# Syrian terrorists use of Sarin..



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

So.. Someone from the U.N. commitee on Syria, has claimed that it was "the opposition" that used Sarin gas. This was quickly denied by the U.S. and other western powers and the U.N. quickly said that it wasn't an "official statement". I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but it appears that someone said something that just wasn't in line with the current flow of Syrian thought and was quickly dismissed. I guess if they had to admit that the syrian oppositon is probably worse than the Assad regime, they couldn't buy/sell/produce more weapons to flood into the area? Oh geesh, looks like we've supporting the wrong guys again. Shut that woman up and get her to retract the statement.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

It was a review, see there was this youtube video and in posted comment some one said 'this film is a gas' and...
​


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

In my job, I see and hear intel that suggests exactly what you are suggesting J, that the opposition are even worse than Assad's regime. It has long been known that Al qaeida has death squad's in Syria assisting the opposition.


----------



## bremersm (Feb 1, 2013)

My guess on the matter is that it was the Opposition. If the accounts are true it appears that it was too elementary and unorganized to be goverment backed. 

My feeling on Syria is that we will once again end up on the wrong side when all is said and done. Similar to the way things have done in Egypt.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

bremersm said:


> My feeling on Syria is that we will once again end up on the wrong side when all is said and done.


I agree, Syria is not Libya!


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

We are already on the wrong side. A couple of weeks ago the US agreed to send over $130 million of arms to the Syrian rebels, despite not knowing who the rebels really are or what organizations they are connected to. 

​I can't understand why the US cannot have a better friendship with Russia, take their side more often, and have a good working relationship. Putin was right all along in his support for the president of Syria.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Putin was right in his support for a ruthless tyrant and dictator? Should al-Gaddafi, ben Ali, Saleh and Mubarak have been supported too perhaps?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> Putin was right in his support for a ruthless tyrant and dictator? Should al-Gaddafi, ben Ali, Saleh and Mubarak have been supported too perhaps?


Yes indeed, Putin appears to be spot on in the case of Syria. Do you imagine that a group of armed individuals would be allowed to take over territory in the U.S./Europe? I would think they'd be mowed down rather quick by the government. "Machine gun em, and call em terrorists". I think rioters in London were being tracked down and arrested several months after the fact but I suppose you'd believe outside influences should have armed the British opposition and called for the government's ouster?

Although I wouldn't put any of these guys on my Christmas card list, can anyone say that these countries are doing better under the imposed democracy? Is there less violence? Are their infrastructures now better that they've been shot/bombed back to the stone age? Schooling? Medical? etc? What exactly has been improved with Western Europe/North America pouring in weapons/tactical supplies/funds/training etc. ? If a dictator killed 1000 people a year, but 1,000 a month are now dying, is the democracy really any better? When are the improvements coming? 10 years? 100? 1,000? The odd part is that most all of these dictators that you mention got support from the same governments that are now set on ousting them.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Tell me which country in Europe kills it's own citizens with nerve gas, imprisons intellectuals and arranges for critics of the regime to permanently disappear as a matter of course? If you can name one, then there's a country which needs a regime change. Except, of course, that you can't name one and hence your first paragraph is entirely pointless.

Imposed democracy is an oxymoron. And who said anything about bombing anyone or anywhere back to the Stone Age? I certainly didn't. Nor did that happen in Egypt, in Yemen, in Tunis or indeed even in Libya. In fact, in this context the phrase really only applies to the state Iraq found itself in at the end of that war.

When are the improvements coming? I've no idea, but I think around 50 years is a realistic and reasonable time frame in which to expect significant progress. 10 years is really just a blink of the eye in a historical perspective, or indeed in the perspective of teaching a people democratic values and instilling a sense of the same in them.

As for whether the dictator or democracy is better, I think that's really not for you or I to judge. The vast majority of the Syrian people appears to have made their judgement and as anyone familiar with the country (including myself) would have told you prior to the civil war, it was only a matter of time before it kicked off.

I'm well aware that all the mentioned dictators, and many, many, many more besides, used to be supported by the West. In particular by the US, which has a proud history of toppling democratic regimes in order to install tyrants friendly to itself. Unlike you though, I'm very happy that that practice appears to have ended.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> Tell me which country in Europe kills it's own citizens with nerve gas, imprisons intellectuals and arranges for critics of the regime to permanently disappear as a matter of course? If you can name one, then there's a country which needs a regime change. Except, of course, that you can't name one and hence your first paragraph is entirely pointless. Imposed democracy is an oxymoron. And who said anything about bombing anyone or anywhere back to the Stone Age? I certainly didn't. Nor did that happen in Egypt, in Yemen, in Tunis or indeed even in Libya. In fact, in this context the phrase really only applies to the state Iraq found itself in at the end of that war. When are the improvements coming? I've no idea, but I think around 50 years is a realistic and reasonable time frame in which to expect significant progress. 10 years is really just a blink of the eye in a historical perspective, or indeed in the perspective of teaching a people democratic values and instilling a sense of the same in them. As for whether the dictator or democracy is better, I think that's really not for you or I to judge. The vast majority of the Syrian people appears to have made their judgement and as anyone familiar with the country (including myself) would have told you prior to the civil war, it was only a matter of time before it kicked off. I'm well aware that all the mentioned dictators, and many, many, many more besides, used to be supported by the West. In particular by the US, which has a proud history of toppling democratic regimes in order to install tyrants friendly to itself. Unlike you though, I'm very happy that that practice appears to have ended.


