The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

[GeoffP]

You cut me deep GeoffP. How you don't know me so well.. You cut me deep..

Nice avatar by the way. How does it feel like to proudly wear the flag of the country that protects a mass killer, so much so that they even veto a UN condemnation, and of a Government that promotes violence against gays and transgender people?

In my apparent new role as a Soviet agent, Bells, how could I do less?

I believe the BND was talking about weapons grade Sarin and other forms of chemical weapons and how the rebel forces do not have the capability to launch a chemical attack of this magnitude.. But yeah, stick with discussing the rockets.... Ignore the obvious.

The obvious isn't so obvious, apparently. Again: the BND knows that the rebels couldn't produce sarin, but doesn't know they field Type 63?

Lets see. Assad's troops were shelling the region before, during and after the chemical attack.

That's true, and is one of the most damning pieces of evidence so far - possibly the most significant. The questions are how long the bombardment was for, what conventional munitions were used, and what other bombardments were going on. There are a number - a large number - of potential ways to link this to the Syrians. The Americans may have found such ways. The BND or the French may have found them - though from their statements I would say not. In any event, they have shared none of them. Until then...

As for the Tokyo attacks.. You cannot exactly compare for a variety of reasons. Unless of course the rebels have a bunch of scientists on their sides with the necessary equipment to produce that much sarin gas, then test them on those rockets prior to use?

I don't know about that. IMHO, testing is a big sham, really: more about the troops learning the handling characteristics. A properly engineered system will function essentially as prepared, and CW aren't that mechanically complex from what I understand. The Tokyo terrorists managed to get their CW done correctly, and they were a bunch of deranged lunatics. With Saudi and other backing, it wouldn't be all that hard to find competent engineers to create such weapons. I think this point is a bit distal in likelihood.

Riiiiiight.. And even as the police were in a shootout with the brother's, had identified them as the bombers, you were still going on about the Saudi kid..

You already said this. I'm not sure what it has to do with my last statement.

*Chuckle*

Again, sure GeoffP.

Is your account being run by different users? One day, you accuse me of being happy that rebel-controlled suburbs were hit, then you back down and nearly apologize when I explain it to you, and now you're back to this. Go back and review. If you still want to accuse me of it, I suggest you stick to one angle.

He's been using them on civilians in rebel controlled areas since April. But hey, lets be sure...

This is another good point - but then again, the evidence for these is limited also. The media coverage of them recently has been limited to 'Assad ordered such attacks earlier'. Those instances should be subject to the same chain of evidence.

Again, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's usually a fucking duck.

Not after Iraq. Sorry.

I'm sure the Hezbollah, who are fighting with Assad in Syria, can't know if he did it...

How are sure they can? Assad and his commanders just tell Hezbollah that they dropped CW on civilians? The intercept carries the statement "and they told me they did it"? Let's see the intercept first. Let's see what they actually said so we can make up our own minds properly. Is that so hard? It's very probable that Assad did it - again, let's be sure before we kill lots of people and piss innumerable others off, because you understand that we have more people to convince than the French, the Latvians and about 50% of the Americans? Of course, if you're arguing for getting rid of Assad for other reasons, there's plenty of reason to do it.

I am fairly certain, lets say 100% sure, that the BND have not stuffed this up

Oh, good. I'm glad we have at least one expert clairvoyant on this issue. And is 'fairly' 100%?

and this is just you wringing your hands again, because heaven forbid you actually support something that means protecting innocent Muslim civilians who are being gassed in their homes.

Or you eager to bomb anyone that you think might score you humanitarian brownie points. Never mind the collateral damage, eh Bells? After all, they're only Muslims.

As I had stated at the start of this discussion with you, that had those victims been Christian or Jewish, you'd have been over intervention like a rash. But you are 'wringin' dem hands' because they are not. Because the rebel forces contain Islamist elements..

And again you deliberately mischaracterise my argument. So you're a liar. You know, we go through this process of pissed off with each other and remission, but you keep doing this over and over again.

So what do you do? Do you support the gassing of innocent civilians in their fucking homes because to support otherwise could mean helping the Islamists? Considering that new avatar of yours and your pontificating about this, I'd say the answer is a big fat yes.

Yes but, you're an idiot, remember? You don't understand things? Is any of this ringing a bell, Patrick? Come on, think it through: you accuse me of being a Russian sympathizer (in an amusing reproduction of every idiot jingoist I've ever heard) and I change my avatar to a Russian flag. It's a parody, you mental midget: a joooooke. Do you get it?

I'm going to bet: no, even after this. You don't vote, do you, troll? Please say no.

There is a reason why Israel has been pushing for something to be done about Assad's gassing of his civilians. Because they will be next. Self interest? Sure. But at least they know it wasn't faked. And again, you have no proof that the rebels have access to that much Sarin.

You don't know how much sarin was produced or necessary, so stop pretending that you do. You can't go on asserting things you haven't the faintest idea about, just because you want to pretend to be some humanitarian advocate.

Nice site by the way. Are you suggesting we take a pro-Serbian view of the Bosnian war seriously?

Do you read newspapers, Bells? Have a glance at the list of newspapers in that link that confirm the story. Nice headroom there. Get out much?

Assad is actually an eye surgeon. And I think your current avatar speaks for itself, comrade.

Ohhh no, the Amerikanski has figured-outing my sensibilities political! Are you actually serious, you drooling idiot?

Aside from the fact that Syria gives Putin and Russia the port in the Mediterranean that they so desperately desire, that Russia has a naval base in Syria.. And they admit to helping Assad.. Soooo.. do I need to do the duck analogy again?

