HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Syrian "gas rockets" appe...

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:24 PM

Syrian "gas rockets" appear homemade and incapable of flying 5-10 miles to target.

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:16 AM - Edit history (6)

Photos of devices allegedly used to carry Sarin gas show they appear to be homemade and are clearly incapable of accurately reaching targets 5-10 miles away. That is crucially important because the State Department report asserts that the gas barrage was launched from gov't controlled territory. But the map (below) that accompanied that report shows that several of the targets were miles away from the area in pink shown to be under the control of government forces.

These rockets have only the crudest stabilizers, no guidance systems, and would be highly inaccurate at any significant distance, which is why they are unlikely to have been the weapon used in the attack of 8/21, if the US target map is accurate along with the statement that they were launched from government-held territory.

Here's a rocket similar to the ones described as being used in the attack:



Here's the State Dept. map of the 12 alleged targets in the North Damascus suburbs. Note the distances of some of the targeted neighborhoods from government-held territory (in pink):



Something is clearly wrong either with the State Department report or accounts that say that these types of rockets were used to deliver the Sarin gas that night.

On edit: Here's a photo from the Daily Mail showing a UN inspector taking samples nearby the same type of rocket:



NOTE: I am the OP. I am relying on this information contained in the State Dept. report:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/30/text-of-u-s-assessment-on-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons/

The Attack:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.


According to a Foreign Policy article:http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/were_syria_s_nerve_gas_rockets_based_on_an_american_design

(T)hese rockets have now became a cornerstone of the West's case that the Syrian military was behind the nerve gas massacre of more than a thousands people in the Damascus suburbs last week. U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice tweeted earlier in the week that only the Assad regime "has capacity to launch CW [chemical weapons] with rockets." An American intelligence official told Foreign Policy on Tuesday that the rockets found at the scene of the attack on the East Ghouta region were a strong indicator that the strike involved chemical weapons. The rockets were largely intact -- rather than completely destroyed, as they would be if they been carrying high-explosive warheads.

Why is range, accuracy and sophistication of the rockets and delivery devices important? Sarin is not very effective over a large area unless the liquid is delivered in an aerosol form at just above ground level.* With crude rockets and warheads, that means that large numbers (many hundreds) of such weapons would have had to have been used in massed barrages to produce the level of mortality claimed. Because they are inaccurate beyond a short range, and cannot be aimed for mass barrages at long distance, these rockets may not have been effective for use in the way described in the report. We have not yet seen any evidence produced by the US government that these weapons are even capable of being used as the State Department claims.
__________________________________________________________
*The best detailed treatise on Sarin, its manufacture, characteristics, and its effects and forensic details, is by Dan Kazseta, a US Army Chemical Corps veteran and consultant, available here (fairly long, but all informative): http://newsmotion.org/author/noreplybloggercom-brown-moses?page=1

169 replies, 41188 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 169 replies Author Time Post
Reply Syrian "gas rockets" appear homemade and incapable of flying 5-10 miles to target. (Original post)
leveymg Sep 2013 OP
arely staircase Sep 2013 #1
leveymg Sep 2013 #2
arely staircase Sep 2013 #3
leveymg Sep 2013 #6
arely staircase Sep 2013 #9
winter is coming Sep 2013 #5
leveymg Sep 2013 #10
arely staircase Sep 2013 #15
leveymg Sep 2013 #48
arely staircase Sep 2013 #50
leveymg Sep 2013 #56
tabasco Sep 2013 #115
leveymg Sep 2013 #130
arely staircase Sep 2013 #132
leveymg Sep 2013 #157
dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #7
arely staircase Sep 2013 #11
leveymg Sep 2013 #14
arely staircase Sep 2013 #18
maddezmom Sep 2013 #21
leveymg Sep 2013 #26
arely staircase Sep 2013 #38
pnwmom Sep 2013 #39
leveymg Sep 2013 #49
pnwmom Sep 2013 #52
leveymg Sep 2013 #57
pnwmom Sep 2013 #59
leveymg Sep 2013 #68
pnwmom Sep 2013 #159
nebenaube Sep 2013 #85
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #95
BlueStreak Sep 2013 #117
nebenaube Sep 2013 #122
BlueStreak Sep 2013 #123
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #125
arely staircase Sep 2013 #27
leveymg Sep 2013 #42
arely staircase Sep 2013 #44
delrem Sep 2013 #73
7962 Sep 2013 #99
Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #24
leveymg Sep 2013 #30
Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #34
leveymg Sep 2013 #43
arely staircase Sep 2013 #35
JDPriestly Sep 2013 #82
7962 Sep 2013 #102
arely staircase Sep 2013 #129
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #93
leveymg Sep 2013 #112
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #126
leveymg Sep 2013 #138
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #141
leveymg Sep 2013 #143
dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #4
L0oniX Sep 2013 #8
jakeXT Sep 2013 #23
LineLineLineReply .
L0oniX Sep 2013 #28
jakeXT Sep 2013 #41
Barack_America Sep 2013 #65
Catherina Sep 2013 #124
MineralMan Sep 2013 #12
leveymg Sep 2013 #22
arely staircase Sep 2013 #32
leveymg Sep 2013 #51
Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #40
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #13
leveymg Sep 2013 #17
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #20
leveymg Sep 2013 #33
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #47
leveymg Sep 2013 #53
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #54
leveymg Sep 2013 #60
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #62
leveymg Sep 2013 #70
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #79
leveymg Sep 2013 #83
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #119
leveymg Sep 2013 #148
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #153
leveymg Sep 2013 #155
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #156
leveymg Sep 2013 #158
Arctic Dave Sep 2013 #91
leveymg Sep 2013 #106
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #118
leveymg Sep 2013 #121
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #151
tabasco Sep 2013 #116
leveymg Sep 2013 #120
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #97
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #114
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #160
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #162
reusrename Sep 2013 #168
BainsBane Sep 2013 #16
leveymg Sep 2013 #19
BainsBane Sep 2013 #25
leveymg Sep 2013 #36
MindMover Sep 2013 #109
uponit7771 Sep 2013 #128
MindMover Sep 2013 #133
uponit7771 Sep 2013 #136
MindMover Sep 2013 #137
uponit7771 Sep 2013 #139
MindMover Sep 2013 #145
uponit7771 Sep 2013 #147
MindMover Sep 2013 #149
JDPriestly Sep 2013 #86
moondust Sep 2013 #29
rollin74 Sep 2013 #31
sarisataka Sep 2013 #37
leveymg Sep 2013 #45
sarisataka Sep 2013 #46
Barack_America Sep 2013 #61
leveymg Sep 2013 #63
sarisataka Sep 2013 #161
treestar Sep 2013 #55
leveymg Sep 2013 #64
treestar Sep 2013 #69
leveymg Sep 2013 #71
MindMover Sep 2013 #58
leveymg Sep 2013 #66
MindMover Sep 2013 #67
leveymg Sep 2013 #74
MindMover Sep 2013 #75
leveymg Sep 2013 #77
MindMover Sep 2013 #84
leveymg Sep 2013 #89
MindMover Sep 2013 #90
go west young man Sep 2013 #92
MindMover Sep 2013 #96
jmowreader Sep 2013 #72
leveymg Sep 2013 #76
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #81
leveymg Sep 2013 #87
MindMover Sep 2013 #98
leveymg Sep 2013 #100
MindMover Sep 2013 #101
leveymg Sep 2013 #105
MindMover Sep 2013 #107
leveymg Sep 2013 #110
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #113
leveymg Sep 2013 #134
MindMover Sep 2013 #104
jmowreader Sep 2013 #127
leveymg Sep 2013 #131
jmowreader Sep 2013 #146
leveymg Sep 2013 #152
Robb Sep 2013 #78
leveymg Sep 2013 #80
arely staircase Sep 2013 #135
leveymg Sep 2013 #140
arely staircase Sep 2013 #142
leveymg Sep 2013 #144
jmowreader Sep 2013 #150
leveymg Sep 2013 #154
Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #88
MineralMan Sep 2013 #94
leveymg Sep 2013 #103
MineralMan Sep 2013 #108
leveymg Sep 2013 #111
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #164
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #163
Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #165
bvar22 Sep 2013 #166
Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #167
dkf Sep 2013 #169

