• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian Chemical Weapons Experiment

P

Pabster

Lifer
Story here.

Food for thought, both for those who say Syria is no threat, and those who continue to parrot the idea that Iran is an innocent victim of the West.

I honestly believe Syria acquired large amounts of WMD from Saddam's regime shortly before the 2003 invasion.
 
Interesting related fact.

A few months ago in Israel there was a big uproar over the government recalling old standard issue gas masks given to the general population in case of a gas attack but refused to issue new ones because the government thought it might send a message to syria that they where preparing for war (there was high tensions over the golan heights with both sides starting to mass troops at the time).
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
I honestly believe Syria acquired large amounts of WMD from Saddam's regime shortly before the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

While I tend to believe the reports that Israel took out nuclear materials a couple weeks ago, I think this is a step too far.

My brother Bilo believe this too, he a retard.
 
Sorry, all political, war-mongering, and chicken-little rhetoric receptor cells were exhausted in me during the run up to the Iraq war and have not yet rebuilt themselves.
I honestly believe Syria acquired large amounts of WMD from Saddam's regime shortly before the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...
And I believe that if I club enough baby seals, eventually I will be able to fly, but it doesn't make it so. If you come to grips with reality and admit that the whole thing was a baseless mess, you can pick up the good pieces of your life, shed aside the bad ones, learn from it, and move forward a new and hopeful man. I invite you to a better way forward, Pabster, but only after you move past the step of denial will it be fully open to you. But, your crazy belief may yet be vindicated, for if the small chance in hell of the remaining buffoons on the right get their way and Iran is invaded and then, oh heck Syria, too, the weapons will be found. Except they won't be because they were snuck across the border to Vatican City. Then we can invade the Vatican and find them there. Except that they were snuck across in model boats to Canada where the beavers ate them, took dumps in the rivers, and then polluted the water supply. That water, remember, goes south to the US and then everyone suffers the ill effects and then Saddam will have ended up winning. The only way to prevent this is to tactically strike, with nuclear weapons, everything that has a population of more than 1000 people in the Middle East. God Bless.
 
From Pabster-

I honestly believe Syria acquired large amounts of WMD from Saddam's regime shortly before the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it's a convenient form of denial?

That'd be a helluva self-defense strategy for the Iraqis- rather than using chemical weapons to repel the American invaders, just give 'em away, so that when the invading hordes don't find what they were looking for, they'll just leave...

Perhaps the most brilliant move in the history of warfare, right?

As for the rest of it- meh. Both the US and the republics of the former soviet union have huge stores of chemical weapons, and a variety of others are suspected of the same, including the israelis...

Their danger and effectiveness are both highly over-rated in the media, thanks to the raving of the Bushistas and their allies...

Even though such weaponry has been available since WW1, the number of people killed by bullets and bombs far outnumbers those killed by chemical weapons...
 
PR from the war drum-beating Far Right. More of the same BS that got us into Iraq, and will get us into Iran.
Welcome to 1957. The Machine is huge.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Even though such weaponry has been available since WW1, the number of people killed by bullets and bombs far outnumbers those killed by chemical weapons...
Click to expand...


WW1 was the first turely large scale use of chemical weapons. The reason why no chemical weapons where used during WW2 was that everyone was too afraid of the other side using it against them, even hitler was scared [something] less by the thought of a gas attack because he survived one himself when he was a solider in WW1.

Since WW1, no large scale conflict that i am aware of has used chemical warfare thus it's not a fair comparison to bullets and bombs. There have been cases such as Saddam shelling the kerds with gas shells but its hardly wide spread. I am also not commenting on the "what if" of the impact of chemical weapons, someone else can raise that point.


But i would list chemical weapons as the least dangerous of the 3 WMD types as it can easily be contained -compared to biological-, the effected area is smaller and does not have a blast wave -nuke-. Not to say someone could get contaminated by a tiny drop of the stuff, walk into a building and in 5 minutes everyone in there is dead or seriously sick. Similar situations have happened with someone contaminated with a concentrated pesticide going to a hospital which resulted in deaths.
 
Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Even though such weaponry has been available since WW1, the number of people killed by bullets and bombs far outnumbers those killed by chemical weapons...
Click to expand...


WW1 was the first turely large scale use of chemical weapons. The reason why no chemical weapons where used during WW2 was that everyone was too afraid of the other side using it against them, even hitler was scared [something] less by the thought of a gas attack because he survived one himself when he was a solider in WW1.

Since WW1, no large scale conflict that i am aware of has used chemical warfare thus it's not a fair comparison to bullets and bombs. There have been cases such as Saddam shelling the kerds with gas shells but its hardly wide spread. I am also not commenting on the "what if" of the impact of chemical weapons, someone else can raise that point.


But i would list chemical weapons as the least dangerous of the 3 WMD types as it can easily be contained -compared to biological-, the effected area is smaller and does not have a blast wave -nuke-. Not to say someone could get contaminated by a tiny drop of the stuff, walk into a building and in 5 minutes everyone in there is dead or seriously sick. Similar situations have happened with someone contaminated with a concentrated pesticide going to a hospital which resulted in deaths.
Click to expand...
Try the Iran-Iraq war.

Iran claims that 100,000 of its citizens were killed via chemical weapons during this war. Does that qualify as 'large scale' to you?
 
Originally posted by: db
Your self-serving manipulative bulls**t doesn't work on me, pabster.
Click to expand...
Oh please? if it wasn?t for ?self-serving manipulative bullshit? we wouldn?t have a forum at all.
 