Well, do whatever makes you happy. You ducked my point though: the Americans and French stand to gain as much in arms sales as the Russians stand to lose. It's a chimp of a different colour.

Oh My Fucking God! How many more excuses can you come up with?

Oh My Fucking God! That part of the post was just a rehash of the same opinions I've been expressing throughout, containing nothing different from what I've been saying before! Let's capitalize our responses though! That will indicate outrage! Get serious.

They said that the rebels do not have the capability and capacity to launch such a chemical attack. And that the Hezbollah, who have been fighting alongside Assad's troops have told Iran that Assad did it.

Bully for them. The BND also doesn't know that the rebels field Type 63 systems, and the French don't back up their opinion with anything besides an assertion of capability. I've outlined several ways they could make their case airtight, allowing them to strike Assad and generate the additional civilian casualties you so desperately crave. But they don't do it. After Iraq, I won't settle for anything other than proper disclosure.

After all, as you said at the start, you are wary because the victims are Muslims and the rebels are Islamists in your opinion.

So how dumb are you, exactly? Like, what kind of IQ are we talking here? High 90s? Do you want me to post my position again, in little words?

Glad to see I grew a penis and some balls since my last post, Ms GeoffP.

Sigh... it's an X-Files reference. "Trust no one, Mr. Mulder." Look it up.

And again, more conspiracy theories from you. Does it ever stop?

So when I suggest that the Americans and French might want to get involved in order to advance their own interests in the region (presumably including arms sales), that is a conspiracy theory.

When you suggest that the Russians want to help Assad to protect their interests in the region (presumably including arms sales), that is not a conspiracy theory.

I see.

Why? Well, because, Geoff.

When you do these things, is the inferred "because" because you want to stymy the debate and introduce chaos into the forums? Is it because you don't know what to say next and feel that you have to say something? Is it because your foaming-at-the-mouth hate compels you to do it? You aren't being paid by the Americans, you running-dog capitalist?

Ugh. Pathetic. Why do I let myself get tied down arguing with nekulturny idiots?

It suits you. It suits your personality and your belief system.

... you think that "wanking over Putin's nipples" "suits [my] personality and [my] belief system".

... I have no words.

You're still a moderator, right?

 

[GeoffP]

No, apparently a used chemical weapon would be expected to look just like that.
They don't use high explosive, and the casing shears rather than fragments.
The design looks quite primitive, but I suspect that it will point to Assad.
You'd have to be very lucky to get it to work without multiple testings, and the rebels wouldn't be able to do that.

The following is a long analysis of the little that is known.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/Lloyd_warhead.pdf

@dmoe
Thanks for that.

THANKYOU. This is precisely what I was looking for - the first graphics don't look like the Type 63 system at all. What's the link that describes this background information, and where it was obtained from? Thanks again, Kremmen - this is genuinely, brilliantly useful.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

THANKYOU. This is precisely what I was looking for - the first graphics don't look like the Type 63 system at all. What's the link that describes this background information, and where it was obtained from? Thanks again, Kremmen - this is genuinely, brilliantly useful.

Yes he's done a lot of work on it. I found it by googling, so I don't know any more.
If you shorten the address, it doesn't bring up anything.
The missile doesn't look hard to make, disturbingly simple in fact.
The site described it as "brilliant", and conjectured that they made it from low grade steel.
A skilled metal worker could make it.
So much for them requiring high tech manufacturers.
I think it would be hard to get them to fly right without a lot of experiment and adjustment,
but once they got the design right, they could churn them out.
If that site is correct, I am tending towards thinking Assad's men fired them.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes he's done a lot of work on it. I found it by googling, so I don't know any more.
If you shorten the address, it doesn't bring up anything.

Yeah I tried that. Bastard intertubes.

The missile doesn't look hard to make, disturbingly simple in fact.
The site described it as "brilliant", and conjectured that they made it from low grade steel.
A skilled metal worker could make it.
So much for them requiring high tech manufacturers.
I think it would be hard to get them to fly right without a lot of experiment and adjustment,
but once they got the design right, they could churn them out.
If that site is correct, I am tending towards thinking Assad's men fired them.

It doesn't look like the Type 63 either though. Something new? But wouldn't a lower industrial grade suit the terrorists at least as well as Assad? Still, there are several uniformed men in the first few pics which could be Assad's troops. Then again, there's also a couple civvies with them and the hair looks long. What are the disciplinary standards for Syrian troops? What is the normal extent of their interaction with the civil service on a missile-firing jaunt? Most importantly, where did the pictures come from and when? I really don't want to hunt through the entire fucking NYT site.

 

[Bells]

In my apparent new role as a Soviet agent, Bells, how could I do less?

You're an idiot. Really.

The obvious isn't so obvious, apparently. Again: the BND knows that the rebels couldn't produce sarin, but doesn't know they field Type 63?

The BND, and everyone else, pointed out that the rebels do not have the capacity and capability to launch such a chemical attack. What part of that did you not understand, exactly?

That's true, and is one of the most damning pieces of evidence so far - possibly the most significant. The questions are how long the bombardment was for, what conventional munitions were used, and what other bombardments were going on. There are a number - a large number - of potential ways to link this to the Syrians. The Americans may have found such ways. The BND or the French may have found them - though from their statements I would say not. In any event, they have shared none of them. Until then...

*Facepalm..

Again, chemical used and deployed from his armed forces, Hezbollah, his partner in this war, advised he had done it. He prevented the UN from gaining access to the site for 5 days, the number of days required for the chemicals to degrade from the area.. And you still can't see how this ties to Assad? What next? You're going to blame the Saudis?

