So another "chemical" attack in Syria?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, you suggest now that Trump, Putin and Assad colluded?

The US warned Russia of the attacks (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/the-us-warned-the-russians-ahead-of-syria-missile-strikes-official.html). When the Syrians noticed the Russians leaving, some of them moved as well.

This attack did not physically harm Russia. Maybe it will make Assad think twice about using chemical weapons against his citizens. And the attack allows Trump to shift focus away from the investigations about the involvement of Russia in the Trump campaign.

It is a master political stroke. Whether it will actually be effective in that region is a whole other story.

It was a master political stroke depending on how stupid you are. In military terms it was a complete failure and achieved nothing. Give it some time, it's sure to go sour when people start getting facts about what happened.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Stop this bullshit already. I never denied Sarin or anything else. I merely repeated what the sources you all quote say which is some people reported smell of chlorine. As for sarin, it would only mean it was deliberate, it does not mean Assad is responsible.

Bombs dropped from a plane and people died from Sarin gas poisoning. So Syria, Russia, Turkey, and the US are the ones with the jets.

Suggesting ISIS has access to Sarin gas would be of extraordinary importance and require immediate actions to absolutely quell that, but I don't hear Syria and Russia suggesting any such immediate action. So that pretty much means someone with jets dropped chemical weapons on a rebel held area in Syria. Turkey and the US are unlikely, Russia denies having a jet in the area. That leaves Syria.

I'm not so sure. Even a relatively small amount of Sarin can be VERY lethal to a wide area, so the Daesh wouldn't have needed a lot of it for it to have that kind of effect. On the other hand, NOT having a lot of it would adequately explain why they never used it before: if they only have enough of it to use it once or twice, they would have been saving it for a "last stand" if it looked like Assad/Russia was really about to deliver a killing blow. They might have enough of the stuff for one or two attacks that could, in a pinch, turn the tide of a losing battle, but not enough to start using it at random to win meaningless skirmishes in cities they don't really even control.

They certainly have less of it NOW though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So, you suggest now that Trump, Putin and Assad colluded?

The US warned Russia of the attacks (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/the-us-warned-the-russians-ahead-of-syria-missile-strikes-official.html). When the Syrians noticed the Russians leaving, some of them moved as well.

This attack did not physically harm Russia. Maybe it will make Assad think twice about using chemical weapons against his citizens. And the attack allows Trump to shift focus away from the investigations about the involvement of Russia in the Trump campaign.

It is a master political stroke. Whether it will actually be effective in that region is a whole other story.

You're implying a degree of intelligence and thoughtfulness to Trump that is not even slightly warranted.

I'm pretty sure that what REALLY happened is that Trump saw some Fox News commentary blaming Syria for the chemical weapons attack, saw the commentary as credible, and decided to act twenty minutes later. Trump gets 90% of his military intelligence from the news, and 99% of his foreign policy advice from right-wing bloggers.

The only "master stroke" he ever makes is right on Melania's forehead.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think the media wants to keep the Trump gravy train rolling. Which means they have to shout from the rooftops every time he does something they can interpret as showing leadership or being presidential.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm not so sure. Even a relatively small amount of Sarin can be VERY lethal to a wide area, so the Daesh wouldn't have needed a lot of it for it to have that kind of effect. On the other hand, NOT having a lot of it would adequately explain why they never used it before: if they only have enough of it to use it once or twice, they would have been saving it for a "last stand" if it looked like Assad/Russia was really about to deliver a killing blow. They might have enough of the stuff for one or two attacks that could, in a pinch, turn the tide of a losing battle, but not enough to start using it at random to win meaningless skirmishes in cities they don't really even control.

They certainly have less of it NOW though.

How much sarin is lethal over how much area for how long?

What I'm reading is that large amounts are required. Sarin is volatile; it evaporates quickly.

 

[barbos]

I would not call it "great deal".
I would call it fair attempt. Problem with it is that Russia does not support Assad unconditionally and he knows it.

That's not a problem for the theory, rather the opposite. If Russia's support were unconditional, there would be no need for Assad to drive a wedge between Russia and the US. If the two combine to force Assad to accept, say, Kurdish autonomy, that's a problem. This attack neatly derails that possibility.

And I thought Russians were the better chess players. Looks like Assad is a Mikhail Tal.

The theory is still crap, but at least it acknowledges the fact of lack of sense for Assad to do it. The only thing which can improve Assad's standing is military success and this chemical attack does not help that at all.

