Syria prepares to unleash sarin gas on its people

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

Where is the line though? If 200,000 people died from violence and Assad used chemical weapons ONCE against say 5,000 people and went back to slaughtering them with bullets and bombs what then? Where do we draw this line? And what consequences are brought on by drawing the line there?

[GostHacked]

Where is the line though? If 200,000 people died from violence and Assad used chemical weapons ONCE against say 5,000 people and went back to slaughtering them with bullets and bombs what then? Where do we draw this line? And what consequences are brought on by drawing the line there?

Also what is the difference between someone dead by a bullet, or dead by a chemical weapon? The result is the same.

[Signals.Cpl]

Also what is the difference between someone dead by a bullet, or dead by a chemical weapon? The result is the same.

That is what I am wondering... it seems the logic is upside down where instead of worrying that 200,000 people died from all sorts of weapons we worry about the 5,000 that die from chemical weapons and basically state that the other 195,000 died in the approved way. They are just as dead wether the weapon is a grenade, knife, firearm or a chemical weapon and it doesn't matter to them or their families how they died because they died.

The world community has this major problem when it comes to facing such problems where it is inconsistent, with one dictator and situation they lash out and attack while in another they lodge complaints and do nothing. We need to act with consistency wether its go in and invade every homicidal dictator's back yard or do nothing otherwise we contribute to the problem as we help one group and then ignore another even though they are both the doing the same thing.

[cybercoma]

The difference is that political battles need to be free from outside influence. Genocide has a specific definition in international law, which has little to do with the numbers of people killed. Also, chemical weapons are considered a serious threat to humanity, so they too need to be opposed.

You know, you say you're not concerned with the situations or how people are killed, just that they're killed and the numbers of them killed. Yet, you harshly criticize Palestine for killing a couple people, while cheering on Israel who killed hundreds in response. You also turn a blind eye to the thousands of people, innocent people at that, who have been killed by the US and the indiscriminate nature of drone strikes.

So I find it a little hard to believe that you gentlemen are so "confused" here. It's really quite simple. Genocide and chemical warfare are two completely intolerable things that require external intervention. Civil wars, rebel uprisings, and political conflicts between two sovereign nations do not require external intervention and need to be solved on their own terms, so long as they follow the internationally recognized rules of war.

[GostHacked]

The difference is that political battles need to be free from outside influence. Genocide has a specific definition in international law, which has little to do with the numbers of people killed. Also, chemical weapons are considered a serious threat to humanity, so they too need to be opposed.

Well, too bad that it is not the case of outside influence. We have NATO propping up the rebels, and Russia/China supporting Assad. This is a 'civil war' initiated by NATO backed rebels.

You know, you say you're not concerned with the situations or how people are killed, just that they're killed and the numbers of them killed.

No that's not the point. Why are we not concerned about all the people that have already been killed in this 'civil war', and focus on the outside probability of Assad using chemical weapons.

Here is a question I hope someone can answer ...... What if the rebels use the chemical weapons against Assad? This is a possibility.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_13/Moscow-warns-Syria-rebels-can-seize-chemical-weapons/

So I find it a little hard to believe that you gentlemen are so "confused" here. It's really quite simple. Genocide and chemical warfare are two completely intolerable things that require external intervention. Civil wars, rebel uprisings, and political conflicts between two sovereign nations do not require external intervention and need to be solved on their own terms, so long as they follow the internationally recognized rules of war.

Warfare is unacceptable period. It does not matter what weapon you use, death is the result either way. This rhetoric regarding Syria and chemical weapons is nothing more than posturing and NATO pretext and ramp up to an eventual invasion of Syria. After a year of supporting the rebels, Assad still can't be taken down. NATO is perpetuating the conflict by supporting/training and arming the rebels.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/11/syria-chemical-weapons-panetta.html

Syrian rebels including Islamic extremists took full control of a sprawling military base Tuesday after a bloody two-day battle that killed 35 soldiers, activists said. It was the latest gain by opposition forces bolstered by an al-Qaeda-linked group that has provided skilled fighters but raised concerns in the West.

