The Russians say the chemical attack was by the rebels, America says by Assad.

They'll side with daddy putin

Can we put you both on record for being in favor of sending battalions and brigades of US ground troops to war in Syria for the purpose of unseating Assad?

Yes or no?

quote:

---

Let's see who the Poli Board sides with.

My guess is that most posters here will side with the Russians.

---

Well, its obvious the more likely scenario is that Assad, finally having a US president who didn't demand he die and the weight of the world beginning to crush ISIS, chose this moment to use chemical weapons in a single attack of no great strategic importance.

Much less likely is that rebel groups, outnumbered and crumpling, staged a chemical weapons attack in an effort to destroy Assad's image with foreign powers and make it more difficult for him to remain in power long term.

Russia's story relies on a basic ignorance of chemistry. LINK

quote:

---

From a technical chemical weapons perspective, it seems unlikely that the Russian “warehouse/depot” narrative is plausible as the source of the chemical exposure seen on April 4th. To date, all of the nerve agents used in the Syrian conflict have been binary chemical warfare agents, so-named because they are mixed from several different components within a few days of use. For example, binary Sarin is made by combining isopropyl alcohol with methylphosphonyl difluoride, usually with some kind of additive to deal with the residual acid produced. The nerve agent Soman can also be produced through a binary process. The nerve agent VX has a similar binary process, although it proved to be a more complicated process than merely mixing the materials.

The other key reason for binary Sarin is that only a few countries really ever cracked the technology for making “unitary” Sarin that had any kind of useful shelf-life. The main chemical reaction that produces Sarin creates 1 molecule of hydrogen fluoride (HF), a potent and dangerous acid, for every molecule of Sarin. This residual HF destroys nearly anything the Sarin is stored in, and quickly degrades the Sarin. The US and USSR had devoted a huge effort to finding a way out of this problem. They found different ways to refine the HF out of the Sarin using very expensive heavy chemical engineering techniques which, for obvious reasons, are best not described here. Syria either did not develop such techniques or decided it was far cheaper, safer, and easier to stockpile binary components for a “mix it as you need it” process. Hence the “mobile mixing equipment” found by the OPCW. Nor did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which had huge problems with the short shelf life of its Sarin.

Even assuming that large quantities of both Sarin precursors were located in the same part of the same warehouse (a practice that seems odd), an air-strike is not going to cause the production of large quantities of Sarin. Dropping a bomb on the binary components does not actually provide the correct mechanism for making the nerve agent. It is an infantile argument. One of the precursors is isopropyl alcohol. It would go up in a ball of flame. A very large one. Which has not been in evidence.

...

Finally, we are back to the issue of industrial capacity. It takes about 9 kg of difficult to obtain precursor materials to generate the necessary steps to produce Sarin. The ratio is similar with other nerve agents. Having a quantity of any of the nerve agents relies on a sophisticated supply chain of exotic precursors and an industrial base. Are we to seriously believe that one of the rebel factions has expended the vast sums of money and developed this industrial base, somehow not noticed to date and not molested by attack? It seems an unlikely chain of events.

---

quote:

---

Can we put you both on record for being in favor of sending battalions and brigades of US ground troops to war in Syria for the purpose of unseating Assad?

Yes or no?

---

Like most on the left, he'll happily support invading a foreign nation and then condemn the President who did it five years later.

For the record, it's unclear who used chemical weapons (if any were used) but that is irrelevant to the fact that our foreign policy regarding Syria has been wrong for a long time.

Why does it matter who we side with? Our opinions don't change who actually did it.

quote:

---

Bellingcat

---

Kremlin Kryptonite.

No wonder that some of the same hackers that hacked the DNC have been trying to hack the Bellingcat guys.

quote:

---

in favor of sending battalions and brigades of US ground troops to war in Syria for the purpose of unseating Assad?

---

quote:

---

Yes or no?

---

Yes, Assad has to go

Im with Putin. I dont fall for absolute bullshite like you.

The Clintons and the rest of the warmongering Democrats would have us side with a bunch of 8th century fanatics who chop women's heads off for driving a car while lying to the American public that they are in fact "moderate rebels."