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

No idea whether Syria is really doing this or not, but it's also pretty unclear how the unnamed US officials would know one way or another. About the only thing that is clear is that everything's about to hit the fan whether it's true or not.

reply to post by MeesterB


Did you read the article? It said multiple deaths and injuries in that mosque. So you can see that instance and think probably a one off tactic?

Is "obligatory" your on your word of the day calender this morning or something? It's good that you caught the full implication of the sigh though, annoying that you thought relating it was impressive or indicative of your intelligence, but good that you caught it.

Of course the violence should stop, but in order for it to stop we might have to understand why the western world is pushing for these rebels whether in Syria or Libya, or wherever they might end up. There is something at stake besides a mock civil war and the bloodshed wont stop until we understand what it is.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I just watched the video as it was apparent that your source was biased. As I said, both sides are dirty.

Is the word "the" your word of the day? ugh plebeians...

Edit: Yes, I think it's significant that the western world is siding with one side on humanitarian or "freedom" grounds while people suffer in NK, but I see it more as a natural course for nations wanting things to play out in their interest and not so much a direct cause. I think we differ on this opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. Granted this is ATS so it makes sense that the U.S. would only have evil intentions, and I'm not sure that they don't. Maybe it's new world imperialism, but the ball is already rolling, so we'll see as it plays out. For the record, I want the U.S. out of the middle east a.s.a.p. so I see your point, but I can't help but be moved by the suffering of children.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

ya gotta love the disclaimer? at the start of the page.

So far, intelligence sources say, bombs loaded with the components of sarin haven't yet been loaded onto planes. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

i confess, i stopped reading here ... straight from the Horses' mouth ...

"Ultimately, what we should be thinking about is a political transition in Syria and one that should start as soon as possible," Clinton said. "We believe their fall is inevitable. It is just a question of how many people have to die before that occurs."

before i read any further, i'm going with - it's one big propaganda piece.

i think someone should be pointing their finger at the US for all their locked/loaded nuke variety missiles stashed all over the world
(yes, family members babysit them)

big freakin' deal ... he prepared them (maybe)
i seriously doubt Assad would deploy them on Syrians ... he never has, why would he now ?

IF, if and If ... for only 2 letters, that's an awfully big word, isn't it?

If this is legit say hello to middle eastern war #4

CNN is reporting this now (basically reporting that NBC is reporting it):

CNN Link

They show video that was purportedly taken, looking like it was taken from maybe 10 feet away from missiles that are allegedly modified for the chemical warheads. Though they say they cannot independently confirm the video no one is asking the obvious question... If someone who doesn't want this to happen is right there videoing it, why is no one doing anything to stop it? Hmmm...

Whether its me that says it or someone else:

The World: "December 21, 2012? Pfft, get out of my face."

[Early December, 2012]: "Oo, look.. a red button labeled 'WAR' .."

Well played, Mayans. Well played.

That was meant as a half-joke. Ease some of the tension on this thread!

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I posted a little evidence. I doubt they will look at it.

You did better than I. My evidence would violate decency . They can view plenty of FSA snuff films if they search YouTube a little.

Irrefutable evidence by Internet doesn't really exist. It is the preponderance of evidence thru careful research that leads one to conclusions. Of course, like you said, they have to have more than a passing interest.

reply to post by MeesterB


You can see other sources for it. It was leaked by a defecting FSA that was just the first source I found it on, it wasn't the original source I viewed the video on.

Calling me a plebian makes little since as you have little context of who I am, so you could be considered the same based on how you appear in this thread. I hate reducing a thread to name calling, just do your homework and we can avoid further confrontation.

reply to post by intrptr


Yep, it's become clear what's happening.

Clinton mentions chemical weapons might be the direction while western forces are mobilizing, media continues propaganda, western media starts playing the chemical weapons card immediately after Clinton's remarks and exaggerating the claims, it's all the big set up for going in.

We are going in. Whether they need an act or they have enough, I don't know, but western forces are 100% going into Syria. Don't know if it will be a lot or a little.

According to CNN
edition.cnn.com...#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/06/ac-syria-chemical-weapon-threat-scenarios.cnn


18-20,000 would die in the first few seconds from 1x122mm shell of Sarin?

are you kidding me? that sounds like a very propogandish figure.

