Syria prepares to unleash sarin gas on its people

[GostHacked]

Really? Why? Seems we have Assad's men vs al-Qaeda and pals. Perhaps let Jordan intervene. They're right there.

Interesting how NATO (pals) finds itself on the same side as Al-Queda in the fight against Assad. Like what happened in Libya, but then they turned against the people who helped them take down Gadaffi..

Also now we can see a possible connection to the Benghazi affair to weapons going from Libiya to Syria. How do they do that without air/naval support?

Hmmmmm....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/06/arms-shipments-traveled-from-libya-to-anti-assad-fighters-sources-say/

Arms have been shipped from Libya to support Syrian fighters since almost immediately after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi, according to an international cargo shipper based in the Mediterranean who said the movement of arms is well-known in Benghazi.

The source, who for years has run multiple cargo ships between Libya, Turkey and other countries in the region, questioned why other countries like the U.S. aren't using those routes as well to help anti-Assad forces.

"We did it before, taking arms into Libya to support the rebels and it worked. I don't see why we don't do it now and take the arms to help the Syrians fight Assad," the source told Fox News.

From his location in the Mediterranean, the source told Fox News that ships, including some of his own, left weekly from multiple Libyan ports, including Misrata and Benghazi. The size of the arms cargo varied, but some of his ships carried in excess of 600 tons of weapons. Some of these same shipments also included professional fighters from across the region that assembled in Libya and thus have been dubbed "The Libyan Brigade," headed to the fight in Syria against the Assad regime.

Could this have been the reason Stevens was killed? Maybe he knows more about the flow of these weapons than what is being admitted?

[GostHacked]

In these situations it is not enough to just accept what people say. You need to look at what they do. If they're loading up bombs or missiles with sarin gas, then they need to be harshly condemned immediately by the international community at the very least. If he makes any moves to use them, then his people ought to be defended to the fullest extent possible.

Oh come on, if you bought what they said about Iraq, then you will buy what they are selling regarding Syria. This is nothing more than pretext for UN resolutions and NATO boots on the ground in Syria. Create the problem to offer the solution.

And tell me what is the difference of killing using chem/bio weapons compared to killing with conventional weapons? The dead are still dead.

[DogOnPorch]

And yet you STILL come up with wild claims of US gun buyers privately donating their AK-47s to NATO to distribute via...what?...Turkey was it? This from a New Zealand paper that claims there's a single AK-47 plant. You're seeing US ghosts under beds often, I gather?

[GostHacked]

And yet you STILL come up with wild claims of US gun buyers privately donating their AK-47s to NATO to distribute via...what?...Turkey was it? This from a New Zealand paper that claims there's a single AK-47 plant. You're seeing US ghosts under beds often, I gather?

I made no such claim. I simply stated that supplying the rebels does not mean they are being supplied with NATO weapons. The article does seem to note that Americans love the AK-47. I know some people who have one of these replica AK-47s.

But you did claim you had done a search for my statement about Turkey housing the Syrian rebels and found nothing, but then I posted 3 links that show just that. And guess what .. none it if is Infowars. Like I said, I don't need to use Infowars to prove my point, but not like you would believe it.

Trolls will always be trolls.

[DogOnPorch]

Trolls will always be trolls.

Yeah...they're always posting false articles claiming there's only one AK-47 factory.

[cybercoma]

Oh come on, if you bought what they said about Iraq, then you will buy what they are selling regarding Syria. This is nothing more than pretext for UN resolutions and NATO boots on the ground in Syria. Create the problem to offer the solution.

And tell me what is the difference of killing using chem/bio weapons compared to killing with conventional weapons? The dead are still dead.

I didn't buy what they were saying about Iraq. That whole thing stunk right from the beginning. I watched Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on the news and it reeked of a farce immediately.

[login]

Well even having it there is somewhat of a deterent to its capture. Or attacks on sites...

unless someone supplied the 'rebels' with chemical suits.

I am wondering how the US knows this is happening though..

Its not like the US couldn't engineer the situation as an excuse.

You know lets put up some patriots launch the red herring to legitimize our invasion etc...

I'd feel more comfortable with the mixed product than letting the unmixed product be taken.

Likewise as a fallsafe flooding facilities with the materials prevents others from going into get the stuff.

If the rebels have chem suits it is party redundant anyway.

There has been a real problem with air sites and resource sites being attacked setting up sarin in those areas will be a good defence.

It also means any sort of attack could create fallout or have an immediate response.

I think it is more likely for NATO to supply this to the people closing in..

http://www.nap.edu/o...isbn=030907178X

I don't get it sarin seems more humane than bombs...

Because it evaporates so quickly, sarin presents an immediate, but short-lived, threat

DU rounds seem like more of a threat to people than Sarin.

Edited December 7, 2012 by login

[Bonam]

If the order is given to use chemical weapons against their people, we sure as hell should.

