Russia releases key findings on chemical attack

Beat the drums of war because we have evidence that someone torpedoed our boats.

Beat the drums of war because we have evidence that someone has a dictator for a leader.

Beat the drums of war because we have evidence that someone has weapons of mass destruction.

Beat the drums of war because we have evidence that someone used chemical weapons.


Next time it'll be:

Beat the drums of war because we have evidence that someone used sticks and stones on someone else.


Anyone else seeing a pattern here ?!

Another words: The military industrial complex is more than happy to "beat the drums of war" if someone were to be accused of not putting the cap on the toothpaste.


We (the people) haven't a friggin' hope in hell of ever living in peace. Period.

reply to post by CranialSponge


So do you and Andy work in the same room?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Poor excuse. Why would Assad release a weapon large enough to kill himself. The rebels he gassed were to close to use something large. But his military does have the training to use the right size weapon for the job they wanted to do.

I see, so it makes sense to you that Assad would cross a line the entire world, whether Obama cares either way or not, has said is an ABSOLUTE red line for any nation on Earth to go over? That's been policy and standard attitude since Saddam opened up on the Kurds to leave bodies in the street for the world to gawk over.

You need to supply the GAIN involved, which justifies the RISK. Also, what about that attack could be done in NO other way, whatsoever, than a chemical munition? Again, nation states don't grab for end-of-war weapons for a routine attack on a raiding party/troop concentration.

That would make as much sense as Obama using a battlefield tactical nuclear weapon on Osama Bin Laden, and really, not a bad comparison. Both cases were actions NO one was going to much appreciate for how they were done. Both cases would have been moments of opportunity balanced by the driving hunt for years. Both cases COULD have been resolved (If Assad even staged the attack at all) by conventional forces OR Special Weapons. We *DO* have low tactical warheads which wouldn't have hurt a baby a mile away, and likely much closer. They get real small...and would have saved us a Helicopter, too!

So...Why would Obama have done what he did and risk world humiliation and 'Fool of the Year' award, had that mission gone wrong and....God forbid..something like capture resulted? .....?


Obama used conventional forces for the same reason Assad wouldn't have chem attacked a suburb of his OWN Capital City. The method would have been effective....but the response? Again... Show me a *GAIN* to match. Unless the Rebels were about to attack Assads family, personally? Well..then he wouldn't use them for fear of killing the family as well.

It makes ALL the sense for rebels who cannot be nailed down to ONE man accountability on any level, to pop what will bring the world in on THEIR side. It makes none for the Syrian Government to HELP the rebels win the war, which is what this would have done for them to do it. The logic test, and this failed it. Badly.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

So do you and Andy work in the same room?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry, you lost me.

What does his post have to do with mine ?

I don't see the connection.

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

That right there is the problem!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


And if rebel force were fighting in the United States Obama would send out force to fight them. When the Rebel force showed up in Washington DC on the outskirts of the Capitol do you think the chemical weapons might be used to kill those rebels and the citizens. It serves a real purpose of showing the citizens what will happen if they help the rebels and shows that he will step up the scale of attacks if they don't back down. When a war is being fought hundreds of miles away it is a small nuisance to the elite. But when it is on there door step they do stupid things as they feel threatened personally. To him it is simply keeping the rift raft away and putting them in there place.

Just look at the US treatment of Occupy Wall Street protest. Reports came out about snipers who were targeting protesters. When they feel the threat is getting to big they do stupid things.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves plan to strike Syria

The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to approve President Barack Obama's plan to strike Syria in retaliation for the reported use of chemical weapons by leader Bashar al-Assad’s regime

RT - Strike from US gets grenn Light

A U.S. Senate committee approves a resolution authorizing a military response to Syrian chemical weapons use -- but to be debated again next week.

CNN version

The difference between the earlier use of chemical weapons and the newest use of chemical weapons,

The earlier use of chemical weapons was WWII shells used as IEDs. It is comparable to use of a nuclear dirty bomb that spreads radioactive powder in a very small area. Yes rebels or terrorist could accomplish that if they had the radioactive powder to use.

the newest use of chemical weapons is as if a true nuclear bomb was used. that would take professional military equipment and training to do. Not something a rebel or terrorist could do.

reply to post by JBA2848


im afraid it was an ordinary chemical weapon...

no nuke,,

its just a bomb that releases the agent after exploding like any other bomb..

both attacks are the same to me

Originally posted by JBA2848
This is not the recent use by Assad. This is from the rebels using old WWII shells as IEDs and they did not know what the shells contained. The chemical weapons shell did not spread toxic gas because the shell had to be launched in order to mix to be toxic gas. It was stupidity on the part of rebels who did not have weapons to fight and used anything they could find as a weapon.

The recent attack was done properly with military training on how to use and launch the projectile to create a toxic gas. Proven simply by the mass killing that took place. Only ones trained to do it and with the proper equipment to do it. Syrian Military.

edit on 4-9-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

A lot of the rebels have military training and arms from Saudi Arabia. A majority of them have come directly from other conflicts so they are well trained.

Both the governments and us should stop speculating.

reply to post by heineken


The shells for chemical weapons are made different then a normal explosive shell. It must be mixed which is done by firing it with proper equipment. If it is just shot at it will leak a chemical not the dangerous gas. The rebels did not have the proper equipment to arm or fire the chemical shells to make them work like they did to kill thousands of people. The Syrian army did.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Poor excuse. Why would Assad release a weapon large enough to kill himself. The rebels he gassed were to close to use something large. But his military does have the training to use the right size weapon for the job they wanted to do.

Why would Assad release any chemical weapons? He had no reason to.

It just makes no sense.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by heineken

 

The shells for chemical weapons are made different then a normal explosive shell. It must be mixed which is done by firing it with proper equipment. If it is just shot at it will leak a chemical not the dangerous gas. The rebels did not have the proper equipment to arm or fire the chemical shells to make them work like they did to kill thousands of people. The Syrian army did.

They have been receiving arms from Saudi Arabia (known for chemical weapon production) and some western countries. They have many weapons. They are very well equipped. None of us can speculate who used these weapons but one thing is for sure, the rebels are nasty. Did you see the video just released of them executing 2 young boys, or the video of one of their leaders eating a soldiers heart, or the video of them throwing office workers off the roofs of the office buildings, or the video of them getting the little kid to behead the soldier in the street or any of the other beheading videos?

We cannot support these bastards.

Originally posted by maythetruthbeknown
reply to post by heineken

 

This is Major news...... Most of us knew this anyway. This needs as much attention as possible.
Any other news agencies running the story?

It's not major news since we all would very well expect this from Russia .. Russia is just as good as the US with propaganda .. at this point it's simply their word against the US .. and neither one of them are exactly trustworthy..

Russia doesn't want a Syrian attack so they will be the ones finding evidence to support their interests, the sameis true with the US.. they will find evidence to support theirs! big shock! .. Until the evidence is made public I'll just be undecided on who to believe.

Originally posted by greavsie1971

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Poor excuse. Why would Assad release a weapon large enough to kill himself. The rebels he gassed were to close to use something large. But his military does have the training to use the right size weapon for the job they wanted to do.

Why would Assad release any chemical weapons? He had no reason to.

It just makes no sense.

Why wouldn't he? .. the chemical weapons were released in areas mostly held by rebels.. Assad's argument is why would he release chemical weapons when his troops were in the area.. sounds like good logic.. but it's not .. that assumes the rebels would gas themselves ... Assad's side had more to gain from such an attack.

With the him gassing the rebel held areas, he may kill a few of his men and some civilians, but he also has a good chance of getting a lot of the rebel fighters, especially when they are in his back yard right now ..so near the capital ..

I'm not saying he did .. I'm just saying I could understand it.. besides they are suggesting his brother is the one who probably ordered it .. he's a lot more aggressive than Assad.. Assad may not have even had knowledge of it.

Right now though, we don't know..

reply to post by greavsie1971


And that is what happens when you have Turkey and Colombia working together on Syria. Have you seen what they do in South America and Mexico?

www.borderlandbeat.com...

but it does not change that the rebels don't have the same equipment to fire chemical weapons so that they work as intended. just check out one of there launchers.

Rebels have a pipe stuck in the ground.



The Syrian army. Well they have a whole lot of Soviet weapons to launch chemical weapons and make them work as intended.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

And if rebel force were fighting in the United States Obama would send out force to fight them. When the Rebel force showed up in Washington DC on the outskirts of the Capitol do you think the chemical weapons might be used to kill those rebels and the citizens. It serves a real purpose of showing the citizens what will happen if they help the rebels and shows that he will step up the scale of attacks if they don't back down. When a war is being fought hundreds of miles away it is a small nuisance to the elite. But when it is on there door step they do stupid things as they feel threatened personally. To him it is simply keeping the rift raft away and putting them in there place.

Just look at the US treatment of Occupy Wall Street protest. Reports came out about snipers who were targeting protesters. When they feel the threat is getting to big they do stupid things.

edit on 4-9-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

Excellent point.. and that's why I don't accept Assad's statement that he wouldn't use them because his troops are in the area... Yes he would if the rebels were that close to the capital.. launching them in areas where rebels have the most control means you may take on some collateral damage but they will take on more than you..

What is more difficult to believe is people suggesting the rebels would drop them on themselves.. it would defeat their purpose big time..

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.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by greavsie1971

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Poor excuse. Why would Assad release a weapon large enough to kill himself. The rebels he gassed were to close to use something large. But his military does have the training to use the right size weapon for the job they wanted to do.

Why would Assad release any chemical weapons? He had no reason to.

It just makes no sense.

Why wouldn't he? .. the chemical weapons were released in areas mostly held by rebels.. Assad's argument is why would he release chemical weapons when his troops were in the area.. sounds like good logic.. but it's not .. that assumes the rebels would gas themselves ... Assad's side had more to gain from such an attack.

With the him gassing the rebel held areas, he may kill a few of his men and some civilians, but he also has a good chance of getting a lot of the rebel fighters, especially when they are in his back yard right now ..so near the capital ..

I'm not saying he did .. I'm just saying I could understand it.. besides they are suggesting his brother is the one who probably ordered it .. he's a lot more aggressive than Assad.. Assad may not have even had knowledge of it.

Right now though, we don't know..

edit on 9/4/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

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?


You are right, we dont know for sure but the fact still remains, we cannot support these people as they are terrorists. Assads men are not innocent too. Im not saying they are. We cannot support cold blooded killers. That is really my point.