Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 





As long as you are "our" dictator, it's perfectly acceptable to be a despot.


Sadly that seems to be the truth.
Point being, I highly doubt Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people and if he used them at all, I truly believe that it would be defensive, not offensive.




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I suppose then every bit of information thats ever come out from confidential sources is untrue huh?

NO, just that it's not newsworthy until it has something to back it up. Besides rumor I mean. Citing "official" sources or "un-nameable confidants" is a clue to the motivations of the source.

Makes the story in fact lose credence.



I completely understand what you are aiming at..........I just dont agree with you......

I think anytime things like this come up they need to be investigated to find out the truth behind them......

They said the same thing about the pentagon coming out about them NOT having these weapons......it was a "source at the pentagon"

So taking one side over the other being that they are completely the same release wise, seems to be a bit disengenious......

It could also be said that its just "rumor" that they ARENT arming bombs with this stuff......

Id rather err on the side of caution and investigate whether they are or not, then err on the side of negligence and assume they dont, and deal with the aftermath.......

HOWEVER , I dont believe its our place to get involved in that direction, the world seems to favor the UN so id be interested to see if they are diligent in investigating and taking care of the situation.......

We cannot afford to get involved in anymore ground operations or anything else in that region.........

People scream at the US for getting involved then scream when we dont, so were kind of in a no win situation.......

But I do believe we need to protect our own.........

I suppose there is no easy answer to this situation........



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Matewhawk
 


I agree with you. It makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons knowing it would be a death sentence for him. Another occupation coming in 2013 I guess.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Saddam used Chemical agents on Iranians too during the war between Iran and Iraq. Not much is said about it. My bet is that the shells were American. I think the ones he used on the Kurds were too. Something for which there is quite a lot of evidence.

www.payvand.com...

So far, I have not seen one shred of proof that Syria has the same intentions. Using lethal chemical agents on its own people. Thats a ridiculous insinuation. But one I expect from a western media outlet that has lied to us before about WMD. But we believe them this time too, huh?
edit on 5-12-2012 by intrptr because: correction...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I really have to preface this by saying I am somewhat of a pacifist when it comes to all things living. Hell, I even catch spiders in our humble little abode and put them outside instead of squishing their brains out their arses.

Having said that, what's going on in Syria is horrible and it stands to get a whole lot worse given the latest regarding the loading of precurser whatevers to complete the transformation of sarin gas into a weapons grade material.

While it may give some people a sense of security that Syrian forces loyal to this Assad character are saying . . .

it will not use these types of weapons, if they were available, under any circumstances against its people,"
(source) . . . you have to remember that these are the same forces responsible for more than 28,000 civilians.

Its kinda like them saying whoa there pard'ner . . . we gonna blow their arms and legs off and leave a whack of women and children to rot in the rubble of their blown up homes . . . but we ain't gonna kill them all nasty-like

Makes you kinda think twice on that 'assurance'.

The questions are . . . do the have 'em, will they use 'em and can we live with ourselves if the answser is affirmative in the first two.

Hardly the kind of stuff you want to play Monday Morning Quarterback with now is it?

The other thing is that if this stuff is if it is all set to go, blowing it up will just disperse it, so stratigic air strikes are kinda out of the mix now, too.

Tough to play coulda-woulda-shoulda at this point but maybe something should have been done a while ago as at this point going after these weapons will undoubtedly be the quintessential double-edged sword.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





So far, I have not seen one shred of proof that Syria has the same intentions. Using lethal chemical agents on its own people. Thats a ridiculous insinuation. But one I expect from a western media outlet that has lied to us before about WMD. But we believe them this time, huh?


whose to say he wouldnt? Sadam did indeed use them during the Iran war, but he also used them on his own people.....

its well documented not only by the west but by his own people there, they told all about it, and the mass graves were also found, it was the people there that led them to their discovery........

Saying that a crazy tyrant wont use weapons like this on his own people , IMHO is naive

Whose to say Assad isnt just as crazy?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


It's not a pleasant scenario, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder why now. I think he'd have used them already if he were going to use them at all. Also, as you and others have pointed out, it's not as if we haven't heard this sales pitch before. I bought it last time. This time it'll take more proof than the CIA's word on it, for me.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Exactly. We duped over Afghanistan, duped over Iraq, duped over Libya... You'd have thought we'd have learnt by now. Basically the West, the Gulf states and Turkey want him gone, and if it takes a chemical attack to force public and international support to remove him, they will do it, make no mistake



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


It's worth noting that whilst Saddam was using chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, he did it with Western knowledge and full Western backing. This isn't about humanitarianism, it's about removing a state that doesnt bend to our will



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


He could use them, history shows us that his father (yes, yes, I know it's not him...) was a ruthless SOB when it came to opposition...but as I said a few minutes ago. Why now? What's changed recently to make this seem to be an option for him whereas it wasn't earlier? Is the opposition getting that stronger in the last few weeks/days?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


"We have amongst ourselves many fine orators capable of feigning enthusiasm and of convincing the masses

The other great power is the press.
By ceaselessly repeating certain ideas, the press in the end makes them considered as truths.
The theatre renders similar services, everywhere theatre and press follow there directives.

But even a carefully-made counterfeit will fool only those who do not know the difference:

All of Islam and political Zionism (Israelis) will destroy each other while at the same time; the remaining nations, once more divided on this issue, will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion; physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically.

It means indoctrination into accepting the idea that only a one-world government can put an end to recurring wars and strife.
Let the war games begin.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Matewhawk
 


If I remember right, Saddam got the "ingredients" to make these from the US, France, UK, and Germany.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Somebody explain to me, why Assad would use Chemical Weapons?

It would literally mean that NATO would kick down his door a long with anybody else who had a vested interest in taking the mantle of peace keeper.

You can't tell me he's that dumb.

" quote by a senior US official huh?"

Show me the sat photography at least. Something MORE than hearsay and perhaps I will believe you.

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


...and more, sing a totally different tune ...well...just yesterday


.oO(It's scary to think that people don't question such inconsistent babble that comes from MSM more.)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


Sadly. The industry is playing a large part in keeping our economies afloat at the minute. Another reason for the war mongering. Feed the defence and chemical industries whilst the real economy eats itself...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
This sounds like the makings of World War III.


If this information proves to be true, Israel is going to go medieval on Syria. I'm almost positive of that. They won't stand to have their citizens exposed to this nerve agent through air currents.

So what do the major powers in the world do? It seems like more intel is needed before any action is taken. How would a military even dispatch these bombs? I would think that short of using incendiary bombs (to burn the agent) or *gulps* nuclear weapons, there would have to be a "door to door" effort to dismantle every one of these bombs, as another poster mentioned.

*sigh*

Scary stuff folks. Hopefully it turns out to be a false report. *crosses fingers*


-TS
edit on 5-12-2012 by truthseeker1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I suppose then every bit of information thats ever come out from confidential sources is untrue huh?

NO, just that it's not newsworthy until it has something to back it up. Besides rumor I mean. Citing "official" sources or "un-nameable confidants" is a clue to the motivations of the source.

Makes the story in fact lose credence.


That's the real problem with this sort of big-time world-scope news that envelopes such controversial material . . . if the reporter names the sources, either the reporter or the sources wind up in the wood chipper, or it's pretty much the last story outside of covering the Mayberry Summer Farm Fair that reporter would ever cover on account of they cannot be trusted to keep their sources confidential. And, the audit trail goes further than the reporter. There is an assignment editor, a print editor, a managing editor and a publisher who have all been assured that there are at least two sources for this information or it would never have seen the light of day beyond a brief reference in a Sorcha Faal piece on made-up-load-o-crap.com.

I spent nearly a decade in both print and broadcast media as a reporter and can assure you if a confidential source was ever named, you're black-listed for the rest of your career.

So, to me, the fact that the reporters put their name to the story and hold confidential their sources, it lends a greater degree of credence to the printed word.

They're puttin' it out there so to speak.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


They said the same thing about the pentagon coming out about them NOT having these weapons......it was a "source at the pentagon"

Probably because the US supplied them. It was convenient to deny it until they are no longer in our corner. Then it becomes a liability or even an excuse to regain control of the stocks of chemicals. There is a lot of confusion on the issue to be sure. The US armed many countries in the Middle East with chemical weapons. So did the Soviet Union (Russia). Normal people go WTF, but a lot of questionable decisions were made during the cold war. Instead of nuclear weapons, satellite countries of the Super Powers were issued the poor mans WMD, a cocktail of chemical murder-death-kill. The US spent a lot of time destroying vast stocks of it in Iraq. Cleaning up our own mess.

You can google it. The thing we can't be sure of is the intentions of a country to use these things. Syria never has. Claiming they will is libelous. Remember that word? It used to mean a lawsuit.

There are countries whose intent it is to invade, conquer and subjugate other countries in the Middle East. They have a proven track record. And they have no problem using weapons that leave traces of radioactivity (Depleted Uranium), horrific burns (white phosphorous), etc. I should be more concerned about their intentions in regards to Syria.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Just in case anyone needs any hard evidence, I urge you to go to the Brookings Institute website and download a pdf called Unraveling the Syrian Mess. The BI incidentally is Washingtons oldest thinktank - very influential in the policy arena. This doc, from the Mid East centre, very influential on US middle east policy. The whole document is very indicative of the real US ambition, but the bit that got me was the admittance to use of terrorists in achieving its goals, page 5 specifically. Go check it out



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 

Thanks for the perspective.


I spent nearly a decade in both print and broadcast media as a reporter and can assure you if a confidential source was ever named, you're black-listed for the rest of your career.

And at the same time you would never just accept the word of an "informant" without something to back it up, would you?





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join