Ah wait.. here we go..

I don't know about that. IMHO, testing is a big sham, really: more about the troops learning the handling characteristics. A properly engineered system will function essentially as prepared, and CW aren't that mechanically complex from what I understand. The Tokyo terrorists managed to get their CW done correctly, and they were a bunch of deranged lunatics. With Saudi and other backing, it wouldn't be all that hard to find competent engineers to create such weapons. I think this point is a bit distal in likelihood.

Does it ever stop?

Testing the delivery system is not a sham. You need to test your rockets and mortar's first, so that they do not explode or burn up on impact, which would destroy their WMD contents. Since there are no reports of the rebels doing this, nor the Saudis or anyone else.. aside from Assad.. Does it need to be spelled out for you?

You already said this. I'm not sure what it has to do with my last statement.

Is your account being run by different users? One day, you accuse me of being happy that rebel-controlled suburbs were hit, then you back down and nearly apologize when I explain it to you, and now you're back to this. Go back and review. If you still want to accuse me of it, I suggest you stick to one angle.

It's the Saudis.

This is another good point - but then again, the evidence for these is limited also. The media coverage of them recently has been limited to 'Assad ordered such attacks earlier'. Those instances should be subject to the same chain of evidence.

Apply the duck analogy.

Not after Iraq. Sorry.

I know they are Arabs and I know they are Muslims in the Middle East. But this is not Iraq.

It is very different from Iraq. The only exception would be right after Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Aside from those attacks during the Iran/Iraq war, this is not Iraq. The US and the West is not about to go spelunking for WMD's in Syria. No one needs to. They admit they own.

So this is not Iraq.

How are sure they can? Assad and his commanders just tell Hezbollah that they dropped CW on civilians? The intercept carries the statement "and they told me they did it"? Let's see the intercept first. Let's see what they actually said so we can make up our own minds properly. Is that so hard? It's very probable that Assad did it - again, let's be sure before we kill lots of people and piss innumerable others off, because you understand that we have more people to convince than the French, the Latvians and about 50% of the Americans? Of course, if you're arguing for getting rid of Assad for other reasons, there's plenty of reason to do it.

Hezbollah have been fighting with Assad's forces.

They and Iran are helping Assad fund this war since Assad's funds have been blocked/seized since the war began. How naive can you be that you expect this scenario? At least you didn't blame the Saudis this time.

Oh, good. I'm glad we have at least one expert clairvoyant on this issue. And is 'fairly' 100%?

Well you are the expert on conspiracies... What does Germany have to gain by lying?

Or you eager to bomb anyone that you think might score you humanitarian brownie points. Never mind the collateral damage, eh Bells? After all, they're only Muslims.

You're the one using that argument. Not me. Remember?

Also, people seem to believe this would be like Bush's shock and awe. The US and the West have said they have no plan on getting involved or trying to oust Assad.

And again you deliberately mischaracterise my argument. So you're a liar. You know, we go through this process of pissed off with each other and remission, but you keep doing this over and over again.

I didn't mischaracterise your argument. That was your argument. Or have you forgotten your 'it's not worth it because they hate us' argument? How when you then said "it would be different if the civilian population were anything but Muslim" and that because they are, then they would just hate "us" regardless of what we do? None of that rings a bell?

Yes but, you're an idiot, remember? You don't understand things? Is any of this ringing a bell, Patrick? Come on, think it through: you accuse me of being a Russian sympathizer (in an amusing reproduction of every idiot jingoist I've ever heard) and I change my avatar to a Russian flag. It's a parody, you mental midget: a joooooke. Do you get it?

But you are a sympathiser. Always have been. You have twisted yourself into circles trying to find a way that it was not Assad. Even the link that Kremmen provided, you are still trying to make excuses that it was not Assad. Why is that?

You don't know how much sarin was produced or necessary, so stop pretending that you do. You can't go on asserting things you haven't the faintest idea about, just because you want to pretend to be some humanitarian advocate.

Who is the one arguing that nothing be done because they are Muslims and will hate us if we stop them from getting gassed to death? Me or you?

Do you read newspapers, Bells? Have a glance at the list of newspapers in that link that confirm the story. Nice headroom there. Get out much?

Still making excuses for Assad? Still denying that everyone has said it was Assad, even the fucking Hezbollah. And you are still denying it.

Ohhh no, the Amerikanski has figured-outing my sensibilities political! Are you actually serious, you drooling idiot?

You made a mistake. Deal with it.

Well, do whatever makes you happy. You ducked my point though: the Americans and French stand to gain as much in arms sales as the Russians stand to lose. It's a chimp of a different colour.

Who would they sell to?

The rebels they still aren't providing arms or support to? This is the line you're going to run with? Goodluck. 2.5 years and the US and France have not offered or sold them anything. But nice try.

Oh My Fucking God! That part of the post was just a rehash of the same opinions I've been expressing throughout, containing nothing different from what I've been saying before! Let's capitalize our responses though! That will indicate outrage! Get serious.

Don't bother. You stopped being serious when you kept pushing me to respond to you earlier in the post and then declared that it wasn't worth bombing them because they will hate us regardless..

Bully for them. The BND also doesn't know that the rebels field Type 63 systems, and the French don't back up their opinion with anything besides an assertion of capability. I've outlined several ways they could make their case airtight, allowing them to strike Assad and generate the additional civilian casualties you so desperately crave. But they don't do it. After Iraq, I won't settle for anything other than proper disclosure.

Your OCD is showing with the Type 63 weapon.

They were discussing the rebels capability and capacity to launch a chemical weapons attack of that magnitude and you keep harping on about the Type 63. Nice work dodging there.

