Chemical Weapons In Syria

DeletedUser

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

So, sarin has definitely been used in the Syrian war. Question is, who used it? Is the UN correct about the FSA (Presuming that it was them and not any other of the rebel groups) using sarin? Or was it the Assad regime that used it?

Discuss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser15641

I'd say it is all lies and bias!~ :p


Just like the Iraqi so called Chemical weapons or maybe it was moved to Syria or Iran........

Than that would be seriously confusing if it was into Iran :blink:(due to the Iraqi and Iranian war which broke out previously)
 

DeletedUser34315

The UN committee representative said "According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."
As to whether they most certainly used them, I do not know.
However, I would not put it past the FSA or Assad.
The whole war seems like a French Revolution type event- getting rid of one bad leader just to put more bad leaders in power. The Muslim Brotherhood will be no better for true democracy, freedom of speech, or rights of women than Assad was, and I believe they will be worse.
 

DeletedUser15641

Due to all the bias happened in the past, I don't know what to believe now except that whoever has cash is the one who is in power not the puppets.

The Iraqi invasion on Kuwait wasn't due to trying to take over but it happened due to some other foreign influence, as the same as the Arab spring but why is a question, but you never really know the truth of such things unless you hear it from someone you'd trust, the media is a cruel one and now governments are too but to some extent.

I'd say if it was to me, I'd say try getting the chemical weapons without anyone knowing you were there!

Well, I don't really know if it was any of em in my opinion.
 

DeletedUser16008

Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".


Proof still required, I would hold off judging anyone in light of the bogus WMD claims about Iraq in the past.

Further more I would also keep an open mind of where the nerve agent sarin came from and or who has supplied it. Given these are rebels and unlikely to have thier own stash but rather it being "donated" or purchased.

Feb 28, 2013 – John Kerry offers $60m in 'non-lethal' assistance for Syrian opposition fighting Bashar al-Assad.

This is about positioning and regional influence and it should not be overlooked that it is highly possible Sarin has come via a western source. You won't read about that on the BBC
 

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
Internet and phone/mobile communication is dead in Syria at the moment: http://labs.umbrella.com/2013/05/07/breaking-news-traffic-from-syria-disappears-from-internet/

Cables were probably not cut physically (there's four, three under the sea and one on land). The same thing happened November last year.

Google's "speak2tweet" which tweets voice messages from your phone for you has been turned back on, but it's full of spam.

I'll just throw this out there, since there's nothing else at the moment:
https://www.facebook.com/syrian.revo.intelligence?ref=stream
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser16008

Last week Israel were forced to admit yet another unprovoked attack on Syria.

(Reuters) - Israel played down weekend air strikes close to Damascus reported to have killed dozens of Syrian soldiers, saying they were not aimed at influencing its neighbor's civil war but only at stopping Iranian missiles reaching Lebanese Hezbollah militants.

"There are no winds of war," Yair Golan, the general commanding Israeli forces on the Syrian and Lebanese fronts, told reporters while out jogging with troops."Do you see tension? There is no tension. Do I look tense to you?" he said, according to the Maariv NRG news website.

Of course he would'nt be tense its all going according to plan and air strikes on whoever your not actually at war with is all just in a days work .... typical behaviour from Israel.

The US has recently signed a treaty that in the event of Israel going to war the US would fully support both militarily and financially.

A new resolution passed by a United States Senate committee states the United States will be committed to preventing the emergence of a nuclear Iran and fully back Israel if that state believes military action against Iran is necessary.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/348190#ixzz2Si4GTQqV

Israel is clearly messing about as usual and taking every opportunity to happily destabilise things in the region further if possible. The US is more than happy for Israel to antagonise Syria and thereby Iran as at the moment the US does NOT have the popular opinion behind it either internationally or domestically to go to war or launch an attack on Iran, something it would dearly love an excuse to do.

If Israel can spark something off or even decide to just go for it then the US is obliged to step in and back them up.... Syria is key to regional stability atm with the likes of Iran Russia and China all having made it clear intervention by the west in Syria will not be tolerated.
 

DeletedUser34315

I'd say that if Iran actually did get nuclear weapons, that would destabilize the area FAR more than anything else, as well as open the possibility of nuclear annihilation for Iran and Israel.
 

DeletedUser15641

Well, if U.S. backs Israel attack onto Syria, its okay for Kuwait, but if it was Iran, Kuwait had already been threatened with war due to US army bases in Kuwait.
 

DeletedUser16008

I'd say that if Iran actually did get nuclear weapons, that would destabilize the area FAR more than anything else, as well as open the possibility of nuclear annihilation for Iran and Israel.

I have long since come to the conclusion that the propaganda fear of Iran gaining nuclear weaponry in order that it may destroy itself by setting off a nuclear exchange with Israel to be remote at best. In truth it would likely improve the chances of peace and make all parties that much more willing to talk a solution.

It is the prospect of a level playing field Israel and the US fear more than anything else i'm sure. You cannot bully and threaten someone with annihilation so easy when your ass is on the line as well.

It is all about the oil and Iran is #3. Syria is a backdoor/sideshow into yet another gulf regional conflict and ergo provides a window of opportunity and possible excuse to secure this valuable resource. Make no mistake ultimately its all about the oil, power and money... same thing different year.
 

DeletedUser34315

I have long since come to the conclusion that the propaganda fear of Iran gaining nuclear weaponry in order that it may destroy itself by setting off a nuclear exchange with Israel to be remote at best. In truth it would likely improve the chances of peace and make all parties that much more willing to talk a solution.

It is the prospect of a level playing field Israel and the US fear more than anything else i'm sure. You cannot bully and threaten someone with annihilation so easy when your ass is on the line as well.

It is all about the oil and Iran is #3. Syria is a backdoor/sideshow into yet another gulf regional conflict and ergo provides a window of opportunity and possible excuse to secure this valuable resource. Make no mistake ultimately its all about the oil, power and money... same thing different year.

The thing that concerns me about Israel, and more so about Iran is that the threat of MAD might not work.
There's religious extremism on both sides- and if a person is convinced they will go to heaven for killing their god's enemies, being killed in return isn't that big of a threat.
Iran's president especially has publicly stated he wants Israel to be "wiped off the map".
I can see why Israel would be so alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
 

DeletedUser16008

No leader has ever been known for willingly committing suicide along with their entire nation.

In truth these leaders be it dictator, elected or monarch have a very good sense of self preservation and self worth. Indeed most are educated in the west and nowhere near as different nor radical as the media likes to portray.

Radicals or not they don't reside in the positions required to act militarily with impunity, this is just boogyman territory and well trodden propaganda.

Does it not concern you that the west seems to be supporting a Rebel (terrorist) faction that are in fact mainly the Muslim Brotherhood ? This is a Shia Sunni conflict as much as anything and the waters are pretty muddy already. The winning outcome is unlikely to be well disposed towards the west regardless if not worse for meddling.
 

DeletedUser34315

The whole war seems like a French Revolution type event- getting rid of one bad leader just to put more bad leaders in power. The Muslim Brotherhood will be no better for true democracy, freedom of speech, or rights of women than Assad was, and I believe they will be worse.

Yes, it does bother me that the west sided with the rebels, at least initially.
 

DeletedUser15641

Building ties is what they think they are doing but imo they have a bad ally which would go along with whomever has there support which means, if your an ally today, you might be an enemy in the other minute.

But I ain't sure who made Muslim brotherhood due to too much misleading media, etc etc.

I'd say just nuke the whole world and it would be more simple :p

just hope that its justice would happen against anykind of crime etc etc.
 

DeletedUser

No leader has ever been known for willingly committing suicide along with their entire nation.
Umm, 68 world leaders committed suicide. A specific example of "an entire nation willingly committing suicide," we have Germany in 1945, in which a documented 7500 people committed suicide (many leaders and military officers included), although the numbers are speculated to be well over 10,000. Then there's the smaller factions, such as the Jonestown massacre of 1978, and the suicides of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in 2000. There are also many other instances in history where suicide was preferred over surrender.

Assuming others carry the same ideals of self-preservation is a poor card to bet on.

Does it not concern you that the west seems to be supporting a Rebel (terrorist) faction that are in fact mainly the Muslim Brotherhood ?
The initial uprisings in Syria were not led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and it was at this time that U.S. political leaders posed support in defense of citizens. However, support waned as the Muslim Brotherhood slowly, over the course of two years, became the dominant opposition in Syria.

This is a Shia Sunni conflict as much as anything and the waters are pretty muddy already.
Umm, no. Bashar al-Assad and many of the Syrian leaders are Alawite, although the bulk of the Baath party is Sunni. Bashar al-Assad's administration and the Iranian government (Shiites) have strong ties. The conflict is not a religious one, but there is indeed religious camping going on and there are groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that are trying to make it about religion.

The winning outcome is unlikely to be well disposed towards the west regardless if not worse for meddling.
There is no evidence to support this assumption.
 

DeletedUser1121

The winning outcome is unlikely to be well disposed towards the west regardless if not worse for meddling.

There is no evidence to support this assumption.

No evidence, maybe. But looking at where the support is coming from right now, Vic does have a point.

Hezbolla and Iran are siding with the current regime. In fact, Hezbolla has gotten some critical weapons to fight Israel after their attack on Syria last week.

Furthermore, support for the Muslim brotherhood is coming from the Arab league which is destabilising the situation even more. Iran is now accusing the Arab league to side with the west.

Seeing all these things, I can imagine people sharing Vic his point of view.

Come to think of it, if you simplify the matter, there is only one logical next step..

Iran and Hezbolla support Syria regime -> Israel attacks regime -> Arab league supports rebels -> Iran making trouble with the Arab league -> next step?

Israel would now support the Arab nations who make the Arab league? Or is this to easy to assume ;)
 

DeletedUser15641

Umm, 68 world leaders committed suicide. A specific example of "an entire nation willingly committing suicide," we have Germany in 1945, in which a documented 7500 people committed suicide (many leaders and military officers included), although the numbers are speculated to be well over 10,000. Then there's the smaller factions, such as the Jonestown massacre of 1978, and the suicides of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in 2000. There are also many other instances in history where suicide was preferred over surrender.

Assuming others carry the same ideals of self-preservation is a poor card to bet on.

The initial uprisings in Syria were not led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and it was at this time that U.S. political leaders posed support in defense of citizens. However, support waned as the Muslim Brotherhood slowly, over the course of two years, became the dominant opposition in Syria.


Umm, no. Bashar al-Assad and many of the Syrian leaders are Alawite, although the bulk of the Baath party is Sunni. Bashar al-Assad's administration and the Iranian government (Shiites) have strong ties. The conflict is not a religious one, but there is indeed religious camping going on and there are groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that are trying to make it about religion.


There is no evidence to support this assumption.

Actually, genocide is believed to have taken part from the regime.

UN isn't saying that I think though its otherwise, so its mostly Sunni versus alawite but with Shiite support and Hezbollah is and always had been an ally of Iran so that means that any weapons are originally from Iran is a possibility too.

Israel might be the next war due to its bombardment as retaliation is well known but I think that the regime will try to end the civil war and than retaliate against Israel.

Or they'd at least regroup and prepare themselves which would be the best and smartest option.

In order to retaliate, they'd try sending death squads camouflaged with civilian clothes etc.
 

DeletedUser34315

Israel might be the next war due to its bombardment as retaliation is well known but I think that the regime will try to end the civil war and than retaliate against Israel.

Or they'd at least regroup and prepare themselves which would be the best and smartest option.

In order to retaliate, they'd try sending death squads camouflaged with civilian clothes etc.


Syria doesn't stand a chance against Israel by itself. Unless the other neighboring countries joined in, Syria would lose badly, and quickly.
 

DeletedUser16008

Umm, 68 world leaders committed suicide. A specific example of "an entire nation willingly committing suicide," we have Germany in 1945, in which a documented 7500 people committed suicide (many leaders and military officers included), although the numbers are speculated to be well over 10,000. Then there's the smaller factions, such as the Jonestown massacre of 1978, and the suicides of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in 2000. There are also many other instances in history where suicide was preferred over surrender.

Assuming others carry the same ideals of self-preservation is a poor card to bet on.

Try putting it into context, we were talking about taking a country into a nuclear exchange from the off which would be pre conceived mass suicide, not the same thing at all. Unless your trying to suggest that for some reason the hate of Israel who actually have nothing in terms of resource value would be enough for the 3rd biggest oil rich country in the world in the event of gaining nuclear capability to throw everything away including the respect they would have to be shown internationally and the wealth economically by going to an nuke exchange with Israel.

This is purely a western propagandist supposition, scaremongering and utterly ridiculous

If your suggesting such an option by Iran would be likely then i'm calling you a hack.

The initial uprisings in Syria were not led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and it was at this time that U.S. political leaders posed support in defense of citizens. However, support waned as the Muslim Brotherhood slowly, over the course of two years, became the dominant opposition in Syria.

US support has waned, your kidding me right ? the only reason its backed off publicly is the international spotlight and objections and statements made by various other countries very loudly, China and Russia being the most obvious but by no means alone, and other international organisations. The Muslim brotherhood, House of Saud, terrorism, rebellion, US government hypocracy, big international business, Military Contracts, Petro Dollar I could go on and on adding to the list ...all linked at the bank, have been for decades.

Id rather not get into Geopolitics but suffice to say its all about the public perception not about what is right or wrong because that changes from year to year

When the US or west supports a non elected group they are called Rebels, when it dosnt they are called Terrorists. Hypocrisy at its finest can be seen in Afghanistan and its Anglo Soviet American coalition attempts to play all sides and cards relabelling as they go, to the point of creating a self serving boogey man war on "terrorism."

Umm, no. Bashar al-Assad and many of the Syrian leaders are Alawite, although the bulk of the Baath party is Sunni. Bashar al-Assad's administration and the Iranian government (Shiites) have strong ties. The conflict is not a religious one, but there is indeed religious camping going on and there are groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that are trying to make it about religion.

The conflict is about whatever the players involved decide it is.

Of course its as much religious as anything is within the region. Periodical historical persecution by the Sunni majority makes Alawite's naturally an allie of Iranian Shiites, it stems from the close strategic alliance between the Assad family and the Iranian regime since the 70s but over the past 40 years the ties have grown not waned and are still very strong,agreed its a misconception they are one and the same but they are closely allied. The moment a regime in the region looks to be in for a change out come the various flags, it is all interwoven, it dosnt matter on what level they are flown be it political ethnic or religious , as long as they get attention. So yes its as much religious as anything else, at least in public view.

There is no evidence to support this assumption.

By evidence you mean like there was unrefutable WMD in Iraq ? no not that kind of evidence, the real easy to see, been there, made things worse and here we are again as usual, common sense kind of evidence.

The question remains on the chemical incident and the finger is pointed squarely at western backed Terrorists or if you prefer Rebels, depending on the media you get fed.

Dosn't look too rosy to me :no:
 

DeletedUser

Israel has made it abundantly clear, on many instances, that if they feel they are going to be destroyed, they will use their nuclear weapons. The issue isn't whether Iran (and other nations) will run to nuclear war, it's whether they'll call Israel's bluff. A nuclear exchange would be the result of an instance in which one nation or the other believes they are going to be annihilated. Many instances in the past, of mass suicides, was the result of one side realizing they were going to lose and opting to die instead of surrendering, being killed, tortured, raped, maimed, and/or enslaved.

In other words it is far more often the last acts, not the first acts, of a conflict that result in extreme actions.

When the US or west supports a non elected group they are called Rebels, when it dosnt they are called Terrorists.
Generalizations are not a good measure of a good debate, nor is touting conspiracy theories by intentionally posing faux ownership to mislabeling.

The label of terrorists are posed to those who attack non-combatants with the goal of inciting fear in the populace. It is generally aimed at democracies/republics in an effort to cause the citizens to act in fear when they vote (as what happened when, post 9/11, the U.S. Congress happily gave carte blanche to Bush Jr for a war in Iraq/Afghanistan, which ultimately strengthened the jihad movement and exponentially bloated the al-qaeda ranks). The label of rebels/insurgents is posed to people who are directly combating a military and/or government.

Part of the problem here is the confusion of urban guerrilla warfare with that of terrorists hiding in populated civilian areas.

Of course its as much religious as anything is within the region. Periodical historical persecution by the Sunni majority makes Alawite's naturally an allie of Iranian Shiites,
Syria does not have a historical persecution of the Sunni majority. You're confusing instances in other middle eastern countries. Indeed the opposite has happened in Syria, where Alawites were persecuted by both Sunni and Shiite.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top