x404.co.uk http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18785 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | JohnSheridan [ Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22305444 Are these the same 'intelligence people' who said Saddam had wmd's ? If so how can they expect us to believe a word they say? Even if Sarin had been used - which side used it? Syria supposedly has stockpiles all around the country - any one of which could have fallen into rebel hands. Me thinks this is being used, like in Iraq, as an excuse to intervene. |
Author: | l3v1ck [ Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
Used - probably But by which side. Rebels have had access to the chemical weapons stores too. |
Author: | JJW009 [ Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
Remember that a pressure cooker is a WMD now... |
Author: | Amnesia10 [ Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:40 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | |||||||||
That makes the sarin issue less important. We need to get those idiots to reclassify pressure cookers as cooking utensils. By the current definition even a piece of pipe is now WMD, so we need to ban the transport of polish terrorist/plumbers? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. |
Author: | MrStevenRogers [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:02 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | |||||||||
+1 ... |
Author: | ShockWaffle [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
I'd be pretty surprised if they allowed chemical weapons to fall into enemy hands. Those sort of things are never handed over to conscripts of uncertain loyalty or weak training, and the troops who guard them are by definition the best armed in the entire conflict. There may be many negatives things to be said about the Syrian regime, but militarily they must be sufficiently competent to at least maintain control of the most sensitive weapons in their armoury - otherwise they would be dangling from street lights already. |
Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:27 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | ||||||||||||||||||
+1 but unless it is confirmed then I doubt that anyone will be willing to go as far as intervening. It is possible that Sarin has been used but even then we have no idea of who used it. |
Author: | ProfessorF [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:34 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | |||||||||
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-chemical-weapons-20130427,0,4808295.story |
Author: | ShockWaffle [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:15 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | ||||||||||||||||||
Consider the legend of the suitcase nuke - you will find little sympathy for the view that a terrorist who had such a device was just a guy with some luggage. Any bomb is really just a tin that goes bang. I think the WMD bit is the bang rather than the tin. If that guy in Boston had placed clam chowder in the vessel rather than a quantity of explosives that blew people's legs off, he would be in much less trouble than he is right now. Unless the chowder was incorrectly cooked of course, in which case he would have probably achieved a bigger death toll, and perhaps a more convincing charge of wielding WMDs. |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:33 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | |||||||||
I'm afraid that's something of a simplification. While you're right in that the container is less important than the payload, the majority of things that would be classed as a WMD are not explosives and do not need to be in a bomb. In fact the majority are poisons of some sort and can be distributed in any number of ways. The only major act of terrorism I can remember using what is (under international law) regarded as a WMD is the sarin gas attack on the tokyo subway by Aum Shiryuko. The corollary of this is you don't need a bang for it to be a WMD - in fact you absolutely don't want one, as most WMD agents would be burned up in the detonation. WMD and bombs have pretty much nothing to do with each other the majority of the time. Have chemical agents been used in Syria? I have no idea TBH but it's possible - it's prettymuch assumed the regime has them and given the chaos the country has descended into, who knows whose hand they have come to. But it doesn't need a bomb to have been dropped for that to happen. And that's why it's utterly fatuous to describe the Boston bomb as a WMD. It simply wasn't. It's entirely missing the 'mass' part of it. If they'd used a couple of litres of Sarin sprayed at the crowd rather than a couple of kilos of nails every single person in that crowd would be dead, not just two very unfortunate individuals. |
Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:36 am ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? | |||||||||
Yes but it is the explosive rather than the container. A nuclear filled pressure cooker would be a WMD, though one with explosive? What they did was create a roadside bomb which is what the Taliban in Afghanistan are doing? Are we dragging them off to the US to face trial for WMD? No the same rule should apply to both. If the pressure cooker had biological threat ie undercooked then it could be WMD, as a biological weapon, but that would be down to the contents. It is the inconsistency that is annoying. |
Author: | ShockWaffle [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
Well inconsistency is to be expected with ambiguous terms like WMD. The pot was used as a weapon, it was destructive. Was it mass destruction? From the perspective of the three people who got shredded, pretty much. Lots of other people sustained terrible injuries too. So it was surely a weapon of mass destruction, even if most of the things being destroyed on a massive scale were fingers and toes. If you have a desire to specify WMDs as belonging solely to the class of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear weapons, then there is a special term just for that (CBRN) which you should use when being precise about these things. It's a better term for the things you inaccurately refer to as WMDs because it actually specifies types of weapon - which is the thing you are trying to prescribe - rather than being a vague reference to an outcome which can be achieved in many ways that don't meet your specification. FWIW the term WMD was coined as "weapons adaptable to mass destruction" specifically to be vague. From the early 60s until 2009 the US DOD defined WMD as "high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons." (which had to be changed because Donald Rumsfeld made a fcuk up in 2005 and there was a risk of US soldiers being done for using mortars etc). |
Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
A pressure cooker bomb is probably less destructive than a mortar grenade, so maybe we should charge soldiers who used mortars?. My definition would be based on area impacted. Sarin could cover a much larger area than say a pressure cooker or mortar, or even most air to ground weapons. The use of an aircraft loaded with fuel can definitely be WMD, as could an enhanced ballistic missile such as a scud with chemical or biological weapons. Fewer people were killed than in West, Texas when the chemical plant exploded or during the Virginia Tech shooting, so should guns be reclassified? While the US has large WMD such as the Daisy cutter or MOAB bombs, these have only being used against military targets. The truck bomb used in Oklahoma would also be WMD. Now US troops could be tried around the world for using WMD on this basis. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. |
Author: | ShockWaffle [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
You are completely missing the point. The problem is that the term itself is so utterly worthlessly vague that you can even bother to wonder which of those things meets your personal specification, and can't possibly expect general agreement. Any two idiots can have divergent but equally valid opinions about what a WMD is. You can't properly define a catch all term because they are designed to include not to exclude. That's why people end up having moronic debates about whether golf or snooker is a sport, or Scientology is a religion. The mistake is not the erroneous inclusion of an element within a category, but the assumption that the category itself is genuinely distinctive. |
Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict? |
If the term is deliberately vague then we should never go to war over WMD, unless we have specifics. Invading Belgium over pressure cookers is simply unacceptable. What happened in Boston is wrong but the response is also wrong. This only seems to be a way of racheting up the war on terror for the additional funding that will come. What happened was a domestic bombing, yet the Unabomber was not described as using WMD. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |