UN inspectors confirm that chemical weapons were used in the Damascus attack

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/16/un-inspectors-syria-sarin-gas
http://world.time.com/2013/09/16/u-n-report-confirms-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/?iid=gs-main-lead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24113553

The m-14 missiles used in the attack have so far only been deployed by Assad's forces, and the opposition probably doesn't possess the capacity to use them.

Their trajectories also converge at a Syrian military base. Whoops.

Well, it was only a matter of time.

Oh, also.. A russian source I found say that the Russian Rockets found to be used in the chemical weapons attacks were stolen by the rebels whom manifactures the chemical weapons materials. And they were fired from a Syrian Military base by the CIA to frame Assad.

Nikolaz72:
Well, it was only a matter of time.

Oh, also.. A russian source I found say that the Russian Rockets found to be used in the chemical weapons attacks were stolen by the rebels whom manifactures the chemical weapons materials. And they were fired from a Syrian Military base by the CIA to frame Assad.

Well, that might be possible, but it sounds awfully conspiracy theory-ish to me. Also, the sarin used in the attack was of such high quality that it's doubtful the rebels could have manufactured it.

Karthak:

Nikolaz72:
Well, it was only a matter of time.

Oh, also.. A russian source I found say that the Russian Rockets found to be used in the chemical weapons attacks were stolen by the rebels whom manifactures the chemical weapons materials. And they were fired from a Syrian Military base by the CIA to frame Assad.

Well, that might be possible, but it sounds awfully conspiracy theory-ish to me. Also, the sarin used in the attack was of such high quality that it's doubtful the rebels could have manufactured it.

Oh, I had little doubt the Chemical Weapons were used by the Regime. This just confirms it more so, I just thought it interesting that these kind of conspiracies are becoming mainstream as this goes on.

And yet for all the shouting of Obama there is still no proof Assad did it. in fact, all evidence and motivations point differently.

To be honest I don't think it matters which side used the weapons at this point. In the case that the weapons were stolen from Assad's regime by the rebels, there is still the argument that Assad cannot be trusted with such weapons; if he doesn't have the necessary control to keep the weapons away from other parties then they are as safe in Assad's hands as they are in the hands of the various rebel forces.

Strazdas:
And yet for all the shouting of Obama there is still no proof Assad did it. in fact, all evidence and motivations point differently.

They were fired from one of the most heavily fortified regime-controlled areas in Damascus. If the rebels did it they wouldn't have been able to get away cleanly.

Dryk:

They were fired from one of the most heavily fortified regime-controlled areas in Damascus. If the rebels did it they wouldn't have been able to get away cleanly.

But just think of all the possibilities. Yes, Assad might have ordered poison gas rockets fired. But then...

maybe someone below him ordered those rockets fired. Or someone in the Syrian regime accidentally fired poison rockets. Or the rebels broke in, fired those rockets at their own supporters, and got away unnoticed. Or the CIA/ Mossad/ Al-Qaida/ MI6/ KGB/ IRA/ QED / BBQ / WTF broke in (physically - or hacked their computers) and made it happen. Or no rockets and poison gas were fired at all, and all the evidence is a scam, which the rebels, UN, and West are in on and have even hoodwinked the Russians into believing. Or they were HE rockets that happened to blow up a chemicals plant the rebels were operating. Or China did it to waste the West's resources in a futile military operation. Or aliens fired the rockets. Or sarin-gas producing bacteria in the earth's crust happened to be released. Or aliens with bodies made of sarin gas visited earth to make First Contact and in an unfortunate accident poisoned the locals. Or some weird quantum event meant poison gas missiles fired from another dimension accidentally broke into ours. Or the missiles, Syria, Obama and so on don't really exist, they're just a very vivid dream you're experiencing.

