Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds' [Archive] - Page 4

Mittelwaechter

09-05-13, 08:29 AM

Sunni Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the Middle East. Syria is Sunni, but led by Alevi (a Shiite branch) Assad, a partner of Iran. Iran is Shiite and a rival of Saudi Arabia.

The US and Israel consider Iran to be hostile, since the Iranian people brought down their tyrant, a willing partner for western oil business.

Saudi Arabia backed US in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, to have an allied/western base next to Iran. The US wanted to fight back the new communist Afghansitan, supported by the Russians.

Turkey would like to join the attack, but this is not in Saudi Arabia's interest.

So Syria is a piece of the puzzle to hit Iran - following the interests of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US.
It is well possible, that the riots and the chemical attacks in Syria are part of an 'allied' plot to hit Iran.

The problem with the FIAT US Dollar is, that the US has nothing to back it but the military power. The US is bankrupt - 16.7 trillions of debts - and the US can sell only a few things of interest on the global market, but buys way more than it sells.

Import was 2.3 trillion Dollars, export was 1.5 trillion Dollars in 2012 - a deficit of 0.8 trillion Dollars (only in 2012) in goods.
The major import AND export goods are machines, electronic eqipment, oil, vehicles and medical equipment (top ranking in 2012).
Including services the import was 2.7 trillion Dollars and the export 2.2 trillion Dollars. Still a deficit of 0.5 trillion Dollars.

The costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are shooting through the ceiling. Two trillions of tax money and still counting. 50 million US Americans on food stamps and another 100 million close to the poverty line. FIAT money is only based on trust. The US is losing on this ground rapidly.

The Russians have endless resources and the Chinese cheap manpower and consumer goods to back their currency. Both have an export surplus in 2012 - as usual in the last decades.

Wolferz

09-05-13, 08:37 AM

/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFEhmF-cSi8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFEhmF-cSi8)

mapuc

09-05-13, 08:42 AM

http://tryimg.com/3/fake.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDkgRBtMJUo&t=3m27s

OK I was wrong, but not entirely. They have used an old clip in a new situation.

Markus

Skybird

09-05-13, 09:38 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-congress-idUSBRE9830N620130904

In remarks that could raise tension further before he hosts President Barack Obama and other G20 leaders on Thursday, Putin also said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lied to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda's role in the Syrian conflict.

"They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: 'Is al Qaeda there?' He says: 'No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not'," Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.

"Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this," he said, referring to the United States. "It was unpleasant and surprising for me - we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."

Putin did not give any more details.

In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was "basically true" that the Syrian opposition had "become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: "No, that is actually basically not true. It's basically incorrect".

Well, by all that I have read, heard and seen, AQ is one of the best-armed rebel factions in the conflict. The FSA on the other hand is suffering a increasingly threatening personnel drain of fighters moving to radical groups or AQ, because they are better armed and financially better supported. FSA already is "outcoined" and outgunned - it could end up getting outmanned by radical groups as well.

Mr Quatro

09-05-13, 11:37 AM

I don't see how you can leave God out of this conflict ... if this is a red flag to bring up God then excuse me ...!

Syria has a God, each warring faction in the rebel war against the preset regime in Syria has a God.

Iran has a God that is the same as the Saudi's it's just a small religious spat they are having about where Mecca should be or more to the point how to worship as a true Muslim should.

Iran by the way is aligned with the Assad and his military defense of Syria.

Israel has a God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The good ole USA has a God, the son of God most high, Jesus, of which the Jewish nation of Israel denies that he is who he says he is.

Russia and China have, for the most part, no God and they along with Iran are against any military action in Syria that would punish Syria for the use of chemical warfare weapons against it's own people, going so far as to say that it was not President Assad that did this horrible deed.

On another forum, I don't remember which one, I heard a prophecy given three months ago that we should forgive the US Congress while we still can.

At first I thought oh this has something to do with President Obama's health care plan to be put into service by January or something to do with the budget crisis looming in the next 30 days or so.

Then I remembered the prophecy:

"Forgive the US Congress while you still can" "If you don't trust the Lord thy God you are either going to hell or you are going to be embarrassed when you get to heaven"

While some believe and some do not believe in a God that fought and won WWII ... I am among the believers.

This prophecy is not a red flag to discuss heaven or hell or a God or no God, but simply another way to see that God is in charge even if America makes a mistake like it did in Vietnam, God is still in charge of what men think.

It is entirely possible that the US Congress will deny the use of armed forces in Syria, but if they do let President Obama get away with the fence sitting he has been doing and we do attack Syria ... it can only back Syria and their Allies Russia, China and Iran deeper into a corner.

They have limited options to fight back, but every single option will draw us closer and closer to world confrontation.

I personally would like to see more humanitarian aid given to the ten's of thousands including one million children that have fled Syria.

Do you realize that President Obama has refused to give the rebels gas mask, but yet wants to bomb the enemy into submission?

I didn't trust this President when he was elected.
I didn't trust him when he ran up the national debt.
I didn't trust him with his health care plan for all taking 500 billion dollars away from Medicare ...

I don't trust President Obama now :nope:

Mittelwaechter

09-05-13, 11:49 AM

As far as I understand it, there are at least two Al Qaeda.

One is Osama's independent terror group, based on the former fighters in Afghanistan. He was noting the members of all the operations reported back to him, to provide information to the calling relatives from Saudi Arabia, asking what happened to their sons or brothers. Al Qaeda means list or database in Englisch. This list was a US/CIA/FBI base for naming/finding suspects for all executed terror attacks after the 'Afghan' independence war againt Russia. Osama's Al Qaeda did what they were doing in Afghanistan, what they were capable of: terror attacks on easy prey. Guerrilla war, partisan style.

The other Al Qaeda - our Al Qaeda - is an US controlled pretense. Our Al Qaida is an impressive staging, sending video messages when needed, willing assignable cause to any terror attack or plan. A veil for our agitating, civil ground crews operating in the Arabic - or other - countries, to breed bad blood, initiate some uprises and provide terror. Any force we deploy to destabilize a government or society can act as our Al Qaida. It has no members but the ones we assign to it. It is a not catchable phantom, a huntable shadow, an everlasting enemy.

It's what the US military branch urgently needed to keep the tax money flow running. The Soviet bogeyman disappeared without warning and no new, constant tax money provider was in sight. Osama's small Al Qaeda was no ample reason for running a multi billion Dollar military. They had to create an own, reliable and controllable bogeyman, showing up and frightening the s... out of the people whenever needed, but not able to disappear at his own will. Obama's Al Qaeda was a perfect fundament to build on and it is a perfect disguise and feint. As a welcome side effect, it was a justification for the growing surveillance and censor efforts.

There may be even a third Al Qaeda. I leave it to your own imagination to ponder on.

Tribesman

09-05-13, 12:03 PM

Ok, now I am confused.
If Russia has no god and god won world war II which side was Stalin on?

Ducimus

09-05-13, 12:09 PM

A couple of foxnews headlines:

Putin warns Russia could come to Syria's aid over US strike (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/obama-to-engage-putin-on-syria-strike-at-g-20-summit/)

Putin greets Obama with Syria threat (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/putin-greets-obama-with-syria-threat/)

Russia's upping the rhetoric. Putin called Kerry a liar.

Dowly

09-05-13, 12:09 PM

Al Qaeda means list or database in Englisch.

No, it means "The Base".

The name comes from the Arabic noun qā'idah, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.

The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

----

The other Al Qaeda - our Al Qaeda - is an US controlled pretense. Our Al Qaida is an impressive staging, sending video messages when needed, willing assignable cause to any terror attack or plan. A veil for our agitating, civil ground crews operating in the Arabic - or other - countries, to breed bad blood, initiate some uprises and provide terror. Any force we deploy to destabilize a government or society can act as our Al Qaida. It has no members but the ones we assign to it. It is a not catchable phantom, a huntable shadow, an everlasting enemy.

It's what the US military branch urgently needed to keep the tax money flow running. The Soviet bogeyman disappeared without warning and no new, constant tax money provider was in sight. Osama's small Al Qaeda was no ample reason for running a multi billion Dollar military. They had to create an own, reliable and controllable bogeyman, showing up and frightening the s... out of the people whenever needed, but not able to disappear at his own will. Obama's Al Qaeda was a perfect fundament to build on and it is a perfect disguise and feint. As a welcome side effect, it was a justification for the growing surveillance and censor efforts.

Any evidence? :roll:

CaptainHaplo

09-05-13, 12:18 PM

Russia's upping the rhetoric. Putin called Kerry a liar.

What does it say when the statements of the Russian PM are more credible that those of our own Secretary of State?

We have known for quite some time that AQ - and militant islamists in general - are part of the uprising in Syria.

Sailor Steve

09-05-13, 12:22 PM

I don't see how you can leave God out of this conflict ... if this is a red flag to bring up God then excuse me ...!
Not at all, since different beliefs in the nature of God are a major cause of the conflict in the Middle East. But...

The good ole USA has a God, the son of God most high, Jesus, of which the Jewish nation of Israel denies that he is who he says he is.
Mentioning Israel's denial of the Christian God is a possible incentive for a religious discussion, which doesn't have a place in a thread about the reasons for US intervention in the Syrian Civil War. We should never intervene on the basis of opposing religious beliefs, and I don't think we are now.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 12:24 PM

What does it say when the statements of the Russian PM are more credible that those of our own Secretary of State?
.

At this point, I think it's just a fact that our nations leaders are bold faced liars. You can't get more in your face then Obama did as i pointed out yesterday. Judge for yourself.

Aug 2012:
US President Barack Obama in 'red line' warning to Syria over chemical weapons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avQKLRGRhPU)

Sept 4 2013:
Obama: "I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFoFBrxRTQ)

Mittelwaechter

09-05-13, 01:57 PM

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook wrote an article for the Guardian in 2005.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

Excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738

It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of “Al Qaeda.” We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

The available information on the internet changes over time. Sources vanish or hide, data is reinterpreted or rewritten to fit (minitrue you know).
Evidence is hard to find for us. They are not stupid to leave it out in the open. They actively work on our perception, on the information and its interpretation.

'As far as I understand' does not claim any evidence.
It's all about connecting the dots, the bits of information we get, not following the prethought concepts offered by the governments (they tend to lie), but using one's own brain. Forming an 'own' opinion by thinking.

Penguin

09-05-13, 02:14 PM

Sunni Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the Middle East. Syria is Sunni, but led by Alevi (a Shiite branch) Assad, a partner of Iran. Iran is Shiite and a rival of Saudi Arabia.

The US and Israel consider Iran to be hostile, since the Iranian people brought down their tyrant, a willing partner for western oil business.

Saudi Arabia backed US in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, to have an allied/western base next to Iran. The US wanted to fight back the new communist Afghansitan, supported by the Russians.

Turkey would like to join the attack, but this is not in Saudi Arabia's interest.

So Syria is a piece of the puzzle to hit Iran - following the interests of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US.

:damn:

Syria has a God, each warring faction in the rebel war against the preset regime in Syria has a God.

Iran has a God that is the same as the Saudi's it's just a small religious spat they are having about where Mecca should be or more to the point how to worship as a true Muslim should.

Iran by the way is aligned with the Assad and his military defense of Syria.

Israel has a God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The good ole USA has a God, the son of God most high, Jesus, of which the Jewish nation of Israel denies that he is who he says he is.

Russia and China have, for the most part, no God [...]

:damn:

Seriously, what is this: history and religion for 1st graders?
I checked my browser's title page twice to see if I really landed at subsim and not at some Pokemon forum. With an argumentation niveau like this, I don't even know where to start with counterarguments.
So I'll just say: no, you both failed in doing your homework.

Dowly

09-05-13, 02:16 PM

Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.

Oh that guy who also believes that 9/11 was an inside job?
Sorry, not a very convincing guy.

The available information on the internet changes over time. Sources vanish or hide, data is reinterpreted or rewritten to fit (minitrue you know).
Evidence is hard to find for us. They are not stupid to leave it out in the open. They actively work on our perception, on the information and its interpretation.

'As far as I understand' does not claim any evidence.
It's all about connecting the dots, the bits of information we get, not following the prethought concepts offered by the governments (they tend to lie), but using one's own brain. Forming an 'own' opinion by thinking.

First of, who are "they"? This question is being asked all the time, but nobody
seems to have an answer.

And connecting the dots is a prime reason why these theories never hold water.
"Debunkers" rely on facts and available data, CTers rely on nothing but their own imagination.

EDIT: And the link between CIA and OBL has been known for quite some time.
Proves nothing.

EDIT2: You still use a quote that says "Al-Qaeda" means "Database".
Look, Arabic isnt some dead language, you can check it out yourself if you dont believe me.

Mittelwaechter

09-05-13, 02:58 PM

It's easy to do in Rome as the Romans do.

Sorry, the official 9/11 story isn't convincing either. But it is easy to claim it to be true, because it's official. ;)

They are the true rulers, the regents of our world.
They are the guys behind the banks and investment fonds, the guys close to the politicians, the profiters of the wars, the collectors of tax money.

They are not a regular entity, but a changing coalition of interests.
They are like a wolf pack: powerful individuals that come together to hunt.

The most important ones are here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080

I have only limited access and limited time to debunk any concepts. But I don't parrot the official concepts to be on the safe side, the side of the majority, the side that easily mocks others for thinking different.

Al Qaeda means list or base or data base. It's used for several issues. As far as I know, Osama was the master of the data base listing the fighters in Afghanistan.
The interpretation of the training camps to be the source for the name is new to me.
Your guys think this is the true, my guys think the other interpretation is true.
Do you have any evidence?

They named the training base "Al-qaida" as they name a list "Al Qaeda" and a data base "al Qaida". It's not that important anyway. In our case it's a group of individuals on a list or in a camp.

