Renegade Islands AllianceBoard

I already responded to the first in a manner that seems satisfactory, considering it was on a different event BLUUUUUUUUH

Babylatia wrote:

To the Global Research source:
I am not sure where in the UN Report they are getting the conclusion that the opposition committed the attacks, because I read it, and it does not say either way. They seem to be assuming from the use of "soldiers" that it was against SAR soldiers, and not possibly against opposition soldiers. The rest of the article is speculation based on others' opinions of the events (one of which is tertiary source...).
- I cited the UN Report above

Rereading through, it does seem like that would be the assumption. Hmm. Alright, kind of moot

Babylatia wrote:

To your Khan Al-Assal claim:
This attack got overshadowed by the Ghouta attack, and thus did not get as much attention. Not sure about the "pro-Assad" findings though, as the UN was not able to determine a source for the attack, but did say that the weapons used were very similar to those used in the Ghouta attack. The chief investigator of the UN/OPCW (Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons) mission/investigation said that it was very unlikely that the opposition would have been able to militarize the chemicals.
- http://www.reuters.com/article/syria-crisis-chemical-idUSL6N0M21TT20140305
- http://www.cbrneworld.com/_uploads/download_magazines/Sellstrom_Feb_2014_v2.pdf

The OPCW investigator may have found it unlikely that militarisation of the weapons was a possibility for the opposition, but the report also notes a list of "poor theories"—including the idea that they were smuggled through Turkey, which certainly seems more plausible now, no? And, depending upon the level of support the smuggling has received, that operational problem could become a bit less of a problem.

Babylatia wrote:

To the ANF News source:
This source mainly seems to be about party politics within Turkey, and I can't analyze its claims because they give no sources.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/turkish-mp-who-claimed-sarin-gas-was-delivered-to-isis-in-syria-through-turkey-faces-treason-charges-34293333.html
That one work better?

Babylatia wrote:

To the 21st Century Wire source:
While this does bring into question the certainty of the attacks being Assad's, it does not do a good job to completely refute them. There refutation is based on the design of the rocket, and claim that its maximum range was 2km (all in rebel held areas). But, as the researcher said, he thought it was the SAR, but "now I’m not sure of anything." If even the researcher is not confident in his claim, how can we?

The remark is not made directly in reference to the claim, but rather in reference to the administration's report on the matter. It would make sense, after all: If they're wrong on this issue, what else are they wrong on? It's very possible to chalk that one up to poor wording, I would think.

Babylatia wrote:

To the last Global Research source:
This source, again fueled by party politics, claims that al-Queda and ISIS colluded in the attacks, which makes sense, based on are chummy they are to each other.
If the West was dead set on an overthrow of Assad, especially through "any means necessary", don't you think it would have happened by now? Instead the West has let the fight go on, causing more and more civilian casualties. Also, why would the West want to replace Assad with one of the much more radical opposition groups?
tl;dr
Most of the evidence is either neutral or points toward Assad doing the attacks.

I dunno, why did the West decide to overthrow Gaddafi?

And, of course, there is the elephant in the room: Why? Assad's been winning the war comfortably for some time now. There's no reason for him to have pulled out the nerve gas; presumably, he would have been well aware that letting loose would mean pissing off the international community further.

The Issue

Niios’s top scientists have accidentally stumbled upon a new ultra-potent bio-weapon while trying to grow more four-leafed clovers. In response, you’ve called a meeting in your war room to decide what shall be done with the new discovery.

The Debate

“Might makes right,” states General Chip Shakespeare. “With so many nations with nuclear weapons, how can we stay safe? I say we use this discovery as a doomsday device! If any other nation tries to nuke us, we activate it! Besides, it’ll be a lot cheaper to maintain than an entire tactical nuclear counter-measure arsenal, so it’ll free up money to research an even doomier doomsday device.”

Accept

“Idiotic, short-sighted drivel!” screams Ingrid Barnes, your Minister of Health. “This disease has the potential to spread across the entire world in days, and you’d just keep it sitting around? We cannot allow this virus to ever see the light of day. You must quarantine the entire facility and destroy this virus and any research related to it. For the safety of - ack!” She is interrupted by the General shoving her from her seat.

Accept

“There’s no fighting in here, this a war room!” shouts Dr. Oddfoot, while rolling up to you in his wheelchair. “Though I would love to develop this weapon fuhrer... erm, further, I must advise against it. The deployment of such a bio-weapon would have unpredictable, albeit entertaining, consequences. However, we can’t simply ignore this discovery; it will be only a matter of time until another nation discovers this weapon. We must research an antidote. We’ll need money and a few brave, ill-informed test subjects, but it’ll be well worth it to prevent an enemy strike!”

Accept