UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron

reply to post by OneManArmy


Does it matter, by whom? They were used. So we are saying it's ok to use chemical weapons?

reply to post by Skorpy


Yes, it does, at least for those that have a soul and for those that condemn this type of warmongering and despicable way of destroying human lives in order to attack a nation. It is very important to know the whos because we all know the whys.

Originally posted by Skorpy
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Does it matter, by whom? They were used. So we are saying it's ok to use chemical weapons?

Yes IT VERY MUCH MATTERS BY WHOM.

Especially when the only people that are going to be killed by our bombs are the civilians and the sovereign army that seeks to protect them.

Im saying its not OK to punish the innocent.

The USA has tested nerve agents and chemicals on its own citizens and troops for decades.
Lets boycott the US government then?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

 

At this point, I don't think anyone doubts that chemical weapons were used, it's just a matter of who used them.

In the meanwhile, what really stinks about the U.N. inspectors going in to investigate, is that they've said that they are only there to see if chemical weapons were used and not who used them. I guess they're going to leave it up to the nations to decide based on the information they come up with.

edit on 5-9-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

If there is no doubt chemical weapons were used then why is it still a mystery who used them? All of the sites are in opposition controlled territory, not a single attack took place in regime controlled territory. Come on I can't believe how hard some of you try to turn everything into a conspiracy.

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost

If there is no doubt chemical weapons were used then why is it still a mystery who used them? All of the sites are in opposition controlled territory, not a single attack took place in regime controlled territory. Come on I can't believe how hard some of you try to turn everything into a conspiracy.

Its still a mystery because both sides in this conflict had been proven to possess sarin.
And the only ones to gain from using chemical weapons are the rebels.

Its not us that are making this a conspiracy, its the people voting to take us to war on PROVEN LIES.

I cant believe that in the face of so much obvious propaganda, that people still buy it.

Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack

Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost

If there is no doubt chemical weapons were used then why is it still a mystery who used them? All of the sites are in opposition controlled territory, not a single attack took place in regime controlled territory. Come on I can't believe how hard some of you try to turn everything into a conspiracy.

Its still a mystery because both sides in this conflict had been proven to possess sarin.
And the only ones to gain from using chemical weapons are the rebels.

Its not us that are making this a conspiracy, its the people voting to take us to war on PROVEN LIES.

I cant believe that in the face of so much obvious propaganda, that people still buy it.

Yes. Both sides have sarin, and the rebels are going to attack themselves... you sir live in a fantasy world.

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
Yes. Both sides have sarin, and the rebels are going to attack themselves... you sir live in a fantasy world.

No, I disagree. The gas was used on civilians.

You sir are blinded by the lies.
Until we have the facts the true story remains a fantasy, that you buy wholeheartedly.

reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost


Personally, I believe that Assad's regime is the one who used the weapons since there were chemical attacks in twelve different locations, but Russia is trying to counter that with different data. The only reason we're waiting on U.N. inspection reports right now is to get a better understanding of the "grade" of Sarin that was used in order to make a better determination for the sake of whether to go into Syria or not.

reply to post by marg6043


I agree, and dont forget the children who will grow up with a severe hatred for those countries whose warmongering leaders invaded their lands killing their parents/brothers/sisters/friends etc all under a veil of lies. It is not only wrong and utterly despicable, it is breeding new (justifiable) hate.

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost

If there is no doubt chemical weapons were used then why is it still a mystery who used them? All of the sites are in opposition controlled territory, not a single attack took place in regime controlled territory. Come on I can't believe how hard some of you try to turn everything into a conspiracy.

Its still a mystery because both sides in this conflict had been proven to possess sarin.
And the only ones to gain from using chemical weapons are the rebels.

Its not us that are making this a conspiracy, its the people voting to take us to war on PROVEN LIES.

I cant believe that in the face of so much obvious propaganda, that people still buy it.

Yes. Both sides have sarin, and the rebels are going to attack themselves... you sir live in a fantasy world.

