What if Assad ordered conventional strikes and that ignited Rebel Chemical Weapons

[dkf]

Now THAT sounds like a completely plausible situation to me.

[Renew Deal]

1. What other possibilities are plausible to you?

[dkf]

13. There are MANY other possibilities which is why we need PROOF.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. Then the rebels would be in the wrong.

It may be plausible, but at this point it is not reality.

[dkf]

14. We don't know the reality. That's the point.

[rdharma]

3. Ignite Sarin?

Nope.

[David__77]

6. We may soon know if sarin was even used (regardless of by whom).

Too many unknowns right now. The inspectors will leave and do some testing, and then can return to investigate the other sites.

[David__77]

4. There are so many possibilities.

We know of some "panicked" defense official; although it's a rumor, it could be either from being mad about a rogue unit, or worried that something outside their control could implicate them. There just is too much unknown, which is why launching war now would be a tragic folly.

[pnwmom]

5. How would you account for the jet fighters' napalm-like dump on the playground? nt

[Tx4obama]

20. I put a link to that video in Comment #18 n/t

[pnwmom]

27. Thanks! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Do you have any proof of any kind?

Or are you just engaging in wild speculation?

[dkf]

8. Speculation of the sort of thing we need to disprove prior to attacking.

Which you should get from my "what if".

[Cali_Democrat]

34. OK. So you are engaging in wild speculation

Got it.

Thanks.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

9. You're serious?

Please tell me this is a joke.

[dkf]

11. It it's possible "mishandled" CWs caused it why isn't it possible

Rebel controlled CWs were released in an attack?

Isn't that the reason we will not bomb Assad's CWs?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

35. Sarin doesn't ignite,

and blind speculation <> evidence.
Here's evidence, from the UN and from this guy's own research, along with some links to other people, all of it meticulously documented. He isn't saying he's certain it's the gov't, but all of the evidence he's examined points in that direction.
This doesn't mean we should strike. But if you're going to bring culpability up as an issue, base it on something more than speculation.

[dkf]

38. Oh are you arguing semantics?

Well then perhaps it leaked or dispersed or whatever as a result of an attack.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

39. I give up. Reread my post, and then read the stuff at the link. Or not. Your choice. n/t

[msongs]

10. please do not think outside the chosen narrative lol nt

[Cooley Hurd]

12. It's a moot point. The death toll from US strikes will rival the toll from the chem strike.

[dkf]

16. Yeah, killing everyone Assad wants killed apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3566246

“The Assad regime is starting to move large numbers of prisoners into army barracks. Over the last three days, they are moving soldiers into schools and hospitals,” he said in Istanbul.

[TroglodyteScholar]

15. What if a frog had wings?

I suppose he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped.

[Cooley Hurd]

22. For a scholar, you're deaf to history....

[TroglodyteScholar]

44. But for a troglodyte, I'm remarkably observant.

[Cooley Hurd]

45. Well played!

I'm a member of a HURD, but, sadly, I'm not always COOL.

[TroglodyteScholar]

48. No worries

I truly don't know what to believe because every source of information has proven itself unworthy of my trust. So most "what if" scenarios look the same to me...

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. why are the rebels in control of chemical weapons?

[dkf]

19. From Saudi Arabia/Prince Bandar.

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. and we know this to be a fact?

[dkf]

25. We have reports...but as to fact that isn't something the US is interested

verifying.

[Tx4obama]

30. There is absolutely NO evidence that the rebels have chemical weapons. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Thank you....

that's what I thought...

even countries are limited in who can possess chemical weapons....so...if the rebels have them....

[dkf]

40. Maybe that's because we aren't interested in finding out of its true.

But I've seen reports and I'm sure you have too.

[Tx4obama]

41. If you're talking about the articles from the examiner.com and the mintpressnews ...

... neither one of those two are reputable sources/websites.

[Tx4obama]

18. The attack with the napalm type chemical that BURNT folks was dropped from a FIGHTER JET

The rebels do not have fighter jets - but Assad does.

Caution: Graphic images in the video below

Video of some of the people that Assad's napalm type chemical burnt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[dkf]

24. Napalm is not classified as an outlawed chemical weapon.

Napalm is not classified as an outlawed chemical weapon although it can cause devastating burn injuries.

Infamously used in the Vietnam War - and the Second World War - the jelly-like substance sticks to skin and burns at very high temperatures.

http://news.sky.com/story/1135090/syria-napalm-like-burns-after-school-attack

[Cooley Hurd]

26. The premise of the OP was that the napalm type chemicals set off the chemical weapons...

...not WHO launched the chem weapons.

All of this, of course, is an exercise in what ifs.

The glaring question is; do we risk a regional (which, with very little help, could be GLOBAL) conflict that will kill FAR MORE than the casualties caused by the gas attack?

We're on the cusp on a shitstorm caused by ONE man - Assad. We have an opportunity to limit its scope... AND death toll. And it looks like the US Government is determined to resolve the "Islamic issue" once and for all.

Lastly, name an empire that succeeded.

[Tx4obama]

28. No. Two different events in two different places. One couldn't have set off the other. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

29. I'm not agreeing with the OP...

...just pointing out the misunderstanding of your post.

[Tx4obama]

32. I'm not sure what was confusing.

They were two different attacks - with two different types of chemicals - in two different locations.

The sarin type gas missle was launched from the ground - the napalm type missile was dropped from a fighter jet from the sky.

[idwiyo]

31. Yes, by US in Falluja. You are absolutely correct. According to US it's not a banned chemical weapon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

[Tx4obama]

37. I am talking about the napalm type chemical missile that was dropped in SYRIA

Caution: Graphic images

Video of some of the people that Assad's napalm type chemical burnt in SYRIA: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594


p.s. This is a separate attack - not the other attack with the sarin type gas missile.

[dkf]

42. So why are you bringing it up?

We all agree that whatever came from the jet is not the incident we have been debating...it isn't a banned chemical weapon.

[Tx4obama]

43. Because all of those kids and people that got burnt all over their bodies are just as important. n/t

[idwiyo]

46. And I am talking about US that did not sign Protocol III of the CCW and has stockpile of Napalm B.

And used both Napalm B and White Phosphorous in civilian-populated areas.
Pot meet kettle.

Mark 77 bomb
Pot meet Kettle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

The Mark 77 bomb (MK-77) is a US 750-lb (340 kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb carrying 110 U.S. gallons (416 L; 92 imp gal) of a fuel gel mix which is the direct successor to napalm.
...

Use of aerial incendiary bombs against civilian populations, including against military targets in civilian areas, was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. However the United States reserved the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons.
...

At least thirty MK-77s were also used by Marine Corps aviators over a three-day period during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, according to a June 2005 letter from the UK Ministry of Defence to former Labour MP Alice Mahon.
...

According to the Italian public service broadcaster RAI's documentary, MK 77 had been used in Baghdad in 2003 in civilian-populated areas. However, there were never any confirmed reports of the use of incendiaries specifically against civilians.

ANYONE who uses shit like that should have their arse delivered to Hague and spend rest of their miserable lives in hard labour rebuilding by hand what they destroyed.

[Historic NY]

21. Ask why would Assad attack a NATO country Turkey with rockets too....

knowing it would provoke a responce......eventually. There is a lots of things that don't apparently make much sense, other than trying to widen the conflict with more participants for one side or the other.

[HooptieWagon]

36. Yes, its one of several plausible theories.

Which is why we shouldn't go off half-cocked and launch six dozen cruise missles into Syria based on hastily made conclusions. Obama doesn't have international or domestic support, if he proceeds he's going to own it. And if he turns out to be wrong.....

[Arctic Dave]

47. It is possible.

A direct hit in a stockpile of chemical containers would disperse the agent over a large area.

Check any number of videos posted showing how large an explosions debris and dust fly into the air. Now imagine it carrying toxic materials.

You just created an inadvertent "dirty bomb".


That's why trying to take out a CW storage facility with a cruise missile is not the way to destroy them.