above hacked email is not very strong evidence, it just seems too simple to be true. But who knows.
For me logic thinking and deduction is way more important in getting to the result that syrian government has not used chemical weapons.
Assad is winning. He makes advances. He doesnt need to use chemical weapons. It would be stupid beyond believable, if he would use them. If ever, this weapons will be used as a last resort to stop overwhelming enemy force. its the life-insurance of the government. He doesnt want to use them, because this would scare of supporters and allies. No one wants to support / be friend / fight for a mass murderer. And im pretty sure, he doesnt want to be the man that killed 10.000s of his own people to conquer a district from a few hundred enemy fighters.
Syria has MASSES of chemical weapons spread over 100s of depots / locations. If they would be used, this would mean 1000s of dead people within a few minutes. A whole townquarter, with every single human, fighter, animal would be dead in less then 10 minutes, if an artillery battery fires 3 rounds of shells. They would have to use lorries , forklifts, and construction vehicles to get rid of the bodies. Those things are not jokes.
What i found very informative, was a report from iraqi police, that they busted a compound of 3 illegal laboratories run by al kaida/ al nusra, in which sarin, and other chemical weapons / agents were syntesized , on a smaller scale. The planned to use remote-controlled airplanes to spread the gas, and planned to use them in "neighbour countries, Europe and North America", as the iraqi police press speaker declared. + Show Spoiler +
On June 21 2013 03:20 Holo82 wrote: above hacked email is not very strong evidence, it just seems too simple to be true. But who knows.
For me logic thinking and deduction is way more important in getting to the result that syrian government has not used chemical weapons.
Assad is winning. He makes advances. He doesnt need to use chemical weapons. It would be stupid beyond believable, if he would use them. If ever, this weapons will be used as a last resort to stop overwhelming enemy force. its the life-insurance of the government. He doesnt want to use them, because this would scare of supporters and allies. No one wants to support / be friend / fight for a mass murderer. And im pretty sure, he doesnt want to be the man that killed 10.000s of his own people to conquer a district from a few hundred enemy fighters.
Syria has MASSES of chemical weapons spread over 100s of depots / locations. If they would be used, this would mean 1000s of dead people within a few minutes. A whole townquarter, with every single human, fighter, animal would be dead in less then 10 minutes, if an artillery battery fires 3 rounds of shells. They would have to use lorries , forklifts, and construction vehicles to get rid of the bodies. Those things are not jokes.
What i found very informative, was a report from iraqi police, that they busted a compound of 3 illegal laboratories run by al kaida/ al nusra, in which sarin, and other chemical weapons / agents were syntesized , on a smaller scale. The planned to use remote-controlled airplanes to spread the gas, and planned to use them in "neighbour countries, Europe and North America", as the iraqi police press speaker declared. + Show Spoiler +
I am very convinced,that the small scale - use of Sarin that was used in Syria (according to Le Monde publication) stems from this production.
Your "use of logic" remains a fallible tool.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons while he was winning, he used them when he was losing. This is months later. And we are talking about small-scale sarin gas use on some relatively small settlements. As for "no-one wants to be an ally of a mass murdered", well, the 93k dead doesn't seem to bother Russia or China.
As for your article, as much as I can understand the German, it says nothing at all about Syria. It definitely does not allow you to conclude that it was the rebels that used sarin gas, contrary to what the US, France, Britain, Israel, etc are saying. It's mere speculation.
Its 300 km from the syrian border The border area is desert, with no central government control, and full of smugglers. Everything u need to carry sarin from iraq to syria, is having a car and the knowledge that syria is west of iraq, and that you have to drive in the direction of sunset. Voila u have the skill to bring anything from iraq to syria. It clearly said "neighbouring countries", i quoted it in english, It was busted in May, which means AFTER the findings of tracers of chemical weapons. I hope i don't have to further explain what implications there are within this coherences. But perhaps i should start to explain every single small step of- in my point of view - basic geografical and polical knowledge and explain it like in children tv's news.
