U.S attacks Syria

[DuffMan]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there way less damage to buildings etc, with chems? more deaths with less structural damage.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

yeah I thought it was chlorine this time for some reason.

I could be wrong, but I read a report that it was a possible combination of Mustard and Sarin gas.

I don't know if Chlorine gas would make a lot of sense because its decidedly non lethal and debilitating compared to a blister agent or nerve agent.

But I could be wrong.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Those chemical weapons were either Syria's and they didn't disarm, but the darker more complex theory is that those were Russian chemical weapons dropped from Syrian warplanes.

I read that sarin has a shelf life of 5 months, although many people who manufacture it purposely add impurities to give it a shorter shelf life due to the fact it isn't save to have the stuff sitting around for too long.

Not to be the tinfoil hat guy, but how do we even know that it was Assad's side that did it? This is exactly the same thing a rebel group or ISIS would do to stir the pot to have the U.S. attack Assad. Especially when you consider Trump's statements just before it happened about Obama being weak on Syria. It put his administration in a position where they would have to put their money where their mouth is or look weak themselves. That is why it is important that presidents temper their rhetoric about past administrations and keep their cards close to their chests. Something Trump seems incapable of.

I think there is a really good chance that Trump was played like a fiddle here. Are we just supposed to take the word of a president that is a proven pathological liar on just about every issue? And not that I care at about Assad being attacked, but it is a double edged sword. You strengthen ISIS and some of the other unsavory rebel groups at the same you weaken Assad.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Those chemical weapons were either Syria's and they didn't disarm, but the darker more complex theory is that those were Russian chemical weapons dropped from Syrian warplanes.

Or Rebel/Al-Qaeda weapons used to make it look like the Syrian Government and give the US a reason to retaliate on Assad.

[polak]

I don't agree with the "So it's fine to kill civilians with normal bombs?" rhetoric.

Obviously it's not okay to target civilians but the entire world has agreed that chemical and biological weapons are off limits. There's too much conflict in the world for the US to police every attack on civilians but the moment a regime uses chemical or biological weapons there needs to be swift action. You can debate the effectiveness of this strike but at least it's something.

I'm the last person on earth to support anything that Trump does but if Obama had retaliated when Assad did this last time, maybe it wouldn't have happened again....

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I read that sarin has a shelf life of 5 months, although many people who manufacture it purposely add impurities to give it a shorter shelf life due to the fact it isn't save to have the stuff sitting around for too long.

Not to be the tinfoil hat guy, but how do we even know that it was Assad's side that did it? This is exactly the same thing a rebel group or ISIS would do to stir the pot to have the U.S. attack Assad. Especially when you consider Trump's statements just before it happened about Obama being weak on Syria. It put his administration in a position where they would have to put their money where their mouth is or look weak themselves. That is why it is important that presidents temper their rhetoric about past administrations and keep their cards close to their chests. Something Trump seems incapable of.

I think there is a really good chance that Trump was played like a fiddle here. Are we just supposed to take the word of a president that is a proven pathological liar on just about every issue? And not that I care at about Assad being attacked, but it is a double edged sword. You strengthen ISIS and some of the other unsavory rebel groups at the same you weaken Assad.

Everything has been going Assad's way. Russian support, taking back Aleppo, the rebels have been losing ground and steam in the north, ISIS being driven back and reduced. It makes no sense for him to use chemical weapons and risk international outrage and retaliation for killing 100 people. This whole situation just isn't adding up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there way less damage to buildings etc, with chems? more deaths with less structural damage.

There's no real structural damage at all.

A artillary strike would be an air burst which would disburse droplets, the actual explosion would be relatively small and there would be little in the way of shrapnel.

Same with a bomb dropped from a plane it would be an airburst at a high altitude to ensure wide dispersal.

While there's not a lot of damage to buildings the biggest factor is the persistence of a chemical weapon. Some chemical weapons lose their effectiveness in a matter of minutes.

Sarin for example is non persistant, it will only be effective for a few minutes. The idea is you dust a weapon and kill people and then your troops can move in.

an agent like VX gas for example can stay lethal for days and coats every surface so if you brush against it with exposed skin 3 days later you die.

The other thing that effects persistance is environment. A lot of chemicals tend to breakdown in sunlight, but because of the coating effect droplets under shelves or the underside of fence posts tend to stay lethal longer.

The idea behind a persistent weapon is depopulation of a strategic area and rendering it unusable. So lets say for example you want to effectively take out a enemy logistics center so they can't ship supplies for troops. You liberally dust it with VX, so even if you don't kill everyone because they're trained to deal with this and get into their protective gear on time. Every item on that base has to be scrubbed and decontaminated as well as every nook and cranny in that center. its the same for things like strategic road crossings or railway crossings.

You can certainly use it against enemy troops, but then when you move your troops in they have to be trained to work in that environment in heavy NBC gear, which by the way is a pain in the a$$ to work in. Tanks and AFV's are usually able to over pressure themselves, but become contaminated when you open the doors to take a pee.

Even most blister agents are fairly non persistant.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I read that sarin has a shelf life of 5 months, although many people who manufacture it purposely add impurities to give it a shorter shelf life due to the fact it isn't save to have the stuff sitting around for too long.

Not to be the tinfoil hat guy, but how do we even know that it was Assad's side that did it? This is exactly the same thing a rebel group or ISIS would do to stir the pot to have the U.S. attack Assad. Especially when you consider Trump's statements just before it happened about Obama being weak on Syria. It put his administration in a position where they would have to put their money where their mouth is or look weak themselves. That is why it is important that presidents temper their rhetoric about past administrations and keep their cards close to their chests. Something Trump seems incapable of.

I think there is a really good chance that Trump was played like a fiddle here. Are we just supposed to take the word of a president that is a proven pathological liar on just about every issue? And not that I care at about Assad being attacked, but it is a double edged sword. You strengthen ISIS and some of the other unsavory rebel groups at the same you weaken Assad.

Your first part really argues against the second part. There were rumors at the start of this that ISIL had seized Syrian chemical weapons depots. But that was a couple of years back. Any stockpile of Sarin would be fairly worthless by now. On top of that ISIL isn't known for showing restraint, they would have used it within hours against a civilian population or Syrian military units.

As well for example because of ISIL's doomsday philosophy of their desire to draw western powers into a war of Armageddon they would have used this against the American's by now because the natural American response would have been a war of extermination against ISIL.

ISIL really hasn't shown a lot in terms of being able to effectively use seized aircraft, and this strike came off of the wings of either a Russian or Syrian attack jet, and I highly doubt that the Russians would do it because of American intelligence and radar intercept aircraft in the area.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As well for example because of ISIL's doomsday philosophy of their desire to draw western powers into a war of Armageddon they would have used this against the American's by now because the natural American response would have been a war of extermination against ISIL.

Given the depth of Trump's thought process (or rather lack thereof) I'm honestly pretty surprised he hasn't given them what they want yet.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by photon

The one thing that kind of got me in that:

The question I get over and over from Syrians is, why is it ok to kill us with bombs but not with gas? What's the difference?

.

Because we make bombs, not gas. Obviously.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Everything has been going Assad's way. Russian support, taking back Aleppo, the rebels have been losing ground and steam in the north, ISIS being driven back and reduced. It makes no sense for him to use chemical weapons and risk international outrage and retaliation for killing 100 people. This whole situation just isn't adding up.

Your thinking that Assaad is rational here and wants to capture hearts and minds?

This has always been about the annihilation of rebel groups, and anyone that opposes him and to generally cow the remaining population so they don't rise against him again.

I certainly don't see the benefit of a rebel group poisoning themselves, it makes no sense unless you believe that everything is an underlying conspiracy and that the rebels in the hopes of gaining international help from the American's would gas their own.

Sometimes a banana is just a banana

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Given the depth of Trump's thought process (or rather lack thereof) I'm honestly pretty surprised he hasn't given them what they want yet.

At the end of the day I believe that as big of a talker as Trump is that he's a pretty cautious guy. He's said before that he doesn't want to really be involved over there.

I also would hope that his Joint Chiefs who are pretty experienced guys gave him a convincing argument about the quagmire of fighting a ground war over there.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Your first part really argues against the second part. There were rumors at the start of this that ISIL had seized Syrian chemical weapons depots. But that was a couple of years back. Any stockpile of Sarin would be fairly worthless by now. On top of that ISIL isn't known for showing restraint, they would have used it within hours against a civilian population or Syrian military units.

As well for example because of ISIL's doomsday philosophy of their desire to draw western powers into a war of Armageddon they would have used this against the American's by now because the natural American response would have been a war of extermination against ISIL.

ISIL really hasn't shown a lot in terms of being able to effectively use seized aircraft, and this strike came off of the wings of either a Russian or Syrian attack jet, and I highly doubt that the Russians would do it because of American intelligence and radar intercept aircraft in the area.

It could have been a more recent batch of sarin produced and either siezed or purchased, and not necessarily the same chemicals they were rumoured to steal a few years ago (which likely wasn't true for the reasons you mentioned).

[northcrunk]

Was there any casualties at all in the air strike? Seems like there wasn't any and they just hit the airstrip/buildings. If true that's a pretty smart strike. Doesn't seem like he is declaring war but trying to set up a safe zone for civilians to flee.

[photon]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't agree with the "So it's fine to kill civilians with normal bombs?" rhetoric.

Obviously it's not okay to target civilians but the entire world has agreed that chemical and biological weapons are off limits.

It wasn't rhetoric, it was someone reporting what Syrians, the ones being targeted, were asking.

War crimes are also something that the entire world has agreed are off limits.

Like I said I get that chemical weapons are a different kind of animal, it's just sounds a bit hollow to explain to the people being targeted that killing tens or hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons doesn't warrant a response but killing a few dozen with chemical weapons does.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Your thinking that Assaad is rational here and wants to capture hearts and minds?

This has always been about the annihilation of rebel groups, and anyone that opposes him and to generally cow the remaining population so they don't rise against him again.

I certainly don't see the benefit of a rebel group poisoning themselves, it makes no sense unless you believe that everything is an underlying conspiracy and that the rebels in the hopes of gaining international help from the American's would gas their own.

Sometimes a banana is just a banana

And Assad has been doing that pretty well without using chemical weapons for years. Why now? What is there to gain? Just because he is a dictator doesn't make him irrational.

The benefit of a rebel group killing a few dozen people is the US airstriking the Syrian government. It gets the world's eyes back on Syrian and condemning their enemy. Just because they oppose Assad doesn't make them saints. Al-Qaeda is strong in that region too and they would love to see the US blow the crap out of Assad.

Just seems to me that there are a lot of other parties that gain way more than Assad did from these deaths. He may be a ruthless dictator but that doesn't make him dumb.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Was there any casualties at all in the air strike? Seems like there wasn't any and they just hit the airstrip/buildings. If true that's a pretty smart strike. Doesn't seem like he is declaring war but trying to set up a safe zone for civilians to flee.

That's some spin the Tasmanian Devil would be proud of. Like Donald Trump gives two ####s about civilians or Syrians in general. This is the same ####### who turned his back on refugees from the region to feed his xenophobic followers hatred of people they don't understand. This is a distraction from the Russian investigation. Nothing more.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't rhetoric, it was someone reporting what Syrians, the ones being targeted, were asking.

War crimes are also something that the entire world has agreed are off limits.

Like I said I get that chemical weapons are a different kind of animal, it's just sounds a bit hollow to explain to the people being targeted that killing tens or hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons doesn't warrant a response but killing a few dozen with chemical weapons does.

I get what your saying, and I don't know how to honestly debate it without going miles. But the designation of weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, chemical, biological) is its own definition of weapons separated from other weapons that are to an extent more controllable the WMD's.

When you pull the genie out of the bottle and fire it in terms of a WMD its nearly uncontrollable in terms of casualties and even worse in terms of use against civilian targets.

In terms of conventional munitions you can limit or to an extent control civilian casualties.

Not a good explanation I know.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

And Assad has been doing that pretty well without using chemical weapons for years. Why now? What is there to gain? Just because he is a dictator doesn't make him irrational.

The benefit of a rebel group killing a few dozen people is the US airstriking the Syrian government. It gets the world's eyes back on Syrian and condemning their enemy. Just because they oppose Assad doesn't make them saints. Al-Qaeda is strong in that region too and they would love to see the US blow the crap out of Assad.

Just seems to me that there are a lot of other parties that gain way more than Assad did from these deaths. He may be a ruthless dictator but that doesn't make him dumb.

He's used chemical weapons in the past and those attacks were rarely for strategic intent, he's dropped against populated area, so there's a pattern to him using chemical weapons whether he was doing well or not.

There are logical reasons for the non use of chemical weapons over the last 3 or 4 years. Maybe he was advised by the Russians to stop because of UN attention. Maybe he shot off his bolt in terms of his stockpile. Maybe Russia told him to lay off when they promised to disarm.

I don't know, but to sit here and try to classify this as part of some rational thought process by a third world despot who has been more then willing to kill civilians using chemical weapons and say that it makes no sense because he's doing well.

this could all be that he used these weapons because at this point he's doing well and maybe he believes or has been assured that the Russians will protect him so he's looking at a end game of a cowed and terrified population that will never rise up against him again.

I doubt that this is some kind of American Russian conspiracy to throw heat off of Trump.

What I would make an assumption on is that America had an awacs in the air or one of their advanced listening posts on the ground and they should be able to show the tracks of the attacks and where they came from.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by belsarius

And Assad has been doing that pretty well without using chemical weapons for years. Why now? What is there to gain? Just because he is a dictator doesn't make him irrational.

The benefit of a rebel group killing a few dozen people is the US airstriking the Syrian government. It gets the world's eyes back on Syrian and condemning their enemy. Just because they oppose Assad doesn't make them saints. Al-Qaeda is strong in that region too and they would love to see the US blow the crap out of Assad.

Just seems to me that there are a lot of other parties that gain way more than Assad did from these deaths. He may be a ruthless dictator but that doesn't make him dumb.

And not to mention Trump's "redline" comments just before the gas attack. It was pretty much an invitation to ignite a retaliation. Assad is a bad man, but he is not an idiot.

Occam's Razor is difficult to define in this situation. Assad may have the most obvious means for doing something like this, but tactically, his motives would be less likely than those of the groups he is fighting for such an attack. He used gas is 2013, but he was on the ropes at that point. That is not the case right now. I think "false-flag" is a real possibility with this one.