Again. Given the same circumstances. Can you name one European country which wouldn't have armed forces on the ground trying to suppress armed groups from claiming territory? No you can't because every single one would enter into armed conflict, they do it when unarmed protests start to get violent (window breaking, setting garbage alight etc.) they also use pepper gas, fire hoses, batons, rubber bullets, tazers, and yes, they jail these protesters, these "opposition" groups, through their civl courts.

Which nerve gas incidents are you refering to? Syria? The whole point of the thread is that evidence has been provided 
showing that the terrorists/opposition/rebels/etc. are the ones to have used it & the refusal by many of those in favor of further arming the opposition, to admit that it might indeed be the case.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I supported U.S. led regime changes? Can you show me an example in any of my posts that would suggest such a thing?

I belive I linked bombing to the destruction of the infrastructure. Schools, factories, businesses aren't rebuilt over night, correct?


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

justonemore said:


> Again. Given the same circumstances. Can you name one European country which wouldn't have armed forces on the ground trying to suppress armed groups from claiming territory? No you can't because every single one would enter into armed conflict, they do it when unarmed protests start to get violent (window breaking, setting garbage alight etc.) they also use pepper gas, fire hoses, batons, rubber bullets, tazers, and yes, they jail these protesters, these "opposition" groups, through their civl courts.


Your point being? This is miles away from being anything like a reasonable comparison, since any European nation would have to fall a very long way in order to even begin to approach the state of affairs which existed in Syria prior to the outbreak of civil war. If a rebel group spontaneously sprang up in Brighton and began marching on London armed with bricks, Molotov cocktails, the odd shotgun and pitchforks scrounged from local farmers, then I'd say the Queen would be quite right to rouse the Copldstream Guards from the Woolwich Barracks to teach them the error of their ways. That really is very different from deciding that 40-odd years of tyranny and terror is enough and rising up to end it.



> Which nerve gas incidents are you refering to? Syria? The whole point of the thread is that evidence has been provided
> showing that the terrorists/opposition/rebels/etc. are the ones to have used it.


I was referring primarily to the 1982 Hama massacre, where government forces used hydrogen cyanide on the inhabitants of the city of Hama.



> Where on earth did you get the idea that I supported U.S. led regime changes? Can you show me an example in any of my posts that would suggest such a thing?


My apologies. Support for keeping tyrants on their thrones then, after they've been put there.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> Your point being? This is miles away from being anything like a reasonable comparison, since any European nation would have to fall a very long way in order to even begin to approach the state of affairs which existed in Syria prior to the outbreak of civil war. If a rebel group spontaneously sprang up in Brighton and began marching on London armed with bricks, Molotov cocktails, the odd shotgun and pitchforks scrounged from local farmers, then I'd say the Queen would be quite right to rouse the Copldstream Guards from the Woolwich Barracks to teach them the error of their ways. That really is very different from deciding that 40-odd years of tyranny and terror is enough and rising up to end it..


I'm sorry, for some reason I thought there were big protests out of Madrid and Barcelona, the word Greece seems to ring a bell, France has had extensive protests and has now entered another recession. Luckily London is camera happy so they can arrest their hooligans at leisure. I'm not quite sure but Portugal and Italy seem to be having a few issues as well..

Why do the 8 million Spaniards who have protested matter less than the 110'000 Syrian rebels? Shouldn't we be arming them and supporting an overthrow of the "regime"? The Monarchy and its government seem to have had quite a few shady dealings. No one can deny that Spain's economy will fall further. The police have cracked down on protesters. The governement doesn't seem inclined to listen to these opposition groups. I guess we should all support taking a few billion out of our domestic coffers to send arms into Barcelona.

So in your mind, how many protesters does it take to make an uprising appropriate? 51% of the population? 75%?

Is it issue based? 20% unemployment is ok, but 25% we allow a rebellion? Homelessness? Lack of medical care? Faulty education system? Poor infrastructure (bridges, roads, trains, pub, transport etc.)? Poverty? Hunger?

What are the civil rights issues? A government that uses cameras on every street corner? Reads your communications? Collects and keeps information on the individual? Taps your phone without warrants? High prison/population rates? State approved penal execution?



Belfaborac said:


> My apologies. Support for keeping tyrants on their thrones then, after they've been put there.


Hmmm. As you're guesses have both been off, all that remains points to me being one of those lost souls who believes in keeping their noses (and taxpayer funds) out of other peoples domestic affairs. 100'000 rebels in a country of 23 million hardly adds up to a "popular uprising" which demands a flood of unregulated weapons into the hands of an untrained (and undisciplined) militia. If the opposition is using Sarin, I have no idea how you can advocate giving them more toys to abuse. Perhaps they need more knives for cutting out people's hearts?


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

justonemore said:


> I'm sorry, for some reason I thought there were big protests out of Madrid and Barcelona, the word Greece seems to ring a bell, France has had extensive protests and has now entered another recession. Luckily London is camera happy so they can arrest their hooligans at leisure. I'm not quite sure but Portugal and Italy seem to be having a few issues as well..


If you think any of those are comparable with what's taking place in Syria, then we inhabit entirely different mental universes and I can't really see how to proceed from there. I'm pretty sure that if you had known the country you'd have been able to see a distinction....



> Hmmm. As you're guesses have both been off, all that remains points to me being one of those lost souls who believes in keeping their noses (and taxpayer funds) out of other peoples domestic affairs. 100'000 rebels in a country of 23 million hardly adds up to a "popular uprising" which demands a flood of unregulated weapons into the hands of an untrained (and undisciplined) militia. If the opposition is using Sarin, I have no idea how you can advocate giving them more toys to abuse. Perhaps they need more knives for cutting out people's hearts?


I'd say that at this point in time, neither you nor I have any real clue who used Sarin, or indeed if Sarin was in fact used at all. Unless you have privileged access to information not available to the public.

100.000 active rebels, but I'd be surprised if less than 90% of Syrians support them. And I don't believe my last guess was entirely off, seeing as you think supporting Assad would have been the right thing to do. As for "domestic issues"; well, there is international law which covers these things and governs when it is lawful and not to intervene. Apart from that I happen to think that basic human decency demands that aid is given to anyone who attempts to free themselves from violent oppression. For me, that's really all there is to it.


----------



## doncorleon (Apr 26, 2013)

IMO, as both the Syrian government and Syrian rebels have commited atrocities, the United States should not support either.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

While the former is entirely true, the latter is entirely too simplistic. US policy in the area (or anywhere) has never been about what's right or wrong, but about what will benefit the US, prevent benefit to Russia and Iran and keep Israel and those nice, benevolent Gulf dictatorships happy and safe. All of which are getting trickier by the month.


----------



## Jae iLL (Nov 14, 2009)

Indeed. Obama is in a very tricky situation here. On the one hand you have members of Congress who demand we take military action, on the other it is not in our interests at all to do so. If Russia provides anti aircraft weapon systems to Assad, and Israel acts against said systems causing a loss of Russian troops, the end result will be even trickier. The world seems to be in a crazy place these days.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Armageddon approaches...We are well past the point that each of us should pick up the Good Book and read the book of Revelations! If you have not prepared for it, suck it up Buttercup, we may be in for a record setting heat wave! Jeez Louise, I wish Sam Colt had not jacked the prices so high on those newly designed .308 cal. AR-15's. :crazy: The additional stand-off capability might prove beneficial?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The notion that all risings & revolutions are in the right has unfortunately taken a solid hold of western thinking in the last decade. So if you want to oust a govt, no matter how corrupt, unjust or undemocratic your cause is, simply start a revolution & there is a 99% chance you'll be supported by the West, unless of course you are a poor African, poor Asian or South American country.

In Egypt now they're not happy with what they acheived last time, so they're out on the streets again, that is how democracy works in such countries.

If the Iranians knew in 79 what they know now, after 35 years of oppression, they would never have had the Islamic revolution. 

The fact that Assad doesn't give in is because he has the support of a large percentage of the population and he believes he is in the right. 

The well documented torture and murders being committed by the rebels is only strengthening Assad's regime.

The West is on the wrong side as regards Syria. The West was also on the wrong side when it supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. The West, we now know, was also very shortsighted when it supported the Mujahadeen (Taliban) against the Soviet Union, because the Afghan govt had asked Russia for support against the Taliban......hhhmmmm...sounds familiar.....fast forward to today and the West are fighting the same enemy the Soviets were fighting.....sometimes the UK and the USA really needed to get their heads out of their backsides and listen to others....but they were incapable. 

Seeing Russia as the enemy for all those years was a catastrophic error. I'll never forget something I heard when in the RAF in 1980 "Don't you worry about the Russians, they're not the threat, worry about some nutter blowing up an American nuke in Germany or England"


----------