It's just like when you deliberately misinterpreted the French report I linked, thinking I could not read French. This is your style, after all. This is classic GeoffP.

So how dumb are you, exactly? Like, what kind of IQ are we talking here? High 90s? Do you want me to post my position again, in little words?

At least I can read French and not miss huge sentences. You on the other hand either lied about your ability to read French or you lied when you claimed that their report mentioned nothing about chemical weapons. Which is it?

Sigh... it's an X-Files reference. "Trust no one, Mr. Mulder." Look it up.

I don't watch much TV.

So when I suggest that the Americans and French might want to get involved in order to advance their own interests in the region (presumably including arms sales), that is a conspiracy theory.

What interest do they have in Syria? Not oil, since Syria does not have that much. They don't need another base, since they have that already with other of their allies in the region. So what interests do they have in seeing Assad fall?

When you suggest that the Russians want to help Assad to protect their interests in the region (presumably including arms sales), that is not a conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry, but Russia has arms sales to Syria, as well as a large Naval base there. Are you suggesting they are not interests that they would want to protect? And seeing how Russia has vetoed every single thing put to the UNSC, to the point where the UN can't even condemn Assad for mass murdering his own civilians, from when he had them gunned down when they protested peacefully to when they were killed in a chemical attack, you don't think Russia is helping Assad? You don't think they are helping them even when they admit to doing it?

I see.

Why? Well, because, Geoff.

When you do these things, is the inferred "because" because you want to stymy the debate and introduce chaos into the forums? Is it because you don't know what to say next and feel that you have to say something? Is it because your foaming-at-the-mouth hate compels you to do it? You aren't being paid by the Americans, you running-dog capitalist?

Ugh. Pathetic. Why do I let myself get tied down arguing with nekulturny idiots?



... you think that "wanking over Putin's nipples" "suits [my] personality and [my] belief system".

... I have no words.

You're still a moderator, right?

Okay, enough.. Enough of this bullshit.

You know, I don't understand you. I ignore you and you keep pushing for a response from me. It's as if you thrive on these arguments. I'd give you one answer and you'd keep at me until I'd respond again. It's not that you let yourself get tied down Geoff, it is more a situation that you deliberately seek confrontation with me and when I point out that you're a dick, you get pissy and ask if I am a moderator. Yes, to answer your question, I am still a moderator. Throughout this whole debacle of a discussion with you, I have seen you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find excuses for Assad, from deliberately misleading an interpretation, not realising I could read French, to deliberately misconstruing what the Germans actually said in their intelligence report and instead, focusing on the a rocket, instead of the fact that the BND said they did not believe the rebels could have launched that chemical attack. The absolute classic of this debate was when you tried to claim this was exactly like Egypt. It is astounding really. And scary.

Kremmen provides a link, with god damn pictures, and you still twist yourself around trying to find something to say that it was the rebels.

And why? Because the rebels are the Islamists in your eyes. So they must be in the wrong as far as you are concerned. And that is your point of conflict in all of this. And Assad.. well, he's not an Islamists, so surely he can't be that bad. This has been the crux of your issue with this. It is why I have joked about your support of Russia, because you are going so far as to devote your ridiculous avatar to a country that is openly supporting, arming and defending a mass killer. Even without the chemical weapons attack, Assad is a mass killer who ordered his troops to open fire on innocent and peaceful civilians who were marching for political reform in their country.

Have some factions within the rebel troops committed war crimes as well as Assad? Yes.

However, this should not overshadow what has occurred and been occurring. What should also matter is that this war has escalated to the point where chemical weapons are being used against civilians. Now you can pontificate and claim that the US and France have much to gain in getting involved into this war as much as you want. You can protest against their intervention as much as you desire. That you fail to mention or comment on Russia's, Iran and the Hezbollah's intervention and involvement in this conflict makes a fairly big point. Or are Iran and the Hezbollah not Islamist enough to warrant your negative comments?

We get it GeoffP. You have an issue because the rebels are Islamists in your eyes and thus, would hate the West and the Americans if they intervene. We get it. The point that you have obviously missed however is this. Does it matter if they hate us? If you do the right thing, does it matter if they hate us afterwards? When they go after Israel with chemical weapons, are you going to use this same argument that you have used in this thread? 'Well we could do something to stop them or punish them, but it's not worth it, because they hate us and well, we can only be 99.99% sure he launched it and unless it's 100%, then no'..? And this is where we are at. We are at 99.99% that it was Assad, to the point where even his collaborators and supporters fighting with him in this war have said he did do it.. And you are still trying to say you aren't sure. And if you think I'm kidding about Israel, then you are delusional, especially when you consider that Israel is a motivating factor in their having chemical and biological weapons and Israel has already launched attacks within Syria by bombing them.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

But wouldn't a lower industrial grade suit the terrorists at least as well as Assad?

Maybe, but a standing army is a better bet.
They would be hard to design.
It's a wonder they work at all.
I think it would take a lot of trial and error, and skilled engineers.

Still, we are jumping the gun, as they say.
Wait for the official report.

 

[milkweed]

Still, there are several uniformed men in the first few pics which could be Assad's troops. Then again, there's also a couple civvies with them and the hair looks long. What are the disciplinary standards for Syrian troops? What is the normal extent of their interaction with the civil service on a missile-firing jaunt?

Good observation.

Quote from wiki on FSA:

"Composed of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel and volunteers, its formation was announced on 29 July 2011 in a video released on the internet by a uniformed group of deserters from the Syrian military who called upon members of the Syrian army to defect and join them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Maybe some of those pictures are not of Assads army.

