It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN: Syrian Chemical Attack Executed With Russian Rockets.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


I gave you a star.
Either because i agree, or because you quoted Big Trouble in Little China.




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Thorneblood
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


If anything we should be more concerned about the current plan then the original one. This way guarantees there will be troops on the ground in Syria because they will be the only ones WE can trust to get the weapons and get them out of the country. Though, in all likelihood Russia has already gotten its share of the best stuff and is going to leave the lesser models for the UN/US/Whoever to retrieve to hold this whole story together.



Could you clarify this for me? Are you suggesting the russians want Assad's weapons? How does that make sense if you are arguing it was Assad who fired them in the first place, and he acquired said weapons from Russia? Russia doesn't need Assad's chemical weapons. They could manufacture their own in massive quantities and probably have their own secret stockpiles anyways.

Also, how do you reconcile this position with the fact the Sarin used in the attack wasn't military grade? As another poster already pointed out, military grade sarin would have killed first responders who weren't properly protected by HAZMAT suits. It seems the only thing the U.N report has claimed that nobody didn't already know is that the weapons were delivered with soviet shells, which doesn't say much since the Rebels are using soviet weapons anyways.

I'm surprised that you think a direct U.S strike would have been preferable to the current course of action.

A few concerns I had:

-What happens when the Al-Qaeda linked militants are in power in Syria?

-What would happen if Assad's chemical weapons were struck? What guarantees would there be that the collateral damage from such a strike might not exceed the damage of the August 21st chemical attack?

-If Assad's regime is significantly crippled by U.S strikes, how would the U.S ensure that any chemical weapons stockpiles that they were unable to secure wouldn't fall into the hands of Islamic Jihadists, later to be turned on western interests?

-What of the risk of U.S strikes triggering a broader regional conflict?

-What of the risk of U.S strikes triggering a conflict with Russia?

Those seem like significant risks to take, even if Assad is guilty (which he very well could be, but it seems unlikely to me). The Russian brokered deal seems at the very least to be a good starting point, as the international community can take steps to reduce the number of WMD's in the country, and further reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. It's win win for everyone, with the use of force still being on option in the event of non-compliance.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


" By launching chem weapons, who could have possibly stood to gain? " maybe someone had a bet.
the World used Gas/Chemical Warfare for the very first time,, in 1914.
Here we are 100 Hundred Years Later,, are we getting better as a Society/Species/ no we are not.
100 years,,200 years 500 years, do we change? no.
for we are right back too 1914.just different Faces.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


No, i am suggesting that Russia and other nations were using Syria as a testing ground for a chemical weapon that has yet to be named. I am suggesting that it wasn't Sarin at all but instead something new that was cooked up in Syria with the aide of its outside allies. The fact that there are still conflicting reports about the weapon being Military grade or Kitchen grade Sarin should make all of us wonder as it is not hard at all for the right people to determine if Sarin was used. This should only take a few days not weeks. The only thing that has been really clear so far, the only thing we and everyone else seem to agree on is that CW's were used, but what kind and who used them is still open to debate. Why?

Because it wasn't Sarin to begin with. It wasn't anything we have an official name for yet.

Your are correct in stating that Russia does not need conventional CW's, those being weapons we already know about, as Russia still has at least some of theirs. So does the U.S. for that matter. You are also correct in stating that Russia can make their own, again so can the U.S.

What you have ignored, forgotten or simply do not know is that every major nation on the planet is researching the use of drugs as weapons. These are by definition chemical weapons, but as i stated, the CWC does not cover the use of NON-LETHAL chemicals against a population of any country that has actually signed the CWC. This largely applies to riot control, dispersal of protestors and pacification of insurgents. Something Russia and China especially would be interested in.

They have been doing this research all over the world for a very long time, the only difference now is that advances in biotechnology and medicine in general has finally reached the point where these drugs can be used effectively against a population as opposed to earlier in their history when this sort of weapon was abandoned because it was deemed to ineffective for weaponization on a large scale.

Look at it this way, a weapon like this would need to be tested in a real world environment to determine how effective it really is and what better place to do that then in a nation that had never signed the CWC and was already in possession of Chemical Weapons to begin with.

And yes, i do think a strike would have been the best course of action because it was pointed out repeatedly that the Syrian government began moving its stockpile of weapons out of areas that would have been hit. This would have guaranteed that none or very few of the weapons were destroyed, or dispersed, and only the facilities where they are manufactured or contained would have been destroyed. Syria's main research center into these weapons, for example, was destroyed around the same time that the strike on the 21st took place.

