Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by sailor_X

The Truth About How The US Will Save Syria

Good find. Good reason in use. Good arguments. That guy is far more more merciless than me in destroying the moral credibility of the US.

On a sidenote, I heard of the genetic fallout in Iraq. But I did not imagine it to be that bad.

[HunterICX]

HunterICX

[Alex]

Mainly @ you MH, with much respect :

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/tribal-wars-explored.html#entry34234928

[andritsos]

an italian Journalist, held captive since months and only recently released by rebels , says it was the rebels to use the gas, but in the following paragraphs its downplayed , anyways i post it here:

according to this article
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2013...6/?ref=HRER3-1

''
"It was not Assad to use gas." "It 'a moral duty to tell. It is not the government of Bashar al-Assad to have used sarin gas or any other gas on the outskirts of Damascus." So again Pierre Piccinin continues on the radio RTL-TVi, thus justifying his beliefs: "We have the certainty because we surprised a conversation of the rebels. Even if it costs me to say because from May 2012 I support the just struggle of Democracy Free Syrian Army" . "For the moment, as a matter of ethics, Domenico and I are determined not to go out (the details of) this information," he said referring to the interrogation of Piccinin Quirico scheduled today and his newspaper. "When the Press considers that the time has come to give details on this information, I will do it in Belgium too." Piccinin said that, when on August 30, he and Quirico have learned of the intention of the U.S. to act in response to the use, attributed to the regime of chemical weapons "had his head on fire," because "we were prisoners there, stuck with this information and for us it was impossible to give it. "

Calabresi ( director of the newspaper the journalist works for): "Gas used by the rebels? Quirico does not know anything." The Director Calabresi was asked if actually Domenico Quirico have reliable information on the use of gas by the rebels and not of the Assad regime. "On these things Domenico is very sloppy, does not know anything, I said yesterday that it is as if he had been on Mars''
''

P.s tiny modifications for grammar, translate isnt impeccable ( nor am i )

[mapuc]

I had a very simple request and it's seems very hard for some of you to follow

See my post 980 there I had a simple wish when replying my post. Some was nice and made a clean response about the crisis in Syria


Then it was this one.

I know for some(me included) it is nothing more than conspiracy, but for some...
see post 1014.

Markus

[Skybird]

Until this very day it is a highly plausible possibility that it were the rebels. So far everything coming from Western government has been unverified claims which they claim cannot be verified due to "secrecy concerns". - A certainty it is not, however. All we have, is claims, and our ideas about motives.

If you take the 55 minutes speech in sailor_X' link (since I occaisonally switch into that channel I already had it yesterday), you may foind it most revealing in what way Us poltiicans have already benefitted from being in favour of this strike. In Kerry'scase the donations by defence companies have gone up a claimed 85% since the became the big crusader.

Also very enlightening and an argument often made is economi arguments made in the last third of the program. That the US economically is pretty much a dead body floating in economic waters without the financial stimuli by the overblown defence industry, is a writing on the wall, and with a debt burden like these it sits so deep in the sh!t that it will never get out of it again. The US cannot have any interest in a world at peace, since then it cannot justify its enormous spending on weapons and military arms anymore.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Alex

Mainly @ you MH, with much respect :

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/tribal-wars-explored.html#entry34234928

Should I read it becouse jew wrote it?
I help you a bit...Obama just went to AIPAC for help with the congress.
Somthing that will fly in our face with all the backward logic.
J-Street that supports Obama and is against the intervention in syria gets a finger but who cares when it comes to Z conspiracy.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

With artillery or machine guns you can wipe out entie neighbourhoods - and nobody will even care!

Yes you can do it if you have army big enough to do it and carry the orders every time.
You also would have to take control of given neighborhood or isolate it first while fighting resistance.

I agree that massacre is masacre but chemicals open a lot of crazy possibilities that require some few faithful men who believe the cause.
Give iranians nukes then....if they send it toward berlin because of voices in the head who cares if they had to or not to drive with tanks there firs.


When it comes to the chemical red line it is sort of cynical after all of death but it i guess it is issue of real politics meeting ethics .
Honestly it doesn't really matter who used the weapons the issue is to resolve this conflict.
Whom to bomb is a matter of preference in this case.
I personally im on my side.


...........

[Skybird]

Several major newspapers here in Germany present screaming headlines since some minutes that Assad agreed to put Syrian chemical weapons under "international control." The foreign minister should have said that Damascus accepts and welcomes an according Russian proposal, which inlcuded the demand that later these weapons are to be destroyed.

Believable and trustworthy news - or only wishful interpretation of an earlier notice that the Syrian foreign minister welcomed an according Russian plan?

Certainly the best possible outcome of this mess, if true. Where there are no chemical weapons, they cannot fall into the hands of Hezbollah and Muslim terrorists.

[eddie]

Here is a part of the Charlie Rose interview with Assad! Assads voice doesn't sound like What I thought it would!

http://news.msn.com/us/video?videoid...om=en-us_msnhp

[Mr Quatro]

Yes breaking news ... skybyrd beat me to it, must be night time over there and daytime over here.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/...ol_875354.html

Russia truly is the master at chess playing and protecting their only naval base in the area.

I had proposed early on that we should consider a plan to purchase Syrian chemical weapons on a buy back plan.

One cruise missile represents 1.4 million dollars and we fired over 100 in the Libyan conflict alone.

plus what would keep Assad from denoting a chemical weapon in the same location that a US cruise missile strikes and say that the US missile caused the explosion killing hundreds more civilians calling in the UN inspection team to see the damage they caused?

[Skybird]

It could also just be a brilliant counter by Syria to force the Americans to put a foot on the break and win time. I do not believe one second that Kerry has planned this.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It could also just be a brilliant counter by Syria to force the Americans to put a foot on the break and win time. I do not believe one second that Kerry has planned this.

Actully its Kerry that came up with the idea that if Syria destroys its chemical arsenal the military intervention may be avoided.
This looks like russian follow up.

Certainly the best possible outcome of this mess, if true. Where there are no chemical weapons, they cannot fall into the hands of Hezbollah and Muslim terrorists.

If there is nothing wrong with chemical weapons there is nothing wrong with terrorists having them.
It makes no difference if they kill with chemicals or kill with machetes apparently, plus of course as there should be no rules of war they cannot even be terrorists in the first place.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If there is nothing wrong with chemical weapons there is nothing wrong with terrorists having them.
It makes no difference if they kill with chemicals or kill with machetes apparently, plus of course as there should be no rules of war they cannot even be terrorists in the first place.

You're being silly, I think all agree chemical weapons are wrong, because they're a weapon of terror and weapons of mass random killing. In this case they're being used as a weapon of terror.

The fact is most nations that have chemical and nukes would use them if it came to their survival, including the USA.