 

[barbos]

I'm not so sure. Even a relatively small amount of Sarin can be VERY lethal to a wide area, so the Daesh wouldn't have needed a lot of it for it to have that kind of effect. On the other hand, NOT having a lot of it would adequately explain why they never used it before: if they only have enough of it to use it once or twice, they would have been saving it for a "last stand" if it looked like Assad/Russia was really about to deliver a killing blow. They might have enough of the stuff for one or two attacks that could, in a pinch, turn the tide of a losing battle, but not enough to start using it at random to win meaningless skirmishes in cities they don't really even control.

They certainly have less of it NOW though.

How much sarin is lethal over how much area for how long?

What I'm reading is that large amounts are required. Sarin is volatile; it evaporates quickly.

Well, Sarin is one of the best poisons, that means small amounts are required.

 

[Horatio Parker]

How much sarin is lethal over how much area for how long?

What I'm reading is that large amounts are required. Sarin is volatile; it evaporates quickly.

Well, Sarin is one of the best poisons, that means small amounts are required.

How small? To kill a hundred and sicken 500 more in a village.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's not a problem for the theory, rather the opposite. If Russia's support were unconditional, there would be no need for Assad to drive a wedge between Russia and the US. If the two combine to force Assad to accept, say, Kurdish autonomy, that's a problem. This attack neatly derails that possibility.

And I thought Russians were the better chess players. Looks like Assad is a Mikhail Tal.

The theory is still crap, but at least it acknowledges the fact of lack of sense for Assad to do it. The only thing which can improve Assad's standing is military success and this chemical attack does not help that at all.

The fact of lack of sense? What does that mean?

It acknowledges the sensibility of Assad leaving his Russian allies to twist in the wind: by isolating the superpowers, they can't force a settlement on him he doesn't want.

 

[barbos]

The theory is still crap, but at least it acknowledges the fact of lack of sense for Assad to do it. The only thing which can improve Assad's standing is military success and this chemical attack does not help that at all.

The fact of lack of sense? What does that mean?

It means authors of the theory understand that it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons, hence the need for convoluted theory of theirs.

It acknowledges the sensibility of Assad leaving his Russian allies to twist in the wind: by isolating the superpowers, they can't force a settlement on him he doesn't want.

There are simpler answers to the milion dollar questions which don't involve Assad being responsible.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The fact of lack of sense? What does that mean?

It means authors of the theory understand that it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons, hence the need for convoluted theory of theirs.

It acknowledges the sensibility of Assad leaving his Russian allies to twist in the wind: by isolating the superpowers, they can't force a settlement on him he doesn't want.

There are simpler answers to the milion dollar questions which don't involve Assad being responsible.

I haven't seen any. The ones I've seen are fantastic. Sarin is stored as separate ingredients, typically in separate locations. It's volatile, so it disappears quickly. A leaking canister, presuming one mixed with the elements, would not affect so many or so widely. A direct hit would mostly destroy the gas.

AQ, Hillary, the Israelis, whatever, come up with all the "simple" conspiracies you like, none of them hold water.

No, the simplest explanation is that the guy known to have the capability did it: Assad.

 

[barbos]

Well, Sarin is one of the best poisons, that means small amounts are required.

How small? To kill a hundred and sicken 500 more in a village.

I am not an expert, But I know the "efficiency" of chemical weapons varies greatly depending on wind temperature and geography.
But I would not be surprised if 20 litters of the poison did that if released in populated area.

 

[Horatio Parker]

How small? To kill a hundred and sicken 500 more in a village.

I am not an expert, But I know the "efficiency" of chemical weapons varies greatly depending on wind temperature and geography.
But I would not be surprised if 20 litters of the poison did that if released in populated area.

“The pattern of casualties isn’t right for the distribution of materials that you would get if you had a location with toxic materials breached by an airstrike. It’s more consistent with canisters that have distributed [chemical weapons] over a wider population,” Guthrie said.

While it is impossible to assess the exact amount of chemical agent used immediately, the extent and distribution of the casualties are consistent with the use of hundreds of kilos.

Sarin is too complicated and expensive for rebels to have manufactured themselves, and while they might potentially have obtained some supplies of stolen nerve agents or other gas, it is very unlikely to be more than a few kilos.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun

 

[barbos]

It means authors of the theory understand that it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons, hence the need for convoluted theory of theirs.