 

[GeoffP]

Maybe, but a standing army is a better bet.
They would be hard to design.
It's a wonder they work at all.
I think it would take a lot of trial and error, and skilled engineers.

Still, we are jumping the gun, as they say.
Wait for the official report.

Well, some people are in a hurry.

Good observation.

Quote from wiki on FSA:

"Composed of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel and volunteers, its formation was announced on 29 July 2011 in a video released on the internet by a uniformed group of deserters from the Syrian military who called upon members of the Syrian army to defect and join them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Maybe some of those pictures are not of Assads army.

Possible. Where are the pictures even from? When? Does anyone know?

 

[wegs]

The BND, and everyone else, pointed out that the rebels do not have the capacity and capability to launch such a chemical attack. What part of that did you not understand, exactly?

This was/is (to me) the 'best' piece of evidence to link Assad to the chemical attacks as opposed to the rebels. I too was holding out thinking that the rebels might have been responsible, but it just doesn't seem like they had/have the capability to carry out something of that scale. It's sort of a catch-22. I didn't want the US to act too quickly, based on assumptions and hearsay, but now, quite a bit of time has passed, enough time to have given Assad a chance to do damage control, removing as much 'evidence' as possible. So, the US (and other countries) have been between a rock and a hard place as to what 'next steps' to take in dealing with the crisis. It's such a mess, really.

 

[joepistole]

You're an idiot. Really.



The BND, and everyone else, pointed out that the rebels do not have the capacity and capability to launch such a chemical attack. What part of that did you not understand, exactly?



*Facepalm..

Again, chemical used and deployed from his armed forces, Hezbollah, his partner in this war, advised he had done it. He prevented the UN from gaining access to the site for 5 days, the number of days required for the chemicals to degrade from the area.. And you still can't see how this ties to Assad? What next? You're going to blame the Saudis?

Ah wait.. here we go..



Does it ever stop?

Testing the delivery system is not a sham. You need to test your rockets and mortar's first, so that they do not explode or burn up on impact, which would destroy their WMD contents. Since there are no reports of the rebels doing this, nor the Saudis or anyone else.. aside from Assad.. Does it need to be spelled out for you?


It's the Saudis.



Apply the duck analogy.



I know they are Arabs and I know they are Muslims in the Middle East. But this is not Iraq.

It is very different from Iraq. The only exception would be right after Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Aside from those attacks during the Iran/Iraq war, this is not Iraq. The US and the West is not about to go spelunking for WMD's in Syria. No one needs to. They admit they own.

So this is not Iraq.



Hezbollah have been fighting with Assad's forces.

They and Iran are helping Assad fund this war since Assad's funds have been blocked/seized since the war began. How naive can you be that you expect this scenario? At least you didn't blame the Saudis this time.


Well you are the expert on conspiracies... What does Germany have to gain by lying?



You're the one using that argument. Not me. Remember?

Also, people seem to believe this would be like Bush's shock and awe. The US and the West have said they have no plan on getting involved or trying to oust Assad.


I didn't mischaracterise your argument. That was your argument. Or have you forgotten your 'it's not worth it because they hate us' argument? How when you then said "it would be different if the civilian population were anything but Muslim" and that because they are, then they would just hate "us" regardless of what we do? None of that rings a bell?



But you are a sympathiser. Always have been. You have twisted yourself into circles trying to find a way that it was not Assad. Even the link that Kremmen provided, you are still trying to make excuses that it was not Assad. Why is that?



Who is the one arguing that nothing be done because they are Muslims and will hate us if we stop them from getting gassed to death? Me or you?


Still making excuses for Assad? Still denying that everyone has said it was Assad, even the fucking Hezbollah. And you are still denying it.



You made a mistake. Deal with it.



Who would they sell to?

The rebels they still aren't providing arms or support to? This is the line you're going to run with? Goodluck. 2.5 years and the US and France have not offered or sold them anything. But nice try.


Don't bother. You stopped being serious when you kept pushing me to respond to you earlier in the post and then declared that it wasn't worth bombing them because they will hate us regardless..



Your OCD is showing with the Type 63 weapon.

They were discussing the rebels capability and capacity to launch a chemical weapons attack of that magnitude and you keep harping on about the Type 63. Nice work dodging there.

It's just like when you deliberately misinterpreted the French report I linked, thinking I could not read French. This is your style, after all. This is classic GeoffP.



At least I can read French and not miss huge sentences. You on the other hand either lied about your ability to read French or you lied when you claimed that their report mentioned nothing about chemical weapons. Which is it?


I don't watch much TV.


What interest do they have in Syria? Not oil, since Syria does not have that much. They don't need another base, since they have that already with other of their allies in the region. So what interests do they have in seeing Assad fall?


I'm sorry, but Russia has arms sales to Syria, as well as a large Naval base there. Are you suggesting they are not interests that they would want to protect? And seeing how Russia has vetoed every single thing put to the UNSC, to the point where the UN can't even condemn Assad for mass murdering his own civilians, from when he had them gunned down when they protested peacefully to when they were killed in a chemical attack, you don't think Russia is helping Assad? You don't think they are helping them even when they admit to doing it?

Okay, enough.. Enough of this bullshit.

You know, I don't understand you. I ignore you and you keep pushing for a response from me. It's as if you thrive on these arguments. I'd give you one answer and you'd keep at me until I'd respond again. It's not that you let yourself get tied down Geoff, it is more a situation that you deliberately seek confrontation with me and when I point out that you're a dick, you get pissy and ask if I am a moderator. Yes, to answer your question, I am still a moderator. Throughout this whole debacle of a discussion with you, I have seen you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find excuses for Assad, from deliberately misleading an interpretation, not realising I could read French, to deliberately misconstruing what the Germans actually said in their intelligence report and instead, focusing on the a rocket, instead of the fact that the BND said they did not believe the rebels could have launched that chemical attack. The absolute classic of this debate was when you tried to claim this was exactly like Egypt. It is astounding really. And scary.

Kremmen provides a link, with god damn pictures, and you still twist yourself around trying to find something to say that it was the rebels.

And why? Because the rebels are the Islamists in your eyes. So they must be in the wrong as far as you are concerned. And that is your point of conflict in all of this. And Assad.. well, he's not an Islamists, so surely he can't be that bad. This has been the crux of your issue with this. It is why I have joked about your support of Russia, because you are going so far as to devote your ridiculous avatar to a country that is openly supporting, arming and defending a mass killer. Even without the chemical weapons attack, Assad is a mass killer who ordered his troops to open fire on innocent and peaceful civilians who were marching for political reform in their country.

Have some factions within the rebel troops committed war crimes as well as Assad? Yes.

However, this should not overshadow what has occurred and been occurring. What should also matter is that this war has escalated to the point where chemical weapons are being used against civilians. Now you can pontificate and claim that the US and France have much to gain in getting involved into this war as much as you want. You can protest against their intervention as much as you desire. That you fail to mention or comment on Russia's, Iran and the Hezbollah's intervention and involvement in this conflict makes a fairly big point. Or are Iran and the Hezbollah not Islamist enough to warrant your negative comments?

We get it GeoffP. You have an issue because the rebels are Islamists in your eyes and thus, would hate the West and the Americans if they intervene. We get it. The point that you have obviously missed however is this. Does it matter if they hate us? If you do the right thing, does it matter if they hate us afterwards? When they go after Israel with chemical weapons, are you going to use this same argument that you have used in this thread? 'Well we could do something to stop them or punish them, but it's not worth it, because they hate us and well, we can only be 99.99% sure he launched it and unless it's 100%, then no'..? And this is where we are at. We are at 99.99% that it was Assad, to the point where even his collaborators and supporters fighting with him in this war have said he did do it.. And you are still trying to say you aren't sure. And if you think I'm kidding about Israel, then you are delusional, especially when you consider that Israel is a motivating factor in their having chemical and biological weapons and Israel has already launched attacks within Syria by bombing them.

You nailed it Bells. Geoff makes a lot of factual errors which he quickly ignores and he appears incapable of reason and rational thought.

 

[GeoffP]

You're an idiot. Really.

The cricket insults the eagle.

The BND, and everyone else, pointed out that the rebels do not have the capacity and capability to launch such a chemical attack. What part of that did you not understand, exactly?

Which part of my analysis of their comments did you not understand? This isn't - so to speak - rocket science.

Again, chemical used and deployed from his armed forces, Hezbollah, his partner in this war, advised he had done it. He prevented the UN from gaining access to the site for 5 days, the number of days required for the chemicals to degrade from the area.. And you still can't see how this ties to Assad? What next? You're going to blame the Saudis?

Actually, one Hezbollah commander reported that, which does not a complete case make. You keep saying Hezbollah said, Hezbollah said. One commander thought they did it, which, without any further information, is an opinion. You can find them all over.

Does it ever stop?

No. Your evasion and hand-wringing (yes, that's you) and misrepresentation never stops. It never does. The argument starts, you lay in with insults, I volley you, and you flip out. It never stops.

Testing the delivery system is not a sham. You need to test your rockets and mortar's first, so that they do not explode or burn up on impact, which would destroy their WMD contents. Since there are no reports of the rebels doing this

First: actually, a payload loaded is a payload that can be fired, with these cheesy systems. There is a mountain of information there that you don't know and don't know where to locate. What kind of weapons were used? How are the chemical charge heads different from standard HE? Do they require testing? Are insurgents known for their disciplined approach to the implementation of chemical warfare. How do I know what the BND and the French completely missed? Hey, remember that time when they all assured us that Saddam had WMDs and then he totally fucking didn't? This could be that right here. What is it you have against being sure? Why are you so gung-ho to strike now?

Apply the duck analogy.

No thanks.

I know they are Arabs and I know they are Muslims in the Middle East. But this is not Iraq.

It has all the cards from the last hand, and precedent to be something else. I'll say "it's not Iraq" when I know it isn't.

It is very different from Iraq. The only exception would be right after Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Aside from those attacks during the Iran/Iraq war, this is not Iraq. The US and the West is not about to go spelunking for WMD's in Syria. No one needs to. They admit they own.

Once again, it is not a question of whether Syria has CWs.

Hezbollah have been fighting with Assad's forces.

And? So Hezbollah had representative on-site, did they? Of course, since the transcript hasn't been release so far as I've seen, we have no idea what the Hezbollah commander in the intercept said, or how, or what he actually might or might not know.

They and Iran are helping Assad fund this war since Assad's funds have been blocked/seized since the war began. How naive can you be that you expect this scenario? At least you didn't blame the Saudis this time.

Er, you realize that the Saudis do appear to be funding the rebels, yes? I don't know that they're funneling them CW gear, but you do know maybe vaguely that they've also offered to pay for the American's intervention and may be bribing US congressmen to vote for war. But you wouldn't know about that, of course. There's presently no connection between the Saudis and CW as far as I know, but do you kind of remotely get that they'd be happy to see a little regime change in favour of a Sunni/Wahhabi surge? Let's get that on the table and away from the silly bench.

Well you are the expert on conspiracies... What does Germany have to gain by lying?

