Syria: Assad regime 'ready to use chemical weapons'

reply to post by SLAYER69


How is that a straw man?

It's not relevant that the United States and other nations are actively creating biological weapons? Meanwhile complaining that other nations are doing the same, even though the likely reality is that they are far more likely to use said weapons than those nations ever have of developing them?

I think it's quite relevant to point out the hypocrisy of one nation telling another " oh, no you can't have that piece of the pie, that pie is for us."

Come on, me and you both know how the Industrial Military Complex works, it's a bros club and if you aren't a bro you aren't in the club. Libya, Iran,Afghanistan, Iraq weren't in that club anymore cause the leaders that the "free world" helped prop up weren't or aren't playing ball anymore.

It's no different in here. They just need to find their excuse.

~Tenth

It was a well know fact but also and under reported that Saddams WMD's were moved to Syria only one tv news outlet ever reported it during the Iraq war.

The Russians who have been in Syria since then and who have "assets" they are currently trying to "protect" which begs the question whose chemical weapons are they?

Saddams or Assads?

Where did they get them?

Since Chemical weapons need a launch vehicle either artillery based or rocket based as in the most famous SCUD both of Russian design since Russia has armed Syria with weapons.

If they are ready to use chemical weapons that is just saying how bad the "rebels" are kicking the Assad regimes butt, and as everyone knows there has one been 1 other Middle Eastern Country to use chemical weapons-Iraq and Saddam.

IT also tells just exactty how "democratic,loved Assad is" when he is ready to kill his enemy by whatever means he has.

Enter the Assad defenders.

reply to post by dedpope


Friday the UN meets... Tick tock...

Ahmed Chalabi Is that you?

This man is morally bankrupt.
He defected, left his leader his home his people. Yes, Assad is wrong, but for someone to stab him in the back shows he's capable of it.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

How is that a straw man?

It's not relevant that the United States and other nations are actively creating biological weapons? Meanwhile complaining that other nations are doing the same, even though the likely reality is that they are far more likely to use said weapons than those nations ever have of developing them?

First off, let me be very clear about my stance here. I'm against any intervention by ALL sides in this conflict. Second, I was asking what would your tune be if it was discovered that chemical weapons were deployed by the regime. Your reply indicated that you would believe it to be a lie.

My observation of your Contempt prior to investigation still stands. I'm not convicting them beforehand I was just asking point blank. Your reply seemed very opinionated and bias before any such event has even occurred [If it even does]

I think it's quite relevant to point out the hypocrisy of one nation telling another " oh, no you can't have that piece of the pie, that pie is for us."

Hypothetically speaking, If Russia told the US not to deploy it's Chemical arsenal in combat and the US chose to do so the fault would still be with the US

No?

Come on, me and you both know how the Industrial Military Complex works, it's a bros club and if you aren't a bro you aren't in the club. Libya, Iran,Afghanistan, Iraq weren't in that club anymore cause the leaders that the "free world" helped prop up weren't or aren't playing ball anymore.

That's a given yet will this still justify Chemical weapons being deployed? Come on yourself. You know damn well that Chemical weapons are a horrible way to wage warfare not only does one side lose control over who it kills but often as had been proven repeatedly in WW-I it often ends up killing their own troops when the wind changes direction.

Right?

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
I don't believe anyone can be surprised by this announcement, common knowledge had Syria with Chemical Weapons, regardless if they utilize them, or they ""Utilize Them""" it's a Win - Win Situation for the West,

AND THERE IT IS FOLKS, I couldn't have said it better my self. No matter what, this will give the west "just cause" to move in. I think Syria is the "match to the oil of the middle east" pun intended

Originally posted by SLAYER69

First off, let me be very clear about my stance here. I'm against any intervention by ALL sides in this conflict. Second, I was asking what would be your tune be if it was discovered that chemical weapons were deployed by the regime. Your reply indicated that you would believe it to be a lie.

Were on the same page for intervention. Yes, I would probably believe, without some actual validating evidence, which unfortunately I'm far too jaded to think exists, that Chemical Weapons were either planted and or used, but not by who actually did, but who the media was told to tell.

