Utopia Talk / Politics / Mystery Munition Adds to Syria Confusion

werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 19:59:10 'Foreign Policy' magazine: 'these rockets strongly resemble an experimental American weapon from the 1970s called the Surface Launch Unit-Fuel Air Explosive or SLUFAE. Fuel-air explosives (FAE) like SLUFAE, often called thermobaric weapons.. It might -- might -- be possible to mistake a strike with thermobaric weapons for a chemical attack, especially since thermobaric weapons aren't used very often.' full story http://kil..._over_syria_s_chemical_attacks Mystery Munition Adds to Confusion Over Syria’s Chemical Attacks Posted By John Reed Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 3:18 PM The world finally agrees that Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against Syrian civilians. Beyond that basic fact, riddles remain. No one is quite sure about exactly what kinds of chemicals his regime used, where precisely the Syrian military has struck, and when. Now, there's another seemingly ill-fitting piece to the confusing jigsaw puzzle. Mysterious rockets found at the scene of some of the alleged gas attacks may be conventional weapons that produce injuries that can resemble those resulting from a chemical attack. A few weeks ago, Killer Apps displayed this video, titled "Chemical Massacre," showing what appear to be Syrian Republican Guard troops in Damascus firing a rocket in late August that looks incredibly similar to the odd-looking munitions found at the scene of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria over the last year, including those around Damascus on Aug. 21 that killed as many as 1,400 people. Numerous observers of the weapons used in the Syrian civil war have speculated that the mystery rockets' warheads could easily be filled with nerve agents. Human Rights Watch even went so far as to say there is a chemical weapons variant of the unidentified 330-mm rockets in its report on the Aug. 21 attacks. The rockets shown in that particular video, however, were likely conventional explosive devices; they were being used in broad daylight while the chemical attacks around Damascus have usually happened at night. In either case, these rockets strongly resemble an experimental American weapon from the 1970s called the Surface Launch Unit-Fuel Air Explosive or SLUFAE. Fuel-air explosives (FAE) like SLUFAE, often called thermobaric weapons, are among the nastiest conventional munitions out there. These weapons use pressurized gas to create a massive explosion that relies on waves of air for its destructive power rather than using flames and shrapnel to destroy targets. It might -- might -- be possible to mistake a strike with thermobaric weapons for a chemical attack, especially since thermobaric weapons aren't used very often. "That's a thought that I've had, and another person that I've talked to who is an expert on chemical and biological warfare has also had that thought," Cheryl Rofer, a chemist who supervised a team destroying chemical warfare agents at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said in response to a question about the possibility that people are confusing thermobaric strikes for some of the alleged chemical ones in Syria. Rofer said that while the Aug. 21 attacks likely involved chemical weapons, some of the earlier strikes thought be by chemical munitions may have been conducted with thermobaric weapons instead. "At the moment I'm inclined to go along with the intelligence reports . . . that say its chemical weapons but I have to say I wouldn't be surprised if we had somebody come out and say, ‘attack x was thermobaric'," said Rofer. "Frankly, I've had a lot of doubts about attributing a lot of these [incidents] to chemical attacks up until the intelligence reports came out. I really wish they would come out and give some of the evidence they've got because I think they could do that without damaging classified information." Thermobaric weapons work by expelling a cloud of explosive gas -- sometimes mixed with explosive dust like finely ground aluminum -- from their warheads when they are just above their target, this cloud explodes a split second later, creating a tremendous shockwave of air. The largest thermobaric weapons are sometimes compared to small nuclear bombs. The blast wave obliterates people close the detonation while crushing and destroying the internal organs of victims who are a little further afield. The weapons are especially useful for attacking buildings, bunkers or armored vehicles with open doors or hatches. The explosions often leave reinforced buildings or armored vehicles intact while killing people inside them. The lack of shrapnel or serious flames means the victims are often found dead with no external signs of injury. "The effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense," reads this U.S. intelligence report on how thermobaric weapons produce casualties similar to chemical weapons. "Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness." A former U.N. weapons inspector told Killer Apps in an email that it could be easy to confuse a victim of a thermobaric blast with one suffering from a chemical attack. "I have seen videos of test animals that were killed in this fashion [by thermobaric weapons], they did not look as though they had been involved in a blast - no bleeding, etc," he wrote. Making matters even more bewildering for observers is the fact that thermobaric weapons don't always explode when fired. When this happens, the highly toxic explosive fuel for the weapons is simply expelled into the atmosphere causing an accidental chemical weapons attack, according to the U.S. intelligence report. "Injuries