93 k dead people in 2 1/2 years of civil war with full automatic weapons, one side a fully equipped national army, with public support (serious, non-involved estimates go from 60 - 80%), other side a sunni- djihadistic rebellion fueled from abroad fighters and foreign weapons, and a exile-Comitee of rich people sitting on their asses in London, constantly telling the media how evil the syrian government is, daily terroristic attacks, carbombings, assaults, kidnapping, constantly hiding behind /taking civilians as meatshields, so that the 10 times bigger army forces cant go in , revenge actions , is called "massmurder by assad"- I see a standard bloody assymetrical war, with crueltys happening, like it always does in war. thats why war is bad.
This is not about a mad dictator wiping out his own people. This is about a dicators young and idealistic son that just took over, wanted to make peace and steppings towards liberal, western standards, by granting more civilian rights, releasing 1000s of political prisoners when he took reign from his father, seeing his own liberal policies backfire on himself, and now finding himself against a terroristic rebellion he let arise by his own moderation, and an international community that embargos his country for fighting against al kaida,
Of course, you prefer the rebels to win, The major Implications of this scenario:
War against Israel with Syrias Chemical warfare potential, forcing israel to nuke damaskus? Massacres and expulsion of the big non islamic communities. (the still have 2 christian bishops as hostages, since 4 month now) Terroristic Attacks in the whole world, as Al Kaida has now gained acess to a high developed country`s infrastructure and weapon arsenal (chemical arsenal, anti-aircraft missile, even aircraft fighters, perpetuable french / british / US produced high tech weoponry) Potential upcoming War against Iran / Lebanon?
Just a few scenarious that come to my mind, if the rebels win this civil war.
I cannot see this happen, but i have seen the 3rd Gulf war happen after the "prooves" of colin powell uno speech.
On June 21 2013 04:23 Holo82 wrote: Its 300 km from the syrian border The border area is desert, with no central government control, and full of smugglers. Everything u need to carry sarin from iraq to syria, is having a car and the knowledge that syria is west of iraq, and that you have to drive in the direction of sunset. Voila u have the skill to bring anything from iraq to syria. It clearly said "neighbouring countries", i quoted it in english, It was busted in May, which means AFTER the findings of tracers of chemical weapons. i hope i don't have to further explain what implications there are within this coherences.
And why the hell do you think 93 k dead people in 2 1/2 years of civil war with full automatic weapons, one side a fully equipped national army, with public support (serious, non-involved estimates go from 60 - 80%), other side a sunni- djihadistic rebellion fueled from abroad fighters and foreign weapons, and a exile-Comitee of rich people sitting on their asses in London, constantly telling the media how evil the syrian government is, daily terroristic attacks, carbombings, assaults, kidnapping, constantly hiding behind /taking civilians as meatshields, so that the 10 times bigger army forces cant go in , revenge actions , just a standard bloody assymetrical war, are massmurder from assad?
This is not about a mad dictator wiping out his own people. This is about a dicators young and idealistic son that just took over, wanted to make peace and steppings towards liberal, western standards, by granting more civilian rights, releasing 1000s of political prisoners when he took reign from his father, seeing his own liberal policies backfire on himself, and now finding himself against a terroristic rebellion he let arise by his own moderation, and an international community that embargos his country for fighting against al kaida,
Of course, you prefer the rebels to win, The major Implications of this scenario:
War against Israel with Syrias Chemical warfare potential, forcing israel to nuke damaskus? Massacres and expulsion of the big non islamic communities. (the still have 2 christian bishops as hostages, since 4 month now) Terroristic Attacks in the whole world, as Al Kaida has now gained acess to a high developed country`s infrastructure and weapon arsenal (chemical arsenal, anti-aircraft missile, even aircraft fighters, perpetuable french / british / US produced high tech weoponry) Potential upcoming War against Iran / Lebanon?
Just a few scenarious that come to my mind, if the rebels win this civil war.
I cannot see this happen, but i have seen the 3rd Gulf war happen after the "prooves" of colin powell uno speech.
You like German news, well, let's use German news for a timeline, shall we. First threats of chemical weapon use "August 2012" Der Spiegel, first public report was in December 2012 Al-Jazeera.
As you can see, that's way before, and connected to Syrian govt. facilities. Once again, your "theory" is little more than speculation, and it's not put forth by anyone but you. Not the Russians, not anyone.
As for your portrayal of Assad or the rebels, it's way off. For example, Assad was no blessed Western liberal. He started off with reforms but backtracked on them, and actually deteriorated the state of affairs well before the rebellion began. As for the rebels, you entirely ignore the moderate side of rebels. Also, calling people names, on either side, does not your text more persuasive make.
