Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/24/2013 3:06:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2013 3:13:43 PM EDT by Bhart89]
Why did Assad use chemical weapons in Syria? I can see if he is about the lose but I don't see anything that indicated his power was any more in danger than the previous weeks/months. Was there a strategic need to use those weapons?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:08:57 PM EDT
Asad?

He figures he's losing control, and desperate men do desperate things.

That, and he has all Sadaam's WMDs that the Left has been whining about not finding in Iraq.

Found them NOW, didn't you assholes?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:09:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MedPig:
Asad?

He figures he's losing control, and desperate men do desperate things.

That, and he has all Sadaam's WMDs that the Left has been whining about not finding in Iraq.

Found them NOW, didn't you assholes?
View Quote


facepalm
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:10:13 PM EDT
if you have chemical weapons best to use them before the other side captures them and uses them on you, what I'm thinking
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:10:19 PM EDT
Because nerve gas scares the shit out of people, and rightly so.



Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:10:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2013 3:11:13 PM EDT by hdrider1]
IF Assad used them. Things are often not as they appear, not that the guy isn't capable of doing such a thing.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:11:01 PM EDT
What really happened:

Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:11:19 PM EDT
I think it can go either way on who the guilty party is. Who benefits most from the outrage? The truth is he's been holding his own. Kind of makes you wonder why he'd draw scorn down on him from the UN and risk action when he's basically been kicking Al Qaeda butt recently...
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:11:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2013 3:14:06 PM EDT by mgwantob]
There's no proof as to who used them. If you believe everything the Islamic extremists tell you, then they have won.

ETA: You must remember, Assad is a Baathist just as Sadaam Hussein was. They believe in modernization, westernization, and good ties with 1st world countries. The opposition group is based on fundamental Islamic beliefs, not freedom. They are trying to impose Sharia law in Syria and force themselves back into the 15th century. Who do you think the real bad guys are?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:11:48 PM EDT
Just came to post fuck all sides of that conflict.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:11:49 PM EDT
He's killing more with small arms. But possibly trying to unify the country from an Obama strike.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:11:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Why did Azad use chemical weapons in Syria? I can see if he is about the lose but I don't see anything that indicated his power was any more in danger than the previous weeks/months. Was there a strategic need to use those weapons?
View Quote


Yes, but not by Assad.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:12:09 PM EDT
What makes you think he did?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:13:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


facepalm
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By MedPig:
Asad?

He figures he's losing control, and desperate men do desperate things.

That, and he has all Sadaam's WMDs that the Left has been whining about not finding in Iraq.

Found them NOW, didn't you assholes?


facepalm

Uh yeah, that's actually were they went.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:14:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RANGER_556:

Uh yeah, that's actually were they went.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RANGER_556:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By MedPig:
Asad?

He figures he's losing control, and desperate men do desperate things.

That, and he has all Sadaam's WMDs that the Left has been whining about not finding in Iraq.

Found them NOW, didn't you assholes?


facepalm

Uh yeah, that's actually were they went.


Possibly, but there's no proof of that.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:14:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mgwantob:
There's no proof as to who used them. If you believe everything the Islamic extremists tell you, then they have won.
View Quote

There is no proof, and Obama should wait for the UN report. Binary munitions last a long time and either side has them
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:14:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2013 3:15:48 PM EDT by SilentType]
Chemical weapons are excellent when you don't want to ruin infrastructure and instead just kill the enemy. They don't tend to demolish buildings or ruin road ways. If you're a dictator looking to kill rebels without knocking out the national infrastructure that helps keep money flowing to your Swiss Bank Accounts they're just the ticket. They also help deny the area to an enemy for a period of time if that enemy doesn't have the proper kit.

Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:15:48 PM EDT

To answer your question one must first assume that Assad is the one that used the chems.

I haven't made that assumption.

Riddle me this - Who stands to gain by the use of WMDs in Syria.

There's your answer.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:19:05 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SilentType:
Chemical weapons are excellent when you don't want to ruin infrastructure and instead just kill the enemy. They don't tend to demolish buildings or ruin road ways. If you're a dictator looking to kill rebels without knocking out the national infrastructure that helps keep money flowing to your Swiss Bank Accounts they're just the ticket. They also help deny the area to an enemy for a period of time if that enemy doesn't have the proper kit.

View Quote


I didn't consider that angle. That's really fucked up
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:22:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kihn:
I think it can go either way on who the guilty party is. Who benefits most from the outrage? The truth is he's been holding his own. Kind of makes you wonder why he'd draw scorn down on him from the UN and risk action when he's basically been kicking Al Qaeda butt recently...
View Quote


This

It could very well be a false flag, ala the Bosnians and that mortar attack that drew NATO in to the Balkans.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:24:27 PM EDT
He didn't.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:25:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TaterSalad:

To answer your question one must first assume that Assad is the one that used the chems.

I haven't made that assumption.

Riddle me this - Who stands to gain by the use of WMDs in Syria.

There's your answer.
View Quote
Assad, because he knows damn well nobody's gonna do anything about it.

If what you're suggesting is right, then Al Qaeda now has nerve gas; have you considered the implications of that?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:26:55 PM EDT
Probally some other countries security force's deed.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:28:19 PM EDT
If he did actually use them, its because FBHO will do nothing about it. He can cross the red line all day long and not have to worry about repercussions.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:31:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By d16man:
If he did actually use them, its because FBHO will do nothing about it. He can cross the red line all day long and not have to worry about repercussions.
View Quote


Yup. He called Obama on his bluff.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:31:55 PM EDT
Has there been any proof what, if any, chemical weapon was used?

If the truth ever comes out, I will be surprised if Assad ordered a chemical attack.

What did he have to gain? The war is at worst a stalemate, at best he's winning. He has Russia and China backing him.

Why use Chemical Weapons, and tempt the wimpy west to step in?

I still think the rebels did it. Would you put it past a bunch of Islamic Radicals to kill a bunch on their "own side", if they thought they could gain from it?

Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:37:33 PM EDT
I'm not convinced he did it, or if he did place the order that there wasn't someone else pulling strings. I know it sounds like a bad tom clancy novel but it appears that someone is pulling the strings to get the US embroiled in yet another drawn out no-win shithole mideast conflict, just as the others are winding down. Drain us of $, resources, and will to do battle. I'm not saying its not sad that some kids got nerve gassed, but there are at least as many kids dying of malnutrition/disease/local conflict every damn day in all the other 3rd world shitholes. Whether they died of nerve gas or neglect or some other societal negligence doesn't make them any less dead. OH TEH KNOWZ NERVE GAS!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, Iran is continued to allow enriching uranium.

Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:37:36 PM EDT
There is far more benefit for the opposition to use gas on the civilians and blame Assad.

I would not put it past Assad to use them but there is far more reasoning the rebels used gas to draw idiot politicians into the war on their side.

Is anyone that stupid in DC?? (besides McCain)

I say let them kill each other until they have wiped out the whole lot of themselves and good ridden


Wulfmann
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:37:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:
Has there been any proof what, if any, chemical weapon was used?

If the truth ever comes out, I will be surprised if Assad ordered a chemical attack.

What did he have to gain? The war is at worst a stalemate, at best he's winning. He has Russia and China backing him.

Why use Chemical Weapons, and tempt the wimpy west to step in?

I still think the rebels did it. Would you put it past a bunch of Islamic Radicals to kill a bunch on their "own side", if they thought they could gain from it?

View Quote
They're not going to step in because they've spent the last 10 years giving us shit about invading Iraq over the same issue. And audacity is a Russian virtue. They'll piss on your back and tell you it's raining right before blaming you for wasting piss. Putin will happily let Syria test the waters for his next little adventure.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:41:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mullah_Atari:
Assad, because he knows damn well nobody's gonna do anything about it.

If what you're suggesting is right, then Al Qaeda now has nerve gas; have you considered the implications of that?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mullah_Atari:
Originally Posted By TaterSalad:

To answer your question one must first assume that Assad is the one that used the chems.

I haven't made that assumption.

Riddle me this - Who stands to gain by the use of WMDs in Syria.

There's your answer.
Assad, because he knows damn well nobody's gonna do anything about it.