TLAM Strike

09-05-13, 03:35 PM

The Russians are rotating their fleet in the Med (http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130904/183163497/Russias-Mediterranean-Task-Force-to-Rotate-4-Ships.html). By the end of the month they will have a task force that looks something like this:

Slava cruiser Moskva
Udaloy destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov (Gulf of Aden)
Kashin class frigate Smetlivy
Missile Corvettes Shtil and Ivanovets
Amur Class Repair Ship PM-138
Assault Ships Nikolai Filchenkov, Novocherkassk and Minsk
Intel Trawler Priazovye

The ships leaving the med will probably be:
Udaloy destroyer Admiral Panteleyev,
Assault ships Admiral Nevelsky and Alexander Shabalin,
frigate Neustrashimy

Oberon

09-05-13, 03:39 PM

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4120/68352200.jpg

Dowly

09-05-13, 04:01 PM

Sorry, the official 9/11 story isn't convincing either. But it is easy to claim it to be true, because it's official. ;)

It's easy to claim it true because the facts are there to back it up.

They are the true rulers, the regents of our world.
They are the guys behind the banks and investment fonds, the guys close to the politicians, the profiters of the wars, the collectors of tax money.

They are not a regular entity, but a changing coalition of interests.
They are like a wolf pack: powerful individuals that come together to hunt.

The most important ones are here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080

My god! They actually list sources in that one! That's something you dont see
everyday from the CT side.

Waaaait a minute...

David Icke, believes probably in every single conspiracy there is.
Jim Marrs, believes in JFK CT, aliens, telepathy and so on.
Eustace Mullins, believes the jews control the world. Also, a bit of a racist.

So.. sorry, but not very convincing.

I have only limited access and limited time to debunk any concepts. But I don't parrot the official concepts to be on the safe side, the side of the majority, the side that easily mocks others for thinking different.

The only reason you are mocked is because you spout the "think for yourself!" crap, yet you clearly fail to do so yourself. If you would, you'd see
that there is no conspiracy. It as simple as that.

Al Qaeda means list or base or data base. It's used for several issues. As far as I know, Osama was the master of the data base listing the fighters in Afghanistan.
The interpretation of the training camps to be the source for the name is new to me.
Your guys think this is the true, my guys think the other interpretation is true.
Do you have any evidence?

Yep, here's a shot from three diffeferent english - arabic online dictionaries:
http://i.imgur.com/MB4mr8o.jpg

It's not that important anyway.
You brought it up, I pointed you were wrong. Kinda eats the credibility of the
article you posted, if the guy cant get even that right.

Stealhead

09-05-13, 04:09 PM

Yep, here's a shot from three diffeferent english - arabic online dictionaries:

Ah yest the whole Al Qaeda is a CIA name meaning the database.

I recall pointing out the same thing you just did a while back in thread that mentioned Al Qaeda and what it really means according to the conspiracy folks.Some people just do not get it I recon.

I suppose I could also add that Al Qaeda, when used as a pronoun in Arabic more closely translates to "the basis or the base(of an idea or belief.... the foundation).

Al means "the" or "of" in Arabic. For example the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade means (followers) "of the Al-Aqusa mosque".

I am no expert in Arabic but my uncle spent many years snooping in on Arabic military radio networks the ones allied with the Soviets during the Cold War and he speaks Arabic fluently.

eddie

09-05-13, 04:10 PM

We have to stay out of this stupid war!! Just read the first 4 sentences of this article.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52928567/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

Stealhead

09-05-13, 04:22 PM

We have to stay out of this stupid war!! Just read the first 4 sentences of this article.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52928567/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

That is a very serious problem who do you choose to back and in the long term once Assad is gone the folks that you did not pick will be angry and it will just keep going.

Dowly

09-05-13, 04:23 PM

We have to stay out of this stupid war!! Just read the first 4 sentences of this article.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52928567/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

Aye, there are a lot of videos showing the brutality on both sides. Of course,
the videos can't be confirmed to be from Syria, but I have no doubt they are
going medieval on each other. :nope:

Ducimus

09-05-13, 04:25 PM

It's their country, their politics, their civil war, and their problem; not ours.

Tchocky

09-05-13, 04:28 PM

Lowering the bar for chemical weapon use is everyone's problem.

Stealhead

09-05-13, 04:28 PM

Oh also the 3rd al-Qaida is a neurotic house cat in Bangladesh.The fourth al-Qa'ida did not do so well and its CIA appointed leader wound up running a felafel stand where he vigorously promotes Shria law and plots ways to kill Skybird.

August

09-05-13, 04:31 PM

Lowering the bar for chemical weapon use is everyone's problem.

What do you mean by lowering the bar? What height should the bar be set at?

Ducimus

09-05-13, 04:32 PM

Lowering the bar for chemical weapon use is everyone's problem.

If your so anxious to kick down doors and solve problems, then strap up, kit out and serve your conscience overseas.

Tchocky

09-05-13, 04:41 PM

I'm anxious that the use of chemical weapons be punished.
I'm not going myself because I've got an egg on and there's nobody to feed the cat .

If you want to get nationalistic about it, there are already over 100 Irish soldiers in Syria.

August - excellent point, I should have worded that better.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 04:51 PM

As someone who did serve their conscience overseas, i take issue with hawkish people who advocate putting other peoples lives at risk, and then sitting comfortably at home doing nothing.

Tchocky

09-05-13, 04:52 PM

Alright lads, you heard him.

This thread is now for veterans or currently enlisted only.

Ducimus

09-05-13, 04:54 PM

Nice sidestepping on your lack of backbone, oh eager beaver. Because your cat is infinately more important.

I'm not going myself because I've got an egg on and there's nobody to feed the cat .
.

http://www.wwyd.org/images/humor/keyboard-commando.jpg

Tchocky

09-05-13, 05:06 PM

Nice sidestepping on your lack of backbone, oh eager beaver. Because your cat is infinately more important.Sidestepped what? I was facetious in response to a question that doesn't work. Your line of argument doesn't work. You argue for no intervention. Where do you get the right to say that, when you're not involved on the ground in Syria and therefore unable to make a judgement? See, it's broken.

As someone who did serve their conscience overseas, i take issue with hawkish people who advocate putting other peoples lives at risk, and then sitting comfortably at home doing nothing. But advocating that the lives already at risk from chemical weapons should remain at risk from them is just fine?

Strewth.

GT, what would we do without it.

eddie

09-05-13, 05:11 PM

If we could have caught the unit in the act of using these chemical weapons and hit them right then, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. But that is not the case at all, this whole thing could spin out of control by one simple mistake. Is Assad feels like he is cornered and doesn't see a way out, who will he strike at?

with the chemical arsenal Syria has, a lot of innocent people will die. I wish there was an easy answer to this situation but there isn't. If we strike Syria with missiles, its going to be like a man hitting a bee's nest with a stick, just to see what happens.

August

09-05-13, 05:18 PM

https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1235925_356317361168115_1114245149_n.jpg

Tchocky

09-05-13, 05:23 PM

Good one!

[But-seriously] This won't be a surprise attack, and the Obama admin has been reluctant for years about getting involved in Syria, they even had to be dragged into Libya by France & the UK. I don't see escalation as massively likely from the US side if this goes thorough.

With the massive added caveat that we don't know how Assad will respond [/But-seriously]

Stealhead

09-05-13, 05:30 PM

It will be like Rolling Thunder during Vietnam they will bomb a bunch of empty buildings while the real target will be in obvious site but there will express orders not to attack that target.

They really did that in Vietnam they would tell pilots to bomb a location but avoid a hitting a certain area because high ranking enemy officers where supposedly having a meeting there and you uh like do not wont to kill your enemy chain of command.:nope:

what really bugs me is the current BS buzz word "calculus" ,"the calculus may change" "the calculus has changed" oh shut the hell up.

vienna

09-05-13, 05:35 PM

what really bugs me is the current BS buzz word "calculus" ,"the calculus may change" "the calculus has changed" oh shut the hell up.

What, you don't like the new "paradigm"?

<O>

Ducimus

09-05-13, 05:37 PM

Where do you get the right to say that, when you're not involved on the ground in Syria and therefore unable to make a judgement? See, it's broken.

That applies to you too buckwheat. Where do you get off wanting to send others into harms way on something.. ANYTHING.. that you think is important?

If your going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. To be fair, it isn't just you i'm picking on. Just people like you. People like you advocate for war, but when the O'dark 30 wake up call comes, and others are made to drag their bags through a freaking mobility processing line, and finally loaded up into the belly of a C141 with full kit, and those cargo doors slam shut, reality sinks in and let me tell you it is cold and hard. When that plane lifts off the ground, where are you? This is what people like you advocate for, but when the **** hits the fan, your nowhere to be found.

I also get a kick out of the people who put their chinese made "I support our troops" yellow ribbon bumper stickers on their cars to make themselves feel good. You support the troops? Really? HOW? Steve has issues with grammar. I have issues with keyboard warhawks.

Tchocky

09-05-13, 05:41 PM

I could turn that entire line of argument around regarding the people under threat of chemical attack in Syria. I did it in the last post to illustrate how this line of thinking doesn't work.

I mean come on. You're saying that Syrian civiian casualties are not your problem. Well, the forces that go into action in Syria if this goes off aren't my problem. But there's no point in posting that a) because it makes me look like an uncaring jackass when I'm not, and b) because it's completely irrelevant.

As for being a keyboard hawk or whatever - I'm not using anyone's sacrifices or potential pain to try and make a point on a web forum. That would be you.

August

09-05-13, 06:10 PM

Again what about collateral damage? The Syrians are almost certainly going to try and sucker us into bombing an orphanage or hospital or mosque, anything that generates images of dead civilians they can use to show what a Great Satan we are. It'll play well in a lot of places around the world.

Our representatives in DC should also remember that these images are going to be hung around the neck of every politician who votes for this thing come next election, starting in their own parties primary. Every Democrat will face primary challenges from the anti-war faction of their party and every Republican from the fiscal conservatives and the isolationists.

Maybe the time has finally come for a Libertarian to draw off enough support from both parties to have a real shot at winning?

Ducimus

09-05-13, 06:14 PM

I could turn that entire line of argument around regarding the people under threat of chemical attack in Syria.

Again, Syria is not our ****ing problem.

I did it in the last post to illustrate how this line of thinking doesn't work.

As opposed to your eagerness to step into what can potentially turn into a major conflict?

I mean come on. You're saying that Syrian civiian casualties are not your problem.

No they aren't.

Well, the forces that go into action in Syria if this goes off aren't my problem.

No they aren't either, the difference is, this is what you wanted.

But there's no point in posting that a) because it makes me look like an uncaring jackass when I'm not,

You know what, i'll be plain and honest. In my time, I've been to enough ****holes to know that I don't like being told that I'm there to help, only to have the people im supposedly helping spit in my face. Their problems are their problems, they should not be ours. So yeah if that makes me an uncaring jackass so be it. I have no problem in saying, I DO NOT CARE WHAT GOES ON IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. As far as im concerned they can go to hell. Not my country then it is not my home, and hence not my problem. Of course, people like you are eager to make it everyones problem, aren't ya?

As for being a keyboard hawk or whatever -

Who's advocating for war again? Sure as **** ain't me. I'm done talking to you.

eddie

09-05-13, 06:14 PM

During a hearing on Syria, Sen. John McCain got caught playing poker on his Iphone,LOL Glad he's got his head in the game!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

Ducimus

09-05-13, 06:23 PM

Again what about collateral damage?

Seriously. It's a powder keg waiting to go off. We ought not to go lighting match's around it, less we blow ourselves up.

The Syrians are almost certainly going to try and sucker us into bombing an orphanage or hospital or mosque, anything that generates images of dead civilians they can use to show what a Great Satan we are. It'll play well in a lot of places around the world.

A very distinct possiblity.

every Republican from the fiscal conservatives and the isolationists.

Don't confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism)

Maybe the time has finally come for a Libertarian to draw off enough support from both parties to have a real shot at winning?

I hope so. It would be a significant improvment over what we have now.

Tchocky

09-05-13, 06:25 PM

Again, Syria is not our ****ing problem. I'm not saying it is. What I'm saying is that the use of chemical weapons by a government against it's own civilians is everyone's problem and it's a shame that very few countries seem to recognise this enough to want to do something.

As opposed to your eagerness to step into what can potentially turn into a major conflict?I want the chemical weapons out of the conflict. However best to do that then is what to do. There's very little that anyone can realistically do about the civil war aside from offer a venue for negotiations and that's being done in Geneva. Get the sarin out of there and leave the war to itself. It sucks that there ain't a better option but there isn't.

Of course, people like you are eager to make it everyones problem, aren't ya? I've already said that I think the use of chemical weapons on civilians is everyone's problem.

You seem to think I'm advocating for a full-scale invasion by everybody except me. Hardly.

Who's advocating for war again? Sure as **** ain't me.By your standards I'm not either. Read the posts.

I'm not advocating that anyone tries to kick in on behalf of either side and finish the war for them. I've never said that on this thread and you'd do well to take notice of that.

I'm done talking to you. Oh, I doubt it.

Tchocky

09-05-13, 06:32 PM

The Syrians are almost certainly going to try and sucker us into bombing an orphanage or hospital or mosque, anything that generates images of dead civilians they can use to show what a Great Satan we are. It'll play well in a lot of places around the world. Yes, that's a very real possibility. Collateral damage will happen and it's always bad. The best you can do is avoid it as much as possible, but that's very difficult.

I would say that the damage involved in removing chemical weapons from a sadistic man who used them on his own people is worth it. None of the options here are any good, but that doesn't give any country an excuse for picking the worst one, get me?

Also - the places where this will look bad are places where the US looks pretty bad already. A bit like posting Limbaugh quotes on DemocraticUnderground. These people have their minds made up already, reinforcing it does nothing except bolster the status quo. I wouldn't worry.

Our representatives in DC should also remember that these images are going to be hung around the neck of every politician who votes for this thing come next election, starting in their own parties primary. Every Democrat will face primary challenges from the anti-war faction of their party and every Republican from the fiscal conservatives and the isolationists. Yeah, true. This will be a hell of a week for whipping in the House. I honestly don't know if it can be done.

There is definitely very little appetite in the polling data.

Seriously. It's a powder keg waiting to go off

Do you mean Syria?

August

09-05-13, 06:50 PM

I would say that the damage involved in removing chemical weapons from a sadistic man who used them on his own people is worth it. None of the options here are any good, but that doesn't give any country an excuse for picking the worst one, get me?

This isn't going to remove chemical weapons from anyone. From what I understand we're talking about 50 or more locations, many hardened some we can't even pinpoint. How is anything Obama can do short of a "boots on the ground" full scale invasion going to accomplish the goal you're using to justify that damage?

