Yes, the Syrian Government is capable of the attack, though it has never been proven that they gassed their own people, though they've killed them in more traditional means then even the USA and Israel and the Saudi terrorists use, it has long been known that they have Sarin Gas to counter Israel's Nukes, and Israel has been attacking Syria most of out lives, not Syria attacking Israel.
Israel and Saudi terrorists also have Sarin Gas, and are capable of using it. Al Qaeda and other aggressive terrorists working for the USA have also had Chemical and biological weapons to use agasint the USA's enemies. Ignoring all evidence presented by Iran, Syria and Russia, of course only leaves you with Western influenced or partnered views. Insisting you have all the facts while refusing to let the UN do an investigation, and applauding all stops to that, also show, facts fitted to an agenda, not facts used to find a cause. So far every investigation that has managed to get a sample has shown, the Sarin Gas isn't refined in the manner the Syrian Governments gas would be, and that what has been found can be manufactured in most any industrial district. Of course that data doesn't fit the agenda so it is ignored by those who want US intervention in Syria, who also ignore we never go in and leave, unless we have a puppet dictator left behind. Also, isn't it nice how there are always internal wars within the middle east that never existed till the Westerners made new boundaries and governments for them? Assyrians and Arabs never had countries in common, much less the Kurds had always had their own government. the Brits found out how well this worked in the 1600's in Ireland, and have found it a wonderful way to keep regions destabilized who'd otherwise throw off the Capital Controlling mantle of their self appointed betters. Scott > This is the evidence that the Syrian government was capable of the attack, > and had a history of using the munitions linked to the attack. As for > evidence of Syrian opposition responsibility, that appears rather thin on > the ground. You have claims the attacks were faked, the victims being > Alawite hostages from Latakia, that were somehow driven through hundreds > of > miles of contested and government controlled territory to Damascus. * > There's > claims that** this was some sort of > accident<http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/> > involving Saudi supplied chemical weapons, which fails to explain how one > incident could effect two separate areas. Other claims centre around the > opposition having sarin, based off reports in Turkey in > May<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530>, > where it was reported Jabhat al-Nusra members were arrested with sarin. > The "sarin" was later reported to be > anti-freeze<http://haber.stargazete.com/politika/sarin-gazi-denildi-antifiriz-cikti/haber-759157>, > and only this > week<http://thekurdishcause.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/turkish-prosecutor-indicts-six.html> > some > of the members are being prosecuted for trying to make sarin, having only > a > shopping list of ingredients, rather than actual sarin. It seems to me, > that compared to the evidence of government responsibility for the > attacks, > the evidence of opposition responsibility seems very poor.* > * > * > http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/09/who-was-responsible-for-august-21st.html > * > * > > > Monday, 16 September 2013 > Who Was Responsible For The August 21st Attack? > In light of today's report from the > UN<http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf> > confirming > the use of sarin in the August 21st attacks in Damascus, I thought I'd > take > a look at the open source evidence of who is responsible. I'll be looking > at evidence that's freely available for anyone to examine, rather than > what > German spy boats may or may not of heard, or intelligence reports that > tell > us they have evidence, but don't actually show the evidence. As always, > evidence does not automatically equal proof, so it's up to you to decide > if > this information proves one side or the other was responsible. > * > *Two munitions have been linked to the attack, the M14 140mm artillery > rocket<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/were-un-inspectors-examining-chemical.html>, > and a munition I've previously referred to as the UMLACA (Unidentified > Munition Linked to Alleged Chemical Attacks). > > <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m9Txcd0p36c/UjRURbnbRMI/AAAAAAAAFs4/oow1VJVaSGQ/s1600/140mm.jpg>M14 > 140mm artillery > rocket<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9ioQELZ-QLI/UjRUZd9DrTI/AAAAAAAAFtA/lawQsNkcZ2Y/s1600/1184769_512817145465573_185473020_n.jpg> > UMLACAThe UN inspectors have now confirmed both munitions carried a > chemical payload, so the question is, who used them? In the 18 months > I've > been studying the arms and munitions in the conflict I have never seen > either type of munition used by the opposition. The opposition has rocket > artillery, for example the 107mm > Type-63<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgvCFKXolN8&list=PLPC0Udeof3T5aArakalCpvx4vhEshAyMw> > multiple > rocket launcher and the Croatian 128mm > RAK-12<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzIo1qyJFX8&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4zdqbvxmbC9NnzV2DeyecY>, > but I've never seen any sign of the 140mm systems (such as the > BM-14<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-14>) > that would be used to launch the M14 artillery rocket. More details on > the > M14, and it's origins, are in this video from RUSI > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PmwjXp45syI > > > > As with the M14, there's no evidence the Syrian opposition has access to, > or have used, the UMLACA. > Since January 2013, a number of photographs <http://imgur.com/a/1nziC> and > videos<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLcqi_dE9SU&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4_ws0Xhv4O2ABwjrxYJVK9&index=1> > of > these munitions have been published by opposition activists, who have > consistently claimed these were fired by government forces. Thefirst > video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68YeijuMHec>, > posted from Daraya, Damascus on January 4th 2013, doesn't even link the > munition to a chemical attack, and through the last 3 weeks of > investigations on the munition, I've established there are at least two > types of this munition; the type linked to the August 21st attack and > other > alleged chemical attacks, and a high explosive type, which I examine in > this > post<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/video-showing-high-explosive-variant-of.html> > . > > It's important to note that the UMLACA has also been recorded at the scene > of at least one other chemical attack, including one in Adra, Damascus, on > August 5th, which I detail > here<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/why-un-report-on-chemical-weapons-in.html>. > Another video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HylX8OiczHk>, from June > 11th, also filmed in Adra, shows the remains of an UMLACA that's described > as a "chemical rocket", although it's not specified which alleged chemical > attack it was linked to. Considering the new information presented in > today's UN report, it seems worth re-examining some of the earlier > allegations of chemical attacks in Syria. > > One thing that must be stressed, is that the UMLACA is a munition that's > never been seen in any other conflict, and it's origins are somewhat of a > mystery. This has led some people to claim the munition could have been > constructed by the opposition, and one popular video shows what's claimed > to be a chemical munition being used by the opposition, with some even > claimed it's the UMLACA, even though it's clearly a totally different > design > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qtDDfMQtB6c > > > > The above video is what's known as a "Hell Cannon", a popular mortar type > weapon used by the Syrian opposition. I've gone into more details about > the Hell Cannon, and why it's not a chemical weapon, as some people have > claimed, > here<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/claims-of-opposition-diy-weapons-used.html>, > but there is one other aspect of it I want to explore in relation to the > UMLACAs. > As I've said before, some people have claimed the UMLACA could be a DIY > munition manufactured by the opposition, but by examining the construction > of both the Hell Cannon and the UMLACA I think it's clear there's a very > significant difference in the quality and complexity of construction. > > When the Hell Cannon first appeared in May 2013, it was accompanied by a > release of a promotional video showing the construction of the weapon, > shown below > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LCcE09uFIxo > > > > In this video we can see the most complex part of the system is the > launching platform, with the munition itself being not much more than a > gas > cylinder welded onto a metal pole, with fins added. The gas cylinder > warhead is then filled with fertilizer based explosive, and fitted with a > simple impact fuze. The launching platform is pretty simple, just a > mortar > tube with the rest of the construction desgined to give it stability. The > following video, published on August 5th, shows ammunition for the Hell > Cannon being produced > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2o5rfstTI50 > > > > The design has had a slight improvement, with extendable tail fins added, > and large numbers of the munitions being produced. If these were all > chemical weapons then it's pretty clear someone would have noticed by now, > and this really demonstrates how basic the design of these munitions are, > something that's reflected in pretty much all the munitions produced by > the > opposition. > > Over the past three weeks I've been collecting detailed > photographs<http://imgur.com/a/DCinJ> of > the UMLACA, trying to make sense of how it's put together, and how it > works. What's become clear is the UMLACA is far much more than just a > barrel on a rocket. Human Rights Watch's > report<https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack> > on > August 21st included a diagram of the UMLACA I helped produce, shown below > > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m1F_w_fPtDE/UjRgP5cKcYI/AAAAAAAAFtQ/Q_NIKQLklkk/s1600/330mm_chemrocket_diagram_2.jpg> > > There's