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:26 PM

1. according to whom? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:27 PM

2. What according to whom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:28 PM

3. the assertions in your OP nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

6. Which assertions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:32 PM

9. that the delivery systems fr the gas appear to be homemade and incapable of reaching targets

More than 5 miles away. you know, what you wrote. Who is claiming that? UN inspectors? The Kiwanis Club? You posted no source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

5. What's your source for this report? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:33 PM

10. The State Department report asserts:

The Attack: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/30/text-of-u-s-assessment-on-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons/

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:36 PM

15. ok that seem to contradict the unsourced assertion and picture of some unidentified thing in your OP

so again, what is your source for the assertion that the delivery system came from less than five miles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:16 PM

48. Here's a Daily Mail news photo of a UN inspector taking samples near the same type of rocket:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #48)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:19 PM

50. OK and you think it is incapable of reaching more than five miles why? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:24 PM

56. It's a highly innacurate, nose-heavy improvised device.

It may be able to reach 5 miles (maybe), but not with any accuracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #56)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:57 PM

115. Is that your opinion?

 

I was a weapons expert in the military and I do not believe your assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #115)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:08 PM

130. Ok, you qualified your credentials. Now, tell us how they were all launched from regime-controlled

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

territory and had the effects they did? Please estimate effective range of the rocket, lethal dispersal radius per warhead, numbers used, etc., and how that establishes the claim made in the State Dept. report that they were all launched by the regime from regime territory and caused the fatalities claimed.

I eagerly await your estimates. Thnx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #56)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:15 PM

132. no bullshit let's not advocate positions I really want to know why you think that thing

could not have been launched from an area controlled by the regime. and you did originally say 5 -10 miles was out of range now you seem to be backing off that. now you say it can but not very accurately, to which others have pointed out the whole purpose of WMD is that accuracy isn't important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #132)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:45 PM

157. I said accurately. The reason that accuracy is important is that the lethal dispersal area is small

for each of these devices under most conditions. In lieu of accuracy, you need a sizable number of these things to kill that number of people. My conclusion is that past a mile or two they tend to fly all over the place, so probably could not be used effectively for mass barrage in the way that was described in the State Department report.

Personally, my suspicion is that they were fired at much closer range than the report indicates, which might implicate others or otherwise draws the report's conclusions into doubt.

I am inclined to accept that some unit or units of the Army chemical corps launched some sort of chemical ordinance that night. It's not clear how much or why they did that or under whose orders or what type of munitions they used. The communications seem to indicate that the Syrian Minister of Defense was not privy to that order, and that he expressed strong objection and ordered the chemical attack to cease.

I think we need to know a lot more before any decision to use punative force can be agreed to by Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

7. Common sense from the look of it.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:34 PM

11. the looks of what?

I see a picture of a thing with no source as to what it is I'm supposed to be looking at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:36 PM

14. All of the photos published show devices exactly like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:38 PM

18. a link would be nice nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:39 PM

21. Here is what I found

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/what-about-the-rockets-allegedly-used-to-gas-ghouta-syria/

And I don't think they look similar at all, but I guess if you think the revels gassed their own people you might.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:43 PM

26. There are 2 types shown there: the long tubes and a rebel propane tank with swept-back fins

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

which is fired from a large mortar.

Neither appear to be capable of flying accurately to a target 5 miles away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:51 PM

38. this is the definition of a strawman argument

you post a picture of some random object and then proclaim it incapable of being what was used to gas those kids, providing no link or source to anyone remotely credible (or at all) who is claiming it is the delivery system in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:51 PM

39. A Boeing 747 doesn't "appear" to be capable of flying at all. And yet it does. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:17 PM

49. See #48 above and revised OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:21 PM

52. I did. There's nothing except another picture that proves nothing

about how whatever-that-is got there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:27 PM

57. The point is that there is cause to doubt the assertion that they were fired from regime territory

We know that lots of people died form Sarin exposure. What we don't know is who fired off these particular rockets and under whose orders, and whether the national commanders even authorized this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #57)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:29 PM

59. There may be reason to doubt -- but not because of this picture.

I don't see anything in this picture that shows what this thing is or who fired it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:49 PM

68. The doubt is raised about the claim the rockets were fired from "regime territory." That claim isn't

consistent with the physical evidence, as you can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #68)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 10:34 PM

159. No, I don't see. You can't tell by looking at this thing what it is exactly

or how it traveled to get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:26 PM

85. same device

 

It's a before and after shot of the same device. the propane ignites on impact vaporizing the gas bladder and all that's left is the core...

before:


after:




It's a mortar, not a rocket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nebenaube (Reply #85)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:08 PM

95. I'm pretty sure the "hell cannon" munition is different from the one in these pictures

 

Not 100% certain, mind, but..

First few seconds in, you get a shot of the munition's tail end. it lacks the tail-end "fins" of these other pictures. Now there Do appear to be different "models" of this particular weapon, so... but from the clips i've found of salvaged examples, they appear to be different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #95)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:01 PM

117. OK, what do you think the range of this kind of mortar would be?

 

One can't easily tell from the picture at the end where it is detonated. But I don't see how that would travel even a half mile. Unless I misunderstand what is happening, that is a mortar, not a rocket. That is, the propulsion is all supplied at the instant of the launch. After that point, it is basically like a rock flying through the air. That is different from a rocket that contains its own fuel and can continue accelerating after launch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #117)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:31 PM

122. actually, I think it's a hybrid...

 

Say the the propane tank is filled with h203 pumped through and iron catalyst and it's actually a rocket assisted mortar. One could still put a firing pin through the middle of the tank, have he at the base to mix and vaporise the the binary warhead at the second stage and and the range would actually be extended because it wouldn't be top heavy at all after burning off most of the fuel.

oh and I'm already on the secondary no fly list so don't bother...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nebenaube (Reply #122)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:35 PM

123. So do you think you could get 10 miles with any accuracy?

 

Plus, I am confused. It seems to me all the photos that appear to be authentically connected with a claimed chem site were of the other type -- the narrow cylinder with tail fins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #117)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:49 PM

125. According to the rebels who use it, it has a 1.5km range

 

What we're looking at in the OP - long tube, circled tail fins, barrel on top, appears to be an IRAM (Improvised rocket-assisted munition)

That thing. That particular video appears to be the Syrian army using it, from the uniform dress.

