Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Post)   Syria: So we were just walking around Damascus and we stumbled upon these rebel tunnels, and wouldn't you know it, we found a whole bunch of chemical weapons just laying there, proving we didn't gas anyone. Funny how that worked out, ain't it?   ( globalpost.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, chemical agents, Damascus, Syrians, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel  
•       •       •

5181 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2013 at 2:43 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-24 03:20:38 PM  
6 votes:
Can't americans figure out they are being played for chumps again?

It's all a damn set up so the people with power in the USA can make their next move in their real life game of risk. Meanwhile the military industrial complex gets another war to profit from.

For crying out loud many of the rebels in Syria are of the same group american taxpayers are paying the bill to fight in Afghanistan. These rebels are killing anyone not of their religion in Syria. They aren't good people. They are being funded and supported because they achieve a higher political goal for the powers that be. Never mind what happens to regular people in the process.

If you don't think a chemical weapons attack would be launched or staged to convince the american people into supporting yet another war where the US federal government has no business being in the first place you're naive and ignorant of history. Americans have been falling for bullshiat like this for about 150 years now. Then decades later they learn they were lied to but then it happens again. Remember the Maine. Gulf of Tokin. Germans killing babies, Iraq's military killing babies.... on an on. Chumps falling for it every time.

Americans are chumps and being played for chumps, again.
2013-08-24 05:37:24 PM  
4 votes:

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


The Rebels get the chemical weapons from the exact same stockpiles that the Syrian military got theirs from.  Territorial control has been swapped throughout this civil war and many weapons storage facilities have been in Rebel hands that may contain chemical weapons.  Add to it the fact that chemical weapons have been distributed to Syrian units to maintain some capability and avoid a surgical strike on depots which may eliminate the weapons from the inventory then there are a lot of these weapons floating around.  So if Syrian chemical weapons were used in this rebel held neighborhood, it still doesn't say who fired the weapons.

Now on the face of it, Assad of course wouldn't shed a tear in gassing these enemies. That being said, he doesn't need to do this because his forces (along with Iraqi, Iranian, Hezbollah, as well as Kurdish support in the east) have been pushing back Rebels in many areas and generally winning in a conventional manner using armor, aircraft, and rockets.  Using chemical weapons isn't needed and would only open the door to enhanced western support of rebel units as well as making things more difficult for his financial backers in Russia and Iran.  It doesn't make sense for him to engage this activity unlike 6 months ago when the Rebels held more territory and there was significant doubt about the outcome.  However, just because it didn't make sense doesn't mean  Assad or a commander under his control decided to use the weapons. Given the reluctance of Assad to allow inspectors in the area may suggest guilt, or knowledge that the weapons came from Syria which may tend to point the finger at the government.

Now the rebels on their face would seemingly be reluctant to kill their own.  However, the rebels are not a unitary command structure and there are various factions that are fighting amongst themselves as well as Assad's forces.  Their military situation has been getting more desperate and they are being pushed back in the East, West and South losing key cities and transport routes.  Given this situation, some factions may consider gassing their own people to be acceptable if it works to attract more significant aid to allow them to reverse the trends.  If this nets the forces more advanced weapons, air support, cruise missile strikes, financial assistance, and training, then the sacrifice of a few hundred or thousand women and children may be worthwhile.

I don't know who gassed the neighborhood.  I don't think it is clear cut as many are suggesting even if we find out they are Syrian weapons.  As much as some may want to use this as evidence to get involved, the situation hasn't really changed.  There is no good outcome for this situation and helping the rebels will only cost us blood and treasure while creating a new Afghanistan in the Middle East with various factions ruling a fragmented Syria.
2013-08-24 03:00:36 PM  
3 votes:
That is some brass-balls level audacity.  They find the chem weapons in rebel tunnels near a region held by the rebels, thus throwing the blame on the rebels AND giving them more reason to bomb the living shiat out of the rebel region.

Because if you're a bunch of rebels and you've gassed your own fellow rebels in order to make the Syrian government look bad, then you're going to leave the evidence of it 'outside' your region of control in some tunnels that are near patrolling government forces.

