What's new

syrian opposition uses chemical weapon in Aleppo

Last edited by a moderator:
no it was not only Halabche after all that was an Iraqi City before that Iraq used chemical weapon against many small iraqi Kurdish villages and even before that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian cities like Sardasht , Khoramshahr and Marivan .also in 1991 Saddam again used those weapons in Najaf and Karbala

Yes, it was war

Iran supported guerilla groups, that is why Iraq used chemical weapons on those guerillas which also targeted civillians as chemical weapons always do.
I don’t get your point though, Iran has been supporting these guerillas even before the 1979 revolution so why should Iraq treat these guerillas different then Iranian soldiers, in fact they are Iranians in Iraq..
 
Yes, it was war

Iran supported guerilla groups, that is why Iraq used chemical weapons on those guerillas which also targeted civillians as chemical weapons always do.
I don’t get your point though, Iran has been supporting these guerillas even before the 1979 revolution so why should Iraq treat these guerillas different then Iranian soldiers, in fact they are Iranians in Iraq..

I can't believe you are defending acts of that quasi-human called Saddam.He was oppressing people by all means,so if anyone rises against his tyranny, he becomes guerrilla?Since when Kurds in Halabja were Iranian guerrillas?Saddam violated Algiers accord of 1975, invaded a sovereign country, supported Arab terrorist groups in Khuzestan,used chemical weapons in war and on his own people too and violated many other things.So please don't play innocent here.If not for people like you, these terrorists wouldn't dare to use chemical weapons today in Syria.Saddam is burning in place he deserves, but defending his acts is intolerable.I never supported U.S invasion of Iraq because it only brought misery and death to Iraq, but Saddam truly deserved it.From chanting 'second Qadesia' to being hanged by his own people.

Those who are using chemical weapons in Syria too, no matter who it is, will have a similar fate.You can be sure of that.
 
Doritos11 > we had enough civilians killed by the crazy Saddam and still suffer from our families members dead there.
We all lost a dear in the war so please don't say the story of Iranians with guerillas when obviously he was only Saddam who wanted to make a war. And use massively chemical weapons... come in Iran i will invite to come in some villages which are still totally desert and were attacked by chemical weapons...
And if the last king put so many units of army in frontier it is because he was scared that Saddam didn't even control himself and could act strangely. This is written in many famous books like Nahavandi book about revolution.

First times of war was disaster.. when it comes to war then you use all ways to survive and use methods to win .

It is past bro, let's forget it . We have no problem in Iran with Iraqis even if the war was terrible.. and you know why? we know you suffer as much as us. We hate war.

When US entered your country many shiites complained US troops didn't protect their places
and they didn't have choice than protecting themselves . and yes surely some bad decisions by some sick leader in our country .. lead to support of bad guys. Sorry about that.



Let's back to Syria.
Here i find this article really interesting about use of gas in Syria and i like the last comment in the article about US services :D

Just How Blind Are We in Syria?
If there was still any doubt about how confusing the civil war is in Syria, it should be put to rest by the bafflement over last week’s alleged gas attack near Aleppo. It supposedly occurred on March 19, but that’s the only fact we know. No one can tell us whether the regime or the rebels were behind it. Or even if a real chemical weapon was involved.

The chemical-weapons experts I talked to doubted very much that any sort of weaponized nerve agent was exploded. The Syrian military is known to possess both VX and Sarin. But if indeed either one had been used, there would have been horrific casualties, thousands killed. On the other hand, those same experts wouldn’t exclude that some sort of riot-control gas had been used. But who could tell without any sort of real evidence coming out of Syria?

I asked a Syrian rebel what he made of the alleged attack. He said, “We don’t know how to use that stuff.” But he quickly added that there are a lot of rebel groups he couldn’t account for. He said that even Jabhat al-Nusra, a Salafi group that’s now on America’s terrorism list, has lost control of several groups who are nominally fighting in its name.

The obvious cause of our blindness on Syria is that there’s very little reliable reporting coming out of the country. Qatar’s official TV al-Jazeera is on the front lines, but Qatar hasn’t even bothered to hide the fact that it’s taken sides in the Syrian civil war — it won’t even pretend it’s objective. Western news coverage is sporadic and uneven and can’t begin to adequately report on something like a gas attack.

