Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

[Guest chunky]

We might not have a choice over having to fight them all. If conscription comes then we'll have to fight. Or get put in a FEMA grave. I bet they have those graves in Europe too. EU law says any EU citizen can be transferred to any EU nation for imprisonment.

 

I posted a WWI documentary in the youtube thread this week. The situation from 100 years ago has similarities with what's happening today. Then it was Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Now the trigger could be something else. What I think about WWI is that the whole point was to make all the nations destroy each other's ruling classes. Instead of fighting nations directly you make them all go to war. Instead of fighting Islam or Christianity directly you make them wipe each other off the face of the earth.

[eugene]

"why not both ?"

it's clear that the west isn't cool with assad-iran-hezbollah alliance and would like it as weak as possible/completely dismantled for many different reaons but the people are clearly suffering under assad as well and the west does have some sort of an obligation to prevent this. i think it is possible to do it in a more or less measured way like it was done in libya, without ground invasion and such (for which there's no support in the public).

[goDel]

if anyone didn't see this embarrassing, cringe-worthy and nearly vomitorious  display of the people in charge of the free world, check it out

 

 

and i'm sorry, but if anyone fell for this or is still falling for it at this point you just need to throw in the towel. Your abuser has broken you to the point of total disempowerment.

 

Just out of curiosity, what is exactly the problem here?

 

Do you hate political talk in general? Do you think it's hypocritical for a government to talk like this while at the same time dealing with stuff like gitmo,nsa,etc? Is that it? Or is it the potential actions that might be taking place in the near future in syria?

 

What is it?

 

All this rhetoric doesn't seem relevant to me, btw. The question is what will be done about the Syria situation. It's about actions and decisions. So, if you indeed don't fall for this rhetoric, what do you think about the decision making? Or rather, what do you think should be done about Syria?

 

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's pretty tiresome to have the same discussion over and over about some kind of historical empire and how everything is wrong, without providing an actual solution for the imminent problems which are taking place at this point in time. Do you propose a complete retreat from US in international issues?

[may be rude]

I agree that "moral obscenity" is an imprecise use of speech, but that's Kerry. An obscenity is the word "fuck," or a picture of a penis. Gassing a thousand civilians is a heinous crime against humanity.

[ambermonk]

I agree that "moral obscenity" is an imprecise use of speech, but that's Kerry. An obscenity is the word "fuck," or a picture of a penis. Gassing a thousand civilians is a heinous crime against humanity.

Reminds me of the famous quote by Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) from Apocalypse Now!:

 

We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because...it is obscene!

[delet...]

Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

Started by Rubin Farr, Jun 14 2013 07:34 AM

No he didn't, just like the two pervious times that they said that he did where he didn't. (it's easy to research this, credible sources etc) How many people are going to be exploded this time around because of purile minded morons. How much rich history is going to get wiped off the map, how many are to live in fear in refugee camps. Because of the pathetic minded weak seed that post their evil spore to the winds of the internet. Look how great things are in Libya now, shredding that place was such a boon for the locals.

meh

[SR4]

 

Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

Started by Rubin Farr, Jun 14 2013 07:34 AM

No he didn't, just like the two pervious times that they said that he did where he didn't. (it's easy to research this, credible sources etc) How many people are going to be exploded this time around because of purile minded morons. How much rich history is going to get wiped off the map, how many are to live in fear in refugee camps. Because of the pathetic minded weak seed that post their evil spore to the winds of the internet. Look how great things are in Libya now, shredding that place was such a boon for the locals.

meh

 

 

 

this is the most concerning point to me.

 

we always talk about acting, but we never talk about how to build up from the rubble BEFORE we give the attack order. The lack of foresight in geopolitical strategy begs the cycle of destruction, in which those who commit horrid acts are immediately punished, and those who do not become the new authority and the punishers themselves.

[brian trageskin]

 

Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

Started by Rubin Farr, Jun 14 2013 07:34 AM

No he didn't, just like the two pervious times that they said that he did where he didn't. (it's easy to research this, credible sources etc) How many people are going to be exploded this time around because of purile minded morons. How much rich history is going to get wiped off the map, how many are to live in fear in refugee camps. Because of the pathetic minded weak seed that post their evil spore to the winds of the internet. Look how great things are in Libya now, shredding that place was such a boon for the locals.

meh

 

 

i share this point of view from my readings (david icke videos on youtube obviously). i'd have liked to post an article in particular about this but it hasn't been translated in english yet.