The Syrian government sincerely thinks that the rest of the world is farking retarded.
2013-08-24 02:49:32 PM  
3 votes:

dj_bigbird: Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.

They got them from Libya. How did they get them from Libya? Hmm.....

And the Syrian army would be crazy to use them, they're beating the shiat out of the rebels, no need to resort to chemical weapons.


Exactly.  Looking at the death toll, and the hopelessness of their situation, it makes perfect sense that they would sacrifice some of their own people to get U.S. Military support.  If they've lost 1 million, then sacrificing 1,000 to turn the tide is acceptable collateral damage.
2013-08-24 02:49:07 PM  
3 votes:

Ambivalence: That's not suspicious at ALL.


Unlike using chemical weapons just after granting access to the UN inspectors. Got you.
2013-08-24 03:39:22 PM  
2 votes:

way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.


Okay, let us see what would happen if the West went and put their weight behind your "lesser" of two evils.

We would help oust Asad, who is relatively moderate, and thus make room for Al Queda to take control. Or at least destabilise things enough that they will get regions under their control. Individual liberties, as much as there are, will go down the drain. Women will lose even the vestiges of rights they have because Al Queda isn't big on those. Locals will either be bullied in helping/supporting Al Queda or be hunted down.

Just how is Al Queda the lesser evil? Because they didn't use a chemical weapon? That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and will hurt the population at large far more than a few gas canisters. Just let them figure their own shiat out and steer away from this clusterfark. There is no good ending and if "we" are getting blamed either way ("You could have helped!" vs "You were the ones who ousted Assad, things were better then!"), then it is better to be blamed after not losing resources and lives of our own.
2013-08-24 03:22:15 PM  
2 votes:

Infernalist: That is some brass-balls level audacity.  They find the chem weapons in rebel tunnels near a region held by the rebels, thus throwing the blame on the rebels AND giving them more reason to bomb the living shiat out of the rebel region.

Because if you're a bunch of rebels and you've gassed your own fellow rebels in order to make the Syrian government look bad, then you're going to leave the evidence of it 'outside' your region of control in some tunnels that are near patrolling government forces.

The Syrian government sincerely thinks that the rest of the world is farking retarded.


Well you are.  Well, maybe not retarded but stupid enough not to realize that there are several rebel factions and none of them particularly like each other.  Gassing an opposing faction knowing that the idiot in the American White House is itching to get into the mess and will blame anything on the Syrian government is far more logical than the government gassing them when 1) they are winning, 2) have Russian advisors on the ground with more Russian equipment on the way, 3) have already let the UN in, and 4) have pretty much proven that the last gas attack was done by rebels (or at least proved it well enough to get everyone to back off for a while).
2013-08-24 03:07:12 PM  
2 votes:
Let them figure it out for themselves. It's a choice between a regime and a bunch of religious fanatics, which really isn't much of a choice. Consider it Darwinian garbage cleanup and stay out.
2013-08-24 03:02:27 PM  
2 votes:
Have to say the only complaint that I have against the way the Obama Administration has handled this situation was coming several months ago and saying the use of chemical weapons we be crossing a red line and then not doing anything once it was established chemical weapons have been used several times.

That being said, there really does not seem to be a "winning" strategy with this situation.  Assad is a bad, bad dude but the rebels are not the sort of folks I have any confidence in how they would rule should they be successful in taking down Assad.

Sadly, it seems the Syrian people are the big losers regardless of the outcome.
2013-08-24 02:56:16 PM  
2 votes:
I see the Fark warmongers are already up and running.
2013-08-24 02:50:55 PM  
2 votes:

omnibus_necanda_sunt: What really pisses me off, though, are people who have a knee-jerk reaction to any thought of intervention in the Middle East. This go around, it wouldn't be based on lies, it wouldn't be an experiment in creating "free economic zones," it wouldn't be a product of American hubris, and it wouldn't be sorting out anyone's daddy issues. In addition, we've learned a great deal from Iraq, like "DON'T DISBAND THE FREAKING ARMY PUTTING THOUSANDS OF VIOLENT MEN OUT OF WORK AND ONTO THE STREETS."

