nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

RobitTV

Western forces are today preparing to launch Military strikes in Syria

The intervention is likely to involve missile strikes rather than an airborne bombing campaign, in order to avoid the dangers posed by the sophisticated air defences supplied to Syria by Russia.

An intense round of diplomacy on the crisis has also been continuing, with Mr Cameron and French president Francois Hollande warning that the 'crime must not be swept under the carpet'.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/26/syria-crisis-military-action-un-inspectors-vist-chemical-attack

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57599971/syria-options-weighed-as-u.s-forces-move-closer/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Like it or not, the vast majority of the ME don't want America adding its colours (or colors) into the mix. The vast majority of Middle Eastern nations don't view America with any kind of trust.

The 22 nation Arab league just backed the US action, in fact they are more hawkish than the US admin on the issue

renegademaster

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/

Chemical attack was rebel provocation, former captives say
Published time: September 10, 2013 03:24
Edited time: September 10, 2013 08:33 Get short URL

AFP Photo / Louai Abo Al-Jo
Trends
Syria unrest
Tags
Arms, Army, Conflict, Crime, Health, Opposition, Politics, Religion, Terrorism, War witness
Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quiric, both of whom were abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria, said they overheard in an exchange between their captors that rebels were behind the recent chemical attack.

Follow RT's LIVE UPDATES for the latest on Syria

In a number of interviews to European news outlets, the former hostages said they overheard an English-language Skype conversation between their captors and other men which suggested it was rebel forces – not the government - that used chemical weapons on Syria’s civilian population in an August 21 attack near Damascus.

“It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus,” Piccinin said during an interview with Belgium's RTL radio station.

Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene.

"In this conversation, they said that the gas attack on two neighborhoods of Damascus was launched by the rebels as a provocation to lead the West to intervene militarily,” Quirico told Italy’s La Stampa. "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."

While stating that the rebels most likely exaggerated the accident’s death toll, the Italian journalist stressed that he could not vouch whether “the conversation was based on real facts." However, he said that one of the three people in the alleged conversation identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general, La Stampa reported.

Based on what both men have learned, Peccinin told RTL that it would be “insane and suicidal for the West to support these people.”

“It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012," Piccinin added.

Quirico seems to agree with Peccini’s assessment.

“I am extremely surprised that the United States could think about intervening, knowing very well how the Syrian revolution has become international jihadism – in other words Al-Qaeda," Quirico said, as quoted by Italy’s Quotidiano Nazionale.

The 62-year-old La Stampa journalist believes that radical Islamic groups operating in Syria to topple Assad “want to create a caliphate and extend it to the entire Middle East and North Africa.”

In a number of news appearances, both Quirico and Piccinin shared stories of how they were subjected to two mock executions, beaten, and starved during their five-month captivity.

"These have been very tough months. We were beaten on a daily basis, we suffered two mock executions," Quirico told reporters upon his arrival in Rome, AFP reported.

"There was sometimes real violence...humiliation, bullying, mock executions...Domenico faced two mock executions, with a revolver," Piccinin told RTL.

Both men were kidnapped in Syria last April by a group of armed men in pickup trucks who were believed to be from Free Syrian Army.

According to Piccinin, the captors soon transferred them over to the Abu Ammar brigade, a rebel group "more bandit than Islamist."

"We were moved around a lot...it was not always the same group that held us, there were very violent groups, very anti-West and some anti-Christian," Piccinin said.

Both men tried to escape twice but their attempts were unsuccessful, prompting the rebel group to punish them for their actions.

The Italian government announced on Sunday that both men had been freed after Rome intensified negotiations with the rebels for the release of the prisoners ahead of an anticipated US strike on Syria.

Another 13 journalists are still believed to be missing in Syria, according to Reporters Without Borders.

esteve

alastair wrote: »

You'd need to take this up with Zhukov - I assume he knew only too well the sacrifice Russians made in fighting that war - and yet he's not afraid to give credit to the impact of lend-lease.

Exactly, to give credit, but not to say that without it Russia would have lost the war against Germany.

Tony EH

Aye and credit should be given where credit is due, but no serious historian would be in line with the opinion that without lend lease, Russian would not have won the war.

Lend lease certainly helped, there's no doubt about that. But without it, Russia still would have defeated the Germans.

alastair

esteve wrote: »

You could also question that if the US had not been supplying the Nazis, then perhaps the Soviets would not have needed further supplies. It doesnt really matter, to try and play down the role that the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis is absurd and disrespectful. They were on the eastern front for years in some of the bloodiest, most gruesome battles with huge losses of life. Supplies are all well and good, you need people to use them

You'd need to take this up with Zhukov - I assume he knew only too well the sacrifice Russians made in fighting that war - and yet he's not afraid to give credit to the impact of lend-lease.

esteve

alastair wrote: »

It's a pretty convincing case made by someone central to the Soviet campaign. Does he confirm that lend-lease "unquestionably helped turned the tide" - well, yes, he does.