Actually, I think I said they might be incompetent. Now that being said, Kremmen had a link above - I know, you didn't bother reading it; go back and look - that indicates a system that is definitely not 107mm Type 63. We don't know where those pictures are from, though, or from when. Unfortunately, one of your sources indicates unequivocally 107s were indeed used, so unless BND is refuting this report, or the report is wrong, something is not right. Intelligence personnel are not gods. They are human, and fallible.

You're the one using that argument. Not me. Remember?

No, no, you want to bomb away. It's the only reasonable explanation. You want a lot of flattened civilians. Well, I'm appalled at this. I'm shocked and awed that someone would think this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I didn't mischaracterise your argument. That was your argument. Or have you forgotten your 'it's not worth it because they hate us' argument? How when you then said "it would be different if the civilian population were anything but Muslim" and that because they are, then they would just hate "us" regardless of what we do? None of that rings a bell?

Well, that was actually closer to what I wrote than what you've been doing, which is trim it down until it loses my original meaning in order to paint me as a hater, which in your defense I have to say that you do pretty much all the time. There are rules on SF about doing this, aren't there? Are mods supposed to be some kind of models or something on the site, or are you basically an insulated dickhead?

But you are a sympathiser. Always have been. You have twisted yourself into circles trying to find a way that it was not Assad. Even the link that Kremmen provided, you are still trying to make excuses that it was not Assad. Why is that?

Tell you what: use Kremmen's link to show that it was Assad, definitively. Go on. Let's see you try; I could use a laugh. "Sympathiser". Good God.

Who is the one arguing that nothing be done because they are Muslims and will hate us if we stop them from getting gassed to death? Me or you?

Well, it's not me (I want clarification, not obstruction), and it's not you, so I don't know who you're talking about. Do you?

Still making excuses for Assad? Still denying that everyone has said it was Assad, even the fucking Hezbollah. And you are still denying it.

The Hezbollah has not said that, and I challenge you to find a comment that so indicates. Can't? No shit.

You made a mistake. Deal with it.

Are you out of your mind? No one cares whether he was a dentist or an optician or a paper-delivery boy. I was replying to your idiotic comrade comment:

And I think your current avatar speaks for itself, comrade.

Emphasis original. Sad.

Who would they sell to?

The rebels they still aren't providing arms or support to? This is the line you're going to run with? Goodluck. 2.5 years and the US and France have not offered or sold them anything. But nice try.

And the Saudis and Qataris are just going to keep supplying them forever? Brilliant.

Don't bother. You stopped being serious when you kept pushing me to respond to you earlier in the post and then declared that it wasn't worth bombing them because they will hate us regardless..

This is hilarious. To respond to you is to push you. To question the foundations of the case is to ask about it's worth. Look, I don't know how you came by your narcissism, but let me be clear here: I don't value you that greatly, positive or negative. Understand? It's not about you, and your pleas for en passant attention don't move me. I don't feel constrained to be nice to you about them any more. The whole world neither loves nor hates you, understand? For God's sake.

Your OCD is showing with the Type 63 weapon.

They were discussing the rebels capability and capacity to launch a chemical weapons attack of that magnitude and you keep harping on about the Type 63. Nice work dodging there.

I give up. You are - literally - not intelligent enough to have a debate with me. You can't read your own links, you don't know or care what's being reported, and you're too thirsty for Syrian blood to bother thinking for even a moment - the downside of which you've been completely unable to demonstrate to me.

It's just like when you deliberately misinterpreted the French report I linked, thinking I could not read French. This is your style, after all. This is classic GeoffP.

We've discussed this. There is no excuse for you to keep misrepresenting it. None. Why don't you see if you can tell me what part of that report - the French one, just to be clear - unequivocally links the Assad regime to the attacks east of Damascus. Let's see how you do with that. I mean, surely you aren't just citing their disposition. They must really, utterly know. Right?

What interest do they have in Syria? Not oil, since Syria does not have that much. They don't need another base, since they have that already with other of their allies in the region. So what interests do they have in seeing Assad fall?

Arms sales, Russian satellite, hegemony. Next.

Okay, enough.. Enough of this bullshit.

You know, I don't understand you.

Close - you just don't understand, period. Bells, I tried to be nice about this. I was considerate and pleasant, only meeting your insults insult-for-insult: no, don't go back in the thread now and pretend to find that I insulted you first, or that you did but you had a rilly rilly good reason for doing so - it would only waste my time and yours and it would be embarrassing for you in a way you won't understand. But what happens is that when you start to lose, as you always do, you start thrashing around for something juicy to say. How naive I was to think - just long enough to post - that you wouldn't try to take the things I said out of context and do your usual job of bullshit peddling. But you did! Again! How absurd of me to think that, once you'd admitted to knowing or understanding something, you wouldn't just double back to your original fallacious argument. But you did! How stupid of me! It's my fault, really. It must be. I must want you to do this in some sick way. It has to be me, somehow. I mean, I should have learned this by now, shouldn't I?

I just deleted the rest of your post - why rehash out alllll the issues you don't understand yet again? I could make a hell of a pile out of those issues, stacking them up like turtles supporting a world of your invention: Yertle the World Turtle. It's as though your ignorance has given you the sensation that you have a monopoly on the truth, which must then constrain itself to fit your own mindset. I play occasionally at such intellectual disjunction with sarcasm and wit, always joking, never serious - but you actually live it. May I just say: kudos to you. Few people have such power of imagination. I'm sure you give all your case staff a great and trying time. I'm going to talk with the adults on the thread now. Thankyou.

PS: your greatest supporter is joeepistole, which should tell you something, but will not.

