Russia releases key findings on chemical attack

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by miniatus

 

When it comes to what those in power will do really does not change from country to country. But some how were supposed to believe that Assad is different from any other leader. They must think he rides a unicorn into battle.

I thought that was Kim Jung Il?

reply to post by greavsie1971


Because he felt he finally had them pinned down and could stop the rebels with one quick use of chemical weapons. He prevents a longer dragged out war by killing some innocent people who might get killed as it goes on anyway.

reply to post by miniatus


Damn axis of evil all ways sharing there equipment with each other.

Originally posted by greavsie1971

He is winning the war. The UN inspectors were just arriving, rebel forces were surrounded on the outskirts of Damascus. He had absolutely no reason to knowing also he would be bombed by the USA. Why risk that when his forces were advancing and wiping out many rebel groups?

Ok so by that logic, it would make sense for the rebels who are losing .. to gas themselves? .. that makes even LESS sense when you put it that way.. Actually seems Assad could have done it in that situation just to try to eliminate the remaining rebel forces.

Sorry I still don't buy it.. especially when you put it that way =)

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by greavsie1971

 

Because he felt he finally had them pinned down and could stop the rebels with one quick use of chemical weapons. He prevents a longer dragged out war by killing some innocent people who might get killed as it goes on anyway.

You beat me to it .. exactly what I was thinking.. Assad gassing them to finish the war makes more sense in this situation then the rebels gassing themselves ..

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by greavsie1971

He is winning the war. The UN inspectors were just arriving, rebel forces were surrounded on the outskirts of Damascus. He had absolutely no reason to knowing also he would be bombed by the USA. Why risk that when his forces were advancing and wiping out many rebel groups?

Ok so by that logic, it would make sense for the rebels who are losing .. to gas themselves? .. that makes even LESS sense when you put it that way.. Actually seems Assad could have done it in that situation just to try to eliminate the remaining rebel forces.

Sorry I still don't buy it.. especially when you put it that way =)

If you have seen these videos you will see what they are capable of. They know if the US intervenes they have a good chance of winning.Good enough reason to do it.

I am very suspicious of the intentions of the US and France as they were talking about intervening as soon as the attacks happened, even before any details were known. You must admit, it's all a bit fishy. Then dont forget, Iran have said they will attack Israel if we attack Assads forces. We need more facts made public before we do anything.



You want us to fight side by side with the people who supposedly were responsible for 9/11?

Originally posted by greavsie1971

If you have seen these videos you will see what they are capable of. They know if the US intervenes they have a good chance of winning.Good enough reason to do it.

That still makes no sense if you ask me .. why? the US failed to intervene the first time chemical weapons were used.. so the rebels wouldn't be so quick to assume that we would now? Especially a foolish bet if you're the rebels surrounded by the enemy.. the last thing you'd want to do is lob some chemical weapons at yourself..

I'm still not buying into it..

Also the US is speaking of a limited ICBM attack.. which most "experts" are saying would do nothing.. it's symbolic

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by greavsie1971

If you have seen these videos you will see what they are capable of. They know if the US intervenes they have a good chance of winning.Good enough reason to do it.

That still makes no sense if you ask me .. why? the US failed to intervene the first time chemical weapons were used.. so the rebels wouldn't be so quick to assume that we would now? Especially a foolish bet if you're the rebels surrounded by the enemy.. the last thing you'd want to do is lob some chemical weapons at yourself..

I'm still not buying into it.

I agree in a way, I dont buy any of it too. None of it at all. Which is why we need more facts made public.

Originally posted by greavsie1971

I agree in a way, I dont buy any of it too. None of it at all. Which is why we need more facts made public.

Without a doubt, more facts should be presented.. but at this point I think a US ICBM barrage is coming.. but it's not expected to do much damage.

reply to post by JBA2848


i hope you are aware of saudi arabia's passing chemical weapons to rebels

Originally posted by heineken
reply to post by JBA2848

 

i hope you are aware of saudi arabia's passing chemical weapons to rebels

We're all aware... the debate is about the logic of it .. who has more to gain by lobbing chemical weapons in the rebel held areas? .. the rebels gas themselves.. doesn't advance their effort much, especially when you consider the local people were supporting them.. so they gas themselves and their local supporters? ..

Or ..

Assad gasses the rebel held areas, risks collateral damage also could wipe out much of the remaining rebel forces in his back yard near the capital? .. Assad's only punishment would be this limited ICBM attack that's about to happen I'm for sure.. he's got plenty of time to relocate his weapons and troops, which he's been reported to be doing.. so this ICBM attack will do little damage .. even according to so called "experts" ..

So Assad loses little, the rebels lose a lot ... I don't think that makes much sense

Either way, this war needs to end.. have you seen the size of the Syrian refugee camp in Jordan? and this isn't even all of it.. the rest wouldn't fit in the picture! this was July .. it's even bigger now..

reply to post by JBA2848


JBA, I was in Occupy. I know about the snipers. I was looking right into the scopes on the rifles of two such teams covering Michelle Obama for the World Series games played in October of 2011. The Occupy Camp I was in was 3 blocks from the venue, so the S.S. had us covered as closely as everything or anyone else. I'm still here. They weren't shooting anyone.

Now if rebels appeared in America and attacked D.C.? (Assuming we're the rebels, if that's what you mean) then I'd hope he wouldn't use chemicals. If he did, any possibility anyone in power would come out alive? Would cease....right there. In my mind? NONE would be taken alive if I had ANYTHING to do with it, or was in the room during a capture. Pretty simple. Using those is suicide to who uses them.

That's my take anyway.

So while you folks are arguing back and forth over who tossed around the chemical weapons...

The military industrial complex is laughing all the way to the bank on how this propaganda crap has worked so beautifully in hiding the REAL agenda behind why the US is picking a fight with Syria.



Yup, the smoke and mirrors works great every time, doesn't it ?!





"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." ~ Eric Hoffer

Originally posted by CranialSponge
So while you folks are arguing back and forth over who tossed around the chemical weapons...

The military industrial complex is laughing all the way to the bank on how this propaganda crap has worked so beautifully in hiding the REAL agenda behind why the US is picking a fight with Syria.

Yup, the smoke and mirrors works great every time, doesn't it ?!

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." ~ Eric Hoffer

And what might that be? since our attack is going to be meaningless it seems.. some ICBM's that won't do much of anything according to most.. no invasion or anything.. and a 90 day limit .. ICBM's didn't do much for us in Iraq either other than to look interesting on TV .. and this is going to be much smaller scale

Is it unreasonable to assume that ..

A. Empty Chemical/Biological delivery systems scattered all over Iraq were retrieved for future use.

B. Iraqi mobile production facilities and technology (kindly provided by US and UK) were also retrieved.

C. If A and B are true ... only the raw ingredients are required to put together several ( possibly hundreds ) of devices that would be indistinguishable from the Syrian Chemical Arsenal.

The only way to get to the true authors of these Chemical attacks would be forensic analysis of the Chemicals themselves.... much like Nuclear material, Weaponized Chemicals have a signature.

Professionally made Chemical agents are the result of decades of research and are quite sophisticated in their Chemical make-up .... Improvised Chemical agents however are by their very nature raw and un-sophisticated.

Any lab, and definitely the UN labs, should be able to discern whether the Chemical agents are the result of a State run production facility or an improvised Rebel ( Al-Qaeda ) production.

I am struck by the footage which shows people treating the victims without gloves or masks and not falling victim themselves.
Properly weaponized Chemical agents are lethal and remain lethal for several hrs .. they penetrate the Dermal layer as well as the Eyes, Ears, Nose and Throat, they are also prone to being airborne from coughing victims.
The images of foaming mouths are totally fake .. these actors can clearly be seen bringing sputum up from their throats and allowing it to dribble from their mouths ... the real reaction to high grade Chemical Agents is a full on foam like a distressed washing machine.

I do hope the UN labs are given time to present their findings before we descend into madness ... although given the current desire for War it may already be too late.

C..

Originally posted by MystikMushroom


The fluoride in the water combined with 10+ years of war has weakened the American public's will to fight back against the dehumanizing treatment of it's government.

People are hopeless, apathetic, cynical and tired. Americans are to poor right now, the economy sucks. Americans only care about Americans. No one in the USA cares about a bunch of "brown people" in "some sandbox" halfway around the world. Americans are some of the least "worldly" and least traveled people in the 1st world.

It's sad, and it's pathetic. We might as well be those humans from Wall-e.

And why should we? Most of us don't have the thousands of dollars it takes to tour the world. And most of the Americans who do don't even go out to explore the very country they live in!
The majority of people are too worried about surviving and living their lives in peace to worry about "sand people."And can you truly blame them? There are bills to be paid, mouths to feed. That is American reality. You can call them "sheeple" or "unworldly" but they're the backbone of the nation. They're the ones who have kept us afloat thus far. Not everyone is as "enlightened" as you. Just sayin.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
I am struck by the footage which shows people treating the victims without gloves or masks and not falling victim themselves.
Properly weaponized Chemical agents are lethal and remain lethal for several hrs .. they penetrate the Dermal layer as well as the Eyes, Ears, Nose and Throat, they are also prone to being airborne from coughing victims.
The images of foaming mouths are totally fake .. these actors can clearly be seen bringing sputum up from their throats and allowing it to dribble from their mouths ...

Actors or no in some situations ( I don't agree with you here ) .. Those kids they hired to act like corpses better be paid their due if it's true, oscar award winning performances.

In short I'm saying it's obvious mass death occurred, and in those images I saw no visible wounds... you seem to be judging a few of the up close videos while the patient is still alive.. I can't say those videos are real but what I can say is it doesn't make sense to fake them when there's plenty of of dead men women and children around..

I also still find it unreasonable to assume the rebels would chemical attack themselves... the fact their are lots of dead people with no visible wounds should be enough to convince you it happened.. now it comes to who did it? logic to me points to assad because I can't imagine the rebels would gas themselves and the locals around them.

The UN has inspected many of these bodies themselves.. they've said it appears a chemical agent was used.. we don't know the details of that yet.. but I still can't fathom the rebels attacking themselves.

reply to post by MDDoxs


But doesn't it make sense.. I mean who is going to go in and retrieve a sarin canister? Why didn't UN get the canisters or mortar parts and prove they were from the Army? I figured the canisters would be different. This is more plausible evidence than the inexplicably classified evidence.

reply to post by miniatus


The Rebels did not attack themselves though did they ... the victims were all locals who happen to live in a current Rebel stronghold.

The Rebels have no problem dispensing Sharia law on all who oppose them or fail to support them, killing a few locals for whatever reason is the Al-Qaeda modus-operandi.

If the Syrian Government were attacking the Rebels then surely we would be looking at the bodies of mature males .. instead we see the bodies of Women and Children, while the adult males are just coughing and faking foaming.

C..