• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

who did it?

who used the chemical weapons.

  • Assad Goverment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • rebels and rogue elements.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • someone else.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Steve

Well-known member
as we prepare to get entangled in another middle-eastern war... I have a serious question..

Pentagon Preps for Strike on Syria

CBS News reports the Pentagon is prepping cruise missiles for a possible attack “on Syrian government forces,”

I have seen the bodies wrapped in white.. some small children,.. and I am outraged... but I am not sure who to be outraged with..

the goverment fighting a war against rebels.. many of whom are foreign soldiers/terrorists.

or the rebels of which many are foreign soldiers/terrorists.

to put it quite bluntly.. I do not trust either side..

and while I detest dictators.. and dictatorial governments.. even if fairly elected.. I still detest terrorists more..

if a faction in this country started a war today.,... and foreign fighters, soldiers and terrorists were brought in to help take it down.. I would have to side with dictator Obama.

but that doesn't answer my question.

Who is "responsible" for the chemical attack?

is it a goverment who was recently beating back the rebels and foreign fighters/terrorists?

or is it the rebels and foreign fighters/terrorists?

the goverment doesn't seem to have many upsides on this one.. first,.. few are siding with them anyways.. (other then Iran and Russia),..
so why drag out chemical weapons if they think Obama will strike back..
unless they think Obama is weak and will just have another speech..

I don't trust the rebels,.. and assorted other bad guys,.. and considering just a short time back they were doomed without our weapons and help... they might be desperate,.. and take up Obama on his threat to intervene if chemical weapons are used..

so far no one has definitely ruled the earlier small chemical weapons attacks were made by the goverment..
 

Steve

Well-known member
In Syria, America loses if either side wins

Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy—posing a direct threat both to Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

But a rebel victory will also be extremely dangerous for the US and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they will almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the US. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.

Things looked far less gloomy when the rebellion began two years ago. At the time, it seemed that Syrian society as a whole had emerged from the grip of fear to demand an end to Assad’s dictatorship. It was also reasonable to expect that the fighting would not last long, because neighbouring Turkey would exert its power to end the war.


The war is now being waged by petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their alien ways; Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and Christians merely because of their religion; and jihadis from Iraq and all over the world who have advertised their intention to turn Syria into a base for global jihad aimed at Europe and the US.
Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for either side will be unacceptable for the US. An Iranian-backed restoration of the Assad regime will increase Iran’s power and status across Middle East, while a victory by the extremist-dominated rebels will inaugurate another wave of Al Qaeda terrorism.

There is only one outcome that the US can possibly favour: an indefinite draw.
 

Steve

Well-known member
this was just a short month ago.... if he was winning,... why would Assad use chemical weapons and risk drawing US into the fight?

The West should prepare for Assad's victory in Syria
July 24th, 2013

This morning's report that hundreds of former Syrian rebels are laying down their arms and taking up the government's offer of an amnesty is further evidence of what I have been saying (and writing) for months: President Bashar al-Assad is winning Syria's brutal civil war.

Ever since Assad's forces turned the tide of the conflict by retaking the strategically important town of Qusayr on the Lebanese border earlier in the summer, there has been an almost immutable momentum building in favour of the regime gaining the upper hand in the conflict.


The United Nations said Damascus had agreed to a ceasefire while a U.N. team of experts are at the site for inspections which will begin on Monday. Syria confirmed it had agreed to allow the inspections.

Syria agreed to let the United Nations inspect the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack from Monday but a U.S. official said any such offer would be "too late to be credible" and there was little doubt the government was to blame.

Syria's information minister said any U.S. military action would "create a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East".

He said Damascus had evidence chemical weapons were used by rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, not by his government. Western countries say they believe the rebels do not have access to poison gas.

"Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident," the U.S. official said.

and this comment left me wondering.. is this the same "official" who was convinced Iraq was still making WMD's ?

meanwhile,..
Russia, Assad's U.N. Security Council ally which has suggested rebels may have been behind the chemical attack, welcomed the decision to allow the U.N. investigation and said it would be a "tragic mistake" to jump to conclusions over who was responsible.

why after Afghanistan we would back islamic fighters against anyone is beyond me..

but to jump into another war in the middle east based on intelligence reports seems plain incompetent.. especially after Iraq..

at least Obama will not have to listen to the left nag on about proof for generations to come... :roll:
 

Zilly

Well-known member
In my simple mind, I see no reason for Assad use chemical weapons. He knows that doing so would cross the imaginary line, and draw the international community into the fray. The rebels, who have now been reinfored with Al Qaeda by as much as 50%, have one reason to use chemical weapons and draw the international community into the fray... to kill Americans.

