The cricket insults the eagle.
Hmmm yes..
You are the eagle..
Which part of my analysis of their comments did you not understand? This isn't - so to speak - rocket science.
Which one? The analysis where you ignored the content? Or the one that you deliberately misrepresented when you interpreted it for me, thinking I could not read French? Or is it a bit from column A and a bit from column B?
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.
He didn't think they did it.
He says they did it:
"The BND referred to a phone call they had heard between a Hezbollah official and the Iranian embassy in which he spoke about Assad having ordered the attack," one of the participants told Reuters.
In the phone call, the Hezbollah official says Assad's order for the attack was a mistake and that he was losing his nerve, the participants reported the BND briefing as saying. Both Iran and Hezbollah support Assad.
You have any more excuses to make?
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.
You were the one who started with the insults in this thread GeoffP. Not the other way around.
You have deliberately misrepresented what a document actually said because you were stupid enough to believe I could not read French. You are the one who has tried to deny what the BND knows, because hey, your analysis of what you have picked up in the media is much better, right?
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?
Lets see, they intercepted a call where the Hezbollah say he did it because he is losing his nerves. They have proof that he has been using them since April.
They have information about how Assad has been testing different types of weapons to allow them to use and disperse chemical weapons.
The report details the Syrian chemical weapons programme, which it says began in the 1970s with the importing of chemical weapons. It states that Damascus has more than 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents making it "one of the most important operational stocks in the world". It describes Syria's chemical arsenal as "particularly massive and diverse", including Yperite, VX (one of the most toxic chemical agents known) and "several hundred tonnes of sarin".
"The sarin and the VX … are partly stocked in a binary form, that is to say kept in the form of two chemical products called precursors, that are mixed just before use. This technique and the associated procedures show a great knowledge of the technology of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime."
The report continues: "Damascus is capable of delivering its chemical weapons with a very large range of several thousand vectors." These, it says, include Scud C, Scud B, M500 missiles, bombs and artillery rockets with a range of up to 500km.
"Certain missiles can carry up to several hundred litres of toxic agent."
It adds that intelligence reports suggest the Syrians are looking at new ways of dispersing chemical weapons.
"Notably, since the beginning of the conflict, our intelligence confirms the regime's use of munitions carrying smaller amounts of chemical agents adapted for tactical use as they are more accurate and localised.
"We cannot rule out that these trials have also been conducted using other types of chemicals normally meant for civil use and employed at a lethal dose."
Now show me proof that the rebels have been conducting these types of research on the dispersion of chemical weapons.
What we have instead is this:
The Syrian army is believed to have tested missile systems for poison gas shells at the end of August, statements from various witnesses indicate.
The tests took place near a chemical weapons research center at Safira east of Aleppo, witnesses told SPIEGEL. A total of five or six empty shells devised for delivering chemical agents were fired by tanks and aircraft, at a site called Diraiham in the desert near the village of Khanasir.
Iranian officers believed to be members of the Revolutionary Guards were flown in by helicopter for the testing, according to the statements.
The Safira research center is regarded as Syria's largest testing site for chemical weapons. It is officially referred to as a "scientific research center."
And the response of the rebels?
In recent months, the guards have been replaced and reinforced by more than 100 elite troops from the 4th Tank Division. In addition, power generators and large supplies of diesel have recently been brought to the plant to safeguard the supply of electricity in the event of an attack by rebels, reports say.
But the rebels don't plan to take the site. "We hope American troops will secure the plant," said one former army officer who deserted and joined the Free Syrian Army. "We don't want the regime to be able to use the weapons, but neither do we want them to fall into the hands of radicals after the downfall (of the regime)."
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.
This is as stupid as when you tried to claim that this is the same and as complex as the situation in Egypt..
Once again, it is not a question of whether Syria has CWs.
No, the question is whether they used it. And all the evidence points to their having used it. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Why is it to hard for you to believe that the world should respond to the use of CW's in warfare? Why are you so apprehensive about responding to this use of chemical weapons, when all the evidence points to Assad, with the knowledge that if we do nothing now, then we could find ourselves in an age where CW's become a part of conventional warfare?
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.
Denial and more excuses..
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.
If they have been funding the rebels, then they are short changing them because the rebels are so greatly outgunned and have very little by way of equipment compared to Assad's troops. They have no air support and no planes or helicopters. Their hospitals don't even have enough medical supplies. As for bribing and contacting members of Congress. Assad's troops aren't that far behind either.
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.
News just in.. Literally..
A German news source is saying that Assad may not be personally behind the attacks and that his office has repeatedly denied and rejected calls by his armed forces to use chemical attacks and they suspect he has now lost control of his security forces - curiouser curiouser.. They do believe the regimes forces were behind the attack, however..
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 think an air strike to stop his military planes from taking off wouldn't go astray. However I think the better option is sanctions and preventing him from acquiring more weapons - ie weapons embargo. And have the UN destroy his chemical weapons stock. But hey, keep pushing that line. I have never once said that I want to bomb away and kill civilians and I dare you to prove it. I want you to link exactly where I said we should bomb away and kill civilians. But nice try.
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?
Ah, when all else fails, you go after my position on this site. Going to start another thread and try to get me removed again? Going to start PM'ing everyone to hassle me into resigning again? After all, that's what you did last time. And then, surprise surprise, you put your name down for my spot before I was asked to return.
But again, don't focus on what you actually said, lets focus instead on the fact that I am a moderator. Nice diversion tactic. How sad for you that it is not working.
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.
You have deliberately misrepresented articles in the past and you still do it, to push your side. But hey, lets not focus on that, shall we? Kremmen's link?
Page 57 for one, where he points out the altimeter and states that they are provided to the Syrians by the Russians.
Or his comments on page 44, which continues for several pages, which describes how some bombs are easily configured from incendiary bombs to chemical bombs and it describes how Assad's troops have been using incendiary bombs. The rebels do not have attack helicopters. So it was not them. Which leaves Assad's troops at Assad's orders or acting on their own or under orders from others within Assad's close circle.
I could go on..
Combined with the evidence that they were testing different methods of dispersion with different missiles, again, it all points to Assad and/or his regime.
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?
Ah denial of your own earlier posts. Classic GeoffP style. Good to see you are still true to form.
The Hezbollah has not said that, and I challenge you to find a comment that so indicates. Can't? No shit.
The report from the BND states otherwise. Or are you going to claim that their skills are as dodgy as your attempt to read French after you misrepresented that French report?
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:
It just proves how little you know and understand of Assad and the conflict.
And the Saudis and Qataris are just going to keep supplying them forever? Brilliant.
Again, if they are getting that much, then they need to demand why they are so outgunned. Because they are being shortly shortchanged.
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.
You kept pushing me for a response. The posts speak for themselves at the start of this thread. You look for conflict. This is what you do. When it doesn't go your way, you get personal. You attack people's intelligence and then get offended when it's thrown back in your face. You then misrepresent facts and findings to suit your purpose in the hope no one will notice. Geoff, everyone who has debated you on this site goes through the exact same dance with you.
Am I innocent? Hell no. I am as bitchy as they come on this site. Do I give back as good as I get? Yes. I never deny that. You on the other hand, deny your actions and words and the way in which you choose to conduct yourself. I knew, the moment I posted that link to that French report, I knew you would misrepresent it, because you did not know I could read French and it was exactly what you did. It was classic GeoffP and expected of you. :shrug:
Prime example:
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.
Having read my own links, in French and otherwise, I don't misrepresent them. You on the other hand did and you did it thinking and gloating that I could not read French. Then you tried to claim that I was lying, instead of addressing the fact that you tried to misrepresent that French report. So you are either lying about your own abilities or you were deliberately misrepresenting that report. And you still haven't answered to that yet, have you? No, instead you have chosen to attack my intelligence, claim that I want to kill Syrian civilians and all without proof.
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?
All links point to his regime at the very least and to him (although the new reports seem to suggest he has lost all control of his regime, which is dangerous and terrifying).
Arms sales, Russian satellite, hegemony. Next.
Right..
And who stands to gain if he stays in power? Russia, Iran, the Hezbollah..
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.
You can't deny your own words and argument GeoffP. You cannot deny what you have said and argued on this site.
