Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc
Then enlight me here. What kind of nervgas has been used here? -If it has been used.
Markus
|
I'm not a weapons inspector, but those reactions are not those of conventional weapons are they? You don't see mass outbreaks of convulsions from a standard explosion do you?
EDIT: If I had to guess I'd say it was either Sarin or VX. Now bear in mind that most chemical agents are water soluble, that's why the US dumps their chemical stockpiles at sea. So, the weapon hits the area, effects a set number of people (last estimate was in the low thousands), some die within minutes, others on the outskirts get a lower dosage and develop symptoms of exposure. They spread out from the impact site and are taken by friends to a hospital, bear in mind that most of this footage is coming from either in a hospital or outside a hospital, NOT in the actual impact zone. Some of the victims are washed down with hose pipes, that lessens the amount of chemical residue on them. Some of the people who have been exposed to the survivors of this attack may well develop complications over the coming weeks, some will no doubt die.
Now, short of either some very good child actors, special effects and make-up, or perhaps some sort of massive shock-wave cannon, I do not see a way to create that many blood-less victims without using chemical weapons. If the casualties were purely adult, then I would perhaps be skeptical that they were paid to act like that, but when you get children that cannot be much more than four or five, then it becomes harder to create that level of authenticity.
Could it be a fake? There is a chance, I cannot deny it, and I'm sorry if my tone is hostile but you cannot watch that footage and not get a little emotional about it. Honestly though, what advantage would the West gain from making such footage? What advantage would we gain from overthrowing Assad? What advantage have we gained in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan? I don't think any of the Western governments particularly want to get involved in another war in the Middle East, because let's face it, all politicians care about is their popularity scores, and wars in the Middle East are a sure-fire way to sink your popularity, but I don't think that they can keep out of it, and whether this attack was the FSA trying to frame Assad to get the West to come to their aid, or Assad trying to break a stalemate in the area, I do not know, but I am very sure that some sort of chemical attack has taken place here, either that or this is some sort of elaborate ruse, far beyond the abilities of Syria, and if it is by the West then for what purpose would it serve? Another expensive war in a time of financial austerity that will sink their popularity and make them unelectable, and whilst it may remove a Russian ally, it won't remove the Russian base, it won't remove a threat to Israel, and it won't make the new Syrian government necessarily any more favourable towards the West, if anything it will probably just result in another breeding ground for Al'Qaeda. Not that the current situation in Syria isn't conducive to Al'Qaeda operations.
So why?
EDIT EDIT: It could equally be Chlorine gas, it's been used before and it doesn't have the longevity of modern gases but it's still potent and it doesn't necessarily kill straight away:
From the British Official History of the attack on Hill 60, 1915.
Quote:
|
90 men died from gas poisoning in the trenches or before they could be got to a dressing station; of the 207 brought to the nearest dressing stations, 46 died almost immediately and 12 after long suffering
|
Furthermore it has supposedly been used in Syria already, by the FSA which means that it's likely that the Syrian army has it too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/24/wo...emical-weapons
http://world.time.com/2013/04/01/syr...emical-attack/