U.S.: Syria used chemical weapons, crossing "red line"

[percysunshine]

What ever Obama ends up doing, we can be sure of one thing; it will make the situation worse.

He will go down in history as having unleashed in the Middle East under a pretense of Arab Spring and "freedom" the greatest threat of terrorism ever and has aided and abetted it.

His illegal war against Libya gave the French some fun in Mali. The track record is not looking good.

 

[Trajan]

What ever Obama ends up doing, we can be sure of one thing; it will make the situation worse.

He will go down in history as having unleashed in the Middle East under a pretense of Arab Spring and "freedom" the greatest threat of terrorism ever and has aided and abetted it.

His illegal war against Libya gave the French some fun in Mali. The track record is not looking good.

the 'fun' in mali was to prevent an AQ affiliate from overrunning the country...libya was dumb granted.

 

[percysunshine]

He will go down in history as having unleashed in the Middle East under a pretense of Arab Spring and "freedom" the greatest threat of terrorism ever and has aided and abetted it.

His illegal war against Libya gave the French some fun in Mali. The track record is not looking good.

the 'fun' in mali was to prevent an AQ affiliate from overrunning the country...libya was dumb granted.

"The full-blown conflict between forces in northern Mali and the south was precipitated by a March 2012 coup in the country following alarming gains made in the north by long-standing Tuareg rebels (for background, I recommend this report from the International Crisis Group). Their advances were spurred by weapons and recruits they acquired after the collapse of Qaddafi’s regime in Libya, which sent stores of weapons coursing throughout North Africa, and led many Tuaregs to flee the country."

France Deploys Troops in Mali to Attack Islamists | National Review Online

 

[tinydancer]

What ever Obama ends up doing, we can be sure of one thing; it will make the situation worse.

He will go down in history as having unleashed in the Middle East under a pretense of Arab Spring and "freedom" the greatest threat of terrorism ever and has aided and abetted it.

His illegal war against Libya gave the French some fun in Mali. The track record is not looking good.

All in all this is what you get when academics are running foreign policy.

 

[Desperado]

Because Iraq was a MASSIVE mistake we should repeat it?

Fucking bullshit. Your hatred of Israel is exposing your idiocy on the matter…

No hatred.
It was suggested, Syria should face military action because they wouldn't allow UN inspectors in.
I simply agreed but extended the principle to include all countries that had refused inspections.
Iraq, Syria, Iran and Israel.

If you don't think Israel should be attacked, please explain why they should be exempt.

Because bombing the crap out of every damn nation that we can asinine. Iraq was a huge mistake. There is no damn way we should go bombing Iran or Syria based on that principal either.

Do you actually think that Iraq was a good idea?

No one in their right mind could actually call the War in Iraq a good idea!
Agreed there is no reason the US should get involved in attacking either Iran or Syria, they are no threat to the security of the United States.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against the rebels seeking to overthrow him and, in a major policy shift, President Obama has decided to supply military support to the rebels, the White House announced Thursday.

"The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the [Supreme Military Council]. That includes military support," Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

U.S.: Syria used chemical weapons, crossing "red line" - CBS News

Americans will die because of this.

What, Americans will die because of this MSM lie? Yeah, you are probably right. Mostly because people believe what they read and see from so called "trusted" sources without question. I don't trust corporate sources. They are connected to criminal politicians, criminal corporations, and criminal elites, I'm educated enough to know that.

I have been following the progression of these events since the whole Bangazi debacle, and the Bombing at the Boston Marathon. Unfortunately for most Americans, they do not know that the corporate media elites, the financial elites, and the political elites all meet at the Pratt House in New York to discuss and decide how to manipulate "the Agenda."

These events are all linked, and they have all been building up to this point. I joined this site during the primaries and the caucuses last year, when the establishment was rigging the game. I TOLD people what was going to happen. It was your choice then. Either you vote for Romney and get a direct attack on Iran, or you vote for Obama and get an attack on it's proxy through Syria. It doesn't matter for the elites. Either way they're planning for a redesigned greater middle east, with them completely in charge.