There are many possibilities. It could be (anti-Assad) propaganda, designed to justify an invasion of Syria? Or it could of course be a real threat. Maybe they (Assad & Co) expects an impending invasion of Syria, and these weapons are prepared in order to be used against the invading forces? Or a trick (by Assad & Co), aiming to scare off any potentional invaders? In times of war, lies and propaganda (and bluffs) may come from all sides.

OK, I know Debka is widely considered to be Mossad propaganda, but they have just covered this story and added some additional data about American force movements:

The USS Eisenhower Strike Group transited the Suez Canal from the Persian Gulf Saturday, Dec. 1, sailing up to the Syrian coast Tuesday in a heavy storm, with 8 fighter bomber squadrons of Air Wing Seven on its decks and 8,000 sailors, airmen and Marines.
The USS Eisenhower group joins the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group which carries 2,500 Marines.

Facing Syria now are 10,000 US fighting men, 70 fighter-bombers and at least 17 warships, including the three Iwo Jima amphibious craft, a guided missile cruiser and 10 destroyers and frigates.
Four of these vessels are armed with Aegis missile interceptors.
This mighty US armada brings immense pressure to bear on the beleaguered Assad regime after it survied an almost two-year buffeting by an armed uprising. Its presence indicates that the United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits.
Left behind in the Persian Gulf is just one US aircraft carrier, the USS Stennis and its strike group.

SOURCE

reply to post by Hellmutt


Shouldn't assad know that nerve gas wouldn't be much use against the U.S. military. That would invite destruction, and wouldn't be very effective as the U.S. is dressed to the nines with equipment.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Actually, in General Videla's defense, those were not inncoent people that were killed, they were subversive terrorists, look up the 'Montoneros' and 'Ejercito Revolucionario del Pueblo'. Military action was 100% necesary

But back to the subject,
It should be interesting to see how this develops, hopefully Assad isnt crazy enough to use these weapons

Honestly I am expecting a fake chemical weapon attack.

Everyone is screaming "DONT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS"

Meanwhile, the enemies of assad (either internal or foreign operatives) are preparing to launch chemical attacks from within. Conveniently both LIFG fighters and brittish special forces were just in Libya, where they had a whole bunch of chemical weapons remaining that nobody has asked about since the war there was 'won'...

reply to post by Hellmutt


Syria wouldn't do anything that justified outside forces invading, but the west is definitelty prepping to invade so who knows. Maybe they ARE prepping them for if there is an invasion.

Do you think they would use them pre-invasion?

reply to post by cartesia


I was talking about that in another thread. We know alqeada/rebels are in control now in Libya, what kinda weapons did they add to their arsenal or take to put on the black market after they took that country.

This entire topic, is based on ignorance.

These sort of weapons, were banned after WWI. The bottom of the eastern sea, is covered with sunken vessels, filled with these shells. Sunk there, by Germany after WWI. The French did the same, in New Guinea, if I'm correct.

The french also made a coverage of the attack on the Kurd village, in the 80's. It was never clear, who actually fired the shells. But the gas used, was a left over from the world wars. And the French took a look at the Iraqis, and found out that the shells markings were old, and non-readable. It was "thought" that the soldiers didn't see a difference between these shells, and normal shells. These were not delivered by missiles, but by shell bombardments.

However, the compound of the gas was American. Which makes the whole scenario suspect ... what American company sold gas to Iraq in the 80's. It's just as likely that it was an old stockpile, from the Szar in Iran. Because Iraq got its weapons from Russia, not the US. And the US, was actually supplying Iran, secretly with weapons, during the Iran-Iraq war.

Nobody uses these weapons ... the US has them, as does China, Russia, England ... and they "plan" to deliver them using long range missiles. These weapons are unpredictable in warfare, because they're as likely to blow over you own soldiers, as the enemy soldiers. This is the experience, the Germans and the French have from WWI, and why both nations abandoned these weapons as a result. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but out of necessity.

So, if you wanna look at a culprit to gases, look closer at home ... go talk to your own governror. Because YOU sold these weapons, to those who are about to use them. And by HAVING these weapons, and producing them, you are violating the already agreed on terms of WWI.

Originally posted by BrianG
Those are the ones Bush said were in Iraq but got trucked into Syria

"Do you miss me yet?" W
2nd line