Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

9. Yes, it remains ambiguous.

Reply to The Magistrate (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:06 PM

Jul 2014

The source for the provenance of the cylinders is the Syrian government. But even physical evidence cannot necessarily be relied on.

Personally, I think there are plenty of people on both sides that would not hesitate to use such weapons if they thought they could get away with it.

It would be interesting to hear ther UNSC debate on the subject, perhaps.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Two 'abandoned' cylinders seized in Syria contained sarin - U.N. [View all] bemildred Jul 2014 OP

Nothing is perfect mwrguy Jul 2014 #1

Or maybe "It's a trick!" nt bemildred Jul 2014 #2

WMDS!!! WMDS!!!! FEAR!!!! FEAR!!!! BOMB THEM!!!! Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2014 #3

If this rebel group actually had it, why didn't they use it? agentS Jul 2014 #4

Because then they lancer78 Jul 2014 #5

haven't some rebel groups crossed that bridge already? agentS Jul 2014 #6

You know for a fact that they didn't? Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #8

The implication would be that they did. bemildred Jul 2014 #10

His Statement, Sir, Does Not Seem To Endorse The Claimed Provenance The Magistrate Jul 2014 #7

Yes, it remains ambiguous. bemildred Jul 2014 #9