However, there are very similar, smaller IRAMs in use by the Jabhat al-Nusra (e.g. al qaeda):


and probably others. There's not a shortage of know-how, as things like this have been kicking around since the iran-Iraq war.

I have no idea what the range on either would be, but even with self-propulsion, I would seriously doubt a claim of five miles, much less ten

And again, the odds of any of these things - hellcannon propane bombs, or these IRAMS - being used to deliver a chemical payload are pretty small. Both munitions frequently use fertilizer bases for their explosive payload however, and it's possible that there was some variety of mix that could create a neurotoxic effect in addition to the usual explosion. I have no idea how likely or to what effect, though.

Shit like this is why the whole situation needs thorough and expert investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:44 PM

27. OK. I now know why the OP didn't post their source.

I wouldn't have either. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:59 PM

42. The photos are all over the internet - they are of the type shown.

They are improvised ordinance, and these rockets are highly inaccurate at that range. They don't fly nearly as far or as accurately as Katayusha type conventional artillery rockets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:02 PM

44. So are videos of Mily Cyrus. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:59 PM

73. "the rebels" are al-Qaeda, and the Syrian people aren't "al-Qaeda's people"

And yes, al-Qaeda has proven itself perfectly willing to commit atrocities in order to provoke desired responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #73)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:26 PM

99. Thank you for stating what everyone SHOULD already know!!! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:43 PM

24. I found this from the photo's watermark....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:45 PM

30. That's a rebel sympathizer site. I found it reposted on Google images.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:47 PM

34. So a rebel sympathizer tries to pass this off as proof....

+1 for your OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:00 PM

43. That's not the only source - but, they all show the same type of rocket. See #48.

Reposted here: UN weapons inspector (Daily Mail)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:48 PM

35. wow nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:18 PM

82. The unfounded claims of both pro- and anti-intervention are worthless. No help at all in knowing

what should or should not be done.

We need to wait.

Assad is on notice that we are watching what is going on very carefully. If he was the source of the chemical weapons, he should be very hesitant to use them again.

Let's wait until the UN inspectors publish their report.

Apparently there were chemical weapons strikes in April.

Why the rush to do something about them now? Is it because the Obama administration wanted to end the conversation about the surveillance?

That is my best guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #82)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:34 PM

102. The rush is that the President made a statement and doesnt want to look like a fool

 

I know it may not be popular with some here, but he appears to be more concerned with backing up his threat of the "red line" than any proof. He didnt do anything earlier when it may have mattered and now continuing to wait just makes him look weaker.
All IMO of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #82)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:05 PM

129. Thank you, JDP

I agree 100 percent. I go from leaning against to leaning toward US involvement in this, hell almost by the hour. Anything put on the internet with a strong position already established should be viewed with the utmost skepticism. Let's see what the UN says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:56 PM

93. It's a thing called "physics"

 

These are basically flying pipe bombs, like the qassam rockets Hamas uses. The qassam has about a 7-mile range, maximum, and is completely undirected - you point, shoot, and hope the wind doesn't knocket it off target (or if you're a hamas jackass, you just point and shoot and figure "good enough!"

Like the qassam, these things have no guidance system - like I said, flying pipe bombs. Unlike the qassam, they come equipped with a large payload on the front end, about the size and shape of a commercial truck muffler (in fact i suspect that's what it might be).

This is a video of an unexpoloded rocket of this variety - it apparently smashed into the ground and ruptured, but did not "go off."

There's just physically no way this thing could travel five miles unless someone carried it.

Now, whether these are what delivered the gas, no one knows. I would personally doubt it, as these DO appear to be DIY weapons, and the thought of loading sarin (or whatever) into a makeshift tank on a weapon that really might just flip backwards back onto your head... is a level of crazy beyond what even the al-Nusra guys are prone to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #93)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:32 PM

112. The Quassam is at least shaped to fly like a rocket. These things are aerodynamic bricks

that probably start tumbling and crash about 1-2 miles downrange. That's okay for what this was originally designed to do - to carry fuel-air explosive to set off nearby mine fields. But as a longer-range chemical ordinance, they are . . . implausible.

Also, why would the regime use them if they have bunkers full of unused VX gas shells that do work, can be aimed effectively, and are far safer to handle and use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #112)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:01 PM

126. Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying

 

These things couldn't clear that sort of distance, and certainly don't have accuracy that's worth a damn even if they could.

And yes, the idea of using these things to deliver chemical payloads is just ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #126)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:31 PM

138. I don't think the physical evidence proves what the State Dept report claims.

I'm not denying a lot of people were killed, apparently by gas, but I don't see solid evidence that it was a command decision to carry this out, and I'm not totally convinced it was even the regime that launched all these things that did the killing that night. I just don't see the motive on the regime side, but I certainly do on the opposition and by third parties to pin this on the regime. Which, by the way, I really despise.

The Report is totally deficient. It's filled with accusations, unsupported suppositions, and conclusions, not facts.

The Obama Administration has to produce the raw intelligence -- the electronic intercepts, satellite data, radar tracking, etc. -- that shows the attack was ordered at the highest levels and carried out as described. That evidence will have it subjected to independent analysis and verification before I'm going to be willing to convict and move to the sentencing phase. The UN Inspector's report will not be sufficient, in itself, because it will not go to responsibility. Without proof of responsibility, forget it, this might as well be another Bush era fabrication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #138)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:37 PM

141. I have no idea who shot what, and like you am wanting a thorough investigation

 

My position is that it's simply irrelevant. Horrifying, of course, but irrelevant. There's literally nothing the US could do to help Syria. The war is more likely to end because Verne Troyer dropped his wedding band on a vacation trip to Kilauea, than because the US fired some tomahawks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #141)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:41 PM

143. I'm afraid that unless the Congressional leadership demands an independent accounting, there won't

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

be one. And, we'll have to go back and reconstruct events after the body parts stop falling, and that too will fail to provide a full and accurate picture of responsibility, just like prior occasions of this type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

4. Absurd isn't it.

Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:32 PM

8. There also was never a followup report from rebels caught in Turkey with chems...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22720647

"Mr Cos did however say that unknown chemicals had been found and were being investigated."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:42 PM

23. They had some problems in Gezi park

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jakeXT (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:44 PM

28. .

 

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:56 PM

41. They are still investigating it .. lol

The Anadolu Agency (AA) refused on Tuesday claims by the Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Muallem over what he said the smuggling of Turkey-made chemical weapons into Syria by "terrorists".

Using a May story by the AA as basis for his claims Al-Muallem alleged that chemical weapons produced in Turkey were smuggled into Syria by Syrian opposition fighters. However, the AA's May story was over the detention of 12 people in southern Turkish city of Adana in an operation in which Turkish security forces impounded materials that included no chemical agents.

"The Anadolu Agency did not published a news story as claimed by Syrian Foreign Minister al-Muallem. The Anadolu Agency published a story on May 30, 2013 referring to the statements of Adana Mayor Huseyin Avni Cos in which he said that '12 people were detained in Adana, 6 of whom were released later. Some materials were confiscated during the operation on which experts' inspection is underway. There are no gas or such materials as alleged, only some chemicals. The experts are working on them to define their effects and function'."

http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=116216

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:40 PM

65. I haven't seen many disputing some rebels have tried to use gas.

Most questioning I've seen pertains to their ability to deliver a gas attack this coordinated and sophisticated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:42 PM

124. This too- Turkey arrests Syrian Nusra Front militants with Sarin and heavy weapons

Turkey arrests Syrian Nusra Front militants -media
May 30, 2013|Reuters

ANKARA, May 30 (Reuters) - Turkish authorities have arrested
a group of Syria's al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front militants who
allegedly had been planning an attack inside Turkey and were in
possession of the nerve agent sarin, local media reported on
Thursday.