My observation of your Contempt prior to investigation still stands. I'm not convicting them beforehand I was just asking point blank. Your reply seemed very opinionated and bias before any such event has even occurred [If it even does]

Yup, I'm pretty skeptical and biased in my opinions regarding war mongers who own large armies capable of laying waste to pretty much anybody threatening to ignite conflicts in unstable regions.

It's just very hard for me to believe that everything which comes from the MSM isn't a propaganda mouth piece for one group or another.

Hypothetically speaking, If Russia told the US not to deploy it's Chemical arsenal in combat and the US chose to do so the fault would still be with the US

No?

Of course they would be at fault, I never stated that Syria would be somehow not guilty for using weapons just because the United States has them. I'm just making the point that when are a country that has been known for chemical warfare yourself, along with things like depleted uranium shells, takes the moral high ground on weapons it's kind of hard to take them seriously.

That's a given yet will this still justify Chemical weapons being deployed? Come on yourself. You know damn well that Chemical weapons are a horrible way to wage warfare not only does one side lose control over who dies but often as had been proven repeatedly in WW-! they often end up killing their own troops when the wind changes direction.

100% agreement. No chemical weapons, ever. I don't want them deployed, I hope they don't exist at all actually.

I'm just trying to point out that propaganda is at play here and there is a larger game that Syria is involved in which leads directly to Iran.

~Tenth

Neo, you beat me to it!

Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

pjmedia.com...

But even if WMD's are to be used, we won't be going to war.

Rhetoric didn't help the Kurds when Saddam used them.

And it won't move Obama.
(it's an election year)

The problem is this. Assad in Power with Chemical weapons, or Assad out of Power, and that leaves the chemical weapons, with who then ? Assad and his Country NEVER signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, so their is no proof of him having it, except from intelligence gathering.

Being that Israel destroyed any chance of Syria's ambitions at making a Nuclear Bomb, The next best thing, for a weapon, is chemical. A lot cheaper to produce,a lot easier to distribute. MHO

reply to post by sonnny1


I'm starting to suspect that this may be one reason why Russia has it's panties in a bunch. They could possibly have supplied Syria with any number of types of weapons platforms and desperately

A.) Don't want them to be discovered if the whole brick S-house goes up in flames

or

B.) Don't want said possible platforms falling into the wrong hands.

Either way, it could possibly expose Russia in a unfavorable and embarrassing manner after all the Rhetoric they have been spewing about not supplying one side or the other. [Regardless of those Attack Choppers] Takes his Tinfoil hat off and pours a tall one.

Originally posted by sonnny1
The problem is this. Assad in Power with Chemical weapons, or Assad out of Power, and that leaves the chemical weapons, with who then ? Assad and his Country NEVER signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, so their is no proof of him having it, except from intelligence gathering.

Being that Israel destroyed any chance of Syria's ambitions at making a Nuclear Bomb, The next best thing, for a weapon, is chemical. A lot cheaper to produce,a lot easier to distribute. MHO

Sure enough which brings up the question that what will happen to Gadaffi's chemical wepaons with the power vacuum.

Which brings up another question where did they get them in the fist place?

Russia?
US?
Iran?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I'm starting to suspect that this may be one reason why Russia has it's panties in a bunch. They could possibly have supplied Syria with any number of types of weapons platforms and desperately

A.) Don't want them to be discovered if the the whole brick S-house goes up in flames

or

B.) Don't want said possible platform falling into the wrong hands.

Either way, it could possibly expose Russia in a unfavorable and embarrassing manner after all the Rhetoric they have been spewing about not supplying one side or the other. [Regardless of those Attack Choppers] Takes his Tinfoil hat off and pours a tall one.

The most logical explanation for Russia telling the WEST to stay out of Syria.

With all due Respect. GOOD!

America has no right to just piss on yet another "Yellow-man Sovereign Nation"

The Dufusses who lead our Country are on a collision course, to get perfectly well-meaning Americans caught up in their agenda and rapidly dead for profiteering later.

We have zero right to FIX another country, when there are homeless, and jobless, and starving Americans anywhere within our own borders.

FU Criminal leadership, Mafia with a Government Glove on.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I'm starting to suspect that this may be one reason why Russia has it's panties in a bunch. They could possibly have supplied Syria with any number of types of weapons platforms and desperately

A.) Don't want them to be discovered if the the whole brick S-house goes up in flames

or

B.) Don't want said possible platform falling into the wrong hands.

Either way, it could possibly expose Russia in a unfavorable and embarrassing manner after all the Rhetoric they have been spewing about not supplying one side or the other. [Regardless of those Attack Choppers] Takes his Tinfoil hat off and pours a tall one.

Agree. 100%

Syria lost how many wars, and was bombed by Israel, how many times? The proxy wars, etc........

Yeah, if I was Israel, I would be on alert. I would take the threat as genuine.

Originally posted by beezzer
Neo, you beat me to it!

Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

pjmedia.com...

But even if WMD's are to be used, we won't be going to war.

Rhetoric didn't help the Kurds when Saddam used them.

And it won't move Obama.
(it's an election year)

Wikileaks confirmed that Saddams WMD's were moved to Syria but doesn't get 'recognized" for that as well as others:

archive.newsmax.com...

archive.newsmax.com...

So the old Syrian ambassador to Iraq defects and talks of Al-Qaeda working for the 'regime' and being responsible for the bombings. There's talk of chemical weapons poised and ready to be used against the people. Well, there's your Fox News tag-lines taken care of.

Al-Qaeda. WMD.

Scared yet?

Originally posted by Badgered1

So the old Syrian ambassador to Iraq defects and talks of Al-Qaeda working for the 'regime' and being responsible for the bombings. There's talk of chemical weapons poised and ready to be used against the people. Well, there's your Fox News tag-lines taken care of.

Al-Qaeda. WMD.

Scared yet?

Nope. As I stated, Obama doesn't want this during an election year.
Just like with Iran, he'll beat his chest and sound tough, but *meh* nothing but noise.

Obama cares more for looking good than taking the risk that intervening might or might not be the right thing to do.

I am just going to chime in with my going stance at the moment. No intervention, by any nation.That is not to say that is not happening, because it probably is? Covertly of course. Just can't keep intelligence communities from going after the low-lying fruit, and there is plenty of it lying around in Syria. A central government seemingly on the ropes, and a bunch influential hearts and minds prime for the plucking as they wage rebellion. That is what I would call a spook's wet dream, and a smorgasbord of opportunity. Just don't get caught. Weapons and supplies for weary insurrectionists go together about as much as lollipops and children. So to say that it is not going on is being naive.

However, I am against any such behavior because the major powers are using this issue as a means to poke sticks at each other without having to face one another in a more traditional combat setting. Civilians and government forces are being used as cannon fodder in yet another grand game of chess between the major powers. It is shaping up to be another proxy war as we have seen so much of during the Cold War. Everyone hissing and pissing at each other from their little podiums in the UN, or utilizing similar rhetoric on the international stage.

All that needs to be said is this, if you use WMD's against any regional countries or even threaten to use them in desperation? Expect an international response! Plain and simple. As some have already pointed out, nobody did a thing to Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds. I suppose it was out of sight out of mind as long as he was willing to throw men, treasure, and equipment into the meat grinder known as the Iran/Iraq War. it resulted in millions being killed, and lasted a decade. A lot of nations wanted to get even with Iran after the fall of the Shah. Saddam became their useful fool. Things go horribly wrong, and we have more equipment and men being sent over there to patch things up. I do not want to see that happening if it can be avoided.

Let the Syrians fight amongst themselves. Furthermore, this diplomat got run out of his job with the regime and has an axe to grind. At least that is how I see it. I would believe him as much as I would believe a used car salesman. Glass half full. I realize that Syria is in terrible shape, but the rebels knew what was involved by taking up arms against the regime. That is their burden to carry as far as I am concerned. I say that only as it is now. If the regime decides to do something catastrophic? Then plans need to be devised to deal with it, and I would wager they are already in place. Smoke 'em if you got 'em! In the meantime, just watch and wait.

He is no threat to America so why should we even care? We need to worry more about fixing our own country instead of worrying about what's happening in another country.

Yes, it was so also with Mr. Sharam Amiri (Iranian nuclear scientist).
He was treathened and later paid by the CIA to say the "truth", i.e. to give false information about Iran's nuclear work .
Who can assure that Mr. Nawaf Fares also didn't get paid or treathened to say a "convenient truth"?