Originally posted by: ZzZGuy in WW1.

Since WW1, no large scale conflict that i am aware of has used chemical warfare thus it's not a fair comparison to bullets and bombs. There have been cases such as Saddam shelling the kerds with gas shells but its hardly wide spread. I am also not commenting on the "what if" of the impact of chemical weapons, someone else can raise that point.
Click to expand...

Iran-Iraq war. That wasn't world scale but it was pretty large on its own.
 
Whats the issue with the dead guys again? It's known by my collegues as a "Self-Correcting Error". It weeds out the foolhardy and reckless.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Iran claims that 100,000 of its citizens were killed via chemical weapons during this war. Does that qualify as 'large scale' to you?
Click to expand...


No. If both sides used it without holding back, the death toll would be a lot higher. I also assume when you say "claims" that this has not been verified.

-eidt- the flaming has started, i'll leave this thread to rot -edit-
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Pabster-

I honestly believe Syria acquired large amounts of WMD from Saddam's regime shortly before the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it's a convenient form of denial?

That'd be a helluva self-defense strategy for the Iraqis- rather than using chemical weapons to repel the American invaders, just give 'em away, so that when the invading hordes don't find what they were looking for, they'll just leave...

Perhaps the most brilliant move in the history of warfare, right?
Click to expand...

There was more than one report back then that Saddam never thought he would be deposed. That he thought the rest of the world would come to his defense when no WMD were found. Of course, if that was his strategy it surely wasn't as brilliant as he expected.

Saddam and his tribe/people were Bathists, same political party as Syria etc. To outright dismiss the possibility that Pabster mentions is unwarranted and irrational.

While we do know WMD were'nt found, we also know that large (Russian) convoys of trucks were allowed to leave unsearched even after we had invaded etc. We don't know what, if anything, may have left before.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: db
PR from the war drum-beating Far Right. More of the same BS that got us into Iraq, and will get us into Iran.
Welcome to 1957. The Machine is huge.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is just "drum beating"? But who knows for sure?

And if it's just "drum beating", they're beating them pretty g*d d*mn hard. This incident linked is Syria & Iran colluding on chemical WMD. Then we've got the reports that Israel's recent bombing in Syria was done to take out some nuclear facility etc. Supposidly Syria got this material from NK and was again working in co-operation with Iran. 2 strikes? If we see 3 strikes, I think they're *out*.

If Iran is guilty as accused, I bet the Dems will not really oppose military action as contemplated (just bombing, no occupying). While I don't expect them to be all *cheerleader rah rah* like, I don't really think that they'd welcome the Iranian nuke situation coming into fruition on their watch. 3 or 4 years into a Dem Presidency is long enough for that to happen. If it does, think they'll get another term? I don't.

Either they trust Ahmadinejad (haha) and don't believe Iran is, or will, pursue nukes, or they're prepared to let it happen on their watch (politically toxic for generations), or they're prepared to extinguish the threat themselves (Oh yeah, that'll go over well among their constituents - get of GWB and have them turn around and do the same thing). Naw, unless Iran starts playing nice, I've now come to expect trouble soon. I think GWB will do it, he ain't running for office ever again. And perhaps it's just too convenient for the Dems to let him take care of it and offer nothing more than cosmetic resistance.

Fern
 
The report is bs.

If Israel had proof that Syria was arming their missiles with chemical weapons, it would carpet bomb Syria.
Syria would "cry cry cry cry cry"

that would be the end of it
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
The report is bs.

If Israel had proof that Syria was arming their missiles with chemical weapons, it would carpet bomb Syria.
Syria would "cry cry cry cry cry"

that would be the end of it
Click to expand...

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.
Click to expand...
Jane's Defence Weekly should be a fairly unbiased source.

 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Aimster
The report is bs.

If Israel had proof that Syria was arming their missiles with chemical weapons, it would carpet bomb Syria.
Syria would "cry cry cry cry cry"

that would be the end of it
Click to expand...

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.
Click to expand...
Jane's Defence Weekly should be a fairly unbiased source.
Click to expand...

Not for Aimster. He already knows everything. he dun learnt it inz skool!
 
Jane's Defense is definitely not an accurate source.
It wasn't even there.

Other than what someone reported to the media, how the hell does Jane's Defense know what the hell happened?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Even though such weaponry has been available since WW1, the number of people killed by bullets and bombs far outnumbers those killed by chemical weapons...
Click to expand...


WW1 was the first turely large scale use of chemical weapons. The reason why no chemical weapons where used during WW2 was that everyone was too afraid of the other side using it against them, even hitler was scared [something] less by the thought of a gas attack because he survived one himself when he was a solider in WW1.

Since WW1, no large scale conflict that i am aware of has used chemical warfare thus it's not a fair comparison to bullets and bombs. There have been cases such as Saddam shelling the kerds with gas shells but its hardly wide spread. I am also not commenting on the "what if" of the impact of chemical weapons, someone else can raise that point.


But i would list chemical weapons as the least dangerous of the 3 WMD types as it can easily be contained -compared to biological-, the effected area is smaller and does not have a blast wave -nuke-. Not to say someone could get contaminated by a tiny drop of the stuff, walk into a building and in 5 minutes everyone in there is dead or seriously sick. Similar situations have happened with someone contaminated with a concentrated pesticide going to a hospital which resulted in deaths.
Click to expand...
Try the Iran-Iraq war.

Iran claims that 100,000 of its citizens were killed via chemical weapons during this war. Does that qualify as 'large scale' to you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, we probably shouldn't have aided Iraq's use of those weapons on Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top