...

The 12 Nusra members were arrested in the southern city of
Adana, some 100 km (60 miles) from Syria, during raids at their
addresses where police uncovered 2 kg (4.5 pounds) of sarin as
well as heavy weapons, Taraf, Cumhuriyet and Aksam, as well as
several other dailies reported.

The men, who were allegedly planning a large attack in the
city, were formally detained by Adana's top court, the papers
reported, although it was not clear on what charges. The papers
did not reveal their sources.

...

Nusra is one of the most effective forces fighting President
Bashar al-Assad and last month pledged allegiance to al Qaeda
leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The U.S. State Department designated
Nusra as a terrorist organisation in December.

Experts have long said Nusra is receiving support from al
Qaeda-linked militants in neighbouring Iraq. The group claimed
responsibility for deadly bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and
its fighters have joined other Syrian rebel brigades.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-30/news/sns-rt-syria-crisisturkeyl3n0eb2uy-20130530_1_nusra-front-chemical-weapons-jonathon-burch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:34 PM

12. That photo came from this blog:

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/

Hardly an unbiased source, as I read some of the articles on the blog.

You may be unwilling to post source information, but your source is clear from the URL of the photo.

I do not consider that blog to be a reliable source in any way. I link to it, so others can judge for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:41 PM

22. There are a bunch of other photos of the same type of rocket. Here's another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:45 PM

32. from where? whom? I see another picture of a random object taken somewhere on the planet earth.

what is the source? link please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:20 PM

51. See revised article, photo of UN weapons inspector with same type of rocket below:

UK Daily Mail photo:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:35 PM

13. Rockets never have guidance systems.. that makes them missiles.

 

Who wrote this garbage?


Can we please get a link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:37 PM

17. Which is why there's something wrong with the either the State Report or the reports of rockets used

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:39 PM

20. You don't need accuracy with WMD.. that is the point.

 

Just toss that stuff into an area and let the gas cloud drift.


Your assumptions are incorrect.

Can we please get a link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:47 PM

33. These things don't have sophisticated aerosol dispersants. Probably not effective

at delivering a lethal dosage at a range of more than 100 yards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:14 PM

47. Why no link.. still? Are you ashamed of where you got this from?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #47)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:21 PM

53. Here's a photo form the UK Daily Mail - UN inspector with same type of rocket:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:24 PM

54. Can I please get a link to your OP information?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #54)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:32 PM

60. What part of it do you need a link to?

I am the OP. I am relying on information contained in the State Dept. report:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/30/text-of-u-s-assessment-on-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons/

The Attack:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.


I now have a photo posted that shows these are the type of rockets the UN inspectors are interested in. What else do you need to know? Do those things look like they'll hit a broad side of a barn at anything more than a mile or two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #60)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:38 PM

62. How do you know so much about rockets...

 

... that you can tell from a photo what their effective range would be? Also, how do you know so little about rockets that you think they might have guidance systems?

If you are just making all this shit up then you should say so in your OP.

Your own post says "leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack". What actual evidence do you have to contradict this?



I did not respond to your last post at all but I do need to add. In response to the chemicals not having an aerosol dispersant. They didn't seem to need one.. did they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #62)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:53 PM

70. If you have better evidence to the contrary, please produce it.

Nothing is being made up here. The point is simple. From the maps provided by the State Dept and photos of the rockets, it does not appear that they were likely to have been launched from "regime territory" as claimed, and that conclusion is a key part of the State Dept's case that it had to be regime forces that launched these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #70)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:15 PM

79. Your assumptions are absurd.

 

You are making up the entire argument. Who says they can't fly 5-10 miles to target? If you don't have a credible source for that claim then you just made it up. Your statement that it has no guidance system is the one that set me off. No rockets have guidance systems, how can you be so ignorant? You claim they have only the crudest stabilizers, I need a credible source for this and not just your assumptions made from looking at a photo.

You also claim that the rockets would be highly inaccurate from any significant distance, there are two problems here. One, you don't know that and two, there is no reason to assume accuracy was necessary. The chemicals did their job all to well. It doesn't matter exactly where they landed because the outcome would have been similar even if they were a quarter or half a mile from the actual landing site.


Can you really not see that you have just imagined this whole argument? If the rockets were not capable of carrying out this attack then there would be experts saying so. Your conclusions would already be backed up elsewhere. There was an 8 hour debate in British Parliament and I heard of no such argument being made. This is all in your imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #79)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:25 PM

83. That is not true. Sarin has to be in aerosol form to be effective outside of a small impact area.

So, accuracy and a sophisticated dispersal system is important. Source: (long but worth reading at length)

Here's a very thorough article on Sarin's manufacture, use, and detection after use

As for the ability of investigators to determine with a certainty who manufactured and launched these particular devices, that may never be determined. The same goes for provenance of the nerve agent, itself. The best detailed treatise on Sarin, its manufacture, characteristics, and its effects and forensic details, in Syria is by Dan Kazseta, a US Army Chemical Corps veteran and consultant, available here (fairly long, but all informative): http://newsmotion.org/author/noreplybloggercom-brown-moses?page=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #83)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:11 PM

119. Then explain the body count.

 

Either these were more sophisticated than you assert, which would mean the Syrian government launched them

Or

There were hundreds of them launched, which would mean the Syrian government launched them

Or

They did have a dispersal system, which would mean the Syrian government launched them

Or

There really are not 1429 killed in these attacks.



Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #119)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:51 PM

148. The opposition has used Serin and is fully capable of manufacturing and using these rockets.

There is nothing so inherently sophisticated about them that one of several foreign-backed opposition groups or third-parties couldn't have carried out this attack in full or part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #148)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:13 PM

153. You still present no evidence.

 

All I see from you is unsubstantiated claims and misleading statements.


Please start presenting specifics in regards to your claims, and links which support them.


This has gotten very old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #153)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:18 PM

155. You have it backwards. The burden is on the prosecution to make the case that a crime has been

committed. The case presented by the State Dept. is incomplete and not fully convincing. That's my point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #155)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:30 PM

156. They have presented evidence. Plus, DU is not a court.

 


Until you start coming up with where these rockets could have been manufactured so that rebels could get a hold of them. As well as the launchers necessary to launch them, you are just howling at the moon.

The UN report will tell us more about the chemicals used. We have over a week before Congress starts to debate this. There is time for more evidence to come to light.

It doesn't seem likely that the rebels could have done this. You present no evidence and can only cast dispersions on the evidence that has been presented. This is not convincing at all.


In civil court, the side which presents the best case wins. Right now, that isn't you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #156)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:59 PM

158. The evidence is not convincing. The court is public opinion. DU is part of that.

I agree, determining the origins and provenance of the weapons used is essential, just as it would be in a court of law.