Those familiar with just how much nuance went into Obama's approach to Iran prior to the 2009 elections (at which point Republicans and AIPAC cocksuckers in Congress forced his hand) should feel pretty confident in his ability to finesse the situation.


The morons who devoutly supported the last war had fantasies in their mind of cheap oil for their Hummer, took Ann Coulter's speech of "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" to heart (some of them probably also went to Iraq to try to convert Muslims after the "Mission Accomplished" banner was shown), and actually think the world would be better if it was run like a business (despite it not helping them at all, and hurting them in most cases, unless they have a few thousand shares in Exxon). There is no doubt that this mentality is continuing today, no matter how destructive it is.
2013-08-24 02:50:20 PM  
2 votes:
Assad cannot lose or else the whole region will lose and rebels aka Al Qaeda will actually be in political control of a country. They will try to gain other countries afterwards. Eventually they'll fight to get back Jerusalem. This is just a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Back off USA.
2013-08-24 01:15:33 PM  
2 votes:

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


They got them from Libya. How did they get them from Libya? Hmm.....

And the Syrian army would be crazy to use them, they're beating the shiat out of the rebels, no need to resort to chemical weapons.
2013-08-25 12:25:25 AM  
1 vote:
I herd they got teh yellow cake from the Nigeria and such.

This all sounds totally legit.

WMDs FTW
2013-08-24 10:08:04 PM  
1 vote:
Amos Quito, I feel the need to help you out.

Just show up to these threads and say, 'the Jews did it' - and then leave.  You'll save yourself, and all the rest of us, an enormous amount of time.


/were you a toothache in a past life?
2013-08-24 09:43:50 PM  
1 vote:

Infernalist: Like him or hate him, this President knows how to do foreign policy.


That's damned funny.
2013-08-24 09:17:56 PM  
1 vote:

way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

So we rattle his cage and let the people on the street can decide what they want from there. Maybe we can get a good foot in the door with the next government, or maybe we don't have to care if they keep their problems to themselves.

Its better than letting the use of WMDs go entirely ignored in a region that's loaded with these things.


They say they aren't big on chemical weapons, but in Afghanistan we captured video evidence of Al Qaeda testing various chemical agents on dogs. We do know Al Qaeda are masters of propaganda, as any successful terrorist organization must be, since they would be torn apart if they tried to fight any sort of conventional war. The Syrian military, on the other hand, is a conventional army, if a poorly equipped and organized one, and are more likely to carry out a coup against Assad than use nerve agents on their own people.

I think Al Qaeda has been gassing civilians and claiming the Syrian military did it. The Syrian military can only stop them in one way, by locating and capturing the gas stockpile. Once they did so, Al Qaeda had no choice but to abandon the stockpile (the only other option being to fight off the army, which would have left them getting torn apart for nothing, possibly even handing the intel they'd need to find other cells).

Of course, the Syrian military is getting thrashed by Al Qaeda's propaganda victories, and on the verge of getting crushed by the UN and the country handed over to Al Qaeda, which would have the same results as crushing Ian Smith's army in Zimbabwe and handing the country over to Robert Mugabe. No surprise they'd try to convince the UN that the gas came from anywhere other than the Syrian military's own stockpile that they had hoped to someday use on Israel.
2013-08-24 06:33:15 PM  
1 vote:
Both sides are bad, so vote re, kill them, let them kill each other.
2013-08-24 04:53:43 PM  
1 vote:

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons? It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


Captured Syrian weapons.
2013-08-24 04:38:17 PM  
1 vote:
The US seems to believe every uprising is some triumph of democracy. This is not that, the tree of liberty does not grow in the desert.
2013-08-24 04:15:26 PM  
1 vote:

Suede head: Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.


There was a popular uprising against an entrenched dictator, who, rather than submitting to the demands of the people, decided to fight them. What the fark does that have to do with western media, Israel, or the military-industrial complex?
2013-08-24 04:10:56 PM  
1 vote:
Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.
2013-08-24 04:09:23 PM  
1 vote:

Sagus: It could have been rebel stock pile. They've used saran gas before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKgGRRuuZBY


RT is Kremlin propaganda. Can't believe you would fall for that. Watch a respectable news channel like MSNBC or Fox News

Man. Some people will believe anything they hear.
2013-08-24 03:54:53 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: Infernalist: ontariolightning: Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.

