The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Chemical weapon missiles from Syria's Shayrat Airbase ?

Chemical weapon missiles from Syria's Shayrat Airbase ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Mhaze,

Three points arise from the following link here.
1.
There is dispute about a chemical weapon being a weapon of mass destruction.
2.
Terrorists do possess sarin.
3.
Even though a gas weapon is degraded the chemical can still be used.

http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

It appears WMD's were never found in Iraq and the relevant intelligence was therefore wrong.

Perhaps accusation about Assad recently using chemical weapons is wrong.

Does the relevant doubt establish justification for Trump to maybe start a nuclear war?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 17 April 2017 5:28:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why would weapons not being found constitute the opposite.
The use of chemical gas is not a weapon of war.
Wars do have rules.
Sumissing what may have happened does not aid discussion.
Posted by doog, Monday, 17 April 2017 8:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 17 April 2017 9:02:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether Saddam had (or still had) WMDs, is really irrelevant as regards the recent sarin gas attack. Of coarse you can fantasise about someone other than Assad dropping the gases but again, its beside the point. The US, and most others, believes he used them (again) and they acted. That's all that is relevant.

And fretting that this brings us close to nuclear war is just so much hysteria. But its pretty standard fare from the WIAFs. They're always raving about the potential dangers every time the US does anything.

How about fretting about the dangers of Kim testing nukes, or Putin inserting himself in the civil war. But you don't do that because you only want one side to remain passive.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 17 April 2017 10:04:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two profound hissterriks here, ttbn and jfk. Always ahead of the game wishfully thinking of something sinister going on.

Atomic war, the Maob a weopans of mass destruction. Albeit a conventional weopans.
Ttbn will not say gassing is illegal. The other bloke is a dreamer.

No doubt these blokes are sim pathetic to N k.
Posted by doog, Monday, 17 April 2017 10:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
"Whether Saddam had (or still had) WMDs, is really irrelevant as regards the recent sarin gas attack."
That's BS. The fact there was no WMD's in Iraq sets a precedent to be weary of military actions justified on the basis on false or cooked-up intelligence.

There was no investigation yet into this Sarin attack, and even if or when there is the findings will be bogus.
The only voice in the media even calling for an investigation that I'm aware of was Tulsi Gabbard and she copped heaps of crap by her fellow Democrats for not towing the anti-Assad line. Calls for her to step down by those who don't care for free speech.

Trump fired missiles on a sovereign nations military base he's not even technically at war with that had Russians stationed there, and he did it without congressional approval on a country he has no legal right to even be in.

Why drugs did you take exactly to come to the conclusion that would it be irrellevant whether Assad committed the attack or not?

"The US, and most others, believes he used them (again) and they acted. That's all that is relevant."
('believes' - what the hell does that mean?)

And no, thats not all thats relevant, least of all it serves as evidence that your 'WAIF' acronym is a total load of garbage and that questioning the actions of the US government and military is most certainly justified now as much as ever.

You really shouldn't use the word 'fantasise' so casually because you really seem to be entering dreamland right now.
...Putin inserting himself into a civil war. Where do you get this BS from?
Oh that's right corporate media.. Why did I even ask...

Go look up youtube videos of Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State at that time and wife of Neocon Robert Kagan; Member of the Brookings Institute and Council on Foreign Relations) explain how they spent 5bln to depose Yanukovych and overthrow Ukraine or articles of George Soros openly admitting using his Open Society groups to help do so.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 12:26:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy