Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
scbriml wrote:tu204 wrote:Sorry, I don't follow you.
How did America give Putin/Russia a bloody nose?
Assad got the bloody nose because the action shows that Putin and Russia can do nothing to stop America striking against him.
WIederling wrote:Only 23 of ~60 cruise missiles seem to have reached the target area. That afaics is a bit more than "do nothing".
Planeflyer wrote:So if you want to argue that this was a PR stunt because the Russians were notified that seems skinny given all the downsides of not doing so.
I think Assad now knows wmd use has consequences.
Btw, from what I have read runways can be easily repaired so there was little point in targeting these.
tommy1808 wrote:Yeah.. He now knows he is free to use WMD as long as he is willing to accept a slap on the wrist with no risk what soever to him, his crownies or his ability to wage war.
WIederling wrote:SAA hitting some Rebell WMD stash looks much more likely.
Braybuddy wrote:But an explosion would have destroyed the chemicals, which blows this theory out of the water.
pvjin wrote:According to whom? It sounds like BS claim to me that a certain kind of an explosion couldn't cause a leak without actually destroying most of the gas.
Braybuddy wrote:WIederling wrote:SAA hitting some Rebell WMD stash looks much more likely.
But an explosion would have destroyed the chemicals, which blows this theory out of the water.
Braybuddy wrote:pvjin wrote:According to whom? It sounds like BS claim to me that a certain kind of an explosion couldn't cause a leak without actually destroying most of the gas.
I'm speculating -- and you are too -- but I would imagine that might be the case if the explosion resulted in a very minor fireball, or none at all. The pic below is of a Tomahawk missile exploding. Difficult to imagine much surviving that.
Aside from that, there are enough witness reports to indicate it was the work of the Syrian government. It suits the Russian narrative to posit the rebel-owned weapons theory as being the source of the sarin gas as otherwise it makes them look either incompetent or complicit. Putin either has egg on his face after being hoodwinked by Assad, given that Russia guaranteed in 2013 that Assad's chemical weapons would be destroyed, or he was complicit in the attack. You take your pick .. .
WIederling wrote:
How so?
bombing will invariably lead to uncontrolled release. ( don't get mislead by Hollywood movies.)
WIederling wrote:
Interesting. But removed from reality.
It is interesting that some posters never learn to discern between resasonably reliable information sources and those that have regularly shown to produce lies and misdirections ... after some time.
Braybuddy wrote:There was an interview on RTE Radio 1 yesterday with Hamish de Bretton Gordon, a former British Army chemical weapons expert, who claimed that "the high explosives used would have destroyed the sarin . . . I have destroyed enough sarin myself with high explosives to know exactly that is the case"
Full interview here
https://www.rte.ie/radio1/this-week/
WIederling wrote:Baloney and a rather tall story!
Braybuddy wrote:I'm speculating -- and you are too -- but I would imagine that might be the case if the explosion resulted in a very minor fireball, or none at all. The pic below is of a Tomahawk missile exploding. Difficult to imagine much surviving that.
Braybuddy wrote:Aside from that, there are enough witness reports to indicate it was the work of the Syrian government. It suits the Russian narrative to posit the rebel-owned weapons theory as being the source of the sarin gas as otherwise it makes them look either incompetent or complicit. Putin either has egg on his face after being hoodwinked by Assad, given that Russia guaranteed in 2013 that Assad's chemical weapons would be destroyed, or he was complicit in the attack. You take your pick .. .
Braybuddy wrote:WIederling wrote:Baloney and a rather tall story!
If you're going to make such strong assertions, you need to back them up, otherwise it's just an opinion. Feel free to post a link to prove otherwise.
pvjin wrote:There's no way to know the reliability of said witness reports, there's so much propaganda around. Western media regularly quotes "Syrian Observator for Human Rights", an organization run by a single anti-Assad guy who lives in the UK, as if it was a reliable and neutral source of information which it quite clearly isn't. Nobody is doing any fact-checking nowadays if the story fits their agenda.
“The pattern of casualties isn’t right for the distribution of materials that you would get if you had a location with toxic materials breached by an airstrike. It’s more consistent with canisters that have distributed [chemical weapons] over a wider population,” Guthrie said.
While it is impossible to assess the exact amount of chemical agent used immediately, the extent and distribution of the casualties are consistent with the use of hundreds of kilos.
Sarin is too complicated and expensive for rebels to have manufactured themselves, and while they might potentially have obtained some supplies of stolen nerve agents or other gas, it is very unlikely to be more than a few kilos.
“If they have [sarin], it would be in minute quantities, maybe a kilo or so,” said De Bretton Gordon. The high numbers of woman and children among the casualties was not consistent with a military depot, he added.
Finally, the Syrian manufacturing process for sarin involves creating and storing two key components, both far more stable than the nerve agent itself. They are mixed to create sarin hours – or at most days – before it is used, said Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and former officer in the US Army’s chemical corps.