and deaths produced by blast effects of fuel-air explosives often are confused with those caused by nerve agents because of the virtual absence of visible physical damage," reads the intelligence report. "Injuries occurring when a fuel and dust-air explosive fails to detonate are true chemical injuries and are not a result of CW agents. Direct contact with these compounds causes irritation, skin corrosion, burns, and allergic reactions, all of which can be confused with chemical weapon injuries." In fact, ethylene oxide, a colorless gas with a sweet odor, is one of the most common fuels used in thermobaric weapons. People exposed to ethylene oxide suffer a list of symptoms that sound an awful lot like what we've seen in reports of Syrian chemical attacks throughout the past few months -- vomiting, skin burns, eye irritation, nerve damage, seizures, weakness, difficulty breathing, fluid in the lungs, and more. "Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents" reads a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on fuel-air explosives obtained by Human Rights Watch. Ethylene oxide and propylene oxide "would not be very good for breathing," quipped Rofer when asked about the effect those particular chemicals would have on humans exposed to them. "We chemists like to understate things like that. Rofer added that U.S. and European intelligence agencies should release the hard intelligence they have that proves a chemical attack in order to remove "this lingering doubt." (A United Nations report documenting such evidence is due out Monday.) One way of determining which type of weapons were used would be to look at possible imagery of the rockets landing that might have been collected by American spyplanes or satellites. Chemical weapons don't produce massive explosions whereas thermobaric blasts would be very visible, according to Rofer. All of this adds to the confusion of how often and how much chemical weaponry Assad has actually used against his own people. Regime forces are accused of using everything from tear gas to nerve agents and even possible combinations of the two since at least January. But there's a possibility that a third type of weapon has been used in some of these attacks -- a thermobaric one.
McKobb Member	Thu Sep 12 20:04:45 Sarin won't accidentally be found on site if so.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 20:06:43 330mm rocket of the slu-fae based design is supposed to be absurd wastefully huge size for delivering sarin payload 140mm artillery rockets also found may or may not be a culprit but at least that would be more logical suspect for sarin delivery
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 20:10:37 people could be dying or injured by two things simultaneously.. 1 some from invisible injuries from thermobaric bombs 2 some from sarin exposure it would be interesting if united nations report says thermobaric bombs were used on day of attack even if sarin traces are found
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 20:15:08 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-55 The contents exploded in a fireball over a 4-acre (16,000 m2) area. Experts estimated that 250 soldiers had been killed, primarily by the immediate depletion of oxygen rather than from burns. The CBU-55 was never used again in the war, and South Vietnam's government surrendered on April 30.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-72 254 CBU-72s were used by usa in gulf war (and maybe vietnam is included) Like other FAE using ethylene oxide, in the event of non-ignition, it functions as a chemical weapon, due to the highly toxic nature of this gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide#Physiological_effects Ethylene oxide symptoms on humans: "Ethylene oxide causes acute poisoning, accompanied by the following symptoms: slight heartbeat, muscle twitching, flushing, headache, diminished hearing, acidosis, vomiting, dizziness, transient loss of consciousness and a sweet taste in the mouth. Acute intoxication is accompanied by a strong throbbing headache, dizziness, difficulty in speech and walking, sleep disturbance, pain in the legs, weakness, stiffness, sweating, increased muscular irritability, transient spasm of retinal vessels, enlargement of the liver and suppression of its antitoxic functions.[109]"
McKobb Member	Thu Sep 12 20:20:32 If ignition fails you get saturated with the propellant. Hardly a chemical weapon.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 20:23:04 so if you use a thermobaric bomb that detonates and kills people with only invisible injuries that might be mistaken for sarin that would be fine for the usa and israel to use also if you used a thermobaric bomb intended to detonate but it is an accidental dud that neither detonates nor burns.. but poisons people.. that would be fine but if you used the same bomb with same chemicals but you deliberately intended it to neither burn nor detonate then that would be really bad
McKobb Member	Thu Sep 12 20:37:14 'tard
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 20:41:04 what do you think i have wrong
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 12 20:44:48 ethylene oxide is what detonates [ie it is the warhead explosive not the rocket propellent] it is also highly toxic as an unexploded/unburned gas
jergul large member	Fri Sep 13 08:13:07 It does complicate things, but technically it does not matter, and is perhaps even worse. Thermobaric weapons have pretty specific limitations on their use. As in humans should never be the target, it should always be materiell or installations. This Geneva convention stuff. At least Syria can legally target combatants with chemical weapons. Technically.
