Syria.

FWIW, I'm not going to argue about the politics of it, but the UN report is out:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

It details the attack and says definitely that CW were used. Because it's the UN, though, they don't ascribe it to anyone in particular as a matter of policy, not just in this case specifically.

But a couple of things seem to stand out:

1. The amount of sarin used was about 800kg, which is quite a lot to say the least, and points to the Syrian government rather than the rebels.

2. The missiles used as the delivery vehicles have been used multiple times by the regime against civilians before, and

3. The rebels don't have any of those missiles.

Also worth reading this Human Rights Watch report: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta-0

HRW does tend to bolster arguments for humanitarian interventionists in a lot of cases, but they're also extremely critical of U.S. policy in a lot of cases, so I think they're generally reliable. Their credibility is built on issues like this, and I've read excellent reports by them in the past.

Anyway, hope those of you who remain interested find the material relevant, and I shant bump this thread again! I promise!
 
Hey Jim, do you have the UN report of when chemical weapons were used in Vietnam? I wonder if anyone intervened.

While you're at it, can we have the UN reports of white phophorus used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel?
 
He's saying America's government are hypocrites and as such has no right to play world police. Apparently since everyone is a hypocrite no one should do shit about Syria.

We can take this back to Africa when we first started out and just give up on humanity entirely. :loco:
 
Well can you tell me how much humanity there was in Vietnam during the ten years US sprouted the people with Agent Orange? Who helped them then?

Same question for when white phosphore was used which was, in fact quite recently so you can't pull the age card.

Notuern what I'm (trying) to say is that US army/government claims they save people from horrible CWs while they do the exact same thing secretly themselves elsewhere. I know this is useless to try to point out to certain type of people. Not saying you are those people. :)

There are also claims that the CW attack in Syria was staged by the rebels to make it seem like the government's doing. You certainly looked at the pics where the rebels behead goverment prisoners in front of children? They are not human why would you want to help them.
 
^It has nothing to do with an "age card". People kill people. Governments lie, steal, kill, cheat so on and so on. They do this because they're people. I'm not saying the US should go in there but I'm also not ok with "oh well, that's their problem". Of course they claim one thing and do another, they always have. No one else wants to do shit about anything. What would you have us do? Nothing? You're ok with no one doing anything? (whoever/whomever is responsible)

I'm trying to understand your logic here. I'm under no illusion, I realize America is a shit infested Christian hell hole full of liars and killers. I don't even watch TV because I know everything coming from it is shit and a lie. However, just saying "oh well, we're fucking full of shit therefore lets do nothing, derp" is not the answer either.
 
If you believe the USA is going into attack Syria purely because of chemical weapons use then you are a fucking moron* and you probably voted republican. And you probably make a lot more money than me because you say yes to everything.

*Actually you're not a moron, I am just saying that because I am in a foul mood. Sorry if I offended. But you probably did vote republican.
 
JHA said:
Hey Jim, do you have the UN report of when chemical weapons were used in Vietnam? I wonder if anyone intervened.

While you're at it, can we have the UN reports of white phophorus used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel?
Click to expand...

When arguments become battles of equivalency it's a sign of an inability to confront the specific topic at hand. I'm not taking sides in this as I've stated all along my personal view is very conflicted and nebulous.

Your argument can be read as tacit agreement that Assad is indeed responsible for these particular chemical attacks, but your real issue is that the US should not be the ones to respond because they are far from innocent of past discretions. Am I reading this correctly?

I guess I'm just wondering is it a disagreement of what appears to be some form of factual evidence, or just an overall "grrrrrr America....." type thing?

by the way, I'm fine with either - just wondering which it might be.
 
SocialNumb said:
^It has nothing to do with an "age card". People kill people. Governments lie, steal, kill, cheat so on and so on. They do this because they're people. I'm not saying the US should go in there but I'm also not ok with "oh well, that's their problem". Of course they claim one thing and do another, they always have. No one else wants to do shit about anything. What would you have us do? Nothing? You're ok with no one doing anything? (whoever/whomever is responsible)

I'm trying to understand your logic here. I'm under no illusion, I realize America is a shit infested Christian hell hole full of liars and killers. I don't even watch TV because I know everything coming from it is shit and a lie. However, just saying "oh well, we're fucking full of shit therefore lets do nothing, derp" is not the answer either.
Click to expand...
Do you realize your two paragraphs contradict each other?

All I'm saying that someone has to stop retaliating don't you think. Otherwise we have another Iraq/Afghanistan where 3000 people dying results in 250,000 people dying because of the relatiation. That can hardly be called reasonale or sane. I don't think those 250,000 were all planning the attack. For what did those 250,000 people die? To have a piece, well they are not around to see it anymore. I realize this is useless to discuss. You either understand this on a basic level or you don't.
 
Jind said:
When arguments become battles of equivalency it's a sign of an inability to confront the specific topic at hand. I'm not taking sides in this as I've stated all along my personal view is very conflicted and nebulous.

Your argument can be read as tacit agreement that Assad is indeed responsible for these particular chemical attacks, but your real issue is that the US should not be the ones to respond because they are far from innocent of past discretions. Am I reading this correctly?

I guess I'm just wondering is it a disagreement of what appears to be some form of factual evidence, or just an overall "grrrrrr America....." type thing?

by the way, I'm fine with either - just wondering which it might be.
Click to expand...
No, you're reading it wrong. It's not clear who did the CW attack. Sorry, but it's not. Stop watching Fox News. :lol:

I brought Vietnam and the others for simply comparison. Would you have prefererred to other countries intervening US' use of chemical weapons in these cases resulting killing US soldiers? As far as I remember Afghanistan or Iraq or both were deemed illegal invasion and wars by the UN. Israel's accupation and all the shite going on there is also considered illegal by international standards yet no one is crying to intervene and invade Israel. Why is that?

I bet most US citizens have no fucking idea what really happened in Libya before we invaded the country. We as "Western coalition." I live in Europe and I'm not republican.

If I ever fucking meet a fucking living republican it will probably end in a fist fight. :lol:
 
JHA said:
Do you realize your two paragraphs contradict each other?

All I'm saying that someone has to stop retaliating don't you think. Otherwise we have another Iraq/Afghanistan where 3000 people dying results in 250,000 people dying because of the relatiation. That can hardly be called reasonale or sane. I don't think those 250,000 were all planning the attack. For what did those 250,000 people die? To have a piece, well they are not around to see it anymore. I realize this is useless to discuss. You either understand this on a basic level or you don't.
Click to expand...



1: How so? (It's interesting how we read between the lines as individuals)

2: I do not agree with any war. That said, if the world stands by and does nothing about CW's then where does it end? How do we know that with leniency twice the amount might die in one attack? Yes, if America uses CW's the rest of the world should do something about it. They don't.

Personally, I despise war of any kind. I'm just stuck on this ape filled rock. Honestly, I do get you on a basic level. Glorious winged vegan here. :lol:
 
JHA said:
No, you're reading it wrong. It's not clear who did the CW attack. Sorry, but it's not. Stop watching Fox News. :lol:

I brought Vietnam and the others for simply comparison. Would you have prefererred to other countries intervening US' use of chemical weapons in these cases resulting killing US soldiers? As far as I remember Afghanistan or Iraq or both were deemed illegal invasion and wars by the UN. Israel's accupation and all the shite going on there is also considered illegal by international standards yet no one is crying to intervene and invade Israel. Why is that?

I bet most US citizens have no fucking idea what really happened in Libya before we invaded the country. We as "Western coalition." I live in Europe and I'm not republican.

If I ever fucking meet a fucking living republican it will probably end in a fist fight. :lol:
Click to expand...

First off, if you think I watch Fox news you have clearly misidentified me - perhaps there in lies the issue ;)

Funny thing is we probably agree on more things than you think we do - well, at least on one thing you mentioned in this post (I let you wonder which one it is) ;)

I guess my overall question for many in this thread is. Ff the US is the "bad" guy in your narrative, are the others mentioned in this thread really the "good" guys? Or, perhaps those propped up as being the "good" guys are really simply the other side of a two headed coin? Anyone that thinks any of the parties involved are working for purely altruistic reasons is probably delusional.

As I stated earlier - the world is much more grey than many in this thread paint it as, irregardless of their country of origin. There are very few definitive angels or devils in this world - most people think. or can convince themselves, they are doing the "correct" thing at the time they do it.
 
SocialNumb said:
^It has nothing to do with an "age card". People kill people. Governments lie, steal, kill, cheat so on and so on. They do this because they're people. I'm not saying the US should go in there but I'm also not ok with "oh well, that's their problem". Of course they claim one thing and do another, they always have. No one else wants to do shit about anything. What would you have us do? Nothing? You're ok with no one doing anything? (whoever/whomever is responsible)

I'm trying to understand your logic here. I'm under no illusion, I realize America is a shit infested Christian hell hole full of liars and killers. I don't even watch TV because I know everything coming from it is shit and a lie. However, just saying "oh well, we're fucking full of shit therefore lets do nothing, derp" is not the answer either.
Click to expand...

Well put!
 
Does anyone remember back in the day when President Bush said Iraq had sent their chemical weapons to Syria?
Now Obama's saying the chemical weapons are being taken from Syria to Iraq :lol:

My gosh, they can't even be bothered to change the rhetoric.. 'Dick' Cheney's laughter pretty much says it all:




A couple of weeks ago I was watching CNN on the TV and this US senior intelligence officer (didn't catch his name) appeared live saying the evidence presented (to that day) by Obama pointed towards a conventional weapons massacre, rather than chemical weapons being used. He said the people inspecting the bodies should have been in special suits, if the attack was in fact chemical.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/12-u-s-intelligence-officials-tell-obama-it-wasnt-assad.html


Not that it matters, of course.

The media selling of this next war is well on it's way. Only real difference this time around is Russia having an interest, opposite (or, competing) to that of Obama.


Interesting (hopefully not scary) to see how that develops.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SocialNumb said:
1: How so? (It's interesting how we read between the lines as individuals)

2: I do not agree with any war. That said, if the world stands by and does nothing about CW's then where does it end? How do we know that with leniency twice the amount might die in one attack? Yes, if America uses CW's the rest of the world should do something about it. They don't.

Personally, I despise war of any kind. I'm just stuck on this ape filled rock. Honestly, I do get you on a basic level. Glorious winged vegan here. :lol:
Click to expand...
Can you guarantee there will not be twice as many victims if we go there bombing everything to crapshit? Oh sorry they are not victims to US but "collateral damage". Ask Kosovo civilians what they think about NATO "helping" and bombing the country in 1999. You'd be suprised they call NATO imperialists. Or would you really. In case you had no idea Kosovo is in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Metalrob4662
SYRIA _The Uprising *New Metal Song*
Replies
0
Views
378
Musicians Discussion
Metalrob4662
M
Ecliptic Dawn
Hellos from Syria
Replies
0
Views
340
Introduce Yourself!
Ecliptic Dawn
E
tarek.shehabi
Wasaya from Syria (new single feat. Members of Adagio & Wastefall))
Replies
0
Views
251
General Metal Discussion
tarek.shehabi
tarek.shehabi
nialldoran
The first Gothic/doom metal from syria, and i mixed it....
Replies
0
Views
286
Practice Room
nialldoran
N
Dead Winter
Syria
Replies
15
Views
977
Nevermore
Dead Winter
D
Top Bottom
Back