posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by Deetermined
Wrong. The Russian report gives evidence that stringly implicates, the UN uses nothing to make their implications. Hence the dubiousness.
You shouldve read the Russian report rather than base your opinion on my being cautious with my words.
The UN's only evidence is that they found pieces of soviet weaponry (likely artillary shells) that COULD deluver sarin. They never said it did. This
was an attempt to make you do math without all the info. Assad shelled the areas where the gas attacks happened after they happened to kill the rebels
that were obviously there. Of course it wad said he was degrading evidence.. but well that makes zero sense and it didn't wouldn't degrade evidence.
It would simply put pieces of a possible delivery system In the area. You could say its so he could say its from after when they were found, but it
also makes him look bad (thet had plenty of time ti clean up).
The Russian report however describes the same home made mortars with plastic water cooler shreds the rebels have been filmed using and it describes
the sarin as kitchen sarin and nothing a military would use. It describes that it was dispersed liquid rather than via a real system and because of
that it didn't crystalize on victims hair and clothes making it less deadly (to first responders).
Couple that with rebels caught with sarin in Turkey, videos of them using them, videos where rebels have staged and rearranged bodies, videos of
rebels blaming bombings on Syrian military, Belgian journalist imbeded with rebels saying it was the rebels that comittes the attacks, and the fact
Syrian officials sounded surprised in the calls cited as proof of their complicity ( as acknowledged by some of our own politicians) and its pretty
clear. That of course is leaving out the evidence it wasvthe rebels given by Syrians and some rebels who allegedly admitted to it because that would
be called into question too easily.