Rebels are to blame for gas attacks? (Syria)

apdst said:

Except, with that delivery system, there would be reb casualties. So far, we haven't seen any.

Click to expand...

And what if some of those dead were actually rebels and not civilians? You know how the Taliban just melt away..

Fisher said:

The delivery system isn't complex--the issue is the instability of sarin.

Click to expand...

Actually it isn't as unstable as the government would have you believe. Disinformation to deter use.

Fisher said:

I think the assumption is that it would have to have been done by binary shells created in a laboratory because of the storage and stability issues of the actual sarin, and that would indicate government involvement.

Click to expand...

For full militarization, yes. But, Sarin can be deployed in any canister that will rupture upon impact. Similar to the old fire extinguisher bombs:

Fisher said:

From what I have read it only takes a single droplet to kill someone and can persist for up to 8 hours depending on weather.

Click to expand...

It's true that one droplet can kill a person, but it would take a while and be an agonizing death if not treated with Atropine and other drugs quickly. The eight hours is an average. The virulence of the agent is also dependent upon the Adjuvants used in the formulation. If a wetting adjuvant is used, it can evaporate quickly, where if a co-solvent or penetrant (which is usually used with Nerve Agents) is used, the virulence can potentially be days.

Fisher said:

I am not convinced the deaths couldn't have been the result of rebels, but even if it were the government, I still do not see this as being our fight to fight.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of anything other than it happened, and Sarin was used.

Fisher said:

There is no upside for the US.

Click to expand...

The only potential upside for the US would be to weaken Iran's influence in the area by plugging the pipeline from Iran to Hamas in their attacks of Israel, and to deny Russia it's largest military (Navy) base in the Mediterranean Sea.

But neither of those mean anything if we are not prepared to do ALL that is required. Firing a few missiles at Syria will accomplish nothing but inflaming our enemies and straining the already precarious relationship with Russia and China.

We have backed ourselves into a corner, by not acting earlier, and also by not doing the things necessary to garner a coalition. Fail/Fail.

lizzie said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised. I hate to see us going into Syria half-cocked, without knowing 100% for sure what has really happened there. Our government appears to be trusting those whom we have been fighting against, and imo, our going into Syria is a huge mistake.

Click to expand...

It comes down to the same problem I had with the evidence in Iraq. It is cherry picked data shown to the public as propaganda to hype up support for a war. This is a middle east civil war between two groups that have done some extremely violent and very evil things on both sides. There is no reliable good guy here, and any evidence presented to say such a thing is going to be shaky at best. That is why I feel we should stick purely to US security interests in the matter and since they are fighting each other we stand back unless we are willing to commit to a full takeover and occupation to end the fighting and make the country safe. If we are going to play the end of violence do gooder role then we should go after the only solution that leads to peace which is a occupied forced cool off for decades while a new power structure is created and the old hatreds die off or cool off. I do not think we have the capabilities, endurance, will, or worldwide support to do any of that, but there is no plan for dropping bombs short of glassing the place that would bring peace and end the humanitarian abuses there.

ksu_aviator said:

I'm not saying that's what happened. But the Syrian government was winning the war and attacking only civilians only galvanized the world against them. That seems like an awfully boneheaded move. I wondered why the UN wasn't acting, it may be because this isn't as clear cut as Obama is making it out to be.

Click to expand...

Not exactly the most reliable source lol. CRG is a notorious conspiracy theory factory. Moreover the story about Syrian Islamists with small quantities of sarin discovered by Turkish agents is an old story from a few months ago, not how it is portrayed in the article.

A few gems:

Raising Awareness on 9/11 Truth: Changing Opinions and Building Momentum | Global Research
HAARP: Secret Weapon Used For Weather Modification, Electromagnetic Warfare | Global Research
“Scientific Assassinations” Are Part of the CIA’s Modus Operandi | Global Research
The JFK Assassination Marked the End of the American Republic | Global Research

Beaudreaux said:

With the first example, yes. With the second, potentially not. With the other examples, probably not.

And think about what you said just a minute. When I realized the same thing you said, is when I starting thinking differently; that we haven't seen rebel casualties. I asked myself, "Why would anyone deploy such a weapon and not attack the 'enemy'?" Why were there not any FSA, or Al Qaeda casualties? Only nonbelligerent civilians? That's where I started asking questions.

I do have a theory though. And it's too convoluted to type in this post.

Click to expand...