As for American intelligence, it has no one on the ground in Syria, and certainly no one near a hot battle zone like Aleppo. It’s too dangerous and not worth the candle. We’re left then with the not-very-attractive alternative of waiting for Syrian refugees to make their way either north to Turkey or south to Jordan. Their information can’t be anything other than spotty and inaccurate and hard to corroborate. Traumatized people will say anything to get back at their tormentors. As for the Free Syrian Army, it would say anything to persuade the West to intervene and get rid of President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Keep in mind that it wouldn’t take much to rule out the possibility that a nerve agent was used on March 19. One way to do it would be to analyze a sampling of automobile air filters driving in the vicinity at the time of the alleged attack. As crude as it sounds, it’s a method that would offer conclusive proof one way or another. But apparently even this is proving difficult.

We also have to consider the fact that for the past 12 years, American intelligence has taken its eye off the Syrian ball. The bulk of its people and resources have been bled off to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may now have legions of operatives and analysts who can tell us more about these countries than we could ever want to know, but nothing about Syria.

According to a March 20 Washington Post story, a panel of White House advisers issued a secret report that U.S. spy agencies’ collection has been “distorted” by devoting too much money and people to military operations and drones: i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan. For me, the unwritten subscript is that in the hunt for mainstream al-Qaeda, we missed the witches’ brew in Syria. (I say this with the caveat that it wasn’t management’s fault; it’s inevitable when you fight two large and messy wars.)

Finally, one complaint I keep hearing about from intelligence officers is that Washington has let itself become too dependent on data analytics — supercomputers, monitoring social media, algorithms. It may work fine for targeting drones in war, but for an opaque country like Syria, where Internet usage is rare and the cell phones are now out, it’s as good as useless.

If Syria and the rest of the Middle East continue to deteriorate as they are, it’s time for a change in American intelligence. Rather than parking thousands of intelligence officers in front of flat panel screens watching drone feeds, it’s time we go back to old-fashioned intelligence collection: go recruit a source to bring us a dozen car air filters from Aleppo. It could mean the difference between war and peace.
 
I can't believe you are defending acts of that quasi-human called Saddam.He was oppressing people by all means,so if anyone rises against his tyranny, he becomes guerrilla?Since when Kurds in Halabja were Iranian guerrillas?Saddam violated Algiers accord of 1975, invaded a sovereign country, supported Arab terrorist groups in Khuzestan,used chemical weapons in war and on his own people too and violated many other things.So please don't play innocent here.If not for people like you, these terrorists wouldn't dare to use chemical weapons today in Syria.Saddam is burning in place he deserves, but defending his acts is intolerable.I never supported U.S invasion of Iraq because it only brought misery and death to Iraq, but Saddam truly deserved it.From chanting 'second Qadesia' to being hanged by his own people.

Those who are using chemical weapons in Syria too, no matter who it is, will have a similar fate.You can be sure of that.

Not defending saddam, Iran violated the Algiers agreement aswell, Irans leader opress people aswell.
I will play innocent cause I am innocent, I am not responsible for saddams actions just as you aren’t for khomeinis actions.

I was explaining why he put to use chemical weapons, didn’t support it.
 
my opinion how thy get their hands on the chemical weapon and scud it something impossible really it is the gov militia or Israel
 
Not defending saddam, Iran violated the Algiers agreement aswell, Irans leader opress people aswell.
I will play innocent cause I am innocent, I am not responsible for saddams actions just as you aren’t for khomeinis actions.

I was explaining why he put to use chemical weapons, didn’t support it.

Iran didn't violate Algiers,not by any means.But that does not belong to this thread for debate.We can discuss in in a related Iran-Iraq war thread.
Using chemical weapons can not be 'explained', be it in Syria, Iraq or Iran.I didn't say you are not innocent, I was referring to Iraq during Saddam's rule.Anyway, it's past, both of our countries know how ugly the war is and it has nothing in it except suffering,and bringing excuses for crimes in a war is even uglier.

I really wish chemical weapons will never be used anywhere else in the world,I have seen what it does to people, it's worse than dying.
 
What baseless vitriol

It's assad bashar who has been oppressing his people and bombarding them with iranian and hezbollah weaponary as he seeks to claim majority rule over the country with his minority band of subservients.

The chemical arsenal of the syrians has already been confirmed by their previous assertion they would use it on israel and is not based on high fetched claims of libyan infiltration

you supporting alqaeda terrorist in syria against dictator bashar ul asad is like

things are bad in pakistan the civilian dictators zardaari and nawaz has destroyed pakistan so

support TTP

this idea is idiotic

western backed alCIAda will not bring change in syria

syria is better off with asad

usa would have been sitting comfortably in afghanistan if it was not for afghan taliban alqaeda run from afghanistan into pakistan similarly iraq etc where is their resistance now in iraq except killing civilians in 12 bombs in one day in iraq
 
Yes, but this was different
Iraq had no choice fighting a country with a bigger population, cause most iraqi shias, kurds of iraq did not join Iraq’s army.
Either be overrun and defeated or use chemical weapons.
Useless war anyway.

That was a border war, this is in cities, chemical weapons will kill more civillians then armed groups

Simply it could have not started a destructive war with its neighbor.

In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons,[138] though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties.[22][139]

And these cities were targeted by chemical weapons:

Marivan, Baneh and its proximity villages, Piran shahr, Sardasht and so on ...
 
Simply it could have not started a destructive war with its neighbor.



And these cities were targeted by chemical weapons:

Marivan, Baneh and its proximity villages, Piran shahr, Sardasht and so on ...


Simply Iran could have accepted the 1982 ceasefire, simply you guys should not have captured al faw peninsula.
You see what your doing..
It happened already, so trying to change history you can make 500 different stories as I just did aswell.
And when we criticize and insult Saddam, then anyone feel free to add Khomeini, cause in reality both of them were not worthy to be respected.
 
Simply Iran could have accepted the 1982 ceasefire, simply you guys should not have captured al faw peninsula.
You see what your doing..
It happened already, so trying to change history you can make 500 different stories as I just did aswell.
And when we criticize and insult Saddam, then anyone feel free to add Khomeini, cause in reality both of them were not worthy to be respected.

Pal, due to being off-topic I'm reluctant to continue this discussion.

I didn't make it up you can give it a shot and find the reality by yourself , be sure it's what I said.
Actually we could not accept 1982 ceasefire because we were fighting with a maniac person who suffered from bipolar disorder by the name of Sadam who didn't even doubt a second to kill his people, on the other hand our territories were invaded by him in the time and you know him, he was the guy who'd violated 1975 Algeria Iran-Iraq agreement which made him untrustworthy person, moreover and as it's obvious Iraq under his rule during Iran-Iraq war enjoyed supports of western countries esp the USA such as political, military and intelligent ones which resulted in imposing a long-term freeze on UNSC to not pass any kind of resolution against him, the hush silence of UNSC translated by Iran into one thing that it's alone and no one would help it out. whilst our enemy is on our soil there is neither ceasefire nor negotiation, without any question at first its butt must get kicked then there might be a chance to talk. we demanded that UNSC must determine invader and force it to withdraw from our lands and coerce it to respect mutual agreement and also compensation for war damage. none of them happened till 1988 and the 598 resolution.

There was no peace or reconciliation accord, the only thing was a ceasefire plan which meant giving more time for him to strengthen its military machine TO continue his aggression.
 
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has named Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom as the head of the mission tasked with probing the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
"He is an accomplished scientist with a solid background in disarmament and international security," UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said on Tuesday.
The fact-finding team was set up at the request of the Syrian government. Damascus has accused foreign-backed militants of using chemical weapons against civilians near the northern city of Aleppo.

PressTV - Swedish scientist to lead UN chemical weapons probe in Syria
 
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has named Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom as the head of the mission tasked with probing the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
"He is an accomplished scientist with a solid background in disarmament and international security," UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said on Tuesday.
The fact-finding team was set up at the request of the Syrian government. Damascus has accused foreign-backed militants of using chemical weapons against civilians near the northern city of Aleppo.

PressTV - Swedish scientist to lead UN chemical weapons probe in Syria

He's the guy who was sent to Iraq before war took place and his concluded that there was no WMD in Iraq, but no one listen to him.
 
Back
Top Bottom