I mean, these are just a small sliver of a infinite multitude of possibilities for to explain poison gas attacks in Syria. And you know what? The Syrian regime ordering those missiles fired is just one out of those infinite possibilities. So think on it probabilistically: what are the chances you've just happened to hit upon the one in an infinitieth chance of the right answer? Infinitely small. So the unassailable logic of mathematics determines with near-certainty that you, Obama, and so on are wrong and that Assad is a good-hearted, benevolent guy defending tolerant, secular pluralism against Islamist murderers, paedophiles and kitten-sacrificers and their Western backers drumming up mass slaughter to keep themselves elected in an atmosphere of fear.

its more likely assads brother is behind alot of the chemical weapon use the guy is a complete psychopath and thats putting it lightly

wombat_of_war:
its more likely assads brother is behind alot of the chemical weapon use the guy is a complete psychopath and thats putting it lightly

And that's why any government that is based around the luck of one's birth rather than demanding at least some ability and oversight is doomed. There is always that one crazy fuck that abuses his absolute power, kills a lot of people, pisses of the rest and then revolution, more death and instability and everybody loses.

Chemical123:

wombat_of_war:
its more likely assads brother is behind alot of the chemical weapon use the guy is a complete psychopath and thats putting it lightly

And that's why any government that is based around the luck of one's birth rather than demanding at least some ability and oversight is doomed. There is always that one crazy fuck that abuses his absolute power, kills a lot of people, pisses of the rest and then revolution, more death and instability and everybody loses.

Well...for large parts of the world, that was the way things worked for quite a long time. Now, certainly the system is seriously flawed, but I'd not say it's enough to necessarily doom a nation.

The Roman Empire, for example, had a number of truly terrible Emperors that got in by family connections, but that means such leaders weren't enough to destroy it.

People saying that this is just like Iraq bug me. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, no chemical weapons were used, and none were ever found. Meanwhile in Syria, not only do we know for a fact that there's lots of chemical weapons, but the UN has verified that masses of civilians were gassed, and the evidence strongly implicates the regime.

Ps. I should stop reading the comments section on Al-jazeera. People are so...black and white there. Either Assad is a saint and the rebels are all crazed jihadists, or Assad is a baby-eating monster and the rebels are perfection incarnate. The concept that both sides might have good and bad people is completely absent. Also, I've noticed that in the al-jazeera comments, sooner or later, without fail, someone will start accusing jews of some dark conspiracy.

thaluikhain:

The Roman Empire, for example, had a number of truly terrible Emperors that got in by family connections, but that means such leaders weren't enough to destroy it.

Well they certainly didn't help...

I'm actually pretty sure that if you bend the definition of destroy to setting the path for destruction we could blame the Roman Empires fall on horrible Emperors. Although, again. Its a multible of factors, just like Syria. I'd like to be able to say that the current leadership has been causing all of Syria's current issues, but I'm with Assad (disgusted to even write that)when he says that Syria had a 'lot' of problems, long before he got the power.

He's still an incompetent douchebag of a leader.

Karthak:
People saying that this is just like Iraq bug me. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, no chemical weapons were used, and none were ever found. Meanwhile in Syria, not only do we know for a fact that there's lots of chemical weapons, but the UN has verified that masses of civilians were gassed, and the evidence strongly implicates the regime.

Ps. I should stop reading the comments section on Al-jazeera. People are so...black and white there. Either Assad is a saint and the rebels are all crazed jihadists, or Assad is a baby-eating monster and the rebels are perfection incarnate. The concept that both sides might have good and bad people is completely absent. Also, I've noticed that in the al-jazeera comments, sooner or later, without fail, someone will start accusing jews of some dark conspiracy.

Russia Today Comments are more fun (Although you rarely find them more biased than the articles themselves)

Now, it starts out with Assad being a saint, and as things roll along they slowly move towards him not being a saint (Hesitantly) Once its proven that his an asshole, they start decrying the rebels as equal assholes thus justifying the assholery. They do this simply by saying that the Rebels are the ones whom gassed thousands.

Now that its been proven that it was the Government they've gone from slowly accepting to--- ehm... Just ignoring it.

Yup, not a single commenter is listening to the U.N Inspectors. The exact same discussion is going on there as a month ago, the UN Inspectors doesn't exist.

You would think that there would be more proof beyond, oh we found some rocket shells that the regime may use and they came from somewhere over there. That's what passes for proof now? Please! Not to mention that we know very little about the actual information used to come to the conclusions they arrived at. Also, what about all this we've been hearing on chemical signatures? Not a damn peep about that.

And lastly, why is the escapist so ra ra establishmnet?

How many more wars do you need to see start under false pretenses before you realize it's all a constant lie to keep no bid weapons contracts flowing and prop up the petro dollar?

The fact that an alternative narrative is even being acknowledged by the mainstream media shows that their control is slipping and the establishment's facade is crumbing. You never used to see that happen. It was one narrative, and when "they" say were gonna go to war, we go. We didn't go, you never see that happen.

This is truly unprecedented and that so many of you just blindly think it's business as usual is really unsettling to me.

xDarc:
You would think that there would be more proof beyond, oh we found some rocket shells that the regime may use and they came from somewhere over there. That's what passes for proof now? Please! Not to mention that we know very little about the actual information used to come to the conclusions they arrived at. Also, what about all this we've been hearing on chemical signatures? Not a damn peep about that.

And lastly, why is the escapist so ra ra establishmnet?

None of us are privy to government secrets, so we're working with the information we have. Its not that we are somehow pro-establishment, but rather we agree with the conclusions that the establishment has come to. If you have some sort of evidence to the contrary, show us, and I'm positive that the others on this site will give it the appropriate amount of consideration. The facts that we have been given logically suggest that the rockets, which the Assad Regime has and the rebels do not, were fired from a Syrian military base.

Also, what about chemical signatures? The Secretary of State fucking said they found traces of sarin.

How many more wars do you need to see start under false pretenses before you realize it's all a constant lie to keep no bid weapons contracts flowing and prop up the petro dollar?

Dude, I think you're seeing conspiracies where there aren't any because you're so convinced that the government is fucking with us.

The fact that an alternative narrative is even being acknowledged by the mainstream media shows that their control is slipping and the establishment's facade is crumbing. You never used to see that happen. It was one narrative, and when "they" say were gonna go to war, we go. We didn't go, you never see that happen.

This is truly unprecedented and that so many of you just blindly think it's business as usual is really unsettling to me.

We aren't at war because the American people can't stomach another war so soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn't really the political will to fight to send peoples sons and daughters to die in a land that isn't their own. This isn't about the facade crumbling, this is about politics, and getting reelected.

GrimTuesday:

Also, what about chemical signatures? The Secretary of State fucking said they found traces of sarin.

If you had been paying attention, the media prattled on for days about how Sarin has complex chemical signatures; that not only can you tell if it had been used, but you can tell Russian made stuff, from NATO made stuff, from home made stuff, and so on.

Right now, the media has conveniently dropped that narrative and the focus has entirely shifted from testing to see who made the sarin, to just testing to see that it was used.

There is no question that Sarin was used, but where did it come from? Back in August, they were telling us they could test for it and see, and now- nothing. Why is it not in the report?

You have the Russian president writing a NY Times op-ed calling the west out on their shit; how often has that happened? Never.

My point is, this is not some internet crackpot theory- one side is clearly lying. It's just a question of whose propaganda you believe.

Do you get it now?

xDarc:

GrimTuesday:

Also, what about chemical signatures? The Secretary of State fucking said they found traces of sarin.

If you had been paying attention, the media prattled on for days about how Sarin has complex chemical signatures; that not only can you tell if it had been used, but you can tell Russian made stuff, from NATO made stuff, from home made stuff, and so on.

Right now, the media has conveniently dropped that narrative and the focus has entirely shifted from testing to see who made the sarin, to just testing to see that it was used.

There is no question that Sarin was used, but where did it come from? Back in August, they were telling us they could test for it and see, and now- nothing. Why is it not in the report?

You have the Russian president writing a NY Times op-ed calling the west out on their shit; how often has that happened? Never.

My point is, this is not some internet crackpot theory- one side is clearly lying. It's just a question of whose propaganda you believe.

Do you get it now?

Its been dropped because there isn't anything new to screech about, and lets face it, the media doesn't care if there isn't something to screech about. We can't actually trace it unless we have samples of the Syrian military Sarin to compare it to, and until that time, there isn't going to be any new news.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519146/how-to-trace-a-sarin-attack/

thaluikhain:

Well...for large parts of the world, that was the way things worked for quite a long time. Now, certainly the system is seriously flawed, but I'd not say it's enough to necessarily doom a nation.

The Roman Empire, for example, had a number of truly terrible Emperors that got in by family connections, but that means such leaders weren't enough to destroy it.

I suspect the strength of the Roman Empire was having institutions that could keep the functions of state going even despite an incompetent/ negligent ruler - chiefly a civil bureaucracy and self-sustaining military infrastructure. Excessive centralisation in the person of the king/emperor and his immediate advisors could lead to rapid decay.

Indeed, I think this was a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire in the end, as starting in the 10th century the army became more centralised and thus dependent on direct attention. Its quality and effectiveness collapsed under poor emperors in 1020-1070 and 1180-1204, leading to catastrophic defeats and territorial losses.

xDarc:

If you had been paying attention, the media prattled on for days about how Sarin has complex chemical signatures; that not only can you tell if it had been used, but you can tell Russian made stuff, from NATO made stuff, from home made stuff, and so on.

Sarin is just a chemical. There's no way you could identify who made a chemical by the chemical itself, because one molecule of a specific chemical really is just like another. More conventionally in issues like this - a chemical that rapidly degrades - "chemical signature" refers to distinctive breakdown products: similar to what can be tested for in sports doping rather than the drug itself which may have been metabolised by the time of the test.

"Chemical signatures" as you describe them - a way to identify one producer from another - surely must be something else. I might hypothesise something like impurities. It's practically impossible to manufacture 100% pure anything, and differences in production techniques are likely to result in different levels and types of impurity.

They should be able analyse a sample of unused sarin this way to see who made it. However, being able to identify its source a week after a gas attack strikes me as highly implausible. There will be considerable breakdown of chemicals and massive contamination from the wider environment. Whilst you could reliably find sarin's distinctive breakdown products (which will be present in relatively high concentrations), I would suggest that finding signals of anything else sufficient for reliable identification of a producer/source is extremely unlikely.

Agema:

"Chemical signatures" as you describe them - a way to identify one producer from another - surely must be something else. I might hypothesise something like impurities. It's practically impossible to manufacture 100% pure anything, and differences in production techniques are likely to result in different levels and types of impurity.

That's one method. Another, more commonly used in explosive compounds, is the use of taggants, non-reactive compounds put into mixtures to identify the manufacturer and trace the source (although you still need to have a identified sample to test it to.

The Gentleman:

That's one method. Another, more commonly used in explosive compounds, is the use of taggants, non-reactive compounds put into mixtures to identify the manufacturer and trace the source (although you still need to have a identified sample to test it to.

Fascinating - you learn something new every day. Thanks for the info. I guess plenty of produces might add something like this into their chemical weapons.

The Gentleman:

Agema:

"Chemical signatures" as you describe them - a way to identify one producer from another - surely must be something else. I might hypothesise something like impurities. It's practically impossible to manufacture 100% pure anything, and differences in production techniques are likely to result in different levels and types of impurity.

That's one method. Another, more commonly used in explosive compounds, is the use of taggants, non-reactive compounds put into mixtures to identify the manufacturer and trace the source (although you still need to have a identified sample to test it to.

