Most likely some home made bit of kit, complete with Russian red stars! Looks the biz if you don't look too closely, which is probably the point of it, to confuse aerial reconnaissance. At best these rebels seem a bit of a rag tag and bobtail outfit.

Rebels

Looks like it is a real weapon
http://tinyurl.com/nkplde4
but not a chemical gas one ...

exactly so the whole premise of this being a chemical weapong is a farce.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

the possibility of a convential conflict

All Weapons Are Chemical. If One Wants to Argue there is No Gas Involved. Then tell that to the Myriad of Items Combusted after the Bomb Explodes.

And you be The One Whose Body is "Taking In" the "Gases" produced by said Combustion.

Ever been In A Fire? Mmmmmmm Tasty.

fO shO

The Insane One.

'it'

First of all neither a hammer or a fist is chemical in the sense the phrase is being used.
Second, what are you smoking, that has to be the best.

---

the individuals look much to young to have had a mother that was recently exposed if they were vietnamese at all.

second, US troops handle Depleted Uranium shells all the time. How come we don't have the same problem in the US military family network? And we know this child is Iraqi? because? and why is the mother smiling?


3rd white phophorous isn't know to cause birth defects but is know to cause massive burns. This guy doesn't appear to have burns but a bad case of genes.

That's because every one of those pictures were photoshop'ed. Yet that little detail doesn't prevent some from believing any lie about the President that they can muster up - just like that video where they refer (like all conspiracy theorists) to Obama's middle name as if that is proof that he's a Muslim trying to kill or hurt Christians. Thankfully many of the smarter Christians don't buy into that crap.

War is the worst thing that may be experienced by man and should be avoided whenever possible.

Freedom of expression means both pros as well as cons when it comes to opinion and meaning.

Please note that I am not an American citizen and is not living in the United States.

But what if you are being directly attacked? It has happened at least two times in the 20th century. In the first case, the United States was brought into the Second World War as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In the latter case it was a terrorism attack which subsequently lead to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of its leader Saddam Hussein.

Without any doubt any forms of chemical warfare should be condemned by the International Community and in fact it is being done so. There are signed treaties between many countries which prohibits the specific use of chemical warfare without necessarily excluding the possibility of a conventional conflict.

Which should be of some comfort, especially to those innocent civilians who are becoming hostages of an internal conflict or possible agression between two or more countries.

Civil wars are the worst kinds of wars. In such types of conflicts there apparently are no rules when it comes to the use of weapons or how many people who are supposed to be killed or suffer. Better stay away from such conflicts as long as possible.

Still, history has shown us better. Wars are having no borders and what happens in one local place could likely spill into some other place without further notice, which makes handling such events very difficult.

Looks like it is a real weapon
http://tinyurl.com/nkplde4
but not a chemical gas one ...

---

its sad. Those people look very bad and I'm willing to be all of them have some genetic defects that are unlikely to have anything to do with agent orange, depleted uranium or white phosphorus.

First off, yes Agent ornage causes birth defects, 30-40 years ago. the individuals look much to young to have had a mother that was recently exposed if they were vietnamese at all.

second, US troops handle Depleted Uranium shells all the time. How come we don't have the same problem in the US military family network? And we know this child is Iraqi? because? and why is the mother smiling?


3rd white phophorous isn't know to cause birth defects but is know to cause massive burns. This guy doesn't appear to have burns but a bad case of genes.

4th
really thats a rebel and thats a real gas projectile. what about all those guys that are wearing BDU's? rebels too? Talk about brave, not one of them has any chemical weapon gear. Not even a gas mask. That looks more like a 10 pound propane tank that someone welded fins onto then painted it blue. real chemical weapons are put into actual artillery shells. they remove the HE component and add the chemical agent. when the shell hits the detonator cracks the shell and the liquid inside is released. The warning in the Military was always "if it explodes you are ok. If it only makes a small explosion(detonator) then you have a chemical weapon or a dud.
Did you know the color blue is what militaries paint fake munitions blue to help distinguish them from the real thing. And on that note what idiot would paint a real military item blue? Or use what is clearly a wheel to a japanese car? Is it supposed to improvised? And could a real military item look a bit more jerry rigged. and if it were a live weapon would you really want to be standing that close to a chemical weapon without any protection at all. What if it leaked? everyone dies?

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

When you get information from an ally and they say they agree with its conclusion and nothing in it goes against what your own services have collected ...

I hope you are not making major policy decisions on a single data point.

If you are lucky you have a datum, most of the time you just have a gut feeling.

---

When you get information from an ally and they say they agree with its conclusion and nothing in it goes against what your own services have collected ...

Exactly. You go by the likelihood that it is more right than not. If you take a chance and ignore it and get it wrong, you'll be told you were warned. Else better safe than sorry. Bush wanted an excuse to go to war and this gave him one. Blair was just put over a barrel.

When you get information from an ally and they say they agree with its conclusion and nothing in it goes against what your own services have collected ...

I hope you are not making major policy decisions on a single data point.

In any case that checking isn't shrub's job.

You used to have a president who had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here".

Now who is lying about WMD in Syria?

That is the key question. how will we (all of us) answer it?

---

1. The "American press"?!

The Chicago Tribune, today

THE AMERICAN PRESS!?

The LA times, 30 August 2013

Just WHAT NEWS AGENCY is doing this? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? MSNBC?

Rush is carried on most Canadian cable networks,and I've seen him on TV in Europe and Asia on my travels over the last few years. As far as the rest of us know, he represents an Average American.

3. YOU KNOW WHAT THE PRESS COVERAGE WOULD BE IF ROMNEY WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Based on what I've seen of Republican presidents in the last few decades, he would be bombing the hell out of everybody, and a good chunk of the US press would be falling over each other in the rush to kiss his butt.

---

1. It never fails to amaze me how the American press is able to reduce everything to the level of petty party politics.

1. The "American press"?! THE AMERICAN PRESS!? OMG! WHERE DO I BEGIN!? Let me just say, which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Much to your shock, America does have a press. http://www.voanews.com/

---

They passed it on to people that should have known better, or at least should have checked twice before destroying a nation.

Checked it how? Just exactly what was passed on? Just a report of conclusions or the interview and whatever fact checking was done to vet it?

When you get information from an ally and they say they agree with its conclusion and nothing in it goes against what your own services have collected ...

In any case that checking isn't shrub's job. Some analyst got snookered and no one up the chain of command had any information to contradict it, in fact it was what they expected because that was what the target was saying publicly he was doing!

Too bad Iraqi intelligence misread the USA assuming we would never go to war if they boasted they were working on WMD. Likely wouldn't have if they hadn't done a plot on the Daddy of the Pres.

Now who is lying about WMD in Syria?

---

Let me ask you this. What is Canada doing about the issues in Syria?

Well ....

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada supports calls for a military intervention against the Assad regime in Syria as a direct response to that government's use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Canada

Interesting ...

relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND.

So it was the BND that got taken and passed it on. No more blaming shrub.

They passed it on to people that should have known better, or at least should have checked twice before destroying a nation. Still lots of blame to go around.

---

Interesting ...

relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND.

So it was the BND that got taken and passed it on. No more blaming shrub.

---

Plenty available if one looks.....

Good links, thanks.

There was a lot more but trying to find a particular needle is daunting :(

---