MIT: Syrian Government is not responsible for Ghouta Chemical Attack

[Syrian Lion]

so now @500 he is an expert, and can go against MIT scientists, great to know.. you are trying so hard to defend your beloved Alqaeda to the point that you are trying to refuse the reality and even MIT reports... those rockets were not the same ones in the videos you showed, again, you yourself post many videos of terrorists stealing arms and weapons, now you are saying that those terrorists don't have those weapons? heck they have a lot more advanced weapons from the west and their puppets...
you are a joke....go read the report again, and check the maps...

 

[Cherokee]

I will believe MIT . I will be one of the applicants hopefully next year or year after .

 

[Hack-Hook]

Degeneracy on several levels.

1) Rockets in question where ADMITTED by Syrian regime itself. There is no any question that these rockets belong to regime. Why there is need in idiotic research when to find out whos rockets are these when we KNOW that these rockets belong to regime?
2) They use baseless assumptions that rockets are propelled by Grad.
3) They claim that the range from the edge of regime controlled area to Zamalka is 5.5-6 km. That is blatant and silly lie.The range from regime controlled al Maamounie to center of Zamalka is 1.5 km.

Conclusion: those who made this so called report are either degenerates, or they are payed liars.

I thought at the time the cannibal and terrorist army captured half of SAA weapon cache and had access to any thing SAA had in it's inventory

The very same conference you cried a blood out for not being allowed to get into

You mean the failed Conference which achieved .....

 

[500]

so now @500 he is an expert, and can go against MIT scientists, great to know.. you are trying so hard to defend your beloved Alqaeda to the point that you are trying to refuse the reality and even MIT reports...

So called report is based on two assumptions:

1) The range from the edge of regime controlled area to Zamalka is 5.5-6 km.
2) Rockets used in chemical attack were propelled by Grad engine.

Both assumptions are obvious crap.

1) The range from regime controlled al Maamounie to center of Zamalka is 1.5 km. Not 5.5-6 km.
2) Rockets were not propelled by Grad engine, because these rockets leave a huge smoke trail, while Grad has almost no smoke at all.

Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!

those rockets were not the same ones in the videos you showed

Here the chemical rocket from your report:

Here its pics:

And here Assad's rockets:

They are identical.

 

[500]

again, you yourself post many videos of terrorists stealing arms and weapons, now you are saying that those terrorists don't have those weapons? heck they have a lot more advanced weapons from the west and their puppets...
you are a joke....go read the report again, and check the maps...

Funny theory. First of all number of captured heavy weapons is very low. There is no any evidence that rebels captured a SINGLE "al Burkan" rocket launcher. But for massive simultaneous attack in Ghouta they would need many such launchers.

So what you are saying that rebels captured many huge launchers with rockets. They did not film how they captured even one of these launchers also they love to boast and film all their achievements. Then they loaded rockets with chemical agent. Then they fired all the rockets against themselves, instead firing at Assads bases or parliament causing massive havoc. Then these launchers suddenly disappeared, because they never were seen in rebel hands.

Sounds legit.

I have another theory: barrel bombs which droped on rebel towns are also done by rebels. Rebels captured helicopters, made barrel bombs and started dropping them on themselves, in order to blame cute sweet Assad.

I will believe MIT . I will be one of the applicants hopefully next year or year after .

Thats another fallacy. This is not "MIT report" but just report of two guys, one of them (Theodore Postol) works at MIT.

Theodore Postol has PhD in nuclear engineering, he knows very little in rockets, chemical weapons and Syrian conflict. But he is very strong critic of US missile program and attention whore.

Anyhow both assumptions that this report is based on are obvious false. There is no any question about it. So report is crap as well.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

You mean the failed Conference which achieved .....

What failure? The talks hadn't finished yet.

The outcome is yet remains to be seen.

 

[Syrian Lion]

@500
you are a total joke, complaining about educated people,and yet we don't know if you have any degrees, why don't you share with us if you have any degrees, maybe it will make you more credible...and it's funny only Saudis like your posts, because it goes with their agenda and don't think at all..

now you asked why would the terrorists fire at the people, it is easy way to get the west to attack Syria, which almost happened.. if you thought about that a little bit you wouldn't have to humiliate yourself...
or yet ask yourself this, why would the government use chemical weapons? so the west can attack it? is the Syrian government asking the west to come and attack it, and topple it??
chemical weapons usage is nothing but terrorists work to get the west involved and help their losing @$$... however, you are naive, you will never think like that, you only care about defending terrorism...

you keep posting videos and denying terrorists have rockets... you yourself once posted videos of terrorists taking over missiles such as scuds and etc... now you are denying those terrorists don't have any rockets??

again your propaganda fails, why don't you make your own report and publish it with MIT? the MIT report stated they got all their information from US intelligence and the UN report...

Now I'm going to stop read your useless non credible posts, unless you provide something with credibility other than your own propaganda and assumptions...

Israeli trying very hard to defend Alqaeda... not surprised

 

[BATMAN]

USA installed Shia government in Iraq. Are u against it Sun Piwa?

Also in Afghanistan.... now Iran regime is playing dirty with states adjoining, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[500]

Syrian Lion
I posted plain and simple facts why this report is joke. Can u deal with my arguments? I'll repeat for u:

Report is based on two assumptions:

1) The range from the edge of regime controlled area to Zamalka is 5.5-6 km.
2) Rockets used in chemical attack were propelled by Grad engine.

Both assumptions are obviously false:

1) The range from regime controlled al Maamounie to center of Zamalka is 1.5 km. Not 5.5-6 km.
2) Rockets were not propelled by Grad engine, because these rockets leave a huge smoke trail, while Grad has virtually no smoke at all.

On top of that we know for sure that rockets in question are used by Assad's forces but there is no any evidence of them used by rebels.

So basically the only argument u have is that "Assad is too nice to use chemical weapons". Yep, he drops daily barrels on civilian neighborhoods, but chemical - never.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Syrian Lion
I posted plain and simple facts why this report is joke. Can u deal with my arguments? I'll repeat for u:

Report is based on two assumptions:

1) The range from the edge of regime controlled area to Zamalka is 5.5-6 km.
2) Rockets used in chemical attack were propelled by Grad engine.

Both assumptions are obviously false:

1) The range from regime controlled al Maamounie to center of Zamalka is 1.5 km. Not 5.5-6 km.
2) Rockets were not propelled by Grad engine, because these rockets leave a huge smoke trail, while Grad has virtually no smoke at all.

On top of that we know for sure that rockets in question are used by Assad's forces but there is no any evidence of them used by rebels.

So basically the only argument u have is that "Assad is too nice to use chemical weapons". Yep, he drops daily barrels on civilian neighborhoods, but chemical - never.

so tell me this, Alasad drops barrel bombs, then why did he drop chemical weapons on Ghouta? so the west can attack him? is that what Alasad wants? are you serious? Ghouta could be easily bombed, and no need for chemical weapons, since there are UN INSPECTORS couple of KM away... funny that attack happened when the UN inspectors arrived? if you had a brain you would have thought about it... and you keep bringing the range, again go check the CIA and western intelligence maps, those are not Syrian government published maps, they are THE WEST'S MAPS... READ THE REPORT AGAIN...

your posts are the definition of stupidity... government uses chemical weapons so the west attacks it... brilliant idea, don't you think? who else will benefit from chemical attack but those losing terrorists?

 

[500]

so tell me this, Alasad drops barrel bombs, then why did he drop chemical weapons on Ghouta? so the west can attack him? is that what Alasad wants?

your posts are the definition of stupidity... government uses chemical weapons so the west attacks it... brilliant idea, don't you think?

Basically only argument (not fact, just rhetoric argument) is that West will attack him, but it did not happen as we see.

Assad barrel bombs Ghouta.
Assad starves Ghouta.
So he tried Chemical too. Hundreds of tons of chemical weapons stored without use - why not try them.

again go check the CIA and western intelligence maps, those are not Syrian government published maps, they are THE WEST'S MAPS... READ THE REPORT AGAIN...

I dont know what CIA maps are you talking about. I am talking about plain and simple satellite maps.

They show that the range from regime controlled al Maamounie to center of Zamalka is 1.5 km. Not 5.5-6 km as your silly report claims.

This is incontestable FACT.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Assad barrel bombs Ghouta.
Assad starves Ghouta.
So he tried Chemical too. Hundreds of tons of chemical weapons stored without use - why not try them.

really? the west almost did, the only reason was the Syrian-Russian deal of Syria giving up it's chemical arsenal smart one...

again tell me who else would benefit from western invasion/attack other than those losing terrorists? the government could easily use different type of weapons that are not chemical such as bombs and missiles... again why would the government attack on the day the UN inspectors arrive? while the UN inspectors were couple KM away from Ghouta? can you answer that?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf

 

[500]

really? the west almost did

Yep, you have almost one argument against plenty of solid facts.

again tell me who else would benefit from western invasion/attack other than those losing terrorists?

I bet rebels also barrel bomb themselves because its a blatant war crime just like chemical weapon use.

the government could easily use different type of weapons that are not chemical such as bombs and missiles...

Chemical is cheaper (it lies in stores with no use) and more effective.

again why would the government attack on the day the UN inspectors arrive? while the UN inspectors were couple KM away from Ghouta? can you answer that?

Did it change anything? - Nope.

View attachment 15525

This map is crap. Here is the real one:

Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!

 

[Hack-Hook]

@500 well you only have some argument and no solid fact . so it's argument against argument.

and no there is no law against barrel bombs

 

[500]

@500 well you only have some argument and no solid fact . so it's argument against argument.

Nope. There are plenty of FACTS indicating against Assad:

1) The attack was directed against Assad's enemies.
2) The attack was very large scale and Assad has large amount of CW and specialists who can use it. There is no any evidence that rebels have large amounts of CW and specialists who can use it.
3) The attack was made by large rockets which Assad possess, there is no any evidence that rebels ever captured even one such rocket, its virtually impossible for rebels to hide such rockets in dense populated Ghouta.
4) The attack azimuths measured by UN inspectors indicate they came from Assad controlled areas.

There is not a single fact indicating against rebels. Only a flawed argument that Assad could be attacked.

and no there is no law against barrel bombs

There is:

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
3. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.