You could also question that if the US had not been supplying the Nazis, then perhaps the Soviets would not have needed further supplies. It doesnt really matter, to try and play down the role that the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis is absurd and disrespectful. They were on the eastern front for years in some of the bloodiest, most gruesome battles with huge losses of life. Supplies are all well and good, you need people to use them

Tony EH

It's a pretty convincing case made by someone central to the Soviet campaign. Does he confirm that lend-lease "unquestionably helped turned the tide" - well, yes, he does.

Well, the historical record and the facts of the matter are at odds with him.

In addition Zhukov was making these reflections in the 60's. 20 years after the war had ended and in a very different political climate.

esteve

Tony EH wrote: »

Russia won their war against Germany with their own blood and laregly with their own equipment.

Exactly, anywhere from 22,000,000 to 32,000,000 Russians killed during WWII. Im so sick of that absurd claim that'if it weren't for the US we would all be speaking German'...yawn. Let it not be forgotten that the US were also supplying the Nazis prior to entering the war. And let us not forget that WWII left the US in an unprecedented position of power.

This thread is getting ridiculous, any facts stated here are met by realwerido with anti-american claims. Its becoming absurd and tiresome. Im starting to think he may be trolling, as nobody in ther right mind can be that stupid and ignorant.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

I've seen that quote before. But it doesn't change anything.

It's a pretty convincing case made by someone central to the Soviet campaign. Does he confirm that lend-lease "unquestionably helped turned the tide" - well, yes, he does.

Tony EH

I've seen that quote before. But it doesn't change anything.

Russia won their war against Germany with their own blood and laregly with their own equipment.

As I said lend lease was helpful, but Russia would have won anyway.

Once again, delveries of LL began to make a significant impact around the time of Bagration. But all of the major battles before 1944 were won by Russians using largely Russian equipment. Lend lease's impact in those essential battles was minimal.

Zhukov is also wrong about British material help.

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

In 1944.

The war was effectively over for the Germans by then.

Besides, it's not as if the Russians couldn't, or didn't produce trucks. Lend Lease helped free up a situation whereby they could make tanks instead, but when one considers that even without Lend Lease, the Russians would have outstripped the Germans in tanks many times over, even that help wasn't essential to their victory.

No matter how it's cut, Lend Lease, while it was helpful, was not a decisive factor in the Russian victory over the Germans.

Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American Studebekkers, we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."

It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

Georgy Zhukov
Chief of the General Staff, Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR, 1941

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

Depends what you count. 70% of the soviet motor pool (primarily trucks) were lend-lease sourced.

In 1944.

The war was effectively over for the Germans by then.

Besides, it's not as if the Russians couldn't, or didn't produce trucks. Lend Lease helped free up a situation whereby they could make tanks instead, but when one considers that even without Lend Lease, the Russians would have outstripped the Germans in tanks many times over, even that help wasn't essential to their victory.

No matter how it's cut, Lend Lease, while it was helpful, was not a decisive factor in the Russian victory over the Germans.

Gringo180

The US wants to rule these states in the middle east by proxy for the benefit of themselves and Israel. William Hague yesterday had the audacity to say that Assad must be punished as he is stopping humanatarian aid to his people but yet this has been happening to the Palestinians for decades and not only is nothing said about Israel but they support them. Hypocrisy of the highest order!

alastair

Tony EH wrote: »

Lend Lease was a fraction of what the Russians produced themselves, about 15% all told (and that's being generous

Depends what you count. 70% of the soviet motor pool (primarily trucks) were lend-lease sourced.

Tony EH

realweirdo wrote: »

With a hell of a lot of support from the Brits and US in terms of materials, materials which unquestionably helped turned the tide and turned the Russian army from one that went to battle on foot and horseback to one that had tens of thousands of American made trucks ferrying them around.

Lend Lease was a fraction of what the Russians produced themselves, about 15% all told (and that's being generous), the benefit of which mostly wasn't felt until 1944. The most important LL item for the Russians was trucks. Lend Lease was helpful, but certainly not essential and definitely didn't turn any "tides", that's for sure. It didn't help at Moscow, it didn't help at Stalingrad and it didn't help at Kursk. By 1943, the war in the East was a foregone conclusion. Russia would have won the war regardless.

From 1941, the Russians won their battles equiped largely with Russian equipment. The war in Europe WAS Germany vs Russia and they shed a lot of blood defeating Germany.

Your history is appalling.

realweirdo

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, if you leaned a bit of history yourself, you'd find that it was Russia who did the lion's share of fighting against the Germans in WWII.

With a hell of a lot of support from the Brits and US in terms of materials, materials which unquestionably helped turned the tide and turned the Russian army from one that went to battle on foot and horseback to one that had tens of thousands of American made trucks ferrying them around.

The Russians also needed the help of a second front, even they admitted that.

And the Russians played little or no role in defeating the Japs either. They joined the fight 2 days before the end of the war!

realweirdo

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

To do as he pleases?

What's that, fight back against a rebel army who are causing havoc in his country?

The rebel army were created in 2011 by soldiers who refused to obey Assad orders to shoot unarmed protesters.

Clearly you now view them as traitors and they should have just obeyed orders.

Assad is fighting for no-one but himself.

