Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Nobody has posted any other evidence for that claim.

There's been no evidence posted that the gas attack was launched by Assad either, and no clear motive for him to have done so. Right now, I think conclusive evidence of who launched the attack is pretty much impossible to find.

Which is my entire point - we have no clue what is actually happening. Are you going to argue it's not possible for one of the rebel groups to launch the attack? That none of them would have had motive to? As of now, all I'm saying is that they are suspect, not that they are guilty.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Nobody has posted any other evidence for that claim.

There's been no evidence posted that the gas attack was launched by Assad either, and no clear motive for him to have done so. Right now, I think conclusive evidence of who launched the attack is pretty much impossible to find.

Leaked Documents: U.S. Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack

Nice unsupported conclusion there you have no problem touting. Can't help but think you're a troll.

Which is my entire point - we have no clue what is actually happening. Are you going to argue it's not possible for one of the rebel groups to launch the attack? That none of them would have had motive to? As of now, all I'm saying is that they are suspect, not that they are guilty.

The magic of hand waving.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You guys are in the wrong forum, sorry.

http://prisonplanet.tv/

[GlyphGryph]

I have no clue what you are even trying to argue or say.

Are you saying the "leaked documents" were conclusive proof the US was behind all this?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I have no clue what you are even trying to argue or say.

You're supporting the absolutely unsubstantiated conspiracy theorist horseshit as more viable than the actual truth, which is Assad launching chemical weaponry. It doesn't surprise me you don't realize you're helping the ignorance-feeding media by believing the big bad government must be responsible for goddamn Assad gassing people.

[GlyphGryph]

At no point have I stated support for ANY sort of US backed conspiracy. Nor have I even said it's more likely than Assad having launched the weapons.

But "someone on the internet said it" or even "the mainstream news media has reported, unsourced" have proven time and time again to be at best inaccurate when describing events that have occurred in the Middle East, in an environment of civil war where both parties understand the benefit of making themselves look better for an international audience.

I have not seen any conclusive evidence that Assad was responsible for the attacks - this does not mean that isn't the most likely circumstance, or even that said evidence does not exist, but it has not been cited by any of the media I have followed OR in this thread.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I trust UN inspectors more than armchair experts.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I thought the UN inspectors postponed their investigation after getting shot at?

[cerapa]

I trust UN inspectors more than armchair experts.

Did I miss some important piece of news that said that evidence was found for Assad using chemical weapons?

[GlyphGryph]

Except that since the UN inspectors haven't (to my knowledge) declared Assad responsible (yet, it's still possible they will), you're either working from sources you haven't shared with us, in which case PLEASE DO, or you're basing your opinion on rumors and armchair experts who know jack shit about the actual situation.

You are insistent that you understand exactly what's going on, and anyone who disagrees with you is a "conspiracy theorist" (which is complete bullocks) - yet you caution us to avoid listening to armchair experts? The irony is palpable.

[LordSlowpoke]

I have no clue what you are even trying to argue or say.

You're supporting the absolutely unsubstantiated conspiracy theorist horseshit as more viable than the actual truth, which is Assad launching chemical weaponry.

Humor me this... Assad is currently winning. His only problem at the present is the fact his army's slowly yet surely running out of bullets to shoot rebels with, and Iran, Russia & Co. are heavily helping out on this one (the convoys over Iraq are causing a bit of controversy though). What reason does he have to force the international community's hand into backing his enemy while he's slowly retaking the major cities on his own? He's not Qaddafi or a masochist.

fakeedit: Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

wat

[10ebbor10]

There's also another option. A gas attack launched by Assad's soldiers, but without order from above. I mean, I'm not sure how much control Assad still has over his own troops.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Except that since the UN inspectors haven't (to my knowledge) declared Assad responsible (yet, it's still possible they will), you're either working from sources you haven't shared with us, in which case PLEASE DO, or you're basing your opinion on rumors and armchair experts who know jack shit about the actual situation.

You are insistent that you understand exactly what's going on, and anyone who disagrees with you is a "conspiracy theorist" (which is complete bullocks) - yet you caution us to avoid listening to armchair experts? The irony is palpable.

Wrong. Assad has shown his guilt by having forces shell the [now empty] area for a week straight. The UN inspectors have been interviewing and collecting samples from hospitals and victims. Much more important than blaming the US for every possible thing, like you enjoy to do, without evidence 'we don't know if it was Assad, could've been rebels!' [Without noting the area was besieged by military and under artillery attacks during the entire operation, unless Rebels gassed themselves with weapons they don't have, it didn't happen, as Syria has not stated that the opposition has stolen any chemical weaponry, which they would make a field day out of in Syrian state media]

They're confirming the use of the weapons and Assad waiting a week after shelling the gassed are shows the military has plenty to hide. Unless you'd like to continue with these fantasies about the US being involed in every single event around the world. Could be a Dictator gassed rebels in his capital to keep the other locals from doing the same, hmm, but no, it must be the US.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013826123738116707.html

Humor me this... Assad is currently winning.

Arguable. Majority of non-major towns including Homs are not under government control. Many 'state' highways not in the greater Damascus area are toll paths for rebels.

Northeast Syria will never become part of the Syrian state again, due to the Kurds finally getting a chance to flex their independence, they will not give it back now. In fact, the Kurds have been fighting a brutal campaign to keep rebels from collecting/recruiting off their lands.

Syria is now a fractured state no matter who wins. If Assad regains total power he will in either case create an autonomous Kurdish region and there will be insurgency in the non-Urban areas for time immemorial. Two rebellions in the last 30 years where 10k+ die will cause that to people.

This gassing has nothing to do with US involvement. We're the great satan, sure, but doing such an operation would help US interests in zero way. At all. If this was a US setup it'd be setting up the Islamist factions of rebels to get an excuse to cleanse the 'dirty' rebels from the correct, democratic ones. But it's not. Seriously. We don't need any more excuses to be doing anything, why would they do it now?

Now we get to choose between supporting a rainbow [very likely to facture] coalition or a dickhole who gasses his people and bombs them indiscriminately. I'll let you decide which is better, I can't.

If this was PI the warscore would look something like Rebels -20% Assad +10% and Kurds +99%. All in all, if Kurdistan gets an independent nation out of this.. I think that'd be a desirable outcome, no matter who comes out on top in Syria. The Kurds have been screwed for too long, I feel for them as a Jew. They didn't even get to claim lands.

[GlyphGryph]

Right. Well, clearly the problem here is that you really, really love your strawmen, and if you're going to insist I'm saying things I didn't say and making claims I didn't make, there's no reason to even have a conversation with you. I'm sure you're just, like, super sure about everything ever. Super, great for you, but if you're not going to bother to read the things I actually write and instead make just have a fanciful conversation with yourself, there's very little reason for me to actually engage you. Sheesh.

I do agree that no matter what happens elsewhere, it seems like the Kurds are the only ones who have a real chance of coming out of this as "winners", for what that's worth in the end.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The rebels are not involved and your misinformation suggesting otherwise is wrong no matter what insult you take from it.

Once again, the Syrian state media would be plastering it all over everything if even a single rebel has laid eyes on a chemical weapon, let alone stealing one/multiple for such an attack. I mean, seriously, come on. Unless you think those disorganized people can steal an armory of chemical weaponry silently, set them up and launch them safely [one of the hardest parts of chemical warfare s the launching and not killing of yourself with said weapons].