So an airstrike on a storage facility would be unlikely to release sarin itself. And because one of the two components is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol, or rubbing alcohol, you would expect a fireball, which has not been observed.
WIederling wrote:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e14367415/
If explosive destruction would work the way your reference suggests all the hassle reported would
rather obviously not be necessary.
Planeflyer wrote:Well, the bad guys don't think this was PR stunt:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3293221/r ... -in-syria/
Redd wrote:Is there any concrete evidence that Assad used chemical weapons? This whole situation looks to me like WMD's in Iraq, America was damned sure that was true as well.
Braybuddy wrote:WIederling wrote:SAA hitting some Rebell WMD stash looks much more likely.
But an explosion would have destroyed the chemicals, which blows this theory out of the water.
tommy1808 wrote:Actually, you need pretty high temperatures and fairly long expose times to reliably destroy chemical weapons. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_reco ... yId=309231
And of course containers can be breached by shrapnel fairly far away from the explosion. And where is the Tomahawk explosion picture from. How do you know that is not secondary fires started by the impact, or that the fires burned before the impact? If there is still fuel left, you can get a fireball, but Bombs and such usually don´t make much in the way of fireballs outside of movies.
See any fireball? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxm_qpKh7Jw
That is 800 pounds of Anfo, that does actually contain Diesel fuel..
Braybuddy wrote:over yours, sorry.
tommy1808 wrote:i didn´t state my Opinion, i linked to an expert source.
Braybuddy wrote:tommy1808 wrote:i didn´t state my Opinion, i linked to an expert source.
And I quoted two . .
tommy1808 wrote:How to they explain the gulf war syndrome......
Braybuddy wrote:tommy1808 wrote:How to they explain the gulf war syndrome......
You're prepared to believe any possible explanation, apart from the obvious.
tommy1808 wrote:The obvious is that chemical weapons have been released by bomb attacks on the storage facility, just as the CIA, the Federation of American Scientists and lots of others conclude....
That is just as obvious, as it is obvious that explosions can release Chemical weapons and can not be relied to be destroyed them. Seriously, Chemical weapons use explosives for initial dispersion, that would be about the most stupid thing to do if explosives lead to any significant degradation of effectiveness.
There is however not a doubt that the Regime was behind the attack, bombing the Hospital the victims are in is a dead give away after all.
Braybuddy wrote:You should be advising the UN on weapons' capability and disarmament.:
tommy1808 wrote:Why? They agree that explosives don´t reliably destroy chemical weapons ......
Braybuddy wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Why? They agree that explosives don´t reliably destroy chemical weapons ......
Explosives won't reliably destroy anything. But no doubt you'l find another straw to clutch on . . .
seb146 wrote:There are a couple of questions that many of us have:
1. He was so moved and angered by the gas attack, he wanted to do something. Flint and parts of Appalachia and many rural areas in the United States have poisoned water. What about us?
tommy1808 wrote:Well, since with that statement you agree with mine and contradict both your experts and yourself, I guess this argument has been solved.
Braybuddy wrote:WIederling wrote:SAA hitting some Rebell WMD stash looks much more likely.
But an explosion would have destroyed the chemicals, which blows this theory out of the water.
salttee wrote:BraybuddyYou have been arguing all along in this thread that an explosion would destroy the sarin.
Braybuddy wrote:But then what would he know . . .
FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:Withdraw US / Allies assistance to Syria and Let Putin have Syria, and just focus on pushing ISIL out of Iraq and fully into Syria, so that ISIL will become the problem of Putin and Assad. Who cares if they all kill each other off and blow each other up in that part of the world. Also, as I said in the other thread, now that Trump has changed his position and claimed that NATO is no longer 'obsolete', I'd love to see the US somehow get the Ukraine invited to join NATO. We would then see where Putin's priorities lie and just how important Syria is to Putin compared to his beloved Ukraine wet dreams.
Jesse
WIederling wrote:nothing?
You've leveraged Mr Hamish de Bretton Gordon's TV expertise to argue your case that SAA bombs would have destroyed a local stash of war gasses and thus it must have been SAA poison gas bombings.
You apparently are about as clean of mind as the Trump administration.
Just like in religious argument the chain of cause gets more contrived by the minute.
Braybuddy wrote:The high numbers of women and children among the casualties was not consistent with a military depot . .
tommy1808 wrote:And if he has destroyed lots of Chemical weapons with explosions, in which cities and nations did he exactly blow up chemical weapon storage sites with somewhat random impact points of dropped weapons and where is the data?
Braying Buddy wrote:But you're not going to believe any of that, are you?
Braybuddy wrote:But you're not going to believe any of that, are you?
WIederling wrote:Actually NO.
tommy1808 wrote:Braybuddy wrote:But you're not going to believe any of that, are you?
Since that answers none of the questions, no.