As for your lists of concerns...
What happens when the Al-Qaeda linked militants are in power in Syria?
Bad things. That is obvious. However since the CW's in question were moved then the militants would have had very little of those stock piles to utilize and since the center for research into these weapons was also destroyed and plants that manufacture them would have been bombed then they would have been left with very little. Besides, if the rebels did use their own CW's (Which i agree could have taken place) and were capable of making Kitchen grade Sarin then they would only benefit from having all of Syria's resources to add to their own. Not destroying these facilities would give them more power, not less.


What would happen if Assad's chemical weapons were struck? What guarantees would there be that the collateral damage from such a strike might not exceed the damage of the August 21st chemical attack?
The weapons have been moved, repeatedly now, which makes this point moot.

If Assad's regime is significantly crippled by U.S strikes, how would the U.S ensure that any chemical weapons stockpiles that they were unable to secure wouldn't fall into the hands of Islamic Jihadists, later to be turned on western interests?
Again, the weapons were moved and would have likely been unaffected by the strikes. The fact that we waited so long is actually detrimental to this cause and not beneficial. As it stands now the weapons are just roaming around openly in Syria and we may never get them all despite the fact that Syria has promised to hand them over. Unfortunately the facilities that are used to create them still stand ready to operate. This doesn't help western interests either.

What of the risk of U.S strikes triggering a conflict with Russia?
Russia military power has been seriously weakened over the years, making a conflict with Russia a losing game for them, not us.

Finally...

The Russian brokered deal seems at the very least to be a good starting point, as the international community can take steps to reduce the number of WMD's in the country, and further reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. It's win win for everyone, with the use of force still being on option in the event of non-compliance.

Who goes to get all of these weapons? Which forces are sent into Syria to retrieve them?
Everyone was going nuts about putting boots on the ground, which might have been avoided by the strikes as they were meant to cripple Assad's forces. As it stands now, those forces are still strong, those weapons still exist and now someone has to physically go into Syria and start collecting them. I am not certain we can trust Russia to do this, nor do i think we would have allowed just them to do so, we would have wanted some kind of oversight to ensure everything was on the up and up. This means troops in Syria, American Troops, UK, France, etc.

And my last question to you is this....
We know something happened on the 21st, we know that it caused numerous deaths, but we also know that Chemical Weapons strikes have taken place repeatedly in Syria and were likely launched by BOTH sides. So why is this case different? What really happened to spook the UK, the US and many other nations so much that they immediately started sending warships over to the area and continue to do so.

I doubt it was the use of Sarin. I doubt it was the death of children. These things would not have phased any of the nations involved. It happens all the time.

So which is more likely, that we wanted to avenge the children and innocents who have been killed or that every nation had intelligence that a new weapon was on the playing field and saw a chance to grab for it.

Be afraid of the chemical weapons we know they have, but be terrified of the ones that they are capable of creating.




edit on 16-9-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



I would like to ask some of you in this thread: Even if it turns out someone within the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, do you believe that the current course of action is the right one? Would you have rather the U.S went in guns blazing or do you believe that the Russian brokered deal to remove Syrian chemical weapons is the right decision?


That's probably one of the single best questions no one seems to want to ask at the moment.

My answer is unchanged. Even if Assad comes out tomorrow and says "I did it! Nyah Nyah!". Nothing in my mind changes. Whatever Assad has done (to this point...as anyone is capable of going 10 kinds of bonkers or evil), the other side is still very measurably WORSE.

Although I must say....If, by some chance and against apparent logic, it turns out he DID do the dirty deed? I'll say this. WHEN Syria is stable again and their war ends without Jihadis taking control of Syria as a whole? Well, then Assad really needs to retire or BE retired. Now that's a whole lot of If's before getting to that point for so much as saying that, of course. Right now, I'll just be happy to see Al Qaeda get stomped. If it's the Russians doing it through Assad...whatever. A stomp is a stomp since our side seems to want to help them now. I'm still having a hard time with that one ....as are our troops, I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

lynxpilot
Look at it this way. The warning was out to Assad before chem weapons ever flew and he most certainly knew what consequences would/could be. US has admittedly been funneling in weapons to 'rebel' forces. Benghazi. What portion of the CIA budget is allocated to disinformation/propaganda? In a civil war in Syria, who stood to gain? By launching chem weapons, who could have possibly stood to gain?

There's a lot of 'information' floating around, and a lot of it is designed to manipulate public opinion. A latent report of evidence that chem weapons were of Russian origin is just a bit too simplistic for me. But then again that's just me.


Exactly! Track records and motives mean a lot. We cant be 100% certain of anything but my money is on the obvious, the obvious being they never liked gadafhi and assad, the obvious being NATO admitted it has provided arms to the rebels.

If they provided arms, then its not far fetched to assume they provided sarin gas as well and framed assad so that nato could intervene on behalf of these rag tag rebels.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

MrSpad

UndergroundMilitia

TinfoilTP
Assad is guilty as sin.

The hardware, the expertise, and the vast amounts used prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was Assad's military that launched the chemical attacks.
Rebels at best could detonate an ied that would not be a massive air dispersal, most they could do is target a single corner of a street or a single building. Weaponized air bursts from Russian rockets, that is not something you can steal or find laying around, it takes special launchers, special missiles, agents that are specially kept separate from launchers till the order to use them has been made. Then they all come together by people who have expertise in preparing and launching the ordinance. Comparing this to finding a cache of rpgs and using them is a compete and utter joke. But Assad sympathisers along with West haters will eat it up like candy.


So I guess the FACT that Al-CIA-duh is operating and coordinating with these "Rebels" makes no difference?? Ya know, the same good folks that our government armed, trained and financed since the 80's..no, they couldn't possibly have the hardware and the know how to pull off these chemical attacks.... Just had to be that evil Assad!!!

edit on 16-9-2013 by UndergroundMilitia because: (no reason given)


This is a common mistake for people who do not know the region. Al Quaida is not one group. While it started off as a splinter of some of the groups supporting the Afgans it is not the same group. After 911 groups in several countries began to call themselves Al Qauida as well. Kind of like a fanchise. Although the real Al Qauida has been decimated by US drone strikes its franchises still operate all over. They however have local or regional goals. The Al Quaida of 911 wishes to direct its efforts directly against the West or the Gulf States these other groups goal are much smaller and more local. However by using the name they can attract more funding and recruiting. So no they do not have ability to conduct such operations. They operate in what is known as asymmetric warfare. They operate on the fringes of conflict because they are not a traditional miitary unit.


Oh, well silly me, ok..so this is the "Syrian" Division of Al-Qaeda and we should like cheer them on because they are such nice men and they would NEVER do anything like behead people or gas civilians in order to green light our eagerly awaiting war machine in to topple the Syrian government so they can drag Assad's lifeless body through the streets. Just like those nice men in the Libyan Division of Al-Qaeda did to Gaddafi! And which division of Al-Qaeda does Al-Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahiri (CIA/Osama Bin Laden's successor) control? Absurd.

"Although the real Al Qauida has been decimated by US drone strikes" Do you have a source for that claim?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Considering 9-11 was proven a false flag why the heck are we even discussing who used chemical weapons and trying to justify an attack on a soveriegn nation? I prefer secular governments over religious ones and assad is as secular as they come in that region.

Going to war on behalf of islamic fundamentalists 6000 miles away AGAIN after libya, iraq, afghanistan, etc is preposterous. Are people dumb or what? Our debt is $17 trillion and our economy has been on the verge of collapse for years.

Alqueda is neither or friends or "our" enemies. They make good patsies!

(man the emoticons are horrible)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I smell pure BS False Flag on this report.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The Rebels may have fired the chemical rockets without knowing they were chemical rockets. But since Assad had them in stock where they may have been taken by the rebels its still his fault.

My question were the warhead of the chemical rockets made in Russia.

The warheads for chemical rockets are built different then HE warheads and have no non chemical use.

This sounds like Russia sold Syria empty chemical warheads. I can now see why Russia wants Assad to turn over his chemical weapons so Russia can hide the fact they sold Syria the weapons in the first place



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

ANNED
The Rebels may have fired the chemical rockets without knowing they were chemical rockets. But since Assad had them in stock where they may have been taken by the rebels its still his fault.

My question were the warhead of the chemical rockets made in Russia.

The warheads for chemical rockets are built different then HE warheads and have no non chemical use.

This sounds like Russia sold Syria empty chemical warheads. I can now see why Russia wants Assad to turn over his chemical weapons so Russia can hide the fact they sold Syria the weapons in the first place


Why would that matter? Nobody seemed to care that Saddam Hussein acquired all his WMD's from western nations and used them while the U.S turned a blind eye. They just gobbled up bush jr's propaganda and then pretended they were insulted that they were lied to when everyone else with half a brain was sounding the alarm bells as early as 2002.