Colin Powell was on Face The Nation this morning and explained things pretty well, I thought. Then they had their round table with a reporter who basically said Assad did it and we need to send missles in to destroy the chemical weapons and arm only the "friendly" rebels. Then there was someone there that had something to do with the State Dept. saying inspectors are too little too late, as all evidence could have been destroyed in the previous 5 days. Then why ask for them?

So, it sounds to me like those that understand conflict (Colin Powell) knows this is a lose lose for the US, while the feel good folks, think we have to stick are nose in this mess. My opinion... stay out of this mess.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Zilly said:
So, it sounds to me like those that understand conflict (Colin Powell) knows this is a lose lose for the US, while the feel good folks, think we have to stick are nose in this mess. My opinion... stay out of this mess.

I can not see any reason to trust either side, let alone back either side..

I see a way out for US,.. just don't go in..

I can see a few possible solutions... demand a UN resolution calling for a cease fire while we remove any chemical weapons from the country...

to prompt Assad to allow it,.. threaten with a no fly zone,... and offer to not intervene if he allows the WMD's to be removed (destroyed)

it won't work,.. but it gives Obama a way out of the red-line threat...

Obama's other option bomb any and all military facilities.. especially any that may hold WMD's..

If the Navy hits hard enough and hot enough it may incinerate any viable biological, and most of the chemical weapons.. it might be a viable option especially considering the age/shell-life of the WMD's.

but any casualties would be blamed on the US and there would be some even in a best case scenario..

http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/13/why_you_can_t_just_bomb_syria_s_wmd_into_oblivion
 

Steve

Well-known member
if you dig a bit deeper into the options.. there is one way to reduce the threat of Syria to the US..

I advocated bombing the crap out of Libya's weapons depots if we went in,.. they went in but clearly did not bomb let alone have a plan to secure all the weapons.. costing US dearly later..


How the U.S. Could Take Out Syria’s Chemical Weapons
The Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency develops "agent defeat" weapons specifically designed to thwart chemical threats. If the U.S. ever decided to act against Syria’s reported chemical agent buildup, this is what it would use.

Intelligence reports coming out of the war in Syria have said that Bashar al-Assad’s regime could be mixing components to produce sarin nerve gas to fill artillery shells or bombs.

One possible response, if the situation worsens, would be to neutralize Syrian chemical stockpiles. Attacking Syria would be a huge leap into the conflict for the U.S. But if it did this, the Pentagon could turn to exotic "agent defeat" weapons specially developed for the purpose.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has provided the Pentagon with scientific, technical, and operational support against all types of weapons of mass destruction since 1998. This includes finding means of destroying WMD before they can be deployed. The agency’s most famous product might be the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker buster. But the DTRA also has built subtler technology that could be deployed against chemical agents.

Specialized weapons are needed for the task because conventional explosives create a risk of dispersing the agents though the blast and heat of an explosion. The plume that appears after a bomb detonation shows how high debris can rise—and from that altitude it can travel downwind for many miles. This creates a lethal threat to large numbers of civilians.

The best defense is to destroy the chemical agents as rapidly as possible, and this is the thinking behind the BLU-119/B CrashPAD bomb developed in 2004. PAD stands for Prompt Agent Defeat. Like the CBU-107, CrashPAD throws out shrapnel to pierce chemical storage containers. But this weapon also carries a main payload of more than 400 pounds of white phosphorus, which burns at a high temperature and rapidly breaks down chemical agents. In 2007, the DTRA also developed a penetrating version called Shredder to attack chemical stockpiles in underground bunkers.

The Pentagon has been secretive about the projects that have been in development since then. But from unclassified documents we know that newer weapons are likely to be more sophisticated. The latest DTRA R&D budget mentions funding for new "payloads capable of neutralizing large amounts of WMD agent." Candidates include intermetallic reactions, novel types of thermite (metal reacting with metal oxide with pyrotechnic consequences), new energetic nanomaterials, and thermobaric materials—fuel-rich explosives that react with oxygen in the air and produce high temperatures.

Another proposed agent-defeat weapon combines a thermite mixture, such as powdered iron oxide and aluminum with a foaming agent. When triggered, this produces molten metallic foam that smothers the chemical storage area. The foam then undergoes a reaction producing temperatures of 2000 degrees F, neutralizing any chemicals.

One DTRA development we do know to be in its final stages of development is a warhead filled with self-propelled kinetic fireball incendiaries, or "rocket balls." These are hollow balls made of compacted rocket fuel, loaded into a bunker-busting bomb in place of a normal explosive warhead. When the bomb penetrates the target and releases the payload, the ignited fireballs ricochet around at high speed, heading down corridors and tunnels and filling the entire facility. They burn at high temperature, igniting anything flammable and destroying chemical or biological stores.

The major caveat: Even if these kinds of weapons work exactly as planned, knocking out Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles is not just a weapons engineering challenge. Intelligence is key and, as the war in Iraq showed, pinning down WMD is notoriously difficult. It’s no use taking out a warehouse with the latest hardware if the chemicals were never there, or if they were moved out the previous day. And any action on a stockpile is hazardous. Anything less than 100 percent destruction risks exposing innocent civilians to lethal chemical agents. Agent defeat weapons might offer some options in an unstable and dangerous situation in Syria, but they are certainly not an easy, risk-free solution.

Read more: How the U.S. Could Take Out Syria’s Chemical Weapons -
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/how-the-us-could-take-out-syrias-chemical-weapons-14826307
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Let's analyze the situation here.

Assad Government - crazy muslims who hate America and Jews
Bro Opposition - crazy muslims who hate America and Jews

Assad Government - known quantity
Bro Opposition - unknown quantity to a degree

I'd say quietly back the Assad Government and hope that both sides actually lose.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Same situation we were in back during the Iran - Iraq war. :lol:

Couldn't figure out who to pull for...........................

I guess we help both to rid the world of them?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Let's analyze the situation here.

Assad Government - crazy muslims who hate America and Jews
Bro Opposition - crazy muslims who hate America and Jews

Assad Government - known quantity
Bro Opposition - unknown quantity to a degree

I'd say quietly back the Assad Government and hope that both sides actually lose.

that might explain why the poll is so evenly split.. it is hard to trust your enemy,..

the only option I would somewhat support is bombing the chemical/bio and any other weapons depots.. the more heavy weapons taken out of the mix,.. the less they can use against US later..

we didn't worry about Iran for several years after the fall, as they couldn't buy anything,.. and couldn't fix enough for US to be concerned with...

but even that eventually comes back to bite US in the rear later..

a smart person would just stay out of it.
 

Steve

Well-known member
01:15: 21 August (10:15 GMT 20 Aug): Facebook pages of Syrian opposition report heavy fighting in rebel-held districts of Ghouta, the agricultural belt in eastern Damascus
02:45: Opposition posts Facebook report of "chemical shelling" in Ein Tarma area of Ghouta
02:47: Second opposition report says chemical weapons used in Zamalka area of Ghouta
Unverified video footage shows people being treated on pavements in the dark and in a makeshift hospital
Reports say chemical weapons were used in Ghouta towns of Irbin, Jobar, Zamalka and Ein Tarma as well as in Muadhamiya to the west, but this is not confirmed
Syrian government acknowledges military offensive in the Ghouta area but denies chemical weapons use

Two minutes later at 02:47, the Sham News Network posted an "urgent" caption, and claimed that government forces had shelled Zamalka using chemical weapons.

The third post, from the Local Co-ordination Committees (LCC), an opposition activist network, came minutes after at 02:55 with a similar report.

Significantly, an hour and a half earlier at approximately 01:15, the three groups had posted reports of fierce clashes in the same areas of the eastern Ghouta, the agricultural belt around Damascus, between Free Syrian Amy rebels and government forces, as well as shelling by government forces, and a claim that the Free Syrian Army had shot down a helicopter in the area.

The alleged chemical attacks on civilians that have so shocked the world did not, it seems, come out of the blue.

In many quarters, however, the debate seems to be moving away from whether a chemical attack took place to which side might have been responsible.

an examination of the weapons and delivery systems will be crucial.

"It doesn't seem like the Russians are contesting that a nerve agent has been used, so it is more important that we determine where this has come from and who fired it.

seems like even some experts are not sure who fired the chemical weapons..

but as in the past .. many who have either urged US to wait for the facts.. or have condemned any action taken without conclusive facts are now rushing to war again,...

DAMASCUS, Syria — Syria agreed Sunday to a U.N. investigation into last week's alleged chemical weapons attack outside Damascus – a deal a senior White House official dismissed as "too late to be credible," saying the United States has "very little doubt" President Bashar Assad's forces used such weapons.

what happened to "let the UN inspectors investigate?

Hans Blix: The indications are certainly in the direction of the use of chemical weapons. Also, the circumstantial evidence points to the Assad regime carrying out the use of such weapons.

However, since the Western powers have asked for United Nations inspections -- and Syria has accepted and inspectors have been put in the field -- we all should wait to see the report of the inspectors before action is taken.

As we've seen before, the political dynamics are running ahead of due process.

Gardels: An echo of Iraq under President Bush?

Blix: In a way, yes. Then, too, the Americans and their allies asked for inspections for mass destruction weapons. Then, too, they said, "forget it, we have enough evidence on our own to act. We are the world police. Our publics are demanding immediate action!"

I do not go along with the statement by the U.S. that "it is too late" for Syria now to cooperate. That is a poor excuse for taking military action.

Gardels: But now it is President Barack Obama, not George Bush, taking on the role of world policeman?

Blix: Yes. He was the only one, some time ago now, who talked about international legality. I was heartened by that. But now I'm afraid the politics of the moment are pushing him in a direction we've seen before in the United States.

British Prime Minister David Cameron also doesn't seem to care much about international legality. And this time, neither do the French.

As far as they are all concerned, a criminal act has been committed so now they must engage in what they call "retaliation." I don't see what they are retaliating about. The weapons weren't used against them. It should be the rebels who want retaliation.

If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it.

well now that this guy is against Obama.. will the left cart him out every chance they get to justify their agenda?

BTW,.. where is the left?
 

Steve

Well-known member
More from the lefts old hero...

Blix: In Kosovo the intervention was based upon NATO approval. This was not enough. I do not think NATO approval is satisfactory in terms of international law. You need to have Security Council approval.

In the Iraq case, the Bush administration did not care at all about the UN. They just went ahead with the British and a few others. They were totally contemptuous of the UN.

I remember that John Kerry, now U.S. secretary of state and who was a senator then, was ridiculed at that time for saying the U.S. should wait for UN inspections and approval of action.

In the wake of the Iraq war, Obama, in his Nobel lecture, also argued that military action should not be taken against other states without UN Security Council approval. That was then, I guess. Now is now.

In Libya, there was a Security Council resolution, but it was very liberally interpreted after the fact, strained from its intent to protect civilians under impending attack to the overthrow of Kaddafi.

Gardels: But the Russians and Chinese will never agree to take military action against Syria, so why even try the UN route?

Blix: The Russians and Chinese have said they want "fair and professional inspections" in Syria. The Iranians have also agreed. In this matter they have a serious interest; the Iranians have suffered most in the world from the use of chemical weapons in their war with Iraq during Saddam's time.

They are not condoning the use of chemical weapons by their friends in Damascus.

In my view, it is certainly a possibility that you can achieve world condemnation of Syria in the Security Council -- including from Russia, China and Iran -- if inspections prove the suspicions.



If military action is all about "punishing" Assad to satisfy public and media opinion without even hearing the UN inspectors report, it will be a sad day for international legality.

did he just call all those liberal hypocrites?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/


syrian-rebels.jpg

a screen capture showing rebel loading a mysterious blue canister on a rocket.

I am not sure if you could verify from the photo who is doing what,.. but you also couldn't prove it was Assad forces..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Now, let’s be clear here that Al Qaeda does in fact possess the know-how to produce Chemical Weapons, from the CIA…

Terrorist CBRN: Materials and Effects

Al-Qa’ida and associated extremist groups have a wide variety of potential agents and delivery means to choose from for chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attacks. Al-Qa’ida’s end goal is the use of CBRN to cause mass casualties; however, most attacks by the group—and especially by associated extremists—probably will be small scale, incorporating relatively crude delivery means and easily produced or obtained chemicals, toxins, or radiological substances. The success of any al-Qa’ida attack and the number of ensuing casualties would depend on many factors, including the technical expertise of those involved, but most scenarios could cause panic and disruption.

- Several groups of mujahidin associated with al-Qa’ida have attempted to carry out “poison plot” attacks in Europe with easily produced chemicals and toxins best suited to assassination and small-scale scenarios. These agents could cause hundreds of casualties and widespread panic if used in multiple simultaneous attacks.

- Al-Qa’ida is interested in radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) or “dirty bombs.” Construction of an RDD is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources. Usama Bin Ladin’s operatives may try to launch conventional attacks against the nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States in a bid to cause contamination, disruption, and terror.

- A document recovered from an al-Qa’ida facility in Afghanistan contained a sketch of a crude nuclear device.

- Spray devices disseminating biological warfare (BW) agents have the highest potential impact. Both 11 September attack leader Mohammad Atta and Zacharias Moussaoui expressed interest in crop dusters, raising our concern that al-Qa’ida has considered using aircraft to disseminate BW agents.

- Analysis of an al-Qa’ida document recovered in Afghanistan in summer 2002 indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX.

this one is a bit more telling,..

In response to the incident, “intelligence officials” raised the possibility that an individual commander might release the CW without orders from Assad.

Still, the discovery that steps had been taken to activate weapons at at least one military base alarmed intelligence officials, because of fears that a single commander could unleash the deadly poisons without orders from higher up the chain of command.

I find it interesting that intelligence sources contemplated a rogue commander back in December. Why are sources not doing so here, even in spite of evidence that Syrian officials made panicked calls demanding answers?

That doesn’t explain who is responsible for the attack, at all.

But I do find it notable.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/28/anonymous-officials-contemplated-a-rogue-cw-attack-8-months-ago/#more-37794
 
Top