And those chem weapons are both numbered and inventoried, so if a chem weapon attack happened, they'd know for certain who did it, wouldn't they?

I'm not going to pretend that I know Syria or Libya's protocol for their chemical weapons cache.


You can't sincerely believe that they just shoved a bunch of chem weapons into a facility and didn't keep track of which ones were there....
2013-08-24 03:54:37 PM  
1 vote:
Put me in the rebels are lying group. Every time we open our mouth or support one of these groups someone from said group smacks the shiat out of us 20 years later
2013-08-24 03:51:11 PM  
1 vote:
Goddamn, there's a lot of scared little girls in this thread.
2013-08-24 03:50:23 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.


And those chem weapons are both numbered and inventoried, so if a chem weapon attack happened, they'd know for certain who did it, wouldn't they?
2013-08-24 03:49:08 PM  
1 vote:

leadmetal: Infernalist: Okay? Who cares as long as we don't get stuck in a quagmire like Syria?

Sure, throw money at people over there if that means we don't get our military involved. I'm very okay with that. It's just 'money' and compared to what else we could lose over there, 'money' is the least valuable thing.

First it was money... then it's advisers... then there's the gulf of tokin and next thing ya know there's a draft and 50,000 americans and millions of other people are dead.

But let's say it stays at the money and arms. who is being funded and armed? The same group that is the reason we have to be body scanned and/or groped at airports because of. They have always been a tool to achieve political goals. They were so a dozen years ago, 30 years ago, and today. And of course there are the people who are being killed by weapons paid for by the US taxpayer getting pissed off and perhaps seeking revenge.


Okay, it's not 1950-whatever.  It's 2013 and if you want a closer analogy to what's happening, you only have to look back to Libya.

Like him or hate him, this President knows how to do foreign policy.  So stop being terrified of us ending up in a new Vietnam and start realizing that the guys in charge 'right now' are not retards and aren't going to get us into another Vietnam.
2013-08-24 03:45:00 PM  
1 vote:

DerAppie: way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Okay, let us see what would happen if the West went and put their weight behind your "lesser" of two evils.

We would help oust Asad, who is relatively moderate, and thus make room for Al Queda to take control. Or at least destabilise things enough that they will get regions under their control. Individual liberties, as much as there are, will go down the drain. Women will lose even the vestiges of rights they have because Al Queda isn't big on those. Locals will either be bullied in helping/supporting Al Queda or be hunted down.

Just how is Al Queda the lesser evil? Because they didn't use a chemical weapon? That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and will hurt the population at large far more than a few gas canisters. Just let them figure their own shiat out and steer away from this clusterfark. There is no good ending and if "we" are getting blamed either way ("You could have helped!" vs "You were the ones who ousted Assad, things were better then!"), then it is better to be blamed after not losing resources and lives of our own.


Ousting Assad does not mean we are making room for Al Qaeda to take control. Allowing the situation to continue as is is what is facilitating Al Qaeda
2013-08-24 03:42:03 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: way south:
, its an important message to send before this sort of thing repeats itself yet again.

The only message you'd be sending is "get your hands on chemical agents, release it, blame the government, and NATO will come running to help you.


So, lemme see if I understand the reality that would be required for your premise:

In the reality where that could happen, the Syrian government would have horribly lax control over their WMDs to the point of being criminally bad...

And when they lose them, no one realizes it or contacts their superiors to let them know that WMDs are on the loose...

And the Syrian government doesn't contact the UN to let them know that rebels have stolen their WMDs...

And finally, the rebels are both smart enough, talented enough and wise enough to both steal and use the weapons...but leave blatant proof of it being 'them' and not the Syrian government, thus ruining their plan at the very last stage.

Is that what you're suggesting happened?
2013-08-24 03:35:41 PM  
1 vote:

leadmetal: Infernalist: We're not getting involved.

No we aren't getting involved.
The US federal government is already involved and may get more involved.
We won't be. We'll just pay the bill.


