I sense your pity is not exactly earnest.
Are you claiming to know more or better than the intelligence agencies of the world who have been watching and observing the war in Syria? Yes or no.
Of course I am. The Americans were watching the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and years, and never truly knew enough about them to beat them. In this case, the BND - and I assume you know who they are - doesn't seem to think that the Syrian rebels possess the
Type 63 rocket launcher. This, BTW, is the rocket launcher system that was used to strike Ghouta, firing 107mm rounds. It's
widely available and sources indicate that the Syrian rebels
do indeed have them, as one would expect for a standard second-world insurgency.
No wonder such a varied lot, be it Libyan or
Syrian rebels, Taliban fighters or Iran, keep taking to what could be called the Perfect Explosive with such aplomb. It’s at the point now that all the drones and recon blimps that the U.S. can chuck (China’s) money at can do little to stop the barrage of 107 attacks on its bases. Sure, it’s not hard to reverse-course an attack ‘ and then in the U.S. and NATO’s case, immediately pummel suspected mountain outposts to high Hell. Only with ease-of-use comes an equally cunning, almost hilariously facepalmed blast-craft ‘ when America and its allies turn their leading-edge firepower toward the hills from whence 107s rain, the culprits are likely long gone.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/107
That the BND does
not apparently know this is curious. I would be in no doubt whatsoever that such arms are available to them - nor should anyone with a "functioning brain cell", as you say.
Secondly, it is abundantly clear to anyone with even half a functioning brain cell that the rebels are very much outgunned and outarmed by the Russian armed Syrian army.
Okay, what is meant by this sentence? I think the Syrians certainly do outgun the rebels - but so what? Does this mean that the Syrian rebels could
not have launched these attacks? Or that they would not? They certainly have the rocket arms, and sarin is relatively easy to make as your WMDs go. Even the Tokyo terrorists could manage it. Arms don't randomly go off at the opposition just because you have them.
Coming from the retard who is such a conspiracy theorist that you twist yourself into knots trying to blame a Saudi for the Boston bombing, even as the police and FBI were involved in a gun battle with the actual bombers, you are really one to talk about taking arguments seriously.
I found it a curious happenstance, and I still find it curious, ass-clown. It might well be just some rich kid getting the rich kid treatment, but you'd be a fool to believe in the ethics of the international political process uncritically.
The manner in which you asked about the political disposition made it look as if it matters. It does not.
It doesn't matter in any sense other than the selection of targets: the Syrians would presumably be more likely to hit rebel-controlled or rebel-supporting areas, and vice versa. Don't run with an imagined intent for my arguments just because you
want it to be so. Oblique apology accepted.
If you must know, the rebels have advanced into Damascus, hence Assad, as the Hezbollah have advised Iran, panicked and used chemical weapons. He has been doing it for months in much smaller doses, however this time he went with more, either by mistake or with deliberate intent to kill as many of the rebels and their supporters as he could in that region of Damascus.
This may well be true. Let us be
sure it is true.
Nice try trying to divert it away from what I had asked you. Now perhaps you can explain how and why you missed it in the French dossier, especially as you claim, French is a very easy language to learn and you can read it so well?
Again: they "are disposed to think" that the Syrian Army carried out the attack, based on correlated activity times and capability - which they only actually report for the Syrian Army side. They are not "sure".
In French:
L’analyse des renseignements dont nous disposons aujourd’hui conduit ‘ estimer que, le 21 ao’t 2013, le r’gime syrien a lanc’ une attaque sur certains quartiers de la banlieue de Damas tenus par les unit’s de l’opposition, associant moyens conventionnels et usage massif d’agents chimiques.
In English:
The analysis of information that we have today leads us to believe that on 21 August 2013 the Syrian regime launched an attack on certain areas of the Damascus suburbs held by opposition units, using a combination of conventional weapons and the massive use of chemical weapons.
‘Nous disposons [a penser]’’ (‘We are disposed to think’’) is not ‘Nous sommes presentement certaine que’’ (‘We are certain that’). Go back and read the report again ‘ there’s no hard connection between the event and the Syrians, only i) a history of Syrian CW development, ii) a short order of battle (for the Syrian Army only), iii) an account of a previous heli attack using CWs (probably sarin; and I go so far as to definitely believe this one, simply for the fact of the heli being included), iv) an account of the attack on Ghouta as experienced by those there without reference to solid evidence of culpability (included to demonstrate the use of sarin), v) a description of concurrent conventional and chemical attacks in Ghouta East and other suburbs/municipalities followed by attacks by land forces, and the ascertainment that the deployed rounds were chemical rounds. The chemical rounds are connected to the Syrians only in time; the French don’t say that they were known to be from the Syrians. I agree, the timing is highly suspect (against the Syrians, to be clear), but it’s not known if there was fighting generally before or after. Did the Syrian troops advance into the struck areas? Did they wear CW gear during their advance? To what extend did this advance overlap with CW-strike zones? And so on, and so forth. I think, again, that it’s more likely the Syrians did it, but without at least
some kind of unequivocal ‘smoking gun’, I can’t commit intellectually to the suggestion of counter-attacks against Assad; or at least not specifically for events at Ghouta.
And now Obama is backpedaling on his plan, defusing his own initiative with the system; all this and the above indicates to me that maybe the best and brightest are
not ascending into politics after all, as everyone used to suspect. Honestly, if you wanted to prove all this stuff, it really wouldn’t be hard
at all. I’ve outlined a half dozen ways in which you could build up sufficient circumstantial evidence to generate reasoned support for taking action. Why in the hell the BND fell down in their assessment I have no idea ‘ I had general respect for them, since I hadn’t heard of them fucking anything up, unlike some other organizations I could name.
Well seeing that the area was being held by the rebel forces, what do you think?
And that was the point I was making above. The question is whether rebel forces might strike their own areas in order to generate international outcry. That’s a strange prospect, but war is deceit as they say and
it’s been done before, though not on this scale. You have to understand: the Nazis faked Polish atrocities to start their invasion of Poland; how much more would a religious fascist who
really believes in a sky-god that will punish him for not being enough of an asshole be willing to do? Wars are begun and outrages staged often enough that I’m suspicious of a case like this.
Or do you support Assad so much that you are willing to make excuses for him?
So I, a Canadian of English and Welsh descent living in Pennsylvania, am such a radical supporter of Assad, an Alawite dentist-dictator over Syria and war criminal on various other counts whether culpable in the chemical attack on Ghouta, that I am willing to make excuses for him.
Take a second and think about that,
tovarisch.
(Actually, since the breakup of the USSR,
tovarisch wouldn’t exactly be the right word, but I think you take my meaning.)
Still making excuses for Assad and his use of chemical weapons I see. What next? You are going to blame Saudis for the attack? After all, that's your style isn't it? Conspiracies everywhere.
:yawn: Well, conspiracies certainly occur. Fool me once, cain’t git fooled agin. Oil, blood, etc. We can't claim on the one hand that my Supreme Overlor- I mean,
the Russians!
- are getting involved to protect their arms sales and not consider that the Americans and French might be doing exactly the same thing. (The Russians recently forgave the Syrians a huge weapons trade deficit, so I don't actually know how well their business is doing. Don't ask me how I know - in-house secret.
)
The only sources that have claimed the rebels have used sarin in the past have been Russia and Assad, wow, no surprise there.
And the only sources to claim it was Assad do not presently definitively connect his forces to the attack. There
is no direct evidence, only coincidence and some supposition. Hell, the BND didn’t even know the rebels had 107mm rockets. After a while, coincidence does indeed become overwhelming, but we aren’t there yet and I don’t know why. Surely it would be easy enough to them to find out even using some of my suggestions above. What I want is a critical, complete and rounded report.
I was born in
Mauritius, you dumbarse. My first language was French. I migrated here when I was just shy of 9 years of age. I spoke only French at the time. It took me years to learn to speak English fluently, because my parents only spoke French at home and they still do. My children also speak French as a result, albeit broken French, to speak to my parents and my family, because they believe that it is vitally important to be bilingual.
Well then I congratulate you, ass-hat. I think it’s genuinely commendable and more than I have been able to do. My kids moan and whine when I speak to them in French. I think they’ve inherited their non-existent language talents from her, the French one. Anyway ‘ check the document again and you’ll see what I mean: they
are disposed to think that blah blah. No authors’ names on the report either. That might be innocuous, and it might not. If the Russians were run out of Syria (via the installation of a US/French-friendly regime of secularist/Islamicist rebels, shortly thereafter to be Islamicist rebels only), how many Exocets do you think the French could sell them? Trust no one, Mr. Bells. Or at least not until you have seen the whites of their eyes.