Paramount Member	Fri Sep 13 08:52:09 "The world finally agrees that Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against Syrian civilians." What?
Paramount Member	Fri Sep 13 08:53:45 The only thing the world has agreed upon, is that chemical weapons was used. Russia says it was the rebels who used them.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 13 08:58:00 Fuel air bombs are completely different effect to nerve gas.
river of blood Member	Fri Sep 13 09:47:50 I guess if you exclude all the organizations and people who aren't sure that chemical weapons were used at all.... then it's true that the world agrees that chemical weapons were used. Fucking sell out news media.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 13 09:56:24 Fuel bombs are therefore catagorically illegal to use against human targets. As opposed to chemical weapons which Syria can legally use against combatants. If it wanted to and until such a time as it has signed and ratified the Convention on Chemical weapons.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Sep 13 10:00:04 'What? ' there were doubts until a few days ago in certain corners e.g. dutch prime minister mark rutte 'completely different effect to nerve gas' 1 what do the victims look like by outside observers 2 is it more humane to die from these things dying from ruptured lungs or other invisible internal injuries [if they work correctly] or from chemical toxicity [if they are duds] dont sound much different either in humaneness of death or what it looks like to outside observers pinpoint pupils might help on youtube diagnosis but videos have not been high quality and cw experts quoted in media who have thought it is nerve gas [and not all have been convinced] have found it odd almost no urination or defecation.. and other symptoms not a good match for what is expected from military nerve gas.. and have had to come up with explanations for these things [like it is degraded from age]
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Sep 13 10:02:34 and by cw experts in 'media' i am talking mainstream major media
jergul large member	Fri Sep 13 10:10:27 WD It does not matter technically. Fuel bombs are worse than CW legally and physically. The problem is the lies and the goddamn liars that perpetuate them. The use of chemical weapons in Syria is not a basis for intervention. Syria can legally use the weapons. We are just speaking of 300-1400 people that died from something or some things and were killed by someone. Hell, we don't even know how many of the reported dead were combatants. In sum - it does not change anything. Obama did not and does not have the authority to legally draw and uphold red lines. Only resolutions under article 7 can do that.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 13 13:30:25 Werewolf: Pinprick pupils, death by aspiration, foaming at the mouth etc. Overpressure death leaves your lungs burst and serous internal injury. But you don't get taken to hospital and die later. Burns would be different to mustard gas. The fuel components might produce irritations similar to some chemical weapons - but not sarin. Use of fuel air bombs in residential areas would flatten residential buildings. Its true thermobaric bombs can leave bunkers or other reinforced buildings intact but kill occupants. One of the principle uses is clearing areas for helicopters to land. In short though nothing fits with fuel air bombs really - there would be lots of dismembered bodies from blast, lots of internal injuries, no people that died later , no secondary contamination of aid workers, The un inspectors are reporting preliminary that it was sarin.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 13 13:34:20 Also we would see extensive destruction of residential property - more so than reported, and no intact spent munitions. Jergul: So you are saying the Russians - putin in specific - is guilty of war crimes? After all didn't he handle the second battle of Grozny where thermobaric weapons were used in residential areas?