Okay?  Who cares as long as we don't get stuck in a quagmire like Syria?

Sure, throw money at people over there if that means we don't get our military involved.  I'm very okay with that.  It's just 'money' and compared to what else we could lose over there, 'money' is the least valuable thing.
2013-08-24 03:35:15 PM  
1 vote:
The Ba'th Party has been in power since 1963. During all of that time Syria has been placed under a state of emergency, effectively destroying any notion of freedom. The uprising is the result of this.
2013-08-24 03:31:30 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: way south:

In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Killing Assad is the same thing as backing AQ. You're killing Assad for them. You must be way south in Florida because your thinking skills suck.




Who said we have to kill him?
We level the playing field as a punishment for him using banned weapons against civilians. His people are more than ready to decide his fate. As a bonus, We let everyone in the region know that WMDs are not toys and their use won't be overlooked.
With a dozen nations near the boiling point over there, its an important message to send before this sort of thing repeats itself yet again.

/and for the record, I live much farther south than Florida.
2013-08-24 03:30:52 PM  
1 vote:
The BS crap about Syria being reported by the mainstream media needs to stop. They clearly have an agenda.

All Arabs are the most peaceful people on the planet and anyone who says otherwise is just a racist.
2013-08-24 03:26:13 PM  
1 vote:

GranPuro: Infernalist: That is some brass-balls level audacity.  They find the chem weapons in rebel tunnels near a region held by the rebels, thus throwing the blame on the rebels AND giving them more reason to bomb the living shiat out of the rebel region.

Because if you're a bunch of rebels and you've gassed your own fellow rebels in order to make the Syrian government look bad, then you're going to leave the evidence of it 'outside' your region of control in some tunnels that are near patrolling government forces.

The Syrian government sincerely thinks that the rest of the world is farking retarded.

Well you are.  Well, maybe not retarded but stupid enough not to realize that there are several rebel factions and none of them particularly like each other.  Gassing an opposing faction knowing that the idiot in the American White House is itching to get into the mess and will blame anything on the Syrian government is far more logical than the government gassing them when 1) they are winning, 2) have Russian advisors on the ground with more Russian equipment on the way, 3) have already let the UN in, and 4) have pretty much proven that the last gas attack was done by rebels (or at least proved it well enough to get everyone to back off for a while).


And for all their intellect and deviousness, they're going to leave evidence of it behind.  Oh sure, I can believe that they're smart enough to do it and frame the government, but still stupid enough to leave behind blatant evidence.

Seems legit to me.
2013-08-24 03:23:59 PM  
1 vote:

leadmetal: Can't americans figure out they are being played for chumps again?

It's all a damn set up so the people with power in the USA can make their next move in their real life game of risk. Meanwhile the military industrial complex gets another war to profit from.

For crying out loud many of the rebels in Syria are of the same group american taxpayers are paying the bill to fight in Afghanistan. These rebels are killing anyone not of their religion in Syria. They aren't good people. They are being funded and supported because they achieve a higher political goal for the powers that be. Never mind what happens to regular people in the process.

If you don't think a chemical weapons attack would be launched or staged to convince the american people into supporting yet another war where the US federal government has no business being in the first place you're naive and ignorant of history. Americans have been falling for bullshiat like this for about 150 years now. Then decades later they learn they were lied to but then it happens again. Remember the Maine. Gulf of Tokin. Germans killing babies, Iraq's military killing babies.... on an on. Chumps falling for it every time.

Americans are chumps and being played for chumps, again.


I think you're freaking out over nothing.

Nothing that's done in Syria is going to provoke the US into getting physically involved.  We might send in covert agents and work in diplomatic ways....we might even try to arrange some help for the civilian population, but that's it.

Satan himself could materialize in Damascus, fifty feet tall, and start rampaging like some Godzilla figure and the US would send a stern letter of disapproval to the Embassy of Hell.

We're not getting involved.
2013-08-24 03:22:35 PM  
1 vote:
way south ,
I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.
So we rattle his cage and let the people on the street can decide what they want from there. Maybe we can get a good foot in the door with the next government, or maybe we don't have to care if they keep their problems to themselves.
Its better than letting the use of WMDs go entirely ignored in a region that's loaded with these things.