Ducimus

09-05-13, 07:00 PM

This isn't going to remove chemical weapons from anyone. From what I understand we're talking about 50 or more locations, many hardened some we can't even pinpoint. How is anything Obama can do short of a "boots on the ground" full scale invasion going to accomplish the goal you're using to justify that damage?

I know I haven't sat through a chem warfare class for many many moons now, so i could very well be wrong; but by my recollection, even if their using binary agents, bombing chemical stockpiles in general, is tantamount to having a visit from "The good idea fairy".

Tchocky

09-05-13, 07:03 PM

This isn't going to remove chemical weapons from anyone. From what I understand we're talking about 50 or more locations, many hardened some we can't even pinpoint. I'd hope that a sufficiently hard strike will deter him from using any nerve agent he has left after it, for fear of further retaliation. Since he appears to be winning the ground war.

How is anything Obama can do short of a "boots on the ground" full scale invasion going to accomplish the goal you're using to justify that damage?
Air strikes and raiding parties to get the chemical weapons under control. In and out fast. I won't use the word "surgical" because that's something politicians say when they want you to think nobody gets hurt. I don't imagine this will happen straight away, if ever.

This is what I mean when i say there aren't any very good options here.

What has happened can't go unanswered, if only for the sake of where they might be used next.

TLAM Strike

09-05-13, 07:03 PM

This isn't going to remove chemical weapons from anyone. From what I understand we're talking about 50 or more locations, many hardened some we can't even pinpoint. How is anything Obama can do short of a "boots on the ground" full scale invasion going to accomplish the goal you're using to justify that damage?
The CRS estimates it would take 75,000 troops sent in to Syria to secure the weapons. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/crs-dod-estimates-over-75000-troops-needed-secure-syria-s-chem)

Platapus

09-05-13, 07:05 PM

Interesting that the CRS has already been tasked to study this.

Mittelwaechter

09-05-13, 07:34 PM

Well Dowly, it seems you've got a simple view of the world and you urgently want to believe.
Isn't it great we're free to do so?

The facts to back 'it' up are totally bogus and anybody using his brain and his life experience sees it.
But it's hard to believe the government to lie, to deceive and to cover murder. A government we rely on and trust, we may even have faught and killed for.
So the mind flees into the comfort zone and denies the reality. It's a natural reaction on this situation of mental pressure and hard to bear. You are not alone.

It makes you feel better - it's a relief - to stand up and say:
"Your theories are all BS, I believe in my provided truth. You are stupid CTs and everybody knows it.".

When it was actual for me to learn what Al Qaeda means, the common translation here was list or database. Obviously it was common, even the former British Foreign Minister talked of a database in 2005.

Today it may be important to have turned it into "the base", derived from the terror training camp, in consideration of manipulating the peoples perception.
Makes the Al Qaeda look more dangerous and more evil to be named after a terror camp than after a database.

August

09-05-13, 07:37 PM

I'd hope that a sufficiently hard strike will deter him from using any nerve agent he has left after it, for fear of further retaliation. Since he appears to be winning the ground war.

Air strikes and raiding parties to get the chemical weapons under control. In and out fast. I won't use the word "surgical" because that's something politicians say when they want you to think nobody gets hurt. I don't imagine this will happen straight away, if ever.

This is what I mean when i say there aren't any very good options here.

What has happened can't go unanswered, if only for the sake of where they might be used next.

No raiding party is going to be able to secure a chemical weapons plant or even a munitions stockpile let alone 50 of them. Then secure these places for what? You can't just blow them up in place without causing major contamination of the surrounding city and countryside so you're talking heavy equipment, containment and decontamination facilities and thousands of troops and technicians just to get the stuff ready to ship out of there. That can't be done with a raid.

So we're back to a showy but ultimately harmless smack to the face of the projected winner. I just don't see that being worth the thousands of civilian casualties this could produce.

eddie

09-05-13, 08:03 PM

They have one of the largest stockpile of these weapons in the ME. Trying to get to them all would take a major invasion like August says.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

Oberon

09-05-13, 08:23 PM

I know I haven't sat through a chem warfare class for many many moons now, so i could very well be wrong; but by my recollection, even if their using binary agents, bombing chemical stockpiles in general, is tantamount to having a visit from "The good idea fairy".

What about thermobaric weapons? Obviously that could only happen against weapons that you can actually locate, and as we've learnt, the CIA is famously well informed about the location of weapons of mass destruction.
I mean, any strike is going to have collateral damage, particularly one so well advertised as this strike is going to be, and ultimately to secure ALL the weapons you are going to need boots on the ground...but I get the impression from Obamas changing tone and McCains on/off/on/off stance on this that this is no longer about removing all his chemical weapons but basically giving Assad a spanked bottom. Hence the change of phrase from removing chemical weapons capabilities to 'eroding the Syrian military'.

So, the way I see this strike going, as it stands, is a first wave of TLAMs against radar sites, fixed AAA and SAM systems, Command and Control centers and airfields, then a sustained aerial bombardment on chemical sites, command sites, military facilities, and mobile launchers, both ballistic and SAM. It's not going to remove his chemical weapons, nor is it going to bomb the way to Assads front door for the Free Syrian Army, but it's going to knock his military network for six and deliver a message that if he uses chemical weapons again, then the US will come in again and give his armed forces a thorough working over.

The trouble is, and this is where this plan of non-engagement falls apart, is that Assad simply does not care, if his chemical weapons get knocked out, not a problem, he's done alright so far without them, if his C&C gets knocked out then his forces will struggle for a week but then it'll be repaired, and while he'll probably miss his Scud launchers, he can still use artillery to bombard the FSA. Meanwhile pictures of bombed schools and 'baby milk factories' will be broadcast 24/7 by the Russians, lapped up by every media network in the west and the already low public support for military action will drop through the floor, and God help the US if one of their aircraft gets shot down, a lynch mob will probably form in front of the White House.

The tactics behind the plan are fairly sound, it's the standard stand-off warfare approach that the US has been practicing since the Gulf War, every time Saddam got a bit up himself, the US would send a couple of TLAMs to visit an airfield, and so on. It's the US's strongest point, the ability to use stand-off weapons effectively to degrade an enemies defences in a way that prevents the enemy from striking back, and then when the defences are low enough, they send in the manned stuff, there's still an element of risk, but it's balanced against the enhanced situational awareness and capability.
The diplomatic and political situation behind this plan are so far down the drainpipe that it's hit the recycled water center and come back out the tap again. Support for action is only found in the political centers, and even then it's quite reluctant, you've got a nuclear armed nation playing chess with warships whilst you threaten to smash his friends head in, and there's no money in the bank to fund the military you want to use against the enemy.

In short, the US has the ability to do this, but that does not mean that it should, or indeed will not regret doing so in the long term.

Stealhead

09-05-13, 08:34 PM

The best asset against a hardened bunker or any very high value target would the B-2 they can deploy deep penetration(no dirty minds) bunker busters those have a thermobaric warhead.

My guess is they strike command and control assets and known bunkers first.The US is the master of surveillance o there is no way to hide what is what it just a matter of when and if you hit.They no doubt have been watching Syrian movements for years.

eddie

09-05-13, 08:41 PM

Along with some help from Mossad, They'll know where a lot of things are. Still not a good idea though, for me anyway. Not speaking for anyone else,lol

nikimcbee

09-05-13, 08:51 PM

Since we're hell bent on dropping bombs there, why don't we just bomb both sides. Send puff the magic dragon in with a fighter escort, bomb anybody with an ak or rpg.:hmmm:

eddie

09-05-13, 08:56 PM

If we did that, we would have to carpet bomb the whole ME, if we are going after anyone with an AK!:D

Stealhead

09-05-13, 09:05 PM

Along with some help from Mossad, They'll know where a lot of things are. Still not a good idea though, for me anyway. Not speaking for anyone else,lol

Mossad is the Israeli intelligence agency you should keep in mind that they have the best interests of Israel in mind not the United States.

Stealhead

09-05-13, 09:07 PM

August

09-05-13, 09:08 PM

TLAM Strike

09-05-13, 09:21 PM

Another thing to consider is that if we bomb Assad we're making him into another Saddam Hussain, just itching to get revenge on us some day. Are we prepared to sustain a blockade and no fly zone over Syria for the next decade or so? Will we eventually have to invade and take him out like Saddam was to clear our tails so we can concentrate on the next two bit dictator we want to slap?

If we try to blockade Syria to prevent Assad from rearming we run in to two very serious problems, one is the land routes from the Iraqi desert. Those would have to be blocked someone and that could mean sending troops back in to Iraq. The second problem is that one of Syria's major arms suppliers is Iran (who is unlikely to stop sending arms if the UN asks). Iran has been flying in cargoes on their commercial aircraft, are we going start turning back Iranian aircraft from Syria? What if they start escorting them with fighters (their F-14s have the range and their MiG-29s could do it with IFR)?

The situation could get very complex very fast.

Stealhead

09-05-13, 09:30 PM

That is the bigger question/problem.What will Iran do if [place numerous situations here]?

eddie

09-05-13, 11:24 PM

The whole thing with Iran brings a lot more questions to this situation. But Western trained combat pilots would fly circles around them, easily.

Stealhead

09-05-13, 11:31 PM

What do you think the IRIAF does all day sit around?Never ever underestimate your enemy or potential enemy.Especially not Iran they went pretty hard core in Gulf War 1 1980-88 and pretty much the entire world was supporting Iraq against them but they still kept fighting.They did get some military aid via back door channels from some countries you would be surprised by.

I doubt they are as good as they where 80-88 most many of those guys where trained by USAF pilots the F-4 jocks anyway.Some of those guys are high staff by now or retired and some got executed by their government after the war.Some of them flew their F-14s to Iraq and then came to the US they made a wise choice because the others that stayed with the Iraqis and refused to come to the US where not treated as defectors by Iraq.

They would rely on missile based air defense anyway cheaper than risking your pilots and aircraft.Back in the 80's they avoided Saudi(usually) and US Navy aircraft in the Gulf like the plague which is actually smart live to fight another in a battle that you can win.

August

09-05-13, 11:34 PM

The whole thing with Iran brings a lot more questions to this situation. But Western trained combat pilots would fly circles around them, easily.

Yeah but now we're in a shooting war with them too.

Dowly

09-06-13, 01:38 AM

Well Dowly, it seems you've got a simple view of the world and you urgently want to believe.

And here comes the "you're a sheep" speech. :)

The facts to back 'it' up are totally bogus and anybody using his brain and his life experience sees it.

Funny how in over ten years, not one of you guys have been able to disprove those "bogus" facts. :88)

But it's hard to believe the government to lie, to deceive and to cover murder. A government we rely on and trust, we may even have faught and killed for.
So the mind flees into the comfort zone and denies the reality. It's a natural reaction on this situation of mental pressure and hard to bear. You are not alone.

Yeah well, I'm from Finland so I don't really care what the US gov says.

"You are stupid CTs and everybody knows it.".

Honestly? Yes, I think exactly that. Give me evidence and I am willing to start thinking otherwise.

When it was actual for me to learn what Al Qaeda means, the common translation here was list or database. Obviously it was common, even the former British Foreign Minister talked of a database in 2005.

Today it may be important to have turned it into "the base", derived from the terror training camp, in consideration of manipulating the peoples perception.
Makes the Al Qaeda look more dangerous and more evil to be named after a terror camp than after a database.

Read Stealhead's response in post #824

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 03:48 AM

You mock me several times and call me a CT. So yes, I describe your sheepness.

I should not have climbed down on your niveau? Ok, I give you that one.

There is nothing you can prove over the internet.
But you can use your experience and your own judgement to realize the discrepancies.

I.e. Bush at the school. He was told "A second plane has hit the tower. America is under attack." according to his own words.
How would you react? Would you have any further questions? Would you excuse yourself, state there is something important going on and leave the classroom to manage the threat?
Bush said, he didn't want to frighten the kids and the people, he wanted to show how calm and relaxed he is as a leader.
Seven minutes staring into Nirvana, allowing any further attack to happen.
You think this is convincing? I guess not, but you simply refuse to accept the unacceptable.

Finnland you say? Great country, nice people, good performance.
I don't know much about your government, but you are aware, the US government actions affect the whole world. Especially the 9/11 considerations and reactions.

... Give me evidence and I am willing to start thinking otherwise.This is in fact your problem: you want to have evidence, to believe in.
You want to be provided with simple truth, then you would be willing to start thinking.
But you don't. You simply accept the 'evidence' you have been given by the authorities.

Al Qaeda? You guys don't (want to?) understand my point. I've learned "Al Qaeda" describes a database. The expression "Al Qaeda" was used by the US/GB/Osama... to refer to this database. Originally it is not important what the term literally translates into.

"My little zucchini" translates literally into something else what I am talking about.

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 04:31 AM

You are very entertaining I will give you that.

:up:

That's what we are here for. Entertainment.
Wouldn't it be boring to read me telling the official stories everybody 'knows'?

I do mean what I write, I try to provide some brain food.
But you are free to think of it as entertainment, gentlemen.
No one enforces you to consider it valid.
Stay with the mainstream if you prefer.

09-06-13, 05:09 AM

:up:

That's what we are here for. Entertainment.
Wouldn't it be boring to read me telling the official stories everybody 'knows'?

I do mean what I write, I try to provide some brain food.
But you are free to think of it as entertainment, gentlemen.
No one enforces you to consider it valid.
Stay with the mainstream if you prefer.

Yes yes you are not like the rest of us.
You think for yourself....just because you buy some FTS bull.

Feuer Frei!

09-06-13, 05:13 AM

US hinting at not seeking UN aproval for military strikes against Syria?

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power's remarks on Thursday left no doubt that Washington would not seek U.N. approval for a military strike on Syria in response to an August 21 chemical attack near Damascus.

Here's more on what she said Thursday:
Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html?_r=0)

China steps in as well now...albeit from a distance.
Haven't heard much at all from China...

SOURCE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-china-idUSBRE9850BY20130906)

Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:41am EDT

Dowly

09-06-13, 05:15 AM

You mock me several times and call me a CT. So yes, I describe your sheepness.

Fair enough. I do apologize for all the mockery, it just gets tiresome to explain
the same things over and over and over again.

There is nothing you can prove over the internet.
But you can use your experience and your own judgement to realize the discrepancies.

I am using my own experience. Those who have been here long enough
probably remember that I used to be suspicious about the official 9/11
version. Then, I actually started to look into it and noticed that the CT side
did little more than make up stuff, take quotes out of context and so on.
These are all things you can check for yourself.

I.e. Bush at the school. He was told "A second plane has hit the tower. America is under attack." according to his own words.
How would you react? Would you have any further questions? Would you excuse yourself, state there is something important going on and leave the classroom to manage the threat?
Bush said, he didn't want to frighten the kids and the people, he wanted to show how calm and relaxed he is as a leader.
Seven minutes staring into Nirvana, allowing any further attack to happen.
You think this is convincing? I guess not, but you simply refuse to accept the unacceptable.

But you must ask yourself: If Bush was part of it, don't you think he would've
acted in a manner that didn't arouse suspicion?

I don't know much about your government, but you are aware, the US government actions affect the whole world. Especially the 9/11 considerations and reactions.

Can't say I've noticed the effects. Life goes on as it used to. :hmmm:

This is in fact your problem: you want to have evidence, to believe in.
You want to be provided with simple truth, then you would be willing to start thinking.
But you don't. You simply accept the 'evidence' you have been given by the authorities.

I accept that side's evidence that can lead to a logical and reasonable conclusion.

And yes, I expect to see some evidence if someone is making claims such as you are.
You can believe what you want, but if you air it on a public discussion forum,
prepare to be challenged and asked for evidence. That's how it goes.

Al Qaeda? You guys don't (want to?) understand my point. I've learned "Al Qaeda" describes a database. The expression "Al Qaeda" was used by the US/GB/Osama... to refer to this database. Originally it is not important what the term literally translates into.

Fine, let's say you are right. What does it proof? That AQ was backed by US?
Yeah, that's a possibility (earlier I think I said it was commonly known, but actually
there is no evidence either way). If AQ was backed by US and SA, then so what?
I don't quite understand where you are going with this. :dead:

If you want to continue this, may I suggest you post your response to this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205143

No need to clutter this one.

Sammi79

09-06-13, 05:17 AM

A new report pins chemical attack on Assad (Al-Jazeera news)

!warning! - briefly shows the original video of the victims in the hospital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAT7yMBW2Gg&feature=youtu.be

In the interview an American expert explains his views on the design and capacity of the weapons after looking at the photographic evidence.

I'm not sure exactly when this next video surfaced, it is totally unverifiable by me in any way, but I found it interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DcqVfI4xIY

that at ~1.32 the stabilizer fin being held by a disembodied hand in the top left corner looks incredibly similar in design and proportion to the photographic evidence of the rockets used in the most recent chemical attack. Note also the size of the blue cylinder that I assume would carry the munitions packed round the dispersal charge. Granted the ones used in the recent attack are larger.

That is not to say that this video couldn't have been faked by either side, I think you'd have to be a bit simple to be filming it in the first place.

But those weapons don't look very advanced to me.

Feuer Frei!

09-06-13, 05:26 AM

A new report pins chemical attack on Assad (Al-Jazeera news)

So is it the American expert that pins the blame on Assad?

The French did it 2 - 3 days ago.

Sorry, i don't click on youtube links (no offense to you).

EDIT: Western Intelligence Agencies. Ok.

Rockets carrying 50 times more nerve agent then first thought.

So how does this pin the blame on Assad? By the amount used.
Because the reasoning is that the Rebels wouldn't have that much nerve gas to begin with?

And after checking out the youtube comments. it's getting a hammering.
Propaganda. No real evidence. All fair points.

Skybird

09-06-13, 05:34 AM

Immediate concerns regarding Iran?

Swarming speedboats in the gulf flooding Navy defences. Mines in the strait of Hormuz. Attacks on soft targets in Iraq. Strikes in Afghanistan. Hezbollanian rumble from Lebanon. Missiles on Israel.

The Iranian F-14s honestly I do not have on my list of prominent threats anymore. Are they even operational anymore? I imagine they are easy to track once they are airborne. Just follow the trail of spareparts falling from them.

Implications: Turkey drawn deep into military conflict. Kurdish upraise spreading from Syria and Iraq to Turkey and Iran. Israel being drawn into it. Jordan toppling. Saudi regime challenged by unrest. Gulf regimes threatened by unrest.

The only positive variable: Egypt's return to fighting the influence of the MB.

Oberon

09-06-13, 05:43 AM

Feuer Frei!

09-06-13, 05:46 AM

Iran has Mig 29's, F-5's and a few Mirage F1's.

Mirage F1:

http://www.airrecognition.com/images/stories/middle_east/iran/fighter_aircraft/mirage/pictures/Mirage_F1_fighter_aircraft_IRAF_Iran_Iranian_Air_F orce_002.jpg

Sammi79

09-06-13, 06:12 AM

So is it the American expert that pins the blame on Assad?

Sorry, i don't click on youtube links (no offense to you).

I only put that as the title of the news piece itself. Don't worry, the irony was not lost on me.

If you don't want to look at them, that's fine. The news piece was a link from the Guardian website, if that makes any difference. As I warned it is ultimately depressing anyway - and it is not my intent to tug at heart strings I leave that to the global media.

The point is, Camorons main argument (which mimics that from US/FR/DE admins amongst several others) is that the weapons are too big and/or complex for the FSA+associates to have in their arsenal. I suppose they would ask us to trust their intelligence about exactly what these 'rebels' capabilities and equipment are. Maybe they are just looking at their receipts...

I just wanted to point out that the photographic evidence for the used rockets in the relevant attack showed weapons with no apparent degree of complexity at least non greater than very slightly smaller allegedly home made versions. So you need a bigger gun or maybe a tube launcher of some sort.

The whole situation is completely absurd. Do the leaders of our nations have any credibility left? is there any way we can trust them on this vague circumstantial deduction? Is there the faintest possibility that this time they are telling the truth? Not excluding Putin of course, though currently he does a much better job of at least appearing rational.

Something needs to change badly. Not over there in Syria, but here in our countries.

And now, they are just beginning to know that we know.
[edit] We really need to keep our eyes on our own countries and leaders if we really want to help the 'global' situation.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/544892_512799305463697_1766319366_n.jpg

09-06-13, 06:26 AM

The point is, Camorons main argument (which mimics that from US/FR/DE admins amongst several others) is that the weapons are too big and/or complex for the FSA+associates to have in their arsenal. I suppose they would ask us to trust their intelligence about exactly what these 'rebels' capabilities and equipment are. Maybe they are just looking at their receipts..

This claim is nonsense but I hardly believe it is the main evidence.

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 06:46 AM

Good edit, Sammi.

09-06-13, 07:03 AM

Where is logic in attaching unusual device to airliner and crashing it in middle of new york when you got the whole airliner.
You don't have to be some crafty government conspirator to dismiss this idea.
For a crafty thinker you doing very badly here...

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 07:03 AM

Dowly

:salute:

Any police officer who questions the husbands claim, the dead wife has felt of the stairs by accident, is doing his job. He may wonder about the stangulation marks and the deranged sleeping room.
So he becomes a CT - questioning the official statements of Mr Husband.
He will have the posibility to provide any evidence for his assumption, Mr Husband may be a liar and a murderer, because he is at the scene and gets all support to do his job.

Questioning and developing CTs is a good thing, while trying to uncover the truth.
We have only this, because we are not at the scene and we lack of support.
Even worse, we have the strong feeling (no evidence!) to fight against Mr Husband's brother, Police Comissioner Bad, who actively hinders us in revealing the story. He seems to abuse his power to destroy our reputation and to cover his brother's act.

I don't want to discuss 9/11, but just for the entertainment: check the second airplane, it has an unusual device attached to its belly. How comes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4
Again, I have no evidence, but I'm 'sceptic'.

To answer your question about Bush: he wasn't the brightest light on the chandelier.
It would be great to know, when the appointment for the school visit was made.
What is more emotional but a caring president amongst children, while being attacked by some evil forces? I think (no evidence!) Bush was told to stay there, to stay cool and to comment neutral after the school event on the attacks.

Free speech and unchoreographed happenings were not his strong points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfwHYSpoIEs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDBT4gcDpG8) (edit: better version, including "Their" cuts to hide the blooper)

Originally I simply stated "Al Qaeda" to be a database run by Osama iirc.

Tchocky

09-06-13, 07:05 AM

Oh God, let's not do this.

Tribesman

09-06-13, 07:08 AM

Oh God, let's not do this.
The troof is out there and the evidence is in the interwebs

Sammi79

09-06-13, 07:15 AM

This claim is nonsense but I hardly believe it is the main evidence.

Would you like to tell me what Camorons main argument is then?

The evidence is:

1) Sarin was used, several times but this last one was significantly bigger

2) Satellite and trajectory analysis showing the origin of the rocket in a government controlled area as well as the target being rebel controlled.

3) Radio intercepts apparently indicating someone in Assads chain of command.

4) Figures of deaths that show remarkable inconsistency between nations.

I would like to know against those points;

1) Since the UN have yet to report, where did that evidence came from exactly? I would argue that due to the length of the investigation, it can not be as thorough and therefore reliable as the UN report. Especially since the Russian evidence submitted many months ago indicating homemade Sarin being smuggled in to the rebels is every bit as convincing. It is certainly more thorough.

2) Is there reasonable doubt that 'rebels' or their 'associates' may perform special operations inside government controlled territory?

3) Unverifiable, without weeks of voice analysis, and the original voice.

4) Again sources, such is the inconsistency.

Also if Assad has plenty of these weapons is there not a chance that some may have been stolen or captured by the rebels?

09-06-13, 07:18 AM

Oh God, let's not do this.
Actually is fun with those crtical thinkers who think for themselves .
Who are ready to buy any bull as long as it is not official... that stuff belongs to stupid sheeps after all.

Feuer Frei!

09-06-13, 07:21 AM

Since the UN have yet to report, where did that evidence came from exactly? I would argue that due to the length of the investigation, it can not be as thorough and therefore reliable as the UN report.
IIRC,
The UN report has 1 objective:
To show that Chemical weapons were used.
Not who used them.

Sammi79

09-06-13, 07:30 AM

IIRC,
The UN report has 1 objective:
To show that Chemical weapons were used.
Not who used them.

Yes I know. The report will i suspect summarise a detailed analysis of the exact chemical makeup however, which could indicate the method of production...

Feuer Frei!

09-06-13, 07:50 AM

which could indicate the method of production...

Which may show that it was produced in another country and imported.
So, back to square one.

Syria doesn’t yet appear to have the capacity to produce the weapons entirely on its own.

Sammi79

09-06-13, 07:55 AM

Which may show that it was produced in another country and imported.
So, back to square one.

Syria doesn’t yet appear to have the capacity to produce the weapons entirely on its own.

Alternatively it may show the chemicals were not made by or for military industry. Which would cast serious doubts on official responsibility.

Penguin

09-06-13, 08:00 AM

If you want to continue this, may I suggest you post your response to this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205143

No need to clutter this one.

Oh God, let's not do this.

The Pengu abides! :)

Though I didn't want to revive a clear attempt of drive-by-trolling, so I have created a new one to continue the discussion here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=207224

Feuer Frei!

09-06-13, 08:06 AM

Let's quickly break down the UN Weapons Team Inspection.

Firstly, it is knowledge now that the inspections were limited.

An hour and a half was all that was spent at the impact sites.

No houses were visited whilst there, they were asked to exhume bodies by the local doctor but they refused.

After that one and a half hours, they were ordered to evac asap.

There was another 6 sites which they could not visit.

Did the Syrian government order them out? Or was it the UN?
No one knows.

To say that the inspection was incomplete is an understatement.

August

09-06-13, 08:07 AM

This is a copy of the letter I just wrote to my senator:

Senator Warren,
I want you to oppose the Presidents attempt to get our country involved in yet another middle eastern war. Not just pull a Markey by refusing to do your job but actively oppose it.

The fact is that we can't eliminate Assads chemical weapons by air strikes alone and sending in ground troops is not and should not be considered a valid option (so far anyways). Unless you can accomplish something of value you should not attack. There is too much to risk for escalation to attack for just symbolic purposes.

Also two important words you should remember here Professor: "Collateral Damage".

If you strike there WILL be civilians injured and killed and footage of their bodies WILL be gleefully broadcast around the world by our enemies. Any politician who votes for intervention is definitely going to have this footage used against them the next time they run for reelection. If you automatically support the administration in this, like you have slavishly done since you gained office, you can expect to be labeled as a war monger and rightfully so. I don't think you really want to be dealing with pictures of dead civilians that you had authorized killing in when you run again in 2018.

This isn't party politics as usual. It's a chance to show that you vote based on the issues instead of the party line.

Sincerely,

Don't know if will help but it can't hurt.

Ducimus

09-06-13, 08:29 AM

So much speculation, so little that anyone can do. BO is gonna do what he wants regardless. Though i do wonder if he'll push ahead without congress approval that he asked for or not. Might be political suicide, but hes a lame duck anyway.

TLAM Strike

09-06-13, 10:17 AM

IIRC Irans F14s haven't flown in a while, certainly not en masse, spares are a bit of a problem and the sanctions have hit them hard, the Iranian airforce is not in good shape, but it could certainly put up a couple of fighters, 29s most likely, but they wouldn't cope very well against the USAF, not in a direct one on one situation. So I don't think they'd put themselves in that situation where they would have to directly confront the USAF.
Asymmetrical warfare is a possibility, but we thought Saddam would do that and he didn't, so it's 50/50, after all in the immortal words of Condie Rice, 'Iran is not Iraq'.

Iran only operates a dozen or so F-14s but those ones are actually quite decently maintained, they have also fitted them for Russian R-27 missiles.

One of the currently operational ones with the new camo pattern:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/6632/fkar.jpg

Iran has Mig 29's, F-5's and a few Mirage F1's.

Mirage F1:

<snip>

Some of Iran's Mirages just got an overhaul at Shahid Nasser Habibi air base.
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9811/2l32.jpg

Armistead

09-06-13, 10:40 AM

Watching the news yesterday, talking about how we're training Syrian Rebels to fight in Jordan. The problem, trainers say it's about impossible to vet the fighters, who is moderate, radical or terrorist, so much so can't really arm them. If we're so worried we can't decide who is safe to train, give them some decent weapons, then what the hell are we thinking about bombing Assad?