Do you even read your own sources? Its an article, that says that syrian army tested their chemical weapons on syrias largest chemical weapon testing facility, and the testing facility is located near a research/production complex.
To your understanding: this means exactly the same as: Mercedes G , a off-road-jeep, was tested by Mercedes at the Mercedes off-road test facility , which was coincidentally (or not so, me being sarcastic) near the Mercedes development and production facilities for the G series.
On June 21 2013 04:47 Holo82 wrote: Do you even read your own sources? Its an article, that says that syrian army tested their chemical weapons on syrias largest chemical weapon testing facility, and the testing facility is located near a research/production complex.
To your understanding: this means exactly the same as: Mercedes G , a off-road-jeep, was tested by Mercedes at the Mercedes off-road test facility , which was coincidentally (or not so, me being sarcastic) near the Mercedes development and production facilities for the G series.
That's exactly what it was meant to say. It was the first sign of threat. And it was followed by the actual use few months later. Don't bash, read.
the second source you entered is a blog entry, from a blog at the al dschasira site, not a news report, and therefore underlies no journalistic criteria. To state its a al dschasira report, is wrong. The docs called it "concentrated teargass". There are two videos linked in it, with people having respiration problems, and some fierce gunman standing around and shouting angry at the camera. There is not a single mentioning of "chemical weapons", and whatever the fighters have breathed in, is not known. If it would have been a chemical weapon, than some blood from one of the persons, an analysis in any medicinal labor could have cleared, what they breathed in. Its hard to tell without analysis, any gas (from teargas, like the doc said, thu any chemical substance like chlor. If rebels would have had acess to sarin samples, and sent them to a random medicine labor in any country, we would have known.
Now its time to step back from some nonsaying, or Horror-Show-like blog sources to back up one sided opinions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22953101 This is a nice report of what is happening right now in lebanon, which is a model / microcosmos of syria. It comes from a well known credible source, and is actual journalistic content, with interviews from both sides of the conflict. From this you can derive insight in how the different parties are thinking, and what there mentality and reason to fight is.
I am confused by the situation, that i try to express, discuss, and explain the different angles of this conflicts, while my counterpart just links one dubiuse"prove" for his - in my opinion absurd - thesis after another, while all explanations and more credible sources are ignored, and all official statements from all involved countries / organisations like UN, US, French, British governments have not came to an decision yet, even so an decision against assad it is politically wanted by most of them (French minister for example stated, assad used chemical agents (agents, not weapons) according to intelligence report, than he had to row back, because the actual report clearly stated that it is not known who it was). All that is known for a fact, is that sarine gas has been used in syria on a extremly small scale, with very little casualties. Who, is not known, and if Assad has any political survival instinct, it wasnt him.
On June 21 2013 06:02 Holo82 wrote: the second source you entered is a blog entry, from a blog at the al dschasira site, not a news report, and therefore underlies no journalistic criteria. To state its a al dschasira report, is wrong. The docs called it "concentrated teargass". There are two videos linked in it, with people having respiration problems, and some fierce gunman standing around and shouting angry at the camera. There is not a single mentioning of "chemical weapons", and whatever the fighters have breathed in, is not known. If it would have been a chemical weapon, than some blood from one of the persons, an analysis in any medicinal labor could have cleared, what they breathed in. Its hard to tell without analysis, any gas (from teargas, like the doc said, thu any chemical substance like chlor. If rebels would have had acess to sarin samples, and sent them to a random medicine labor in any country, we would have known.
Now its time to step back from some nonsaying, or Horror-Show-like blog sources to back up one sided opinions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22953101 This is a nice report of what is happening right now in lebanon, which is a model / microcosmos of syria. It comes from a well known credible source, and is actual journalistic content, with interviews from both sides of the conflict. From this you can derive insight in how the different parties are thinking, and what there mentality and reason to fight is.
I am confused by the situation, that i try to express, discuss, and explain the different angles of this conflicts, while my counterpart just links one dubiuse"prove" for his - in my opinion absurd - thesis after another, while all explanations and more credible sources are ignored, and all official statements from all involved countries / organisations like UN, US, French, British governments have not came to an decision yet, even so an decision against assad it is politically wanted by most of them (French minister for example stated, assad used chemical agents (agents, not weapons) according to intelligence report, than he had to row back, because the actual report clearly stated that it is not known who it was). All that is known for a fact, is that sarine gas has been used in syria on a extremly small scale, with very little casualties. Who, is not known, and if Assad has any political survival instinct, it wasnt him.
You make claims but they are just so far removed from reality. You made the claim that chemical weapons were used RECENTLY, I said that there are chemical weapon related reports earlier. And I posted the FIRST reports. I should have probably posted the tweets because they are first reports. Instead I went for the first, which is an Al-Jazeera blog. I.e., real journalists on the ground reporting. In December 2012, it was widely circulated in the media that there is suspicion of chemical weapon use, see another article http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/24/16127090-syria-activists-several-die-after-assads-forces-use-poisonous-gases?lite
Once you start looking for reports after December 2012, there are more reports. This shows that what you wrote before is just idle speculation. And you cannot accuse the rebels of using chemical weapons based on your own conspiracy theories. If half the countries involved say there are, you dismiss it off hand. Now you expect us to believe your own wild theories.
Also, stop the name calling. Otherwise one might ask about your conspiracy theory mongering or spelling...
Lol Holo82 go spill your lies somewhere else. Just remember how all this shit started in march 2011. There was no rebellion just peaceful protests, but still people where dying. How come? FSA was formed in the summer of that same year.
On June 21 2013 06:02 Holo82 wrote: the second source you entered is a blog entry, from a blog at the al dschasira site, not a news report, and therefore underlies no journalistic criteria. To state its a al dschasira report, is wrong. The docs called it "concentrated teargass". There are two videos linked in it, with people having respiration problems, and some fierce gunman standing around and shouting angry at the camera. There is not a single mentioning of "chemical weapons", and whatever the fighters have breathed in, is not known. If it would have been a chemical weapon, than some blood from one of the persons, an analysis in any medicinal labor could have cleared, what they breathed in. Its hard to tell without analysis, any gas (from teargas, like the doc said, thu any chemical substance like chlor. If rebels would have had acess to sarin samples, and sent them to a random medicine labor in any country, we would have known.
Now its time to step back from some nonsaying, or Horror-Show-like blog sources to back up one sided opinions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22953101 This is a nice report of what is happening right now in lebanon, which is a model / microcosmos of syria. It comes from a well known credible source, and is actual journalistic content, with interviews from both sides of the conflict. From this you can derive insight in how the different parties are thinking, and what there mentality and reason to fight is.
I am confused by the situation, that i try to express, discuss, and explain the different angles of this conflicts, while my counterpart just links one dubiuse"prove" for his - in my opinion absurd - thesis after another, while all explanations and more credible sources are ignored, and all official statements from all involved countries / organisations like UN, US, French, British governments have not came to an decision yet, even so an decision against assad it is politically wanted by most of them (French minister for example stated, assad used chemical agents (agents, not weapons) according to intelligence report, than he had to row back, because the actual report clearly stated that it is not known who it was). All that is known for a fact, is that sarine gas has been used in syria on a extremly small scale, with very little casualties. Who, is not known, and if Assad has any political survival instinct, it wasnt him.
You make claims but they are just so far removed from reality. You made the claim that chemical weapons were used RECENTLY, I said that there are chemical weapon related reports earlier. And I posted the FIRST reports. I should have probably posted the tweets because they are first reports. Instead I went for the first, which is an Al-Jazeera blog. I.e., real journalists on the ground reporting. In December 2012, it was widely circulated in the media that there is suspicion of chemical weapon use, see another article http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/24/16127090-syria-activists-several-die-after-assads-forces-use-poisonous-gases?lite
Once you start looking for reports after December 2012, there are more reports. This shows that what you wrote before is just idle speculation. And you cannot accuse the rebels of using chemical weapons based on your own conspiracy theories. If half the countries involved say there are, you dismiss it off hand. Now you expect us to believe your own wild theories.
Also, stop the name calling. Otherwise one might ask about your conspiracy theory mongering or spelling...
All he's saying is that the rebels would profit from a use of chemical weapons in Syria while it would probably mean the end of the Assad-lead government.
As it is proven that the rebels, even those guys from Al Nusra who have a disastrous history of bombings, massacres and other stuff are in possession of chemical weapons, it is very hard to claim that the Syrian army used chemical weapons.
The only free investigation that was published so far indicates that the rebels used chemical weapons (I guess you all read about that UN investigation lead by del Ponte). If France, the UK and the USA are in possession of explicit evidence, why do they not make them accessible to the public?
Something else: I read somewhere that you could actually read in those diplomat documents that were published by wikileaks some years ago that some of them were actually about how the conflict in Syria is being prepared (they were released long before the conflict started). Does anyone know?
On June 21 2013 06:02 Holo82 wrote: the second source you entered is a blog entry, from a blog at the al dschasira site, not a news report, and therefore underlies no journalistic criteria. To state its a al dschasira report, is wrong. The docs called it "concentrated teargass". There are two videos linked in it, with people having respiration problems, and some fierce gunman standing around and shouting angry at the camera. There is not a single mentioning of "chemical weapons", and whatever the fighters have breathed in, is not known. If it would have been a chemical weapon, than some blood from one of the persons, an analysis in any medicinal labor could have cleared, what they breathed in. Its hard to tell without analysis, any gas (from teargas, like the doc said, thu any chemical substance like chlor. If rebels would have had acess to sarin samples, and sent them to a random medicine labor in any country, we would have known.
Now its time to step back from some nonsaying, or Horror-Show-like blog sources to back up one sided opinions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22953101 This is a nice report of what is happening right now in lebanon, which is a model / microcosmos of syria. It comes from a well known credible source, and is actual journalistic content, with interviews from both sides of the conflict. From this you can derive insight in how the different parties are thinking, and what there mentality and reason to fight is.
I am confused by the situation, that i try to express, discuss, and explain the different angles of this conflicts, while my counterpart just links one dubiuse"prove" for his - in my opinion absurd - thesis after another, while all explanations and more credible sources are ignored, and all official statements from all involved countries / organisations like UN, US, French, British governments have not came to an decision yet, even so an decision against assad it is politically wanted by most of them (French minister for example stated, assad used chemical agents (agents, not weapons) according to intelligence report, than he had to row back, because the actual report clearly stated that it is not known who it was). All that is known for a fact, is that sarine gas has been used in syria on a extremly small scale, with very little casualties. Who, is not known, and if Assad has any political survival instinct, it wasnt him.
You make claims but they are just so far removed from reality. You made the claim that chemical weapons were used RECENTLY, I said that there are chemical weapon related reports earlier. And I posted the FIRST reports. I should have probably posted the tweets because they are first reports. Instead I went for the first, which is an Al-Jazeera blog. I.e., real journalists on the ground reporting. In December 2012, it was widely circulated in the media that there is suspicion of chemical weapon use, see another article http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/24/16127090-syria-activists-several-die-after-assads-forces-use-poisonous-gases?lite
Once you start looking for reports after December 2012, there are more reports. This shows that what you wrote before is just idle speculation. And you cannot accuse the rebels of using chemical weapons based on your own conspiracy theories. If half the countries involved say there are, you dismiss it off hand. Now you expect us to believe your own wild theories.
Also, stop the name calling. Otherwise one might ask about your conspiracy theory mongering or spelling...
All he's saying is that the rebels would profit from a use of chemical weapons in Syria while it would probably mean the end of the Assad-lead government.
As it is proven that the rebels, even those guys from Al Nusra who have a disastrous history of bombings, massacres and other stuff are in possession of chemical weapons, it is very hard to claim that the Syrian army used chemical weapons.
The only free investigation that was published so far indicates that the rebels used chemical weapons (I guess you all read about that UN investigation lead by del Ponte). If France, the UK and the USA are in possession of explicit evidence, why do they not make them accessible to the public?
Something else: I read somewhere that you could actually read in those diplomat documents that were published by wikileaks some years ago that some of them were actually about how the conflict in Syria is being prepared (they were released long before the conflict started). Does anyone know?
On June 21 2013 06:02 Holo82 wrote: the second source you entered is a blog entry, from a blog at the al dschasira site, not a news report, and therefore underlies no journalistic criteria. To state its a al dschasira report, is wrong. The docs called it "concentrated teargass". There are two videos linked in it, with people having respiration problems, and some fierce gunman standing around and shouting angry at the camera. There is not a single mentioning of "chemical weapons", and whatever the fighters have breathed in, is not known. If it would have been a chemical weapon, than some blood from one of the persons, an analysis in any medicinal labor could have cleared, what they breathed in. Its hard to tell without analysis, any gas (from teargas, like the doc said, thu any chemical substance like chlor. If rebels would have had acess to sarin samples, and sent them to a random medicine labor in any country, we would have known.