If what you're suggesting is right, then Al Qaeda now has nerve gas; have you considered the implications of that?


The last thing Assad wants is any international intervention. He doesn't need to use chems to win. There is no upside - none.

AQ et al doesn't need a train load of chem weapons, just like they don't need an ICBM. A little dab will do ya when it comes to generating some outrage/measured strikes.

Think about it.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:41:09 PM EDT
I'm just boggling at the thought that we're about to get involved in a proxy war with Russia by supporting Muslim terrorists. Again. History repeats--first as tragedy, then as farce.

This really is Jimmy Carter's second term.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:41:22 PM EDT
I think the rebels had no problem sacrificing their own to get us into the war. They know once we start launching cruise missiles its game over for Assad. It's clear the rebels treat their own worse then animals so this is just part of winning the war for them. All those people could have been poisoned to make it look like they got gassed instead.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:44:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Palandine:
I'm just boggling at the thought that we're about to get involved in a proxy war with Russia by supporting Muslim terrorists. Again. History repeats--first as tragedy, then as farce.

This really is Jimmy Carter's second term.
View Quote


Third term.

Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:45:15 PM EDT
Have we established that it was him who used them? Or even if they were used at all?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:49:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mullah_Atari:
Assad, because he knows damn well nobody's gonna do anything about it.

If what you're suggesting is right, then Al Qaeda now has nerve gas; have you considered the implications of that?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mullah_Atari:
Originally Posted By TaterSalad:

To answer your question one must first assume that Assad is the one that used the chems.

I haven't made that assumption.

Riddle me this - Who stands to gain by the use of WMDs in Syria.

There's your answer.
Assad, because he knows damn well nobody's gonna do anything about it.

If what you're suggesting is right, then Al Qaeda now has nerve gas; have you considered the implications of that?


Same as having MANPADS? You know the insurgents have been raiding Assad's stocks right?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:50:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Slateman:
Have we established that it was him who used them? Or even if they were used at all?
View Quote


Nope.

Facts just get in the way.

The Brits and the French have a hardon for Assad, and Obama just wants to help his Islamist buddies.

I figure cruise missiles will be flying before Monday.

Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:50:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Why did Assad use chemical weapons in Syria? I can see if he is about the lose but I don't see anything that indicated his power was any more in danger than the previous weeks/months. Was there a strategic need to use those weapons?
View Quote



To call Obamas bluff.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:53:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2013 3:53:35 PM EDT by Caboose314]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


Yup. He called Obama on his bluff.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By d16man:
If he did actually use them, its because FBHO will do nothing about it. He can cross the red line all day long and not have to worry about repercussions.


Yup. He called Obama on his bluff.


This is my guess. Message to the resistance that Obama isn't going to do shit to help them.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:53:43 PM EDT
"Why did Assad use chemical weapons in Syria?" You are asking yourself a framed question.

You are assuming the controlled media that is feeding you is telling you the truth.

Its strange how the media constantly lies and manipulates to push domestic agendas in the US and most conservatives see through it, but when it comes to world events we still take their "reporting" as fact.

That said, the questions you should be asking yourself:

1) Who would benefit most from the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

2) Who used them the last 2 times there while blaming Syrian government forces which was proved to be false?

3) Who does the US support in Syria?

If you answered Al Queda to all 3, then you would be correct.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:54:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TaterSalad:


The last thing Assad wants is any international intervention. He doesn't need to use chems to win. There is no upside - none.

AQ et al doesn't need a train load of chem weapons, just like they don't need an ICBM. A little dab will do ya when it comes to generating some outrage/measured strikes.

Think about it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TaterSalad:
Originally Posted By Mullah_Atari:
Originally Posted By TaterSalad:

To answer your question one must first assume that Assad is the one that used the chems.

I haven't made that assumption.

Riddle me this - Who stands to gain by the use of WMDs in Syria.

There's your answer.
Assad, because he knows damn well nobody's gonna do anything about it.

If what you're suggesting is right, then Al Qaeda now has nerve gas; have you considered the implications of that?


The last thing Assad wants is any international intervention. He doesn't need to use chems to win. There is no upside - none.

