US backed Syrian terrorists testing chemical weapons on lab rabbits

Run_to_da_hills

Possible False Flag Alert!! :eek:

This is quite an alarming considering all the hype that is going on in the US mainstream media concerning allegations of Assad's team making preparations for Chemical WMD's .

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chemical-weapons-3/

Obama only came out with this speech, ( notice his shifting eyes constantly focusing in on the teleprompter).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsO3ehh8UEk

"While President Obama is busy talking about Syria’s chemical weapons, a troubling video appears on YouTube yesterday showing what appears to be a rebel group testing chemical weapons on lab rabbits, and threatening to use them against Syrian civilians on a sectarian basis".

Warning Video depicts scenes of animal cruelty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6O-gApVrU

The video (see here) starts with several scenes showing chemical containers with Tekkim labels (Tekkim is a Turkish chemicals company) and some lab equipment, while playing Jihadists chants in the background. A glass box then appears with two rabbits inside, with a poster on the wall behind it reading

The Almighty Wind Brigade (Kateebat A Reeh Al Sarsar). A person wearing a lab mask then mixes chemicals in a beaker in the glass box, and we see some gas emitting from the beaker. About a minute later, the rabbits start to have random convulsions and then die. The person says: You saw what happened? This will be your fate, you infidel Alawites, I swear by ALLAH to make you die like these rabbits, one minute only after you inhale the gas.

Judging from the rabbits’ reaction, the gas must be a nerve agent. The number of containers, if not a bluff, indicates ability to produce a considerable amount of this gas. Deployment could be by means of a smoke generator placed in the target area, an explosion, possibly a suicide one, of a ”chemmed” car, or simply by using a humidifier.

This alarming video poses many serious questions: Who is this brigade? What will NATO’s reaction be if this was proven to be a rebel group? Is this going to be used a false alarm in a pretext to justify war against Syria? How did these chemicals reach this brigade? Is Tekkim or the Turkish Government going to comment on this? How is this related to the defeat of rebel fighters in the airport battle? Questions left unanswered at the moment, until we see more of what is likely to be a horrific chapter of the Syrian conflict.

http://www.syria-tribune.com/e/index.php/by-syria-tribune/58-chem-weapons-in-syria

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Obama only came out with this speech, ( notice his shifting eyes constantly focusing in on the teleprompter).

relevance?

Run_to_da_hills

"Syria warned on Saturday that rebels could use chemical weapons in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad's forces, and insisted that the regime will never unleash such arms on its own people.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague, however, said there was evidence the Damascus government could actually employ chemical weapons stocks in the conflict which a rights group says has killed at least 42,000 people in nearly 21 months.

"Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people... after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory" east of Aleppo, the foreign ministry said, using the government term for rebel groups.

It added that Damascus would never use such weapons against its own people.

The ministry was believed to be referring to the Syrian-Saudi Chemicals Company (SYSACCO) factory near Safira, which was taken over earlier this week by militants from the jihadist Al-Nusra Front".

Further Reading:

http://www.france24.com/en/20121208-syria-warns-rebels-may-use-chemical-weapons

humanji

This isn't a news dump. What has that to do with the conspiracy?

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

This isn't a news dump. What has that to do with the conspiracy?

Plenty.

We have the United States accusing Assad's party of compiling Chemical weapons when in fact evidence is clear that the actual perpetrators are in fact the US supported Syrian backed rebels. So if there is going top be a chemical attack in the near future you can be damn sure who the real culprits are.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Plenty.

We have the United States accusing Assad's party of compiling Chemical weapons when in fact evidence is clear that the actual perpetrators are in fact the US supported Syrian backed rebels. So if there is going top be a chemical attack in the near future you can be damn sure who the real culprits are.

"Syria warned on Saturday that rebels could use chemical weapons in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad's forces, and insisted that the regime will never unleash such arms on its own people"

RTDH that's a claim from an unelected totalitarian regime that you are always predicting the US will turn into.

Tzar Chasm

if the US says that groups in the Sytian campaign have chemical weapons then I would believe them, after all they most likely have irefutable proof of these weapons

the Receipts


does this look like a buildup to a WMD intervention to you?

asherbassad

Jonny7 wrote: »

"Syria warned on Saturday that rebels could use chemical weapons in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad's forces, and insisted that the regime will never unleash such arms on its own people"

RTDH that's a claim from an unelected totalitarian regime that you are always predicting the US will turn into.

"Unelected" military figures in the US make claims all the time. Most of them unsubstantiated, many of them fantastic, e.g. Petraeus claimed in 2007 that ethnic and religious killings in Iraq were down by 75%. They were in fact double that of the previous year.

But you would never question such drivel coming out of the mouths of these puppets and puppetmasters. Yet the fact that the Assad regime is unelected means you simply doubt everything they say.

Talk about double standards and hypocrisy.

asherbassad

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

if the US says that groups in the Sytian campaign have chemical weapons then I would believe them, after all they most likely have irefutable proof of these weapons

the Receipts


does this look like a buildup to a WMD intervention to you?

:pac:

nice one!

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

"Unelected" military figures in the US make claims all the time. Most of them unsubstantiated, many of them fantastic, e.g. Petraeus claimed in 2007 that ethnic and religious killings in Iraq were down by 75%. They were in fact double that of the previous year.

I really don't care how much you loathe the US government or military. It obviously appears to be a driving force.

The Syrian dynasty is fighting for it's very survival, the family, extended family, and those in high positions face horrific deaths if the regime crumbles, they have absolutely nothing to lose. They also have complete unfettered control over the state media which consistently run stories that are counter to almost anything being reported by any other sources inside and outside of Syria.

But you would never question such drivel coming out of the mouths of these puppets and puppetmasters. Yet the fact that the Assad regime is unelected means you simply doubt everything they say.
Talk about double standards and hypocrisy.

I judge stories, reports and issues on their own merit, credibility, accountability, history. There are a lot of factors to it. I don't just believe a story because "it says something bad about a particular country I've personified".

You are the conspiracy theorist quoting direct state controlled media from countries where people are nowhere near as free as you are.

Now that is hypocrisy of the highest order.

What's next? a North Korean piece on the how hideous and unfree our lives are in the West compared to theirs?

I wouldn't doubt it for a second on this forum, anything is possible

asherbassad

Did anyone see that crap on sky news this evening?

It was embarrassing.
They had a bunch of "Syrians" (faces covered of course) talking about their beautiful gardens before this all happened....slow, gentle music in the background, CNN-esque focussing on a child's face, yada, yada.

If these people had such lovely rose gardens and such lovely lives before the current horrors then why are we being told that they lived under dreadful tyranny?

I just don't get it.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

I really don't care how much you loathe the US government or military. It obviously appears to be a driving force.

The Syrian dynasty is fighting for it's very survival, the family, extended family, and those in high positions face horrific deaths if the regime crumbles, they have absolutely nothing to lose. They also have complete unfettered control over the state media which consistently run stories that are counter to almost anything being reported by any other sources inside and outside of Syria.



I judge stories, reports and issues on their own merit, credibility, accountability, history. There are a lot of factors to it. I don't just believe a story because "it says something bad about a particular country I've personified".

You are the conspiracy theorist quoting direct state controlled media from countries where people are nowhere near as free as you are.

Now that is hypocrisy of the highest order.

What's next? a North Korean piece on the how hideous and unfree our lives are in the West compared to theirs?

I wouldn't doubt it for a second on this forum, anything is possible

Use your own cop-on then.

Look at the US's merit, credibility, accountability and history in similar situations.

You will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion as op, and the rest of us.

It's all a load of boll0x and you know it. I think you just love the sound of your own voice, can't keep your ****1ing trap shut even when you know your talking sh1te.

You'd argue with a door knob over the price of sh1t just so you can feel more clever than it.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Use your own cop-on then.

Look at the US's merit, credibility, accountability and history in similar situations.

You will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion as op, and the rest of us.

It's all a load of boll0x and you know it. I think you just love the sound of your own voice, can't keep your ****1ing trap shut even when you know your talking sh1te.

You'd argue with a door knob over the price of sh1t just so you can feel more clever than it.

The views here are staggering. In what world is state controlled media is acceptable as long as it's saying bad things about evil 'Murica?

Oh I am sorry, is there some deeper understanding going on here? is there something more than an uninformed emotional dislike for Country A manifesting itself as an agenda in these kind of posts?

I guess this thread is nothing to do with big bad Uncle Sam at all, and simply an entirely objective look at what weapons the Syrian rebels may or may not possess in an unrelated world conflict right?

Can you please explain to me why, conspiracy theorists, who appear deeply cynical to any form of state intrusion keep quoting state propaganda organs as sources?

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

The views here are staggering. In what world is state controlled media is acceptable as long as it's saying bad things about evil 'Murica?

Oh I am sorry, is there some deeper understanding going on here? is there something more than an uninformed emotional dislike for Country A manifesting itself as an agenda in these kind of posts?

I guess this thread is nothing to do with big bad Uncle Sam at all, and simply an entirely objective look at what weapons the Syrian rebels may or may not possess in an unrelated world conflict right?

Can you please explain to me why, conspiracy theorists, who appear deeply cynical to any form of state intrusion keep quoting state propaganda organs as sources?

Uncle sam has a history of making up stories, be it weapons of mass destruction, babies being thrown from incubators or faking attacks, to get into wars and occupy territories where by millions of innocent humans die for financial or political gain.

Is there any wonder there is a dislike for him and an emotional reaction from people (conspiracy theorists and others), when they see the same lies being portrayed over and over again ??

But don't you concern yourself about any of that. As long as there is a good argument going is all that matters to you, right ?. You just can't wait to stick your oar in and play devils advocate while hiding behind a keyboard. I hope you get what you deserve soon.

brimal

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Uncle sam has a history of making up stories, be it weapons of mass destruction, babies being thrown from incubators or faking attacks, to get into wars and occupy territories where by millions of innocent humans die for financial or political gain.

Is there any wonder there is a dislike for him and an emotional reaction from people (conspiracy theorists and others), when they see the same lies being portrayed over and over again ??

But don't you concern yourself about any of that. As long as there is a good argument going is all that matters to you, right ?. You just can't wait to stick your oar in and play devils advocate while hiding behind a keyboard. I hope you get what you deserve soon.

Why can't conspiracy theorists on here engage in a civilised debate? The majority of them all seems to carry the same traits - impatient, snappy, defensive, no debate or social skills, etc. It makes this forum a very unwelcoming place.

It's no coincidence that most of the CT regulars end up permabanned.

jackiebaron
davoxxx
mahatma coat
mysterious
TalkieWalkie
etc. etc.

And the ones that are still around have countless bans & infractions.

Also "I hope you get what you deserve soon." - very classy

humanji

Daithi1, Jonny7 and Brimal, there is a topic and you WILL stick to it. Keep your posts to that topic and stop with the snide insults. If you posts aren't polite, then don't post.

Tzar Chasm

it does seem to be a bit of a problem alright ,i've noticed a few closed accounts from some of the more civil 'skeptics too, b ut the polarising nature of the subject matter does create very heated arguments, maybe its a topic for a feedback thread.

on the topic of syrian chemical weapons tho, have we any further developments regards their existence, an if so who has them?

Daithi 1

Theres little point in getting into a in depth debate about this. With the US history of lying to get into wars and sacrficing countless of lives, it's safe to assume they have no regard for Syrian lives or the lives of anyone else.

So naturally when we hear these claims of chemical weapons alarm bells should start ringing.

It's quite frustrating and exhausting to see people arguing about the color of the said chemical weapons, nitpicking, over and over, talking endless tripe. When the truth is so blatantly obvious.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Uncle sam has a history of making up stories, be it weapons of mass destruction, babies being thrown from incubators or faking attacks, to get into wars and occupy territories where by millions of innocent humans die for financial or political gain.

Ah "the list"

Weapons of mass destruction - Bush administration. Lies. Millions marched against the war. A generation of cynics formed and find their voice on the internet, some much more extreme and unyielding than others.

Incubators - lets recap it was a story from a source, whom, incidentally, was backed by Amnesty International, it later turned out the woman who made the claim was from a Kuwaiti background - hence the claim - they wanted support from the world because their country had just been invaded by Saddam. How far back do you want to go? the settlers giving blankets infected with pox to the native Americans?

These select 20 to 50 year old incidents are often repeatedly used as fodder by the uninformed to "have a go" at the US/whoever (who are we kidding it's always the US or Israel in any thread. That doesn't seem like objective debate to me, comes across as bitterness and laden with agenda. If you cannot discern the difference, perhaps have a read of this "world news site" and tell me if you understand the nature of what an agenda is.

My own agenda would be to dispel the nonsense of conspiracy theories and silly stories. Take that as you will.

There is plenty of criticise about current and past US foreign policy, about previous administrations. There is also plenty to criticise about Irish policy, about Russia policy, about Chinese administrations, about Israeli government actions - but simply due to the sheer volume of far-fetchedness that prevails on here and it's singular focus it often ends up as nothing more than a defense of US/UK/Israel and common sense vs outlandish claims and theories.

Is there any wonder there is a dislike for him and an emotional reaction from people (conspiracy theorists and others), when they see the same lies being portrayed over and over again ??

I haven't learnt much here that I didn't already know or read in the press. In fairness, many posts on this forum are more full of imagination, spin, misinformation, and opinionated paranoia than a Tea Party convention. Should be taken with a pinch of salt Daithi.

But don't you concern yourself about any of that. As long as there is a good argument going is all that matters to you, right ?. You just can't wait to stick your oar in and play devils advocate while hiding behind a keyboard. I hope you get what you deserve soon.

Anywhere there is debate there is generally friction, no less so here. Detach and deal with the facts. Every once in awhile though you have to call a spade a spade.

Edit, back on topic, can anyone offer up a good source on the rebels in Syria having access to/ or using chemical weapons. So far only the Syrian military is known to have access to these weapons (which they appear to have been shifting around the country recently)

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

So naturally when we hear these claims of chemical weapons alarm bells should start ringing.

Which claim? that the Syrians have chemical weapons or the OPs claim that the rebels have chemical weapons... which is it?

It's quite frustrating and exhausting to see people arguing about the color of the said chemical weapons, nitpicking, over and over, talking endless tripe. When the truth is so blatantly obvious.

What's the truth?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ah "the list"

Weapons of mass destruction - Bush administration. Lies. Millions marched against the war. A generation of cynics formed and find their voice on the internet, some much more extreme and unyielding than others.

... and some becoming not at all cynical and pro-intervention war as soon as there is a "liberal" in the White House gleefully lapping up absurd government propaganda such as Gadaffi sponsored viagra-fuelled rape missions and supporting the murders and terrorising of an unlimited number of children in an illegal drone war.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Incubators - lets recap it was a story from a source, whom, incidentally, was backed by Amnesty International, it later turned out the woman who made the claim was from a Kuwaiti background - hence the claim - they wanted support from the world because their country had just been invaded by Saddam. How far back do you want to go? the settlers giving blankets infected with pox to the native Americans?

What an incredible amount of spin. You've just described a massive deception manipulated by a British PR firm with close links to Bush that was the hook that led the US to go to war with Iraq WITHOUT EVEN ONCE MENTIONING THAT IT WAS A MASSIVE LIE! Incredible.

Jonny7 wrote: »

These select 20 to 50 year old incidents are often repeatedly used as fodder by the uninformed to "have a go" at the US/whoever (who are we kidding it's always the US or Israel in any thread. That doesn't seem like objective debate to me, comes across as bitterness and laden with agenda. If you cannot discern the difference, perhaps have a read of this "world news site" and tell me if you understand the nature of what an agenda is.

Any informed person with morality would be horrified by the extent by the millions killed and lives destroyed by US since WWII.

Jonny7 wrote: »

My own agenda would be to dispel the nonsense of conspiracy theories and silly stories. Take that as you will.

There is plenty of criticise about current and past US foreign policy, about previous administrations. There is also plenty to criticise about Irish policy, about Russia policy, about Chinese administrations, about Israeli government actions - but simply due to the sheer volume of far-fetchedness that prevails on here and it's singular focus it often ends up as nothing more than a defense of US/UK/Israel and common sense vs outlandish claims and theories.

I haven't learnt much here that I didn't already know or read in the press. In fairness, many posts on this forum are more full of imagination, spin, misinformation, and opinionated paranoia than a Tea Party convention. Should be taken with a pinch of salt Daithi.

Anywhere there is debate there is generally friction, no less so here. Detach and deal with the facts. Every once in awhile though you have to call a spade a spade.

It's worth pointing out that the last time you went on this rant you were left with egg on your face. Sad to see that you didn't learn from it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056357494

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and some becoming not at all cynical and pro-intervention war as soon as there is a "liberal" in the White House gleefully lapping up absurd government propaganda such as Gadaffi sponsored viagra-fuelled rape missions and supporting the murders and terrorising of an unlimited number of children in an illegal drone war.

My point demonstrated

What an incredible amount of spin. You've just described a massive deception manipulated by a British PR firm with close links to Bush that was the hook that led the US to go to war with Iraq WITHOUT EVEN ONCE MENTIONING THAT IT WAS A MASSIVE LIE! Incredible.

Point demonstrated again.

Any informed person with morality would be horrified by the extent by the millions killed and lives destroyed by US since WWII.

aaand again.

It's worth pointing out that the last time you went on this rant you were left with egg on your face. Sad to see that you didn't learn from it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056357494

Any opinion on the topic? the Syrian situation? without mentioning or referring to the US.. that should be the new challenge here

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ah "the list"

Weapons of mass destruction - Bush administration. Lies. Millions marched against the war. A generation of cynics formed and find their voice on the internet, some much more extreme and unyielding than others.

Incubators - lets recap it was a story from a source, whom, incidentally, was backed by Amnesty International, it later turned out the woman who made the claim was from a Kuwaiti background - hence the claim - they wanted support from the world because their country had just been invaded by Saddam. How far back do you want to go? the settlers giving blankets infected with pox to the native Americans?

Exactly the kind of drivel I expected.

Yeah the teenage girl Was of Kuwaiti background, her father was the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States.

from a source

Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government

Hill+Knowlton Strategies is a global public relations company, headquartered in New York City, United States, with 84 offices in 46 countries Hill & Knowlton was founded in Cleveland, Ohio in 1927

A rather relevant point you conveniently forgot to mention. Or didn't you know about this ?? So "uninformed".

My own agenda would be to dispel the nonsense of conspiracy theories and silly stories. Take that as you will.

Dispel nonsense with uninformed drivel ? Whoa, thanks, you're so noble and doing a great job.

There is plenty of criticise about current and past US foreign policy, about previous administrations. There is also plenty to criticise about Irish policy, about Russia policy, about Chinese administrations, about Israeli government actions - but simply due to the sheer volume of far-fetchedness that prevails on here and it's singular focus it often ends up as nothing more than a defense of US/UK/Israel and common sense vs outlandish claims and theories.

More nonsensical drivel.

The US has gone from one of the most loved to one of the most hated Countries in the world and it's all because "far-fetchedness that prevails on here".

Ok thanks for that. Dispelling more nonsense eah ? Nice one. :rolleyes:

I haven't learnt much here that I didn't already know or read in the press. In fairness, many posts on this forum are more full of imagination, spin, misinformation, and opinionated paranoia than a Tea Party convention. Should be taken with a pinch of salt Daithi.

You are right there pal. And I do take most of them with a pinch of salt, all but yours and the other fella I blocked. Maybe you should take your own advice ? Because your all over every thread like a fly on sh!te.

Edit, back on topic, can anyone offer up a good source on the rebels in Syria having access to/ or using chemical weapons. So far only the Syrian military is known to have access to these weapons (which they appear to have been shifting around the country recently)

Do they now ? Are you sure this information isn't from Hill & Knowlton ??

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's the truth?

The truth is that the claims of chemical weapons and that Assad intends to use them are lies. And that's it's probably, most likely, more propaganda (as usual) instigated by the US. Like I said, it's blatantly obvious, I feel kinda silly having to explain it again for the third time. I guess it takes some people longer to cop on.

Perhaps after a few million more lives are sacraficed, you will start to see a pattern. We live in hope..


I'm done with this, like I said. No point getting into an in depth debate, certainly with you.

Duiske

Jonny7 wrote: »

Any opinion on the topic? the Syrian situation? without mentioning or referring to the US.. that should be the new challenge here

Laughable. Moaning about people discussing the US, in a thread titled " US backed Syrian terrorists testing chemical weapons on lab rabbits"

Run_to_da_hills

Duiske wrote: »

Laughable. Moaning about people discussing the US, in a thread titled " US backed Syrian terrorists testing chemical weapons on lab rabbits"

And the thread was started almost a week before the US formally recognized unelected guerrilla terrorists as Syrian “Representatives”

Daithi 1

Not to mention this..

http://www.ibtimes.com/assad-un-chemical-weapons-we-are-being-framed-931307

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Exactly the kind of drivel I expected.

Yeah the teenage girl Was of Kuwaiti background, her father was the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States.

from a source

A rather relevant point you conveniently forgot to mention. Or didn't you know about this ?? So "uninformed".

There was nothing incorrect about what I said. So I don't understand your sudden mirth about that.

Dispel nonsense with uninformed drivel ? Whoa, thanks, you're so noble and doing a great job.

Thanks.

More nonsensical drivel.

Easy now.

The US has gone from one of the most loved to one of the most hated Countries in the world and it's all because "far-fetchedness that prevails on here".

Actually its on a bit of a rebound after Bush.

You are right there pal. And I do take most of them with a pinch of salt, all but yours and the other fella I blocked. Maybe you should take your own advice ? Because your all over every thread like a fly on sh!te.

I agree, it must be irritating for people who believe in this stuff, but in fairness your posting on a public forum what do you expect.. agreement?

The truth is that the claims of chemical weapons and that Assad intends to use them are lies.

He does have chemical weapons. Claims of whether he will use them or not is propaganda, I would never say otherwise. This thread is about the Syrian rebels having chemical weapons - which I'm not finding much info on, therefore I suspect it's another crank story.

Perhaps after a few million more lives are sacraficed, you will start to see a pattern. We live in hope..

What on earth are you talking about here?

I'm done with this, like I said. No point getting into an in depth debate, certainly with you.

Hmm I'd hardly call it indepth.

Torakx

Can anyone lay out the CT for me briefly?
Why are the US trying to get chemical weapons into Syria?
Im a little confused about the current situation actually.
A possible testing ground for a new product?

Run_to_da_hills

Torakx wrote: »

Can anyone lay out the CT for me briefly?
Why are the US trying to get chemical weapons into Syria?
Im a little confused about the current situation actually.
A possible testing ground for a new product?

Preparing for False flag without a doubt.

We heard it all before. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkLVejR2Vw

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Preparing for False flag without a doubt.

We heard it all before. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkLVejR2Vw

Yes we have heard it all before, so if you would so kind, can you explain why this prediction should be considered when your previous predictions of false flags have been 100% wrong?

Thank you

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

Yes we have heard it all before, so if you would so kind, can you explain why this prediction should be considered when your previous predictions of false flags have been 100% wrong?

Thank you

Difference in this case is that we have clear evidence of US supported Syrian Terrorists playing about with chemical weapons as has been pointed out here in the OP.

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Difference in this case is that we have clear evidence of US supported Syrian Terrorists playing about with chemical weapons as has been pointed out here in the OP.

The difference as you say is clear evidence, are you sure you want to make that statement?

By saying this prediction is valid because of good evidence it leaves only one question.

Was all the evidence you posted for your previous predictions bad?, this is just my opinion of your posts so plesse correct if needed but you always seemed 100% positive of what you were posting, did you not have clear evidence in your previous predictions?

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

The difference as you say is clear evidence, are you sure you want to make that statement?

By saying this prediction is valid because of good evidence it leaves only one question.

Was all the evidence you posted for your previous predictions bad?, this is just my opinion of your posts so plesse correct if needed but you always seemed 100% positive of what you were posting, did you not have clear evidence in your previous predictions?

The topic of this thread is about US backed Syrian rebels and their use of chemical weapons it has nothing got to do with other subjects that were posted in the past on this forum so I am not answering your question.

You are deliberately trying to throw this subject off topic.

Jonny7

The only source on this is the "Syrian Tribune", which is a blog, and where it's sympathies lie is pretty clear.

The Al-Rih Al-Sarsar are unheard of.

Rebels recently took a Saudi-Syrian chemical plant which manufactured chlorine near Aleppo, some large tanks there could theoretically wipe out thousands of people. They won't be using over the counter pesticides anyway if they do decide to use chemical weapons, and they'll quickly find themselves with zero support from the main benefactors in Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, as well as the rest of the world.

Video seems to be either fake or just weak pro-Syrian propaganda... unless of course someone else has a credible source on it.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

The only source on this is the "Syrian Tribune", which is a blog, and where it's sympathies lie is pretty clear.

The Al-Rih Al-Sarsar are unheard of.

Rebels recently took a Saudi-Syrian chemical plant which manufactured chlorine near Aleppo, some large tanks there could theoretically wipe out thousands of people. They won't be using over the counter pesticides anyway if they do decide to use chemical weapons, and they'll quickly find themselves with zero support from the main benefactors in Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, as well as the rest of the world.

Video seems to be either fake or just weak pro-Syrian propaganda... unless of course someone else has a credible source on it.

I think that in getting bogged down in the availability of chemical weapons to the foreign-backed terrorists in Syria you are missing the point. The US has been fabricating/enticing pretexts and the misleading it's public with no little help from a corrupt media for it's wars of economic and geo-strategic advancement Washington (through Hillary Clinton's Sunni-terrorist units in Syria) have been agitating for regime change in Syria by proxy for a long time now. There is a constant danger that the US would attempt to gain public support for an "altruistic" military intervention by once again fabricating a pretext for war in Syria and the US army could fight shoulder-to-shoulder with Al Qaeda against the Syrian army.

As I said there is a long history of deception surrounding the pretexts for war from the US going back to the US-Mexican war, through to the US-Spanish war, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, Saddam personally throwing babies out of incubators, WMD in Iraq up to Gadaffi handing out viagra to his troops to go on rape rampages. This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are many more such as in Latin America and this is without even mentioning the bogus "war on terror" and the "war on drugs"

A good demonstration of the lengths the US is willing to consider going to is the Operation Northwoods documents in their attempts to initiate conflict with Castro, with Castro framed as the aggressor.

Point being, if a US President comes out and says if the enemy does X, Y or Z then he will be forced to intervene militarily then it is naive to discount that the President may actively be trying covertly to make X, Y or Z happen.

maddragon

Was that the killer rabbit from "The Holy Grail"?

Brown Bomber

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Difference in this case is that we have clear evidence of US supported Syrian Terrorists playing about with chemical weapons as has been pointed out here in the OP.

To be fair I don't think you could call it clear evidence. What I'd speculate is that the Syrians have made this video themselves.

To counteract Western propaganda regarding Syria's intentions to use chemical weapons. I personally don't see Syria using any of their chemical weapons not for moral reasons but it would be the suicide of the regime.

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The topic of this thread is about US backed Syrian rebels and their use of chemical weapons it has nothing got to do with other subjects that were posted in the past on this forum so I am not answering your question.

You are deliberately trying to throw this subject off topic.

No no your wrong, all I am trying to do is verify a source, i'm sure agree that the veracity of a source is important.

You have made this claim - in order for people to give it credence it needs a solid foundation - i am sure you agree.

So we can all agree that your history of predictions is suspect, to move this thread forward I would very much like if you would please explain why you have good evidence for this theory and if that means all the incorrect theories had bad evidence?

I honestly am not trying to derail the thread, all I want is a solid foundation, can you please provide one.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think that in getting bogged down in the availability of chemical weapons to the foreign-backed terrorists in Syria you are missing the point. The US has been fabricating/enticing pretexts and the misleading it's public with no little help from a corrupt media for it's wars of economic and geo-strategic advancement Washington (through Hillary Clinton's Sunni-terrorist units in Syria) have been agitating for regime change in Syria by proxy for a long time now. There is a constant danger that the US would attempt to gain public support for an "altruistic" military intervention by once again fabricating a pretext for war in Syria and the US army could fight shoulder-to-shoulder with Al Qaeda against the Syrian army.

The US has interests (including selfish) in the region like any other major power, like virtually every other country in the Middle East, including many, if not all of Syria's neighbors.

Russia, which stands to lose its last sphere of influence in the region, is starting to show cracks in its support for the Alawite leadership, and Iran has never really fully committed, part due to it's own issues, part due to the wide popularity of the Arab Spring and also due to the fact that Assad's position is difficult to defend and is generally deeply unpopular across the Middle East

Most countries openly support the uprising and condemn Assad, however, due to other recent conflicts, they have also been reluctant to directly recognise the rebels. The rebels have also become more diluted over the last 18 months. According to many journalists still reporting and operating in the country, they are mainly Syrian, especially the largest and one of the first groups to form (founded by defected military) the FSA. However what we also have now is a veritable soup of resistance to Assad from all corners of the globe for many differing reasons - to support the uprising, to support a subsequent Islamic state, to support Sunni's, etc. There are Al Qaeda members who used to operate in Iraq (against the US), there are foreign fighters, many voluntary, but no doubt some mercenaries, there are also many small splinter groups with varying allegiance's but generally the same aim.

It's morphed from an uprising, to violent oppression, to conflict and now essentially to vicious civil war with multiple outside elements. The US, UK, France and the more "active, vocal" Western countries have, until now, been reluctant to provide direct out-in-the-open weaponry to the rebels, mainly for obvious reasons - lessons from Libya, caution, public opinion. However they have provided "soft" materials, such as training, intel from special ops on the ground, radios, body armor.. "support materials". Obviously weapons will be coming through back "unofficial" channels. I expect these countries to start openly supporting the rebels militarily quite soon (intervention is still too risky)

Saudi, Turkey and Qatar are probably the most active of the region countries, providing weapons, materials, training, intel and even a small command and control base for the rebels.

The main, overall consensus is that Assad is going to fall.. the big question is when? The longer this goes on, the more desperate the regime gets, the nastier the conflict becomes. The defections have been steady, if not increasing, along the with flow of refugees and those fleeing the conflict, esp into neighbouring countries like Turkey.

Even when Assad falls, it's still going to take a very long time for the country to heal after this level of bloodshed, and like Libya the reprisals will no doubt be horrific.

Most countries, and organisations (UN, Arab League, etc) and most Syrians want to see a stable Syria emerge from the ashes.

Unfortunately, to get there, to get to that stage, the dirty work has to be done. A peaceful transition of power appears to have failed long ago and the Arab League could not broker any resolution. The job essentially falls to the rebels and no matter how much external support they get, they are the ones having to fight tooth and nail. While crumbling, the regime is still relatively strong, the Syrian military is powerful and much of it under the firm control of Assad and his brother.

So the rebels will take any help they can, whether it's body armor from the yanks, weapons financed from wealthy Saudi's or groups of Islamist extremists and Al Qaeda splinter groups arriving at the borders.

So technically, brownbomber and others are correct, the US is literally supporting "terrorists" in Syria. It's just, as usual, their context is all wrong.

Torakx

Sometimes you totally redeem yourself Jonny7
That was a clear explanation of where you are coming from.
And right after reading your comments i found a video to try and get an overall sense of the picture.

Contains some scenes of war some people may find upsetting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue3NOxQ9abw

I think that what you said sounds pretty accurate.
But i do questions the grounds for a regime change.
In that video they were reporting alot of support from Syrians for the president.
I know that could also be propoganda, but so can any other news too.
So im still skeptical about the need in the first place.

The video also shows what appears to be caucasian snipers captured in a Syrian city/town.
With all things considered, the idea that this is all a big political move to oust Russia and/or China regardless of what the Syrian people want, seems likely.

Is there any other info i should have that would convince me either way?
How about Assad's allies?
Is he known to be working closely with Russia or China?

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Is there any other info i should have that would convince me either way?
How about Assad's allies?
Is he known to be working closely with Russia or China?

There really shouldn't be any "either way"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war is the best place to start.

Around 25 Palestinians were killed today in Syria.

Tzar Chasm

well neither side is overly paletable, but at least people are scrutinising the rebels this Time rather than blindly accepting that they are 'the good guys' look at the clusterfcuk that is egypt and recall the cheering that accompanied the demise of mubarak.
look at libya and the mess they have made of what was one of the most stable and prosperous countries in africa, didn't take long for western corporations to take hold, fcuk the people, same shot different name

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well neither side is overly paletable, but at least people are scrutinising the rebels this Time rather than blindly accepting that they are 'the good guys' look at the clusterfcuk that is egypt and recall the cheering that accompanied the demise of mubarak.

The US preferred Mubarak in power, the devil you know is better than the Islamists you don't.

look at libya and the mess they have made of what was one of the most stable and prosperous countries in africa, didn't take long for western corporations to take hold, fcuk the people, same shot different name

Oh very prosperous for the Gadaffi family, who courted and invited those companies and then siphoned off billions into personally accessible bank accounts and funds. Ironically those very funds are now being used as they should have in the first place, to rebuild the economy and broken infrastructure of the civil war and last few decades.

Tzar Chasm

last few decades?

from what I saw on the news the infrastructur of libya was fairly good right up to the civil war.

fair enough they were caught syphoning off tons of money, but they hadn't bankrupt the country, libya still had a decent health and education system

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

last few decades?

from what I saw on the news the infrastructur of libya was fairly good right up to the civil war.

fair enough they were caught syphoning off tons of money, but they hadn't bankrupt the country, libya still had a decent health and education system

Mengistu, one of Africa's most archetypal dictators, had managed to weasel away about 5 billion dollars... Gadaffi and family were up to 150 billion.

But yup, at one stage it was one of the best economies in Africa. Certain areas benefited more than others, the East was pretty much left to ruin.

Health, living standards, literacy rates, education rose, although hand in hand with mass corruption, unemployment, nepotism and the surveillance state - up to one in five Libyans were employed in the "spying for the greater good" business, practically worse than our old friends in the GDR.

Moral of the story - if you want a revolution-proof dictatorship, choose the North Korean model.

Tzar Chasm

got any links to back up the spying statistics?

just how much of the money was directly embezzeled and how much could be considered 'corporate Profit' from directorships of the states oil industry etc?

again you claim that parts of libya were left to ruin pre Gadaffi but Benghazi had some of the nations key infrastructure, along with modern hospitals and public services, I'm wondering how much of what you claim is just post revolution propaganda to justify their powergrab.

Tzar Chasm

anyway to get back to the topic ta hand in a roundabout way, any figures on the personal wealthof the Assad dynasty?

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I'm wondering how much of what you claim is just post revolution propaganda to justify their powergrab.

They had an election in July. In August there was a hand-over of power to a totally elected national congress. Before all this happened, the interim government was the NTC...



In red are the countries which did not recognise or were opposed to the NTC.

That is some powergrab.