That would be great if we were wondering who the chemicals originated from. In this case we're pretty sure the rebels didn't manufacture any nerve agents for themselves. It's either the Assad regime used its own weapons against the Syrian people or the rebels stole Assad's weapons and used them. Any tracing device in the manufacturing process would be the same.

WoW Killer:
Any tracing device in the manufacturing process would be the same.

From RT in May/June this year:
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

Or if you prefer western propaganda, here's an article from the LA Times covering the prosecution of what I believe is the same event RT reported with a denial that they had the gas- just trying to make it- oh that's better:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,4224285.story

If you don't know the Saudis, prince Bandar in particular who is the Saudi equivalent of CIA director at the moment, are the ones funding groups like al nusra front. This is a guy who straight up told Putin they control al Qaeda and if he backed down from Syria, Bandar would "guarantee the safety" of Russia's upcoming Olympic games. Basically threatening terror attacks on Russia if they continued to obstruct military intervention in Syria.

The Saudis are the ones pulling the strings, arming and funding the more radical groups which do in fact compose most of the rebel fighters in Syria... pro-opposition analyst O'bagy was just discredited about her report the contrary because it turns out she lied about her doctorate.

Propaganda, all around you- everywhere.

The US says Assad did it.
Russians say rebels did it.

Which one is lying?

That's what it comes down to.

xDarc:
snip

Sarin is easy enough to produce by an industrial nation. That doesn't mean random terrorists can cook up the stuff in a shed with pots and pans. You need a factory. Syria has plenty of course, and maybe the rebels control a fair few of them.

Unless you're dreaming up some conspiracy where Saudi Arabia or the US gave the rebels WMDs for the lulz, those weapons came from Syria.

P.S. I'm on no side in this, and I refuse to be drawn to one. I'm aware of the Saudi influence on western conflicts in the Middle East, and I'm as much a fan as you are. I'm aware of the Shi'ite presence in the Syrians government, the effect this has on Iran's policies, and how much this annoys the Saudi's. I know there's shit going on and it's got nothing to do with that thing between Russia and The West and that little game we do where we constantly try to make each other look like Hitler (Godwin).

WoW Killer:
...

You know, you keep talking but the articles are right there. The MIT article referenced earlier goes into detail explaining how each batch of sarin will have different hydrocarbons and can be distinguished.

Do you read any of this stuff or do you just disagree for the sake of having something to fill your time?

I'm just not going to bother any more. That seems to be going around in here.

xDarc:
You know, you keep talking but the articles are right there. The MIT article referenced earlier goes into detail explaining how each batch of sarin will have different hydrocarbons and can be distinguished.

Don't get what's so hard to understand about this. The tracers are only going to tell you where it was manufactured. It won't tell you who pulled the trigger. The accusation right now is that the rebels took the Syrian government's weapons and then used them. Those are still going to show up under any analysis as the Syrian government's weapons.

Case 1: Assad regime used Syrian made chemical weapons. MIT analysis shows Syrian made chemical weapons were used.

Case 2: Rebels used Syrian made chemical weapons. MIT analysis shows Syrian made chemical weapons were used.

Agema:

thaluikhain:

Well...for large parts of the world, that was the way things worked for quite a long time. Now, certainly the system is seriously flawed, but I'd not say it's enough to necessarily doom a nation.

The Roman Empire, for example, had a number of truly terrible Emperors that got in by family connections, but that means such leaders weren't enough to destroy it.

I suspect the strength of the Roman Empire was having institutions that could keep the functions of state going even despite an incompetent/ negligent ruler - chiefly a civil bureaucracy and self-sustaining military infrastructure. Excessive centralisation in the person of the king/emperor and his immediate advisors could lead to rapid decay.

Indeed, I think this was a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire in the end, as starting in the 10th century the army became more centralised and thus dependent on direct attention. Its quality and effectiveness collapsed under poor emperors in 1020-1070 and 1180-1204, leading to catastrophic defeats and territorial losses.

plus the romans had the pretorian guard which tended to murder the odd leader who stepped out of line

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked