Syria: Up to 635 Reported Dead in Chemical Attack

[georgephillip]

obama should be charged for treason for giving aid to the enemy. But will he? I DOUBT IT.

Should someone be asking Chris Stevens or Wesley Clark?
From Business Insider (10/19/2012)

"The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.
But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels..."

"Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship 'carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.' The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

"Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

"The ship's captain was 'a Libyan from Benghazi...'"

All of which is starting to make Wesley Clark look something like a prophet (profit?)

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." [147]

Maybe Wesley should launch another presidential run in 2016?
He might get Chris Stevens's vote.

 

[Flopper]

The U.S. Navy is repositioning ships in the Mediterranean Sea in the event President Barack Obama orders a strike on Syria, in what defense officials called prudent preparations as the Obama administration weighs its options in Syria.

August 23, 2013,
Navy Moves Ships as U.S. Preps for 'All Contingencies' - WSJ.com





and


Hagel US naval forces move closer to Syria

SOP, when Renegade, President Obama is considering options, the military will prepare to respond. I don't think we should read to much into this.

 

[Bloodrock44]

obama should be charged for treason for giving aid to the enemy. But will he? I DOUBT IT.

Should someone be asking Chris Stevens or Wesley Clark?
From Business Insider (10/19/2012)

"The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.
But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels..."

"Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship 'carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.' The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

"Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

"The ship's captain was 'a Libyan from Benghazi...'"

All of which is starting to make Wesley Clark look something like a prophet (profit?)

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." [147]

Maybe Wesley should launch another presidential run in 2016?
He might get Chris Stevens's vote.

 

[Billo_Really]

What is the over/under on the number of cruise missiles Obama will lob into Syria?

I don't think he will do anything without the political cover of the UN, and Russia will veto everything. So the best case is just a little swagger, spin victory, and carry on. The worse case is...well...we don't want to go there.

This could go way beyond "political cover".

If we strike Syria, Russia may strike us!

 

[Indofred]

What is the over/under on the number of cruise missiles Obama will lob into Syria?

I don't think he will do anything without the political cover of the UN, and Russia will veto everything. So the best case is just a little swagger, spin victory, and carry on. The worse case is...well...we don't want to go there.

This could go way beyond "political cover".

If we strike Syria, Russia may strike us!

Unlikely, but Russia may enter on Syria's side in a proxy war.
A lot like Vietnam.

Back to a previous post where I was accused of blaming Israel for everything.
In this case, it is down to Israel. They want to avoid an all out war as they know other Arab countries may well use that as excuse to join Syria and launch attacks against Israel.
If America attacks for them, it's only American who get killed and only America that will suffer terrorism in retaliation for the mass murder they'll inflict.
Yes, the Assad government is bad news but the rebels are probably as bad or worse so it's bound to come back and kick America in the balls if they take military action.

Israel wants rid os Assad because he's supported by Iran, another country Israel wants rid of. The Israeli government is well aware, any attack by Iran would probably use Syria as a launching point but, if Israel were to attack alone, it may well bring Iran and other countries into the war and that would really hurt Israel, regardless of the final outcome.

Rebels: We won?t attack Israel if it invades Syria | JPost | Israel News

Russia says the rebel forces were behind the chemical attack; a view just as valid as the Israeli/American news media claims regarding Assad.

The Crises in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt: The Plan to ?Divide and Conquer? the Middle East and Why All Roads Lead to Tehran | Global Research

Everyone should read that piece with an open mind. It explains a lot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is the over/under on the number of cruise missiles Obama will lob into Syria?

I don't think he will do anything without the political cover of the UN, and Russia will veto everything. So the best case is just a little swagger, spin victory, and carry on. The worse case is...well...we don't want to go there.

This could go way beyond "political cover".

If we strike Syria, Russia may strike us!

Unlikely, but Russia may enter on Syria's side in a proxy war.
A lot like Vietnam.

Back to a previous post where I was accused of blaming Israel for everything.
In this case, it is down to Israel. They want to avoid an all out war as they know other Arab countries may well use that as excuse to join Syria and launch attacks against Israel.
If America attacks for them, it's only American who get killed and only America that will suffer terrorism in retaliation for the mass murder they'll inflict.
Yes, the Assad government is bad news but the rebels are probably as bad or worse so it's bound to come back and kick America in the balls if they take military action.

Israel wants rid os Assad because he's supported by Iran, another country Israel wants rid of. The Israeli government is well aware, any attack by Iran would probably use Syria as a launching point but, if Israel were to attack alone, it may well bring Iran and other countries into the war and that would really hurt Israel, regardless of the final outcome.

Rebels: We won?t attack Israel if it invades Syria | JPost | Israel News

Russia says the rebel forces were behind the chemical attack; a view just as valid as the Israeli/American news media claims regarding Assad.

The Crises in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt: The Plan to ?Divide and Conquer? the Middle East and Why All Roads Lead to Tehran | Global Research

Everyone should read that piece with an open mind. It explains a lot.

Why in the hell are we arguing whose who Syria the rebels blah blah blah ? obama gives aid to the rebels he will be breaking the very law he sign on December 31 2012
THE END

 

[Bloodrock44]

What is the over/under on the number of cruise missiles Obama will lob into Syria?

I don't think he will do anything without the political cover of the UN, and Russia will veto everything. So the best case is just a little swagger, spin victory, and carry on. The worse case is...well...we don't want to go there.

This could go way beyond "political cover".

If we strike Syria, Russia may strike us!

Unlikely, but Russia may enter on Syria's side in a proxy war.
A lot like Vietnam.

Back to a previous post where I was accused of blaming Israel for everything.
In this case, it is down to Israel. They want to avoid an all out war as they know other Arab countries may well use that as excuse to join Syria and launch attacks against Israel.
If America attacks for them, it's only American who get killed and only America that will suffer terrorism in retaliation for the mass murder they'll inflict.
Yes, the Assad government is bad news but the rebels are probably as bad or worse so it's bound to come back and kick America in the balls if they take military action.

Israel wants rid os Assad because he's supported by Iran, another country Israel wants rid of. The Israeli government is well aware, any attack by Iran would probably use Syria as a launching point but, if Israel were to attack alone, it may well bring Iran and other countries into the war and that would really hurt Israel, regardless of the final outcome.

Rebels: We won?t attack Israel if it invades Syria | JPost | Israel News

Russia says the rebel forces were behind the chemical attack; a view just as valid as the Israeli/American news media claims regarding Assad.

The Crises in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt: The Plan to ?Divide and Conquer? the Middle East and Why All Roads Lead to Tehran | Global Research

Everyone should read that piece with an open mind. It explains a lot.

I thought even you were more intelligent than to post poppycock such as this. Israel is in the catbird's seat. They can sit back and do nothing. Egypt and Syria are in turmoil. They have enough to worry about than to mess with Israel who would tear them a new one if they tried anything. And it's Israel/American media claiming Assad launched the chemical attacks? More like America/England/Turkey claiming it was the government. You're nothing but a broken record with you're blame it all on Israel crap. And if your friends in Tehran couldn't win an eight year war with Iraq, what will they due against a coalition? Your buddies are going down. Get out the whine and cheese.

 

[georgephillip]

obama should be charged for treason for giving aid to the enemy. But will he? I DOUBT IT.

Should someone be asking Chris Stevens or Wesley Clark?
From Business Insider (10/19/2012)

"The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.
But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels..."

"Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship 'carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.' The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

"Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

"The ship's captain was 'a Libyan from Benghazi...'"

All of which is starting to make Wesley Clark look something like a prophet (profit?)

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." [147]

Maybe Wesley should launch another presidential run in 2016?
He might get Chris Stevens's vote.

So, if you had read Wesley's account of his Pentagon chat in your local paper around Thanksgiving of 2001, would you've voted to nuke all seven countries "till they glow" or looked around for a church to pray in?

 

[Bloodrock44]

Should someone be asking Chris Stevens or Wesley Clark?
From Business Insider (10/19/2012)

"The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.
But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels..."

"Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship 'carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.' The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

"Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

"The ship's captain was 'a Libyan from Benghazi...'"

All of which is starting to make Wesley Clark look something like a prophet (profit?)

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." [147]

Maybe Wesley should launch another presidential run in 2016?
He might get Chris Stevens's vote.

So, if you had read Wesley's account of his Pentagon chat in your local paper around Thanksgiving of 2001, would you've voted to nuke all seven countries "till they glow" or looked around for a church to pray in?

Some say to ignore what non serving America hating commies have to say about anything. I think I'll take their advice.

 

[georgephillip]

What is the over/under on the number of cruise missiles Obama will lob into Syria?

I don't think he will do anything without the political cover of the UN, and Russia will veto everything. So the best case is just a little swagger, spin victory, and carry on. The worse case is...well...we don't want to go there.

This could go way beyond "political cover".

If we strike Syria, Russia may strike us!

Unlikely, but Russia may enter on Syria's side in a proxy war.
A lot like Vietnam.

Back to a previous post where I was accused of blaming Israel for everything.
In this case, it is down to Israel. They want to avoid an all out war as they know other Arab countries may well use that as excuse to join Syria and launch attacks against Israel.
If America attacks for them, it's only American who get killed and only America that will suffer terrorism in retaliation for the mass murder they'll inflict.
Yes, the Assad government is bad news but the rebels are probably as bad or worse so it's bound to come back and kick America in the balls if they take military action.

Israel wants rid os Assad because he's supported by Iran, another country Israel wants rid of. The Israeli government is well aware, any attack by Iran would probably use Syria as a launching point but, if Israel were to attack alone, it may well bring Iran and other countries into the war and that would really hurt Israel, regardless of the final outcome.

Rebels: We won?t attack Israel if it invades Syria | JPost | Israel News

Russia says the rebel forces were behind the chemical attack; a view just as valid as the Israeli/American news media claims regarding Assad.

The Crises in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt: The Plan to ?Divide and Conquer? the Middle East and Why All Roads Lead to Tehran | Global Research

Everyone should read that piece with an open mind. It explains a lot.

Iraq, Libya, Syria with Lebanon and Iran to follow.
Only the willfully blind can't see the Plan:

"The U.S., Israel and now France want to invade Syria and remove President Assad and divide Syria into several small territories.

"They are interested in the Balkanization of Syria, the same method that was used to break up Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. The rebels are supported and have been trained by the West to start a war against Syria. It started in 2011 where demonstrations (inspired by the Arab Spring) were either for or against President Assad.

"Those that were against Assad demanded his resignation.

"That is what started the civil war.

"Now the West is capitalizing on the situation that is tearing Syria apart.

"France is now on board with the United States and Israel to invade Syria. In a New York Times report called ‘France Urges ‘Force’ in Syria if Chemical Attacks are Confirmed’ states that France wants a full scale invasion if chemical weapons were used..."

The Crises in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt: The Plan to ?Divide and Conquer? the Middle East and Why All Roads Lead to Tehran | Global Research

 

[Vikrant]

I think primary focus should be Iran not Syria. Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. Nuclear armed Iran will be a very bad new for the world.

 

[Circe]

Trajan, I don't think this is a situation when long games of moves ahead can be seen in foreign policy like in a chessgame.

Yesterday Obama stated that he would not rush to mire the United States in another war.

Today he has moved naval ships armed with Tomahawk missiles near to Syria.

All this backing and filling seems confused to me. However, I've noticed that when America moves military assets into a place where they can act, we rarely leave without using them. Assembling forces in Kuwait before Desert Storm, getting jets ready to bomb Qaddafi, many examples: if we go there, we will shoot, experience shows.

So why? Because, I think, we told Assad he couldn't use poison gas and the administration is deciding or has decided, I'd say, that he did anyway. If we let that go, our military credibility as world policeman declines.

