Sarin Gas is absolutely horrific!

sbsquarepants

BeerWolf wrote: »

You'd probably find that most people would agree that death is terrible.

But there's a big difference between a quick death, and a death endured with a lot of suffering..

Example; The US got rid of death penalty by the Electric Chair for a reason.....

Don't be silly now, being burned to death by napalm is not all that preferable to sarin gas - as the op himself points out, from exposure to death is in the region of a minute - getting shot in the stomach could take days, or just leave you in a wheelchair. Have you seen Syria on the news, disabled access is not a big concern over there! Obama or America do not care one iota how Syrians or anyone else are killed, how much they suffer or how much it hurts - they care only about American interests, they fear Islamic fundamentalists coming to power (with good reason it has to be said), well they fear the ones they can't control - the Saudis and Kuwaitis are fine, apparently, the Iranians are crazy - funny that! Everything America does is in Americas interest - see the world for what it is. They probably sold or gave Assad the bloody sarin in the first place. Every "despot" they've selflessly removed from power recently is a former ally who just didn't suit Americas needs of the day anymore.

BeerWolf wrote: »

As a deterrent. You don't have to use it. Nuke testings aside, the only usage of a nuke on people was the end of WW2.

And who used them? 2 different bombs on 2 different cities that had been left largely intact up until that point, and against an enemy who was already beaten for all intents and purposes, most other cities having already being firebombed to oblivion! Yes there is a case to be argued that it hurried the end of the war in the pacific but it was also clearly designed as a proper test of their new toys, suffering be damned.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Ah here, are you guys really saying you'd prefer to be exposed to this stuff than blown up or shot? This stuff is horrific.

Most people don't even die from gunshot wounds, but it removes them from the battle. As much as I dislike the concept of war and murder in general, a bullet is infinitely more humane.

A executioners bullet maybe, not just being caught up in a hail of millions of the buggers. There is absolutely nothing in any way humane about any war.

Rhys Essien

People forget about white phosphorus,depleted uranium,and cluster bombs being used in different conflicts in the last 10/15 years.All equally as horrible.

Yakult

o1s1n wrote: »

Iran want to develop nuclear weapons for that very reason, so they are less likely to be attacked and will be considered a bigger 'player' on the world's stage - that's the reason any country wants them.

Evolution ay? :rolleyes:

BeerWolf

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Don't be silly now, being burned to death by napalm is not all that preferable to sarin gas - as the op himself points out, from exposure to death is in the region of a minute - getting shot in the stomach could take days, or just leave you in a wheelchair. Have you seen Syria on the news, disabled access is not a big concern over there! Obama or America do not care one iota how Syrians or anyone else are killed, how much they suffer or how much it hurts - they care only about American interests, they fear Islamic fundamentalists coming to power (with good reason it has to be said). Everything America does is in Americas interest - see the world for what it is. They probably sold or gave Assad the bloody sarin in the first place. Every "despot" they've selflessly removed from power recently is a former ally who just didn't suit Americas needs of the day anymore.




And who used them? 2 different bombs on 2 different cities that had been left largely intact up until that point, and against an enemy who was already beaten for all intents and purposes, most other cities having already being firebombed to oblivion! Yes there is a case to be argued that it hurried the end of the war in the pacific but it was also clearly designed as a proper test of their new toys, suffering be damned.



A executioners bullet maybe, not just being caught up in a hail of millions of the buggers. There is absolutely nothing in any way humane about any war.

Jez, you make me sound like I like the US Government - I despise them!

Yamanoto

Akrasia wrote: »

What kind of monster would stockpile a weapon such as this?

Couldn't help but read this in Loyd Grossman's voice.

David...it's over to you.

MonaPizza

EyeSight wrote: »

Yes it was the evil Americans :rolleyes: Look at what they gained from it...nothing. Maybe a political loss

There's less evidence to blame it on the Americans than there is to blame it on Bosco

The Americans had everything to gain from it, just the same as they had everything to gain from planting bombs in Baghdad market places to blow Shias to pieces and then blame it on Sunnis. You think that the tactic of divide and conquer is accomplished by going to one faction and saying "Hey, those other guys said you were ****!" ?? Yeah, that's going to spark blind hatred and revenge.
The British committed hideous atrocities in Kenya and then blamed it on the Mau Mau to turn the civilian population against them.
If the Americans can supply Sarin to rebels and have them use it and then tell everyone that it was Assad and people like you believe them then the job is done.
Getting the public all disgusted is part and parcel of getting them onside for a war. They spread those absurd rumours of Ghadaffi supplying his men with Viagra to rape people, didn't they? All this is part of the propaganda machine. Don't provide evidence, just rumours. Get people all upset and outraged and they will be easier to con into yet another damn conflict.

EyeSight

MonaPizza wrote: »

The Americans had everything to gain from it, just the same as they had everything to gain from planting bombs in Baghdad market places to blow Shias to pieces and then blame it on Sunnis. You think that the tactic of divide and conquer is accomplished by going to one faction and saying "Hey, those other guys said you were ****!" ?? Yeah, that's going to spark blind hatred and revenge.
The British committed hideous atrocities in Kenya and then blamed it on the Mau Mau to turn the civilian population against them.
If the Americans can supply Sarin to rebels and have them use it and then tell everyone that it was Assad and people like you believe them then the job is done.
Getting the public all disgusted is part and parcel of getting them onside for a war. They spread those absurd rumours of Ghadaffi supplying his men with Viagra to rape people, didn't they? All this is part of the propaganda machine. Don't provide evidence, just rumours. Get people all upset and outraged and they will be easier to con into yet another damn conflict.

have you evidence for any of these? Other than a tin foil hat?
You are naming probabilities like they are fact.

IMO the USA would have been happy to keep Asad if he hadn't started a civil war. Once he eventually loses, radicals will probably take over. Better the enemy you know. But you say they have everything to gain? what's that?

The chemical attacks in Syria did happen, UN(not US) inspectors verified it. Not one shred of evidence point to the US.
I'm glad you mention Ghadaffi, when the west didn't intervene in Libya they were criticized for turning their backs, when they intervened they were criticized for that. Same happening with Syria

BeerWolf

EyeSight wrote: »

The chemical attacks in Syria did happen, UN(not US) inspectors verified it. Not one shred of evidence point to the US.

How I love you're asking for facts and using this as a 'fact'...

Yes, Sarin was used... there's no evidence of WHO used it. Yet you're using this 'fact' that Assad was the one to deploy it...

So what's it like to be a hypocrite ?

MonaPizza

BeerWolf wrote: »

You'd probably find that most people would agree that death is terrible.

But there's a big difference between a quick death, and a death endured with a lot of suffering.

Example; The US got rid of death penalty by the Electric Chair for a reason...



As a deterrent. You don't have to use it. Nuke testings aside, the only usage of a nuke on people was the end of WW2.

How magnanimous of them. Then they go an champion waterboarding, stress positions, and various other forms of physical and psychological torture whereby scores have been left dead or crippled in their charge.
The slow death from depleted uranium contamination whereby your organs start to **** down over time, you sh1t blood and your semen turns acidic. Yeah that's a charmer as is white phosphorous...asphyxiating a 6 year old to death in a minute is so much more brutal than covering him in a chemical that won't go out so that he melts to death. The use of Israeli tungsten-shard bombs in the attack on Gaza was another proud moment in "clean" warfare. These bombs were specifically designed to explode spraying tungsten shards below waist level so as to amputate the legs of anyone unlucky enough to be in the vicinity. At least when someone is killed by Sarin or any other means, they're dead. Their suffering is over. Munitions designed to maim and cripple but not kill are an abomination. they wreck the victim's chances at any kind of life but they also make him a massive burden on his family and/or the state.

Here's some light bedtime reading for you:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-devastating-consequences-of-israeli-weapons-testing/23686

MonaPizza

meathstevie wrote: »

Anyone ever contemplated the possible consequences of the more fundamentalists streaks of political Islamism getting their hands on that stuff combined with a half decent delivery system ( in that case it could well be in the form of suicide operatives ) to launch an attack of substantial scale on Israel ?

Unfortunately so far it only appear to be the fundamentalists who are organised to any worthwhile extent in the whole so called Arab Spring. Ultimately the only thing that appears to be happening is that secular dictators are being replaced by Koran thumping dictators who could well end up being more brutal than their predecessors and a lot more dangerous and volatile in an international setting.

