No, surprisingly even whacky cultists can make and deploy the stuff to some degree. Throw in people who actually have educations (Syria has/had a very well funded school system) and deploy it be fanatics who aren't worried about their own lives, and it could be used by just about any of them.Swadius 2.0 said:
The Syrian Civil War. Do you support a side?
- Thread starter Heafodban
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Chechen!
If you are aware that things are so unclear, then why are you making stupid, bold assumptions?
Also please provide sources.
Also please provide sources.
Shatari said:
I've been under the impression that the canisters used were ones developed by the military that rebels may have captured when they overran several bases earlier in the year. Ones that might be a lot more complicated, or at least their mechanisms unfamiliar to people who have not trained in their use.
Al Qaeda seems to have much more experience making bombs than chemical weapons.
Has anyone heard of some real opposition party or some of their leaders which could actually replace Assad? AFAIK most of the rebels are members of radical Islamic groups, I might be wrong though.
I think Assad should leave but the question is have they anyone there to replace him?
I think Assad should leave but the question is have they anyone there to replace him?
Lord Burgess1
Swadius 2.0 said:
The FSA has former Syrian soldiers in its ranks, it's quite possible that some of them have an idea on the deployment of chemical weapons, I'm not actually sure of the delivery method of the chemical weapons but if it's Artillery Shells then they might just be ad hocing the shells into the guns.
I think the Syrians have BZ, that isn't lethal, but other than that I don't know what stuff they produced.
Duh
Duke
Those whacky cultists were a very wealthy, global organisation, which recruited many of japans young elite (including medical personal) into their ranks (supposedly around 50k members worldwide at the time). Its a pretty difficult comparison, if you consider that the rebels on the other hand are not a unified movement and ressource allocation (both in regards to weapons and human ressources) would be difficult at best. Another major difference would be that the sect constructed their own weapons, while the rebels would be using military equipment. I suppose most of the groups could trigger the chemical weapons in some way, but whether they can properly/effectively use them to kill people... is a different question.Shatari said:
The little use of chemical weapons by non-state actors would indicate that it is a complex and difficult procedure though.
You have yet to provide any source that clearly proves the use of chemical weapons by a specific side.Lascivo said:
Sir Saladin
Count
I always have a tough time deciding who to root for in these Shiite versus Sunni conflicts. The Iraqis have really been going at it lately too. I'm sure it won't have any effect on the rest of the world no matter which team wins the rulership of Syria, but I'm also pretty sure the U.S.A. & I. won't be happy either way.
QuintessentialTurk
Sergeant at Arms
If you support the dictator (assad) against rebels (people), you should know that this is the biggest reason for radical Islamists to attack West. Western states supported those dictators against the people for the last 80 years for their own benefits (and Israel's benefit). Either support the people or stay out completely but don't expect them to like you when you support the dictator who oppress them.
Lord Burgess1
80 years? You don't speak very highly of the French.
It's foolish to root for anyone in a complex situation like in Syria, so I'd like to unask the original question for meaninglessness.
The question is what is the best possible outcome for the region and the world?
I would think some kind of shared factional representation would be needed, most likely with broad autonomy for regions dominated by particular factions. It would be worst if there was one winner that would take all.
The question is what is the best possible outcome for the region and the world?
I would think some kind of shared factional representation would be needed, most likely with broad autonomy for regions dominated by particular factions. It would be worst if there was one winner that would take all.
Mage246
I'm sorry, why exactly are we treating the FSA as one group, rather than a bunch of loosely organized and affiliated factions? And why are we accepting it without question that Al Qaeda is a part of the FSA, when the FSA expelled a group for declaring that it was allied with Al Qaeda.
Lascivo, you are a bigoted, uneducated, uninformed, barely literate moron.
Lascivo, you are a bigoted, uneducated, uninformed, barely literate moron.
QuintessentialTurk said:
The thing is that the most powerful people that are against the dictator are what the West calls Radical Islamists.
MadVader said:
There is no good outcome in the current situation. The only way for that to happen is to stop any political entity from interfering with those geographies and leave them to evolve on their own.
Sir Saladin
Count
I don't expect Syria to be much better off than Iraq if the rebels overthrow their dictator.
Duh said:
Radical Islamists are against anyone who is not violent in an Hammurabi way.
They are the evil dictators that are oppressing the people to the point that they will eventually want the radical Islamists to take power. The thing is that these Radical Islamists are those that are supported by West in the first place. Like what happened in Iran.
