Syria Chemical Attacks - real, fake, premeditated?

[Kai]

Right, but presumably you're equating the state with the fish relocator. You're still comparing a state who is actively killing people with a state (which you feel) is not supporting it's citizens. One is active, the other is passive. Chalk and cheese IMO.

Actually you have it all wrong there is nothing active / no real skill involved in killing people without impunity in that way its been happening there - esp as its caused a heap of problems for both sides and now has consequences ( which I assume was not part of their plan )

However to subdue a state and slowly kill them of while profiting from the returns takes far more doing , that is definitely not passive at all whether its our own Government doing it , or the another like the US fighting a dirty war to stir up interests.

Now, its true one seems more brutal , but thats only because there is nowhere to hide in those kind of tactics without getting your hand caught in the cookie jar , or to put in another way , both sides have been involved in civilian deaths by default just because it takes 2 sides to start a war.

[peterb]

At the risk of upsetting Melon/Kai, this was my argument, so I'll reply. Chemical/biological/nuclear weapons all suck. The reason for that is that they are weapons of mass destruction, and are as likely to kill civilians as military targets. I still fail to see the difference between someone dropping a cluster bomb, napalming, or even long range mortaring though. In the end the target ends up dead. When the US drops a bunker buster from thousands of feet up it' silent, tasteless, colourless and undetectable right until the point it hits.

I take your point, although I would say the difference is in the intent. A 'conventional' weapon is possibly more precisely targeted at combatants whereas WMDs are less so. One of the reasons for nuclear weapons was that the destructive power was so great that inaccuracies in the targeting and homing mechanisms caused by limitations of technology at the time became irrelevant. A V1 or V2 rocket was inaccurate (and indiscriminate) but the damage caused was limited. Had they been armed with nuclear warheads the effect would have been much greater, and nerve agents would also have been effective at killing people, although in both instances use of the weapons would have made re-occupying the territory difficult for any invading force.

If the intention is to occupy territory after a conflict, the nuclear and persistent chemical weapons are of limited use.

The Geneva convention only holds for countries who have subscribed to it. It's not a worldwide standard on what is allowable and what isn't.

Indeed, although use of weapon by a state is a war crime - although war crime charges are usually only framed by the victorious.

[b0redom]

Actually you have it all wrong there is nothing active / no real skill involved in killing people without impunity in that way its been happening there - esp as its caused a heap of problems for both sides and now has consequences ( which I assume was not part of their plan )

Eh? Of course it's active. Skill has nothing to do with it.

However to subdue a state and slowly kill them of while profiting from the returns takes far more doing , that is definitely not passive at all whether its our own Government doing it , or the another like the US fighting a dirty war to stir up interests.

Possibly, but are you seriously implying that's what the UK government is doing to the UK?

[b0redom]

I take your point, although I would say the difference is in the intent. A 'conventional' weapon is possibly more precisely targeted at combatants whereas WMDs are less so. One of the reasons for nuclear weapons was that the destructive power was so great that inaccuracies in the targeting and homing mechanisms caused by limitations of technology at the time became irrelevant. A V1 or V2 rocket was inaccurate (and indiscriminate) but the damage caused was limited. Had they been armed with nuclear warheads the effect would have been much greater, and nerve agents would also have been effective at killing people, although in both instances use of the weapons would have made re-occupying the territory difficult for any invading force.

If the intention is to occupy territory after a conflict, the nuclear and persistent chemical weapons are of limited use.

True, but from what I saw going on in the previous months, Asad has been lobbing mortars indiscriminantly into civilian areas, not as specific combattants. It's only the payload which has changed. So does that make mortars WMDs, or is that definied by the number of casualties? Again, what about Naplam? What about clusterbombs?

[Kai]

Eh? Of course it's active. Skill has nothing to do with it.

Skill has everything to do with it , its how the puppet masters behind all these scenarios operate , they never get their own hands dirty they just make sure someone else does.

Why else do you think the US trained / funded Muslims to start with ?

[HalloweenJack]

True, but from what I saw going on in the previous months, Asad has been lobbing mortars indiscriminantly into civilian areas, not as specific combattants. It's only the payload which has changed. So does that make mortars WMDs, or is that definied by the number of casualties? Again, what about Naplam? What about clusterbombs?

Assad isn't the only 1 lobbing mortars with random payloads - as I showed from the video previously of the FSA using SARIN on Aleppo in May.

[peterb]

Assad isn't the only 1 lobbing mortars with random payloads - as I showed from the video previously of the FSA using SARIN on Aleppo in May.

Er... no you didn't. You showed a report from the BBC that went on to say that while there were suspicions, there was no concrete proof.

That is not to say that proof is not there - if UN inspectors were permitted access by the Syrian Government to obtain it.

[b0redom]

Skill has everything to do with it , its how the puppet masters behind all these scenarios operate , they never get their own hands dirty they just make sure someone else does.

Why else do you think the US trained / funded Muslims to start with ?

Your arguments seem to wander off all over the place.

First you were equating the UK government with the Syrian regime, then you said that lobbing mortars was not an 'active' action, and now you're talking about some machiavelian scheme regarding the US government.

What particular group of Muslims are you talking about?

Assuming you're talking about the Taliban etc was that it was a proxy war with the Russians in the 80s. The same reason that in the credits for Rambo 3 it says "We support our Taliban brothers in their fight for independence...." which always gains a wry smile.

[Saracen]

True, but from what I saw going on in the previous months, Asad has been lobbing mortars indiscriminantly into civilian areas, not as specific combattants. It's only the payload which has changed. So does that make mortars WMDs, or is that definied by the number of casualties? Again, what about Naplam? What about clusterbombs?

There is no single, universal definition of what are, or are not, WMD. I did a little research on this a while back, and came to the conclusion that there were at the very least several dozen definitions, and that is JUST definitions issued by official bodies, legislation and international organisations.

What most people mean by it is weapons capable of large-scale indiscriminate killing by use of nuclear, radioactive, chemical or biological means, i.e. such WMD as are enshrined in international agreements such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

BUT .... the US federal code covers a FAR wider definition, including, basically, any explosive device, and gun barrels larger than half an inch. By that (US federal) definition, just about every weapon the US military has, short of hand guns, rifles and, I guess, knives, are WMD, from a hand grenade, though to air-dropped bombs, to cruise missiles, torpedoes, and perhaps ironically, even anti-missile "missile shield" ordnance, whether explosive or even simply kinetic. I suppose high energy weapons probably escape, so you're okay with that phaser.

Of course, whether the US military is covered by that bit of federal law is another matter .... and another issue. Jurisdiction.

All told, I think you can assume "WMD" is a pretty vague and meaningless term unless the person using it makes it clear, either explicitly or by context, precisely what they mean.

If the Boston Bomber brothers can be accused of using WMD with a pressure cooker filled with low-grade explosives, I think you can safely assume either napalm or cluster-bombs would fit that definition too.

[HalloweenJack]

Er... no you didn't. You showed a report from the BBC that went on to say that while there were suspicions, there was no concrete proof.

That is not to say that proof is not there - if UN inspectors were permitted access by the Syrian Government to obtain it.

just as Israel allowed UN inspeectors to visit the site of the hospital it WP bbombed? or the USA allowed inspectors into Fullajah after they balneted the city with chemical wepons?


pot>kettle>black.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...l-weapons.html