The Sheik Suleiman military base was the second major base captured in the north by the rebels, who also are making inroads farther south toward the capital, Damascus.

In other violence, dozens of people were reported injured or killed in Aqrab, a village in central Hama province, in a series of explosions. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported the bloodshed, citing activists in the area, but had no immediate death toll or details on who was to blame.

So now that the rebels have control of a military base, the possibility of these Al-queda rebels will use chemical weapons.

Why the f*ck are we supporting Al-queda type militants to take down Assad? Who ARE the REAL terrorists here?

[Signals.Cpl]

The difference is that political battles need to be free from outside influence. Genocide has a specific definition in international law, which has little to do with the numbers of people killed.

And what is that definition? Because it seems to me that the world community decides to fight over the definition every time and intervenes when too late or not at all.

Also, chemical weapons are considered a serious threat to humanity, so they too need to be opposed.

I would say that fire arms are a serious threat to humanity but no one seems interested in stopping a madman from slaughtering his people as long as its with conventional weapons. Those chemical weapons are no more dangerous to the rest of the world once he uses them against his people than before he uses them on his people...they are dangerous to humanity as soon as they are created so either ban them or don't use them as an excuse.

You know, you say you're not concerned with the situations or how people are killed, just that they're killed and the numbers of them killed. Yet, you harshly criticize Palestine for killing a couple people, while cheering on Israel who killed hundreds in response.

I am critical of Palestinians for attacking Israel and then using women and children as human shields to get sympathy from fools in the west. The fact is the Palestinians cause their casualties despite Israel's best efforts, look at some of the targets hit during the last round, the ISraeli airforce would hit specific windows rather than the whole building in order to get their target and avoid any casualties but it is hard when the weapons and munitions are stored in civilian neighbourhoods where no matter how you hit it there will be casualties unless you send in the ground troops to secure and carry them out.

You also turn a blind eye to the thousands of people, innocent people at that, who have been killed by the US and the indiscriminate nature of drone strikes.

Thousands of innocents? Are we talking about the way the enemy that the US is fighting uses civilians to fight against the US? Shoot at American forces and run in to civilian areas? Most of the civilian casualties of the wars they fought were not caused by the US and the once that were caused by them were for the most part pure accident despite their best efforts. As for the drone strikes I don't think it is quite so indiscriminate as you might believe.

So I find it a little hard to believe that you gentlemen are so "confused" here.

Nobody is confused we know why you want to intervene, what we question is why you value the few that might die from chemical or biological weapons more than the vast majority who die through other means. To intervene after the fact does not make the world safer, just establishes a threshold for slaughter, as long as you slaughter your people with conventional weapons you are fine by us but you kill 1 person with a chemical attack and you get on our most wanted list.

It's really quite simple. Genocide and chemical warfare are two completely intolerable things that require external intervention.

So you think that one ethnic/religious group in Syria slaughtering people from another ethnic/religious group is fine as long as they do it with AK-47s instead of chemical weapons?

Civil wars, rebel uprisings, and political conflicts between two sovereign nations do not require external intervention and need to be solved on their own terms, so long as they follow the internationally recognized rules of war.

So Assad is following the rules of war? I didn't know that the rules of war recognized the indiscriminate killing of civilians because they are of a different ethnic and religious group as legal...

[GostHacked]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

Possible future false flag attack.

"What raises concerns about this news circulated by the media is our serious fear that some of the countries backing terrorism and terrorists might provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons and claim that it was the Syrian government that used the weapons," SANA quoted the letters as saying.

NATO is training the rebels and arming them. Training takes place in Jordan and Turkey.

The United States and European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels to secure chemical weapons stockpiles, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats said.

The training, in Jordan and Turkey, covers the monitoring and securing of stockpiles of weapons and materials, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Well at least they are 'our' terrorists.

The rebel forces represent a variety of interests. In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Monday that U.S. officials were concerned "that al-Nusra is little more than a front for al Qaeda in Iraq who has moved some of its operations into Syria."

The State Department is planning to designate al-Nusra Front, a radical Islamist group, as a foreign terrorist organization, two U.S. officials told CNN last week.

[cybercoma]

Well, too bad that it is not the case of outside influence. We have NATO propping up the rebels, and Russia/China supporting Assad. This is a 'civil war' initiated by NATO backed rebels.

And I don't agree with their involvement.

Here is a question I hope someone can answer ...... What if the rebels use the chemical weapons against Assad? This is a possibility.

This doesn't change my argument at all.

Warfare is unacceptable period. It does not matter what weapon you use, death is the result either way. This rhetoric regarding Syria and chemical weapons is nothing more than posturing and NATO pretext and ramp up to an eventual invasion of Syria. After a year of supporting the rebels, Assad still can't be taken down. NATO is perpetuating the conflict by supporting/training and arming the rebels.

And I don't agree with their involvement.

So now that the rebels have control of a military base, the possibility of these Al-queda rebels will use chemical weapons.

Why the f*ck are we supporting Al-queda type militants to take down Assad? Who ARE the REAL terrorists here?

None of this changes my stance.

[cybercoma]

And what is that definition? Because it seems to me that the world community decides to fight over the definition every time and intervenes when too late or not at all.

Why do I constantly have to look things up for you? Not only was it posted in another thread, but it has been posted numerous times on this forum. It's on the UN website. If you don't even know the legal definition of genocide, how can you reasonably discuss it?

I would say that fire arms are a serious threat to humanity but no one seems interested in stopping a madman from slaughtering his people as long as its with conventional weapons. Those chemical weapons are no more dangerous to the rest of the world once he uses them against his people than before he uses them on his people...they are dangerous to humanity as soon as they are created so either ban them or don't use them as an excuse.

They are banned. That's the point.

I am critical of Palestinians for attacking Israel and then using women and children as human shields to get sympathy from fools in the west. The fact is the Palestinians cause their casualties despite Israel's best efforts, look at some of the targets hit during the last round, the ISraeli airforce would hit specific windows rather than the whole building in order to get their target and avoid any casualties but it is hard when the weapons and munitions are stored in civilian neighbourhoods where no matter how you hit it there will be casualties unless you send in the ground troops to secure and carry them out.

You're supporting my point. You explain away those deaths with ease, but criticize me for saying states shouldn't intervene in Civil Wars and political conflicts. If you were really just concerned with dead people (because dead is dead no matter how they die), then you would be much more critical of Israel than you are. But you're not, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by using Rwanda as a case-study for Syria. The conflicts are not even a reasonable translation of each other. The fundamental principles that underpin my argument aren't even the same in these situations.

Thousands of innocents? Are we talking about the way the enemy that the US is fighting uses civilians to fight against the US? Shoot at American forces and run in to civilian areas? Most of the civilian casualties of the wars they fought were not caused by the US and the once that were caused by them were for the most part pure accident despite their best efforts. As for the drone strikes I don't think it is quite so indiscriminate as you might believe.

Palestine using illegal tactics doesn't give the US and Israel carte blanche to kill innocent civilians. Bombing residential areas and housing complexes to get the "bad guys" is as despicable as using the civilians for cover in the first place.

Nobody is confused we know why you want to intervene, what we question is why you value the few that might die from chemical or biological weapons more than the vast majority who die through other means. To intervene after the fact does not make the world safer, just establishes a threshold for slaughter, as long as you slaughter your people with conventional weapons you are fine by us but you kill 1 person with a chemical attack and you get on our most wanted list.

More irrational inferences from you. What a treat. Tell me again why there are specific laws and treaties prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons.

So you think that one ethnic/religious group in Syria slaughtering people from another ethnic/religious group is fine as long as they do it with AK-47s instead of chemical weapons?

Where did I say that? I said genocide is one of the instances where we need to get involved. If it's a Civil War and not one group "slaughtering" the other, as your facetious and ridiculous example states, then no. We don't need to be involved. They need to resolve their differences by whatever means they have.

So Assad is following the rules of war? I didn't know that the rules of war recognized the indiscriminate killing of civilians because they are of a different ethnic and religious group as legal...

Is it genocide?

[GostHacked]

So let me ask this.

Not that I want to open up this can of worms for this thread. But if you want to penalize countries for using chemical weapons for any reason, why have the same calls not gone out against Israel and their use of white phosphorus a couple years ago?

If one wants to be consistent with their stance on chemical weapons, supporting one but not another does not help whatever argument is being presented.

[cybercoma]

So let me ask this.

Not that I want to open up this can of worms for this thread. But if you want to penalize countries for using chemical weapons for any reason, why have the same calls not gone out against Israel and their use of white phosphorus a couple years ago?

If one wants to be consistent with their stance on chemical weapons, supporting one but not another does not help whatever argument is being presented.

I didn't know about it, but again... it doesn't change my position.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

So let me ask this.

Not that I want to open up this can of worms for this thread. But if you want to penalize countries for using chemical weapons for any reason, why have the same calls not gone out against Israel and their use of white phosphorus a couple years ago?

If one wants to be consistent with their stance on chemical weapons, supporting one but not another does not help whatever argument is being presented.

Willy Pete...no matter what the 'experts' of the planet claim, isn't a chemical weapon. Now you wouldn't want it burning on you nor would you want to be in a room full of the stuff with no mask....but, troops use this stuff in the field to create smoke screens and walk through it no problem in low concentrations.

[Bonam]

So let me ask this.

Not that I want to open up this can of worms for this thread. But if you want to penalize countries for using chemical weapons for any reason, why have the same calls not gone out against Israel and their use of white phosphorus a couple years ago?

Because white phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon. A bit of understanding is required. Gunpowder is a "chemical" too. Doesn't mean guns are chemical weapons.

[GostHacked]

Because white phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon. A bit of understanding is required. Gunpowder is a "chemical" too. Doesn't mean guns are chemical weapons.

That seems to depend on how it's used.

[DogOnPorch]

That seems to depend on how it's used.

Under this theory we should be able to find VX tipped match sticks.

[GostHacked]

Under this theory we should be able to find VX tipped match sticks.

It all depends on how it's used. I did not make the rules. Don't blame me for them.

[DogOnPorch]

It all depends on how it's used. I did not make the rules. Don't blame me for them.

Willy Pete isn't a chemical weapon no matter how much you'd like it to be...plus if there was a choice to be made, I'd rather be under a WP detonation with a sheet of plywood protecting me rather than in a bunker under a JDAM with my name on it.

[GostHacked]

Willy Pete isn't a chemical weapon no matter how much you'd like it to be...plus if there was a choice to be made, I'd rather be under a WP detonation with a sheet of plywood protecting me rather than in a bunker under a JDAM with my name on it.

it depends on how you use them. Defense seems acceptable use of it, offense seems to not be an acceptable use of it. Don't blame me for making these rules, but keep trying.

[DogOnPorch]

it depends on how you use them. Defense seems acceptable use of it, offense seems to not be an acceptable use of it. Don't blame me for making these rules, but keep trying.

You aren't making any rules and WP will continue as the soldier's friend.

Let's review: White Phosphorus

Notice all the CBW gear he was wearing.

Let's review: J-DAM:

[DogOnPorch]

[GostHacked]

More explosions DoP ..... MORE.

[DogOnPorch]

More explosions DoP ..... MORE.

I like it when you lose. You get all exited. But perhaps you should calm down least you burst an important blood vessel.

[Signals.Cpl]

Why do I constantly have to look things up for you? Not only was it posted in another thread, but it has been posted numerous times on this forum. It's on the UN website. If you don't even know the legal definition of genocide, how can you reasonably discuss it?

I know the definition of genocide, but it seems to me few others know it especially those in power. In Rwanda they spend 100 days defining what was happening and when he genocide was over they spend another 100 days trying to figure out who to blame for the failure to act. You can act all superior but my question is will this definition hold when action is needed or will we sit on the sidelines debating if it is or is not genocide and what genocide means.