AQ et al doesn't need a train load of chem weapons, just like they don't need an ICBM. A little dab will do ya when it comes to generating some outrage/measured strikes.

Think about it.
I thought about it and I can't get over the fact that Assad is a Baathist dictator suppressing an uprising and they have a bit of a history of doing stupid shit like using chemical weapons against their own people.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:57:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Smash47:
"Why did Assad use chemical weapons in Syria?" You are asking yourself a framed question.

You are assuming the controlled media that is feeding you is telling you the truth.

Its strange how the media constantly lies and manipulates to push domestic agendas in the US and most conservatives see through it, but when it comes to world events we still take their "reporting" as fact.

That said, the questions you should be asking yourself:

1) Who would benefit most from the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

2) Who used them the last 2 times there while blaming Syrian government forces which was proved to be false?

3) Who does the US support in Syria?

If you answered Al Queda to all 3, then you would be correct.
View Quote
Controlled by whom?
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 3:59:49 PM EDT
No controlling authority
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:00:43 PM EDT
after all this time he figures he has won the propaganda game, he figures the world will do nothing to stop him, and now is a good time to cull the numbers of his opposition.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:02:28 PM EDT
I heard he planned to attack a German radio station....
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:02:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kihn:
I think it can go either way on who the guilty party is. Who benefits most from the outrage? The truth is he's been holding his own. Kind of makes you wonder why he'd draw scorn down on him from the UN and risk action when he's basically been kicking Al Qaeda butt recently...
View Quote

seriously, what do dictators care about the UN, that group of pussies had Khadaffi on it's human rights commission........
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:03:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AlvinYork:
after all this time he figures he has won the propaganda game, he figures the world will do nothing to stop him, and now is a good time to cull the numbers of his opposition.
View Quote



I'm not buying that
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:04:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mgwantob:
There's no proof as to who used them. If you believe everything the Islamic extremists tell you, then they have won.

ETA: You must remember, Assad is a Baathist just as Sadaam Hussein was. They believe in modernization, westernization, and good ties with 1st world countries. The opposition group is based on fundamental Islamic beliefs, not freedom. They are trying to impose Sharia law in Syria and force themselves back into the 15th century. Who do you think the real bad guys are?
View Quote

Baathism was formed directly upon the principles of German National Socialism. They're Muslim Nazis, in other words. There are no good guys in this fight.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:04:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SilentType:
Chemical weapons are excellent when you don't want to ruin infrastructure and instead just kill the enemy. They don't tend to demolish buildings or ruin road ways. If you're a dictator looking to kill rebels without knocking out the national infrastructure that helps keep money flowing to your Swiss Bank Accounts they're just the ticket. They also help deny the area to an enemy for a period of time if that enemy doesn't have the proper kit.

View Quote

QFT


Back in the 70s we and I'm sure others were developing the Neutron bomb to do just the same thing.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:05:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mgwantob:
There's no proof as to who used them. If you believe everything the Islamic extremists tell you, then they have won.

ETA: You must remember, Assad is a Baathist just as Sadaam Hussein was. They believe in modernization, westernization, and good ties with 1st world countries. The opposition group is based on fundamental Islamic beliefs, not freedom. They are trying to impose Sharia law in Syria and force themselves back into the 15th century. Who do you think the real bad guys are?
View Quote


I approve of the above post. Earlier in the year there was another accusation of chemical agents being used.
Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:06:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By juan223:
I heard he planned to attack a German radio station....
View Quote


That's just Polish Propaganda.



Link Posted: 8/24/2013 4:07:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 4v50:


I approve of the above post. Earlier in the year there was another accusation of chemical agents being used.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 4v50:
Originally Posted By mgwantob:
There's no proof as to who used them. If you believe everything the Islamic extremists tell you, then they have won.

ETA: You must remember, Assad is a Baathist just as Sadaam Hussein was. They believe in modernization, westernization, and good ties with 1st world countries. The opposition group is based on fundamental Islamic beliefs, not freedom. They are trying to impose Sharia law in Syria and force themselves back into the 15th century. Who do you think the real bad guys are?


I approve of the above post. Earlier in the year there was another accusation of chemical agents being used.

both sides are fucked up assholes.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top