Apparently the attacks weren't done with nerve gas, and the attackers were probably rebels (//http://www.sott.net/article/265666-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-and-the-Britam-Defence-emails).
So, Why? To what end?
The article points to a video allegedly released by the rebels showing them killing a bunch of rabbits with industrial toxicants and threatening the masses with a similar fate if they sided with the government. So maybe it was the rebels following through on that threat. Or, they were trying their best to frame the government and get the US involved, since there was the "red line" that Obama talked about.
Sott.net (//http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laura_Knight_Jadczyk)?! :rolleyes: :rollin:
(//http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/6/67965/1252480-its_a_conspiracy.jpg)
They have scientists commenting on the footage of the "attacks" from all kinds of research institutes and think tanks. Also, a UN weapons inspector in a BBC article comes out and says that the rebels probably carried out the attack.
link to the article (//http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188)
If you have followed the government of Assad, and his father before him, you will know that they don't need any "Framing."
Quote from: "zarus tathra"They have scientists commenting on the footage of the "attacks" from all kinds of research institutes and think tanks. Also, a UN weapons inspector in a BBC article comes out and says that the rebels probably carried out the attack.
And everyone else in the world found that it was Assad. Hmmm.
Quote from: "Jmpty"If you have followed the government of Assad, and his father before him, you will know that they don't need any "Framing."
Then they were going through with their threat, which they videotaped and broadcast on Youtube.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"They have scientists commenting on the footage of the "attacks" from all kinds of research institutes and think tanks. Also, a UN weapons inspector in a BBC article comes out and says that the rebels probably carried out the attack.
link to the article (//http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188)
Psst. That article is from May. "The attack" that most people (but apparently not you) refer to, seeing how it was by far the deadliest wmd attack of that conflict happened August 21.
And for those of us who are literate, the body of the text states outright that it's not conclusive.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"They have scientists commenting on the footage of the "attacks" from all kinds of research institutes and think tanks. Also, a UN weapons inspector in a BBC article comes out and says that the rebels probably carried out the attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188]linktothearticle
Del Ponte is not a weapons inspector. She was one of the heads of the U.N. commission that was commissioned to investigate
whether or not sarin gas had been used - it was not commissioned to determine
who had "fired off" the gas if it was indeed sarin gas. Her statement came out in May and it was immediately clarified that she was not speaking for the commission in making her comments.
There is reason to be skeptical of Del Ponte:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug ... rosecution (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug/18/carla-del-ponte-prosecution)
QuoteCarla Del Ponte, the former war crimes prosecutor who put Balkan warlords and political leaders behind bars, is to be investigated over claims she allowed the use of bullying and bribing of witnesses, or tainted evidence.
Judges at the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague today ordered an independent inquiry into the practices of Del Ponte and two prominent serving prosecutors, Hildegard Ürtz-Retzlaff and Daniel Saxon, after complaints from witnesses that they had been harassed, paid, mistreated and their evidence tampered with.
But probably most of the skepticism for the claim she made in May is justified because of what was in the U.N. report when it came out in September:
//http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/syria-un-report-ghouta-sarin-rocket-attack
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Quote from: "Jmpty"If you have followed the government of Assad, and his father before him, you will know that they don't need any "Framing."
Then they were going through with their threat, which they videotaped and broadcast on Youtube.
They being who? The Syrian army?
The rebels. They gassed a bunch of animals on video and threatened to do the same to the citizens.
"allegedly released by the rebels showing them killing a bunch of rabbits"
Pretty damning evidence.
Assad is the only legal president of Syria, and he does his best to defend his country from bandits. Sorry but he has not gassed them.
I agree with Eugeny, Assad would only lose if he used gas on his people. The rest of the world would crack down on him in a second.
But the rebels would have huge gains, they could fake an attack even, use it on their own people even, and it would appear that the government was using gas. They get immediate sympathy at the least, and foreign intervention on their side at the best.
I will admit there is a chance that Assad used the chems, but I personally believe that it is far more likely that the rebels used it in order to further their own positions
Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad's Use of Gas
Jm Lopez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By RICK GLADSTONE and C. J. CHIVERS
Published: September 16, 2013 302 Comments
A United Nations report released on Monday confirmed that a deadly chemical arms attack caused a mass killing in Syria last month and for the first time provided extensive forensic details of the weapons used, which strongly implicated the Syrian government.