You seem to know your stuff, so I'll ask - let's say we have perfect conditions to use sarin in. What would you say would be the minimal amount of sarin needed to kill 1400 people? Is that an amount that would be easily obtainable by well funded rebel forces? I ask because I admit my knowledge of what you're discussing is a little bit above my knowledge on the subject. If it is easily obtainable by rebel forces, who would be the most likely to be supplying them with it?

Hatuey said:

You seem to know your stuff,

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I do regarding these types of subjects (former SFO).

Hatuey said:

so I'll ask - let's say we have perfect conditions to use sarin in. What would you say would be the minimal amount of sarin needed to kill 1400 people?

Click to expand...

Given perfect conditions, people concentrated in an area, as they were in the area attacked (like most overpopulated cities), optimum dispersion and secondary exposure which would be expected... the same amount that would fit into a canister the size of an 2 liter soda.

Hatuey said:

Is that an amount that would be easily obtainable by well funded rebel forces?

Click to expand...

They wouldn't even have to be well funded. Sarin is easy and very cheap to manufacture. Any person with rudimentary knowledge in pesticides (an educated farmer for instance) can produce it, or get similar pesticides that mimic the effects of Sarin. He may kill himself in the attempt, but more than likely, if he was careful, he would succeed.

Hatuey said:

I ask because I admit my knowledge of what you're discussing is a little bit above my knowledge on the subject.

Click to expand...

That's not something to be ashamed of. My knowledge comes from preparing to operate in areas under attack by these agents as well as locating and rendering these type agents inert.

Hatuey said:

If it is easily obtainable by rebel forces, who would be the most likely to be supplying them with it?

Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia more than likely. Just pick the Sunni majority governed Middle East countries, that hate Iran, and you have your list.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. You asked very good questions.

Three different theatres of operation and they are still running around causing problems?
Beaudreaux sure seems like a waste of time or were you guys not allowed to deal with them properly?
or are they just an infestation that will never go away and the best we can hope for is to keep their numbers down?
Inquiring minds wanna know

Beaudreaux said:

Unfortunately I do regarding these types of subjects (former SFO). Given perfect conditions, people concentrated in an area, as they were in the area attacked (like most overpopulated cities), optimum dispersion and secondary exposure which would be expected... the same amount that would fit into a canister the size of an 2 liter soda. They wouldn't even have to be well funded. Sarin is easy and very cheap to manufacture. Any person with rudimentary knowledge in pesticides (an educated farmer for instance) can produce it, or get similar pesticides that mimic the effects of Sarin. He may kill himself in the attempt, but more than likely, if he was careful, he would succeed. That's not something to be ashamed of. My knowledge comes from preparing to operate in areas under attack by these agents as well as locating and rendering these type agents inert. Saudi Arabia more than likely. Just pick the Sunni majority governed Middle East countries, that hate Iran, and you have your list.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. You asked very good questions.

Click to expand...

The reason I ask this is because of an attack I did some research on back in the day. You probably know about the Tokyo subway attacks a few years ago. They used sarin too and those attacks were in heavily concentrated places (subways) yet they only killed about 15-20 people. Obviously, wind was not a factor in the subway - however the concentration of people is still there. So what exactly do you think made a difference in Syria? Was it the possibility that the wind carried the sarin gas or was it the amount used?

AngryOldGuy said:

Three different theatres of operation and they are still running around causing problems?
Beaudreaux sure seems like a waste of time or were you guys not allowed to deal with them properly?
or are they just an infestation that will never go away and the best we can hope for is to keep their numbers down?
Inquiring minds wanna know

Click to expand...

Three words: Rules Of Engagement.

The truth is, you cannot defeat a zealot form of a religion. You cannot win if your fighting people that are not afraid to die (martyrdom, virgins in heaven, etc.).

Education is the key to enlightenment. In many parts of the world, Al Qaeda feeds on the uneducated, and extreme instances (Taliban), they have outlawed education outside of their own teachings. It's an indoctrination.

For every one of them that we would send to martyrdom, ten more would stand up behind him. And leaving them alone doesn't work either. Even if the US pulled out of the Middle East all together, they would still try to kill us because it's part of their Fatwa to impose their beliefs on the entire world, by force and subjugation. Kill all the Infidels. That is their purpose in life.

In Somalia, they almost eradicated all non-Sunni's which created the famine. The world went into Somalia to feed the starving, but ended up being attacked by Al Qaeda because we were saving the Infidels.

We cannot win. We can only contain.

ksu_aviator said:

I'm not saying that's what happened. But the Syrian government was winning the war and attacking only civilians only galvanized the world against them. That seems like an awfully boneheaded move. I wondered why the UN wasn't acting, it may be because this isn't as clear cut as Obama is making it out to be.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out on other occasion, it seems impossible to know who did what to whom as long as the war obscures the battleground. Relying on information of this type as a casus belli is not a good idea as G W Bush showed us.

I do not think we should stop Assad on the chemical weapons alone. He started to shoot at demonstrators and the result is is over 100.000 dead and 2.000.000 refugees. He was not able to maintain control of his country and this is destabilizing the region. His government is not fulfilling the basic requirements of legitimacy towards its people and its neighbors.

This is enough reason to justify his removal.

joG said:

As I pointed out on other occasion, it seems impossible to know who did what to whom as long as the war obscures the battleground. Relying on information of this type as a casus belli is not a good idea as G W Bush showed us.

I do not think we should stop Assad on the chemical weapons alone. He started to shoot at demonstrators and the result is is over 100.000 dead and 2.000.000 refugees. He was not able to maintain control of his country and this is destabilizing the region. His government is not fulfilling the basic requirements of legitimacy towards its people and its neighbors.

This is enough reason to justify his removal.

Click to expand...

Assad is up for re-election in 2014. Why not get a cease fire now, give amnesty for past actions and start enforcing murder, torture, kidnapping and political arrest charges. The US can assist with prosecuting crimes by FSA and the Assad regime.

Stop the killing now, and help Syrians have fair elections in 2014? Support Democracy?


//

Hatuey said:

The reason I ask this is because of an attack I did some research on back in the day. You probably know about the Tokyo subway attacks a few years ago. They used sarin too and those attacks were in heavily concentrated places (subways) yet they only killed about 15-20 people. Obviously, wind was not a factor in the subway - however the concentration of people is still there. So what exactly do you think made a difference in Syria? Was it the possibility that the wind carried the sarin gas or was it the amount used?

Click to expand...

In Tokyo, the Sarin was hampered by the contained environment. Sounds counter-intuitive, but it's true. In the subway, the Sarin was "contained" and not able to disperse as well had it been in an open air environment.

In Syria, it was more than likely an air burst (hitting a building high up and exploding), or it could have been an aerosolized disbursement (like from an aircraft or fogger on the ground). The aerosolized scenario is not very likely. What I think happened, unlike the other previous events in the region, the rocket, or mortar shell hit a building either on the roof or on the exterior of a high floor, allowing the gas to disperse and spread as it slowly, settled to the ground. The vapor density is about 4:1 to air, so it sinks. The specific gravity of Sarin is almost exactly the same as water, which means it can mix with water. And although the boiling point is above 300 degrees F, the Vapor Pressure is 2.9 at the average atmospheric temperature (about 75-80 F) which means that it will off-gas very quickly, allowing it to evaporate and spread quickly.

In Tokyo, the subterranean environment, the moisture in the air could have "captured" a lot of the gasses as they evaporated and reduced the dispersion potential. I remember too much about that particular case, other than how they attempted to deploy it, since we have forces there. Most of my exposure to these agents was in SW Asia, Northern Africa and the South Pacific. My experience in the South Pacific is what leads me to my conjecture above. Sarin is not very effective in Humid environments, and that's why Germany stopped using it in WWII and switched back to Mustard Gas or the more notorious Zyklon.

In the heat and arid to semi-arid environment of the Middle East, it's a very effective agent, in that the environment helps to disperse the agent more rapidly and geographically extensively.

Hatuey said:

The reason I ask this is because of an attack I did some research on back in the day. You probably know about the Tokyo subway attacks a few years ago. They used sarin too and those attacks were in heavily concentrated places (subways) yet they only killed about 15-20 people. Obviously, wind was not a factor in the subway - however the concentration of people is still there. So what exactly do you think made a difference in Syria? Was it the possibility that the wind carried the sarin gas or was it the amount used?

Click to expand...

Maybe the FSA got word of a pending Sarin Gas attack, and decided to make the gas attack more lethal than originally intended by Assad? Maybe when the rockets were fired, the rebels released the Sarin gas they had, which added to the numbers of dead.