Its different from walking into a crowded square and detonating a suicide vest in what particular way except scale, and potential benefit.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost

 

Personally, I believe that Assad's regime is the one who used the weapons since there were chemical attacks in twelve different locations, but Russia is trying to counter that with different data. The only reason we're waiting on U.N. inspection reports right now is to get a better understanding of the "grade" of Serin that was used in order to make a better determination for the sake of whether to go into Syria or not.

Who do you trust?

Russia?
the UN?
America?
Syria?
Rebels?

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


It wouldn't matter either way. Even if we did nothing, the Middle East dictators would still be teaching their kids that all of this was the work of the U.S. instead of pointing fingers at the true culprits....each other. I'm just waiting for the Middle East to change all of their history books to prove that Sunnis and Shiites have never had a reason to fight each other and it was only because of the U.S. that they ever started to.

So, it is going to become the norm for chemical weapons to be used thenP I understand too well of the U.S. using chemical weapons, however, I think the american soldiers of the past have already been punished enough when the U.S. sent in troops to a contaminated area.

I am just saying, if we are going to adopt the idea that it is ok for ruthless dictators or crazy rebels to use chemicals then all hell is going to break loose. To hell with the chemical weapons ban treaty. Lets Glass em all and be done with it huh ?

Originally posted by stormdancer777

Who do you trust?

Russia?
the UN?
America?
Syria?
Rebels?

Personally I trust NONE of the above.

But its seems the UN and Putin are the ones speaking rationally right now. Never thought id ever say that, but hey, sign of the times. Everything is arse backwards.

Originally posted by Skorpy
So, it is going to become the norm for chemical weapons to be used thenP I understand too well of the U.S. using chemical weapons, however, I think the american soldiers of the past have already been punished enough when the U.S. sent in troops to a contaminated area.

I am just saying, if we are going to adopt the idea that it is ok for ruthless dictators or crazy rebels to use chemicals then all hell is going to break loose. To hell with the chemical weapons ban treaty. Lets Glass em all and be done with it huh ?

If it wasnt okay, then tell me why our governments sell the chemical and biological weapons to these same dictators, and dine/banquet with them too?

Then they turn around and cry foul, like they are surprised.

Originally posted by Skorpy
So, it is going to become the norm for chemical weapons to be used thenP I understand too well of the U.S. using chemical weapons, however, I think the american soldiers of the past have already been punished enough when the U.S. sent in troops to a contaminated area.

I am just saying, if we are going to adopt the idea that it is ok for ruthless dictators or crazy rebels to use chemicals then all hell is going to break loose. To hell with the chemical weapons ban treaty. Lets Glass em all and be done with it huh ?

Well by that same token I suggest chemical weapons being used on one of the most corrupt and evil places on the planet, Capitol Hill

I agree our government is shady/corrupt, but where does it end. This only escalates from bad to worse in the years to come unless stricter policy is in place and enforced no matter which country is involved.

Originally posted by Skorpy
I agree our government is shady/corrupt, but where does it end. This only escalates from bad to worse in the years to come unless stricter policy is in place and enforced no matter which country is involved.

Not being psychic, I honestly dont know where it ends, I have a pretty good idea about where it starts though.

reply to post by OneManArmy


"Everything you need to know about Syria’s chemical weapons"

Are chemical weapons banned under international law?

Yep. The 1925 Geneva protocol first prohibited the use of poisonous gas as a weapon of war. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention then went even further and outlawed the production, stockpile, transfer and use of chemical weapons. Countries that ratified the treaty pledged to destroy their existing stockpiles.

Not everyone has signed that 1993 treaty, however. Syria, North Korea, Egypt and Angola are notable omissions. Israel and Burma, meanwhile, have signed the treaty but not ratified it:

How did Syria get chemical weapons in the first place?

The Syrian government is thought to possess large stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, likely weaponized into bombs, shells and missiles. It also may have some production facilities.

Syria “probably” first began stockpiling chemical weapons in 1972 or 1973, when Egypt gave the country a small number of chemicals and delivery systems before the Yom Kippur War against Israel, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service.

The Soviet Union later supplied chemical agents, delivery systems and training. Syria is also “likely to have procured equipment and precursor chemicals from private companies in Western Europe.” According to the report, Syria doesn’t yet appear to have the capacity to produce the weapons entirely on its own, relying on outside help for precursors.

www.washingtonpost.com...