SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

-aurora

bottom line is that if the US have such clear proof they should share it with the world.

bumper234

-aurora wrote: »

bottom line is that if the US have such clear proof they should share it with the world.

Because the terrorists will use this information to....erm......stuff

NTMK

-aurora wrote: »

bottom line is that if the US have such clear proof they should share it with the world.

They probably have a copy of the receipt tbh

-aurora

NTMK wrote: »

They probably have a copy of the receipt tbh

Just like in Gulf 1 when Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds

dublinbhoy88

-aurora wrote: »

Just like in Gulf 1 when Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds

Or when the U.S. used them in Fallujah

-aurora

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Or when the U.S. used them in Fallujah

I wouldnt call the Fallujah case use of chemical weapons. Certainly not like conventional chemical weapons ie a nerve agent/gas. But definitely in terms of long term consequences very serious and also far more people killed/injured- a toll still rising if you include defects/cancers.
But thats not how US decision makers see it

danniemcq

I don't think I have ever been more confused by a war/strike in my life.

Every time I look at the history of conflict its pretty easy to see why it happened or the reasons behind it. Even behind the scenes you know who is pulling the strings and the true reasons. This however...

At the start (and I mean the VERY start before this became a 2 year conflict) I was for intervention. This guy is president by title alone. He inherited the country when his dad died and then received 97% of the votes in an unopposed election. He used tanks and Jets to silence the rebels at the start and didn’t care if innocent civilians were killed. When you are forced to use a military to crush the people or the opposition you have lost all right to rule a country.

Then we get clogged down.

Reports of the first chemical attack could not be verified and both sides blamed each other. And this being the war of misinformation that it is its impossible at times to know whats what.

Then there is a second one. Few questions, is Assad that stupid to launch one after all the warnings after the first one. Are the rebels that desperate for propaganda that they would risk it all (if its revealed to be them bye bye any popular support. Do the rebels have the capabilites to launch them and if so where did they get them, should Assad have mentioned they were missing from the stores that surely would have been under supervison after first chem. attack, or is Assad that clever that he sees the support he has from Russia and Iran and has deniability so he launches the attack to prove to the rebels they cannot beat him, he can strike anywhere and they are the cause of this (no military target civilian areas)

So now throw all this confusion on top of the following

• We have a Government who is supported by Hezbollah and vice versa.
• We have a Government who has the backing of 2 huge powerhouses in the East (Russia and Iran)
• We have the enemy of the west (al-Qaida) who seem to be fighting the same enemy as their enemy.
• Israel have “supposedly” carried out raids in Syria do they continue, if they do does that make them a legitimate target of war for both Iran and Syria.
• Will other terrorist groups get involved (Hamas for example if Israel suddenly find themselves fighting a 2 front war.
• How much has Russia sank into the country and can they back down and still save face after all this time of arguing.
• If Russia carry out their promise of just replacing anything lost by Syria in a strike will there be another strike to take these out.
• What about other neighboring countries, we have already had sporadic fighting on the Turkey/Syria border. Are they gonna be happy enough to stand back and let things happen.
• And then to top it all off you have the democrats wanting some sort of military action and the republicans saying no. Heck even France is wants something done.

It boggles the mind and I’m sure I’m missing heaps of possibilities and what ifs but I’m nearly done at work for the day so head isn’t 100%.

In my opinion we have gone wayyyyy to far to have any peace for quite some time in the region. America should have been a lot more involved in the Arab spring. I believe it would have been great “pr” for them showing they aren’t just interested in oil. (way to go coalition, libya ffs). If the UN had moved sooner and imposed safe zones and a no fly zone, they don’t need to get involved in the fighting they could have just ensured safety of civilians. It would have made them look awesome in the peoples eyes. Instead nothing. For over 2 years nothing has been done really bar the minimum. And now we are seeing the results. We have terrorist factions springing up everywhere, the freedom fighters are accused of war crimes and the whole place is a powderkeg just waiting for the spark.

Sorry for the ramble.

WakeUp

brimal wrote: »

To say George Galloway isn't cosy with regimes that conduct abhorrent human rights abuses and oppression is completely naive. The guy is a complete hypocrite and I should hope the more educated anti-West crowd don't take him seriously.

What is this "anti-west" crowd you speak of?? are you referring to Galloway and perhaps his supporters or referring to people who live in the "Western" world opposed to war based on lies, bull sh1t, fake concern and self interest? If you disagree with these wars as do the vast majority of people with their heads screwed on properly youre obviously "anti-Western",right?...

losthorizon

Al Qaeda backed Forces have taken Maaloula

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JERuv9rVxX4

And according to the Guardian German intelligence services believe Assad did not order Chemical attacks and indeed blocked earlier attacks

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

Clandestine

Can't Mossad the Assad

losthorizon

USA: We dont give a **** that people die but how they die. That makes no sense?

In Bahrain people were gunned down in the street protesting for democracy. The vast majority of people do not share in the wealth of the country. The protests were only put down when Saudi Arabai and the UAE invaded the country. The King of Bahrain cannot even have an army of native Bahrain people so he has to have mercenaries instead. He doesnt even trust his own people.

The USA 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain. The Americans did nothing.So much for the USA and democracy. Saudi is a destructive influence in the region and has recently told the west that if they stop giving Egypt military aid they will.

My name is URL

losthorizon wrote: »

Al Qaeda backed Forces have taken Maaloula

And according to the Guardian German intelligence services believe Assad did not order Chemical attacks and indeed blocked earlier attacks

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

That's interesting but I'd hold out until a more reputable source than the Bild makes a similar claim. It's basically the German equivalent of The Sun.. perhaps even worse.

donegal__road

danniemcq wrote: »

I don't think I have ever been more confused by a war/strike in my life.

Every time I look at the history of conflict its pretty easy to see why it happened or the reasons behind it. Even behind the scenes you know who is pulling the strings and the true reasons. This however...

At the start (and I mean the VERY start before this became a 2 year conflict) I was for intervention. This guy is president by title alone. He inherited the country when his dad died and then received 97% of the votes in an unopposed election. He used tanks and Jets to silence the rebels at the start and didn’t care if innocent civilians were killed. When you are forced to use a military to crush the people or the opposition you have lost all right to rule a country.

Then we get clogged down.

Reports of the first chemical attack could not be verified and both sides blamed each other. And this being the war of misinformation that it is its impossible at times to know whats what.

Then there is a second one. Few questions, is Assad that stupid to launch one after all the warnings after the first one. Are the rebels that desperate for propaganda that they would risk it all (if its revealed to be them bye bye any popular support. Do the rebels have the capabilites to launch them and if so where did they get them, should Assad have mentioned they were missing from the stores that surely would have been under supervison after first chem. attack, or is Assad that clever that he sees the support he has from Russia and Iran and has deniability so he launches the attack to prove to the rebels they cannot beat him, he can strike anywhere and they are the cause of this (no military target civilian areas)

So now throw all this confusion on top of the following

• We have a Government who is supported by Hezbollah and vice versa.
• We have a Government who has the backing of 2 huge powerhouses in the East (Russia and Iran)
• We have the enemy of the west (al-Qaida) who seem to be fighting the same enemy as their enemy.
• Israel have “supposedly” carried out raids in Syria do they continue, if they do does that make them a legitimate target of war for both Iran and Syria.
• Will other terrorist groups get involved (Hamas for example if Israel suddenly find themselves fighting a 2 front war.
• How much has Russia sank into the country and can they back down and still save face after all this time of arguing.
• If Russia carry out their promise of just replacing anything lost by Syria in a strike will there be another strike to take these out.
• What about other neighboring countries, we have already had sporadic fighting on the Turkey/Syria border. Are they gonna be happy enough to stand back and let things happen.
• And then to top it all off you have the democrats wanting some sort of military action and the republicans saying no. Heck even France is wants something done.

It boggles the mind and I’m sure I’m missing heaps of possibilities and what ifs but I’m nearly done at work for the day so head isn’t 100%.

