4 ms·

One solution mentioned in the house of commons during the debate was arming the rebels with chemical weapons as a deterrent against the Assad regime. I kid you

One solution mentioned in the house of commons during the debate was arming the rebels with chemical weapons as a deterrent against the Assad regime. I kid you not....

ibrow 13y ago
Well, if it works for nuclear?! Bonkers.
- shimon_e 13y ago
  Listen to it here: http://youtu.be/2pcssm6sLUk?t=2h15m10s http://youtu.be/2pcssm6sLUk?t=2h15m10s The suggestion was also mentioned by someone else too. Can't remember what the timestamp was.
  - ibrow 13y ago
    Many thanks for the link.
frank_boyd 13y ago
Btw, if there was a chemical attack, there are 3 possibilities: a) Assad, b) Rebels (who may already have got access to some chemical weapon), c) CIA doing business as usual. And as always, we'll never learn the truth in time.
- m0skit0 13y ago
  According to latest data, it was the rebels most likely. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels...
  - pcl 13y ago
    The linked article is from May. The latest controversy is about an attack apparently by the Assad regime on the 21st of August.
    - frank_boyd 13y ago
      True, but the take-way is: > Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent. This means: it's not impossible that rebels have access to some chemical weapon. The US gov keeps repeating "we have evidence that it has happened" but a) they have never shown it, and most of all: b) they don't say "we have evidence that shows it was Assad".
      - mapt 13y ago
        Earlier events, if they actually occurred, were very small-scale; They killed a handful of people, and were very difficult to confirm - with blood tests eventually being held up as a smoking gun that chemical weapons were used at all. What happened on August 21 is an entirely different matter: it involved a large-scale rocket barrage on a dozen locations in discontinuous rebel-held neighborhoods which gassed entire city blocks; the gas persisted long enough afterwards to kill people such as journalists who responded to the reports. Hundreds of Youtube videos of the fairly characteristic aftermath exist, with the bodycount presently at about 1500. The areas gassed were threateningly close to the core of Damascus. This much cannot be reasonably contested. The US government reports that it was listening in on the phone calls from one military commander to another and heard comments indicating regime involvement. They are also claiming to have identified using aerial imagery the area the rockets were fired from, the preparation three days before, and the actual firing of the rockets: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly...
        frank_boyd 13y ago
- shimon_e 13y ago
  No one is denying that there was a chemical attack. The question is how big it was. If it was just a small attack then it could have been the rebels dropping a bag of sarin gas. But if it is confirmed it was a large attack that could have only been launched by payload thus it must have come from the Syrian army. Leaving two possibilities. A rogue element from within the army or the Assad regime.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It doesn't even make sense, since CW are much more effective against the general population than troops. ie: It is much easier for troops to deploy countermeasures that negate or reduce the effectiveness of a CW attack. OTOH, in unlucky environmental conditions, a CW attack can wind up harming the rebel attackers and surrounding innocents as well, while the troops sit in their anti-CW gear and wait it out. Arming rebels with CW is just about the dumbest, least effective, most dangerous way to use CW; and ought to be a war crime in its own right.
- shimon_e 13y ago
  Obviously the suggestion is stupid as both the rebels and the Syrian forces have mutual enemies that they both would use chemical weapons on. I don't think Israel will allow an enemy guerrilla army from being armed with chemical weapons. The real issue here is that Russia has vowed to protecting the Assad regime. This conflict is ultimately a proxy war. The real question I have is why Russia is protecting Assad? Is it just a question of support what in their eyes is the lesser of two evils or is it a case of RDF?
  - m0skit0 13y ago
    That if Israel isn't backing the rebels. Israel doesn't like Syrian government -basically because it's one of the few Arab states that has a logical stance against Israel dominance in the region-, and hopefully a new government will be more "puppety" to their interests. Also Syrian government is pretty secular, which also bothers most Arab nations. Most US arab allies would prefer a more "islamic" government, probably this suits Israel as well so they have more justification in their "preventive" attacks (like they do in Lebanon with the Hezbola excuse).