Who knows, maybe the US could have CIA agents on the ground aiming lasers if they don't already.  Communist forces used WWI in Russia and WWII in China to take power, and I would not put Al Queda past this.  Obama could try to do everything right, it could fall from a democracy to an Islamic theocracy and it would still be Obama's fault.  However St Reagan still had nothing to do with the fall of  Afghanistan.

The word WMD concern is being overplayed though.  Poison gas has been used since WWI and probably earlier.
2013-08-24 03:20:15 PM  
1 vote:
way south:

In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Killing Assad is the same thing as backing AQ. You're killing Assad for them. You must be way south in Florida because your thinking skills suck.
2013-08-24 03:17:38 PM  
1 vote:

jpo2269: Have to say the only complaint that I have against the way the Obama Administration has handled this situation was coming several months ago and saying the use of chemical weapons we be crossing a red line and then not doing anything once it was established chemical weapons have been used several times.

That being said, there really does not seem to be a "winning" strategy with this situation.  Assad is a bad, bad dude but the rebels are not the sort of folks I have any confidence in how they would rule should they be successful in taking down Assad.

Sadly, it seems the Syrian people are the big losers regardless of the outcome.


The winning strategy is what we did with Japan during WWII. Crush everything with overwhelming force, and then spend the next 25 years or so rebuilding it until power is passed to the hands of a new generation.
2013-08-24 03:17:35 PM  
1 vote:

LewDux: Infernalist: That is some brass-balls level audacity.  They find the chem weapons in rebel tunnels near a region held by the rebels, thus throwing the blame on the rebels AND giving them more reason to bomb the living shiat out of the rebel region.

Because if you're a bunch of rebels and you've gassed your own fellow rebels in order to make the Syrian government look bad, then you're going to leave the evidence of it 'outside' your region of control in some tunnels that are near patrolling government forces.

The Syrian government sincerely thinks that the rest of the world is farking retarded.

I don't know, some of the brightest farkers believe Assad


I believe it's far more believable that a country known to have Chem weapons has used them on a rebel force.
2013-08-24 03:10:56 PM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com
2013-08-24 03:10:50 PM  
1 vote:

hitlersbrain: Let them figure it out for themselves. It's a choice between a regime and a bunch of religious fanatics, which really isn't much of a choice. Consider it Darwinian garbage cleanup and stay out.


I agree to a point.  I would also encourage two more things:

1) Inform Syria, both government and rebel leaders, that the U.S. military will be evacuating any and all civilians that want to get out of the line of fire.  Use our influence in Iraq to have them moved across the Iraqi border until the mess blows over.

2) Tomahawks dropped on any confirmed launching point for chem weapon attacks, regardless of source.
2013-08-24 03:05:55 PM  
1 vote:
i860.photobucket.com
2013-08-24 02:58:53 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: Assad cannot lose or else the whole region will lose and rebels aka Al Qaeda will actually be in political control of a country. They will try to gain other countries afterwards. Eventually they'll fight to get back Jerusalem. This is just a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Back off USA.


I've come around to that way if thinking. His regime is far from ideal as far as the west is concerned, but his government has maintained stability in the country for several years, and is more tolerant of other religions/world views than most countries in that region and certainly more so than the fundamentalists trying to overthrow him.

In other words, Assad is the lesser of two evils
2013-08-24 01:04:22 PM  
1 vote:

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


Yeah, the chain of custody is more than a bit suspect.  Still, both sides seem bad here, the Syrian military is almost certainly using chemical weapons, and some of the rebels are Islamic extremists being backed by al-qaeda, we should just pull out and let them take each other out.
2013-08-24 12:05:12 PM  
1 vote:
Kind of goes against witness accounts of a bombardment taking place when people began having symptoms.
2013-08-24 11:38:38 AM  
1 vote:
Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.
2013-08-24 11:25:08 AM  
1 vote:
Ful scale bomb-the-fark out of them may still be a bit premature, but it may be bomb-them-a-little-until-they-let-the- UN-inpectors-in time.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report