Ducimus

09-06-13, 11:29 AM

EXPLAINED: Syria S. J. Resolution (9/5/13) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JIxSsph3W0)

SJRES (AS OF 9/5/13)
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DAV13973.pdf

TLAM Strike

09-06-13, 11:30 AM

The former governor of Iran's Kish Province wrote online (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://alireza-forghani.blogfa.com/post-118.aspx&act=url) that in the event of a US attack on Syria the families of American officials would be kidnapped and tortured while the President's younger daughter would be taken and raped.

:huh:

eddie

09-06-13, 11:46 AM

A lot of tpough talk going on, not much substance though.

http://news.msn.com/world/iran-militias-threaten-us-interests-if-syria-struck

Oberon

09-06-13, 11:58 AM

Iran only operates a dozen or so F-14s but those ones are actually quite decently maintained, they have also fitted them for Russian R-27 missiles.

One of the currently operational ones with the new camo pattern:

Some of Iran's Mirages just got an overhaul at Shahid Nasser Habibi air base.

How did they...

No...don't tell me...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/1/14/1263468190496/Kim-Jong-il-001.jpg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/17/xinsrc_52208041703374532486510.jpg

Embargoes my arse...

Oberon

09-06-13, 12:12 PM

Jeremy Bowen - Ice Cream in Damascus:
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2013/09/jeremy-bowen-ice-cream-damascus

Ducimus

09-06-13, 01:26 PM

soopaman2

09-06-13, 01:39 PM

President Barack Obama G20 FULL Press Conference St Petersburg Russia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTnpd3Lmxc)(47:31 )

Is it me, or when asked if he would go ahead anyway without congressional approval, he dodged the question with circle talk?

Has he ever answered any question directly?

Ask him if he will bail out the banks again, or allow multi billion dollar companies like GE to shirk taxes, the yes, will be resounding, and delivered with no doubt.

The common man is outpriced by the average politician, but if you like oil (and got buku bucks), then maybe we can start a war for ya.

Ducimus

09-06-13, 02:04 PM

I love this.

Direct link to previously posted link to G20 obama speech.
http://youtu.be/nwTnpd3Lmxc?t=31m34s

Another reporter SPECIFICALLY asks him AGAIN (at 31:50 i think), if he'll go ahead with a strike if congress says no. The type of question a simple YES, or NO would do. Nope, he engages in circle talk to 37:15, and then says he answered the question.

Catfish

09-06-13, 02:08 PM

Quote from above:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/544892_512799305463697_1766319366_n.jpg

:rotfl2:

So true.
Not that Obama is the first, or will be the last.

The former governor of Iran's Kish Province wrote online (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://alireza-forghani.blogfa.com/post-118.aspx&act=url) that in the event of a US attack on Syria the families of American officials would be kidnapped and tortured while the President's younger daughter would be taken and raped. :huh:

Well i wonder why e.g. the CIA would find that astonishing ? :-?
Apart from that, when it comes to "killing babies", "raping women" or "..a country" and propaganda like that, you usually know that there will be war soon. :hmm2:

Greetings,
Catfish

AVGWarhawk

09-06-13, 02:08 PM

Tchocky

09-06-13, 02:25 PM

Practical point. Why give lawmakers cover to vote against the resolution?

Ducimus

09-06-13, 02:29 PM

Amateur day in DC.

You sure about that? After all, you wouldn't want to get labeled as a conspiracy theory nutcase by the self appointed kangaroo court would you? Choose your words wisely my friend. After all, things like Bengazi, IRS scandal, NSA scandal, Patriot act, NDAA, Fast and furious, erosion of civil liberties, all fake! They are mere figments of an overactive imagination! Only crackpots, conspiracy theorists and blithering idiots stay awake after such imaginary occurrences. Normal, sane, and rational people go back to sleep like nothing ever happened.

Our government is an all wise benevolent force for good. They would never lie or deceive us. They know what is best for us, and they purely represent the will of the people and would never be dissuaded by large sums of money, special interests, or similar dishonesty, nor would they ever infringe upon our rights. To suggest otherwise is complete lunacy!

Oberon

09-06-13, 02:34 PM

http://pig.sty.nu/Pictures/bield-hedgehog/half_09-hedgehog_playing_ball.jpg

Tchocky

09-06-13, 03:17 PM

Oberon that is beautiful!

Jimbuna

09-06-13, 03:20 PM

soopaman2

09-06-13, 03:27 PM

Our government is an all wise benevolent force for good. They would never lie or deceive us. They know what is best for us, and they purely represent the will of the people and would never be dissuaded by large sums of money, special interests, or similar dishonesty, nor would they ever infringe upon our rights. To suggest otherwise is complete lunacy!

Watch this, feel better, forget, key word forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jjcxFGEysE

Unless ya don't wanna forget, Then things get messy. NSA is reading your traitorism.

Kumbaya my lord Kuuuuumb aya

svs49

09-06-13, 04:01 PM

hello qand out the last silent hunter

Mr Quatro

09-06-13, 04:12 PM

No raiding party is going to be able to secure a chemical weapons plant or even a munitions stockpile let alone 50 of them. Then secure these places for what? You can't just blow them up in place without causing major contamination of the surrounding city and countryside so you're talking heavy equipment, containment and decontamination facilities and thousands of troops and technicians just to get the stuff ready to ship out of there. That can't be done with a raid.

So we're back to a showy but ultimately harmless smack to the face of the projected winner. I just don't see that being worth the thousands of civilian casualties this could produce.

Just for the record, lets say you are right ... :yep:

Where are these chemical weapons going to wind up?

In the hands of the friends of Syria?

or in the hands of the rebel commanders?

Sooner or later (2018 is Israel's 70th anniversary of statehood)
they will be used against Israel, the common enemy of all non
Jewish settlers in the region.

vienna

09-06-13, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2110831#post2110831)
The former governor of Iran's Kish Province wrote online (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://alireza-forghani.blogfa.com/post-118.aspx&act=url) that in the event of a US attack on Syria the families of American officials would be kidnapped and tortured while the President's younger daughter would be taken and raped.

Guess where the next drone strike is going to be...c'mon just guess...

<O>

Catfish

09-06-13, 05:09 PM

...
Where are these chemical weapons going to wind up?
...

Which chemical weapons, again ?

I know there's so much hype in the western media, there HAVE to be chemical weapons, right ?
Soon Mr. Kerry will step up and show a glass tube full of 'evidence', just like Mr. Powell.

Maybe the West should just check its bills of weapons sold to Syria, i am sure they find something :yep:

Catfish

09-06-13, 05:12 PM

What did Assad exactly do, to pi.. off the West ?

Maybe denying some other oil-producing country to build a pipeline, through Syria ? :hmm2:

mapuc

09-06-13, 05:14 PM

have tried to find the same story in some of the English newspaper without success

In Danish and Swedish newspaper there have been lots of story about crisis between USA and Russia.

In the latest article it says that Russia is going to support Syria military and economical, if Syria is attacked.

I have always said that Iran could joint Syria with more weapons and lots of soldier. Not officials of course.

Now that I have been reading these latest article in some of the Danish and Swedish newspaper I'm not so sure anymore.

I hope that USA wait until the UN-report is at hand before they do something.

Markus

Mr Quatro

09-06-13, 05:40 PM

Prelude to war? I hope not ...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lebanon-Syria/2013/09/06/id/524213 (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lebanon-Syria/2013/09/06/id/524213)
The State Department on Friday ordered nonessential U.S. diplomats to leave Lebanon due to security concerns as the Obama administration and Congress debate military strikes on neighboring Syria.

FBI, Homeland Security Say No Threats Yet Tied to 9/11 Anniversary (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/911-Anniversary-Threat/2013/09/06/id/524296)
Friday, 06 Sep 2013 16:13 PM
The government is aware of no credible or specific information that points to any terror plot tied to the anniversary of . .

Congress will vote on what date to go or no go?

Other news that reminds me of the 60's pre Vietnam war:
US Military Contractors Celebrate Record High Profits and Stock … (http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10673)

mapuc

09-06-13, 05:58 PM

I could be wrong(I hope I am) as I see it, it looks more and more like a crisis that becomes more and more international-an International crisis

Markus

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 06:30 PM

What did Assad exactly do, to pi.. off the West ?

Maybe denying some other oil-producing country to build a pipeline, through Syria ? :hmm2:

He dared to try to defeat a revolt. CWs were deployed by one or the other party, but there is only one entity entitled to deploy CWs if it seems fit.

He is close with Iran.

And iirc the Saudis are interested to run a pipeline through Syria to Europe.

Mittelwaechter

09-06-13, 06:40 PM

I could be wrong(I hope I am) as I see it, it looks more and more like a crisis that becomes more and more international-an International crisis

Markus

If it ever was an internal Syrian affair, it became an international one with the support of foreign countries for one or the other party. Some did it openly, others disguised.

Today we see a proxy conflict of the US led and the Russian led supporters.
This may run hot - hotter than it is - and set the region or the world on fire.

Economic interests kill people. Money rules the world.

Alex

09-06-13, 08:04 PM

Economic interests kill people. Money rules the world.

Not the Muslim world. And here I've just said everything I'm allowed to.

Looks like it's going to start all over like in 1938-45 : A world war whose first victim is going to be Syria, later to be followed by Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, whose public purpose is to destroy evil/corrupt dictators, but whose real goal is to hide the stock market crash to come, foreseeable to insiders.

Just read The Psychology of Finance: Understanding the Behavioural Dynamics of Markets, by Lars Tvede. Way to understand what's taking place actually.

Tchocky

09-06-13, 08:06 PM

Everybody knows it's all about oil. Why say anything else?

Ffs

Takeda Shingen

09-06-13, 08:09 PM

Everybody knows it's all about oil. Why say anything else?

Ffs

No, it's about Jews. Dirty, dirty Jews. Aren't you paying attention?!?!?!?!

Stealhead

09-06-13, 08:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg

Armistead

09-06-13, 08:36 PM

Obama comparing Syrian Reds to the British during WW2......sickening.

Mr Quatro

09-06-13, 08:46 PM

Everybody knows it's all about oil. Why say anything else?
Ffs

Sun tan oil? :woot:

Dowly

09-06-13, 08:48 PM

And that's about as far as the conspiracy thread goes.

Dowly

09-06-13, 09:09 PM

Looks like it's going to start all over like in 1938-45 : A world war whose first victim is going to be Syria, later to be followed by Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia,

Might want to check your history.

Dowly

09-06-13, 09:29 PM

He dared to try to defeat a revolt. CWs were deployed by one or the other party, but there is only one entity entitled to deploy CWs if it seems fit.

The revolt was on for... what, 2 years? WHY not attack with gas earlied if it was a plot?

Answer me that.

He is close with Iran.

So?
And iirc the Saudis are interested to run a pipeline through Syria to Europe.

Now, IIRC translates to "If I recall/remember correctly", so, you got a source for that? I'd honestly would like to see that.

eddie

09-06-13, 11:26 PM

The troof is out there and the evidence is in the interwebs

Got that right, he got the whole thing from here-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-al-qaeda-alliance-in-syria-and-the-fraud-of-the-war-on-terror/5348548

Stealhead

09-06-13, 11:50 PM

Got that right, he got the whole thing from here-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-al-qaeda-alliance-in-syria-and-the-fraud-of-the-war-on-terror/5348548

Which is a CT rag.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

eddie

09-06-13, 11:56 PM

I know that, but it sure looks like he is using it to support his ideas!

Stealhead

09-07-13, 12:17 AM

Well it was not exactly clear if you where supporting the CT or the rational.

tonschk

09-07-13, 06:58 AM

UN Official - Rebels actually are using the Sarin Nerve Gas

The US obama regime support the rebels which are using sarin nerve gas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE53RqGQltk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023591720

(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

Tchocky

09-07-13, 07:01 AM

We have a thread on this.

A big one.

Just down the page a bit.

kraznyi_oktjabr

09-07-13, 09:09 AM

We have a thread on this.

A big one.

Just down the page a bit.:yep: Btw OP: Del Ponte's statement is from spring - its not connected into current situation but I'm sure you already knew this.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

09-07-13, 10:09 AM

Actually it does. If we accept the rebels used gas first, well, then even if the government uses gas next, well, it is just proportionate response.

Jimbuna

09-07-13, 10:53 AM

We have a thread on this.

A big one.

Just down the page a bit.

Threads merged.

kraznyi_oktjabr

09-07-13, 11:23 AM

Actually it does. If we accept the rebels used gas first, well, then even if the government uses gas next, well, it is just proportionate response.I meant directly connected. Did you watch video? In that video a gentleman claims that UN officials have said that it was rebels who used nerve gas not Assad's Army (video is uploaded (27.8.2013). In same post OP has link to post where anoter OP (or OP's alt acc, 3.9.2013) has posted a link to article from last spring (5.5.2013).

Ofcourse everything that have happened during this civil war is connected with each other but not in such way implied by OP.

Armistead

09-07-13, 11:48 AM

I don't know how Obama gets out of this without looking the fool. It's funny to see all the warmongering on MSNBC.

The world basically hates America, but always calls on us to bomb or build, usually both. The Mid-East will never come out of the dark ages, I hope we stay out. It's sad that millions are homeless and cities in crumbles.

Obvious, if he does nothing, more gas will be used, millions more displaced and the nation will go to hell. The nation will implode, best to let it. Until those people learn to get along, they will continue, nothing we can do about it.

If Assad goes the next war will be extremist rebels fighting moderate rebels. I think most agree the two forces are about equally split.

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 12:28 PM

The revolt was on for... what, 2 years? WHY not attack with gas earlied if it was a plot?

Answer me that.

Come on Dowly, is this so hard to realize?

They were waiting, because the aggressors were on their way to overcome Assad.
Running a false flag operation is dangerous.
But the tides turned recently and Assad seems to be able to keep the control.
Now they have to justify more support for the aggressors.
So they tried in spring, but DelPonte told the world the aggressors were responsible.
This time they cared for an inspection, insisting on not to try to find the responsible party.

So?