a lot of details that point to this being more sophisticated that > the gas cylinders on a stick, for example, way in which the warhead > appears > to be designed to come apart. There's clues to this in the various videos > and photographs of the remains of the munition. The following images are > taken from 4 different UMLACAs, showing the remains of the outer shell of > the warhead > > <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aKBCYqt5hv0/UjRkOL0SHiI/AAAAAAAAFtc/L7uj2wPkz4k/s1600/Strips.jpg> > > You'll note that they've consistently split in exactly the same way, right > down the length of the warhead, apparently pre-weakened to break open that > way. Another example is the rocket itself, as the below video of the high > explosive variant of the UMLACA demonstrates, the housing for the rocket, > which the tail fins are attached to, has been manufactured separately, and > tightly fitted over the rocket, with fixtures added to the end so it can > firmly attach to the base of the warhead (40 seconds > onwards<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JSBcbNUf7gk#t=39> > ) > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JSBcbNUf7gk > > > > These are just a couple of examples of the design quality of the munition, > demonstrating this is something that's beyond anything the opposition has > manufactured themselves, strongly indicating this is something that's been > manufactured by the Syrian military, or one of it's allies. More > examination of the construction of the munition can be found > here<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/detailed-diagrams-of-unidentified.html> > . > > There's also a number of videos and images showing what appears to be > there > munitions, or variants, being used by government forces. This first video > shows what appears to be a larger version of the same munition being > loaded > into a launcher, and launched > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y6CZtF6pGvQ > > > > This video claims to show one of the munitions launched from the > government > controlled Qadam railway station in Damascus > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ddlAXHmfLQ > > > > The below screenshots of the video clearly shows the profile of the rocket > matching the unusual profile of the UMLACA > > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1I6ljFm1bEM/UjRnmcyFgbI/AAAAAAAAFto/xFgFqcUleJ0/s1600/Launch.jpg> > > This image appears to show an UMLACA loaded into what arms expert Nic > Jenzen-Jones has described as an Iranian Falaq-2 type > launcher<http://rogueadventurer.com/2013/08/29/alleged-cw-munitions-in-syria-fired-from-iranian-falaq-2-type-launchers/>, > with the same launching vehicle photographed inNovember > 2012<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444257352288151&set=a.404629666250920.87845.404311486282738&type=1&theater> > > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3h5gC-uD00s/UjRoXV7PnnI/AAAAAAAAFtw/unanRe4BG48/s1600/BSy-rESCMAAJunm.jpg> > > It was also possible to find the precise location of one of the munitions > fired, and deduce it was fired from the north, the location of 155th > brigade missile base, and related sites (detailed > here<http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/finding-exact-location-of-alleged.html> > ). > > This is the evidence that the Syrian government was capable of the attack, > and had a history of using the munitions linked to the attack. As for > evidence of Syrian opposition responsibility, that appears rather thin on > the ground. You have claims the attacks were faked, the victims being > Alawite hostages from Latakia, that were somehow driven through hundreds > of > miles of contested and government controlled territory to Damascus. > There's claims that this was some sort of > accident<http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/> > involving > Saudi supplied chemical weapons, which fails to explain how one incident > could effect two separate areas. Other claims centre around the > opposition > having sarin, based off reports in Turkey in > May<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530>, > where it was reported Jabhat al-Nusra members were arrested with sarin. > The "sarin" was later reported to be > anti-freeze<http://haber.stargazete.com/politika/sarin-gazi-denildi-antifiriz-cikti/haber-759157>, > and only this > week<http://thekurdishcause.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/turkish-prosecutor-indicts-six.html> > some > of the members are being prosecuted for trying to make sarin, having only > a > shopping list of ingredients, rather than actual sarin. It seems to me, > that compared to the evidence of government responsibility for the > attacks, > the evidence of opposition responsibility seems very poor. > > More posted on the subject of the August 21st attacks can be found > here<http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/08/collected-media-of-munitions-linked-to.html>, > and other posts on chemical weapons and Syria, including extremely > informative interviews with chemical weapon specialists, can be found > here<http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/08/collected-chemical-weapon-posts.html> > . > ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
