I'd like to know who's supplying the Sarin. Sarin breaks down quickly and can only be stored for a few weeks to months depending on the purity of the "ingredients". You don't just get a canister and sit on it until you're ready to use it - time is of the essence.

You can mix the Sarin up just before you use it but that's extremely risky for the people making it. You don't do that in the field. Or you can mix it in the weapon, such as a shell fired from artillery or a bomb. But this is something that's very difficult to do as well.

If the rebels are using Sarin then they're very well connected, IMO.

well Saudi Arabia is supporting the rebels the French too and the US has been in there as well
My bets on Saudi Arabia though (they're vehemently anti-shia/ assad/ gaddafi/etc)

in fact there are some videos from RT where supposed rebel labs were raided with chemical ingredients (chlorine etc) and masks/canisters sourced from saudi arabian companies strewn throughout

but no clue if those labs are actual labs or staged

So, Harper has decided to turn a blind eye....

PM Harper: No Canadian military mission planned for Syria at present - National | Globalnews.ca

Not cool.

As opposed to what... shaking his fist at them?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/396696f19...sgkqo1_500.jpg

What the fuck else is Canada POSSIBLY going to do? Attempt a beach landing in canoes? Storm the beaches with some (legally registered... maybe) shotguns?

i don't get it... it was less than 50 years ago that the USA used agent orange in vietnam... fucking up their own troops and the vietnamese.

and it was within our lifetimes that the USA and Britain used white phosphorous in the middle east...

does no one realise how hyper hypocritical the west is? LOL.

i'm gonna have to side with russia and china on this one. veto their ass out. the USA has some fucking underlying plan as usual.

no bully should become a mediator.

i have a friend in syria, family's factory is in syria... he says the rebels aint helping lol. they fucked all the other factories up nearby, and they're executing people left right and center. they had to bulldoze the roads leading up to his factory and make the building look abandoned or else they're gonna get raided and some innocent ppl will die for sure.

You sure know a lot about this stuff... :suspicious: :pokerface:

But... but... they're the Bad Guys<tm>. We're the Good Guys<tm> so it's all okay. :badpokerface:

Not that it justifies anything, but the past examples were used against declared enemies in states of war (with, unfortunately, friendly collateral damage... but then, they knew that was a possibility when they signed up, right?), and all is fair in love and war. On the other hand, SOMEONE in Syria - government or rebels - DIRECTED the gas attacks at civilians... presumably people who have nothing to do with either side of the conflict.

But yeah, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, that's for fucking sure.

im gonna pull a CiC.

the CIA helped the rebels (al qaeda) get their hands and deploy the gas. there i said it.

PRISM come get me bitch. I'll hide behind CiC's shield of conspiracy, +999 resistance to... resistance.

if you feel so strongly about getting involved in the conflict, you're welcome to fly overseas and volunteer for the rebels

this is the right decision IMO, canada and the us should not get involved

Sorry, I don't agree. A lot of things change over the years and what was once considered acceptable may no longer be or things that were frowned upon are now OK. You can't call someone a hypocrite based on something they did at a completely different time.

Off topic, but this is something 3rd world countries are complaining about in regards to the environment. We have banned numerous substances and industries because of their effects on the environment. However, many countries that are now just going through their "industrial revolution" don't think they should have to follow the same stringent rules in regards to the environment. In short, they say since countries like the US or UK polluted heavily during their "industrial revolution" it should be OK for them to do the same today in their own country. If the US or UK complain they are "hypocrites" since they once polluted like crazy too. I find that argument ridiculous.

I Googled it since I was curious. There's lots of information about Sarin around including at the CDC. Understanding how volatile and unstable it is made me think the rebels have to be well connected to be able to get their hands on some. Even more so to be able to actually deliver it to a target. There's a huge difference between getting hold of some guns or rocket launchers and getting hold of a Sarin delivery system.

I've been following this pretty closely since the beginning and everything that's been going on is so fucked up. It's madness. Anyway, I've found that these two videos sum up everything and make the most amount of sense.

Israel used white phosphorous on Palestinians in 2009, burnt kids faces and limbs right off, no one batted an eye; the more daring even said the Palestinians deserved it because of the militants actions (hell they even hit a UN compound with it! THE UN)
Israel only announced this year that they would begin phasing out its use http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22310544


What really gets me though is all western media outlets are blatantly saying there's no evidence that the rebels even have chemical weapons and capabilities but that's a complete lie as we've seen in this thread already there's vast amounts of evidence that the rebels do

the industrial revolution was "a long time ago", global education was different... that was "a different time".

vietnam wasnt along time ago... it wasn't a different time. it was only 50 years ago dude.

and white phosphorous was used by the west in 2004 (iraq), 2009 (Afghanistan), 2011 (libya).

white phosphorous was used by russia extensively in afghanistan too. like every other shell lobbed was white phosphorous.

it seems like only super powers are allowed to use WMD's and get away with it.

it just seems like they're using WMD's as an excuse, regardless whether or not they should be using it or who used it first or whatever.


the USA should have no say, and no right to say anything. They are tainted with a bad history. they have "bad credit" if you will.

if anything, some other global powerhouse that isn't tainted should be saying "no wmds".


would you like a multiple convicted thief leading a global anti-thief movement? especially a thief that hasn't turned around yet? and still steals or has organizations/pawns under him that still steal and do things for his agenda? that's what the west is. hypocritical, deceptive, manipulative, down right egotistical scumbag bullys.


you're right times do change. lol, WMD's will be used again. it only delays the inevitable. someone's gonna bring a gun to the fist fight. someone always does.


so you're telling me if i'm a warlord, it's not ok to release some gas, but it's okay to carpet bomb an entire town instead?


are you telling me if a full out devastating WW/korea/vietnam war broke out, that the USA wont use WMD's?

bullshit, they would be the FIRST ones to use them and rewrite some law and state under some circumstance (whichever one they are in), they are allowed to use it, and they will govern it. blah blah blah.

For fuck sake, minoru_tanaka....at this point I am willing to pay you to state your opinion on something.

It appear all you ever do is fail and thank everyone in random without so much conjuring up your own opinion...which, at this point, I doubt you can even articulate without help from others.

But please...continue your clicking...

Well now, ain't that a great retort.

I am confused as to what part of my post indicated that I am on the side of the rebels. I'd also like to point out that nowhere did I indicate that Canada should get involved in at a military level with the country.

I feel strongly about the people who were elected to run this country and participate actively on a global scale (you might know it as the UN), to protect those in countries that can not protect themselves. This is what our leader get paid for.

I am disheartened to hear that our Prime Minister doesn't want anything to do with Syria, even at a Peace Keeping level.

I find it ironic that there are several posts here on RS about China...and the people of China...and the people of China witnessing other people do shitty things and never stepping in. They are called cowards, gross, scum, pieces of shit, etc....but when it comes to something like this, nobody gives a shit because its on the other side of the world.

Again, I say, not cool.

peacekeeping now there's a word that has a lot of dust on it
i bet americans don't even know that word and canada seems to have forgotten it too

Yes!! I very much agree with this!

Is 'peace-keeping' something that can be brought back to life? In a situation such as this where there are two sides within one country, one would think there would be a way to intervene.

It was different than Afghanistan and different with Iraq...there was nothing to "Peace Keep" there.

Syria...I think its different.

So you support Russia in one post yet claim they used phosphorous shells in another? So I guess we can say that Russia is just as hypocritical as the USA? Got it.

And please tell me which other superpower is "untainted". Can you suggest one who we should let handle this situation? Maybe broker some kind of deal? Be allowed to decide what (if any) actions should be taken in Syria? Someone that's completely unbiased and will make a decision purely on the basis of what's best for Syria and its people?

I would support peacekeeping with a heavy hand (sounds contradictory I know).

Notify both sides of some very strict rules and if you violate them you're gonna get a cruise missile up your ass. Or worse. Rebels kill 5 civilians? We kill 50 rebels. Same goes for Assad. Anything they do to violate the rules results in extreme consequences. We're not picking sides as to who's right or wrong - we're just severely punishing anyone who gets out of line. Then bring them to the table to hammer out some agreement.

Sometimes it takes a 2x4 to the head to get someone to listen.

So best case scenario assad is overthrown what next? I can already predict the political landscape...highly controversial political candidates, infighting amongst the insurgents, messy secretarian warfare

Saddam was overthrown in 2003...10 years later there have been 70+ deaths in august alone.

If the west wants to intervene I just hope they're prepared for another forever war before peace is restored
Posted via RS Mobile

^^ exactly. If Obama decides to stick his nose into this thing, which I think he may have to, if Israel pressures the US into it, then the US is going to be in another war. Another multi-billion dollar war will pretty much put the last nail in the failing US economy's coffin. They will drag Canada down with them in that mess, too. The US cannot afford another war. So those who sit there and demand that the US step in and resolve this issue need to give their heads a shake. Even if the Rebels win, nothing in Syria will change. Just another extremist government will be put in place and the people will still suffer.

I don't think a group has to be particularly 'connected' to make or obtain sarin. After all, it was used not long ago by religious nutjobs in Japan. I don't think their agenda was supported by anyone.

You'd be very wrong. I suggest you take a history lesson on Syria so you can actually understand the ethnical, religious, and political focal point that it is and has been for millenia. You could not have a situation more inappropriate or impossible for a peace keeping force.

There is no victory there in the current conflict. You either allow a ruthless ethnical minority dictator continue to lead with an iron fist (sound like anyone in Iraq?) or you give 'rebels' who are openly connected with the most racidal terrorist organizations in the world control of a central state in the most unstable part of the world.

Harper is smart to keep us out of this. The US will do what it needs to to protect it's interests in the region, as will Russia, and Israel, and Iran, and so on. Canada doesn't need to lose good men and women fighting a moral battle in an immoral battlespace. This is the reality of the modern world.

there's a difference between USA, a nation that does one thing, and says another and tries to appear like some glorious divine holy entity as a blessing for all on earth.

vs

and russia, a nation that does what they say they'll do and doesn't try appear like some good guy. they are exactly who they are. and everyone knows who they are, and what they'll do.

that's the difference.


way to make enemies, how you could potentially face two threats and start a completely separate war with a nation that wasn't even involved in the first place. costing tons of money and lives.

why not just sell weapons to the side that interests you and let them win? it's almost a winwin situation. oh wait... that's.. what.. everyones already doing...

so... if you step in and try to mediate two sides fuelled and backed by basically the whole UN core council... what.. you wanna fight them too? make enemies with both the americans and the chinese and russian? lol.

Ill just leave this here.

http://i.imgur.com/5XEJQ1H.jpg
Posted via RS Mobile