One solution mentioned in the house of commons during the debate was arming the rebels with chemical weapons as a deterrent against the Assad regime. I kid you not....

ibrow 13y ago

Well, if it works for nuclear?! Bonkers.

shimon_e 13y ago
Listen to it here: http://youtu.be/2pcssm6sLUk?t=2h15m10s http://youtu.be/2pcssm6sLUk?t=2h15m10s The suggestion was also mentioned by someone else too. Can't remember what the timestamp was.
- ibrow 13y ago
  Many thanks for the link.

frank_boyd 13y ago

Btw, if there was a chemical attack, there are 3 possibilities: a) Assad, b) Rebels (who may already have got access to some chemical weapon), c) CIA doing business as usual. And as always, we'll never learn the truth in time.

m0skit0 13y ago
According to latest data, it was the rebels most likely. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels...
- pcl 13y ago
  The linked article is from May. The latest controversy is about an attack apparently by the Assad regime on the 21st of August.
  - frank_boyd 13y ago
    True, but the take-way is: > Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent. This means: it's not impossible that rebels have access to some chemical weapon. The US gov keeps repeating "we have evidence that it has happened" but a) they have never shown it, and most of all: b) they don't say "we have evidence that shows it was Assad".
    - mapt 13y ago
      Earlier events, if they actually occurred, were very small-scale; They killed a handful of people, and were very difficult to confirm - with blood tests eventually being held up as a smoking gun that chemical weapons were used at all. What happened on August 21 is an entirely different matter: it involved a large-scale rocket barrage on a dozen locations in discontinuous rebel-held neighborhoods which gassed entire city blocks; the gas persisted long enough afterwards to kill people such as journalists who responded to the reports. Hundreds of Youtube videos of the fairly characteristic aftermath exist, with the bodycount presently at about 1500. The areas gassed were threateningly close to the core of Damascus. This much cannot be reasonably contested. The US government reports that it was listening in on the phone calls from one military commander to another and heard comments indicating regime involvement. They are also claiming to have identified using aerial imagery the area the rockets were fired from, the preparation three days before, and the actual firing of the rockets: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly...
      - frank_boyd 13y ago
shimon_e 13y ago
No one is denying that there was a chemical attack. The question is how big it was. If it was just a small attack then it could have been the rebels dropping a bag of sarin gas. But if it is confirmed it was a large attack that could have only been launched by payload thus it must have come from the Syrian army. Leaving two possibilities. A rogue element from within the army or the Assad regime.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

It doesn't even make sense, since CW are much more effective against the general population than troops. ie: It is much easier for troops to deploy countermeasures that negate or reduce the effectiveness of a CW attack. OTOH, in unlucky environmental conditions, a CW attack can wind up harming the rebel attackers and surrounding innocents as well, while the troops sit in their anti-CW gear and wait it out. Arming rebels with CW is just about the dumbest, least effective, most dangerous way to use CW; and ought to be a war crime in its own right.

shimon_e 13y ago
Obviously the suggestion is stupid as both the rebels and the Syrian forces have mutual enemies that they both would use chemical weapons on. I don't think Israel will allow an enemy guerrilla army from being armed with chemical weapons. The real issue here is that Russia has vowed to protecting the Assad regime. This conflict is ultimately a proxy war. The real question I have is why Russia is protecting Assad? Is it just a question of support what in their eyes is the lesser of two evils or is it a case of RDF?
- m0skit0 13y ago
  That if Israel isn't backing the rebels. Israel doesn't like Syrian government -basically because it's one of the few Arab states that has a logical stance against Israel dominance in the region-, and hopefully a new government will be more "puppety" to their interests. Also Syrian government is pretty secular, which also bothers most Arab nations. Most US arab allies would prefer a more "islamic" government, probably this suits Israel as well so they have more justification in their "preventive" attacks (like they do in Lebanon with the Hezbola excuse).