1. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    It's already seeping into the minds of Millions of Americans that the rebels claimed responsibility. But no one has actually poked holes in the Rebels' story...

    I found a blog called http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/09/chemical-weapons-specialists-on-claims.html which raises some interesting points which I highlighted on a new article on my site.


    Lots more holes to this story than the original, don't ya think? I mean, after all, it's being promoted by infowars. Which should be an automatic red flag for everybody!

    I just spent some more time reading this blog, and he rips apart just about every rebel supporting YT video out there. It's definitely worth a looksie! http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2013
  2. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    But Saudi does not have a chemical weapon stockpile, but Assad did.
  3. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

  4. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    Syria is estimated to have the third largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world after the US and Russia, with their own production facilities:


    I'm not sure why Saudi Arabia was chosen as the supplier of the weapons for this theory. They're a signed and ratified member of the Chemical Weapons Convention and have not declared any chemical weapons production facilities. I'm not sure why a country at the least attempting to go legit would break international law in order to support a country they already have strained relations with...?

    Last edited: Sep 4, 2013
  5. moderateGOP

    moderateGOP Active Member

    I don't know why either. Daily Mail had this story too, but then pulled it because it's even too fake for them!!! They also run this story which has the same images and info, but different headline. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html
  6. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    You do realise that virtually everything you post is 'political rhetoric' and not debunking at all?

    Poking holes by use of rhetoric is not debunking. Your assertions are unfounded and therefore bunk.

    The above quote is farcical bunk for the following reasons.

    It is clearly set out why Prince Bandar is likely engaged in this subterfuge... It has been going on for years and he did not "one day decide" as your source states.

    Also he did not 'try to sell to Al Nusra, he bankrolls them and supplied the chemicals (according to some sources), so you are twisting the allegations, (deliberately?)

    The chemicals were unstable and needed special training to use 'safely', i.e. without harming the 'users' and the 'users' did not have the training nor proper contained storage facilities.

    As for 'deals with Russia', (Syria's 'ally'), that is a complete fabrication by your source. The allegation is that Bandar tried to bribe Russia with money and promises of safety of interests and when that failed some pretty thinly veiled threats were issued.

    This is also political rhetoric but from the other side, as it cannot be proven but it makes sense and appears likely given what evidence there is.

    Ergo at the very least you have misrepresented 'a conspiracy allegation' in farcical terms.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2013
  7. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    Why would they would bother getting chemical weapons from Saudi Arabia when the country has an enormous stockpile and their own production facilities?

    Saudi Arabia does not have any chemical weapons facilities of their own. Furthermore, chemical weapons don't even look like the pictures shown(though I can understand as a layperson you might see "corrosive" and think it's plausible).
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I think most people, (inc me) have seen enough 'corrosive' warnings on industrial and domestic labels to realise that doesn't mean they are 'CW's' but I do agree the pic was a bit misleading/irrelevant and I suggest they put it there for dramatic effect which is a small thing when you take into account the vast numbers of 'dramatic effects used by the U.S Govt to railroad support for their impending slaughter... I mean attack. Exaggerating 350 tragic deaths by CW's up to 1400 tragic deaths by CW's being only one of many 'dramatic effects'.

    I don't think you are suggesting the 'rebel forces' have enormous stockpiles or their own production facilities so you must be referring to Syrian Govt. No one is suggesting Saud's supplied the Syrian Govt.

    You say the Saud's do not have CW's but how do you know. Just because they do not shout about it like Israel (or anyone else for that matter), doesn't shout about Israel illegally having nuclear bombs/missiles... doesn't mean they don't have them and cannot produce them. But no we will limit our wrath to Iran daring to want nuclear power for it's citizens.

    Do you dispute the Saudi's have funded and instigated foreign fighters to attack the legitimate Syrian govt which is actually no worse than the Saudi govt's track record and possibly better, for at least the last two years?

    Do you dispute it is part of a plan going back to at least 1995 and reaffirmed by many statements and plans and actions and lies?

    Seems a bit more scientific than "Assad did it.. we just know because he is so nasty", (paraphrased)

    Normally you set great store by science so why the abondonment of the only scientific evidence available in favour of rhetoric and unfounded accusations. Guess it must be a 'tribal thing'. Truth is truth and science is science until it is inconvenient.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2013
  9. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    oh the irony...:rolleyes: (sorry- couldn't resist)

    ..and to make the post on topic- this was in the NYT today- interesting claim- although it will no doubt be waved away by some as bought and paid for propaganda:

    • Like Like x 1
  10. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Considering that 4kg of the stuff, (as taken from the 'rebels' by the Turkish army), is enough to wipe out many thousands, I doubt that assessment very much.
  11. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    of course, you do...

    But why? 4kg = 4-liters...so, why does that make you doubt the assessment that its unlikely the rebels could generate a 50-liter (50kg) payload and deliver it?

    BTW- I assume you a referring to the all knowing RT report- they say it was only 2kg:

  12. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    The FSA claim has been revised to ~1700 while the US's claim remains the same. Meanwhile, there's a spectrum in between the lowest figures(provided by the Syrian state media) and the FSA's.

    Illegal or not, Israel doesn't spout violent, radical rhetoric about wiping another race off the face of the earth because of religious ideology. I'll take that any day over innocent ol' Iran's claims of a peaceful nuclear energy program. But that's a different discussion.

    So which is more realistic to you: Assad doesn't play nicely enough with the rest of the world's business interests but is so important yet untouchable that he needs to be subversively toppled over decades? Or that the Assad regime has a terrible track record with regards to human rights and has had this coming for quite some time?

    I would like to see this independently corroborated by an outlet other than an officially sanctioned outlet by the Pakistani government, but that's just me. Maybe they could at least link to their sources?
    There's no discounting the possibility that the rebels have and could use chemical weapons, but the Ghouta attacks were coordinated on a large scale. There is a growing body of evidence that the SA is to blame(though I agree whether or not that can be laid at Assad's feet is totally up for debate).



    Seems very sketchy if the Syrian government is eager to prove their innocence.
  13. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So you want to repeat (as a debunking argument) a deliberate mistranslation/misinterpretation/misrepresentation of a stated aim. The aim being, the end of the imposed state of Israel by the U.S and U.K by the forced eviction of the indigenous people of the land by force and slaughter and driving them into the sea. Like Iran has stated, 'if the West feels so bad about what happened to the Jews in WW2, they should have given them their own state within Germany or America.

    But no, it is very useful to have Israel in the M.E as an agent provocateur. Tell me, when do you think the American Indians are going to given back their lands?

    They have a better record of non aggression toward neighbouring countries (or far away countries), than either the U.S, U.K or Israel. Which one of those can claim not to have started a war in the last 300 years?

    I would say that was beyond reasonable doubt and is attested to by word and deed.

    What like the U.S's buddies, Saudi, Oman, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt etc etc And what do you wind up with for all that scheming?

    Oh, it's not up to the standard of evidence that the U.S puts out like culpability for CW attacks, WMD's, Nuclear powered high tec caves and nuclear bombs with fuses poking out the top?
    It was hardly large scale as far as the CW's were concerned. CW's can kill many thousands deployed professionally. There is no evidence that Assad did it, only rhetoric. This is hardly debunking. Simply saying he did it is not evidence. So you discount the scientific evidence from a certified lab that says it was 'home made' gas and delivery system? On what basis ... 'Oh, the Russians say it so it must be false because they are the baddies'?

    More bunk. You cannot say that 'because Assad attacked that area with conventional weapons, he must also have attacked with CW as well. That is biased political conjecture in line with the U.S stated aim of deposing Assad. If the U.S had absolute proof positive that the rebels did it, can you honestly imagine Obama saying 'No, no, it wasn't Assad. Leave him alone. It was the rebels and we are now going to teach them a lesson for doing it'. Of course he wouldn't and you know it.


    That would play out well wouldn't it. 'Weapons inspectors killed whilst searching for evidence. Assad blamed for murder'
    I think there is little doubt it was used. By whom is the question.

    Rhetoric and baseless accusations.
    Exactly. Speculation. But the U.S is using every ounce of manipulative pressure it can muster to bend other governments to its will.

    I thought the burden of proof was on the accuser. And if you want to talk 'sketchy', you should read the U.S 'evidence'... I mean unfounded accusations. Are you really suggesting that Assad would set off a CW attack 15 minutes away from the weapons inspector's hotel, just after they arrived and risk allowing the U.S the excuse they have been desperate for for years to attack his country like they did with Iraq. :rolleyes:
  14. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    I'm sorry, I've been debating under the premise that this was about the claims that opposition fighters were behind the Ghouta attacks, when really this is about the rebels during the entire civil war. I have pointed out it's likely that some rebel factions have in their possession or have used chemical weapons. We've seen small reports over the last 2 years pointing fingers at both sides to that end, but nothing concrete or on the scale of the most recent incident.

    With regards to the Ghouta attack: I did say in my post that it's entirely debatable whether the orders came from Assad himself. Again and again, though, Oxymoron, it seems you're saying it was either directly from Assad or from the rebels, which is a nebulous group that can't really be lumped together in any respect other than they all want to see Assad gone. I entirely agree it would be silly of him to do such a thing with UN inspectors present. I think more realistically the order was given by someone lower within the ranks of the SA(per the intercepted communications). I think it's likely that they had a hand in it. The SA denied the UN inspectors access for 3 days, subsequently shelled the area afterwards, and then permitted them only an hour and a half to do their work. That is sketchy.

    It's exceptionally unlikely that the rebels could do such a thing, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, there are hundreds of opposition factions in Syria, many of whom are fighting each other in addition to the government - I seriously doubt they are cohesive enough to pull off a coordinated attack across such a wide area so effectively. If we're going to point the finger at the opposition, I think we need to declare precisely who. Secondly, chemical weapons require not only equipment to store, transport, mix and deliver them but extensive experience to do all of that without killing yourself in the process. Your own DND source, should it prove to be true, backs up the assertion that the rebel groups are in short supply of both.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I fail to see the relevance of the distinction. Surely their actions throughout are a good indicator of whether or not they were behind the Ghouta attack in terms of releasing CW's. Please elaborate.

    We have seen official reports produced by accredited Russian Chemical Weapons inspectors which clearly states, (with good reason.. namely the gas was home made and the delivery system was home made as well and the type used by the rebels), why the CW attacks actually came from 'the rebels'

    I would suggest strongly that that is a willful misinterpretation of what I said. As far as Assad being culpable, I am unaware that any distinction had been made or accounted for in regards of reaction by the U.S, (and any other nation it may or may not succeed in pressuring to support it), regarding whether Assad ordered or had pre knowledge of Govt forces using CW's. It has always, AFAICS been the case put forward by the U.S that i) It was the Assad Govt forces who used the CW's and ii) Assad was responsible for any actions whether authorised or not.

    As for the 'nebulousness' of the 'rebels', what has that got to do with anything. It would likely be, that if indeed the 'rebels' were responsible, it would be a small section of them, (probably Al Nusra), who planned and carried out the conspiracy and they would likely have used other 'not in the know elements' to actually carry out the attacks. There are in fact numerous reports actually stating that this was the case. "My son was killed, he was carrying weapons and packages that he didn't know what they were" etc.

    It would be the actions of a suicidal maniac and there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary.

    You think, the U.S think, Joe blogs thinks it likely... WTF. Are you seriously justifying the use of hundreds of missiles which will likely kill thousands of people on the basis of 'I think, they think'?
    It is absolute madness. Whatever happened to getting evidence and what about entering into diplomatic talks specifically on the subject of CW's? And where are these 'intercepted messages', who are they from and to and what do they say and how were they obtained and why are they not brought forward for analysis?

    That is ridiculous. Safety of the inspectors was the responsibility of the Syrian Govt and they were under sniper fire and who knows what else. It didn't take them long to get their samples and they themselves were happy that they got the necessary evidence... they just haven't had time to properly analyse it and write a report. But no the U.S wanted its lightning strike last wekend even whilst the inspectors were still there.

    That didn't stop them from taking out the WTC's did it? So why cannot 'in your opinion', a small group set off some CW's, which you agree they likely have and are capable of manufacturing anyway?

    So 'you don't think' they could do it? You don't think they are organised enough? I thought they were the No1 menace on the planet and that is why we needed the War on Terror to stamp them out. Not going very well that, is it? Terrorists growing in numbers and power exponentially. 'I think' the War on Terror is a waste of time, unless there is an ulterior motive and it is really a War on The People in which everyone is surveilled and watched as if they were a terrorist... all apart from the actual terrorists that is.

    But these are special terrorists, deadly and dedicated and capable of nuking the U.S one minute and tearing a countries infrastructure to pieces fighting a powerful Syrian army but at the same time being so nebulous and dumb they couldn't organise a p... up in a brewery the next. Just what the doctor ordered... tailor made 'Universal Terrorists' on demand. The ultimate 'plausible deniability'

    Stores have been found. The Turkish Army captured 4KG of Sarin from the rebels in April which was enough to kill millions. All they need to do is tell some young or dumb fighters to carry this and load that and fire the other and hey presto... who cares if they die as well they are simply unwitting martyrs... Allah Ahkbar or whatever.

    You really seem to make it all up as you go along. I wonder where you get it from?
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  16. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    There is a strong case to be made that both sides have the propensity to do terrible things, I absolutely agree. But the discrepancy is not in their propensity, but in their capability to do such a thing with any effectiveness on such a large scale. Occam's razor points squarely at the SA.

    Are you referring to the DND article? That was from before the Ghouta attack. I would like some independent corroboration of those claims as well, no sources were provided. But it's besides the point, anyways, the previous chemical weapons incidents in Syria were miniscule in comparison to the Ghouta attack.

    Let's be realistic - even if the strikes were on the scale of the NATO strikes in Libya, in all likelihood the collateral damage would not reach into the thousands. While I'd prefer no strikes and no collateral damage, there's no need for hyperbole here.

    So, the rebels are capable of pulling off this attack, but the government couldn't have fabricated some issues to deny the UN inspectors access for 3 days, shelling the area during that period, and shortening the time they were allowed to ~1.5 hours. Talk about doublethink, in this case the little guy must have orchestrated this false flag and the government is really the good guy taking the fall.

    In fact, let's apply your logic to the sniper attack on the convoy. It would be silly for the rebels to have attacked the UN convoy, seeing as they want the inspectors to see the affected area whether or not it was staged. The case for it being an accident is slim, seeing as the convoy was white, new SUVs with clear UN labels on them.

    Please, share with me the commentary from the UN inspectors illustrating how pleased they were with the SA's accommodations.

    I agreed that it's possible they have them, not that they were capable of manufacturing them or using them effectively. Sarin is difficult to make well, even by competent individuals. When it's impure, it's not very effective. Look into these incidents and note the perpetrators all had masters and postdocs in medicine and physics and carried out their attacks in the subways of the most densely populated city in the world:


    CWs are an incredibly dangerous thing to store and handle, let alone use. The DND article demonstrates the danger. I think it's unlikely they not only managed to effectively use the weapons but pulled off an attack of this scale in such a manner that it effectively frames the SA. CW are tricky to use with any effectiveness.

    There's a lot of fluff here that suggests a misunderstanding of what Terrorism is and what qualifies someone as a Terrorist. Noone is claiming that there is this monolithic entity known as the terrorists who are all working in cohesion together against the west. It's disparate entities, in many cases directly conflicting each other. It seems that's your interpretation of harsh laws and the erosion of civil rights in the name of fighting "terrorism"(which, like yourself, I totally disagree with - but I recognize the distinction between the actuality of terrorism and the abuse of the term for political reasons).
    They don't all target the west, in fact most of the deadliest attacks since 9/11 did not occur in the west.

    This is a gross oversimplification of what it takes to employ Sarin. Sources I've read indicate that chemical rockets were found in the affected areas, which are among the few delivery methods fitting the description of the scale of the attack. I doubt whatever group of rebels which you're suggesting pulled off this false flag would not only have the equipment and training necessary but were allowed into SA controlled areas in order to fire them to begin with, resulting in the SA being framed.

    What I'd really like to know is, given that these rebel groups are supported by NATO and oh-so-capable enough to pull of a false flag attack on this scale, why they didn't hit the ball out of the park? There's more than enough CW in Syria to kill everyone there. Surely a bigger attack over a longer period of time would have done more to convince the outside world to intervene.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  17. xenon

    xenon Active Member

    Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons
    CNN Elise Labott December 9th, 2012

    The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

    The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

    The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American.

    One of the aims, the sources said, is to try to get real time surveillance of the sites because the international community would not have time to prevent the use of the weapons otherwise. The program could explain how U.S. intelligence was able to learn what U.S. officials said was evidence the Assad government is mixing precursors for chemical weapons and loading those compounds into bombs. The intelligence, one U.S. official told CNN last week, came not just from satellite surveillance, but also from information provided by people. The official would not say whether the human intelligence came from telephone intercepts, defectors or people inside Syria.

    The U.S. military is also working with neighboring Jordan's military to train for the potential need to secure chemical weapons sites. But U.S. troops cannot train rebel forces because the United States has only authorized nonlethal aid for the opposition.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seems to be backing off, at least for now, on the possible use of chemical weapons, after the major international outcry over the military activity, according to several sources. CNN reported Friday that the bombs are not being moved to any delivery devices and that the United States was not aware of any significant additional movement of chemical materials.

    The Russians, who have allied with Syria, sent several strong messages to the Assad government over the past week against using chemical weapons, saying doing so would be a red line and Assad would lose Russia's support if he did. However, the sources said that the lull in activity could be short-lived and they believe that, if desperate enough, Assad would not hesitate to use such weapons.
    Backing Up Globalization With Military Might <----The best explanation for all these wars.
  18. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    Makes complete sense. There is a non-zero probability that the opposition would encounter chemical weapons stock piles. Did you read the article? Not a word about *using* the weapons, just sensible precaution considering the risks of a civil war in the country with the third largest CW stockpile in the world.

    But, surely this means we trained them to fake the attack, maiming and killing over a thousand of their own people in the process and all for what - a divided International community that still has yet to respond in any way other than with words. Wait a minute, wouldn't the NWO simply have had the US bomb Syria already? What's all this fuss about democratic process and international consensus?

    Sounds like more "the US is the cause of the world's problems" claptrap. The world is complex. The US isn't innocent, but trying to hang the world's problems around solely its neck is unproductive and out of touch with reality.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  19. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    We have also seen reports from accredited chemical weapons inspectors that the rebels could not have devised a delivery system for such a large payload. Do you simply ignore that since its goes against your narrative? Do you trust the Russians implicitly or is it possible they have an incentive to lay the blame on the rebels?


    Also- why the discrepancy in your claim that Turkey found "4KG" - when RT claims it was only 2KG? How do you know that would be enough to kill millions? The report from Lloyd said the warhead delivered 50KG- 13 gallons- which required a delivery warhead beyond the rebels capability. Can you elucidate on your knowledge of delivery systems And the rebels capabilities to deliver such a large payload?
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? A couple of 'U.S scientists' watch you tube and back up the U.S Govt assessment :rolleyes:

    Lets examine that statement logically. It is agreed that Al Nusra terrorists can manufacture the rockets but :

    'If the payload estimates' (from watching you tube) are correct "only the Syrian government could have achieved such a large volume of production." Now bearing in mind that the confirmed death count is 350 deaths from CW's and it appears the U.S death of 1400 is a conflation of conventional weapons plus CW's and 2kg of sarin is enough to kill millions... and 50 litres would weigh over 100 kg, how do you reconcile the miniscule amount of deaths caused. (in no way diminishing the tragedy of the deaths but simply on a logical basis).

    Why use CW's when they are so ineffective at killing people and the repercussions are so enormous?

    Yes sorry it was 2KG
    RT told me but it may have been many thousands.
    I think I pretty much covered that above, (it was 50 litres not 50kg) i.e. over 100kg... 2kg kills millions... 350 confirmed/undisputed deaths = v small payloads.

    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  21. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    And yet you hinge your overall belief on what amounts to an equivalent body of evidence from an entirely separate incident.

    Both parties are potentially culpable. The difference is that one of them - the one with a history of human rights abuses spanning decades - is vastly better equipped, trained and funded by the very state that is also in possession of one of the largest CW stockpiles in the world.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    This argument is predictably circular.

    The U.S is the party which is pressing madly to blame one side and unleash its wardogs in yet another spectacular fireworks display of 100's of missiles in which vastly more innocents will be killed than the 350 confirmed victims based on intelligence gathered from you tube and an undeniable agenda to effect yet another disastrous regime change which would put Jihadist extremists (who are running around killing christians by sawing their heads off with bread knives and eating peoples hearts as well as masses of other documented atrocities). The same people who we are all being surveilled to unprecedented and illegal lengths for, allegedly in a bid to fight these sworn enemies of America and democracy in general.

    The facts are simple and incontrovertible.

    The U.S has fomented many regime changes in the M.E and each one has been an absolute unmitigated disaster for the people who have then had to suffer wars and tyranny and death and destruction simply as a price for the U.S furthering its power grab in the region as it has done for the last 70 or so years.

    If you don't want to be blamed... wind your necks in a few thousand miles and save yourselves a few billion dollars in the process.

    The Assad govt is corrupt and authoritarian but no worse and often much better than others in the region who are the U.S's friends.

    The U.S has no realistic proof that the Assad Govt is responsible and it is equally or more likely that it was done by the terrorists... that is what terrorists do in case you haven't noticed or have forgotten a little incident called 9/11.

    Why I said 'is that a joke', is because I have lost count of the times debunkers on here have ridiculed CTists for analysing pics and YT and drawing conclusions and now you ar justifying it as evidence enough to launch a full scale attack to aid the terrorists who you are allegedly hunting down mercilessly with pin point precision drone strikes which limit collateral damage (read innocent victims minding their own business) at a rate of 1 terrorist to 10 innocents.

    And you say CTists are dangerous delusionals?

    I rest my case.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  23. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    They are military weapons experts from some of the most renowned institutions in the world. Why would their expert analysis be "a joke"? Ideally, they would have had access to the site but in lieu of that viewing video of the impact crater etc would allow them to make an educated assessment based on their expertise.

    ...and yet who were the Russians and what evidence did they have access to? You so readily dismiss the US experts but seem so eager to accept the Russians via RT - an admittedly biased source- without question.

    Forgive me if I am wrong but when I convert litres to KG via online converters I get a one to one ratio....am I missing something?

    Is RT your only source for the claim that 2kg of sarin would kill "millions". Oh wait, you said RT said it was only many thousands...which is it? And can you provide any other source for that other than admittedly biased.

    It seems you are resting your case on exaggerated claims, fuzzy math and political expediency.
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    ah right, I read the thread and I just don't see a compelling argument in either direction. We've got two sided both capable of committing some real atrocities. But we've got other world powers who are not above interfering and manipulating evidence and events to their own ends.

    So while its believable just about any of the players including outside influences could be responsible for the gas attacks. What does the evidence say. Has anyone analyzed the gas and compared it to the known characteristics of any particular countries or groups known stockpiles of similar materials ? Is there any direct evidence available or is this just a bunch of finger pointing ?

    I'm completely on the fence here, so feel free to convince me either way.
  25. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Yeah, doesn't a litre equal a kilo of weight, unless we are dealing with a super-dense liquid?
  26. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    It depends on what the substance is 1Ltr of water = 1kg, a denser material is heavier. Sorry, I didn't go to the trouble of going to an online converter for volume to weight conversion for sarin. My case did not rest on such a conversion, it rested on total lack of substantive evidence implicating the Assad Govt to the CW used, the false claim that Syrian Govt would be guilty of breaking a 100 year ban on CW use the hypocrisy of the U.S kicking up the dust as an excuse to fan the flames in the M.E for its political gain by citing a bogus 100 year International ban on CW's whilst using them themselves and protecting allies who have used them.

    These are the current Countries which are not signatories or have not ratified the agreement:

    So clearly the U.S is lying when they state that Syria has violated a 100 year agreement banning CW's, but you are not interested in such trivialities are you, you just want to nit pick about conversion tables and toxicity levels even though I told you 'yes, I misrecalled the amount as 4kg instead of 2kg'

    Admittedly biased as what, 'Mockingbird media'? As for toxicity, see below:

    The U.S and Russia are still the largest holders of CW's, which is non compliance of the signed agreement. More hypocrisy.

    So the U.S used sarin gas on it's own personnel in 1970... Perhaps it should destroy Detroit to punish itself?

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  27. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    CNN retracted the story as it says in your quote above and here.

    The US did not use sarin gas on its own personnel in 1970.
  28. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Didn't they? How do you know?
    Seen that type of thing before with cops not being guilty of murder and prison guards 'doing nothing wrong' by spraying mentally ill patients with riot gas and hooding them.
  29. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    I don't see any evidence supporting your claim.
  30. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    It's not my claim. It is Oliver and Smith's, claim and it seems to have a great deal of credibility but as we know, if TPTB decide it did not happen, then it did not happen. As already stated this has been evidenced in very many cases involving killings and torture carried out by military and LEO's which despite being filmed have been declared as 'nothing wrong here'. Guess it's all down to semantics and nit picking and absolute authority.

    Case in point. "Assad did it"...

    People don't see any evidence supporting that claim, so they ask, "Did he, how do you know"?... and the answer comes back... "We have classified proof... take our word for it".
  31. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    You did claim it in the post above. There is no proof. Not because the PTB say so but because none has come forth. CNN retracted because they couldn't support the claim. I know you really, really want this to be true but there is no proof.
  32. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    You think that is a powerful argument do you?

    So before bombing the hell out of yet another civilian population and causing more death and misery, where is the proof that Assad deployed the sarin gas and why, even if he did, should innocent people be punished by missile attacks from the U.S?

    Dual standards around proofs and a lot of other things it seems.
  33. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    You made a claim that the US used sarin gas in 1970. I believe that claim is bunk. I supported my belief with evidence. That's it.
  34. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    What evidence are you talking about?

    Oliver and Smith make a compelling case. Compelling cases are good enough for the U.S to act illegally and unilaterally attack a Country that is no threat to it, on fraudulent claims that it has broken a 100 year International agreement, even though Syria denies it. So why should I not believe Oliver and Smith, just because the Pentagon denies it?
  35. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Oliver and Smith did not make a compelling case. That's why CNN retracted the story. That's why, 15 years later nobody mentions it as fact. Putting your claims in bold doesn't make them better.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2013
  36. Boodles

    Boodles Banned Banned

    Oh, I should imagine it will.

    It'd be as well to resist using these American officerial rank euphemisms. You mean bombing a densely populated capital city with Tomahawk cruise missiles, and premeditated mass killing. Call a spade a spade.

    There is the law of unintended consequences. The US military will probably take a hit, early on. I should imagine Tel Aviv and the Israeli border will too. That should cement enough patriotic resolve within your congress to progress a more sustained commitment to achieving the unstated aim of regime change. Folks are getting a taste for chemistery. More to come, I'd say. That'll resolve the moral crisis in the states.

    It was only in July, here, that Mick West - in light of the run of claims of domestic false flags events - posed a question about predicting the next big false flag claim, and looked to Rio 2016 as an example. I said look to the immediate, and look to Damascus and Homs. This, I believe, has been bourne out on the ground.

    There categorically is no genuinely substantive evidence in the public domain at this point in time that Bashar al Assad's government is responsible for this mass casualty bio-chemical weapons attack near Damascus. There are rumoured telephone intercepts by MOSSAD that may indicate this is the case and there are rumoured French satelite images that may indicate launch location and trajectory. Has anyone in the public actually seen or heard these? Has the intelligence been subjectively tested? If so, how and by whom? Weapons inspectors, various laboratories, have concluded, unequivocably, that sarin was used. We have learned that sarin has grades of purity, military and other. Has anyone established, publically, what grade was found in these samples? I gather this would not be a simple process, notwithstanding that, why haven't efforts been publicised? Were the sarin proven a military grade would this exclude rebel involvement? What are the chances the US, with the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world, could have supplied the material? Zero? Were the sarin proven to be of a lesser grade would this exclude Syrian government involvement? If it is clear that the level of expertise needed to deliver such an outcome is extremely high do we simply conclude upon a basis of assumed exclusion of others that the Syrian government is responsible? Who is genuinely capable of planning for such an event? Has anyone noticed I and hundreds of others were being lampooned for bringing to public attention concerns about a possible US homeland exercise planning for a mass casualty bio-chemical weapons attack, only for exactly the same thing to actual happen, and for the first time in 25 years, within days, with the emerging protaganist in this narrative being the very subject of such concerns? That's an aside. More groundedly, where are the missile fragments? What evidence is there of type and range, without the shells? In fact, has anyone actually come across any eye witness account, of any missile at all, that morning, there, as I have not? That's a genuine question. Is the wind blowing east that morning circumstancial evidence or coincedence? What are the SBS and Navy Seals doing out in the Jordanian desert without boats (tongue in cheek)?

    There is little or no substantive evidence to tie this to anyone at all. That is clearly a very satisfactory outcome for whoever has orchestrated it. A false flag is hoisted, watch it remain and sustain through the strait.

    Having just walked to the shop I see the Sunday morning papers here are running a story that, what do you know, the British were, despite denials by their government this week, exporting the chemical constituents of sarin to Syria only last year. What does this tell us? Not a great deal, I suspect. My firm was contracted by the ministery of defence and UKTI to check for awareness of WMD among material and component suppliers. No one had a clue regarding secondary use and the law. Why let a few rules break a good business relationship? Deem it legitimate by asking no questions.

    I also see this morning that British and Syrian fighter jets just had a close run in and test of will above Cyprus (British commonwealth). Could explain all the fighter jets scrambling out over my house yesterday.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  37. Boodles

    Boodles Banned Banned

    Supplied key intelligence to enable Sadam Hussein to sarin gas the Iranians in 1980 though. There is form. Agent Orange was a barrell of laughs for the Vietnamese too. Actually, let's be candid, there is a great deal of form, isn't there, right up until the present day? A form without precedence in human history. I appreciate you were simply making a point about a particular instance in Laos but lets pay dutiful homage to the value of recognising and accepting the form that is so evidently present, and the blackest of marks on our days. It is time to acknowledge and desist. I hate being a pain in the ass but the world is already so reconstructed on this.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  38. Boodles

    Boodles Banned Banned

  39. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Debunk away by nit picking round the edges but over 80% of people are well aware and sickened by war crimes being carried out in our name whilst the U.S despicably uses Al Qaeda as its army of choice to terrorise the M.E.

  40. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yeah and Bradley manning apologised. It's amazing what happens when sufficient force is brought to bear,

    But compare Oliver and Smiths compelling case with all the detailed information and Obama and Kerry's 'compelling case' of rhetoric and accusations with not one jot of evidence.

    You believe what you want Landru. It doesn't make it fact.

    And for the record, "What I really want", is for the U.S to stop being a fascist murdering state and abide by some real morals and laws as it is supposed to do. I would love to be able to side with the U.S and as soon as it stops behaving in this disgusting manner, I will applaud it. Until then I will do my best to highlight it's devious double standards and crimes.

    It would be really nice to see you using your debunking talent to take a look at and demand evidence in regard to the specious claims made for warmongering. Perhaps you will surprise me one day but I shan't hold my breath.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013