[SR4]

david icke has thoughts on this? do tell.

[joshuatxuk]

 

I agree that "moral obscenity" is an imprecise use of speech, but that's Kerry. An obscenity is the word "fuck," or a picture of a penis. Gassing a thousand civilians is a heinous crime against humanity.

Reminds me of the famous quote by Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) from Apocalypse Now!:

 

We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because...it is obscene!

 

 

God I fucking love that quote. What's the other one that Willard says: "Shit... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."

 

Also...

 

http://youtu.be/dr155-C-0wc

[Guest chunky]

Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

can mods make a poll that asks whether ppl believe this statement is true or false?

[Guest chunky]

All very fine. Except that, in October 2002, John Kerry pontificated thus: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat…"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100232685/crop-circles-syria-and-john-kerry-why-we-dont-believe-our-rulers-any-more/

 

haha

[spunktronics]

what is it with the middle east? the UN/US/UK don't seem to get involved in hardly any other areas of the world so why the middle east?

[Turbo Zwanengestuif]

I'm honestly a little stunned that any critically thinking person at this moment is taking US claims about Syria seriously enough to be backing a military strike.

 

Propaganda works very effective obviously.

[goDel]

what is it with the middle east? the UN/US/UK don't seem to get involved in hardly any other areas of the world so why the middle east?

 

Is it that they don't get involved, or is it that the media doesn't pay attention?

[MadameChaos]

An unusually deep article from the Daily Mail here. Now I don't know what to think.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2404983/Syrias-nerve-gas-massacre-Revenge-tyrants-legged-brother-monstrous-trick-rebels.html

 

Unfortunately Al Jazeera has no such articles to look at.

[Guest Blue Peter Cheat]

Here's a few interesting stories:

 

06/05/13
Syrian rebels 'used sarin gas', says UN’s del Ponte

"Syrian rebels have used the deadly nerve agent sarin in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, according to evidence from victims and doctors, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte said.

“According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas,” del Ponte, a former Swiss war crimes prosecutor and a member of a UN commission of inquiry on Syria, said in an interview with Swiss Italian broadcaster RSI on Sunday.

She said there was “still not irrefutable proof, (but) very strong suspicions, concrete suspicions that sarin gas has been used. Assistance to victims shows this.”

Her comments come amid growing Western suspicions that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons in the 26-month conflict and follow Israeli raids on military sites near Damascus over the weekend."

http://www.france24.com/en/20130506-syria-un-del-ponte-chemical-weapons-gas-rebels-assad

31/05/13
NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds

"The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent
of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two
years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said
the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that
were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts."

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

26/08/13
The war drive against Syria

"The geostrategic and economic interests driving war preparations against Syria were spelled out in a long statement by one of US imperialism’s leading strategists, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, issued two days after the alleged chemical attack.

He wrote, “If Bashar al-Assad wins or survives in ways that give him control over most of Syria, Iran will have a massive new degree of influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in a polarized Middle East divided between Sunni and Shi’ite and steadily driving minorities into exile. This will present serious new risks for an Israel that will never again be able to count on a passive Assad. It will weaken Jordan and Turkey and, most importantly, give Iran far more influence in the Gulf. BP estimates that Iraq and Iran together have nearly 20 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, and the Middle East has over 48 percent.”

To achieve the objective of removing all impediments to their control over the vast oil reserves of the Middle East, the imperialist powers, led by the United States, would gladly organize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, just as they did in Iraq."

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/26/pers-a26.html

 

26/08/13

UN spurns US call to withdraw Syria inspectors as war looms

 

"UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon today rejected US demands to withdraw chemical weapons inspectors from Syria, with those familiar with the conversation saying he “stood firm on principle.”

...

British officials went a step further and tried to preempt the investigators’ results, saying that the evidence might conceivably have been destroyed or “tampered with” and that what the investigators tell the world about what happened in Jobar couldn’t be trusted anymore."

 

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/26/un-spurns-us-call-to-withdraw-syria-inspectors-as-war-looms/

 

27/08/13

Syria says it will defend itself against attack

 

"“We have the means to defend ourselves and we will surprise everyone,” he told reporters the Damascus news conference. “We will defend ourselves using all means available. I don’t want to say more than that,” he added.

He also blamed the postponement of the U.N. team’s planned visit to the eastern Ghouta suburb on disputes between rebel gunmen who could not agree on safety guarantees for the investigators.

The U.N confirmed the one-day delay, saying only it was for security reasons. A statement said the decision was made Tuesday in order to improve preparedness and safety, after unidentified snipers opened fire on the team’s convoy on Monday on a similar trip to the region."

http://www.thereporteronline.com/article/20130827/NEWS05/130829639/syria-says-it-will-defend-itself-against-attack#2

And this is almost unbelievable...

27/08/13
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria

"As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

 

One more: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1671459_insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html

[brian trageskin]

i'm too lazy to translate the article myself so this is a google translation:

 

"A man suspected of wanting to do a homicide, chose for when he joined the police to enforce. This is what would have been President Assad in unsheathing etching when the UN inspectors arrive to complete their investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The "evidence" was exhibited by the "rebels", the propaganda center in Istanbul, organized by the United unien State Department prepares the videos provided global media.

Having now "little doubt" that Assad is the culprit and judging "late to be credible" investigation of the UN, President Obama is currently evaluating a "response" similar to that of Kosovo, that is to say the air war launched without UN mandate by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999, accused of "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.

To this end, the Pentagon convened in Jordan on 25-27 August, the leaders of Canada Staff, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In Jordan the USA have made F-16 fighter-bombers, the land-air Patriot missiles and about a thousand armed soldiers train for the "secret war" in Syria groups.

 

According to information gathered by Le Figaro, a contingent of 300 men, "probably supported by Israeli commandos" was infiltrated into Syria from Jordan on August 17, followed by another two days later. They add to the many people already trained in Turkey. The majority of non-Syrians from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Libya and other countries, generally belonging to Islamist groups, some of which are classified terrorists in Washington. They are supplied with weapons, including those from Croatia, through a worldwide network organized by the CIA.

Under the yoke of nothing easier than to provide some groups of chemical warheads "secret war" to launch with rockets at civilians and then shooting massacre by attributing it to government forces. This creates the casus belli to justify a further escalation up the air war, because the war inside can not bring down the Syrian government. This option is motivated by the imposition of a "no-fly zone" provides a solid launching cruise missiles, more than 70 in the first night, joined waves of planes dropping bombs in satellite guidance staying out of Syrian airspace.

 

Preparations began not after, but before the alleged chemical attack. In July the group was deployed to attack the carrier U.S. aircraft Harry Truman, with two cruisers and two destroyers against missile units with onboard Marine, which operates in the area of Sixth and fifth Fleet. Another against missile destroyer, the Mahan, instead of returning to its home port in Virginia, remained in the Mediterranean under the command of the Sixth Fleet. The U.S. Navy and alone has already set some five submarines able to launch on Syria hundreds of cruise missiles naval units. Fighter-bombers are ready to take off as bases in Italy and the Middle East.

Over to U.S. naval forces join, still under the command of the Pentagon, those participants in the meeting in Jordan (including Italy) and other countries.

However, Syria has a military capability that did not Yugoslavia and Libya, more than 600 anti-aircraft missile systems and range of up to 300 kms. The war would spread to Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries already involved and complicate future relations between Washington and Moscow.

It is on this that is thinking about Washington, while in Rome orders expected. "

 

Manlio Dinucci

 

http://www.voltairenet.org/article179934.html

[goDel]

Funny thing is, I read somewhere the UN inspectors weren't even there to check which party used chemical weapons, but rather if chemical weapons were used.

 

Obviously, some proof has been found chemical weapons were indeed used. And due to reasons which are probably only known in the white house, apparently assad is to blame.

 

The irony is, imo, if the US government were indeed looking for an excuse to involve themselves in Syria, it would have been enough if they'd send an army with a mandate similar to a referee in soccer or what ever sport you can imagine. Why not send troops to play referee? Kinda like the UN always does? One could even argue for a broader mandate in the sense that "the referee" is allowed to send players out of the game (shoot with actual bullets so to speak), regardless of which side they're on.

 

I can even imagine China and Russia supporting this type of involvement.

 

Whatever though. Those smart brainiacs making decisions apparently think it's wise to blame Assad even if it's probably impossible to prove.

[SR4]

Funny thing is, I read somewhere the UN inspectors weren't even there to check which party used chemical weapons, but rather if chemical weapons were used.

 

Obviously, some proof has been found chemical weapons were indeed used. And due to reasons which are probably only known in the white house, apparently assad is to blame.

 

The irony is, imo, if the US government were indeed looking for an excuse to involve themselves in Syria, it would have been enough if they'd send an army with a mandate similar to a referee in soccer or what ever sport you can imagine. Why not send troops to play referee? Kinda like the UN always does? One could even argue for a broader mandate in the sense that "the referee" is allowed to send players out of the game (shoot with actual bullets so to speak), regardless of which side they're on.

 

I can even imagine China and Russia supporting this type of involvement.

 

Whatever though. Those smart brainiacs making decisions apparently think it's wise to blame Assad even if it's probably impossible to prove.

 

i'd imagine that it probably has something to do with gaining French and German support for a military action? I always had the impression that, while not explicit, the Obama admin was determined to reverse the diplomatic fallout of Bush's unilateral approach (whether he is successful in reversing it is another story.)

[goDel]

Dunno. The French only show their hawkish side when they have direct interests at stake. Otherwise, I can only think of examples for France having some kind of antagonistic point of view with respect to US policies.

 

Und ze Germans. If my memory serves me well, their first mission since ww2 was some helping hand mission in afghanistan. They're not really into the business of being warmongering baboons. Their history simply doesn't allow them. So for what it's worth, it would even help getting some military help from germans if the mission was more pacifist, I'd think.

 

The UK is different of course. If US wants war, UK follows like a small puppy.

[SR4]

Dunno. The French only show their hawkish side when they have direct interests at stake. Otherwise, I can only think of examples for France having some kind of antagonistic point of view with respect to US policies.

 

Und ze Germans. If my memory serves me well, their first mission since ww2 was some helping hand mission in afghanistan. They're not really into the business of being warmongering baboons. Their history simply doesn't allow them. So for what it's worth, it would even help getting some military help from germans if the mission was more pacifist, I'd think.

 

The UK is different of course. If US wants war, UK follows like a small puppy.

 

 

It's not the military help the US would be looking for, 'Murica has more than enough firepower. Rather the US wants no "objections" from their European economic allies. It tended to look pretty badly on Bush II when he basically flipped off the UN in regards to the Iraq invasion. Diplomatic consistency and all that. It tends to look poorly on the Democratic voting bloc if their post-Bush II leader is embracing his predecessors diplomatic strategies (or lack thereof).

 

French interest in Syria is a constant as having been a former French mandate, so this turned out to be a rather convenient area of dispute for the US.

[chenGOD]

 

what is it with the middle east? the UN/US/UK don't seem to get involved in hardly any other areas of the world so why the middle east?

 

Is it that they don't get involved, or is it that the media doesn't pay attention?

 

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[joshuatxuk]

Dunno. The French only show their hawkish side when they have direct interests at stake. Otherwise, I can only think of examples for France having some kind of antagonistic point of view with respect to US policies.

 

Und ze Germans. If my memory serves me well, their first mission since ww2 was some helping hand mission in afghanistan. They're not really into the business of being warmongering baboons. Their history simply doesn't allow them. So for what it's worth, it would even help getting some military help from germans if the mission was more pacifist, I'd think.

 

The UK is different of course. If US wants war, UK follows like a small puppy.

 

The French are arguably more hawkish than the US, or at least a lot more focused in their action. Beyond the US (of course) I can't think of another post-cold war country with as many official, permanent military deployments overseas as the French. The UK has definitely scaled back in their non-NATO overseas deployments.

 

I'd say the main difference is the French flex their combat forces quickly and get out. The recent Mali intervention was a good example. They also took the lead in the Libyan airstrikes. The US military has multiple humanitarian efforts and military advising missions 24/7, 365 days a year and we tend to engage in very long-term nation-building efforts. Perhaps it's a carry-over of the cold war era.

 

You're correct about Germany is a bit of NATO oddball because, like Japan, they were ironically one of the best-armed and least-used military forces during the Cold War. It's completely based off the restrictions after WWII. Their constitutional restrictions prevented them from deploying in the first Gulf War, so they sent funds instead. After reunification they engaged in some UN missions and in the Balkans, but yes, Afghanistan was the first true combat engagement for the Heer. (Japan actually sent some troops to Iraq for peacekeeping missions. They've been forced to deploy assets to the Horn of Africa because of piracy.)

 

Besides the Falklands War, you're absolutely dead-on about the Brits. Same could be said about Australia and NZ. Per capita they're more war-weary than many of the other NATO countries though. If I recall correctly the Danish have lost more troops per capita than any other deployed nation.

[goDel]

;]

 

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/current.shtml

 

edit: @ josh

well the french do have their own empire and interests to protect. no denying that. but they aren't afraid to oppose the us either. didn't they have ties with iraq/hussein for example?