But, this isn't a civil trial, where the preponderance of the evidence wins. It's matter of much greater seriousness and consequence - a capital crime of mass murder, where the evidence of guilt and command responsibility must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Look, I'm just a citizen who has an interest in this and some background information, related skills and experience in investigations and law. If I can poke any sort of hole, on my own, in the State Department's report it tells me that the evidence is flimsy and the government has done a poor job of presenting its indictment. I expect to see better from them in coming days - but, if they can't answer these questions, I won't go along with punative action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #79)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:48 PM

91. Rockets do have guidance systems. Here is a picture of some.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #91)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:49 PM

106. Not these things. Fixed fins. No movable thrust.

These rockets you show with movable fins and nozzles are really missiles if they have a gyro or other guidance system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #91)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:02 PM

118. Are you trying to be deceptive or are you just way off base?

 

Those are manned rocket controls. They don't qualify as missiles because humans are at the controls. You may as well call a plane used by a Kamikaze a rocket since it has/had a human controlling it.




http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PAO/wuaws/Pages/Rocketsandmissiles.aspx

^snip^

Rockets and missiles


With more than 40,500 rocket and missile firings safely conducted during 50 years of existence, White Sands Missile Range has certainly lived up to its name.

One of the most asked questions is, "What is the difference between a rocket and a missile?" Range employees usually simplify the discussion by saying a missile has a guidance system or brain to get it to its destination and a rocket just goes where it is initially pointed.

The guidance system can be fairly simple like the infrared seeker on the small, shoulder-fired, Stinger missile. The missile detects the heat emitted in the exhaust of a jet and guides itself to the hottest spot - right up the tailpipe.

A rocket, on the other hand, like the Black Brant goes straight up in the air carrying scientific payloads for NASA and others. It is fired out of a tower or from a rail, both of which can be tilted to compensate for wind conditions so the rocket flies fairly straight and stays on the missile range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #118)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:17 PM

121. Ok, what's your point?

Even a V-2 was a ballistic missile - it had steerable vanes, a compass, and a gyroscope, and a bunch of clockwok timer switches. But it was still a missile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #121)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:09 PM

151. In your OP you presented as evidence

 

the fact that these rockets had no guidance system and concluded that they therefore were not sophisticated enough to be launched by the Syrian Government (paraphrased).


My point is that you don't even know what a rocket is. Rockets don't have guidance systems. You don't understand even the most basic facts that would be on a 7th grade science test.


I am simply pointing out how ignorant you are on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:00 PM

116. LOL

 

You know nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #116)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 07:13 PM

120. Educate us.

What is the kill radius of 2 liters of sirin liquid splattered on the ground in the crashed nosecone of one of these things? Please source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:17 PM

97. Right, the Saturn 5 ROCKET that took us to the MOON, didn't have a guidance system. OMG, thanks!

 

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 01:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #97)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:54 PM

114. The rocket didn't... it was just the launch system.

 

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PAO/wuaws/Pages/Rocketsandmissiles.aspx


^snip^

Rockets and missiles


With more than 40,500 rocket and missile firings safely conducted during 50 years of existence, White Sands Missile Range has certainly lived up to its name.

One of the most asked questions is, "What is the difference between a rocket and a missile?" Range employees usually simplify the discussion by saying a missile has a guidance system or brain to get it to its destination and a rocket just goes where it is initially pointed.

The guidance system can be fairly simple like the infrared seeker on the small, shoulder-fired, Stinger missile. The missile detects the heat emitted in the exhaust of a jet and guides itself to the hottest spot - right up the tailpipe.

A rocket, on the other hand, like the Black Brant goes straight up in the air carrying scientific payloads for NASA and others. It is fired out of a tower or from a rail, both of which can be tilted to compensate for wind conditions so the rocket flies fairly straight and stays on the missile range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #114)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 01:52 AM

160. So it was a rocket with a guidance system, but not a missile.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #160)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 08:27 AM

162. No, it had a pilot/crew.

 

It was controlled by humans, not a guidance system.


I'll admit that the phrasing here is a little confusing. The link I posted says that the definition is oversimplified.

If we are talking about just the Saturn V then it had no guidance system. It is/was just a rocket. They spacecraft as a whole would have systems to assist the pilot but it would still be considered something controlled by humans, not the guidance system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #114)

Tue Sep 3, 2013, 01:51 PM

168. This is so ridiculous I don't know if I should even bother to comment.

 

A rocket is a method of propulsion; a motor.

A missile is a projectile; a bullet.

Yes, they are two different words, and they describe two completely different things. Some missiles use rocket motors and some rocket motors are used on missiles. Rockets are different than jets in that rockets have self-contained fuel while jets must breath air.

Some guided missiles do have an on-board guidance system while others may be wire guided or radio controlled.

Words do have meanings. And before you ask, I won't give you a link. Look it up yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:37 PM

16. A former Iranian president said Assad set them off

and Iran is Syria's closest ally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:39 PM

19. Did Assad fire them from the roof of the Presidential Palace?

Assad did not set them off - there is no intercept that ties any national command authority authorization, which is why everyone doesn't want to be involved with the punative strike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:43 PM

25. Obviously he ordered them

You need to face reality. It's one thing to oppose the war and another to compromise your intellectual integrity. You want this to be an easy scenarios of good guys vs. bad guys. I'ts not. It's a shitty situation all the way around with no good solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:50 PM

36. That is not at all obvious. The Syrian Defense Minister wasn't informed - he's the highest chain of

command below the President, like the Sec. of Defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #36)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:00 PM

109. You have got to be kidding, you are relying upon the Syrian defense minister to deliver

truth to you ....

Cmon now, who am I having this discussion with .... ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #109)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:03 PM

128. No more than we should be relying on US intelligence!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #128)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:16 PM

133. Yea, Ok, another snowdunder ....

you probably think that all intelligence is just propaganda or worse, lies ....

but there are pictures of people dying by the hundreds and thousands in Syria .... you cannot dispute that fact ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #133)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:20 PM

136. No, I don't trust them and have a fact based logical reason not to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #136)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:29 PM

137. Ok, your "fact based logical reason not to" comes from ...

investigations done by reporting and intelligence communities ... from all over the world .... right

Then who ya gonna trust .... who ya gonna call ...





Seriously, you trust the current regimes Syrian defense minister .... good luck on that one ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #137)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:35 PM

139. or... or, I can trust neither intel community because they done all they can to lose trust

After Iraq why would anyone want to trust the bastards who got us into that!?

..and no, all the intel communities around the world don't believe Iraq had wmds or that the Syrian gov are the ones who lobbed them during this war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #139)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:47 PM

145. I did not mean that all intelligence communities believed the BS about Iraq ...

I meant you got your reality based facts and then formed your opinion around those facts from reporting and intelligence communities around the world ... or maybe you were BOTG that saw for yourself that there were no WMD in Iraq .... in either case you got your facts first hand or from someone else telling you ....

You and many others are right to be skeptical about this current conflict in the middle east ... there is no doubt in my mind that I have been lied to about Iraq ...

Please however remember that thousands of pictures and first hand accounts of what is transpiring in Syria today are not made up to convince you one way or the other .... these are real people, really dying horrible deaths .... at the hands of the butcher of Damascus. ..




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #145)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:51 PM

147. "thousands of pictures and first hand accounts" None of them have any proof that it was Syrias

...GOVERNMENT that called for the chemical attacks.

Yes there were chemicals used, were the called upon by the Syrian govern!? i don't know that...I don't trust some recording that was translated that could've come from anywhere either.

Adley Stevenson type proof is what is needed for me

There have been first hand reports that rebels have their hands on some of the weapons also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #147)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:57 PM

149. Yea, sure, a Saudi prince gave some rebels some sarin gas to disperse ...

amongst there own people ... if you believe that one ... some land in Florida ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:30 PM

86. Former? How long ago former?

Do you have a link?

We want a better link for the OP. Please provide us a link for your information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:44 PM

29. How do you know that photo wasn't staged?

Anybody can lay a pipe down in the road and blame the other guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:45 PM

31. link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:50 PM

37. It is quite amazing

how much military hardware looks like junk after it has been fired. This looks like some kind of stabilizer. It still doesn't tell who fired it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:03 PM

45. It doesn't even spin for stabilization. You can tell by looking at it that it is not accurate

and lacking a sophisticated aerosol dispersant, this ordinance would have only limited effectiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #45)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:10 PM

46. How can you tell it doesn't spin...

It appears it could pivot on the plate at the opposite end. Here is a generic diagram:


Such a weapon would not use a dispersant but a bursting charge. Someone familiar with artillery would have been able to tell something was unusual as the explosion would be far less than expected from an HE round. It's effectiveness has been sufficient since 1915.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #46)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:36 PM

61. Ironically, that's exactly what witnesses reported.

That they could hear them coming in and were surprised by the lack of explosion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #46)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:38 PM

63. You need to identify that device. It is not generic.

The Syria devices are improvised rocket-propelled gas cannisters - not Russian or US ordinance. The fins have no cant, and there are no strakes on the body, so the device isn't designed to spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #63)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:11 AM

161. There are many rocket systems in Syria

upwards of a dozen different systems in the Syrian military. It is not surprising that there are not many open sources that detail the interiors of these weapons but some detective work can give possibilities.

We need a short range rocket, large enough to hold that component and capable of chemical weapon delivery. These criteria eliminate some like the Type 63 or BM-4 as they are too small to hold a part that appears to be > 6 in. diameter. Others like the Farj 3 with a range of 43 km have too great of range to be likely.

We are left with 2 very good candidates. Most likely is the Soviet built BM-27 Uragan. It is a 220 mm rocket with a maximum range of 35 km and is capable of delivering chemical payloads. Syria is known to have 36 launch vehicles.

Another possibility is the BM-24. It is a 240 mm rocket with a maximum range of 11 km fits very well. A strike against it is the age of this system. Designed in 1953 many have been destroyed in combat or retired for newer systems. Syria was know to have used them in 1973 against Israel but it is not know how many, if any, are still in service.

It is not clear from the photos if there is any cant to the fins. They would use gasses for the rocket exhaust to generate spin so would not need to be extreme to produce enough spin to stabilize a rocket for the short duration of its flight. These are saturation weapons so accuracy is moderate at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:24 PM

55. They all look to be within five miles of some contested area

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #55)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:40 PM

64. The State Dept report states several times "regime-controlled." That's not a minor point.

It goes to the allegation that only the regime could have fired these things off.

State Dept. report:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/30/text-of-u-s-assessment-on-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons/

The Attack:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:50 PM

69. Only Duma appears out of range

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:57 PM

71. The point is not the absolute range of the rocket, it's the accuracy of delivery and its utility

as a weapon. Sarin has to be turned into an aerosol and delivered at ground level to be effective in anything more than a very limited area. These things don't appear to be that sophisticated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:28 PM

58. Our Presidents intelligence community is all wrong ... BS

This is not an argument about whether Syria has WMD or not, it is whether they used WMD on there own citizens and the fat lady has already sang that tune ...

So what are you doing ... besides stirring the pot of strawman and disinformation ....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #58)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:47 PM

66. The point is the "evidence" and conclusions in the Report are not really convincing on their face.

This is just one piece of that. But, if the Admin wants us to believe the Syrian Army under orders from the regime fired these things, they can't rely upon the assertion that it was from "regime-controlled" territory to make their case. I am not raising disinformation, just reasons to doubt the "proof" offered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MindMover (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:02 PM

74. I read that. It's unsourced or anonymous source. We do know however that Israel is the

source for the key intercepts of the conversations that night, including the Syrian Defense Minister'scall to the unit commander and that he was extremely angry, "panicked" is the term, when he found out what had happened.

If the Express is accurate, it doesn't specify who this captain was and who he was talking to: a Major or Bashir al-Assad. That's an important distinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #74)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:05 PM

75. There are thousands of other even more credible sources of information and intelligence ..

on the regimes use of WMD ...

I am just saying that your reporting is favoring a murderous regime ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #75)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:13 PM

77. I'm not favoring anyone - I want the Admin. to release all the evidence so we can make our own

conclusions. Particularly the audio of the conversations intercepted that night. That is really the only way to get a clue into the state of mind and motive of the commanders involved and, particularly the higher authorities, especially the Minister of Defense who was described as "panicked" when he learned what had happened.

I want those who ordered this attack to be held responsible on the basis of solid compelling evidence, not some half-assed stovepiped, cherry-picked intel basis for a reprisal attack that expands into a regional war with the US in the middle of a bunch of warring religious fanatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #77)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:25 PM

84. Your assumptions are only assumptions ... I have my own assumptions ...

So you are in favor of complete transparency in regards to our intelligence ... unfortunately, that is not a realistic approach to how our world works ...

If we lived in a Pollyanna world where everyone was nice and played by fair rules .... maybe ...we both know that is not the case ...

Hence an intelligence community where some information is kept from public knowledge ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #84)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:37 PM

89. I'm sorry, not going to war without solid evidence this time. Didn't you learn from the Iraq War?

They can most certainly release the intercepted phone calls and proof that many hundreds of rockets were launched. If they can't or won't produce evidence relied upon to make their conclusions to prove their case, then f-ck them. No reprisals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #89)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:42 PM

90. First, I learned that making up shit to purport your mission is not solid evidence ....

Secondly, the information you seek if divulged would probably not be enough to garner your support ...

Thirdly, the evidence, and most importantly, there are thousands of Syrian innocents dead because of sarin gas use ... that hundreds and thousands of reports state was used by the regime ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #84)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:54 PM

92. Hence the Iraq War.

 

And the same neocons are pushing for this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to go west young man (Reply #92)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:12 PM

96. Your use of the label neoconservative is interesting ...

So what would you do with the knowledge you have about what is happening in Syria ...

1. Maybe drop leaflets of surrender or else on the regime ... we tried that in WW1 & 2 & Korea, and Vietnam, etc.

2. Maybe use diplomatic channels to say stop committing these acts or else ..... been there, done that

3. Maybe use economic & political sanctions against the regime .... been there, done that

4. Maybe use made up shit to fool your populace into war ..... been there, done that, Iraq .. oh yea, this is not Iraq, WMD have and are being used against Syrian innocents ... by the account of thousands ...

5. Maybe use the word neocons to elicit negative reactions toward a morally correct position ... ah yes, I see the word neocon can be used by both sides ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:57 PM

72. Consider the V-2

It was so inaccurate that the Nazis considered a V-2 mission successful if it landed in England, but that didn't stop it from being the most terrifying weapon of World War II. The Soviets had the FROG rockets, which were no more accurate. If whoever built these things was looking for psychological effect, which a rocket that flies off at random will give you, these rockets would work great.