Now its time to step back from some nonsaying, or Horror-Show-like blog sources to back up one sided opinions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22953101 This is a nice report of what is happening right now in lebanon, which is a model / microcosmos of syria. It comes from a well known credible source, and is actual journalistic content, with interviews from both sides of the conflict. From this you can derive insight in how the different parties are thinking, and what there mentality and reason to fight is.
I am confused by the situation, that i try to express, discuss, and explain the different angles of this conflicts, while my counterpart just links one dubiuse"prove" for his - in my opinion absurd - thesis after another, while all explanations and more credible sources are ignored, and all official statements from all involved countries / organisations like UN, US, French, British governments have not came to an decision yet, even so an decision against assad it is politically wanted by most of them (French minister for example stated, assad used chemical agents (agents, not weapons) according to intelligence report, than he had to row back, because the actual report clearly stated that it is not known who it was). All that is known for a fact, is that sarine gas has been used in syria on a extremly small scale, with very little casualties. Who, is not known, and if Assad has any political survival instinct, it wasnt him.
You make claims but they are just so far removed from reality. You made the claim that chemical weapons were used RECENTLY, I said that there are chemical weapon related reports earlier. And I posted the FIRST reports. I should have probably posted the tweets because they are first reports. Instead I went for the first, which is an Al-Jazeera blog. I.e., real journalists on the ground reporting. In December 2012, it was widely circulated in the media that there is suspicion of chemical weapon use, see another article http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/24/16127090-syria-activists-several-die-after-assads-forces-use-poisonous-gases?lite
Once you start looking for reports after December 2012, there are more reports. This shows that what you wrote before is just idle speculation. And you cannot accuse the rebels of using chemical weapons based on your own conspiracy theories. If half the countries involved say there are, you dismiss it off hand. Now you expect us to believe your own wild theories.
Also, stop the name calling. Otherwise one might ask about your conspiracy theory mongering or spelling...
first: i didnt call anyone any name. stop doing false accusations. thanks.
second: stop using Blogs (these are entrys on a website by a random person from any laptop/ smartphone, and only opinion, no journalistic research, no editorial approval, thats why it is called "Blog") as a source for anything. Those things are very likely to be propaganda. Read it carefully again. Everything written there is in conjunctive, and "has been said by locals that telephoned us, that they have been told by someone they know". To spread hearsay in a conflict situation, where real people are suffering and dieing, is not very wise. Its not helping anybody.
Read newspaper and government press releases carefully. >Not a single official report said, that there is evidence that Syrian government used chemical weapons. The only one, who stated this, was french foreign minister, and he had to row back 3 hours later, because it was a flat out lie with political aim, because the intelligence report, his statement relied on, said that the source of the Gas was unknown. But he stated it as assad stemming, with nothing to back it up.
The only one that has very strong motive and interest in getting evidence of Assad using chemical weapons, is the Rebels. Assads only way to politically survive the Sunni rebellion, and maintain a pluricultural Syria is to beat them, with not using those weapons, because this would cause a western , UN supported invasion, and withdrawal of his last 3 allied countries.
UN report,US-Reports, Red cross investigation, British report, none of those sources could show any evidence, that allow to say "it was assad".
Investigations on this matter have been undergoing for more than a half a year now, and no evidence has been found.
But with time, more and more hints at rebellion Sarin attacks occur. They have the strongest motive (causing Nato / UN intervention), they have the means (selfmade gas from iraqi rogue labors 300 kilometers off the border,and pillaging of syrian army depots). Assad /Syrian government has the means (for very big scale use, not that little that has happened), bot not the motive. He actually has the strongest anti-motive, because the worst situation for him is a UN resolution for a "strong" mandate with no-fly zone, NATO troops landing, and loosing political and economic support from Russia, Lebanon and Iran.
Btw : If there is a question mark in a journalistic articles headline, it means that the whole article is a question, or that it is based on a questionable source, and the article is analysis on a topic in question, that might have happened (like your nbc source). If it would have been approved by the journalist or would stem from credential sources, than there wouldnt be a question mark.
I didn't lie in a single word. I only provided analysis, that seems to overstrain minds.
These all is a deja vu to me, i am old enough to remember the 3rd gulf war and its impact.
In the news this hours: Syrian Rebels got French-developped Mistral one man anti-aircraft missile systems. (the same type i used back than when i was a soldier, they have infrared, optical target search, and can , with further equipment ,be put in radar-supported arrays) I made a prediction like 3 pages ago, and i hope it won't come true.
citing myself, some posts above.
I am confused by the situation, that i try to express, discuss, and explain the different angles of this conflicts, while my counterpart just links one dubious"prove" for his - in my opinion absurd - thesis after another, while all explanations and more credible sources are ignored, and all official statements from all involved countries / organisations like UN, US, French, British governments have not came to an decision yet, even so an decision against assad it is politically wanted by most of them (French minister for example stated, Assad used chemical agents (agents, not weapons) according to intelligence report, than he had to row back, because the actual report clearly stated that it is not known who it was). All that is known for a fact, is that Sarine gas has been used in Syria on a extremly small scale, with very little casualties. Who, is not known, and if Assad has any political survival instinct, it wasnt him
responses:
Stating i call you names (which i didnt) Posting less dubious sources(editorial content from a tv station), but with a questionmark in its title. Start picking on my Spelling (its not that bad, i hope, but yep English ain't my first language)
I am really asking myself whether i am beeing trolled, right now.
Foreign ministers of the Friends of Syria nations to debate rebel support in Qatar - @BBC
Western, Arab opponents of Syria's Assad meet in Qatar to tighten coordination of stepped up support for rebels - @Reuters
Syrian regime forces intensify assault on rebel holdings north of Damascus - @AP
Update: US Secretary of State Kerry at Qatar meeting urging Russia to back international conference on Syria and allow transitional government - @AP
Live - John Kerry in #Doha: We don't believe there's a military solution ... continued conflict could lead to total disintegration of #Syria
Syrian rebels will receive increased political, military assistance from the Friends of Syria group of nations; 'scope and scale' of aid to be chosen by individual members, John Kerry says - @AJELive
Jordan is hosting 900 US military personnel to bolster its defense capabilities against potential threats from the Syrian civil war, PM says - @AJELive
Foreign ministers at the 'Friends of Syria' meeting in Doha agree to provide the rebels with military aid - @AFP
"I think you know full well that I mean what I say". Right.
Talk about confusing. What's he expecting to get out of this? Wouldn't it be a loss-loss situation for the rebels if he revealed this 'secret'? Wouldn't that just force embarrassed western nations to pull the plug on providing support?
Western and Arab countries have agreed to give urgent military support to Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad, and to channel that aid through a Western-backed rebel military command.
In a statement following talks in Qatar on Saturday, ministers from 11 nations in the Friends of Syria group agreed "to provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground".
Their final statement also condemned "the intervention of Hezbollah militias and fighters from Iran and Iraq", demanding that they withdraw immediately from Syria.
The ministers said the growing sectarian nature of the conflict and the foreign interventions "threaten the unity of Syria [and] broaden the conflict" across the region. They also expressed strong concern at the increasing presence of "terrorist elements" and growing radicalisation in Syria.
"I think you know full well that I mean what I say". Right.
Talk about confusing. What's he expecting to get out of this? Wouldn't it be a loss-loss situation for the rebels if he revealed this 'secret'? Wouldn't that just force embarrassed western nations to pull the plug on providing support?
my guess would be that he was insinuating that the us had supplied chemical weapons and that it was a false flag op.
Western and Arab countries have agreed to give urgent military support to Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad, and to channel that aid through a Western-backed rebel military command.
In a statement following talks in Qatar on Saturday, ministers from 11 nations in the Friends of Syria group agreed "to provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground".
Their final statement also condemned "the intervention of Hezbollah militias and fighters from Iran and Iraq", demanding that they withdraw immediately from Syria.
The ministers said the growing sectarian nature of the conflict and the foreign interventions "threaten the unity of Syria [and] broaden the conflict" across the region. They also expressed strong concern at the increasing presence of "terrorist elements" and growing radicalisation in Syria.
EPT
