Syria: It is immoral to use chemical weapons....

Syria had always denied they had chemical weapons, right up until 2012 when they admitted they do in fact have them and not only do they have them but independent assessments indicated that Syria also manufactures them to, these chemical weapons include Sarin, Tabun, VX and Mustard Gas, and now it seems that after being blamed for the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people, the Syrian Gov have stated that it is immoral to ever use their chemical weapons, and they don't want to use them, it is immoral!, so the most obvious question that springs to mind is why do they have them in the first place then?, and why do they continue to manufacture these weapons if they have no intention of ever using them?

Then as a response to the possibility of military action from the West, over the use of chemical weapons, the Syrian gov state that if it comes to military action they will defend themselves with all means that are at their disposal?

so, what the hell does that mean?, will they use their chemical weapons that are at their disposal on any country that steps foot or intervenes in the Syrian country with military force?

Thoughts?

"Western non-governmental organizations have stated they believe Syria has an active chemical weapons program.[5][6][7][8] Syria is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, though it is a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol which prohibits the first use of chemical weapons. In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it denied that it had chemical weapons,[9] but admitted it possessed such weapons in 2012.[10] Syria is one of six states that have not signed and eight that have not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.[11] Syria reportedly manufactures Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas types of chemical weapons.[12] Independent assessments indicate that Syrian production could be up to a combined total of a few hundred tons of chemical agent per year.[13] (To provide context for this estimate, 190,000 tons were manufactured by World War I participants.[14])"

WIKI.... en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, there was the same crap before the iraq war, we were told about all these crazy weapons were being made in hundreds of roaming labs to keep them hidden. Funny how they all disappeared eh? And really, who is the western world to criticize any other nations for what weapons they may have or may be making? When we get rid of all our nukes and crap, maybe we will have a leg to stand on. Until then, nothing but lieing hypocrites.

reply to post by TKDRL


Yeah i agree, iraq was set up, there were never any WMD there but Syria is a bit different isn't it, because if the wiki source is correct in stating Assad admitted he had chemical weapons in 2012?, then if that is true then it means he does have them by admission, plus that would explain his non compliance in the treaty not to have or use chemical weapons, which he is not a part of, so why?, why have chemical weapons in the first place?, its looks like a red flag to me, but thats just my opinion of course.

I think it's funny that chemical weapons are deemed immoral, yet it's perfectly acceptable for countries to be armed to the teeth with bullets, grenades, bombs, missiles and warheads.

Semantics, semantics, semantics...

What do they prefer guns, gas chambers, bombs?

Well the methods of death is all the same result = death.

So really this BS about chemical weapons is just to make the " public" think, oh my goodness, look what's happening.

But we are not so stupid...

the strike on Syria is going to happen, the public is being prepped right now. the military and the media are in full erection status. they just need a few days for it to sink in to the public's brain, while at the same time crossing the T's and dotting the i's, as far as logistics and strategy.

reply to post by xMJRx


Syria: It is immoral to use chemical weapons....

unless Syria is attacked. Then we will use them against Israel.


There. I fixed it for you.

reply to post by xMJRx


Iraq did have WMD. I was there and saw it and help test it. BUT...it was some pretty old stuff and had degraded quite a bit. It also wasn't stocked in any great quantity. Chem warfare is a losing game. It denies temporarily avenues of approach. Nukes are much the same. But at least you can track where nuclear material came from.

Bio-warfare though is a whole different matter. The problem is, you cannot contain it.

IF Assad used Chem agents, then he has a death wish. I'm thinking that Iran or maybe even western agencies supplied the weapons to the rebels.

Look at it like this.

You have the world watching, waiting for you to F-up, with the west's unimaginable war machine on your doorstep foaming at the mouth.

You are clearly winning and pushing rebel lines back after a hard 2 years fighting, and sanctions.

What do you do.

I find it very hard to believe Assad would make such a stupid stupid mistake of using a chemical weapon, its absolute suicide.

Assad far from a idiot, his well educated and surrounded by intelligent people, and is clearly good on the war front aswell, so the question is WHY ?

A = Its a set up.

reply to post by snapperski


There hasn't been a single military action in my 60+ years that has been based on TRUTH. Every one --- from Vietnam onward --- was based on fabricated evidence, lies and deceit. Why should this time be any different. TPTB have an agenda and dammit that agenda is going forward.

Originally posted by xMJRx
Syria had always denied they had chemical weapons, right up until 2012 when they admitted they do in fact have them and not only do they have them but independent assessments indicated that Syria also manufactures them to, these chemical weapons include Sarin, Tabun, VX and Mustard Gas, and now it seems that after being blamed for the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people, the Syrian Gov have stated that it is immoral to ever use their chemical weapons, and they don't want to use them, it is immoral!, so the most obvious question that springs to mind is why do they have them in the first place then?, and why do they continue to manufacture these weapons if they have no intention of ever using them?

I have no idea, why don't you ask countries like the United States the same question.

Originally posted by snapperski
Look at it like this.

You have the world watching, waiting for you to F-up, with the west's unimaginable war machine on your doorstep foaming at the mouth.

You are clearly winning and pushing rebel lines back after a hard 2 years fighting, and sanctions.

What do you do.

I find it very hard to believe Assad would make such a stupid stupid mistake of using a chemical weapon, its absolute suicide.

Assad far from a idiot, his well educated and surrounded by intelligent people, and is clearly good on the war front aswell, so the question is WHY ?

A = Its a set up.

well Assad did it once before with no retaliation...so he assumed he could get away with it now. Obama had publicly came out with the "RED LINE CROSSED" threat, and did nothing about it the first time. what if nothing was done this 2nd time...would North Korea come into play?, would Iran also? how about Pakistan?...
look, I don't like this either, and I think there is a lot of heated arguments behind closed doors going on...with phrases like "yellowcake", "mobile weapon labs" being thrown around. I think Obama is in a no win situation with this, he's going to take plenty of heat either way.

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


The reason chemical weapons are a no-no, and bombs are okay....

Bombs destroy buildings and infrastructure. Chemical weapons just kill and leave the cities in tact. Thus, no need for nation rebuilding. The whole reason we bomb people in the first place is to give work to our beloved contractors. At least that's a big part it. No work for Halliburton, no reason to kill people... Simple really.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


See my post below for the reason why we should be outraged about chemical weapons. And by we, I mean the military industrial complex.

ETA: my post above, but below your original one.

reply to post by Frettin


We know what chemical weapons do, you're basically saying its a more specific way of killing.

Reminds me of how a serial killer might think * pukes*

So its better to bomb, that way wiping out everything , the buildings , infrastructure , peoples history.... and take control.

Its much worse to use chemical weapons thus at least preserving a bit of their history on earth.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Read my post again, I'm explaining to you why we draw the line at chemical weapons, but bombs are okay. You're pretty dense if that is how you interpreted what I said.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Yes, it's better for those that profit from rebuilding the country that is bombed. Duh.

reply to post by jimmyx

well Assad did it once before with no retaliation...so he assumed he could get away with it now.

Maybe i missed something, but I'm sure it was proven that the rebels were infact the ones who committed the first Chemical attack, and even the Washington post ran a big story on evidence it was infact rebels, way back in may and acquired from Saudi Arabia, but was subsequently forgotten about like it never happen?

reply to post by xMJRx


So , where did Syria get these Alledged Chemical Weapons ? The U.S. ? Russia ? North Korea ? China ? Israel ? .....take your Pick because they Sure didn't Develope them themselves......