It acknowledges the sensibility of Assad leaving his Russian allies to twist in the wind: by isolating the superpowers, they can't force a settlement on him he doesn't want.

There are simpler answers to the milion dollar questions which don't involve Assad being responsible.

I haven't seen any. The ones I've seen are fantastic. Sarin is stored as separate ingredients, typically in separate locations.

Not if you are a terrorist.

It's volatile, so it disappears quickly.

disappears? where?

A leaking canister, presuming one mixed with the elements, would not affect so many or so widely.

I would not bet on it.

A direct hit would mostly destroy the gas.

And how likely is direct hit? And I would not bet on it destroying it even if happens.

AQ, Hillary, the Israelis, whatever, come up with all the "simple" conspiracies you like, none of them hold water.

Do you know what does not hold water too? Assad doing it.

No, the simplest explanation is that the guy known to have the capability did it: Assad.

US has capability too, so are Saudis and Qatari, and they have motive to do it, unlike Assad.

 

[barbos]

I am not an expert, But I know the "efficiency" of chemical weapons varies greatly depending on wind temperature and geography.
But I would not be surprised if 20 litters of the poison did that if released in populated area.

“The pattern of casualties isn’t right for the distribution of materials that you would get if you had a location with toxic materials breached by an airstrike. It’s more consistent with canisters that have distributed [chemical weapons] over a wider population,” Guthrie said.

While it is impossible to assess the exact amount of chemical agent used immediately, the extent and distribution of the casualties are consistent with the use of hundreds of kilos.

Sarin is too complicated and expensive for rebels to have manufactured themselves, and while they might potentially have obtained some supplies of stolen nerve agents or other gas, it is very unlikely to be more than a few kilos.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun

Assuming this expert does not bend the truth it excludes leaking canister, but it does not exclude deliberate actions by a third party - Saudis/Qatari/rebels themselves/US/Israel/Russia/North Kore/Ukraine/Germany/etc

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're no expert, but you airily dismiss expertise. You do Trump proud.

I'm done wasting time here.

 

[Will Wiley]

In principle I think the bombing was justifiable, if it was only a retaliation for the chemical weapons usage and not the start of a longer campaign. If there are no repercusions for using chemical weapons, then that is basicallly accepting that chemical weapons are ok to use. And we all know that UN wouldn'd do jack shit about it.

The drawback is that US better be damn sure that it was the regime who was responsible, and not the rebels. Otherwise this creates a huge incentive to fake chemical weapons attacks in hopes to draw Americans into the fight.

Will this fix anything in Syria? No, but it might stop chemical weapons from being used. Assad has to kill his opponents in an old-fashioned way with bullets and bombs like everybody else.

What is still lacking is an American intelligence assessment that Assad was behind it.
All we have at the moment is an indication that trump will commit war crimes when he has an emotional reaction. This is very dangerous.

Assad may have committed a war crime. We don't know. Trump definitely committed a war crime. He bombed another nation because he felt like it. Before there was any investigation.

 

[Will Wiley]

In principle I think the bombing was justifiable, if it was only a retaliation for the chemical weapons usage and not the start of a longer campaign. If there are no repercusions for using chemical weapons, then that is basicallly accepting that chemical weapons are ok to use. And we all know that UN wouldn'd do jack shit about it.

The drawback is that US better be damn sure that it was the regime who was responsible, and not the rebels. Otherwise this creates a huge incentive to fake chemical weapons attacks in hopes to draw Americans into the fight.

Will this fix anything in Syria? No, but it might stop chemical weapons from being used. Assad has to kill his opponents in an old-fashioned way with bullets and bombs like everybody else.

This. Trump actually did something right.

Trump committed a war crime. There has been no investigation into where the chemicals came from. The only ones who benefit are the terrorists, including the rebels.

 

[barbos]

You're no expert, but you airily dismiss expertise. You do Trump proud.

I'm done wasting time here.

I did not dismiss that expert, I assumed what he said was true.

 

[barbos]

This. Trump actually did something right.

Trump committed a war crime. There has been no investigation into where the chemicals came from. The only ones who benefit are the terrorists, including the rebels.

Yes, there were no investigation and reports are all from rebels themselves. We can't even be sure if there was any attack at all. it's still possible that this thing is a complete fabrication from the rebels, none of it is true, there were no chemical attack at all. Or the scale of the attack was consistent with terrorist act by rebels.