Why? We've already let 50,000 Syrian civilians die, and done nothing. You're just as dead from a bullet or explosion as you are from a nerve agent.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hell, even Iranians aren't dying to save Syrians. Why the would Canadians want to ?

Edited December 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Hey, DoP has been warning us about Sarin for years. Guess he was right!

It always seemed more like hoping than warning.

Would you like some popcorn?

[DogOnPorch]

It always seemed more like hoping than warning.

Depends. Are you vacationing in Syria?

[eyeball]

Toronto I'm afraid.

[DogOnPorch]

Toronto I'm afraid.

Then...no...lol.

[GostHacked]

Yeah...they're always posting false articles claiming there's only one AK-47 factory.

The claim in the article was a sole AK-47 manufacturer in Russia. Reading comprehension issues perhaps? Selective ignorance perhaps? Trolling perhaps?

[DogOnPorch]

Uhhhh....your the one claiming these wild NATO plots and schemes to get involved in Syria. Meanwhile...how's that nerve gas you so hotly denied in the past doing??

[GostHacked]

Uhhhh....your the one claiming these wild NATO plots and schemes to get involved in Syria. Meanwhile...how's that nerve gas you so hotly denied in the past doing??

Those are my assumptions based on the information I have been reading. I have already proven that the Free Syria Army (aka the rebels) have been operating out of Turkey. I did say it was my speculation that of the gun running from Libya.

Your emotions might be getting in the way of you reading what is on the page instead of reading what you think is on the page. Must be frustrating for you.

[cybercoma]

Why? We've already let 50,000 Syrian civilians die, and done nothing. You're just as dead from a bullet or explosion as you are from a nerve agent.

Why are there particular treaties for biochemical weapons? I assume you know that there is something particular about them such that we create laws, agreements, and regulations around their use distinct from other forms of violence. We can't get into every conflict because it is not on us to choose sides merely because conflict exists. People need to fight their own battles. However, we don't even accept chemical weapons in battles between advanced nations. There must be a reason for this.

[DogOnPorch]

I doubt Canada even has the gear to deal with basic nerve agents let alone a nightmare like VX.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt Canada even has the gear to deal with basic nerve agents let alone a nightmare like VX.

Canada probably has same basic kit, sniffers, washdown stations, etc. The best teams arguably are the Czechs, who are already in Jordan.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada probably has same basic kit, sniffers, washdown stations, etc. The best teams arguably are the Czechs, who are already in Jordan.

Well it must be pretty old stuff. I can't see our government having the forethought to have atropine, etc on hand.

[DogOnPorch]

Apparently Syria's Assad forces have started to launch Scuds.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/syria-has-fired-scud-missiles-at-rebels-u-s-official/

[Signals.Cpl]

Why are there particular treaties for biochemical weapons? I assume you know that there is something particular about them such that we create laws, agreements, and regulations around their use distinct from other forms of violence. We can't get into every conflict because it is not on us to choose sides merely because conflict exists. People need to fight their own battles. However, we don't even accept chemical weapons in battles between advanced nations. There must be a reason for this.

So Assad could slaughter say another 200,000 people and we won't move a muscle but should he gas a couple of thousand people suddenly he has crossed a line? You either value life or you don't, we shouldn't devalue the loss of life simply because the lives were taken one way rather than another. If we follow that logic can explain pretty well why the world sat and watched 800,000 Rwandan's die when something as simple as 5,000 well trained and equipped soldiers could have save the lives...if only the militia's had used biological or chemical weapons we would have done something right?

[cybercoma]

So Assad could slaughter say another 200,000 people and we won't move a muscle but should he gas a couple of thousand people suddenly he has crossed a line? You either value life or you don't, we shouldn't devalue the loss of life simply because the lives were taken one way rather than another. If we follow that logic can explain pretty well why the world sat and watched 800,000 Rwandan's die when something as simple as 5,000 well trained and equipped soldiers could have save the lives...if only the militia's had used biological or chemical weapons we would have done something right?

Genocide is another line. But deaths from political conflicts do not require intervention. States are sovereign and only in the most egregious cases should their sovereignty be attacked. External states choosing sides in political conflicts only makes situations worse.

Edited December 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

Why are there particular treaties for biochemical weapons?

This was easy for countries to agree on because after much experimentation they realized these weapons are next to useless as a tactical weapon. Now if you want to kill some civilians that live in a valley when its not windy.... then maybe they are usefull... or if you dont mind killing as many of your own troops on the battlefield as well as enemy troops then sure...

[DogOnPorch]

This was easy for countries to agree on because after much experimentation they realized these weapons are next to useless as a tactical weapon. Now if you want to kill some civilians that live in a valley when its not windy.... then maybe they are usefull... or if you dont mind killing as many of your own troops on the battlefield as well as enemy troops then sure...

Uhhhh....they're VERY effective at what they do. The days of chlorine gas blowing back at you in the gentle winds is long gone.