The news they are broadcasting and printing in the West in the MSM are lies, mere propaganda. The Russians don't believe it. The Chinese don't believe it. Intelligent Americans know it is utter tripe. It is a psy-ops. Why does everyone just believe what our corporate media sells? With out question. . . . What is the evidence in this piece? Didn't anyone even bother to read the comments underneath this article? No one believes this crap.

Well? Yeah, that's right. No pictures, no linkage, nothing. Just, they say so. Even if they had pictures, they are easily staged. There is so little critical thinking going on these days.

Calls for Objective Probe into Syria Chemical Weapons Allegations
Calls for Objective Probe into Syria Chemical Weapons Allegations | nsnbc international

Lavrov and Kerry agree on Need for Objective Investigation. Russia´s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov, and his U.S. American counterpart, Secretary of State John Kerry have both stressed the importance of conducting an objective investigation into reports about the alleged use of chemical weapons in the countryside of Damascus in Syria on Wednesday, 21 August 2013.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has issued a statement, saying that he has spoken to Secretary of State John Carry over the telephone and that they agree on highlighting the need that the armed “opposition groups” ensure safe entry for the UN investigators in the region from where the allegations about the chemical weapons use originated.

Lavrov stressed, that Russia has called on the Syria government to fully cooperate with the UN experts which are currently in Damascus on invitation of the Syrian government. Lavrov also reiterated the need for constructive steps towards holding the international conference on Syria in Geneva from the side of the opposition, stressing that the conference should be held as soon as possible.

Lavrov rejected claims which have been put forward in several international mainstream media, according to which Russia should have blocked a UN Security Council Resolution on the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria, during the emergency session of the council on Wednesday. Lavrov stressed, that this was a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the facts.

USA states, US is Unable to Conclusively Determine Chemical Weapons Use. The spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, Jen Psaki, told journalists on Thursday afternoon, that the USA is unable to confirm reports about an alleged gas attack in the Damascus Countryside on Wednesday, saying:

“At this time we are unable to conclusively determine chemical weapon use. .. We are focused on doing everything possible within our power to nail down the facts”.

China Urges UN Inspectors to Fully Consult with Syrian Government, to maintain Objective Stance. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has urged the UN Chemical Weapons Team which is currently in Syria on invitation of the Syrian government to fully consult with the Syrian government and to maintain an objective stance. A spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry said to a journalist from the Reuters news agency:

” The UN chemical weapons team in Syria are on the ground and have started inquiries…China hopes that the UN team would fully consult with the Syrian government and maintain an objective, impartial and professional stance, to ascertain what really happened. ‘China’s stance is clear enough regardless of which side is using chemical weapons in Syria…China objects it decisively”.

So, the upshot is, YES, your MSM LIED to you. Our government CANNOT confirm that the Syrian regime has used any chemical weapons. What we do know, is that the US has been arming, organizing, and pushing an offensive to topple this regime all summer. It kicked off at the beginning of August. If the Offensive were to be successfully stopped or repelled, contingency plans would have to be in place to convince both Russia and China, not to mention the American public and the world community, to allow the US and NATO forces to assist this, the most highly planned and organized assault on the regime to date.

Since we are half-way through the August-September offensive, and the Syrian regime isn't even close to crumbling, such spurious accusations by opposition forces come as no surprise. They are by most accounts, absurd when analyzed prima facie. We shall see if there is any merit to them. However, do not be surprised if there is further obfuscation.


Here is what the oppostion forces, these same forces which the Obama regime has been supplying with arms, (Benghazi anyone?) this is what they have supplied to our government. Judge for yourself. Also, I've added what OUR OWN known experts have already stated about this PROPAGANDA. For that is clearly what it is. It is staged, more than likely with help from CIA or the MOSSAD. That's my own speculation though, based on my experience and knowledge on how these things are accomplished. They did pretty much the same things to get us involved in Libya.

Chemical Weapons Propaganda Prompted Security Council Session
http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/22/chemical-weapons-propaganda-prompted-securuty-council-session/

Alleged Photo Evidence in “Opposition Handouts to Media” staged, say experts. Yesterday night, nsnbc international contacted two active duty members of the Danish Civil Defense Services who are experts in chemical weapons.

The experts, who wish to protect their identity, were shown the alleged photographic evidence that has been handed out to media by the Syrian opposition.

Both experts unequivocally expounded, that the likelihood, that the alleged photographic evidence is showing images that have been taken at the scene of a real chemical weapons attack is close to zero in not zero.

One of the two experts went as far as to say, that it is not even a well-staged falsification. Both of the experts pointed out that the medical staff, shown in the images, does not wear gloves, does not wear protective suits, and does not protect their airways. Hospital images prompted one of the experts to expound:

“It is not even likely that this is a real medical team that is alleged to treat chemical weapons victims. Every nurse knows that you have to protect yourself in order not to become the next who will have to be hospitalized. Or maybe the images are real but presented within a false context”.

Images showing rows of alleged casualties, outdoors or indoors, with unprotected persons handling the bodies of the alleged victims elicited similar responses.

Both of the experts, both of whom have spent more than two decades on active service as volunteers in the Danish Civil Defense rescue services stated unequivocally, that the likelihood of the images showing a real chemical weapons attack is, if not zero, then very close to zero. Moreover, both experts agreed, that the staging of the event has not even been very professional, nor does it show a realistic chemical weapons attack scenario.

“We can do better, we do better when we prepare training events for rescue workers” said one of the experts.

Opposition handout; No protective gloves, does this look like the victim of a chemical attack?

Opposition handout; Pretty casual attitude to stroll along victims of nerve gas unprotected. . .


About the MSM news sources people are being fed the lies about Syria. . .
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media

About the news source used to gather information in this post. . . .
http://nsnbc.me/about-nsnbc-international/

 

[Jos]

America intends to Kill the Syrian people to prevent their being killed with the wrong kind of weapons?

 

[toastman]

America intends to Kill the Syrian people to prevent their being killed with the wrong kind of weapons?

No, that's just what you said. If anything, they will attack military interests of Assad.

 

[Circe]

I know no one wants to get involved in Syria and I'm advocating we do so but understand what happens in Syria, Egypt or anywhere else in the middle east has a impact on the U.S. no matter if we get involved there or not.

But HOW does what happen there impact us? It is really not clear how it affects us for them to be rioting and having civil wars, country after impoverished country that never had any economy or anything to start with.

 

[Circe]

Iraq was a good idea. Why? It's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

Saddam's kids who were about to inherit the country were truly psychopaths. Bye bye ME entirely if those boys took over from Saddam.

Whereas Iraq is doing so beautifully now that we've fixed it all up for them...........

That's what Syria has to look forward to if we "help" them. Ten years of war and hundreds of thousands more dying and afterwards, continual daily mass bombings.

 

[Circe]

America intends to Kill the Syrian people to prevent their being killed with the wrong kind of weapons?

Right. It's our only obvious national interest in Syria: keeping poison gas from being normalized as a weapons system. We took out Saddam because of that, and it looks like Assad is in big trouble for it now. If he's the one who did it.

We want three weapons systems not normalized or used at all anywhere in the world: nukes, poison gas, and biological disease agents. Obviously we are losing control of the poison gas proscription. If we lose that, can nukes be far behind?

 

[dilloduck]

He will go down in history as having unleashed in the Middle East under a pretense of Arab Spring and "freedom" the greatest threat of terrorism ever and has aided and abetted it.

His illegal war against Libya gave the French some fun in Mali. The track record is not looking good.

the 'fun' in mali was to prevent an AQ affiliate from overrunning the country...libya was dumb granted.

Yet now we are going to assist an AQ affiliate to over run Syria ? Apparently there is another agenda going on here that the American people aren't being apprised of. Shocking.

 

[FA_Q2]

America intends to Kill the Syrian people to prevent their being killed with the wrong kind of weapons?

Right. It's our only obvious national interest in Syria: keeping poison gas from being normalized as a weapons system. We took out Saddam because of that, and it looks like Assad is in big trouble for it now. If he's the one who did it.

We want three weapons systems not normalized or used at all anywhere in the world: nukes, poison gas, and biological disease agents. Obviously we are losing control of the poison gas proscription. If we lose that, can nukes be far behind?

We already lost the gas but that was never fully under control to begin with. Nukes are not so simple because they are far harder and more expensive to create/maintain. The nuke scare is a misnomer anyway – there is little threat of nuclear disaster.

Biologicals are far more frightening IMHO. Fortunately, they are far harder to create than anything else but they represent the very real possibility of a bomb that keeps killing long after the end of the conflict. Unlike nukes and chemicals, biological can continue forever or at least until we are basically dead. They can also be extremely easy to deliver.

 

[blackhawk]

I know no one wants to get involved in Syria and I'm advocating we do so but understand what happens in Syria, Egypt or anywhere else in the middle east has a impact on the U.S. no matter if we get involved there or not.

But HOW does what happen there impact us? It is really not clear how it affects us for them to be rioting and having civil wars, country after impoverished country that never had any economy or anything to start with.

Look at the history we had the Russians invade Afghanistan we helped the rebels by supplying them with weapons when Russia was driven out we walked away that led to the Taliban taking control of the country which led to a safe havan for bin laden and al-queda and we know where that lead .

 

[dilloduck]

I know no one wants to get involved in Syria and I'm advocating we do so but understand what happens in Syria, Egypt or anywhere else in the middle east has a impact on the U.S. no matter if we get involved there or not.

But HOW does what happen there impact us? It is really not clear how it affects us for them to be rioting and having civil wars, country after impoverished country that never had any economy or anything to start with.

Look at the history we had the Russians invade Afghanistan we helped the rebels by supplying them with weapons when Russia was driven out we walked away that led to the Taliban taking control of the country which led to a safe havan for bin laden and al-queda and we know where that lead .

Bingo-----so history tells us what happens when we support Islamic radicals. Why are we doing it again. Apparently the answer is that we are doing it as the first step in taking out Iran.

 

[FA_Q2]

But HOW does what happen there impact us? It is really not clear how it affects us for them to be rioting and having civil wars, country after impoverished country that never had any economy or anything to start with.

Look at the history we had the Russians invade Afghanistan we helped the rebels by supplying them with weapons when Russia was driven out we walked away that led to the Taliban taking control of the country which led to a safe havan for bin laden and al-queda and we know where that lead .

Bingo-----so history tells us what happens when we support Islamic radicals. Why are we doing it again. Apparently the answer is that we are doing it as the first step in taking out Iran.

Because we can’t help but be imperialistic.

Americans in general seem to think that everyone should look to us to lead them and that we are somehow entitled to run the planet. I hate that particular view as we have a TON of problems at home that we need to address. We would be far better off if we stopped using the military was a hammer and used it for defense IMHO. Let the world deal with its own problems, we are not the world’s police. If we really wanted to run other nations we should just dispense with the subterfuge and go back to conquering.

That’s not isolationist btw. We belong on the world stage – we just should not be treating like a place to constantly play war. I am positive that we can trade and discuss matters of international politics or law without blowing something up every damn day.

 

[dilloduck]

Look at the history we had the Russians invade Afghanistan we helped the rebels by supplying them with weapons when Russia was driven out we walked away that led to the Taliban taking control of the country which led to a safe havan for bin laden and al-queda and we know where that lead .

Bingo-----so history tells us what happens when we support Islamic radicals. Why are we doing it again. Apparently the answer is that we are doing it as the first step in taking out Iran.

Because we can’t help but be imperialistic.

Americans in general seem to think that everyone should look to us to lead them and that we are somehow entitled to run the planet. I hate that particular view as we have a TON of problems at home that we need to address. We would be far better off if we stopped using the military was a hammer and used it for defense IMHO. Let the world deal with its own problems, we are not the world’s police. If we really wanted to run other nations we should just dispense with the subterfuge and go back to conquering.

That’s not isolationist btw. We belong on the world stage – we just should not be treating like a place to constantly play war. I am positive that we can trade and discuss matters of international politics or law without blowing something up every damn day.

yet people insist on berating America for spending so much on defense. I think the American taxpayer would gladly have his/her money spent on something other than keeping the world safe for everyone else. Notice how the taxpayer isn't even getting a token explanation for what's about to occur?

 

[FA_Q2]

Bingo-----so history tells us what happens when we support Islamic radicals. Why are we doing it again. Apparently the answer is that we are doing it as the first step in taking out Iran.

Because we can’t help but be imperialistic.

Americans in general seem to think that everyone should look to us to lead them and that we are somehow entitled to run the planet. I hate that particular view as we have a TON of problems at home that we need to address. We would be far better off if we stopped using the military was a hammer and used it for defense IMHO. Let the world deal with its own problems, we are not the world’s police. If we really wanted to run other nations we should just dispense with the subterfuge and go back to conquering.

That’s not isolationist btw. We belong on the world stage – we just should not be treating like a place to constantly play war. I am positive that we can trade and discuss matters of international politics or law without blowing something up every damn day.

yet people insist on berating America for spending so much on defense. I think the American taxpayer would gladly have his/her money spent on something other than keeping the world safe for everyone else. Notice how the taxpayer isn't even getting a token explanation for what's about to occur?

I disagree. Many loudly declare that but as soon as it starts up it is opposed resoundingly and politicians are called ‘weak’ (we see that now in reference to Obama who is extremely warlike) or accused of hating the military. Truth be told, I WISH that you were right but every time I see public discourse on this subject I see the exact opposite. Americans, all over the political spectrum, WANT America’s military all over the world. I think they are disillusioned by the very real fact that they do not understand military matters or how involved we are across the globe. At least that is my opinion.

 

[dilloduck]

Because we can’t help but be imperialistic.

Americans in general seem to think that everyone should look to us to lead them and that we are somehow entitled to run the planet. I hate that particular view as we have a TON of problems at home that we need to address. We would be far better off if we stopped using the military was a hammer and used it for defense IMHO. Let the world deal with its own problems, we are not the world’s police. If we really wanted to run other nations we should just dispense with the subterfuge and go back to conquering.

That’s not isolationist btw. We belong on the world stage – we just should not be treating like a place to constantly play war. I am positive that we can trade and discuss matters of international politics or law without blowing something up every damn day.

yet people insist on berating America for spending so much on defense. I think the American taxpayer would gladly have his/her money spent on something other than keeping the world safe for everyone else. Notice how the taxpayer isn't even getting a token explanation for what's about to occur?

I disagree. Many loudly declare that but as soon as it starts up it is opposed resoundingly and politicians are called ‘weak’ (we see that now in reference to Obama who is extremely warlike) or accused of hating the military. Truth be told, I WISH that you were right but every time I see public discourse on this subject I see the exact opposite. Americans, all over the political spectrum, WANT America’s military all over the world. I think they are disillusioned by the very real fact that they do not understand military matters or how involved we are across the globe. At least that is my opinion.

Well opinions on American military spending and involvement are as divided as they are on everything else. Hawks and doves etc etc. In the Syrian situation I'm seeing people using it to politically attack Obama for not arming Al Qaeda. To me that is evidence of a serious disconnect and I have yet to hear the reason for US intervention. Israel is in the thick of it yet they are again showing that they are fully able to care for themselves. Irans tries to arm Syria and Israeli jets blow the shit out their convoys.

 

[tinydancer]

No hatred.
It was suggested, Syria should face military action because they wouldn't allow UN inspectors in.
I simply agreed but extended the principle to include all countries that had refused inspections.
Iraq, Syria, Iran and Israel.

If you don't think Israel should be attacked, please explain why they should be exempt.

Because bombing the crap out of every damn nation that we can asinine. Iraq was a huge mistake. There is no damn way we should go bombing Iran or Syria based on that principal either.

Do you actually think that Iraq was a good idea?

No one in their right mind could actually call the War in Iraq a good idea!
Agreed there is no reason the US should get involved in attacking either Iran or Syria, they are no threat to the security of the United States.

Okey dokey here. Don't hate me but because I could see it from a different venue and truly we need a whole other thread on this, Iraq made sense if you look at the region in real time.

Saddam was sliding big time among his own crowd. Whoa geeze he even had French handlers trying to pretty him up for his own.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, his two sons were truly going koo koo bye bye and ready to take out daddy and take over Iraq.

I don't think anyone had a choice. Now I hate the Iraq war with a passion, but it was of necessity.

And every leader had dirty hands when it came to Iraq. For example, My PM Chretien didn't sign on to the coalition. Why?

Because as we discovered his son in law was doing dirty deals with Saddam. Big time.