Chemical attack in Syria

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, Apr 4, 2017.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
  2. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
  3. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
  4. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
  5. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    So, given that Assad now has Russia as a firm ally, and has Trump stating unequivocally that America no longer has any interest in seeing Assad removed from power, I guess the question is: why wouldn't Assad use gas on his opponents? He got away with it when the entire world was against him. Now, the entire world is more-or-less on his side...
     
  6. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Because that opens to a different issue that the international community can't ignore on the basis of sovereignty as chem weapons are forbidden by almost any treaty and community.
     
  7. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #8
    How do we know the government did this and not "the rebels"?
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    This brings up a question that I can't find an answer to. Why use chemicals knowing that world condemnation will follow? It simply doesn't make sense. You could bomb the hell out of those same people, and no one would bat an eye. So why use chemicals?

    It raises the possibility (perhaps overly delusional) that this could be anti-Assad propaganda. I would like to see someone (U.N., Red Cross) confirm that this was a chemical attack. Having seen propaganda used in the run-up to the Iraq war, i don't just want to leap to the conclusion that it's true because they said so on the TV.
     
  9. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #10
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    It wouldn't be the first time the rebels used chemicals on their own people to garner sympathy. And it makes more sense for them to have done it to try to get the US more into stopping Assad since trump backed off.
     
  11. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #12
    Um, question? Assad already did use chemical weapons. He did so four years ago. He's still in power now, with more international support than ever! Why do you think he'd be worried about using more of them now?
     
  12. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    No proof he did, rather convenient oclueless puts up a red line and Assad after years of dealing with rebels we armed all if the sudden decides to use Chem weapons:rolleyes:
    --- Post Merged, Apr 4, 2017 ---
    Thank you
    --- Post Merged, Apr 4, 2017 ---
    Omg. I agree. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
    --- Post Merged, Apr 4, 2017 ---
    Trump inherited that mess
     
  13. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #14
  14. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    Completely agree with that.
     
  15. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #16
    Is ISIS not capable of doing this to Syrian civilians?
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    That's a good question. We don't have a firm grasp on Syria's chemical stockpile—Assad promised to relinquish his weapons as part of a deal with the U.S. and Russia, but he might have kept something back, or he lost control of it— and it's also possible that a chemist made the weapon for ISIS, or one of the rebel groups.

    As we don't know exactly what chemical was used—mustard and chlorine gas are pretty easy, nerve toxins are hard—we can't easily decide who employed the weapon.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Not sure it was him the first time to be honest. Doesn't really make tactical sense. Now it could be. Still think it was the rebels.
     
  18. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #20
    But slaughtering your own people with other weapons is fine. Its a crazy world.
     
  19. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #21
    They didn't. It is a LIE. For several reasons:

    • The Government of Syria already had their chemical stockpiles destroyed and the UN oversaw this, saying they believed all of the stockpiles were destroyed. Important note: these weapons were destroyed with the backing of both the United States and Russia.
    • They could've created new stockpiles, but building a chemical weapon capability requires resources that the Syrian Government cannot access due to sanctions and the past international agreement. We would know if they had violated it.
    • The rebels have already done this before, in 2013. The rebels are known to have obtained chemical stockpiles in 2014.
    • Basic chemistry. Sarin gas is stored as two separate components and it requires an activator, which is also usually separated. If the facility was bombed, the activator would simply burn up and the amount of gas released would be nowhere near enough to kill 72 people. If 72 people were gassed, it was done intentionally.
    • Common sense. The rebels are losing, especially after the Trump Administration announced its objective was no longer to remove Assad. He is going nowhere and neither are the Russians. Assad gains nothing but international condemnation from gassing 72 civilians. So why do it?
     
  20. Solomani macrumors 68030

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #22
    Heh. No one bats an eye if Assad uses conventional weapons (mortars, grenades, tanks) to kill 500,000 rebels.

    But if he had used inhumane chem weapons to kill 12 terrorists, it would be an international incident worthy of a Security Council emergency session.

    If Aliens landed today, they'd assess us to be an insane species.
     
  21. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #23
    I guess I have to ask you how you feel now that Nikki Haley, the Trump administration appointee to the U.N. is blaming Assad for this. And blaming Russia for inaction as well.

    Since you seem to be fairly friendly to both Syria and Russia in these forums, and yet very much a Trump supporter at the same time, I wonder how you square all this?

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/05/nikki-haley-un-syria-gas-attack-sot-ath.cnn
     
  22. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    it's also possible Obama gave them the chemical weapons to the rebels.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 5, 2017 ---
    she is wrong & stupid.
     
  23. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    Moron, that's how I feel.

    And it's not about being friendly to Syria and Russia. It's about not starting wars based on lies. And the rebels are trying their hardest to do that, believe me. What is your take on my post?
     

Share This Page