The poison gas thing is important because there are some weapons we don't want regularized: poison gas, biological disease agents, and nuclear weapons. All weapons do become normalized eventually, of course, but those are the three we've pretty successfully kept bottled up so far, two from WWI and one from WWII. Obviously the Mideast dictators want to regularize them. Saddam did, and we disposed of him. This lesson has perhaps been lost on Assad, though I don't know what good the gas did him, militarily, if he is the one who used it. Assuming it was actually used at all.

All geopolitics is about stalling for time. We are trying to prevent the normalization of three serious weapons systems, two of which are in constant danger of being used in the Mideast, poison gas and nukes.

We can't stop the spread and use of these weapons forever. But even a few years or decades will see most of us safely off the planet, and that delay is probably what we're trying for.

So I'd say Assad could be in trouble tonight.

 

[skye]

I think primary focus should be Iran not Syria. Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. Nuclear armed Iran will be a very bad new for the world.

You can bet your sweet...you bet the Iranian Regime is the problem.... the Iranian Regime will have to be dealt with...one way or another. The world had enough of Iran's proxy war through all its terrorists groups ..... a mouthful really. It's just a matter of time... sooner rather than later I'd say.

 

[Vikrant]

Oh tell me this isn't so.
It's becoming more obvious day by day that Obama et al are supporting AQ rebels in Syria.

This is a strange world indeed.

Tarek Fatah believes that Obama administration has been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood. Here is a speech by him which explains the logic behind his statement:

Australia violated refugees' human rights, UN says

 

[Circe]

I think primary focus should be Iran not Syria. Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. Nuclear armed Iran will be a very bad new for the world.

Syria is Iran's proxy, the other Shiite state, so if we fire Tomahawks at Syria, mightn't Iran soon get involved? Seems to me conflict might spread quickly to Iran.

 

[skye]

I think primary focus should be Iran not Syria. Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. Nuclear armed Iran will be a very bad new for the world.

Syria is Iran's proxy, the other Shiite state, so if we fire Tomahawks at Syria, mightn't Iran soon get involved? Seems to me conflict might spread quickly to Iran.

We are certainly at the doorsteps of war in the Middle East.

That's all one can say at this moment.

 

[Vikrant]

^ There is a good possibility of Serbian style air raid.

 

[Vikrant]

I think primary focus should be Iran not Syria. Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. Nuclear armed Iran will be a very bad new for the world.

Syria is Iran's proxy, the other Shiite state, so if we fire Tomahawks at Syria, mightn't Iran soon get involved? Seems to me conflict might spread quickly to Iran.

Iran is the root cause of the problem in the middle east. It controls large reserve of oil and natural gas. It sits on a strategic location from where it can disrupt ships passing through Strait of Hormuz. As you know, Strait of Hormuz is crucial to international maritime transportation carrying oil.

I think this would be a better course of action:

1. Ignore Syria for the time being
2. Do Serbia style air raid on Iranian nuclear and missile facilities
3. Engage in a war of attrition against Iranian naval assets to degrade its disruptive capabilities

 

[Circe]

Iran is the root cause of the problem in the middle east.

I wonder. I think the root cause is they have gross overpopulation and no economies and their governments have to import food and fuel and heavily subsidize it because the people are impoverished and have no work and can't be taxed. So the governments have no money for these food and fuel imports and keep raising the prices toward normal market prices, which no one can afford, so they have riots and civil wars.

Overpopulation, over-urbanization, no economies. Can millions of people really go on forever eating more than they produce and have no money to pay for it?

Lots of people say, "No problem!!" but Mr. Malthus says he doubts it can go on forever like this.

 

[Vikrant]

Iran is the root cause of the problem in the middle east.

I wonder. I think the root cause is they have gross overpopulation and no economies and their governments have to import food and fuel and heavily subsidize it because the people are impoverished and have no work and can't be taxed. So the governments have no money for these food and fuel imports and keep raising the prices toward normal market prices, which no one can afford, so they have riots and civil wars.

Overpopulation, over-urbanization, no economies. Can millions of people really go on forever eating more than they produce and have no money to pay for it?

Lots of people say, "No problem!!" but Mr. Malthus says he doubts it can go on forever like this.

^ Does Iran have to import fuel as well? Are we talking about fuel for nuclear reactors?