...the operational problems that BZ presented were numerous. Its visible white agent cloud warned of its presence. Improvised masks, such as several layers of folded cloth over the nose and mouth could defeat it. Its envelope-of-action was less than ideal. The rate-of-action was delayed ... , and the duration of action was variable from 36 to 96 hours. Additionally, 50% to 80% of the casualties required restraint to prevent self-injury, and paranoia and mania were common personality traits during recovery. These uncertainties made BZ unattractive to military planners.37

Seems pretty scary stuff right? Stories online mentioned at one point that Assad had used some of this on a group of rebels, dosed em with hallucinogens if you believe it.
Hallucinogens on rebels

Anyway, who better to upgrade chemical weapons then Syria?
Money, weapons, knowledge, scientists, political influence and deadly allies.

So assume for a moment they made a breakthrough. Who are they gonna tell? Us? or their Allies?

How much they know becomes an interesting question when you see that most of the states military science is done in Damascus and geared towards weapons development.
Can we even be certain that the Scientific Studies and Research building has any internet connection established to its research computers?

The real question then becomes, at least for me, what is the larger role of it all in this game they are all playing?
When drugs becomes weapons

Meanwhile, military interest in incapacitating biochemical weapons has grown, as the capabilities of pharmaceutical companies have been transformed by developments such as the unravelling of the genome. What once were seen as distinct chemical and biological processes - the function of the lungs or the brain - can now be targeted with increasing precision.

Molecules can be engineered to target processes such as nerve and cardiovascular function. New agents can be designed to act as delivery mechanisms, while not themselves causing disease. New variants can be explored via a mixture of combinational chemistry (which can enable high-capacity screening for thousands of potential functional chemical groups), knowledge of gene structures, microarrays that can be used for rapid testing on DNA examples, artificial intelligence predictions of toxicity, directed evolution, information about what proteins a gene codes for, bioinformatics and computer modelling of chemical receptor structures.

These developments represent magnificent possibilities for curing disease - but they also facilitate new possibilities for weapons that induce paralysis, fear, pain and subjugation.

If Syria made the right kind of advancement, then what country wouldn't want that technology for themselves?
Who would admit it?

reply to post by Thorneblood


Seems like you should probably review your history. Perhaps This Thread would be a good start.

Couple of questions about this incident.

Jet aircraft and bombs.Do not such aircraft drop more than single bombs, even small aircraft?

Drones? I do not know full spec., but armed ones carry limited armaments?

How accurate can a fast moving jet aircraft be, to hit a small group of students outside of a school?

Are not Drones supposed to provide pin point accuracy?

Why a school as a target? Why just one bomb? Why Napalm?

Polite answers please.