jergul large member	Fri Sep 13 15:23:32 Seb Depends on how you do the CoC. The US used thermobarics in Iraq and Afghanistan too. And depends on how you do the CoC there also. I am pretty sure you have to go to Georgia to see heads of state personally handle battle planning though. Whats his face...the necktie chewer. Who also used prohibited weapons (cluster munitions are forbidden by the Convention on landmines). I know its popular to blame the top dog in regimes we dislike, and think rotten apples or operational misplanning with regimes we do like. But doing so is pretty intellectually sloppy, don't you think? Is bush personally responsible for Abu-Graib, or Blair for any of the war crimes british forces committed? But sure. Any country you can shake a stick at has committed warcrimes. If they have not, then they have only lacked a war to commit them in. ============ The residential area was purportedly under an artillery barrage, so unless that was a lie, then we should expect pretty extensive damage. The artillery fire would cloak the use of thermo baric weapons, particularly if chemical weapons were blamed for shock wave deaths. Though I would not really take any claims made in the west seriously. We say so many things with no care for the truth at all. Which is another issue. How can we base an intervention on what we say? We lie way too much for our statements to be credible.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Fri Sep 13 15:26:07 "Is bush personally responsible for Abu-Graib, or Blair for any of the war crimes british forces committed?" of course not. they wear white hats,ergo they be good. they commit war crimes for the sake of the children.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Sep 13 16:15:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RemdSgarJhc ^pinpoint pupils from video uploaded in april as proof then of sarin gas in syria.. yes spooky with recent attacks most videos i looked at are low quality and do not zoom on eyes but a couple containing exceptions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXaIx78Oo0 [first patient has constricted pupils but not pinpoint as in older first video - also note strong overhead light glare reflected off bed] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By-27FsteTo [about what my pupils look like in mirror looking at overhead light a couple seconds] i select this because it is supposed to be first symptom with lowest exposure levels [and is consistent with higher levels unlike anxiety turning to drowsiness] and can be expected to continue even for weeks list of sarin symptoms from various sites http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/factsheets/sarin.html http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html * first two list coughing high on the list of symptoms * last link says coughing occurs with moderate to severe exposure * coughing reported as common in tokyo attack even with luckier low exposure * coughing in first video from april with spooky pinpoint pupils i dont think i saw coughing in any new video im not pretending i spend a bunch of hours because some things are difficult to watch but from the videos i did watch 'foaming at the mouth' saw this in one or two videos [the boy foaming is especially selected in edited compilation videos] but rare
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Sep 13 16:15:53 'The un inspectors are reporting preliminary that it was sarin. ' have a link
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 07:56:48 Jergul: Putin was PM, and claimed to be personally overseeing the war. Grozny was captured in Feb 2000 after the bombing campaign. Putin was acting head of state from December 1999 and was inaugurated in May. He ran in part on the successes in Chechnya. "The residential area was purportedly under an artillery barrage" Big difference between the damage left by rockets and artillery shells and a thermobaric bomb with a significant over-pressure zone. As for lies, indeed, we all know that this is due to rat poison. Werewolf: Yesterdays front page article of the Times. It's subscription though. Lets see on Monday.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 08:04:14 Jergul: RE Other post - I always said that we should intervene in Syria - force both sides to the peace table with threat of force. The Wests policy was containment - the whole point of the "red line" was to set a criteria that would rule out engagement. Now he's used it, it sets a quandary. Equally, I don't think it is helpful to attack Iran, unless Iran were to degenerate into a bloody civil war. Compare this to: "liberal rebels have all defected - look how they can't even mount a car bomb attack in Damascus" (Al-Quaeda has no presence in Damascus, the rebels there are predominantly nationalists - someone should tell Assad they are now routing for him)
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 08:08:20 Which then progressed to: CW are a western plot, it's just rat poison. And then to: "perhaps it's rebel CW!" And now to "even if Assad did it, it would be legal!". I wonder if around neurenurg you would have been standing up for the perfectly legal right of Germany under it's legitimate government to execute civilians, and the lack of legal basis for putting those that did on trial. The UN system exists to protect the people of Syria, not Assad.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 14 08:30:13 Seb Then you should be seeking a resolution authorizing the use of force agains the rebels. They are the ones refusing to negotiate without preconditions. The regime wants to go to the peace table. Seb, I think it is pretty clear the west's policy is and has always been regime change. The red line has been a tremendous success as it led to a circumstance where Syria is now voluntarily giving up its chemical arsenal. If the goal was a criteria that rules out engagement, then following international law would suffice. Any intervention needing a chapter 7 resolution. So we need to look at other reasons for drawing the line. For example that it gives parties a trigger to turn the balance if required. Or perhaps it just was that Obama did not want to see chemical weapons used. It still has not been confirmed chemical weapons have been used, let alone by whom. Your precondition does not exclude anything. Of course Qatar and Saudi Arabia would fund terrorism prior to any attack on Iran. Giving you your bloody civil war (as Libya shows, the threshold for bloody civil war is 200 dead). There is very little fighting and deaths in Damaskus generally. Which is another oddity about the whole affair. So yepp, there remains very few nationalist groups and those that exist are fighting the rebels. 20% of rebel losses are occuring against kurds currently. Ultimately though, we cannot attack because we cannot be trusted. Anything we say cannot be taken as true, and thus cannot be used to justify intervention. Hence the need for a chapter 7 where more rational minds can weigh in.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 14 08:41:44 Seb I pointed out that rat poison was a likely culprit for the scores of very limited hospitalizations and trace sarin analysis that occured earlier. There is a reason why hospitals stock antropine linked to people accidentally poisoning themselves and others on a daily basis. It need not even be a conspiracy, though the simplicity of tossing ratpoison around, taking a sample for Syrian level analysis, then using a cellphone and some shaving cream...I would be surprised if rebels did not do that. Perhaps it was rebel CW. We do not know. We do not even know what was used. Perhaps it was just a depot of agricultural chemicals that was hit. The legality of chemical weapons in the case of Syria is quite straightforward. They have not signed the convention, so can use such weapons against combatants. Nation states are allowed to execute civilians if they want to use that punishment in their legal system seb. The UN is an arrangement between nation-states with the primary goal of illegalizing the use of force and the threat of force against other nation states. That is the basis of stability from which all other rights follow.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 10:44:05 Jergul: That Assad goes is the objective. You understand prefectly well you are asking the rebels to conceed before the negotiations. If you find the assad asault in damascus confusing you haven't been paying attention. The rebels there are predominantly secular , nationalists, relatively organized, not trainted by any proximity to al-quaeda factions, have supply lines to Jordan and can strike at the heart of the regime. If displaced from damascus the regime would be exposed for what it is. Thats why they were so desperate as to use chemical weapons. I'm sorry but no - the major function of the un is to prevent crimes against humanity and war crimes. Aggression is one. The fact the Russians abuse their position to try and brush those other crimes to one side is beside the point.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 13:27:20 Also, you missed a 0 on the end of the 200 - World Health Organisation estimated 1000 and the UNSC 2000 before March 11, i.e. before the mandate or any western involvement. At the time, if you remember, Gadaffi was ranting about exterminating rebel populations and was arming various tribes after much of his ground forces in the east had defected. That last point was later retconed by the misnamed "Stop the War" (it would be better called "perpetuate the war") tendency to be a consequence of intervention.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 14 15:28:11 Seb Assad's goal could likewise be that the rebels cease violent resistance as a precondition for negotiation. But that would be just as unreasonable. I am having problems finding rebels in Damaskus. They are certainly not rebelling to any extent greater than what you might find on any given day in Egypt or Iraq for example. So we agree then. The non-existant rebels in Damaskus may have any attributes you might like to assign to such fictional creatures. Which in turn is why we must question who used what against whom in Damaskus. You are stating that this is obvious. But none of these points have been clarified. The UN's purpose is to regulate the affairs of its member states. It is very clear on allocating internal matters to the domain of the nation-state. Its primary purpose remains to avoid the use of force and the threat of force by its members against other members. Which is perfectly reasonable given the nature of inter state wars. Deaths in Syria by day never match deaths in Bomber Command by day. To compare a tiny fragment of world war 2 activity to the comparative trivial tolls of a low intensity conflict such as the civil war in Syria (less than 100 dead a day on average would have to qualify as low intensity). Please try not to confuse what you wish the UN to be with what it is and has always been. 200. A robust study recently came out giving the actual death toll as oppose the the claimed toll. 20 were women and childre btw. Proving that the regime in Libya was being extremely careful and proportionate. As to the rest. I will happily do a recap on the Libyan affair if you feel up to it. I can tell you it will end with showing the west lies because we are liars. Nothing claimed was true as shown after the fact.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Sep 14 15:50:50 "Gadaffi was ranting about exterminating rebel populations and was arming various tribes after much of his ground forces in the east had defected." yeah the Viagra!
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 17:44:46 Jergul: "I am having problems finding rebels in Damaskus." Then in that case the regime barrage (which they admit) is just a random attack on civil populations that are not rebelling? Perhaps they were just trying to extinguish the fires in the four to six agricultural chemicals stores through some unconventional high velocity fire extinguishing ordnance. 610mm precision warheads supplied by the Iranian fire service no doubt.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 14 18:37:07 The rebels are not reflected in morbitity. 4-6 chemical stores? Invention or data? And ty for remembering 610 :)
Seb Member	Sat Sep 14 18:59:20 So then apparently we do know the dead are not combatants, something you previously suggested?
jergul large member	Sun Sep 15 02:10:54 Well, the dead are never combatants. Hoers de combat and all that. We have no idea of how many died, and how many of the dead were combatants. All we know is that there are usually very few conflict related deaths in Damaskus.
werewolf dictator Member	Mon Sep 16 14:34:41 un report http://www...Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf blood hair and just about everything are all testing positive for sarin but this is puzzling on what they say symptoms were experienced [N=36.. asked to provide 80 'survivors who had severe clinical presentations'.. S.L.U.D.G.E. symptoms in caps] ? URINATION/DEFECATION 3% NAUSEA 8% EXCESSIVE LACRIMATION 11% coughing 14% MIOSIS [PINPOINT PUPILS] 19% CONVULSIONS 22% EXCESSIVE LACRIMATION 22% eye irritation 22% VOMITING 39% disorientation 42% blurred vision 78% loss of consciousness 81% labored breathing/dyspnea from wikipedia 'Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms. Moreover, common mnemonics for the symptomatology of organophosphate poisoning, including sarin gas, are the "killer B's" of bronchorrhea and bronchospasm because they are the leading cause of death,[20] and SLUDGE - Salivation, Lacrimation, Urination, Defecation, Gastrointestinal distress, and Emesis.'
werewolf dictator Member	Mon Sep 16 14:44:59 should say 22% EXCESSIVE SALIVATION [instead of 2 excessive lacrimations]
werewolf dictator Member	Tue Sep 17 00:30:09 have seen nobody try to explain why ~80% of those *worst* affected show symptoms that seem very inconsistent with toxic levels of sarin i am going with personal theory that oversensitive tests find trace sarin levels [usually below lowest toxic exposure] everywhere.. but most victims injured by something else.. probably a 2nd chemical agent
jergul large member	Tue Sep 17 01:04:01 Liars lie. I am not talking about the UN report. But the French, British, and US on their comments about the report. Of particular note is the British. Of course the damned rebels are able to get ahold of 122 mm rocket artillery shells. Its like the AK-47 of rockets. We have all seen their homemade large calibre artillery if the launch system was ever a question. So yes, the rebels definately have the capability. WD I am going with a Sarin-like chemical that may even have been Sarin. One thing is very clear. This was not military use of chemical weapons. An effective military bombardment is concentrated and relatively high density. I am also going with a death toll of around 300 at the most as no massive influx of injured people seems evident. Rebel losses in the incident are reported at 0. Since we can discount an industrial incident because even if true, it will never be part of the narrative. I will have to say the evidence points to the rebels using it as no possible military use covers a very limited number of shells fired over a wide geographical area. It does however fit with rebel artillery usage. We can be charitable and think they did not know what they were firing. Which is possible I suppose, though not likely.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 17 01:20:27 If the military were going to use chemical weapons to serve a small scale and specific military purpose, then they would use high accuracy munitions. Not the Grad. On the legality - Syria did sign the 1925 Geneva Convention - that specifically excludes use in domestic conflicts from its prohibition. As also was the manufacture and storage of chemical weapons. Which was forbidden only for Germany. The customary law argument is not valid unless we were to consider all states that have chemical weapons as rogue states in gross violation of the Chemical Weapon Convention. Similar to non-nuclear members of the NPT having nuclear weapons. I mention this as it goes to the legality of rebels using chemical weapons. They can if the regime can. The principle of repriocity. So using chemical weapons against military targets is legal until october 14th. The only problem with the whole affair is that no military targets can be found.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 17 01:23:23 WD A mixture of chemicals would only fit rebel use as the military is tied to procedure and logistics and a mix of various chemicals in a very low scale attack using extremely inaccurate delivery means is so outlandish as to be completely impossible.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 17 03:56:20 http://www...data_sheet_specifications.html ============== The problem here are 4 things: 1. The azimuth is limited to 57 degrees. The UN claims 125 degrees (impact angle 160). 2. Iran catagorically does not produce these with chemical warheads and post delivery adaptation by the military is very unlikely. Rebels might ad-hoc a missile or two, but military systems follow a different logic. Syria would equip many missiles with chemical warheads, or none. 3. Again, this is not a precision weapon. Syria does have accurate delivery systems for pin point strikes. If used, then it needs to be used in volume. 4. The strikes occured in areas under nominal government control.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 18 09:23:30 Watching you two try to cook up a false flag insinuation is amusing. Rebels can make relatively sophisticated shells which display consistent failure (axial split in flight along pre weakened seams) across multiple attacks. But it's unthinkable that the govt would be able to increase the azimuthal travel.
so what Member	Thu Sep 19 10:32:45 http://www...ven-if-it-is-illegal.html?_r=0 As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States. There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts. What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts — genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category. As many as 10 countries have stocks of chemical weapons today, with the largest held by Russia and by the United States. Both countries are slowly destroying their stockpiles, but missed what was supposed to be a final deadline last year for doing so. Arguably, the key legal obligation of nations in the post-1945 world is adherence to the United Nations Charter. It demands that states refrain “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The use of force is permitted when authorized by the Security Council or for self-defense
so what Member	Thu Sep 19 10:34:00 http://www...ntercepted-syria-chemical-talk The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons – which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action – has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.
so what Member	Thu Sep 19 10:38:35 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4426658,00.html AIPAC to lobby Congress for Syria strike American Israeli Political Activity Committee to attempt to persuade Congress to vote in favor of attack, as constituents urge Congress to vote against intervention Israel has refrained in the past from pushing US into war, and Jerusalem and AIPAC have thus far kept silent regarding Syria, but in recent days Israel decided to voice its support of an attack. Though US Congress is pressured by the American public to vote against a US military intervention in Syria, Israel’s most ardent supporters in AIPAC urge Congress representatives to vote in favor of an intervention.
so what Member	Thu Sep 19 10:43:08 http://www...o-press-congress-on-syria.html JERUSALEM — The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, plans to dispatch 300 of its members to Capitol Hill on Tuesday as part of a broad campaign to press Congress to back President Obama’s proposed strike on Syria, the group said Monday. The reports said that Mr. Netanyahu had called several members himself. Mr. Netanyahu’s government strongly supports an American strike to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria for his apparent use of chemical weapons, and as a warning to his Iranian patrons. “There’s nothing sinister, nothing conspiratorial, nothing wrong with the lobbying arm relating to Israel and the Middle East supporting the president on this issue,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director. “You don’t need a phone call from the prime minister to understand that Israel’s interest is with the United States taking military action because it’s a message to Iran. You don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to figure out where Israel stands.”
jergul large member	Thu Sep 19 13:54:43 Seb I asked you earlier why you hate the truth so much. Now I need to ask why you hate science. A parabolic trajectory is such that the initially azimuth can be defined by its terminal azimuth. The weapon was fired at a higher angle than Syrian weapons are capable of having. Unless parked on a slope. But that again is not something government forces would do. Its not a false flag issue. Someone fired the rockets. It seems highly improbable that the government did. So what It does not provide the legal basis for anything. Only a UNSC resolution can provide a legal basis. You would want to note that Syria is not in breech of any convention it is party to. The 1923 GC does not forbid the use of chemical weapons in domestic conflicts. And Syria is not party to the 1995 Convention that among other things wanted to elliminate that exception to usage. Leaving only customary law. But it is premature to argue that given that huge US stockpiles prohibited by a Convention it has ratified still remain in its possession.
so what Member	Thu Sep 19 13:57:27 jergul, why are you repeating excerpts from the article I posted?
jergul large member	Thu Sep 19 16:06:14 Hehe, I had not read them. But nice to see there are more voices than the echo chamber.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 20 00:37:36 The communists support a ceasefire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24167762 Noting that Communists in Syria are reform moderates. Part of the mass demonstrations, but chose regime support ahead of jihadists back in the day. Which may not be a bad idea http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24160189 The Jihadists are quite worried about being bombed and are in open warfare against elements in the FSA.
