Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria

jvnk08

Senior Member.
On the subject of Israel, we're all aware they were dropping chemical weapons on Gaza between 2008 and 2009, yes? That they lied about it to the UN, right up until one the shells hit the UN headquarters in Gaza, killing hundreds? If chemical weapons are such a 'red line', and the impending military action in Syria is all about the humanitarian effort to prevent further use of chemical weapons, where was the military action against Israel then? Interesting that when a business partner uses chemical weapons against citizens within its own borders they get a wag of the finger, whereas when an obstruction is alleged to have done it, bombing the fuck out of them is the only moral thing to do.

If you're talking about White Phosphorous, let me preface by saying I object to its use as an incendiary, which is the form in which it causes the horrible things it does.

With that said, saying WP is a chemical weapon is a bit disingenuous. It's not used in the way actual contemporary chemical weapons are and does not share the same traits. That's why it doesn't fall under the Chemical Weapons Charter and isn't legally defined as a chemical weapon(instead, in its' incendiary form it's regulated under the Geneva convention among other international treaties). So I'd say its the combination of less stringent, technically(of course not ethically) legally defensible status along with the US's cozy relationship with Israel that are to blame for why Israel didn't suffer any repercussions, not that they "got away with using chemical weapons"(because they didn't). Don't get me wrong, I think the usage is wrong and they should held accountable, but striking a parallel between that WP usage and the Ghouta attack is a stretch.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
With that said, saying WP is a chemical weapon is a bit disingenuous.
The DoD would disagree with you, except when it's convenient not too.
SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS.
IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS

It's not used in the way actual contemporary chemical weapons are and does not share the same traits.
You pack it in shells. You drop it on people. They die horribly. There are indeed differences, but do they matter that much?
That's why it doesn't fall under the Chemical Weapons Charter and isn't legally defined as a chemical weapon(instead, in its' incendiary form it's regulated under the Geneva convention among other international treaties).
I thought it was only admissible in war for illumination/smoke purposes?
Don't get me wrong, I think the usage is wrong and they should held accountable, but striking a parallel between that WP usage and the Ghouta attack is a stretch.
Why? A government deployed prohibited weaponry against civilians within their own borders on both occasions, and if the current allegations are true, both governments lied about it. What's the stretch?

edit: from the Wiki:
No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons".
 
Last edited:

jvnk08

Senior Member.
The DoD would disagree with you, except when it's convenient not too.

WP is a "chemical weapon" in the sense that it's both a chemical(well, an element) and is used in weapons. But it doesn't fit the definition of a contemporary weaponized chemical in that it isn't used explicitly for its toxic effects on biological processes(See the Geneva convention and Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons definition below). Colloquially it can be referred to as a chemical weapon, but when drawing the comparison between WP usage in Gaza and the Ghouta attack it doesn't hold up(for reasons besides those definitions).

Grieves said:
You pack it in shells. You drop it on people. They die horribly. There are indeed differences, but do they matter that much?

Yes, absolutely.

http://www.businessinsider.com/syrias-chemical-weapon-rundown-sarin-vx-mustard-mopp-2012-12

It's those inherent unpredictable properties which set chemical weapons apart and are why they're taken so seriously(not to say WP isn't taken seriously but it's much more controllable).

Grieves said:
I thought it was only admissible in war for illumination purposes?

Wikipedia has this to say:

In essence, WP is not used as a weapon for its toxic effects on biological processes(which do exist but pale in comparison to the likes of Sarin, VX, etc), but rather because it readily bursts into flame. One needs to have ignited WP land on their skin for it to cause the terrible things it does, in contrast with Sarin in which one must simply be in the general vicinity(or upwind) of the chemical's release, or even something as simple as disturbing a deposit months later.

Grieves said:
Why? A government deployed prohibited weaponry against civilians within their own borders on both occasions, and if the current allegations are true, both governments lied about it. What's the stretch?

Well, it's not explicitly prohibited. WP is vastly different from chemical weapons, and the two incidents as a result are markedly different. If the chemicals used in Ghouta were properly mixed and the weather permitted it, the affected areas might be inhospitable for months or years. I totally agree that both governments have lied about it, but really the severity of what they did differs by at least an order of magnitude.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well, it's not explicitly prohibited. WP is vastly different from chemical weapons, and the two incidents as a result are markedly different. If the chemicals used in Ghouta were properly mixed and the weather permitted it, the affected areas might be inhospitable for months or years. I totally agree that both governments have lied about it, but really the severity of what they did differs by at least an order of magnitude.
Such fine distinctions. Being as the U.S is the one interpreting the rules to suit itself, it is hardly surprising that such fine distinctions are used is it? No court will find itself guilty if it is the 'highest power' and as the U.S is relying on all sorts of political, economic and military threats in it's efforts to validate it's position and excuse itself of any wrongdoing... whatever it does... why should anyone be surprised that it concludes it has moral and legal validation for it's war crimes. Who is going to bring them to task? Power corrupts and power seems to be corrupting the U.S govt very nicely at this juncture.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
WP is a "chemical weapon" in the sense that it's both a chemical(well, an element) and is used in weapons. But it doesn't fit the definition of a contemporary weaponized chemical in that it isn't used explicitly for its toxic effects on biological processes(See the Geneva convention and Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons definition below). Colloquially it can be referred to as a chemical weapon, but when drawing the comparison between WP usage in Gaza and the Ghouta attack it doesn't hold up(for reasons besides those definitions).
What was colloquial about the DoD report specifically classifying WP as a chemical weapon multiple times throughout?

One needs to have ignited WP land on their skin for it to cause the terrible things it does
You seem to be discounting the capacity of fire to rapidly spread... especially when its source can't be extinguished conventionally.
Well, it's not explicitly prohibited.
In civilian areas it most certainly is.
WP is vastly different from chemical weapons, and the two incidents as a result are markedly different. If the chemicals used in Ghouta were properly mixed and the weather permitted it, the affected areas might be inhospitable for months or years. I totally agree that both governments have lied about it, but really the severity of what they did differs by at least an order of magnitude.
The aftermath is different, not necessarily greater. Organ failure or burning to death? Poisoned land or charcoal where the house used to be? Cancer of the brain or cancer of the lung? Who's to say what's worse/better? Between 08 and 09 Israel killed an estimated 1,400 Palestinians in these sorts of attacks, about 300 of them children. Ironically, that's almost identical to the figures some American authorities are claiming in the Syrian incident, though the French, who I'm slightly more inclined to trust, place the death-toll of the chemical weapon attack in Syria at more like 350.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
though the French, who I'm slightly more inclined to trust, place the death-toll of the chemical weapon attack in Syria at more like 350.
As do virtually all other sources, apart from those parroting the U.S's conflated figures

But we shall no doubt see scenes such as this in Syria, if Obama & co get their way.


I wonder how many will die from the 'precision' attack... more than 350 or 1400, that's for sure. But it will be a really nice 'humanitarian death', courtesy of the good ol U.S.A

Maybe they may call it a snazzy name like 'Lightning Strike' or something.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Such fine distinctions. Being as the U.S is the one interpreting the rules to suit itself, it is hardly surprising that such fine distinctions are used is it? No court will find itself guilty if it is the 'highest power' and as the U.S is relying on all sorts of political, economic and military threats in it's efforts to validate it's position and excuse itself of any wrongdoing... whatever it does... why should anyone be surprised that it concludes it has moral and legal validation for it's war crimes. Who is going to bring them to task? Power corrupts and power seems to be corrupting the U.S govt very nicely at this juncture.
Maybe fine distinctions but WP is still distinct from a chemical weapon. I have worked with the stuff and it is nasty ( a mortar round exploded on a range and I was the medic, not a great deal you can do ).
 

Grieves

Senior Member
As do virtually all other sources, apart from those parroting the U.S's conflated figures
Morbid drinking game that will get you shit-faced:
watch Obama's address to Sweden from yesterday. Drink every time he says '400 children' in response to a question regarding his military intentions.
Maybe fine distinctions but WP is still distinct from a chemical weapon. I have worked with the stuff and it is nasty ( a mortar round exploded on a range and I was the medic, not a great deal you can do ).
Again I refer you to the Department of Defense report which specifically labels WP as a chemical weapon. Desert Storm was justified largely by Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. WP is the chemical weapon referred to in that case, not nerve gas.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
What was colloquial about the DoD report specifically classifying WP as a chemical weapon multiple times throughout?

You're drawing a parallel between the Israeli WP use and the Ghouta attacks, one of which was done with an actual conventional chemical agent and the other with what could be called a "chemical weapon" just like napalm can be called a "chemical weapon". But the key distinction is that purpose of napalm is not to shut down biological processes by exposure to polystyrene or benzene, and its effectiveness is dependent on physical contact as a result of precision.

Grieves said:
You seem to be discounting the capacity of fire to rapidly spread... especially when its source can't be extinguished conventionally.

The aftermath is different, not necessarily greater. Organ failure or burning to death? Poisoned land or charcoal where the house used to be? Cancer of the brain or cancer of the lung? Who's to say what's worse/better? Between 08 and 09 Israel killed an estimated 1,400 Palestinians in these sorts of attacks, about 300 of them children. Ironically, that's almost identical to the figures some American authorities are claiming in the Syrian incident, though the French, who I'm slightly more inclined to trust, place the death-toll of the chemical weapon attack in Syria at more like 350.

I agree with you in principle, they're both terrible inventions and cause people to die in terrible ways. But WP is still nothing like a gas release. Once a chemical agent is out, it's out, and there's no 100% effective way to tell if it's still in the area or where it has wandered(short of sentinel animals, that is). Only a full hazmat suit can protect you from this completely invisible, almost undetectable threat.

WP can be targeted and controlled, even if it's more difficult than a typical fire.

Looking up the Gaza War, the PCHR puts the death toll at ~950 civilians for the entire conflict. I'm fairly certain that not even a majority of them died from WP, but if you have evidence of that please share. WP is commonly used as a smoke screen in urban settings and I think it's plausible that a significant portion of its use was for that purpose.

See quote below regarding the ~350 dead in Ghouta from MDF.

As do virtually all other sources, apart from those parroting the U.S's conflated figures

Actually there's a variety of death toll reports from the 300's to the 1400+ figure by the US:
Here's the actual MSF report you're citing, which seems to indicate the 355 figure is those who died while in hospitalization between the 21st and 24th(being generous of course, that may have been the first day):

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-th...oxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported-msf
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Morbid drinking game that will get you shit-faced:
watch Obama's address to Sweden from yesterday. Drink every time he says '400 children' in response to a question regarding his military intentions.

Again I refer you to the Department of Defense report which specifically labels WP as a chemical weapon. Desert Storm was justified largely by Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. WP is the chemical weapon referred to in that case, not nerve gas.
Wrong war mate ;-)

Also I talk from a UK angle and also a pragmatic soldiers angle.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
You're drawing a parallel between the Israeli WP use and the Ghouta attacks, one of which was done with an actual conventional chemical agent, the other with what could be called a "chemical weapon" just like napalm can be called a "chemical weapon". But the key distinction is that purpose of napalm is not to shut down biological processes by exposure to polystyrene or benzene and its effectiveness is dependent on physical contact as a result of precision.
I understand the difference between how the two weapons work. Again, the Department of Defense has specifically labeled WP a chemical weapon, and as a motivator for military action no less. One can fiss-fuddle over semantics, but Desert Storm happened.
Wrong war mate ;-)
So when the theater changes, so does the definition? How convenient War can be when on the winning side.





Looking up the Gaza War, the PCHR puts the death toll at ~950 civilians for the entire conflict.
I tried to find this statistic on the PCHR page, nothing is coming up. I did however find this actual list of names of the dead. 950 civilians doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, given the propensity to label any young male a militant. Consider though, that during the actual 4 month 'War', 9 Israelis died total. The western media presented these attacks as Israel 'retaliating'. That's some retaliation... and means Israel killed roughly 67% more civilians than militants.

I'm fairly certain that not even a majority of them died from WP, but if you have evidence of that please share. WP is commonly used as a smoke screen in urban settings and I think it's plausible that a significant portion of its use was for that purpose.
While pondering that plausibility, take a look at these.

Smoke-screens? "Precision" weaponry? Looks like buildings on fire to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grieves

Senior Member
It's also worth noting that the acute inhalation of the smoke from white phosphorus can negatively effect liver, kidney, and respiratory function.
 
Last edited:

jvnk08

Senior Member.
I understand the difference between how the two weapons work. Again, the Department of Defense has specifically labeled WP a chemical weapon, and as a motivator for military action no less. One can fiss-fuddle over semantics, but Desert Storm happened.

It fits neither the definition of chemical weapons under the Geneva convention nor the CWC's definition. It's designed and used for explicitly different reasons than liquid and gaseous poisons. It's a "chemical weapon" in semantics only. Saddam used actual nerve agents on the Kurds and Iranians.

Grieves said:
I tried to find this statistic on the PCHR page, nothing is coming up. I did however find this actual list of names of the dead. 950 civilians doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, given the propensity to label any young male a militant. Consider though, that during the actual 4 month 'War', 9 Israelis died total. The western media presented these attacks as Israel 'retaliating'. That's some retaliation... and means Israel killed roughly 67% more civilians than militants.

Despite the disproportionate response from the Israelis, lets not forget that neither side is free of guilt. It's an awful situation with no clear "good" solutions, but bone-headed religious fundamentalism is helping about as little as unwarranted expansionism.

Grieves said:
While pondering that plausibility, take a look at these.

Yes, I'm well aware of how terrible WP can be. But, sticking strictly to the facts, the comparison between Israel's use of WP during the Gaza War and the Ghouta attacks is invalid. Vastly different scenarios with both different outcomes and different implications as a result of each.

Also, some further details as to the murky legal status of WP:

Grieves said:
Smoke-screens? "Precision" weaponry? Looks like buildings on fire to me.

Precision here is relative. It's not precise like a ballistic weapon, no. But then again it's not subject to atmospheric conditions spreading it far from the initial point it was dispersed, or collecting and lingering for months and years afterwards.

It's also worth noting that the acute inhalation of the smoke from white phosphorus can negatively effect liver, kidney, and respiratory function.

Yes, though again, that's neither the reason it's developed or used.

Mustard Gas is the weakest of the common chemical weapons when it comes to risk from inhalation, just FYI.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
again, I understand the difference between the weapons and how they function/their effects, and I understand the line you're drawing. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy at work here, and how it speaks toward a conspiracy. In 1991, White Phosphorus was a chemical weapon according to the Department of Defense, and Saddam's usage of it was a war-crime. A decade or so later, Israel is dropping the stuff on civilians within its own borders, punishing an entire population for the actions of a scant few individuals, and we don't do a thing about it, because white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon anymore... and never mind that the Geneva convention is being violated in other equally serious ways:
"Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
In Syria there's an actual Civil War taking place, in which both sides are inflicting heavy casualties on one another, and suddenly that sense of moral outrage that America seemingly forgot about during the slaughter in Gaza is supposedly back full-force, our will to punish war-criminals (abroad of course, never at home) returned with a vengeance just in time to start a bombing campaign on Iran's doorstep. It seems clear a tragic attack took place in Syria, but that's all that's clear about it at the moment... and yet here we are on the verge of ANOTHER War, or more accurately to my mind another branch of the same campaign, based on shaky information and a sudden up-swell of morality. Convenient morality is worthy of suspicion.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
But convenient morality and hypocrisy don't automatically equate to conspiracy, your fondness for finding conspiracy is taking a common human trait as evidence for it.
You're right, not automatically. But we're talking about warfare on the geopolitical stage here. If you want evidence indicative of a conspiracy, take a look a the dance the Obama administration is doing around the concept of America forcing a regime-change. It's a comically twisted tango that weakens the 'moral outrage' position considerably.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Wow.... vid on the evening news supposedly showing Syrian rebels executing captured Syrian government troops. Wow...
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Yeah, just caught it, as well as a ridiculous interview between McCain and Legolas Cooper. It's unfortunate, but it's nothing new... literally in that it's footage from 2012, figuratively in that such events have been being reported for some time now.
 
J

Joe

Guest
On the subject of Israel, we're all aware they were dropping chemical weapons on Gaza between 2008 and 2009, yes? That they lied about it to the UN, right up until one the shells hit the UN headquarters in Gaza? If chemical weapons are such a 'red line', and the impending military action in Syria is all about the humanitarian effort to prevent further use of chemical weapons, where was the military action against Israel then? Interesting that when a business partner uses chemical weapons against citizens within its own borders they get a wag of the finger, whereas when an obstruction is alleged to have done it, bombing the fuck out of them is the only moral thing to do.
Bill clinton also gassed people in Waco texas many of them children ,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
I think they lost all support for this War . Watch Mc cain get his @ss chewed out
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Tear gas is a different kettle of fish to mustard or sarin gas. Tear gas CAN kill in the right situations. Mustard and sarin will kill with even minor exposure.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Tear gas is a different kettle of fish to mustard or sarin gas. Tear gas CAN kill in the right situations. Mustard and sarin will kill with even minor exposure.
Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. still illegal to use at least in war but not on your own people
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sins-o...ism-within-syrian-rebel-organizations/5319636


 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Anyone know anything about this?
I found this from last year...
So obviously he has expressed concern before, the idea that he's only said anything in response to the chemical weapons use is false.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Anyone know anything about this?

China and Russia are two of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The U.S cannot go around ignoring international laws and agreements just because it gets vetoed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations
The U.N has condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria but there is little support for Obama's plans to attack.

If U.S goes ahead, it will be acting illegally even if Congress back Obama.

U.S will be acting illegally to enforce International Law if it goes ahead without the U.N backing.

President Obama condemned what he called “the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs,” saying in a statement that Mr. Assad “has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community.” He accused Syria of having “murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children.”

Being as how the U.S Govt is behind the Govt 'opposition' in Syria, it is hardly surprising that Obama would object to Assad fighting back.

Perhaps if the U.S Govt were to be as vocal and pressing against all injustice in the area, inc Israel, Saudi, Oman, Bahrain etc... they would have more credibility. As it is the U.S has no credibility in most of the worlds eyes.

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
(deleted some off-topic posts)

Let's try to keep on topic - who was behind the chemical weapons attacks. Once could easily point to possible motives in many corners, so that really rather pointless. What is the actual evidence?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
China and Russia are two of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The U.S cannot go around ignoring international laws and agreements just because it gets vetoed...

The U.N has condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria but there is little support for Obama's plans to attack.
...

No that is not really what I was asking - the claim was the UN was vetoed from condemning the august attacks by Russia and China. I am wondering was it just a blanket condemnation of the attacks without blaming any particular party, or was it specifically the Assad regime that was to be blamed for it and condemned.
If there was no proof of who did it either way then I guess it would not be completely unreasonable to vetoe a censure against Assad if they don't believe he was responsible - but one wonders what the motivation was. The wording of the vetoed statement would be more enlightening.

Edit... this bit
Because of Russia, Power said, "the Security Council was not even able to put out a statement expressing its disapproval" of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No that is not really what I was asking - the claim was the UN was vetoed from condemning the august attacks by Russia and China. I am wondering was it just a blanket condemnation of the attacks without blaming any particular party, or was it specifically the Assad regime that was to be blamed for it and condemned.
If there was no proof of who did it either way then I guess it would not be completely unreasonable to vetoe a censure against Assad if they don't believe he was responsible - but one wonders what the motivation was. The wording of the vetoed statement would be more enlightening.

Edit... this bit
Because of Russia, Power said, "the Security Council was not even able to put out a statement expressing its disapproval" of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.
Excellent point Pete... I did a bit of research and everything related to that allegation appears to trace back to Samantha Power but I cannot substantiate it.

However, after reading her unabridged address on behalf of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations on September 6, 2013, what stood out to me were these telling points.

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/213901.htm

.
So it is a region critical to U.S security? Why? Because of the oil? But how many times have I heard people argue on here...'U.S doesn't need the M.E oil... we have our own ... it is unimportant to us, why would we keep going to war over it and toppling govt over it'?

So the 'region', (3000 miles away) is 'critical, because of it's friends, (who secure 'its' oil and ensure it trades in U.S$), Saudi, Oman, Bahrain etc. Americas friend... every one a butcher and a tyrant but 'Americas friends' none the less. And of course Israel, the big fat venomous spider sat in the middle of the web, dripping poison which permeates the whole region like some NWO vision of whats to come. Israel the elite 'gated community', ringed by a massive steel and concrete wall topped with miles of razor wire and machine gun posts pointing out like something from a Mad Max movie over the decimated open wasteland that comprises the open prison of Palestine.

So why the imperative to act now?

In arguing for limited military action in the wake of this mass casualty chemical weapons atrocity, we are not arguing that Syrian lives are worth protecting only when they are threatened with poison gas. Rather, we are reaffirming what the world has already made plain in laying down its collective judgment on chemical weapons: there is something different about chemical warfare that raises the stakes for the United States and raises the stakes for the world.

Ah, so that sounds reasonable, it is because being killed by CW's is more abhorrent than having your head sawn off by Al Nusra with a breadknife or blown up with a missile or deformed or burned to death with White Phosphorous or dying from cancers induced by radioactivity from Depleted Uranium munitions or being born with terrible deformities from the same or from the widespread use of tons of Agent Orange. Got it.

So the U.S is campaigning hard to protect people from such horrors purely on humanitarian grounds, nothing to do with regime change in Syria.

But CW's have been used before haven't they? Iraq against the Kurds and then Iraq against Iran, which then reciprocated and what was the U.S reaction on that occasion.

So why the discrepancy... the inaction over hundreds of thousands killed by CW's then vs the manic, overzealous campaign to launch into war over a few hundred deaths where the culprit cannot even be identified with any degree of certainty?

But it is even worse than that. Not only is there a huge disparity in the reaction and campaign to punish for an alleged crime. It is a known fact that the U.S helped Iraq deploy these terrible weapons which were still as illegal back in 1980's as they are now.

http://theweek.com/article/index/24...dam-hussein-use-chemical-weapons-against-iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
So I wonder why people do not trust the U.S govt and recognise it at the top, for what it is, hypocritical, warmongering, greedy, lying, twisting S.O.B's that would sell their own grandmothers out, if it benefited them.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Hi all, I'm new to this forum, so still trying to find my way around. I wanted to comment regarding Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Explained: JFK: "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" Quotes Debunked 260
Rory "Escaping the anti-vax conspiracy rabbit hole" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Dick Holman How many people follow multiple conspiracy theories? Practical Debunking 12
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top