In my opinion we have gone wayyyyy to far to have any peace for quite some time in the region. America should have been a lot more involved in the Arab spring. I believe it would have been great “pr” for them showing they aren’t just interested in oil. (way to go coalition, libya ffs). If the UN had moved sooner and imposed safe zones and a no fly zone, they don’t need to get involved in the fighting they could have just ensured safety of civilians. It would have made them look awesome in the peoples eyes. Instead nothing. For over 2 years nothing has been done really bar the minimum. And now we are seeing the results. We have terrorist factions springing up everywhere, the freedom fighters are accused of war crimes and the whole place is a powderkeg just waiting for the spark.

Sorry for the ramble.

This is from an article I read yesterday..

The Short Term Goal of Preserving the Petrodollar.

In order to preserve the Petrodollar, Iran must be made to stop selling its oil for gold to the Russians, Chinese and the Indians and these nations must be forced to return to the Federal Reserve to purchase American dollars before purchasing oil. To that end, the US has attempted to overthrow Assad in Syria as a first step which will culminate in attacking and occupying key Iranian oil fields. Yet, Assad has proven resourceful. To accomplish the goal of deposing Assad, the US military must be brought into the conflict in order to break the stalemate between the CIA backed al-Qaeda (Syrian) rebels and Assad’s forces. From the globalist perspective, Syria must be conquered as a precursor to subjugating Iran and that is not going so well.

Short of unseating Assad, the establishment needs an immediate game changing event to break in order to break the stalemate in Syria, thus the false flag chemical weapons attack was perpetrated in Damascus and Assad was falsely blamed and all of this is being done as a pretext to US invasion. However, the globalists have played this hand too often and the world is not buying what Obama and Kerry are selling.

If consensus is not offered by Congress to go ahead with the attack on Syria, a Plan B must be quickly initiated.

and I just read this in the last 2 minutes









.

redtapestyl

donegal__road wrote: »

This is from an article I read yesterday..

If the chemical attack was a false flag, who was it then? And how? In these days of instant digital communication and Wikileaks/NSA/Bradley Manning etc, that would be a very risky operation..

MonaPizza

Putin has just given Obama the most valuable get-out clause of his life. The idiot in the White House came the heavy. Threatened war. The Chinese and the Russians said.."we'll just see about that". No proof of the chemical attack attributed to Assad only clowns like Kerry saying we have proof just short of confirmation (that's good!)

Brits backed well the fcuk out.

So now Obama doesn't really care about anyone who has been killed by chemical weapons. Now it's just a face saving exercise and Russia has given him that. Probably bitch-slapped his ass at G20.

Thelonious

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Nobody knows whats going on really, I wouldn't believe those videos either, have they even been verified? I also wouldn't be inclined to believe much of what sky or the BBC report either.

RT is nothing more than a propaganda machine for russia, worse than sky in my opinion for lies, and I can't even listen or watch Galloway as he's always been a fanboy and supporter to cruel and oppressive regimes.

Be specific in your arguments. :rolleyes:

force eleven

So, even if this chemical weapons decommissioning plan actually works, there is still the urgent need for a cease fire to be agreed, and that looks impossible at the minute. Russia clearly has sway with the Syrian government, but who leads Al Qaeda in Syria? Who brings them to the table? America? I think not, even though they are supporting them, which in itself is lunacy. Saudi Arabia need to get on board on the diplomatic front, but have so far not done anything bar arm their side against Assad. It is a tangled mess, and you cant just abandon it as the West has done so far.

dublinbhoy88

force eleven wrote: »

So, even if this chemical weapons decommissioning plan actually works, there is still the urgent need for a cease fire to be agreed, and that looks impossible at the minute. Russia clearly has sway with the Syrian government, but who leads Al Qaeda in Syria? Who brings them to the table? America? I think not, even though they are supporting them, which in itself is lunacy. Saudi Arabia need to get on board on the diplomatic front, but have so far not done anything bar arm their side against Assad. It is a tangled mess, and you cant just abandon it as the West has done so far.

What business is it of the west,obviously its only about financial vested interests

Karl Stein

force eleven wrote: »

It is a tangled mess, and you cant just abandon it as the West has done so far.

Get your boots on and head out there if you feel strongly enough about it.

force eleven

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Get your boots on and head out there if you feel strongly enough about it.

Yeah, we'll just leave it alone until you too are conscripted into an EU armed force to go help save Israel. If the powers that be leave it long enough, it will spill into Israel and it is game over from that point.

Karl Stein

force eleven wrote: »

Yeah, we'll just leave it alone until you too are conscripted into an EU armed force to go help save Israel.

Lol.

If the powers that be leave it long enough, it will spill into Israel and it is game over from that point.

You're a fortune teller. :eek:

Get your boots on soldier.

dublinbhoy88

force eleven wrote: »

Yeah, we'll just leave it alone until you too are conscripted into an EU armed force to go help save Israel. If the powers that be leave it long enough, it will spill into Israel and it is game over from that point.

plenty of war crimes commited by Israel against the Palestinians, don't see Russia threatening to bomb tel aviv

donegal__road

redtapestyl wrote: »

If the chemical attack was a false flag, who was it then? And how? In these days of instant digital communication and Wikileaks/NSA/Bradley Manning etc, that would be a very risky operation..

because as willmunny1990 has said earlier

I wouldn't believe those videos either, have they even been verified? I also wouldn't be inclined to believe much of what sky or the BBC report either.

Considering that there has been a media blackout in Syria for the last two years, dont you think if suspicious that suddenly, footage emerges of harrowing scenes of the aftermath of the reported chemical weapons attack.
This so far, has been the only so-called evidence that this attack had taken place. How do we know it was Damascus?

Kate Adie, the BBC foreign correspondent, has been reporting from war zones for over 20 years, and has worked extensively in the Middle East. She was interviewed on RTE radio 2 months ago by Pat Kenny, and explained to him how one day, herself and another colleague were watching the news on one of the main English news channels. There was a special report from inside Syria, and it showed a couple of clips of army land-rovers and soldiers in the desert, when suddenly Kate Adie's colleague spots himself on the footage. He hadn't been back to the Middle East since the first Gulf War 20 years ago, and it turns out that this footage was actually from the first Gulf War, but was being presented as footage from a few days previous.

*there was also this story which appeared in the Examiner two weeks ago.

Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons


]





.

NTMK

redtapestyl wrote: »

If the chemical attack was a false flag, who was it then? And how? In these days of instant digital communication and Wikileaks/NSA/Bradley Manning etc, that would be a very risky operation..

the weapon could have been got from a military base that was taken over by the rebels and launched either knowingly or unknowingly as a chemical weapon

atm its just as likely the rebels launched it as it is Assad

dublinbhoy88

What was Obama statement on this http://www.clevelandchallenger.com/u-s-media-suppressed-2009-un-report-showing-israel-using-chemical-weapons-against-palestinians/

brimal

Human Right's Watch have concluded that the Assad regime is the most likely culprit for the attack.

Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack
(New York) – Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack

I haven't read through it yet, but here's the report - http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_0.pdf

MonaPizza

My name is URL wrote: »

That's interesting but I'd hold out until a more reputable source than the Bild makes a similar claim. It's basically the German equivalent of The Sun.. perhaps even worse.

But the Bild isn't the source of the claim, the head of Germany's Foreign Intelligence Agency is.

Does the Bild benefit from printing lies the same way that other newspapers benefit by printing lies or printing what they are forced to print by the corporations that own them?

dublinbhoy88

brimal wrote: »

Human Right's Watch have concluded that the Assad regime is the most likely culprit for the attack.



https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack

I haven't read through it yet, but here's the report - http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_0.pdf

are these not a U.S. human rights group?

Dave!

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

are these not a U.S. human rights group?

What odds does that make?

dublinbhoy88

Dave! wrote: »

What odds does that make?

are you serious?