Average Ameriacn Member	Fri Sep 20 02:17:24 "The communists support a ceasefire" Then we must support the opposite.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 20 03:43:21 Ah yes, a case of an enemy of my enemy is my enemy.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 20 06:28:30 The trajectories you are using to rule out the rebels converge on a fricking regime base! Who exactly is the enemy of physics? You are positing that the rebels have a sophisticated arms factory somewhere that has developed a standardised munition requiring fairly sophisticated manufacturing, materisls and design, that appears to have a very high operational success and consistent behaviour - not the Hall mark features of bodged up technicals. They then smuggled this into a Syrian army base. You reject the regime on the grounds that it is impossible for them to have a delivery system of higher azimuthal travel than you are aware of. If the rebels can cook up such things required, might not the cw units have adapted their rocket launchers for higher azimuthal angles to meet known tactical needs? Or do you think the regime has less mechanical capacity than the rebels? I'm the enemy of your assumption of omniscience.
so what Member	Fri Sep 20 06:33:40 jergul, why do you think Hollande supports Obama and the neo-cons to bomb Syria and to put a government in power controlled by the Saudis? The French are overwhelmingly against it, and French interests, like other euro-countries seem to lie with Assad.
Allahuakbar Member	Fri Sep 20 06:41:49 All jergul needs to read http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/
jergul large member	Fri Sep 20 07:53:42 Seb No they don't. The rapport had not comment on that beyond stating the missiles came from the North-East. Which is all they can claim. I am suggesting the ad-hoc nature of the weapon and its usage excludes regular military forces. The lack of sophistication points towards rebels, as does the lack of doctrinal use. What known tactical need? And if a tactical need, then why not use an accurate system with the desired range profile? Ad-hoc is the nature of rebels, not regular forces. And parking the launch vehicle on an angled slope is good enough if all you want to do is willy-nilly fire some chemicals somewhere in the hopes that doing so might trigger a red line crossing. The balance of probability clearly points to the rebels. So what Habit combined with a lack of understanding international law. Military intervention is illegal without a chapter 7 authorization. F-35s underlines the point.
so what Member	Fri Sep 20 08:14:03 You don't think that there may be some Saudi lobbying/money involved with Hollande's position? http://www...ntion-oil-gas-energy-pipelines http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/IRAN-IRAQ-Pipeline-to-Syria-Ups-Ante-in-Proxy-War-with-Qatar.html http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jhPTvibpnk98IR09Amuc5QzWQsIQ?docId=CNG.c0b07c0fd43690568ae07ab83f87f608.6d1&hl=en BEIRUT — Moscow has rejected a Saudi proposal to abandon Syria's president in return for a huge arms deal and a pledge to boost Russian influence in the Arab world, diplomats told AFP. "During the meeting at the Kremlin, the Saudi official explained to his interlocutor that Riyadh is ready to help Moscow play a bigger role in the Middle East at a time when the United States is disengaging from the region." Bandar proposed that Saudi Arabia buy $15 billion (11 billion euros) of weapons from Russia and invest "considerably in the country," the source said. The Saudi prince also reassured Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in the Saudis' hands and will not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports, the diplomat said. In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplied of natural gas. An Arab diplomat with contacts in Moscow said: "President Putin listened politely to his interlocutor and let him know that his country would not change its strategy." "Bandar bin Sultan then let the Russians know that the only option left in Syria was military and that they should forget about Geneva because the opposition would not attend." --------- It may not have worked with Putin, but m aybe it did with Hollande and Obama and the neo-cons.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Sep 20 10:02:54 'converge on a fricking regime base! Who exactly is the enemy of physics?' based on theory from brown moses and taken by hrw.. with none of these people with any background in physics rockets artillery etc https://twitter.com/hdevreij Hans de Vreij ‏@hdevreij 17h @CollettDerrick of Qasioun (gov't stronghold). However, subsequent enthousiastic calculations meant to prove that the rockets came @lrozen [cont] CollettDerrick from Mount Qasioun are based on a mistake. No way an unguided and non-spinning rocket with a big flat nose could @lrozen [cont] @CollettDerrick bridge the distance of 10 clicks to Mount Qasioun. A similar US model of the 70s (Fuel-Air explosive) had a @lrozen [cont] @CollettDerrick a maximum range of a few hundred *yards*. So, there is the problem: from where and by who were these rockets fired? @lrozen
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: