On April 26 2013 06:28 DeepElemBlues wrote: Guys the WMD intelligence is soil samples smuggled out of Syria to the UN that have tested positive. The only thing is there's no way of knowing if the samples are from government firing chemical shells, or the rebels, or the rebels breaking open some shells they've captured and getting soil samples that way.
I'm gonna break a leg here and say that there is the possibility for them to not exist at all. lol
Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons are well-documented and the Syrian government still tries to maintain the highest security it can around stockpile sites in areas it still controls.
This isn't the US saying one thing and most of the rest of the world disagreeing, everyone was in agreement before this civil war ever started that Syria does have chemical weapons stockpiles.
Are they well documented? Really? Can you share an official article providing pictures, I would love to see that. And who's everyone, usa and puppet nations? Yes I'm sure they agree, just like sadam had nuclears or was it bio? Don't even remember.
The rebels have lost almost all control in syria and nato comes for the rescue with this make believe hazard.
Go do a Google search. It isn't even debatable that Syria has chemical weapons.
On April 26 2013 06:28 DeepElemBlues wrote: Guys the WMD intelligence is soil samples smuggled out of Syria to the UN that have tested positive. The only thing is there's no way of knowing if the samples are from government firing chemical shells, or the rebels, or the rebels breaking open some shells they've captured and getting soil samples that way.
I'm gonna break a leg here and say that there is the possibility for them to not exist at all. lol
Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons are well-documented and the Syrian government still tries to maintain the highest security it can around stockpile sites in areas it still controls.
This isn't the US saying one thing and most of the rest of the world disagreeing, everyone was in agreement before this civil war ever started that Syria does have chemical weapons stockpiles.
Are they well documented? Really? Can you share an official article providing pictures, I would love to see that. And who's everyone, usa and puppet nations? Yes I'm sure they agree, just like sadam had nuclears or was it bio? Don't even remember.
The rebels have lost almost all control in syria and nato comes for the rescue with this make believe hazard.
Go do a Google search. It isn't even debatable that Syria has chemical weapons.
Very credible sources mate. Now after all these years if you could show me the "weapons of mass destruction" that sadam apparently had...
Iraq and Syria are two different places you know that right.
Syrian government said they had them, it's not some newspaper just making that up. Those 2 newspapers would be greatly embarrassed and have to retract if the Syrian government had not said that. Those aren't 2 blogs or something, lots of people would flip out and make a big fuss. People who get paid attention to when they do that. Along with all the other news outlets that reported it. Why don't you e-mail the United Nations and ask about it the Syrian government made the statement on July 24, 2012.
Also Britain and France are hardly puppets of the USA. France especially does what France wants.
On April 26 2013 06:28 DeepElemBlues wrote: Guys the WMD intelligence is soil samples smuggled out of Syria to the UN that have tested positive. The only thing is there's no way of knowing if the samples are from government firing chemical shells, or the rebels, or the rebels breaking open some shells they've captured and getting soil samples that way.
I'm gonna break a leg here and say that there is the possibility for them to not exist at all. lol
Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons are well-documented and the Syrian government still tries to maintain the highest security it can around stockpile sites in areas it still controls.
This isn't the US saying one thing and most of the rest of the world disagreeing, everyone was in agreement before this civil war ever started that Syria does have chemical weapons stockpiles.
Are they well documented? Really? Can you share an official article providing pictures, I would love to see that. And who's everyone, usa and puppet nations? Yes I'm sure they agree, just like sadam had nuclears or was it bio? Don't even remember.
The rebels have lost almost all control in syria and nato comes for the rescue with this make believe hazard.
Go do a Google search. It isn't even debatable that Syria has chemical weapons.
Very credible sources mate. Now after all these years if you could show me the "weapons of mass destruction" that sadam apparently had...
Iraq and Syria are two different places you know that right.
Syrian government said they had them, it's not some newspaper just making that up. Those 2 newspapers would be greatly embarrassed and have to retract if the Syrian government had not said that. Those aren't 2 blogs or something, lots of people would flip out and make a big fuss. People who get paid attention to when they do that. Along with all the other news outlets that reported it. Why don't you e-mail the United Nations and ask about it the Syrian government made the statement on July 24, 2012.
Also Britain and France are hardly puppets of the USA. France especially does what France wants.
Yes. Newspapers or very serious people who get paid lots of money to 'pay attention to this' never make mistakes. You can just skip to the third minute. "If we dont stop Iraq WDM in Iraq, they will come to America"
On April 26 2013 06:17 Steveling wrote: Innocents die every day there, mainly christians that are hunted down by islam extremists. Horrible horrible things.
Everyone is getting killed in Syria. Only the Golden Dawn would turn this conflict into a Christian vs Muslim conflict.
You have no clue if you think it's not a christian-muslim conflict. It has always being a christian-muslim conflict in this part of the world.
While Christians are one group being targeted, the main conflict is Alawites against other Muslims. Of course even that is an oversimplification: look for example at how there's Christian support for Hezbollah to oppose Sunni rule in Lebanon.
On April 26 2013 06:28 DeepElemBlues wrote: Guys the WMD intelligence is soil samples smuggled out of Syria to the UN that have tested positive. The only thing is there's no way of knowing if the samples are from government firing chemical shells, or the rebels, or the rebels breaking open some shells they've captured and getting soil samples that way.
I'm gonna break a leg here and say that there is the possibility for them to not exist at all. lol
Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons are well-documented and the Syrian government still tries to maintain the highest security it can around stockpile sites in areas it still controls.
This isn't the US saying one thing and most of the rest of the world disagreeing, everyone was in agreement before this civil war ever started that Syria does have chemical weapons stockpiles.
Are they well documented? Really? Can you share an official article providing pictures, I would love to see that. And who's everyone, usa and puppet nations? Yes I'm sure they agree, just like sadam had nuclears or was it bio? Don't even remember.
The rebels have lost almost all control in syria and nato comes for the rescue with this make believe hazard.
Go do a Google search. It isn't even debatable that Syria has chemical weapons.
Very credible sources mate. Now after all these years if you could show me the "weapons of mass destruction" that sadam apparently had...
Iraq and Syria are two different places you know that right.
Syrian government said they had them, it's not some newspaper just making that up. Those 2 newspapers would be greatly embarrassed and have to retract if the Syrian government had not said that. Those aren't 2 blogs or something, lots of people would flip out and make a big fuss. People who get paid attention to when they do that. Along with all the other news outlets that reported it. Why don't you e-mail the United Nations and ask about it the Syrian government made the statement on July 24, 2012.
Also Britain and France are hardly puppets of the USA. France especially does what France wants.
Yes. Newspapers or very serious people who get paid lots of money to 'pay attention to this' never make mistakes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ8iMwA11TQ You can just skip to the third minute. "If we dont stop Iraq WDM in Iraq, they will come to America"
I remember The New York Times printing a pretty abject apology for its pre-war Iraq coverage.
The Syrian foreign minister read a statement to press that was freely distributed around the world and was reported by thousands of news media, including all the major wire services.
the internet really is a separate world
syria doesn't want america banging the war drums
so they said we won't ever use our chemicals against anything but a foreign invasion to cover their butts
that's why they've blamed the rebels as the ones really using chemical weapons when an incident is reported
both sides have blamed each other
i find it hard to believe that the syrian government and the syrian rebels have, by both saying "not us they did it," by some weird process, managed to fool the world into believing chemical weapons have been used in syria
look Syria's civil war has been going on for 2 years now, it's pretty obvious we don't want to get openly involved. the bloodbath predicted for libya instead is happening in syria precisely because NATO isn't bombing Damascus. this is the result of the US not coming in like the enterprise crew violating the prime directive in that one crappy star trek movie.
i don't really see the problem with us not intervening directly unless one side or the other drapes a village (and up) in nerve gas. can't allow people to do that kind of extermination. we did learn something from rwanda and saddam gassing the kurds and the iranians i hope.
otherwise why spend so much time talking about how if anyone ever uses wmd anywhere they're gonna get their butts kicked, if we're not going to stop it if and when it happens, why not just shut up so chemical weapons can be a-ok again just like we're back in 1916. god save the king and down with the hun.
Yes. Newspapers or very serious people who get paid lots of money to 'pay attention to this' never make mistakes.
But I guess if they made a mistake once, then they are never credible again, right?
The myth is whether Syria has used them now. The Federation of American Scientists had a very impressive file on the Iraqi WMD program, but the information was based on inspectors who were withdrawn in 98. Just 5 years later the Americans show up and find almost nothing -- and we all know how desperately they were looking for them. And no, just because the newspapers were wrong before they are always wrong. But its banal to say "well, its in a newspaper, from a serious person, and therefore that is good enough for me" because the last time that logic applied America waded into the dumbest war it has ever fought. so maybe there should be a bit more confirmation than a report that says "maybe" and "could be."
And if Bashar is using WMD...he is using them to kill a dozen people now and not 6 months ago when his army was on a retreat everywhere? why?
On April 26 2013 15:22 Warlock40 wrote: Wait, are there seriously people here who think that Syrian possession of chemical weapons is a myth?
Yes. Newspapers or very serious people who get paid lots of money to 'pay attention to this' never make mistakes.
But I guess if they made a mistake once, then they are never credible again, right?
The myth is whether Syria has used them now. The Federation of American Scientists had a very impressive file on the Iraqi WMD program, but the information was based on inspectors who were withdrawn in 98. Just 5 years later the Americans show up and find almost nothing -- and we all know how desperately they were looking for them. And no, just because the newspapers were wrong before they are always wrong. But its banal to say "well, its in a newspaper, from a serious person, and therefore that is good enough for me" because the last time that logic applied America waded into the dumbest war it has ever fought. so maybe there should be a bit more confirmation than a report that says "maybe" and "could be."
And if Bashar is using WMD...he is using them to kill a dozen people now and not 6 months ago when his army was on a retreat everywhere? why?
Quite simple why he would use them now. At the start of the war global opinion was very much against him, but now not as much. Due to the involvement of some terror movements he knows that the west prefers to not get involved so he can use chemical weapons without risk of getting bombed and it has a psychological effect on those fighting him.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Warlock40 wrote: Wait, are there seriously people here who think that Syrian possession of chemical weapons is a myth?
Unfortunately there are plenty as seen by this thread. We (the west and the rest of the world) really screwed this up by not helping overthrow Assad earlier. Now frontline rebel groups begin pledging allegiance to al-qaeda groups, further complicating a fucked up scenario. As a Canadian citizen (a couple days after the RCMP captured 2 men linked to a al-qaeda terror attack) it really sucks to see all this shit happening. Assad is a monster, and the rebels fighitng him are backed by some of the most horrific criminals humanity has seen in a long time.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that I'm glad I don't live anywhere near that part of the world.
If there is any talk on the possibility of foreign intervention in Syria I think it should not rest on the US to intervene alone. If it eventually becomes clear that intervention is absolutely necessary to avoid something like mass killings by nerve gas and the likes, the intervention should be an international effort.
Edit: To the above... The issue is not whether Syria *has* chemical weapons. Satellite surveillance and other intelligence reveal quite clearly that Syria does have chemical weapons. The Syrian government is on record many times stating they do not intend to use their chemical weapons against civilians (regardless of their honesty) -- if that isn't enough proof that they possess the capacity for chemical warfare then I'm not sure what else to say on that matter. The issue is whether they have used chemical weapons on civilians, and whether they will use them in the future, from what I understand. Correct me if I am wrong though.
Every single one is it's own little unique bag of fuck ^_^
Western involvement shouldn't rely too heavily on historical precedent when the situation is so specific. If we find a way to become involved which shouldn't fuck us, we'll probably take it; but it's all an odds game.
What happened was Al-Qaeda groups from Libya came into Syria and started blowing up buildings, burning Churches and Assad after a month of destruction put troops on the street to protect the Syrian people and that is when the big fighting broke out.
As you all remember Al-Qaeda was funded and supported in Libya by the USA and NATO and basically fought side by side. So Al-Qaeda spewed over to Syria and now the West, NATO are once again funding and supporting Al-Qaeda groups trying to bring down Assad and his legitimate government that won the elections last year.
Of course 4 star general Wesley Clark exposed the plan of the military industrial complex to start 7 wars in the middle east and ultimately go into Iran in a plan to reshuffle the Middle East:
The military industrial complex which one of the greatest US presidents Eisenhower warned about has really taken over the foreign policy of the USA and is now engaged in gruesome crimes against humanity, starting wars of aggression in a lunatic plan exposed by general Wesley Clark to reshape the Middle East and menace the West with a greatly exaggerated terrorist threat.
On April 27 2013 00:41 BillGates wrote: What happened was Al-Qaeda groups from Libya came into Syria and started blowing up buildings, burning Churches and Assad after a month of destruction put troops on the street to protect the Syrian people and that is when the big fighting broke out.
As you all remember Al-Qaeda was funded and supported in Libya by the USA and NATO and basically fought side by side. So Al-Qaeda spewed over to Syria and now the West, NATO are once again funding and supporting Al-Qaeda groups trying to bring down Assad and his legitimate government that won the elections last year.
Of course 4 star general Wesley Clark exposed the plan of the military industrial complex to start 7 wars in the middle east and ultimately go into Iran in a plan to reshuffle the Middle East: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
The military industrial complex which one of the greatest US presidents Eisenhower warned about has really taken over the foreign policy of the USA and is now engaged in gruesome crimes against humanity, starting wars of aggression in a lunatic plan exposed by general Wesley Clark to reshape the Middle East and menace the West with a greatly exaggerated terrorist threat.
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began.
On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began.
Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma.
While the above past couple posts make excellent points, they also neglect to mention that the Assad regieme had put down 2 prior rebellions (one involving the Muslim Brotherhood) killing at least (and these are the lowball estimates) 30,000 people in each case.
It's not just
On April 27 2013 00:41 BillGates wrote: What happened was Al-Qaeda groups from Libya came into Syria and started blowing up buildings, burning Churches and Assad after a month of destruction put troops on the street to protect the Syrian people and that is when the big fighting broke out.
As you all remember Al-Qaeda was funded and supported in Libya by the USA and NATO and basically fought side by side. So Al-Qaeda spewed over to Syria and now the West, NATO are once again funding and supporting Al-Qaeda groups trying to bring down Assad and his legitimate government that won the elections last year.
Also I would like to point out that Al-Qaeda itself was not funded and supported by NATO in Libya, rebel groups were funded who were linked to Al-Qaeda. *My understanding at least* I know it's splitting hairs, but it didn't go down how you phrased it, even though you are partially correct.
Also you say "legitimate government" when you speak about Assad. Did you know Assad was the only Candidate in those elections? That doesn't seem very legit to me.. maybe it does to you?
On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began.
Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma.
Oh, Wesley Clark. Trying to retroactively connect current events to that video is like trying to prove a Nostradamian prophecy. First of all, what he says is so general that it borders on the obvious. Of course the US is going to try to shape the Middle East, it has vital interests there (that, it should be mentioned, don't include oil), such as Israel. That said, to try to tie in every event that occurs in a region that has been in turmoil for decades to some secret American conspiracy is ludicrous. "Attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years" - that didn't happen, so people who use this quote like to loosely interpret it, by which time it's become so vague that it loses all meaning whatsoever. Not to mention trying to tie every conflict in the Middle East to an American puppeteer is an insult to the martyrs of popular uprisings everywhere.
On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began.
Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma.
There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there.
EPT