It's no secret Assad had chemical weapons (even if he never declared it) and it's no secret his delivery systems came from Russia.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 

Why would Assad use chemical weapons right next to his troops as the U.N. envoy was arriving? The rebels already got caught using them a months earlier, according to the U.N Report which prevented Obama from striking back then. To think they couldn't do it again given all their connections with the Saudi's and other nations is silly to me.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
This could actually point to the rebels using these weapons. Syria should be able to manufacture their own rockets. These are not sophisticated weapons. The rebels are getting a lot of their weapons from the former Yugoslavia. I believe Serbian writing is similar if not identical to Russian. Yugoslavia was supported militarily by Russia.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

TinfoilTP

StopThaZionistWorldOrder


Posting a you tube video with the heading "USA did it", just isn't going to cut it anymore.
This claim is just freaking retarded at this point.
They are now proven to be Russian rockets.


Yeah, the CIA can't get a hold of Russian rockets because no one in the world buys Russian military hardware.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



I would like to ask some of you in this thread: Even if it turns out someone within the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, do you believe that the current course of action is the right one? Would you have rather the U.S went in guns blazing or do you believe that the Russian brokered deal to remove Syrian chemical weapons is the right decision?


That's probably one of the single best questions no one seems to want to ask at the moment.

My answer is unchanged. Even if Assad comes out tomorrow and says "I did it! Nyah Nyah!". Nothing in my mind changes. Whatever Assad has done (to this point...as anyone is capable of going 10 kinds of bonkers or evil), the other side is still very measurably WORSE.

Although I must say....If, by some chance and against apparent logic, it turns out he DID do the dirty deed? I'll say this. WHEN Syria is stable again and their war ends without Jihadis taking control of Syria as a whole? Well, then Assad really needs to retire or BE retired. Now that's a whole lot of If's before getting to that point for so much as saying that, of course. Right now, I'll just be happy to see Al Qaeda get stomped. If it's the Russians doing it through Assad...whatever. A stomp is a stomp since our side seems to want to help them now. I'm still having a hard time with that one ....as are our troops, I'm sure.


The responsible thing for the United States to do is help Assad defeat the rebels. Supposedly the number one threat to the United States is Islamic extremism. This would be a good place to kill a lot of them. The US should be helping Assad target chemical weapons against the rebels like it did when Saddam gassed the Iranians. This would be the second time the US helped in a chemical weapons attack in the middle east. If there were Islamic terrorists trying to takeover Washington, D.C., I don't think the US would have a problem using chemical weapons. So why is there a problem with Assad?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I don't know if it was mentioned up-thread, but the SINGLE Soviet 140mm ROCKET MOTOR found and its impact site tested NEGATIVE for CW sarin. There was no warhead found.

The only rockets that tested pos. for sarin were the 330mm mystery rockets.

The trajectory data also comes from 330mm rockets that tested NEG. for sarin.

Trusting bunch for a place called abovetopsecret.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Also, tons of Russian 140mms used in Algeria, to name one place.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Tell me something I didn't already know. I believe that the current administration and the UN consider sarin a weapon of mas destruction. And the delivery system was made in Russia. Who cares, everybody already knew that. I guess the "cold war" happened so long ago that no one remembers how it all worked. It's nice to see the Russians step in and clean up the mess THEY created. Wish they would have done that favor for us in Iraq too. Anyway, Vlad and Barrack are hero's now! Hurray. And the WMD's in Syria have been neutralized. And the Syrians are going to keep on dying by the hundreds of thousands anyway. It's the same nightmare all over again, and again, and again. When it comes to us angry monkey's, we generally don't figure it out until almost everybody is dead. It's what angry monkeys do.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Adaluncatif

The responsible thing for the United States to do is help Assad defeat the rebels. Supposedly the number one threat to the United States is Islamic extremism. This would be a good place to kill a lot of them. The US should be helping Assad target chemical weapons against the rebels like it did when Saddam gassed the Iranians. This would be the second time the US helped in a chemical weapons attack in the middle east. If there were Islamic terrorists trying to takeover Washington, D.C., I don't think the US would have a problem using chemical weapons. So why is there a problem with Assad?


I agree but the government and alqueda are best of friends. They aided them in afghanistan to overthrow the northern alliance and get rid of the soviets. Then they framed alqueda to declare this fake bs "war on terror" during 9-11. Now alqueda wants payback for taking the blame, which means financial and weapons support to establish non-secular government throughout middle east. It was said that most of the terrorists(of course bs) came from saudi arabia, while today its well known that saudi arabia along with nato are helping these radical rebels.

The government and rebels are the enemy of freedom!!

NATO has always been aiding the non-secularist right wingers. Russia/China have always been aiding the center and left secularists. Each side USES ITS ALLIES for political, financial, military reasons. Its one enormous cluster flock and pathetic.
edit on 17/9/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

jtma508 Hundreds of billons of dollars hang in the balance. They'll say and do anything to protect that.


I'm going to need a source on this one.

HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars?




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join