They are banned. That's the point.

Ok so lets say we ban all firearms, do you go after the person you know has an illegal firearm when they get it or do you wait for them to use it to arrest them?

Seeing as Syria is a non-participant what then? It was ok for them to have the weapons as long as they did not use them?

You're supporting my point. You explain away those deaths with ease, but criticize me for saying states shouldn't intervene in Civil Wars and political conflicts.

You either interfere when people are dying, or you don't interfere at all... it seems pretty stupid to draw the line at HOW you kill people rather than just killing people. So you are saying we will not bother any dictator who wants to slaughter his people as long as they are using approved means of slaughter... if they use one of the no-no weapons then and only then will we care.

If you were really just concerned with dead people (because dead is dead no matter how they die), then you would be much more critical of Israel than you are.

You are trying to twist something to fit your agenda, my issue is not with how many died but rather your point on how they died.

What happens if Syria smuggled chemical weapons in to the Gaza strip and the Palestinians used it against Israel? Should we move in and occupy the Gaza strip?

But you're not, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by using Rwanda as a case-study for Syria. The conflicts are not even a reasonable translation of each other. The fundamental principles that underpin my argument aren't even the same in these situations.

There is a government military, there was a rebel military. The government used less sophisticated means of destruction while the Syrian government has more sophisticated means of destruction. The RGF slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people the Syrians slaughtered tens of thousands of people most of them innocent civilians.

Palestine using illegal tactics doesn't give the US and Israel carte blanche to kill innocent civilians.Bombing residential areas and housing complexes to get the "bad guys" is as despicable as using the civilians for cover in the first place.

And what then? Sit by and let the terrorists roam free because they have human shields? Let them kill your people so you don't kill theirs?

More irrational inferences from you. What a treat. Tell me again why there are specific laws and treaties prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons.

Tell me again why nothing was done BEFORE THEY USE THEM rather than waiting for them to USE THEM? If you are to enforce this make sure to enforce it when it matter rather than enforcing it after thousands of people die. Get them at the first sign that they have the illegal weapons or don't bother at all.

Where did I say that? I said genocide is one of the instances where we need to get involved.

Who are you to decide which people should die and which should live based exclusively on the means of their death and the label put on the action.

You are trying to justify action based on the method of death(biological and chemical) as well as the reason for death(genocide). So for a dictator to avoid action from the rest of the world he has to do several things, use "legal" means of executing his people, don't pick on specific religious, ethic or national groups...just kill everyone equally and he will be free and clear.

If it's a Civil War and not one group "slaughtering" the other, as your facetious and ridiculous example states, then no.

You mean the indiscriminate shelling of a city was not slaughter? Or bombing civilian targets was not slaughter? Really?

We don't need to be involved.

We need to be involved from the beginning or not at all, using the chemical weapons as the line in the sand means we will end up with a lot of pissed of Syrians because we spend a year or two watching them get slaughtered and then only interfered once the chemical weapons slaughtered even more people. What happens when Assad realizes that it is all lost?

They need to resolve their differences by whatever means they have.

They have chemical weapons, that is one way to resolve problems and that falls in the "whatever means they have" category...right?

Is it genocide?

Depends if you want to go in or not kinda the same problem that the world faced in Rwanda.

[DogOnPorch]

Syria lets loose on the Palestinians. I imagine there will be quite the outrage on the street...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/syria-camp-attacks.html

Syrian warplanes blasted a Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus, killing eight people and wounding dozens, activists said. Some Palestinian groups in the Yarmouk camp have been backing Assad's regime.

[cybercoma]

Signals, the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. We only interfere with their independence in the most extreme cases. THose are 1) when unprovoked they attack another sovereign nation, 2) they use, are mobilizing, or threatening to use chemical or biological weapons, and/or 3) they're committing genocide against a people within their borders. It is only in those circumstances that we ought to interfere. When two different ethnicities within a country arm themselves and decide to battle it out to the death for political control of a nation, this is not genocide. It is civil war and it's not our place to pick winners in these conflicts.