Seems self-defeating for FSA to kill people in FSA territory, but that is the logic of Al Qaida, so we need to put aside logic, to see Truth. The more people dead, the more upset the West. False Flag events are so common, that you have to look for the false flag first. 9-11 may have been a combination event, with explosives added by instigators for a worse outcome, and the airliners were just a trigger. Instigators are real.



//

Gladiator said:

help Syrians have fair elections in 2014? Support Democracy?

Click to expand...

Wow that hurted my brain

Gladiator said:

Maybe the FSA got word of a pending Sarin Gas attack, and decided to make the gas attack more lethal than originally intended by Assad? Maybe when the rockets were fired, the rebels released the Sarin gas they had, which added to the numbers of dead.

Seems self-defeating for FSA to kill people in FSA territory, but that is the logic of Al Qaida, so we need to put aside logic, to see Truth. The more people dead, the more upset the West. False Flag events are so common, that you have to look for the false flag first. 9-11 may have been a combination event, with explosives added by instigators for a worse outcome, and the airliners were just a trigger. Instigators are real.



//

Click to expand...

So far the evidence is that the FSA and Al Qaeda are not the same, and are in fact at odds with each other as well.

Beaudreaux said:

So far the evidence is that the FSA and Al Qaeda are not the same, and are in fact at odds with each other as well.

Click to expand...

It depends on what "evidence" one is looking at!


US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey stand accused of state sponsorship of terrorism. UN failure to enforce its own resolutions will resign their legitimacy, necessitate their expedient removal and replacement with multipolar system.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) currently arming, funding, and commanding entire brigades of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), is designated an Al Qaeda affiliate by the United Nations pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011), in addition to being listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf) as a foreign terrorist organization and a proscribed terrorist organization respectively.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/un-designates-free-syrian-army-affiliates-as-al-qaeda/32311

Syria Report has obtained several videos which further weaken the long-running argument which aims to distinguish between allegedly moderate — and extremist elements of the insurgency in Syria.

Previous evidence has shown Jabhat al-Nusra militants with Croatian weaponry which was reportedly destined for what American officials refer to as “moderate” factions — fighting under the command of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The photos show an M60 recoilless anti-tank cannon being used by Syria’s al-Qaeda branch.


http://syriareport.net/fsa-al-qaeda-fighting-under-the-one-flag/

If the rebels have gas weapons, it's a much bigger problem.

apdst said:

I don't buy it. The small quanity and lack of a delivery system doesn't add up.

Click to expand...

There are photos on this forum showing rebel artillery fitted with a blue gas canister. Just like they were launched in WWI, Links indicating Saudi Prince Bandar has provided the gas. The UNO report by Carla del Ponte indicting the rebels for the gas attack in December. Do you have to be whacked up side the noodle with a gas canister to get the picture?

ksu_aviator said:

I'm not saying that's what happened. But the Syrian government was winning the war and attacking only civilians only galvanized the world against them. That seems like an awfully boneheaded move. I wondered why the UN wasn't acting, it may be because this isn't as clear cut as Obama is making it out to be.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I've been saying from the beginning.

It's entirely possible the rebels gassed their own people .. after all, they're greatly al Qaeda, and we know what they're capable of.

My guess is that the public, as usually expected, lacks sufficient information about the situation to know not only what's really going on but also what's the right course of action with respect to U.S. interests.

Even likely lacking a lot of relevant information, I intuitively experience that this situation is a nightmare waiting to happen for us.

ksu_aviator said:

I'm not saying that's what happened. But the Syrian government was winning the war and attacking only civilians only galvanized the world against them. That seems like an awfully boneheaded move. I wondered why the UN wasn't acting, it may be because this isn't as clear cut as Obama is making it out to be.

Click to expand...

And we also know that last September the Rebel Forces gained access to chemical weapons on a base they overran.

It's the rebels, Islamist extremists, al Qaida infested FSA.

Montecresto said:

It's the rebels, Islamist extremists, al Qaida infested FSA.

Click to expand...

That's just the kinda folks our man-child leader wants to support, it saddens me no end to know that Putin is on the Right side of this conflict

Rebels of FSA throwing a chemical weapon

hah yeah it's a sad state of affairs when posters on a political chat board, in their pajamas sippn' coffee can easily see WTF is going on
and our lyin' ass administration still says it was a youtube video or Assad's troops that were too blame. Don't ask how stupid they think we are, their opinion of us is that we are the stuff you get on the bottom of your shoe when you don't watch where you are walking...