So we are interested in kicking him out - an Iranian ally - and install a Sunni government.

Now, IIRC translates to "If I recall/remember correctly", so, you got a source for that? I'd honestly would like to see that.

There was an article I can't find anymore, emphazising the Saudi interest on the pipeline.
But a simple search and you find more information. Qatar seems to be the main profiteer in these articles.

http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/qatar-seeks-gas-pipeline-to-turkey

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

I expect you to deny honestly any validity of the information...

Russia is not interested in a Syrian pipeline to Europe, so they back Assad loyally.

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 12:40 PM

Not the Muslim world. And here I've just said everything I'm allowed to.

The church lost its political influence in the western world with the democratisation of the nations, but the aristocracy, the elites regained their power.

The Muslim world took a different course.

Platapus

09-07-13, 12:54 PM

This is a copy of the letter I just wrote to my senator:

Finally, a citizen doing what needs to be done. Good on ya :salute:

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 01:02 PM

^^ I second that.

09-07-13, 01:21 PM

Pipeline in Afghanistan pipeline in Syria...****ing pipelines everywhere.
...and great failed social social engineering project in Iraq...its all about
pipelines as well....yeah.

God dammit i want piece of the pie.:haha:

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 01:22 PM

Useless.
Better spend your time listen to some good old music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nem_uP-bpFs

Mittelwaechter

09-07-13, 01:31 PM

No, it's all about freedom and peace, democracy and human rights.
Or defending the US fatherland - in Middle East.

Worked superb in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and will certainly work in Syria again.

09-07-13, 01:36 PM

No, it's all about freedom and peace, democracy and human rights.
Or defending the US fatherland - in Middle East.

Worked superb in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and will certainly work in Syria again.

Good then.
That is better than all other options i can see.

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 01:46 PM

OK. Hail America!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_ with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhvG1cICUus

09-07-13, 02:36 PM

OK. Hail America!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_ with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhvG1cICUus

Now that super cool video ...was it created under infunce of VX?

Hail.

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 02:43 PM

Nah. That was not good.

All can see your upper lip is still jittering.
You must try to make it more stiff.

09-07-13, 02:46 PM

Nah. That was not good.

All can see your upper lip is still jittering.
You must try to make it more stiff.

I can't my nose gets in the way.

Platapus

09-07-13, 02:46 PM

That salute was invented by James Upham, so naturally it is called the Bellamy Salute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpg/220px-Bellamy_salute_1.jpg

For obvious reasons, it was changed in 1942. :up:

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 02:54 PM

I can't my nose gets in the way.

Bent in such a way? That's ****ty. Deepest Sympathy.
Maybe a Niqab would be useful...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/

August

09-07-13, 02:56 PM

Wants his salute back.
http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/roman-soldier.jpg

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 03:05 PM

I don't think he was really the first. He copied to...

...but the end is always the same...

Stirb und werde, Ami!

Catfish

09-07-13, 03:08 PM

I can't my nose gets in the way.

:o:rotfl2:

Wants his salute back.
http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/roman-soldier.jpg

:up:

09-07-13, 03:12 PM

Bent in such a way? That's ****ty. Deepest Sympathy.
Maybe a Niqab would be useful...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/

:nope:

Its beyond me...

http://troll.me/images/ancient-aliens-guy/i-need-more-weed.jpg

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 03:17 PM

Stealhead

09-07-13, 03:24 PM

:nope:

Its beyond me...

http://troll.me/images/ancient-aliens-guy/i-need-more-weed.jpg

Ganja

09-07-13, 03:28 PM

The counter to the phallic 'Hail' - is the vaginal Churchill 'V'ictory - sign. (reportedly he got this tip from Aleister Crowley)

Like a Fatherland ramming in the Motherland.

Women always win in the end.

Every good occultist knows this.

How cool is that...it all comes togheder...now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdlS7tab5rQ
So Ozzy is also part of this all?:doh:..ozzification of ME?

tonschk

09-07-13, 03:45 PM

Running a false flag operation is dangerous.

Criminal GANGSTERS took control of the US government the criminal ZIONIST ruling the US criminal government have a plan called the new american century to overthrow the government of Iraq Iran Syria Libya etc etc etc

US general WESLEY CLARK SPEAKING on 2007 exposing the crimes of the CRIMINAL zionist ruled US government .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58jF8_KgzI

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 03:53 PM

Now that super cool video ...was it created under infunce of VX?

Hail.

Here you can see the responsible 'boy-band' live, to get an idea, what you are dealing with...:

25th Anniversary perfomance of Genocide Organ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl8XEcPk2Cg

I was there...

09-07-13, 03:58 PM

tonschk

09-07-13, 04:04 PM

General W. Clark tells truth about Middle East

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKrkokQIx9g

Takeda Shingen

09-07-13, 04:09 PM

http://stickerish.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/RageFaceBlackSS.png

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWS!!!!!!!

kraznyi_oktjabr

09-07-13, 04:23 PM

:hmmm: I thought this was Syria thread? Looks more like some conspiracy thread... I must have made wrong turn along the way...

Jimbuna

09-07-13, 04:29 PM

:hmmm: I thought this was Syria thread? Looks more like some conspiracy thread... I must have made wrong turn along the way...

Correct and if it doesn't stay on topic it may well end up coming to a conclusion.

Try to stay OT folks.

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 04:31 PM

:hmmm: I thought this was Syria thread? Looks more like some conspiracy thread... I must have made wrong turn along the way...

You just don't know what a 'conspiracy' is.
It has something to do with A and B and...C... etc.

But anyway, this thread IS already psychological warfare.

Virtual reality is NOT just a SIMULATION, it's all over the world a NEW electric DIMENSION!

Oberon

09-07-13, 04:51 PM

I'm calling it!

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/513/fv6o.jpg

Penguin

09-07-13, 04:56 PM

Dear Zionists,

I have recently heard that money is not important to the muslims, so I have tried to get some things from my Turkish kiosk owner. He wouldn't give me my ciggies without paying him cash and said he could would prefer the free hugs I offered him in exchange for the smokes from his wife instead. :wah:

Now I remember having bought two Avocados from Israel recently. They were very tasty.
As you see I have always supported you, so please consider me when you take over the world. Please send me a chest of Avocados when you have finished your goal.

Yours sincerely,
Penguin

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 05:00 PM

I'm calling it!

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/513/fv6o.jpg

That what is 'down' is also 'up'.
(If you could jitter between Germany and Australia, like a upper lip....)

Tribesman

09-07-13, 05:50 PM

Criminal GANGSTERS took control of the US government the criminal ZIONIST ruling the US criminal government have a plan called the new american century to overthrow the government of Iraq Iran Syria Libya etc etc etc

US general WESLEY CLARK SPEAKING on 2007 exposing the crimes of the CRIMINAL zionist ruled US government .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58jF8_KgzI

That's good, jews, chemtrails HAArp, illuminate, climate control, fema death camps, hollow earth, aliens in Antarctica, fake moon landings....... All that's missing from your nutty links is Elvis working at Walmart and Hitler living in a shed in Brentford with a Russian nymphomaniac contortionist.

Mr Quatro

09-07-13, 06:09 PM

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 06:50 PM

THIS JUST IN!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Obama_zpsd9c602c6.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Obama_zpsd9c602c6.jpg.html)

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 07:06 PM

Why YOU never became a DANCER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGNKgah948s

Yes, You have to think for you own now...

mapuc

09-07-13, 07:59 PM

Been thinking about these Russian vessel in Mediterranean. They are only there to support Syria by tracking the incoming TLAM/cruise missile/Tomahawk.

So why have they sent a ship killer*(Slava-class) Moscow and a vessel to hunt down subs and many more warships

* I call it Ship killer because of it's amount of ASM(16 tubes)

Markus

Smaragdadler

09-07-13, 08:23 PM

this thread is going right down the drain ... :timeout:

I say close it ... pages of nothing about those poor little children wrapped in white lien that President Obama is standing in the gap for :oops:

Nothing about boots on the ground ... just joke after joke (although some are funny :D)

Close the thread and start one about:

"Lame duck Obama tries to hail down a taxi in Washington DC, but no one will stop for him"

that's too long a title, uh?

It's all about YOU or 'THE ETERNAL JEW'

YOU make the decission...

(no, its not easy and 'THE JEW' has manipulted 'IT' from the 'start'.

Look in their eyes - not on the nose.

Yes, you ARE ALWAYS a 'JEW' - that's the 'whole' trick of 'them'.

Because AL (alles) is LA (nichst).

-----

What now?

Feuer Frei!

09-07-13, 10:19 PM

Fantastic.

All the usual conspiracy crap and jokes that aren't even funny
appearing here now.

Good stuff.

Can we stay on topic please and leave the crappy humour and ct bull out please?

Takeda Shingen

09-07-13, 10:20 PM

Oh please. This thread jumped the shark a week ago.

Feuer Frei!

09-07-13, 10:26 PM

Oh please. This thread jumped the shark a week ago.

Oh please?

So not a good request then?

As for a week ago, there was sprinklings of some ot stuff.

The fact is that over the last 10 or so posts, a few newbies have jumped in and started trolling and that of course baits some of the old-timers.

======================

Reason for trolling in this thread?

Nothing is happening in the immediate future re Syria, ie no UN report yet, no Obama action, No Congress decision, soooo, it must be a good time to release the trolls?

Awesome.

Takeda Shingen

09-07-13, 10:29 PM

Oh please?

So not a good request then?

As for a week ago, there was sprinklings of some ot stuff.

The fact is that over the last 10 or so posts, a few newbies have jumped in and started trolling and that of course baits some of the old-timers.

======================

Reason for trolling in this thread?

Nothing is happening in the immediate future re Syria, ie no UN report yet, no Obama action, No Congress decision, soooo, it must be a good time to release the trolls?

Awesome.

The last 10 pages of this thread have been nothing but circular argument, personal insults and various conspiracy theories. I would have locked this thread a long time ago. I totally get that it is your baby, but your baby has long gone south of cheese. Let it die already. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss the subject matter in the future.

eddie

09-08-13, 01:21 AM

Where's JimBuna when we need him,lol

TarJak

09-08-13, 02:44 AM

Where's JimBuna when we need him,lol

In the pub, or having a curry, usually.:D

Mind you being a retiree, he probably can't afford to go to the pub any more.

kraznyi_oktjabr

09-08-13, 04:39 AM

Neal, NeonSamurai, Jim & Tak, could moderation team commit some heavy duty thread surgery here? Lets say move this brilliant conspiracy et al stuff into another thread (Penguin had one for it right?) and keep this thread for Syria only.

Alternatively lock this one, start new Syria thread and enforce order with iron fist in it with warnings and suspensions if necessary. I understand free speech but this situation is ridiculous.

Feuer Frei!

09-08-13, 04:46 AM

Neal, NeonSamurai, Jim & Tak, could moderation team commit some heavy duty thread surgery here? Lets say move this brilliant conspiracy et al stuff into another thread (Penguin had one for it right?) and keep this thread for Syria only.

I second this motion.

A warning handed out to the trolls is a clear message.

Betonov

09-08-13, 04:55 AM

Feuer Frei!

09-08-13, 05:02 AM

I can't really understand why the hatred against Jews.

They were enslaved by the Egyptians, thrashed by the Romans, gangbanged by the catholic church, almost anihilated by nazis and they're still a major ethnic group today. That deserves respect.

What does that have to do with Syria, Chemical Weapons, UN Report, UN Council Mandates, Support for a limited strike in Syria, Congress sitting to decide on support for Obama and anything else i've missed?

Betonov

09-08-13, 05:13 AM

What does that have to do with Syria, Chemical Weapons, UN Report, UN Council Mandates, Support for a limited strike in Syria, Congress sitting to decide on support for Obama and anything else i've missed?

Nothing, just curious.

Slovene political parties are mostly unanimous that the strike would be a bad idea, but they'd still support it if Obama went for it (what obidient little mutts we are). Support with what. We don't have the money nor equipment to send anyone there.

Only the Nova Slovenija party is in strong support of actions. A far right christian party, they'd love to see muslims being bombed :nope:

Skybird

09-08-13, 05:36 AM

German tabloid Bild am Sonntag reports that German ELINT experts have recorded pressing demands by Syrian brigade and division commanders for the "massive" use of chemical weapons, and this since at least four months. The German navy's ELINT reconnaissance ship Oker has overheard according radio transmission, it is cruising close to the Syrian coast since some time now. Assad should not have agreed and not have allowed it. The attack that it now is all about, should have been legitimised by somebody else, but not by Assad.

If that is true, it makes the German diplomatic eggdance at the G20 and afterwards even more hilarious and untrustworthy. Because if the Bild's story is true, then the German government knows a whole lot more than what they make us believe.

Not that it changes my opposing opinion to any engagement in Syria. The news just ridicules the German government and it's superb quality-diplomacy.

Feuer Frei!

09-08-13, 05:45 AM

@ Skybird:

so was the Oker there 4 mths ago or is there now?
Sorry, the language barrier :O:
Kannst ja Deutsch sprechen :haha:

But if that vessel is there now, what is Germany doing there?

Merkel says Germany remains a bystander, that was a few days ago she was quoted as saying that.

EDIT: hmm, it was there in 2012 as well?

The Oker was reportedly spotted near the Syrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) coast in August 2012, collecting intelligence data in service to the Syrian rebels

Skybird

09-08-13, 05:53 AM

The Oker is a so-called Flottendienstboot, type 423 "Oste"-class, a "spy trawler" specialising in electornic intelligence gathering (though not a "trawler" :) ). Three such units are in service.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2259/ehwy.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/ehwy.jpg/)

It's job is to sniff for electric transmissions. Why it is in Syria, should be obvious: you send your monitors to the hotspots of world's events. Others do that as well, or send submarines. I would not be surprised at all if a German 212 one day gets known to have operated there for intel-gathering as well.

My impression is that since the Oker recorded these intercepts and they now say these intercepts cover a timespan of 4 months, it obviously must have been on station then, and now.

Skybird

09-08-13, 05:59 AM

Meanwhile, The Sunday Daily Mail :-? :hmmm: reports that Britain has issued five or six export licenses between 2004 and 2010 for chemical agents that are on some international list and are rated as dangerous since they are used for producing Sarin. The export licences were given at times when it already was known that Assad was stockpiling chemical weapons.

Always the same story. First we arm them, then they use them, then we act as if we are surprised and condemn the immorality of the action. No lie too big as if it is not worth to send own troops and have own soldiers risking their lives over it.

Catfish

09-08-13, 06:16 AM

Skybird

09-08-13, 06:41 AM

You are concerned about being accused of being "unpatriotic"?

In Germany...? :o

:D

:haha:

09-08-13, 10:06 AM

This naivety really makes me want to vomit.

Certainly it is all about conspiracy theories, from the CIAs drugdealing to helping dictators all over the world as long as it was against the bad commies, to Gladio Nato-own state terrorism and blaming others, to all western nations having sooner or later delivered weapons to the Middle East, including chemical ones.
When i said a week ago here, the western nations should check their own bills to exactly know what weapons Assad had, it was also my "personal conspiracy theory".

Sry, of course all that never happened, speaking about it is unpatriotic, and what our and other governments tell us is sacred and always true.

We all know that a lot of shady thing had been done in context of cold war or global interests.
Some of them more justifiable while others not so...no one is naive about that.
Question is why you bring this all the time when it comes to this specific issue.
You seem to be calling for continuation of the same behavior based on the fact that west is dirty , corrupted and hypocritical anyway - while also complaining about it.:doh:

I can better understand people who simply say its none of our business and let them kill each other.

Armistead

09-08-13, 10:31 AM

So say we blow the hell out of Assad, so much it would open he door for the rebs to invade Damascus, what then? Look at the other cities, they look like WW2 bombers have flown over. Can you imagine the death and chaos if this hits Damascus?

I can't believe Obama took a big bite out of a Syria chit sandwhich, he'll never get the after taste out of his mouth. Hard to believe we're now
supporting al-Qaida rebels.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 11:10 AM

Nobody is saying that any of the options are any good.

That doesn't mean that they're all the same - some are better than others and doing nothing is the wrong choice in my view.

Skybird

09-08-13, 11:14 AM

A rumoured 3-days air campaign against 50-70 targets will neither impact on the chemical arsenal, nor will it seriously hurt the Syrian forces _ scattered across the country as they already are. Obama does it as a show only - and to get himself out of the corner he boxed himself into.

And the rebels - I heard a comment on radio today, describing the state of the FSA as even more inferior as I used to see it, and reminding of that not only is it outgunned and outfinanced by the radical groups, but that the socalled FSA for the most consists of former Assad soldiers who switched sides and now switch again and running to the radical groups, due to them outfunding and outgunning the FSA.

And these kind of guys, from which civilians flee as they flee from Assad troops as well, these airstrikes will give some relief. Must that be a case of getting involved at all? Worse genocides have gone unnoticed and uncared for in the past years - much worse.

Catfish

09-08-13, 11:18 AM

@MH -
We all know that a lot of shady thing had been done in context of cold war or global interests.
No, it seems most here do not remember, or do not want to remember. The repeating patterns are so obvious that i have to assume that most really do not know about the past.

Some of them more justifiable while others not so...no one is naive about that.
Either you stand for what you shout at the world officially and under which flag you take action, or you will have to take some fire if what you proclaim does not match reality. Justifiable.. yes i know what you mean.

Question is why you bring this all the time when it comes to this specific issue.
You seem to be calling for continuation of the same behavior based on the fact that west is dirty , corrupted and hypocritical anyway - while also complaining about it.:doh:

I bring this up because what has been said and lied then, is the same which happens now. That is a pattern, if governments lied then as has unfortunately (for them) leaked out, they certainly do the same now. And evidence turns up every day, literally.
Hypocritical, this is exactly what i mean, yes. And no i am not for a continuation of that same behaviour, as is obvious if you read my posts ?

I can better understand people who simply say its none of our business and let them kill each other.

Yeah i bet you can understand them. But those times seem to vanish, with the internet and mobile phones being able to record what really happens .. it is a war between the 'under-the-carpet sweepers' and people who want to know what their government or some shady sub-organisations really do, ihn their name.

Armistead

09-08-13, 11:58 AM

Nobody is saying that any of the options are any good.

That doesn't mean that they're all the same - some are better than others and doing nothing is the wrong choice in my view.

You're wrong, they're no good options, better or worse. I know chemical weapons are bad, but they account for few deaths overall. A mass attack could open Damascus to attack and chaos. This is a CW, someone has to lose. If Assad goes, then the rebel groups will go to war with each other.

We can't get involved, because it's a lose lose for us. It will lead to another war, unless Obama just wants to prick attack for a political purpose. The only real answer is for a war, take out Assad, then take out the radical rebels. It would be long and costly like Iraq.

We don't need it. If we don't attack, maybe when it gets bad the UN or world will involve itself in the region, let us stay out of it....we're broke.

Platapus

09-08-13, 12:08 PM

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Obama_zpsd9c602c6.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Obama_zpsd9c602c6.jpg.html)

The President has a staff, literally standing by, to respond 24/7 to any of his requests for information. He has another staff working 24/7 to predict what the President may need so that the first staff already has the information the President may ask for.

So why would the President of the United States need a printer on his desk????
:hmmm:

Betonov

09-08-13, 12:11 PM

The pope just declared this conflict as a commercial war, intent for selling weapons and ammo.

I hate it when someone I inherently hate speaks sense :hmmm:

Sailor Steve

09-08-13, 12:25 PM

So why would the President of the United States need a printer on his desk????
:hmmm:
I don't know. Maybe it's not his desk. Maybe the picture is photoshopped.

Why are we arguing about a joke?

09-08-13, 12:43 PM

A rumoured 3-days air campaign against 50-70 targets will neither impact on the chemical arsenal, nor will it seriously hurt the Syrian forces _ scattered across the country as they already are. Obama does it as a show only - and to get himself out of the corner he boxed himself into.

If the rumors are true that is probably the case.
Yet Obama is going over his head to have it approved by the congress....go figure if he really wanted easy way out.

Either you stand for what you shout at the world officially and under which flag you take action, or you will have to take some fire if what you proclaim does not match reality. Justifiable.. yes i know what you mean.

So putting the calculus aside shouldn't we stand for the civilians who get gassed to death?

I bring this up because what has been said and lied then, is the same which happens now. That is a pattern, if governments lied then as has unfortunately (for them) leaked out, they certainly do the same now. And evidence turns up every day, literally

?????

Betonov

09-08-13, 12:59 PM

Here's an opinion of mine.

Western media and politicians defend the intervention by comparing the non-intervention in Srebrenica in the 90's.
Syria is NOT Srebrenica.

One might say it's worse, which is true. Syrian civil war killed more than a 100 000 people by now. Srebrenicas massacre took ~8000 lives.
But the Bosnian civil war was not really a civil war. It was social engineering. Serbs wanted to make Bosnia all Serb and later anexed into a greater Serbia and so they went on a genocidal campaign. You were executed by being Muslim. Fighter or no fighter, if you were not a Serb you were killed. The world watched intentional slaughter of civilians and did nothing.

Syria is different. One nation, one religion (can't really remember if there's a sunii-shiite issue here also). It's one political group trying to oust the other by any means necessary. There's no intentional slaughter of civilians, just complete disregard for collateral damage by both sides. And if one side wins there will be a slaughter of supporters, but at least they'll be selective. Plus the fact that the rebels will probably commit greater atrocities if they win due to radical elements and sher anger.

Bombing Syria just because the west feels guilty is a sorry excuse.
I don't buy it.

Armistead

09-08-13, 01:11 PM

Wolferz

09-08-13, 01:43 PM

Well, something must be done to cover up the evidence of our government's meddling in Syrian affairs.:-?

It's just another domino to kick over because the last one in the string didn't knock it down.

World conquest for resources is the name of the game and their new world order will follow up on the mantra they planted in Georgia on their guide stones. One way or another they're going to erase a lot of warm bodies.

09-08-13, 01:44 PM

Syria is different. One nation, one religion (can't really remember if there's a sunii-shiite issue here also). It's one political group trying to oust the other by any means necessary. There's no intentional slaughter of civilians, just complete disregard for collateral damage by both sides. And if one side wins there will be a slaughter of supporters, but at least they'll be selective. Plus the fact that the rebels will probably commit greater atrocities if they win due to radical elements and sher anger.

Syria is ruled by Alawite minority elite.
Alawites are sort of Shia while the majority is Sunni.
What going on in Syria right now is continuation of the same conflict that ended up with tenth of thousand dead in matter of weeks when Assad's father dealt with similar situation back in 80s.
Then it all ended up with quick and ruthless resolve...diffrent times.

Catfish

09-08-13, 01:53 PM

So putting the calculus aside shouldn't we stand for the civilians who get gassed to death?

Of course we should.
If civilians were gassed.*
If there is evidence.**
And if gas was used, who used it - Assad, or the rebels? One of Assad's generals? Both? Who do you bomb when it were the rebels, or both sides?

There are thousands of Taliban on the way to Syria, who is not already there is on the way. They (ab)use the rebels and their cause, but sometimes it is hard to differentiate who is who.
All the rebels are against Assad, who is the enemy: For the normal rebels he is the dictator who tortures and uses all the money for him instead for the people; for the Taliban he is a religious traitor with western (and russian) connections.
But he is also the shield for the jewish and christian population, of Syria. And he stands for a more or less stable nation in the Middle East, and a billable politician.
If the rebels win, the west may have to deal with a Taliban government.

Tough choice, which is why i wrote in an earlier thread that an intervention here could indeed be the first humanitarian action when it comes to an invasion. Whatever we do ..
But we are not talking about an invasion, the US government speaks of certain air strikes. Will that really help ?

* Remember we helped Saddam Hussein back then, when he gassed kurdish civilians. A bit implausible to use that reason now, or have we changed ? Now that would be something. And remember we (the west) sold those chemical weapons to lots of nations in the middle East.

**I mean real evidence. I still remember Powell's 'evidence' before the United Nations probaly provided by the CIA, when it came to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I guess Rumsfeld and Cheney are still laughing. Kerry's speech reminded me of that.

I bring this up because what has been said and lied then, is the same which happens now. That is a pattern, if governments lied then as has unfortunately (for them) leaked out, they certainly do the same now. And evidence turns up every day, literally
?????

What exactly did you not understand ?

tonschk

09-08-13, 02:58 PM

World conquest for resources is the name of the game and their new world order will follow up on the mantra they planted in Georgia on their guide stones. One way or another they're going to erase a lot of warm bodies.

I agree :up:, The CRIMINAL barack obama regime is looking for excuses and telling lies just to sort out another EXCUSE for another criminal US government invasion

mapuc

09-08-13, 03:15 PM

Jimbuna

09-08-13, 03:20 PM

Catfish

09-08-13, 03:27 PM

... As Skybird posted earlier some German "spy-trawler" have detect that Assad has denied his troops to use Chemicals against the civilians.

Right, it was in the german news since this morning, seems they eavesdropped a lot of military radio traffic ..
They say (?) that some brass staff has demanded to use chemical weapons several times, and Assad forbade.

Takeda Shingen

09-08-13, 03:30 PM

I have lost all track of what is true and not true in this Syrian crisis. As Skybird posted earlier some German "spy-trawler" have detect that Assad has denied his troops to use Chemicals against the civilians.

In other intelligence information, says it is the other way round.

(Shaking my head) what is the truth in all this??

Please keep all the conspiracy out of this thread and stay on topic if you are going to answer my post.(Please)

Markus

Simple.

For the last 40 years or so the USA has had this "line in the sand" policy about the use of WMDs (nuclear, biological, chemical). Somebody used chemical weapons against somebody else in Syria, which triggers the line-in-sand policy. The Obama administration goes out and does some massive sabre rattling about things, deploys warships and other assets, etc. However, they didn't get their facts straight beforehand and it turns out that the guys that got the chemical weapons used against them were Al Qaeda militants.

In the meanwhile, the US has called for its allies, who have talked to their parliaments and have said that they weren't going along for the ride this time, remembering Iraq a decade ago. So now the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place in either going it alone and helping out our enemies or reversing course on the line-in-sand policy. At the end of the day the US gets egg on it's face no matter what.

That's it. No New World Order. No crumbling of western democracy. No inside job. Just a combination of botched politics and bad policies, and people are going to die either way because of it. It is horrible, it is deplorable, but sadly it isn't new.

Skybird

09-08-13, 03:46 PM

Takeda Shingen

09-08-13, 03:51 PM

The US has known that Saddam used and has helped Saddam to get and use chemical weapons in the Iran war. That is at least morally if not also in terminal effect the same like using such weapons oneself.

The red line policy claim, since 40 years, is a lie.

The Skybird replies to me! It is like Christmas, except for Skybird who does not celebrate Christmas.

Here's some light reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

I'll highlight the pertinent part.

United States of America -- April 10, 1975

2013
-1975
38

Skybird

09-08-13, 03:59 PM

Posting # 359.

Takeda Shingen

09-08-13, 04:02 PM

Posting No. 985. Also, think before you call somebody a liar. Foolishness. So much foolishness.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 04:16 PM

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.

Takeda Shingen

09-08-13, 04:18 PM

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.

Not to mention the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with my statement about official policy and why the administration took action in the first place. It was like a very juvenile game of one-upsmanship.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 04:21 PM

Goes without saying ;)

August

09-08-13, 04:22 PM

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.

This ^

Tchocky

09-08-13, 04:33 PM

August - real life intruded, forgot to respond to your last.

All good points, to properly remove Assad's CW capability would take more resources than anyone can prudently commit to something that truly isn't their fight. I'm holding to the hope there is a distinctive effect to strikes. Make it cost anyone to do this kind of thing and hope the other crackpots get the message.

Again, nowhere close to perfect but still better than nothing.

Skybird - you say that doing nothing to counter Saddam in the 80'S was tacit approval.

If that applied then, it applies now.

Skybird

09-08-13, 05:09 PM

Active assistance is not just approval. Morally it is the same as if doing the act oneself. The US has no moral highground to claim. It accuses Syria of what it has previously done itself.

Obama has no mission here. He has pulled it down to internal powerpolitics only, to limit the damage he brought about himself by showing too big a mouth.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 05:23 PM

Exactly. If you do the wrong thing thirty years ago you lose the right to do anything now.

For the eighth time - that's a moronic argument.

Tribesman

09-08-13, 05:43 PM

Morally it is the same as if doing the act oneself. The US has no moral highground to claim. It accuses Syria of what it has previously done itself.

What utter nonsense:doh:
A thief can still tell a thief that stealing is wrong.
The only person with no ground at all is Skybird, after all his twisted idealism means that in conflicts slaughtering civilians or using chemical weapons is perfectly acceptable as there should be no laws at all covering these things.
By Skys own moral standards Saddam was right to gas the Kurds and the west was also right to help him as there is nothing wrong in those actions in his dreamworld.

Skybird

09-08-13, 06:18 PM

Exactly. If you do the wrong thing thirty years ago you lose the right to do anything now.

For the eighth time - that's a moronic argument.
The Japanese claim to have worked up their past role in WWII is intentionally doubted, for they deny certain crimes their troops committed until today, hide them, ignore them, or relabel them as something positive, from mass killings in conquered territories to massraping women.

America until today poses as the moral messiah and loses no word about its active assisting of gassing the Iranians. Not the ideal moral position to start a moral lecture from.

And there are other such stories. The funding of contras by selling drugs to the blacks in America back then. The lies of 2003. And we do not know how many other black ops that no doubt took place. Not to mention the active funding of regimes that finances terrorism, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

As long as these things are still done, and done acts are not openly admitted and worked up, America has no credible moral position to argue from.

And argument that I already made ten years ago in the forum war about the Iraq war. Obama's moral credibility is in shambles. He is about limiting the damage to himself. And that is the only real imperative of American "policy" now. He shouldn't have taken his mouth that full last year. What he is about to do now, is giving support to terrorists, radical fanatics and right those people that America claims to wage a war against, this ominous war on terror, and who themselves represent groups and parties that on their behalf also have declared they see themselves at war with America.

And the real reason why we are here today, right at this point, so far has not even been mentioned in this 900+ postings long thread. If the West would not have encouraged the Arab "spring" and the Syrian uprise as well, and would not have silently supported the opposition with money that was channeled to them via dark channels, the uprise would have come to an end after some months at the latest, and the war since long would be over already, and many people would still be alive, and AQ and other radicals and fundamentalists would have no foothold in syria, and Iran and Hezbollah likely would not have risen their profile in syria that much, too. Syria would not have been any more democratic, but that is unimportant. More important would have been that it still would have been stable, predictable, and AQ and radical djihadists having no strong platform there.

It was idiotic and reality-denying wishful thinking and daydreaming by Western escapists who enabled this conflict to go for so long and lasting until today.

But of course, we have had good intentions. We only meant it oh so well, didn't we. We had hopes. We supported democracy.

Write all these precious excuses on a leafs of paper and sell it as toilet paper. Wiping anuses at least is more a useful purpose than all this wonderfully working diplomacy and fantasizing and reality-denying and hiding one's own share of moral guilt. It's not too long ago when Assad still was a darling when it came to selling him the ingredients for the weapons one now is complaining about. After all, money does not stink.

Oberon

09-08-13, 06:33 PM

I think that you would be hard put to find a nation on this planet that would be able to throw stones without being in a glass house.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 06:43 PM

So the Americans are on the hook for the UK supplying precursor chemicals? Get it together.

August

09-08-13, 06:51 PM

August - real life intruded, forgot to respond to your last.

All good points, to properly remove Assad's CW capability would take more resources than anyone can prudently commit to something that truly isn't their fight. I'm holding to the hope there is a distinctive effect to strikes. Make it cost anyone to do this kind of thing and hope the other crackpots get the message.

Again, nowhere close to perfect but still better than nothing.

I disagree. Doing nothing is vastly preferable than making an ineffectual military strike that doesn't accomplish anything besides civilian casualties.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 06:58 PM

I'd say that there's a greater risk by not responding to the use of sarin.

Certainly a response could be ineffectual.

Skybird

09-08-13, 07:33 PM

I think that you would be hard put to find a nation on this planet that would be able to throw stones without being in a glass house.
:yep: Ohhhh yesss...

Not that it stops them trying nevertheless...

Tchocky

09-08-13, 07:40 PM

It's always better to be consistent and wrong than hypocritical and right.

Never forget.

August

09-08-13, 07:47 PM

I'd say that there's a greater risk by not responding to the use of sarin.

Certainly a response could be ineffectual.

But use of Sarin by who? Assad? Maybe some underling acting without authority? or even Al Quaeda? So far i'm hearing lots of unsubstantiated claims but no hard evidence as to who exactly lit off that gas bomb.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 07:56 PM

From everything I've seen it's by Assad. The only suggestion at rebel use is the idea that it doesn't help Assad.

Not going to pretend I know exactly who used what, but I'm not seeing any convincing evidence that anyone but Assad it's responsible.

If it was an underling then all the more reason. Force Assad to get his forces in line, make the point that wholesale gassing isn't on. Whole thing sucks.

Oberon

09-08-13, 08:06 PM

:yep: Ohhhh yesss...

Not that it stops them trying nevertheless...

Each action has a reaction. I'd say that there's more to this strike proposal than the morals that have been presented to the international community and their public. Whilst I think we can all agree, more or less, that the use of chemical weapons is a terrible thing, no matter who uses them, supplies them, or makes them, I do find it hard to believe the reasoning is purely based around a moral standpoint for reasons that have already been mentioned.
However, the argument that binds hands due to history is a hard one to make function in this bipolarised world, because of the self-interest of nations. Whilst, again morally, it would be a good world that had all nations turn their swords into plough-shares, all of us here know that this is something that is not likely to happen, it's human nature. So where does that leave us? With selective deafness and memory, due to necessity.

At its most base level, this mission is a show of American force, a fireworks display over Damascus, a message in multi-million dollar hardware that chemical weapons are bad, m'kay. No other nation in the world (except France, who is hoping for a Sarkozy/Libya poll ratings effect) wants to send this message, even Obama doesn't really want to send this message, he's not deaf, he can see that most of the populace doesn't want to strike Syria, and that's one of the reasons he threw it at Congress, to share the blame if and when this happens. I do not think that he will act without Congressional approval, not publically anyway, special forces might get sent instead of missiles, and maybe a drone or two might creep around Syrian airspace, but he won't act without Congress, because it would be shooting a hole in the carefully crafted boat that he's made out of the red line fiasco.
At the moment, no matter what Congress decides, Obama sheds some of the blame. If Congress says yes, then the blame is shared equally between Obama and the Congresspeople that voted in favour. If Congress says no, and another gas attack occurs, then Obama can go ahead with the mission anyway, and blame Congress for putting politics ahead of people. Either way the Republicans end up being painted in a bad light. If he goes ahead and bombs Syria after Congress voted no and before the next chemical attack then he basically paints himself as a warmonger who doesn't listen to Congress, and whilst that's what many people may think of him already, he doesn't want to write that in stone.
So it really comes down to Congress, and if American people on here want one thing or another from this vote, then I urge them to do as August has done and write to their senator. It might not affect their actions one way or another, but at least you tried, and at the end of the day what did it cost you? Internet usage, a postage stamp, the worst thing he or she could do with it (or their secretary as is more likely) is throw it in the bin.
I think Cameron made the right move to put it to Parliament, even if he didn't get the vote he expected and threw a small tantrum in the process, but by sticking by the decision of Parliament he will likely pick up some votes from people disillusioned by the Blair wars, and the current Labour civil war, it may not do much for him internationally, but it's done him some good domestically. Until the next crisis anyway.

Politics, as we all know, be it domestic or international, is rarely about acting in the interest of others, there is usually always a catch somewhere along the line, always a hidden meaning behind an action.
I personally don't think it's oil related, in regards to Syria, but it might be related to sending a message to another nation, be it Russia or Saudi Arabia. We shall see, after all there's absolutely sod all (us non-Americans anyway) can do until the outcome of the US Senates vote, which I will be hoping to catch live when it takes place later this week, presumably any time after Wednesday, having listened to most of our Parliaments debate on it, I hope to catch as much as I can of the US Congress debate, to compare our political systems. :yep:

Until then, no matter how much we chase each other in circles on this thread about the morality, effectiveness or ethics of launching a military strike on Syria, we will be no closer to a definitive answer since we are not the ones making the decision. :03:

Skybird

09-08-13, 08:17 PM

CNN had a brief and sober list of four simple questions with their as simple answers. After all, the whole thing is not really any complicated, in a way.

Members of Congress demanded that President Barack Obama consult with them on Syria. They just got their wish. The responsibility for Syria policy will now be shared. Here are four questions that might be weighed wisely before the missiles fly:

1. What will it accomplish?

A war between Bashar al-Assad's regime, Hezbollah and Iran on one side and al Qaeda-style Islamic radicals on the other is a fight in which the United States has no dog.

Hurting the Assad regime inevitably means helping the rebels. True, some of the rebels are nicer than other rebels. It's also true that the nasty rebels are the faction likelier to dominate if the Assad regime falls.

In June, the nasty rebels and the nicer rebels came to violence over control of strategic checkpoints in northern Syria. The conflict ended with the nasty rebels assassinating one of the top leaders of the nicer rebels and consolidating control over the disputed territory.

So much of the debate about Syria is a debate about "how"? We are in real danger of skipping over the more important questions: "Why?" and "For whose benefit?"

2. What comes next?

A two-day barrage of cruise missiles will not tip the balance of the Syrian civil war against the Assad regime. It took seven months of bombing plus substantial military assistance to Libyan rebels to topple Moammar Gadhafi's friendless regime. Al-Assad has a tighter grip on power and more international allies.

Odds are that after the boom-boom ceases, the civil war will resume. Syrian government forces will likely continue to commit atrocities (although maybe next time by some means other than poison gas). The rebels will very likely continue to lose.

The world will have watched the Assad regime shake off an American punch -- and all the questions we face today about U.S. "credibility" will revive in more intense form.

The United States is contemplating cruise missile strikes today in large part because of the failure of prior interventions on behalf of the rebels: first food and medical aid, then communications devices and other battlefield support, then small arms. If this intervention fails to force al-Assad to quit, the next intervention will have to be bigger again.

3. What will it cost?

A Syria campaign is being advertised as comparatively cheap in money and American lives. We're promised "no boots on the ground." But there's another cost in danger of being overlooked: the opportunity cost.

The president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and other top officials have only so much time and energy. If they commit to resolving the Syrian civil war, inevitably they give second shrift, or third shrift, or worse to many other concerns of arguably greater importance to the region and the world.

Egypt, for example, seems to be heading toward the same civil strife as Syria. Who is developing the plan for helping to prevent that outcome? How much high-level support and attention are they getting?

4. Is there another way?

Obama administration officials argue a strike against Syria will deter Iran. But firing cruise missiles at army facilities in Syria seems a very roundabout method of stopping a nuclear program in Iran. Some may hope that the United States is drawing Iran into a protracted, expensive proxy war. But the United States already has two anti-Iran proxy wars in inventory, Afghanistan and Iraq, and neither has gone well.

What has gone well, by contrast, is the U.S. campaign of economic pressure on Iran. Who would have dared predict in 2002 that Iran would still lack a nuclear weapon 11 years later and without a U.S. military attack? Yet so it has happened.

If you want to deal with Iran, deal with Iran. And if you want not to be drawn all the way into a Syrian civil war between factions none of them friendly to the United States, then the best way to avoid being drawn is: don't take the first step. And if you have already inadvisedly taken the first step, at least beware the second, third and fourth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/frum-syria-four-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Without simplifying one can indeed say: it is so simple.

Tchocky

09-08-13, 08:21 PM

An entire series that avoids the word "chemical".

Not exactly worthless but certainly beside the point. You would get more mileage on how the vote in Congress will effect the 2016 primaries. :rolleyes:

August

09-08-13, 08:22 PM

Tchocky

09-08-13, 08:31 PM

Hearing it from French, German, UK, and US sources over the same couple of days saying they were convinced. I figure after Iraq no intelligence analyst worth his/her salt would have failed to learn the lessons of 2002/3.

Again, not one thing in particular but several in concert. I'd prefer more concrete information coming from those who advocate action. Doesn't seem like it's coming. I will say that those placing this alongside the intelligence effort on Iraq have an awful lot to remember about those days.

Ah, it'll all turn out badly no matter what. That's the worst part.

Skybird

09-08-13, 08:35 PM

Tchocky

09-08-13, 08:39 PM

Civilian massacre is civilian massacre. Whether it is done by gas, white phosphorus, machetes and mutilations and leaving the victims to bleed to death, or machine guns, is not relevant: dead is dead, suffering is suffering, and massacre is massacre. And do not mention the Geneva Convention again, I think I said clearly enough what I think of it.

Hardly. You can't pretend that killing people with guns and bombs is the same as using sarin gas. That's the kind of thinking usually confined to religious fundamentalists.

True, dead is dead. I don't see anyone arguing anything else. But if you want to control a neighbourhood there is a difference between shelling and shooting your way to control and gassing the entire place.

BTW, in those parts of the world they do not fight by the rules of the Hague Land Warfare charter or the Geneva Convention anyway. You can voice your important protest against that violation, if it offends your civilised sentiments, okay. I'm sure they will consider your protest thoroughly and then make up their minds.And we should always set ourselves to the lowest common denominator. As long as somebody else does it first.

Christ.

Armistead

09-08-13, 11:13 PM

Civilian massacre is civilian massacre. Whether it is done by gas, white phosphorus, machetes and mutilations and leaving the victims to bleed to death, or machine guns, is not relevant: dead is dead, suffering is suffering, and massacre is massacre. And do not mention the Geneva Convention again, I think I said clearly enough what I think of it.

BTW, in those parts of the world they do not fight by the rules of the Hague Land Warfare charter or the Geneva Convention anyway. You can voice your important protest against that violation, if it offends your civilised sentiments, okay. I'm sure they will consider your protest thoroughly and then make up their minds.

In this case I agree. If we in and bomb, it will be a joke. Already reports of the radical rebels capturing christian towns, torturing, burning churches, etc.

I hope congress will say no, be smart, but seems congress has always been stupid. Ready a book on the American Revolution, while Washington and his army were starving on the Delaware, congress issued a decree, a day of fasting for the nation and army.