Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

Feuer Frei! · 08-31-13, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Hate to tell you, but your sound like one of those "internet experts".

Wouldn't know. Not trying to.
Asking for links and credible sources. Nothing internet expert about it.

Quote:

No, I don't think you do.

Yes i think, in fact i know i do.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what i called him out on. Until he mentioned he had combat experience.
Which in the light of his uneducated claim that he made re chemical attack(s) has nothing to do with it.
So for someone to bring that ole i served and have combat experience into the fray when it didn't need to be doesn't wash with me.
He made a claim, which was and still isn't backed up by cold hard facts.
No amount of: "oh but i served and saw it many times with my own eyes" will give someone who posts a claim based on nothing other than some blogger who links a crap video and does game reviews the ability to make such a claim.
Unless of course, like i suggested, the poster is on the ground, and was actively present in the samples taken, the analyising of said samples, the construction and finalising of reports of said samples, and the delivery of reports to the un council.
If thats not the case then i'm afraid he, like me and you and others of this community are in the same boat and cannot make claims like the one that was made.

Quote:

You do realize that a word like "but" is a retraction of your previous statement right? So, no you really don't respect first hand experience. I will grant that there are a lot of "internet experts" and "Keyboard commando's" that pretend to be something their not. However, with Detcord im inclined to believe he's not some poser.

See my above post.
Once again, i was quiete happy to ask for links and some sort of evidence which is actually credible, not some garbage posted by some blogger.
Why the serving in combat came up, don't hold me to account, ask him.
You're assuming and putting words in my mouth.
I'm quiete happy and possibly sometimes a bit harsh in debating and asking for links to a claim made, but for someone to throw the "i served" line and to then expect automatic credibility to their posts in future, from that moment on is ludicrous.
I hope you're not implying that that is the case, since that would disappoint me.
I asked for links, credible sources to his claim, and the poster came up with a dodgy link and that he served.
Now, you say i don't respect someone because they served?
You're basing that on what?
Assumptions?
Knowledge?
Or just the thought process that "how dare someone questions someone who served" no matter what they post?
Seems like it.

Quote:

Dude, If i had served in recent years and been there, done that, bought the T shirt, i'd have said the same thing. Because when you pair that personal experience to what your saying on a message board and having most likely never seen anything at all first hand, well.... yeah

Yea yea i get it, if you served it gives you the right to claim something, granted, with more knowledge than say i, however once again, to make a claim like the one he did is nothing without cold hard facts.
The difference between you and me it seems is that you seem to think that how dare i question him and that i should put up and shut up and let him or anyone who has served post claims without being able to ask for links or even question what they say.
Stuff that.

Quote:

Nothing personal Feuer Frei, I'm just saying when you go barking up someones tree who may have actual experience, you may want to think about it first. Because if your wrong, you make yourself look really bad.

Nothing personal either, although if it isn't then your claims are pretty harsh.
As for me being wrong?
Not likely since i don't spout out claims in a thread, and bleat undeniably that that is what happened, without so much as an iota of proof, from say a body or organisation that is actually involved in the current conflict, not 10 years ago or however long poster served, or you for that matter, then i think it's quiete appropriate to ask for further clarification on why that poster made such a claim.
Without getting into the whole debate of oh oh i served, which has absolutely nothing to do with the request to present facts to a claim made in relation to this particular issue.

You will of course say that veterans are more quaslified to comment on matters such as these, i have no doubt.
But, it still doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the claim made is true or not.

I rest my case for now.

I don't want to get into a slanging match with you.

Feuer Frei! · 08-31-13, 05:52 AM

So Putin says US Claim is nonsense

Get that evidence out.

Quote:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US claims that Syria's regime used chemical weapons, describing them as "utter nonsense"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833

Skybird · 08-31-13, 06:12 AM

Showing a written claim that one has evidence, and showing the evidence, are two different things.

They seem to have big problem to see that difference. Instead they want their claim taken as the evidence itself.

Unacceptable.

No circus director will make the audience laughing by just claiming that the circus has a clown. The clown has to enter the arena himself and make his jokes, there is no way around that.

Evidence, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Obama. Evidence. Either you show it, or you don't.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-31-13, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

What do you think Russia will do in the event of an attack?

You have mid-term elections coming, don't you? You remember that fella called Snowden who is in vacation in Russia? Maybe he has some nice conversations with press just before election day...

Vince82 · 08-31-13, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Showing a written claim that one has evidence, and showing the evidence, are two different things.

They seem to have big problem to see that difference. Instead they want their claim taken as the evidence itself.

Unacceptable.

No circus director will make the audience laughing by just claiming that the circus has a clown. The clown has to enter the arena himself and make his jokes, there is no way around that.

Evidence, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Obama. Evidence. Either you show it, or you don't.

Mr. Kerry already did say that himself. He said this is what or findings are and this is what we got. It's no evidence, but draw your own conclussions. Some things are classified, but we will show them to your government officials.

I was reasoning the same way as the Russians did, because it's just not very smart to use chemical weapons. The Assad regime must have thought they could cover it up and maybe they felt they needed to use them in order to get the upper hand in the conflict. And maybe the temptation of using them was too great because of the effectiviness. I don't think Assad has any sort of compassion with the victims. He sees them as muslim terrorists that use chemical weapons aswell.

Skybird · 08-31-13, 07:29 AM

"It's no evidence, but draw your own conclusions."

Drawing conclusions on the basis of what? Claims...? The claims need to be proven, then - when they are proven to be correct claims, and thus are shown to be not mere claims but facts - then you can draw conclusions.

I have repeatedly argued in this thread that it makes absolutely no sense that Assad wanted this strike at this time, and should have ordered it. I concluded by that that it may be a staged act by the rebels, because they have a very great interest in as high collateral casualties as possible, for propaganda reasons. Later I added the possibility that a failure in the chain of command took place, that the attack was kind of "accidental" (which is no excuse, to make that clear).

But the US claims they know from where the rockets were started, where they went, and what they did. And leaves it to those claims. That sounds like 2003, what they claimed about the WMDs: "We know they have them and we know where they are."

Sorry, that is no basis for making conclusions, but speculations. That is no evidence. This way it's no way.

Packlife · 08-31-13, 08:07 AM

This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years. This is not the case an your idea of a "rebel" staged scheme falls flat. I've seen more then 1 doctor on CNN watch those videos an call out all the little things that say yes this person is dying from a chemical weapons attack. An then there's the rows of dead kids, you think your gonna get that many kids to lay that still an not breath for minutes yeah ok. An Assad doesn't care he did it once twice up to 30 times an nobody said anything till the attack on the 21st. Even the inspectors said they were held up for 4 days while Assad's ppl ratcheted up the shelling of the area where the attack's took place. The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-31-13, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packlife

This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years. This is not the case an your idea of a "rebel" staged scheme falls flat. I've seen more then 1 doctor on CNN watch those videos an call out all the little things that say yes this person is dying from a chemical weapons attack. An then there's the rows of dead kids, you think your gonna get that many kids to lay that still an not breath for minutes yeah ok. An Assad doesn't care he did it once twice up to 30 times an nobody said anything till the attack on the 21st. Even the inspectors said they were held up for 4 days while Assad's ppl ratcheted up the shelling of the area where the attack's took place. The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

Just in case you have really been able to miss it but for many many pages Skybird has been talking about scenario of rebels USING those chemical weapons not just STAGING use of them.

Catfish · 08-31-13, 08:27 AM

@packlife: sS you were there and saw it ? And maybe even teset this substance ?

I have to say, Mr Kerry telling me that 'certain substances' have been used, does not convince me.

He should at least had held up some test tube with some green slime in it, you know like Powell did, before the UN. And Mr Cheney in the background, somewhere,
THAT would have convinced me, since i am still dumb as a brick

Vince82 · 08-31-13, 08:37 AM

Quote:

The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

You forget about President Putin according to him it's utter nonsense to suggest Assad did it. He's probably just trying to be funny....

Skybird · 08-31-13, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packlife

. The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

False claim by you, as proven by repeated comments of mine that it probably were chemical weapons indeed. Why and By whom are the questions remaining.

Stick to the facts, or stay out.

What I say is the attack and its timing make absolutely no sense from Assad's POV, but that rebels have a high interest in big collateral damages reported in the world press. And that raises questions.

And to make it completely clear to you what I think: I rate every of these three scenarios

- Assad ordered it
- breakdown in chain of command, a communication error or internal power struggle led to it
- the rebels did it

an equal probability of 30 %, and give a remaining probability of not more than 10 % for the possibility that the attack was not chemical at all.

The only thing that is 100% certain is that an event took place, whatever it might have been and whomever may be responsible for it.

08-31-13, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packlife

This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years.

Maybe I am getting too old and my memory is getting fuzzy, but in '03 didn't they repeatedly claim they knew where the weapons were?

Ducimus · 08-31-13, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

I don't want to get into a slanging match with you.

That's fine. It's clearly obvious you know everything. Nothing anyone could say would make any difference.

Feuer Frei! · 08-31-13, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

That's fine. It's clearly obvious you know everything. Nothing anyone could say would make any difference.

Listen, if you wanna defend your little buddy and start openly attacking me then do it in pm.

I suggest you have a serious think about why you jumped in, what you wrote and why you make some pretty dumb accusations.

Putting words in my mouth, assuming you know what i think or why i posted something when it had absolutely nothing to do with you is rich.
Doing it in this thread is even richer.
PM me otherwise let your buddy defend himself, with facts.
Not assumptions and opinions based on bloggers.

Skybird · 08-31-13, 09:34 AM

A good piece from the NYT. Advice worth to be considered.

Experts fear US plan to strike Syria overlooks risks:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/31...?from=homepage

Its a 'lil complex for added excitement, isn't it…

08-31-13, 06:12 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Showing a written claim that one has evidence, and showing the evidence, are two different things. They seem to have big problem to see that difference. Instead they want their claim taken as the evidence itself. Unacceptable. No circus director will make the audience laughing by just claiming that the circus has a clown. The clown has to enter the arena himself and make his jokes, there is no way around that. Evidence, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Obama. Evidence. Either you show it, or you don't. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-31-13, 07:29 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	"It's no evidence, but draw your own conclusions." Drawing conclusions on the basis of what? Claims...? The claims need to be proven, then - when they are proven to be correct claims, and thus are shown to be not mere claims but facts - then you can draw conclusions. I have repeatedly argued in this thread that it makes absolutely no sense that Assad wanted this strike at this time, and should have ordered it. I concluded by that that it may be a staged act by the rebels, because they have a very great interest in as high collateral casualties as possible, for propaganda reasons. Later I added the possibility that a failure in the chain of command took place, that the attack was kind of "accidental" (which is no excuse, to make that clear). But the US claims they know from where the rockets were started, where they went, and what they did. And leaves it to those claims. That sounds like 2003, what they claimed about the WMDs: "We know they have them and we know where they are." Sorry, that is no basis for making conclusions, but speculations. That is no evidence. This way it's no way. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-31-13, 09:34 AM	#15
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	A good piece from the NYT. Advice worth to be considered. Experts fear US plan to strike Syria overlooks risks: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/31...?from=homepage Its a 'lil complex for added excitement, isn't it… __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-31-13, 08:07 AM	#7
Packlife Gunner Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 91 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years. This is not the case an your idea of a "rebel" staged scheme falls flat. I've seen more then 1 doctor on CNN watch those videos an call out all the little things that say yes this person is dying from a chemical weapons attack. An then there's the rows of dead kids, you think your gonna get that many kids to lay that still an not breath for minutes yeah ok. An Assad doesn't care he did it once twice up to 30 times an nobody said anything till the attack on the 21st. Even the inspectors said they were held up for 4 days while Assad's ppl ratcheted up the shelling of the area where the attack's took place. The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

08-31-13, 08:27 AM	#9
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,767 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	@packlife: sS you were there and saw it ? And maybe even teset this substance ? I have to say, Mr Kerry telling me that 'certain substances' have been used, does not convince me. He should at least had held up some test tube with some green slime in it, you know like Powell did, before the UN. And Mr Cheney in the background, somewhere, THAT would have convinced me, since i am still dumb as a brick