While the report's authors did not assign blame for the attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the details it documented included the large size and particular shape of the munitions and the precise direction from which two of them had been fired. Taken together, that information appeared to undercut arguments by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that rebel forces, who are not known to possess such weapons or the training or ability to use them, had been responsible.
The report, commissioned by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, was the first independent on-the-ground scientific inquest into the attack, which left hundreds of civilians gassed to death, including children, early on Aug. 21.
The repercussions have elevated the 30-month-old Syrian conflict into a global political crisis that is testing the limits of impunity over the use of chemical weapons. It could also lead to the first concerted action on the war at the United Nations Security Council, which up to now has been paralyzed over Syria policy.
"The report makes for chilling reading," Mr. Ban told a news conference after he briefed the Security Council. "The findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale. This is a war crime."
Mr. Ban declined to ascribe blame, saying that responsibility was up to others, but he expressed hope that the attack would become a catalyst for a new diplomatic determination at the United Nations to resolve the Syrian conflict, which has left more than 100,000 people dead and millions displaced.
There was no immediate reaction to the report from the Syrian government. But just two days before the report was released, Syria officially agreed to join the international convention on banning chemical weapons, and the United States and Russia, which have repeatedly clashed over Syria, agreed on a plan to identify and purge those weapons from the country by the middle of next year. Syria has said it would abide by that plan.
The main point of the report was to establish whether chemical weapons had been used in the Aug. 21 attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, an area long infiltrated by rebels. The United Nations inspectors concluded that "chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale."
The weapons inspectors, who visited Ghouta and left the country with large amounts of evidence on Aug. 31, said, "In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used."
But the report's annexes, detailing what the authors found, were what caught the attention of nonproliferation experts.
In two chilling pieces of information, the inspectors said that the remnants of a warhead they had found showed its capacity of sarin to be about 56 liters — far higher than initially thought. They also said that falling temperatures at the time of the attack ensured that the poison gas, heavier than air, would hug the ground, penetrating lower levels of buildings "where many people were seeking shelter."
The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance.
These findings, though not presented as evidence of responsibility, were likely to strengthen the argument of those who claim that the Syrian government bears the blame, because the weapons in question had not been previously documented or reported to be in possession of the insurgency.
Moreover, those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way.
One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex.
Other nonproliferation experts said the United Nations report was damning in its implicit incrimination of Mr. Assad's side in the conflict, not only in the weaponry fragments but also in the azimuth data that indicated the attack's origins. An analysis of the report posted online by the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, said "the additional details and the perceived objectivity of the inspectors buttress the assignment of blame to Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government."
The United States and its allies seized on the volume of data in the report to reaffirm their conclusion that only Syrian government forces had the ability to carry out such a strike, calling it a validation of their own long-held assertions.
Both the British and American ambassadors to the United Nations also told reporters that the report's lead author, Dr. Ake Sellstrom, a Swedish scientist who joined Mr. Ban in the Security Council briefing, had told members that quality of the sarin used in the attack was high.
"This was no cottage-industry use of chemical weapons," said Britain's ambassador, Sir Mark Lyall Grant. He said the type of munitions and trajectories had confirmed, "in our view, that there is no remaining doubt that it was the regime that used chemical weapons."
Samantha Power, the American ambassador, acknowledged implicitly the credibility issue that has confronted the United States on Syria chemical weapons use, a legacy of the flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that led the United States into the Iraq war a decade ago.
"We understand some countries did not accept on faith that the samples of blood and hair that the United States received from people affected by the Aug. 21 attack contained sarin," she said. "But now Dr. Sellstrom's samples show the same thing. And it's very important to note that the regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition posses sarin."
Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly I. Churkin, said there were still too many unanswered questions. In talking to reporters, he asked, if the Syrian forces had indeed been responsible and sought to attack insurgents, "how is it possible to fire projectiles at your opponent and miss them all?"
"We need not jump to any conclusions," he said.
The report's release punctuated a tumultuous week spawned by the global outrage over the attack, in which an American threat of punitive force on the Syrian government was delayed as Russia proposed a diplomatic alternative and intense negotiations between the United States and Russia led to a sweeping agreement under which Syria's chemical weapons arsenal could be destroyed.
The United Nations, in danger of becoming irrelevant in helping to end the Syria conflict, was suddenly thrust back into a central role, with the Security Council now engaged in deliberations over an enforceable measure to hold Syria to its commitment on chemical weapons.
Secretary of State John Kerry and the foreign ministers of France and Britain said Monday that they would not tolerate delays in dismantling Syria's chemical weapons.
"It is extremely important that there are no evasions," William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said at a news conference with Mr. Kerry in Paris.
Mr. Kerry said, "If Assad fails in time to abide by the terms of this framework, make no mistake, we are all agreed — and that includes Russia — that there will be consequences."
The release of the report came as a separate panel of investigators from the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva said they were investigating 14 episodes of suspected chemical weapons use.
Reporting was contributed by Michael R. Gordon from Paris, Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva, Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon, and David E. Sanger from New York.
I just have a hard time believing Assad gave the order; perhaps forces loyal to him did without his approval, but... he is too smart of man to do something that incredibly stupid.
I realize power can make people stupid, especially when your country is in the middle of an extremely violent civil war... but again, I just don't seeing such a well-educated man making such a bad mistake. My money is more on someone loyal to him using the weapons without order.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I just have a hard time believing Assad gave the order; perhaps forces loyal to him did without his approval, but... he is too smart of man to do something that incredibly stupid.
//http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"I agree with Eugeny, Assad would only lose if he used gas on his people. The rest of the world would crack down on him in a second.
But the rebels would have huge gains, they could fake an attack even, use it on their own people even, and it would appear that the government was using gas. They get immediate sympathy at the least, and foreign intervention on their side at the best.
Or, in actuality, they get the US president heading down the road to apparent defeat of authorization of military action until Russia suggests a convoluted plan to eventually destroy Syria's (declared) chemical weapons by inserting unarmed UN personnel into the middle of a civil war. The extent of the world's "crack down" on Assad appears to be a (claimed) slight increase in training and arming of rebels.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Shiranu"I just have a hard time believing Assad gave the order; perhaps forces loyal to him did without his approval, but... he is too smart of man to do something that incredibly stupid.
//http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Not really, no. Statistically it is less likely, therefor it is more logical to assume that someone in the forces acted with out his consent. This is far more plausible given the information we have.
I implied I think it is possible, I just don't think it the most likely scenario. I'm not saying I believe it's impossible, just less likely than the alternative.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"I agree with Eugeny, Assad would only lose if he used gas on his people. The rest of the world would crack down on him in a second.
But the rebels would have huge gains, they could fake an attack even, use it on their own people even, and it would appear that the government was using gas. They get immediate sympathy at the least, and foreign intervention on their side at the best.
Or, in actuality, they get the US president heading down the road to apparent defeat of authorization of military action until Russia suggests a convoluted plan to eventually destroy Syria's (declared) chemical weapons by inserting unarmed UN personnel into the middle of a civil war. The extent of the world's "crack down" on Assad appears to be a (claimed) slight increase in training and arming of rebels.
Well, Assad has never, ever accepted the possibility of any type of true uprising against his family rule. In his mind, that's impossible, Syrians would never do that. The chemical weapons being destroyed is a "both side claims victory" kind of situation, where all parties involved claimed that diplomacy (and a muddled mix of threats) gave them what they wanted. Even the regime is saying that the chem weapons being destroyed is part of it's "reforms".....
The rebels are not powerful enough to muscle their way to a victory, so unless Assad steps down as part of some transitional government formed at Geneva, then the war will go on without even a break. Make no mistake, regardless of what "terrorists" have done, Assad has created enough enemies not only in Syria but in the Sunni world that if he doesn't step down, I can see him being assassinated by someone with a grudge. Strip away Syria's "civilized" polished image and you get a mentality similar to that of Afghanistan. Assad has done absolutely gruesome things and there are people who will make it their life's goal to make him pay for that.
And I remember when the videos about the rabbits came out. What proof do you have that rebels used the chemicals to threaten civilians if they support the government? I specifically remember a translated video where they say they are warning civilians, and trying to educate them about the danger of Assad using chemicals on them.
I always have a hard time understand dictators sometimes... yes, I realize it is your country, and your father's before that... but he didn't even want to be a politician but instead a doctor until his brother died and it was forced on him.
Now seems like as good of time as any to cut your loses, pack your bags with enough money to buy 50 private islands and disappear. You get to quit a job you didn't want, you keep your head attached to the rest of your body and not a pike, and you can attempt to make history by being an unexplained disappearance. Seems like a win/win to me :.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I always have a hard time understand dictators sometimes.
Assad is not a dictator. There will be presidential election in Syria next year. In interwiev to german magazine
Der Spiegel he said that he is not sure, if he will participate in election as candidate. It seems he is very tired of fighting.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Not really, no. Statistically it is less likely, therefor it is more logical to assume that someone in the forces acted with out his consent. This is far more plausible given the information we have.
Can I see those statistics?
Quote from: "Shiranu"I always have a hard time understand dictators sometimes... yes, I realize it is your country, and your father's before that... but he didn't even want to be a politician but instead a doctor until his brother died and it was forced on him.
Now seems like as good of time as any to cut your loses, pack your bags with enough money to buy 50 private islands and disappear. You get to quit a job you didn't want, you keep your head attached to the rest of your body and not a pike, and you can attempt to make history by being an unexplained disappearance. Seems like a win/win to me :.
It is more that just him and his family (there was a lot of speculation early on that it was his mother who was really urging him to fight/crack down). It has very much turned into an ethnic/religious war. It is not as if, were Assad to step down, the two sides would magically become friends. Maybe that would have happened if he had steeped down or made reforms early on (back in the protests or early into the war), though I'm guessing he did not believe/know just how large the opposition was at that time. I think that Assad actually believes that he is preventing his people/sect from being massacred; that is how he can justify--at least to himself--any action he takes.
Apparently, the doctors in the video tending to the "sarin gas" victims weren't wearing any protective gear, which is insane, since areas covered in nerve gas are toxic for a very long time afterwards.
Quote"At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators," said Paula Vanninen, director of Verifin, the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
"In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms."
John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.
"Of the videos that I've seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils... this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents," he said.
Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, which specialises in chemical weapons issues, said the evidence did not suggest that the chemicals used were of the weapons-grade that the Syrian army possesses in its stockpiles.
"We're not seeing reports that doctors and nurses... are becoming fatalities, so that would suggest that the toxicity of it isn't what we would consider military sarin.
Quote from: "Eugeny Anatolievich"Quote from: "Shiranu"I always have a hard time understand dictators sometimes.
Assad is not a dictator. There will be presidential election in Syria next year. In interwiev to german magazine Der Spiegel he said that he is not sure, if he will participate in election as candidate. It seems he is very tired of fighting.
Well.... he inherited power from his father, twice being "re-elected" in a referendum where he, both times, received 97 percent of the vote. Parliament lowered the age to be President down to his specific age in 2000 so he could become President, and he always ran unopposed in single party events. His tenure has seen hundreds of thousands of Syrians die, 100,000+ be thrown into torture dungeons, 7 million are displaced inside the country, around 2 million (a majority of them children) are refugees living in squalid camps, Syria's infrastructure has been destroyed, and unspeakable massacres have been committed where multiple sources of witnesses all say it was either his soldiers or his militiamen carrying out the massacre in his name.
But nahhhhhh, he ain't a dictator.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"So maybe it was the rebels following through on that threat. Or, they were trying their best to frame the government and get the US involved, since there was the "red line" that Obama talked about.
Wow, this has to be new information that couldn't have possibly factored into any decisions made by the Obama administration. I'm sure that they will be exceedingly thankful for this new information being brought forward!
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Apparently, the doctors in the video tending to the "sarin gas" victims weren't wearing any protective gear, which is insane, since areas covered in nerve gas are toxic for a very long time afterwards.
Chemical weapons training was more than 30 years for me, but I didn't think that sounded right so I looked it up. The internet isn't exactly covered up with information of this type, but I did find a couple of local type EMS sites that talked about the persistence of nerve agents. According to them GB (sarin) breaks down rather quickly. Generally speaking it is going to be broken down in about 30 minutes. Even under the best of conditions it should all be gone in under 8 hours. By comparison VX which is considered to be a persistent nerve agent would usually be broken down in less than 24 hours.
Quote from: "frosty"Syria's infrastructure has been destroyed
Who has destroyed Syria's infrastracture? Bandits have. They are supported and sponsored by USA and Saudi Arabia, the best friend of USA.
Quotemultiple sources of witnesses
Do you know proverb: "He's lying like a witness."? I remember Serbia. There were multiple sources of witnesses too. And U.S. were supporting and sponsoring albanian bandits, drug dealers and kidnappers and calling them rebels and fighters for freedom. They were witnesses. Some later Carla Del Ponte has written the book where she told that everything was the great lie. And now the same lie repeats again. And chemical weapon in Iraq? When the U.S. has learned that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, they started the war. I think when Assad will give up the last unit of chemical weapon, U.S. will start the war. Only the weapon of mass destruction guarantees protection from U.S. aggression.
Sometimes everything seems like deja vu. U.S. are the Imperia of Evil. U.S. are the kingdom of lie. U.S. are the enemy of peace.
Go and look!
"You Can Still See Their Blood"
Executions, Indiscriminate Shootings, and Hostage Taking by Opposition Forces in Latakia Countryside
OCTOBER 11, 2013
The 105-page report presents evidence that the civilians were killed on August 4, the first day of the operation. Two opposition groups that took part in the offensive, the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, are still holding the hostages, the vast majority women and children. The findings strongly suggest that the killings, hostage taking, and other abuses rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Human Rights Watch said.
READ THE REPORT (//http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/10/11/you-can-still-see-their-blood)
Eugeny Anatolievich please excuse the believers in the Obama myth. They cannot accept the fact that the Leader would lie to them. Even after it has been proven many times.
It looks like Obama is thinking twice about attacking Syria openly, since the American Congress has pretty much told him, that he will be impeached if he does openly attack Syria. There are many in America who want Obama impeached for his violations of the Constitution, rather he attacks Syria or not. But, Congress won't act until they have something which the vast majority of the American citizens are mad about Obama doing. Then, they'll act to protect themselves and go ahead and impeach Obama.
My problem with the conflict is inbetween Anatolievich and the opposition... I am not as pro-Al-Asad as him but at the same time he is correct; the rebels for the most part are just as bad, and I would argue far worse than al-Asad, of people. It is like saying, "Should we support Hitler or Stalin"... how about neither?
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Eugeny Anatolievich please excuse the believers in the Obama myth. They cannot accept the fact that the Leader would lie to them. Even after it has been proven many times.
It looks like Obama is thinking twice about attacking Syria openly, since the American Congress has pretty much told him, that he will be impeached if he does openly attack Syria. There are many in America who want Obama impeached for his violations of the Constitution, rather he attacks Syria or not. But, Congress won't act until they have something which the vast majority of the American citizens are mad about Obama doing. Then, they'll act to protect themselves and go ahead and impeach Obama.
Just because you made that post it still doesn't change anything. You can try to shoot down all the statistics and historical facts you want, calling it an "Obama myth", it's not going to change anything and you're only fooling yourself. I never advocated any foreign military intervention, and in response to the Russian guy's post, I never said the opposition was free of crimes either. But to use your Internet "activism" to take Assad off the hook for what he has done doesn't make much sense considering he is the very same tyrant many of these Internet enthusiasts claim they oppose.
And as for believing in myths... well, you can speak for yourself on that one.
Quote from: "Eugeny Anatolievich"Who has destroyed Syria's infrastracture? Bandits have. They are supported and sponsored by USA and Saudi Arabia, the best friend of USA.