 

[joepistole]

PS: your greatest supporter is joeepistole, which should tell you something, but will not.

LOL, how about getting your facts straight every once in a while?

 

[GeoffP]

LOL, how about getting your facts straight every once in a while?

That be some good trollin', right there.

 

[GeoffP]

Classic Geoff

Now, for the adults on the thread: I just found a blog that suggest it might not have been the Type 63s found at the impact sites that carried the chemical attack (something the BND missed), but instead BM14 140mm rounds. There's no chemical assays on the recovered 140mm munitions yet, apparently, but there are indeed modifications that would allow them to carry a Sarin payload. Presumably the UN has made physical samples from these munitions. If this is the case, it might be stronger support for the Syrians being responsible for this latest CW attack, since BM14s are presumably harder to get hold of than the Type 63s people thought were carrying the rounds. Or they could have been just carrying conventional munitions, or could have been delivered with the follow-up attacks. One hopes (but does not expect) that the UN will be looking into this.

http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/photographs-showing-measurements-of.html
http://newsmotion.org/tags/damascus

Edit: I should point out here that I don't have the provenance of the photos at the site.

 

[GeoffP]

Also this thread here.

http://www.psmag.com/politics/decode-syrian-chemical-weapons-claim-65306/

Warning: the site may have words on it, and does not jump to conclusions. I cannot take responsibility for the existence of same.

 

[joepistole]

That be some good trollin', right there.

I see you are still nursing your neurosis.

 

[wegs]

Now, for the adults on the thread: I just found a blog that suggest it might not have been the Type 63s found at the impact sites that carried the chemical attack (something the BND missed), but instead BM14 140mm rounds. There's no chemical assays on the recovered 140mm munitions yet, apparently, but there are indeed modifications that would allow them to carry a Sarin payload. Presumably the UN has made physical samples from these munitions. If this is the case, it might be stronger support for the Syrians being responsible for this latest CW attack, since BM14s are presumably harder to get hold of than the Type 63s people thought were carrying the rounds. Or they could have been just carrying conventional munitions, or could have been delivered with the follow-up attacks. One hopes (but does not expect) that the UN will be looking into this.

http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/photographs-showing-measurements-of.html
http://newsmotion.org/tags/damascus

Edit: I should point out here that I don't have the provenance of the photos at the site.

A picture paints a thousand words. Can't believe this is happening in our lifetime.

That said, thank you for this ''update,'' Geoff. Question for you; per your point above, why do you 'not expect' the UN to look into this further?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Bells

Bells, so you are a "moderator", I would guess congratulations are in order - so, congratulations, Bells.

Before I forget - how have I, dmoe, been doing, in relation to "toeing your expressed line"?

I have also noticed that you do not reserve your name calling, spit, vinegar and vitriolic language just for me, dmoe!
It appears that a few of the other Posters on this Thread/Forum...enjoy?...your admirable ability...to...spread it around...so to say! As a young man, working on my family's farm(s) - we had a machine to spread...things?...of that nature?...and I must admit that I enjoyed the "attention" of that machine, at approximately the same level that I enjoy your "attention" - but I digress...

I Post with the observance that you. Bells are able to use the "words" that I have been restricted from "not" not using(??!!??) - is this because you are a "Moderator"?

Bells, you seem to repeatedly speak of "evidence" - and evidently(pun intended!) - the "evidence" you speak of is unimpeachable. May I ask is this "evidence" sourced from the "world media" in some way?

I have a link- to some information/evidence that I, dmoe, feel is pertinent to this Thread and the "evidence" that has been proffered herein - at the risk of being the object of more of your "spreading", I will now post the link to it :

link - http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/07/congress-denied-syrian-facts-too/

Bells, believe me when I say that you are perfectly welcome to ignore it - or pick it apart and claim that in someway offends you - that it links to a known "site" which meets "your" minimum qualifications of wrong, offensive or that it is a "conspiracy theory" in some way but...meh!...you really should read it.

And, Bells, I would really appreciate it if you would Post back with your thoughts on the information presented in the link.

 

[GeoffP]

I see you are still nursing your neurosis.

That be some good trollin', right there.

 

[GeoffP]

The "fuck me" moment

Hello all,

Well, here we are. We have devolved to this.

US: 'Common-sense test' holds Assad responsible

ASHINGTON (AP) — The White House asserted Sunday that a "common-sense test" dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama's top aide says the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-common-sense-test-holds-assad-responsible-130319320--politics.html

How stupid are these people? No, really, how stupid are they? I can practically find "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" from the shit information available on the fucking internet, without recourse to any of the practical reports that these clowns have to hand. I agree, the present set of info - that is, the information on the web from which I am forced to infer and cross-correlate - is not "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" but for fuck's sake, this would not be that hard to generate. What's the type of sarin? Does it have a stabilizer? What ammunition was used to deliver it? Who has access to it? What kind of support are Saudi Arabia and Qatar providing the rebels? (I don't see any other candidates besides Syria and the rebs right now.) Is anyone monitoring their communications? Exactly what was said and to whom? When?

... still, maybe the WH is sucking wind right now, waiting for the UN report. Maybe it's a stall before resurgence with blinding unequivocality.

Mind you, the Israelis appear to have done what I've done and take the lean that a heavier artillery battalion was responsible, instead of this 107mm Type 63 bullshit. That would explain the longer-ranged hits at the easternmost edge of the attack; larger, longer-ranged arms like the 140mm rocket rounds carrying a larger sarin payload. (Journalists should be shot.) It's more unlikely that the Syrian rebels have those; and did anyone clock the trajectory of the missiles? There are lots of ways to answer this.