He could have started an orderly transition to democracy years ago. He promised reform but then backtracked.

There was only one person with the power to ensure an orderly transition to democracy, Assad. Instead he bottled it and now the result is carnage and chaos in his country.

There is one person responsible for the chaos in Syria, ASSAD.

And not a single anti American has admitted that. They try to blame everyone except Assad.

Tony EH

realweirdo wrote: »

Ah yeh, typical anti american response.

To be fair if it wasn't for America, you'd be hailing the Nazis, cheering the Kaiser or probably in some Soviet Gulag somewhere.

Learn your history.

Actually, if you leaned a bit of history yourself, you'd find that it was Russia who did the lion's share of fighting against the Germans in WWII.

realweirdo

bumper234 wrote: »

So much fail i wouldn't know where to start.

Ah yeh, typical anti american response.

To be fair if it wasn't for America, you'd be hailing the Nazis, cheering the Kaiser or probably in some Soviet Gulag somewhere.

Learn your history.

You're probably typing away on your american made computer right now, tweeting your mates on your american designed iphone, and so on and so on.

The alternative to American domination of the world really doesn't bear thinking about, and I'm glad its not a reality.

Just ask the South Koreans under whose zone of influence they'd rather live.

Or the Germans, or billions of other people around the world.

There are so many sh*tholes around the world, most of them not in the american zone of influence.

Tony EH

alastair wrote: »

You can't blame Carter for the Iranian revolution, or the Yom Kippur war. We had the same queues at petrol stations here.

The Iranian revolution may have happened under Carter's watch, but putting blame on him for it would be silly. That goes back to American interference in Iran long before Carter got to the Whitehouse.

When the CIA and MI6 toppled Mossadeq, largely because he nationalised Iranian oil and installed the hated and vicious Shah (and his American backed death squads), they helped sow the seeds of Iranian disent.

Their meddling in the matters of a country they had no business in was the rallying cry for the events in 1979.

Unfortunately for Jimmy Carter, he happened to be president at the time.

Tony EH

Seaneh wrote: »

Several US based companies with extremely close ties to the Bush administration have made BILLIONS of dollars from Iraq.

Iraq wasn't a war for the American state to make money from, it was a war for American companies to make money from. Chaney and his like have made record profits off the back of the Iraq war and are still there making money hand over fist.

You really can't be half as myopic as you come across.

Not only that, they have had a military presence in the region for well over a decade, they've had an integral say in how the country is run and who got to govern it.

The oil industry which was nationalised and closed to western interference in 2003, is now a private concern, dominated by foreign interests, like Exxon, BP and Shell.

They also toppled a former friend, who had a lot of dirt on US involvement in the region over the years.

Luckily, he was killed, so that information goes to his grave.

alastair

clairefontaine wrote: »

Not really. I can remember as a little girl yellow ribbons around trees and hostages on planes, big huge lines at the gas stations. Good man, lousy president.

I'm not sure who is a worse president but I'd lean toward Obama.

You can't blame Carter for the Iranian revolution, or the Yom Kippur war. We had the same queues at petrol stations here.

Gringo180

John Kerry made a complete balls of that interview yesterday no way did he mean to say if the the Syrians give up there chemical weapons there wont be action

delighted now that military action is looking all the more unlikely now.

.jacksparrow.

realweirdo wrote: »

Well so far, it looks like Assad will give up his stock of chemical weapons so that's one good thing that's come out of American threats.

Two and half years of diplomacy and appeasement achieved next to nothing.

The Americans move a few cruise missible platforms into the eastern mediteranean and hey presto, Assad gives up his chemical weapons in a couple of hours.

You see now the benefits of a military threat? I bet you don't. If it was up to you, Assad would be allowed do as he pleased without any threats from the international community.

Sending a strongly worded letter or condemning people like Assad just doesn't cut it and if anything merely gives him the thumbs up to do as he pleases.

Thank god for America, that's all I'll say.

To do as he pleases?

What's that, fight back against a rebel army who are causing havoc in his country?

clairefontaine

alastair wrote: »

Back under your bridge. In any case - the US under Jimmy Carter was rather better (by many measures) than it's been subsequently.

Not really. I can remember as a little girl yellow ribbons around trees and hostages on planes, big huge lines at the gas stations. Good man, lousy president.

I'm not sure who is a worse president but I'd lean toward Obama.

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US has not benefited from Iraq in any way

Several US based companies with extremely close ties to the Bush administration have made BILLIONS of dollars from Iraq.

Iraq wasn't a war for the American state to make money from, it was a war for American companies to make money from. Chaney and his like have made record profits off the back of the Iraq war and are still there making money hand over fist.

You really can't be half as myopic as you come across.

Eggy Baby!

Thank god for America, that's all I'll say

The devil sent them, not god.

Mr.Micro

It's a game of chess and the Russians have out smarted Obama in the latest move. His motivation for war has been diluted, presuming the Russian proposal is adapted.

Sierra Oscar

Seems that Obama is conceding defeat on the Congress vote already, he is just after saying during a media interview that he is not confident of the vote passing.

Tony EH

I couldn't agree more.