So Assad's massive stockpiles of munitions have not done it? The countless leaked videos of his forces using massive artillery pieces, or launching systems to send missiles and rockets into villages? You simply claimed, without giving one iota of evidence, that "bandits" did it, like you're regurgitating something you've been told. You will really have to do better than that if you want to promote your opinions on an objective basis. I assumed it was common knowledge that Assad, as a state actor, has massive assets capable of destroying infrastructure, but if you're that oblivious (a very nice way of putting it) I can provide many, many sources which will prove me right and you wrong.
QuoteDo you know proverb: "He's lying like a witness."? I remember Serbia. There were multiple sources of witnesses too. And U.S. were supporting and sponsoring albanian bandits, drug dealers and kidnappers and calling them rebels and fighters for freedom. They were witnesses. Some later Carla Del Ponte has written the book where she told that everything was the great lie. And now the same lie repeats again. And chemical weapon in Iraq? When the U.S. has learned that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, they started the war. I think when Assad will give up the last unit of chemical weapon, U.S. will start the war. Only the weapon of mass destruction guarantees protection from U.S. aggression.
Sometimes everything seems like deja vu. U.S. are the Imperia of Evil. U.S. are the kingdom of lie. U.S. are the enemy of peace.
It's peculiar that you don't seem to understand what you're doing here. You're simply trading in one propaganda line for the other, and recycling claims that no civilians have been harmed and the rebels are responsible for everything. I seriously wonder what authority you of anybody have to make all of these claims and expect anybody to believe it. It seems you have bought into whatever State TV propaganda organ you've been watching, and you have an emotional axe to grind with the U.S. so you blatantly take one side because it suits your preconceived notions of the conflict. Sure, say the same thing about me, but the difference being is that I know what started the conflict and I know what transgressions both sides have committed.
Quote from: "frosty"So Assad's massive stockpiles of munitions have not done it? The countless leaked videos of his forces using massive artillery pieces, or launching systems to send missiles and rockets into villages?
Bandits hide in villages. Syrian army sends missiles and rockets into villages to kill bandits, and destroys something. It is inevitable. And some casualties among non-combatants are inevitable too. A la guerre comme a la guerre. War always means death and destruction.
Assad is the legal president according to laws of Syria like the king of Saudi Arabia is the legal king according to S.A. laws, and like Kim Jong-un is the legal supreme leader of Northern Korea according to their laws.
It is his duty to defend the country and to suppress any armed resistance to lawful authority. It is duty of every state ruler to defend the country and to suppress any armed resistance to lawful authority.
But only the bandits are responsible for all deaths and destructions. They must stop fighting and surrender. Assad and Army of Syria are doing their duty, so they are not guilty.
Eugeny Anatolievich so called propaganda may be more accurate than our propaganda.
This is of great concern. [youtube:383anawu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzYtVexR1o[/youtube:383anawu]
Even if only a little of this is true, we may have a Manchurian Candidate in the Whitehouse.
:-s
The UN's Human Rights council declared all those videos fake more than a month ago.
link (//http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/09/un-says-syria-gas-attack-vid-fake-russia-2448672.html)
Also, you have to wonder what exactly Assad would have to gain from a gas attack. He's winning the war, and the public is mostly on his side. A gas attack would give the US an excuse to bombard Syria and would represent the insurgency's only real chance of success.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"The UN's Human Rights council declared all those videos fake more than a month ago.
link (//http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/09/un-says-syria-gas-attack-vid-fake-russia-2448672.html)
Also, you have to wonder what exactly Assad would have to gain from a gas attack. He's winning the war, and the public is mostly on his side. A gas attack would give the US an excuse to bombard Syria and would represent the insurgency's only real chance of success.
I was just re-reading this, and the article you linked to was absolutely atrocious. A poorly designed conspiracy website that chastises other people to "wake up", and then it doesn't actually show any citations of the U.N. actually saying the videos are fake. It uses AllVoices, a user submitted amateur conspiracy "news" site, and it also uses RT and Iran State TV sources which, when checked, seem to show no actual proof the U.N. claimed the videos were fake. They just say 'UN says videos are fake' without properly citing anything.
I wonder why westerners seem to think Assad has the support of the population when so many have been killed, imprisoned, internally displaced or externally displaced. Perhaps it was from a phony world tribune report that falsely claimed Assad had 70 percent of Syrian support but when it was asked to disclose it's data it absolutely refused to do so - because they had none. Assad is surviving because his millions of Alawite sect members are taking up arms to defend him. Shia militias from Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen are pouring into the country in massive numbers to prop up his forces. Iran and Russia ship weapons to him every single day, as well as give him free oil, money, and protect him at the U.N. from the international community.
The only thing I agree with you on is that Assad is indeed winning because he is surviving. Most of Syria is not in his control, but the battlelines will stay where they are for a while now. The only chance the opposition has of getting rid of Assad is to somehow assassinate him, other than that he is probably going to stay, albeit as the Mayor Of Damascus, not the President Of Syria.
Here's another article (//http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/). It's from Infowars, but it cites people who've written for the BBC and the Associated Press. And apparently, it wasn't a deliberate gas attack, the rebels were just given a shell that was intended for Al-Qaeda and they didn't know wtf it was, so they accidentally set it off. Which actually seems kind of plausible, because the rebels are mainly shopkeepers and farmers who were given weapons that they most likely don't even know what to call.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's another article (//http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/). It's from Infowars, but it cites people who've written for the BBC and the Associated Press. And apparently, it wasn't a deliberate gas attack, the rebels were just given a shell that was intended for Al-Qaeda and they didn't know wtf it was, so they accidentally set it off. Which actually seems kind of plausible, because the rebels are mainly shopkeepers and farmers who were given weapons that they most likely don't even know what to call.
It's Infowars. A site that aggregates the most random links, from random blogs to health websites just so they can prove their point. In the article, they
themselves even expressed a tad of skepticism about the claims made by these alleged prominent professional journalists. That should raise a red flag if Infowars questions their own sources, which let's be honest almost never happens. They are a self serving conspiracy website that shares information that furthers their own agenda. And hey, making money through online sales isn't so bad either.
You know what, if you're going to be that way, fine. Here's one of the links from the article. (//http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/)
Quote from: "zarus tathra"You know what, if you're going to be that way, fine. Here's one of the links from the article. (//http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/)
Be what way? Inconveniencing you, and shattering your perfect little world of sharing links and copypasta articles? I'm being skeptical of your claims, just like you are being skeptical with the official story. Funny how on the Interwebz the so called truth speakers never liked being questioned themselves. It's all the system's fault, and they are above being questioned because they "know the truth".
If you don't like this kind of stuff that's really just too bad. And since you linked to Mint Press, yet another example of selective bias copypasta to serve your agenda, that's doesn't help things either. A site that, yet again, when pressed about their sources in that article they absolutely refused to disclose their methods. You seem to be oblivious to what you are doing, which is selectively sharing information here just so you can promote a narrative of what is really happening inside Syria, even though you seem to have next to no knowledge of it's internal situation at all. Outside of sharing conspiracy links and recycling what they say through your own words, you got nothing.
Perhaps once you are finished with your defensive banter you can finally address the increasing number of points I have made that you have conveniently ignored.
Here's an article that compares the Mint Press with the American government reports. (//http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/)
QuoteWhen the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.
It says at the end that the Mint Press article is probably very shaky, but the American government reports are also extremely shaky. This is war, you can't believe anything you hear.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's an article that compares the Mint Press with the American government reports. (//http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/)
QuoteWhen the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.
It says at the end that the Mint Press article is probably very shaky, but the American government reports are also extremely shaky. This is war, you can't believe anything you hear.
Well, I always try to cross-check and verify things through multiple conflicting sources, and even then, what the Internet is almost incapable of doing is replicating an event as it happened through the eyes of the perceivers. This leads to conflicting information, conflicting reports and a large gap being filled by various sources, an example of which I criticized above.
Also, it should be said, that thanks to Hezbollah, the regime might survive for good now. Hezbollah has engaged in a campaign around the capital and in Aleppo as well against al-Qaeda and every time they dealt al-Qaeda forces serious blows and defeats. Of course, this is based on the information I have read upon but I draw it from multiple sources, and it seems to be mostly accurate. It is quite impressive on a military scale how Hezbollah was able to defeat forces that, before the crisis, seemed so similar to them.