In the runup to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq weren't everyone saying that all the nutcases had sarin, and ricin and Vx nerve gas? Didn't they show some video (probably another of the many fakes) of some guy pouring something into a bottle in some makeshift lab and then filming a dog in a cage apparently dying from the fumes? Didn't those Shinto obscurantists in Japan make the stuff themselves? So if it's so easy to make then how are you going to stop it being made?

Answer....you aren't. Sarin is no more a threat than setting a cinema on fire.

BeerWolf

MonaPizza wrote: »

How magnanimous of them. Then they go an champion waterboarding, stress positions, and various other forms of physical and psychological torture whereby scores have been left dead or crippled in their charge.
The slow death from depleted uranium contamination whereby your organs start to **** down over time, you sh1t blood and your semen turns acidic. Yeah that's a charmer as is white phosphorous...asphyxiating a 6 year old to death in a minute is so much more brutal than covering him in a chemical that won't go out so that he melts to death. The use of Israeli tungsten-shard bombs in the attack on Gaza was another proud moment in "clean" warfare. These bombs were specifically designed to explode spraying tungsten shards below waist level so as to amputate the legs of anyone unlucky enough to be in the vicinity. At least when someone is killed by Sarin or any other means, they're dead. Their suffering is over. Munitions designed to maim and cripple but not kill are an abomination. they wreck the victim's chances at any kind of life but they also make him a massive burden on his family and/or the state.

Here's some light bedtime reading for you:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-devastating-consequences-of-israeli-weapons-testing/23686

Way to go off talking about something else and not the point I was making. You might want to reread what I said above the bold part you highlighted, and the bold part again, being an example of what I said above it...

Currently, you're just nitpicking for the sake of it...

EyeSight

BeerWolf wrote: »

How I love you're asking for facts and using this as a 'fact'...

Yes, Sarin was used... there's no evidence of WHO used it. Yet you're using this 'fact' that Assad was the one to deploy it...

So what's it like to be a hypocrite ?

My post clearly says that a chemical attack happened in Syria. I never mentioned Assad did it.
So what's it like to be an idiot?

BeerWolf

EyeSight wrote: »

My post clearly says that a chemical attack happened in Syria. I never mentioned Assad did it.
So what's it like to be an idiot?

The "Not one shred of evidence point to the US" would've implied otherwise.

Reindeer

Akrasia wrote: »

We do not allow the use of nuclear weapons, Chemical weapons or Biological weapons.
There is absolutely no justification for any of these. None.

I wonder if there is any reason Assad would have to use such weapons. He is, was, winning at the time they were reported. All their use would do is bring more international attention and give the US an excuse for intervention. I wonder...who would gain by the use of chemical weapons in Syria...who would have a reason to use them?

EyeSight

BeerWolf wrote: »

The "Not one shred of evidence points to the US" would've implied otherwise.

it implied nothing. It said there was no evidence of US involvement. Are you saying this is not true?
It neither said nor implied who i think is to blame. There is no evidence of who did it. That was my point. People were blaming the US for the attacks and i said there was no evidence.

Your reasoning is by me saying there's no evidence the US did it, that must mean it was Assad. Which is the wrong

Please read things properly and please trust facts and not probabilities

sbsquarepants

MonaPizza wrote: »

Munitions designed to maim and cripple but not kill are an abomination. they wreck the victim's chances at any kind of life but they also make him a massive burden on his family and/or the state.

Here's some light bedtime reading for you:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-devastating-consequences-of-israeli-weapons-testing/23686

The simple reason behind these devices is a dead soldier is much easier to deal with than a badly injured one. Plant a mine that kills whoever stands on it and the rest of the platoon will either just leave the body behind or fling it in the back of a truck to be sent home. Plant one that "only" blows the foot off and it is a much messier situation for them, more psychologically damaging for the others to witness and much more resource intensive. The suffering is neither here nor there - it's only a computer game to the generals and the planners.

DamagedTrax

as of yet there's no hard evidence of involvement from either side.

BUT when looked at objectively, a chemical attack on syrian citizens suits the US interests a hell of a lot more than assad's.

MonaPizza

EyeSight wrote: »

have you evidence for any of these? Other than a tin foil hat?
You are naming probabilities like they are fact.

IMO the USA would have been happy to keep Asad if he hadn't started a civil war. Once he eventually loses, radicals will probably take over. Better the enemy you know. But you say they have everything to gain? what's that?

The chemical attacks in Syria did happen, UN(not US) inspectors verified it. Not one shred of evidence point to the US.
I'm glad you mention Ghadaffi, when the west didn't intervene in Libya they were criticized for turning their backs, when they intervened they were criticized for that. Same happening with Syria

First of all Assad didn't start a civil war. Foreign fighters were shipped in to destabilize the place and soften it in preparation for an invasion by the US and NATO. The FSA is a bullsh1t made-up bogus organisation cobbled together in London. The objective of all of this has always been to destroy all Arab states in the region and have all of them fractured and unstable. This is the main focus of Israeli expansion. And that has nothing to do with tinfoil hats, my friend. They openly admit it in their manifesto. You might know some of this if you took the time to research this stuff rather than just watching what comes on the news and what might be bandied about on lame panel-discussions that have no interest in the truth.

You opened your post with "IMO". Well you certainly are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.

CrazyRabbit

BeerWolf wrote: »

I seriously doubt it was Assad that did it - Why would he, when he needs all the support he can get, specially when the whole world's watching?


It being an inside job, probably by the Americans... as a means of getting into the country, sounds more plausible. You might note how incredibly adamant they were in trying to enter the conflict...


I'm unsure of how legitimate it is, but a while ago I read up that Saudi Arabia was trying to bribe [or Blackmail?] Russia to pull out it's support with Syria with some oil related deal.

The group to gain the most from this attack was the rebels. The US had resisted calls to intervene. I've seen rebel commanders on TV begging the US to help & getting no response. Assad using chemical weapons would give the US a justification for entering the war, and give them enough support at home & abroad to do so.

Saying that, I believe Assad is more than capable of using any weapon to stay in power. The simple truth is, neither side in this conflict are rightheous of worthy of support. Just 2 group of religious nuts more willing to go to war than find a diplomatic solution. The only people deserving help are the innocent civilians, children and babies.

BeerWolf

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

The group to gain the most from this attack was the rebels. The US had resisted calls to intervene.

Who's supplying weapons to the FSA? The US.
Who effectively created Al Qaeda? The US.

The US are the ones deliberately causing the instability of the Middle East.



While I lack proof - I just got a gut feeling the WHOLE instability of the Middle East, and the US constantly trying to intervene there... is because of Israel. The strong Jewish ties between the two countries. The US supports Israel 100%.

MonaPizza

EyeSight wrote: »

it implied nothing. It said there was no evidence of US involvement. Are you saying this is not true?
It neither said nor implied who i think is to blame. There is no evidence of who did it. That was my point. People were blaming the US for the attacks and i said there was no evidence.

Your reasoning is by me saying there's no evidence the US did it, that must mean it was Assad. Which is the wrong

Please read things properly and please trust facts and not probabilities

When the UN announced that they were sending in inspections teams, the US insisted that they only determine that chemical weapons were used and NOT WHO used them. Got something to hide?
And now you're saying that there is no evidence of the US using them. Why would they [inspectors] even mention that if they were told to simply determine that they were used? The whole amateur way the US go about trying to bluff the world is pathetic. Don't they realise that they sound like the little boy called down to the headmaster's office and blurting out "I don't know anything about stealing all the paint supplies!" before he's even told why he's there.

Fratton Fred

And next on Looney tunes t.v.......

sbsquarepants

DamagedTrax wrote: »

as of yet there's no hard evidence of involvement from either side.

BUT when looked at objectively, a chemical attack on syrian citizens suits the US interests a hell of a lot more than assad's.

Firstly, I'm not all that up to speed on what exactly is going on in Syria, but even at a cursory glance it made no sense whatsoever for Assad to gas a village of civillians for absolutely no reason. I'm not saying he wouldn't if it suited him, but it just didn't suit. So then being the cynic that I am, I ask myself who did it suit and the answer is either the rebels themselves or the Americans.
Now that proves absolutely nothing, but it certainly would cause me to doubt Obamas I cant stand by and watch innocents suffer story.

Ush1

Nuclear bombs or iridium tipped bullets?

Does much more damage and will wreak havoc for generations after.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

First of all Assad didn't start a civil war. Foreign fighters were shipped in to destabilize the place and soften it in preparation for an invasion by the US and NATO. The FSA is a bullsh1t made-up bogus organisation cobbled together in London. The objective of all of this has always been to destroy all Arab states in the region and have all of them fractured and unstable. This is the main focus of Israeli expansion. And that has nothing to do with tinfoil hats, my friend. They openly admit it in their manifesto. You might know some of this if you took the time to research this stuff rather than just watching what comes on the news and what might be bandied about on lame panel-discussions that have no interest in the truth.

You opened your post with "IMO". Well you certainly are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.

It is a very evil plan altogether.

Might want to inform the Arab nations of their impending doom and all that.. especially since they are supporting the US/EU on Syria.

DamagedTrax

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is a very evil plan altogether.

Might want to inform the Arab nations of their impending doom and all that.. especially since they are supporting the US/EU on Syria.

im pretty sure that iraq, libya, afgan, syria, palestine and iran (etc) are already aware of it.

EyeSight

MonaPizza wrote: »

First of all Assad didn't start a civil war. Foreign fighters were shipped in to destabilize the place and soften it in preparation for an invasion by the US and NATO. The FSA is a bullsh1t made-up bogus organisation cobbled together in London. The objective of all of this has always been to destroy all Arab states in the region and have all of them fractured and unstable. This is the main focus of Israeli expansion. And that has nothing to do with tinfoil hats, my friend. They openly admit it in their manifesto. You might know some of this if you took the time to research this stuff rather than just watching what comes on the news and what might be bandied about on lame panel-discussions that have no interest in the truth.

You opened your post with "IMO". Well you certainly are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.

I did not open my post with "IMO". You really need to read posts...
You really have no facts in any arguments you make.

MonaPizza wrote: »

When the UN announced that they were sending in inspections teams, the US insisted that they only determine that chemical weapons were used and NOT WHO used them. Got something to hide?
And now you're saying that there is no evidence of the US using them. Why would they [inspectors] even mention that if they were told to simply determine that they were used? The whole amateur way the US go about trying to bluff the world is pathetic. Don't they realise that they sound like the little boy called down to the headmaster's office and blurting out "I don't know anything about stealing all the paint supplies!" before he's even told why he's there.

Again you have no facts and are spouting nonsense. There is evidence against you "arguments" but none for them other than speculation.

You have reminded me why i don't get into debates with conspiracy nuts. You just won't listen to reason, you twist anything and ignore blatant facts. That's all you will get from me

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is a very evil plan altogether.

Might want to inform the Arab nations of their impending doom and all that.. especially since they are supporting the US/EU on Syria.

I'm not making it up if that's what you are alluding to. The only way that Israel can dominate the region is to have all the Arab nations fractious and dysfunctional. This objective has been outlined in their Greater Israel project plan.
Go ahead and dismiss the message by attacking the messenger as a "tinfoiler" if it soothes you.
This whole nonsense of Israel good, Arab bad doesn't fool me in the slightest.
If they had any interest in peace they wouldn't keep scuppering peace talks. If they had any interest in peace they wouldn't keep usurping land and expanding eastwards. If they had any interest in peace they wouldn't be attempting the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Israel or in the Occupied Territories. If they had any interest in peace they would have accepted a military alliance in the 1970's but since military alliances require that signatories adhere to defined national boundaries this would have put strictures on the further theft of Palestinian Land.

So the destruction of Syria and the isolation of Iran as the only counterweight to US/Israeli domination is and always has been the endgame.

If you can't bring yourself to face that glaringly obvious (even stated) fact and would rather stick with laughable stories about spreading democracy or protecting people's rights then there's really not much more to discuss.

boynesider

Absolutely terrible. It will be a sad day for humanity if we let whoever did this get away with it.

MonaPizza

EyeSight wrote: »

I did not open my post with "IMO". You really need to read posts...
You really have no facts in any arguments you make.


Again you have no facts and are spouting nonsense. There is evidence against you "arguments" but none for them other than speculation.

You have reminded me why i don't get into debates with conspiracy nuts. You just won't listen to reason, you twist anything and ignore blatant facts. That's all you will get from me

The wink copout isn't going to cover your ass. What blatant facts am I ignoring? Tell me.