About the word rocket: what language was the original report written in? Some languages use one word for both what English calls a rocket and what it calls a missile...Russian is a prime malefactor here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:06 PM

76. The thing is, without a sophisticated aerosol dispersant, Sarin isn't really very effective at long

range over a wide area. You'd have to use hundreds and hundreds of these crude rockets in a massed barrage to achieve the sort of mortality that occurred. I'm not the only one making this point - it was raised from the beginning by analysts who've raised serious doubts about the official account..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #76)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:18 PM

81. Then how did it kill 1429 people?

 

That really did happen you know.

You are clearly wrong here. The dead bodies are a testimony to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #81)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:32 PM

87. There would have had to have been many hundreds of these crude rockets launched. We have yet to see

evidence of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #87)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:24 PM

98. Where do you come up with the "hundreds" ....

Is that from your knowledge of sarin gas or what ....

A pint of sarin gas was released in Japan back then and it killed 13 ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #98)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:28 PM

100. There are 12 targeted areas indicated on the map.

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:02 AM - Edit history (2)

These things only carry 1-2 liters of Sarin. Also, the Tokyo subway car attack was in an enclosed space. Out in the open, the effectiveness and lethality is much less. Please, read the article by Dan Kazseta I linked at the end of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #100)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:34 PM

101. OK, 12 is not hundreds ...

and varying winds and weather conditions can make exposure more likely for hundreds and now thousands ...

and if you have explosives in the warhead along with sarin, you have dispersant ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #101)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:45 PM

105. Each targeted area would require a dozen or more rockets for many fatalities- artillery would kill

more people. Sarin is less lethal than the same number of rounds of high explosive (HE) cannon shells. Furthermore, these rockets are considerably less lethal than the VX gas shells the regime has in an abundance. Why use these rockets instead of gas shells or plain old HE rounds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #105)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:55 PM

107. I do not agree with the anal ysts, sarin is much more lethal in confined areas such as cities

with high populations ...

Furthermore, it is thought in the intelligence community that VX gas has been used by the regime against its citizens ... and of course, we know without a doubt that HE rounds have been used ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #107)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:01 PM

110. It's a clear gaseous vapor that's slightly heavier than air. Tends to sink, not rise.

It is not that effective unless delivered in a large warhead (like on a SCUD) that is released as a air burst close to the ground. These things aren't nearly that sophisticated or lethal. They burst upon impact. Also, Sarin usually has to be inhaled to be lethal, so people in upper floors would probably not have exposure to lethal dosages from these less sophisticated devices, even in a city.

I still can't figure out a rational, military reason why the regime would use this type of weapon in this instance, as standard artillery is round for round more lethal against unprotected targets. The only thing this atrocity managed to do is invite outside intervention - why, and who benefits?

We still have to answer those questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #87)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:50 PM

113. So you are saying there were not 1429 people killed?

 

Or are you admitting that these rockets were not as crude as you have been asserting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #113)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:20 PM

134. No, I'm saying they probably weren't all launched from regime-controlled territory as the US report

claims. It's not just an academic point, because the report cites this as a reason for the conclusion drawn that the opposition couldn't have done this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #76)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:40 PM

104. In my many times traveling around the sun ....

Analysts are just Anal ysts sometimes ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #76)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:03 PM

127. Or an UNsophisticated one...

Put a quart of Sarin and a hand grenade with the pin pulled in a glass or brittle plastic tube, put the tube in one of these cheap-ass rockets, and send it downrange. When the rocket hits, the tube shatters, the grenade explodes and the Sarin goes all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #127)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:15 PM

131. But, the stuff usually has to be inhaled to kill you

Splashing a liter sized container of Sarin on impact isn't going to kill many people unless it's a contained area. It needs to be dispersed as a gas to have wider fatal effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #131)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:49 PM

146. Sarin is the most volatile nerve agent available

It very readily evaporates - spewing it around with explosives will give it the maximum opportunity to reach its full potential. (The other nerve agent Syria has, VX, is a nonpersistent agent that's about as thick as motor oil. That shit is meant to deny terrain to an enemy; think of it as a lethal version of the ropes at a theatre, where you put the agent down to force the enemy to go where you want them to...and usually, the place you want them to go has mortars and machineguns aimed at it.)

Its vapors are heavier than air, but a little bit of wind will lift it high enough that it can be inhaled by children, or by anyone who bends over to aid a stricken child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #146)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:10 PM

152. It is a bit more volatile than water, and vaporizes about as quickly

So imagine you filled a truck muffler with a couple liter-size coke bottles and ran a stick of dynamite (actually plastic explosive) between them. That is roughly what the warhead is.

Okay, the contraption gets fired out of a tube propelled by a four foot long Estes solid fuel rocket engine. It goes a mile or two, tumbles,and crashes. The two liter coke bottle explodes. Pop. Any people outside in the immediate area get splashed. They'll probably die. But, not much of that liquid really vaporizes, and the droplets may travel outward in a radius of maybe 100 feet on each side.

I would guess that if your windows were closed and you were asleep in a house 100 feet away, you would probably be okay until you went out your front door. Further down the street, your neighbors have no idea until they come to check out what has happened and pick up stricken victims . . .

It was a terrible crime, but so would firing off a 122mm high explosive shell into the same spot. That would probably kill more people. Both are terrible crimes. But, why is one worth going to war about, while the other gets shrugged off by the outside world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:13 PM

78. There's a reason "rocket science" earns such a high perch.

Like brain surgery, it's not really a good fit for the enthusiast or dabbler.

There are degrees and such that can be earned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #78)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:16 PM

80. If Sarin gas weapons were really easy to make, every gangster and lunatic would have them.

Perish the thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #80)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:20 PM

135. making it more likely done by a nation state with international connections

like the assad regime a Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #135)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:35 PM

140. The opposition has also used Serin in this war.

And its international state backers have more than enough money and resources to have carried this out, at least in part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #140)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:41 PM

142. true. they have deep pocket gulf state backers

I still think it more likely the government, but I am really trying to be logical about this; and that is hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #142)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 08:46 PM

144. Logical is a good start.

I too am trying to get past emotional responses,and that is hard.

If in the end, the Obama Administration produces the evidence and I conclude that culpability of top regime figures has been demonstrated, I can accept some sort of punative action that is appropriate, just and doesn't escalate the conflict. Finding THAT, however, will be VERY hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #80)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:01 PM

150. It's not the weapon that's the problem. The gas itself is the problem

I looked it up...mixing isopropyl alcohol and isopropyl amine with methylphosphonic difluoride (made out of methylphosphonic dichloride and hydrofluoric acid) will get you sarin. The first big problem is it's almost impossible to get the precursor chemicals. Biochemists use it to synthesize various reagents, but if you send an order for this product to Sigma-Aldrich and you're not a Ph.D. at a research university or a known biotech firm, they WILL call the feds on you.

The second big problem is if the finished product doesn't kill you, the precursor chemicals stand a good chance of it.

Gangsters and lunatics tend not to choose weapons that are more likely to kill themselves than their prey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #150)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:16 PM

154. It's highly concentrated insecticide. Not that sophisticated, and easy to mimic so that forensics

will likely not be able to tell the two apart from traces. The stuff leaves a distinctive indicator of a near total absence of a particular neurotransmitter in the victim's body that can be detected for at least a week, however.

Yes, fortunately, it is more likely to kill an untrained handler as to ever harm a victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:34 PM

88. Launcher found...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:58 PM

94. Here's a link to an article that may explain this.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/were_syria_s_nerve_gas_rockets_based_on_an_american_design

It's a type of rocket that has been used all over the place, and modified and built in Russia for years. Similar to the BM-14 series of rockets, and equipped with MS-14-style chemical warheads.



Anyhow, the rockets aren't homemade and have been used in the Middle East for a long time.

Go read this.

See also this Wikipedia article on the BM-14, which had, BTW, a range of about 10,000 meters. These weapons have evolved over time, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #94)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:36 PM

103. No, that is not a BM-14. It's a US-made anti-mine fuel-air explosive rocket used at closer

range. The BM-14 is a multibarrel-rocket launcher for Katayusha rockets that have far more accurate flight characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-14


The BM-14 (BM for Boyevaya Mashina, 'combat vehicle'), is a Soviet-made 140mm multiple rocket launcher, fielded by the Soviet Union.

The BM-14 can fire rockets fitted with chemical (MS-14), smoke (M-14D) or high-explosive fragmentation (M-14-OF) warheads. It is similar to the BM-13 "Katyusha" and was partly replaced in service by the 122 mm BM-21 Grad.

The rocket has a range of about 9.8 km and can carry a warhead of 8 kg weight. Launchers were built in 16 and 17-round variants.

The weapon is not accurate as there is no guidance system, but it is extremely effective in saturation bombardment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #103)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:00 PM

108. Yes, the article referred to the Bm-14.

Had you read it and my post, you would have seen that. The Russian design followed the other, and ha s evolved over time. The point is that the designs are capable of what was done and at that range. I am done with this thread. You were incorrect. The remnant of that rocket was not some homemade thing. It is part of a military weapon system, fully capable of what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #108)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:08 PM

111. That's not a BM-14. I'll stick by my conclusion that either the State Report is in error or else

these rockets were not all released from "regime-controlled territory." That's the limited point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #111)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 01:16 PM

164. In post #120 you asked for a source

 

so I now ask you to source evidence for that conclusion.


All the images seem to show BM-14 rockets. Even the pictures you yourself have posted.

There is also the new French report which claims that the rockets were sent from Regime held territory.



I think maybe it is time to start self deleting all this nonsense. You just make yourself look more and more foolish with each post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 12:58 PM

163. New French Intelligence report disagrees with your claims

 

This is just breaking now so more will be added as it becomes available.


http://news.sky.com/story/1136215/syria-assad-regime-behind-chemical-attack


^snip^


Syrian President Bashar al Assad was behind a "massive and coordinated" chemical attack, the French government has claimed.

A seven-page intelligence report sets out five points which, MPs will be told, suggest Assad was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people in Damascus last month.

The evidence includes satellite imagery, allegedly showing the attacks were launched from government-controlled areas, a French government source told the Reuters news agency.

"Unlike previous attacks that used small amounts of chemicals and were aimed at terrorising people, this attack was tactical and aimed at regaining territory," the source said.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:51 PM

165. More evidence you are wrong

 

Man, it is really starting to pile up already. Lots of information at this link.


http://rogueadventurer.com/author/rogueadventurer/

^snip^

New images and video of the alleged CW munitions in Syria have surfaced in the last few hours. These include higher-resolution photos of recovered components from one of these unidentified munitions, as seen in the image below, and the gallery at the bottom of this post. These images show the tail fin assembly to be somewhere in the region of 300mm in diameter. In some of the previously observed images and videos it appears that the tail fin assembly of the rocket is slightly smaller in diameter than the forward, payload-bearing section of the rocket. A diameter of 333mm or slightly less would be consistent with the munitions being fired from Iranian Falaq-2 type launchers, or similar copies or derivatives. One of the images shows the warhead baseplate quite clearly, with two access holes visible. It is not yet known what function these serve, though they may be fill ports, or related to a fuze or bursting charge fitted to the munition. In the image below, you can see that the top port is missing its cover, revealing a smaller diameter fitting within. In the case of a liquid fill, the gap between these two may have housed a rubber washer or gasket, or a sealant of some variety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:31 PM

166. Assad has access to more sophisticated weaponry.

Why would he use this home made junk?

Thank You for this OP,
though, at this point,
I don't hold much stock in anything coming from our government,
OR "The Rebels", whoever they may be.

NONE of it justifies a Military Attack from the USA.

ROBERT REICH: Syria is a Distraction From Our Moral Choices At Home
The use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens is abominable, and if Assad’s regime is responsible he should be treated as an international criminal and pariah.

But have we learned nothing from our mistakes in the past? [font size=3]Time and again over the last half century American presidents have justified so-called “surgical strikes” because the nation’s “credibility” is at stake, and because we have to take some action to show our “strength and resolve” — only to learn years later that our credibility suffered more from our brazen bellicosity, that the surgical strikes only intensified hostilities and made us captive to forces beyond our control,[/font] and that our resolve eventually disappears in the face of mounting casualties of Americans and innocent civilians — and in the absence of clearly-defined goals or even clear exit strategies. We and others have paid an incalculable price.

We should instead be testing the nation’s resolve to provide good jobs at good wages to all Americans who need them, and measuring our credibility by the yardstick of equal opportunity. And we should strike (and join striking workers) against big employers who won’t provide their employees with minimally-decent wages. We need to commit ourselves to a living wage, and to providing more economic security to the millions of Americans now working harder but getting nowhere.

http://www.alternet.org/world/syria-distraction-our-moral-choices-home

(Thanks, kpete)


THIS is a response I will support:
Want to punish Assad? Bankrupt him, his family, and cronies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023581450

"During the decade between the two US wars on Iraq, the US regularly, routinely launched bombs and missiles into Iraq to 'send Saddam a message'. [font size=3]The US bombed Iraq over 150 times, but Saddam never got the message, never changed his behavior, never was injured or killed (though many Iraqi conscripts and civilians were killed by US bombs), never personally suffered from the bombings. There is no reason to believe bombing Syria will be more effective."[/font]

(Thanks, Dems to Win)

Sound Reasoning,
though I doubt it will quell the Blood Lust on display at DU today.
How different would things be at DU if it was Bush beating the War Drums instead of the Democratic Party Leadership?
MY position wouldn't change, but a lot of the Camp Followers sure would.



Killers?
or Peacemakers?
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:47 PM

167. It's an American Design, how creative of the Syrians..




The Surface Launch Unit-Fuel Air Explosive or SLUFAE (shown below), is a 1970s-vintage American weapon designed to clear minefields. SLUFAE was what's known as a fuel air explosive (FAE) or thermobaric munition. These weapons are designed to destroy targets with the massive amounts of air pressure generated by their explosions rather than with flames and shrapnel. The U.S. Army and Navy developed SLUFAE as a prototype weapons system meant to be fired into minefields ahead of advancing U.S. troops with the intention of using SLUFAE's tremendous explosive force to safely detonate mines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 06:28 PM

169. These links look very interesting re: CW

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread