Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Syria accuses rebels of using chemical weapons

page: 2
117
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Libya to arm rebels in Syria
...
MISRATA, Libya: Syrian rebels have held secret talks with Libya's new authorities, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against Bashar al-Assad's regime, it has been revealed.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested assistance from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms and, potentially, volunteers.

''There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,'' a Libyan source said, on condition of anonymity. ''There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.''

www.smh.com.au...
oh, so the US supported al CIA DuH rebels the US fought in Iraq, then installed in Lybia, are selling thier chemical weapons to the US backed rebels in Syria...
do tell...




posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Actually, Libya was Europe's baby..not America's, Credit where credit is due...


America just played a supporting role in that one for once. It would seem the U.S. would support Satan himself and give him a job at the White House if it meant they could murder Assad and take over Syria in the bargain. Syria is the strategic key to so much more ...if they can take it without destroying the whole place in World War III.

(We need to leave...watch from thousands of miles away...and offer assistance to the survivors when it's over, IMO)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


roger that
doubt the reasonable will happen though
I was recalling the list of countries to be invaded that was published in rolling stone some years ago...
I forget the general's name that was being interviewed...Clark, I think it was maybe

and to be fair Kanukistan dropped some major bombings in the NATO Lybia "invasion" too
edit on 19-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Actually, Libya was Europe's baby..not America's, Credit where credit is due...



Actually it was NATO's baby, we can't just blame Europe. Even my Canadian bretheren were dropping bombs on innocent civilians, and the USA were a major part of the operation including but not limited to dropping propaganda pamphlets and blasting propaganda via loud speaker as they fly by, not to trivialize all the tomahawk missiles that destroyed much of Libya sent from American warships.

Sorry Wrabbit, you can't distance Uncle Sam from that one.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
just on dutch MSM...
NATO preparing for action agains Syria...
www.nu.nl...
guess the gas attack was an 3'th party valse flag...
how conveniant ..and perfect timing .... couse cypres will reject the monotairy aid...bringing the eurozone on the edge of existance.....
to the warlords



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The European Union and Britain spent years between Libya surrendering of all WMD after the Iraq invasion and lifting of their status as a pariah to the time they murdered him, making a small fortune out of arms sales to Libya. I'm surprised you don't recall, since I thought you'd been on the thread where someone called me on this once before. I'll have to dig a bit but I have a dozen pages or so in one of my folders with the data sheets and export records showing just how much and what specifically had been supplied into Libya in large quantities. That was shipped almost exclusively out of E.U. nations and Britain...not us. Not THAT nation, anyway. (We supplied everyone else...lol)

America may be good for many a disaster...but as much as the U.S. has screwed with Libya after the place fell and moved right in like we owned the place in the aftermath? Even the U.S. Carrier just kinda passed through and waved at the shoreline during combat operations and the removal of Gadaffi. If we'd been heavily involved, the Carrier would have parked and engaged...as they have in times before off that same coastline under previous Presidents who Gadaffi pissed off a bit too much.

Obama seemed quite determined to do nothing but support this one...especially since he told Congress he didn't have to follow the notification requirements of the War Powers Act specifically because he wasn't taking any lead role or more than logistics and intelligence help (for the most part).



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   


Syrian opposition elects (American?) interim prime minister

ISTANBUL (AP) — Syria's opposition coalition early Tuesday elected a little-known American-educated IT manager and Islamic activist to head an interim government to administer areas seized by rebel forces from President Bashar Assad's troops.

Ghassan Hitto received 35 votes out of 48 ballots cast by the opposition Syrian National Coalition's 63 active members during a meeting in Istanbul. The results were read aloud by coalition member Hisham Marwa to applause from a few dozen of his colleagues who had waited until after 1 a.m. to hear the results.

"I miss my wife and children and I look forward to seeing them soon," said Hitto, who has lived in the United States for decades and recently moved from Texas to Turkey to help coordinate aid to rebel-held areas.

news.yahoo.com...

don't we bomb countries where terrorists come from?

eta
PS
yes, we do bomb countries where terrorists come from which ties into one of my main points here at ATS:
it will come home to rust in turn...have a care
edit on 19-3-2013 by Danbones because: PS
edit on 19-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If the Assad regime is using chemical weapons then that makes them the bad guys and the rebels the good guys unless they are the Muslim Brotherhood except for Egypt when we give them money and if they are Taliban then they are bad unless they are the Taliban that we like in Afghanistan where we don't like them, unless we do.
But. .
If the rebels are the ones using chemical weapons against the Assad regime then they are the bad guys against Assad who by comparison is a good guy unless you see his history where that makes him a bad guy unless he gets gassed, although the EU and America is supplying weapons and stuff to the rebels so that makes us the bad guys if they (the rebels) are using chemical weapons.

(Now I have a nose bleed)

I'm just going to root for some pretty girl on Idol and let the rest of the world blow itself the hell up!



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I know what you mean. Makes your head spin. It is funny how this coincides with the Obama trip in the Middle east.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The European Union and Britain spent years between Libya surrendering of all WMD after the Iraq invasion and lifting of their status as a pariah to the time they murdered him, making a small fortune out of arms sales to Libya. I'm surprised you don't recall, since I thought you'd been on the thread where someone called me on this once before. I'll have to dig a bit but I have a dozen pages or so in one of my folders with the data sheets and export records showing just how much and what specifically had been supplied into Libya in large quantities. That was shipped almost exclusively out of E.U. nations and Britain...not us. Not THAT nation, anyway. (We supplied everyone else...lol)

America may be good for many a disaster...but as much as the U.S. has screwed with Libya after the place fell and moved right in like we owned the place in the aftermath? Even the U.S. Carrier just kinda passed through and waved at the shoreline during combat operations and the removal of Gadaffi. If we'd been heavily involved, the Carrier would have parked and engaged...as they have in times before off that same coastline under previous Presidents who Gadaffi pissed off a bit too much.

Obama seemed quite determined to do nothing but support this one...especially since he told Congress he didn't have to follow the notification requirements of the War Powers Act specifically because he wasn't taking any lead role or more than logistics and intelligence help (for the most part).



I hate to derail your thread with discussions about LIbya but since I am replying to your post I will feel less guilty about it


Regardless of what the EU may have done prior to the NATO bombardment of Libya, it was a NATO operation with NATO countries. Italy was pretty much the ground base for NATO operations meanwhile the USA pretty much ran the naval aspect of the campaign.

Sarkozy and Clinton both cheered on and justified the action on live TV as the NATO "no fly zone" was put into effect (no I'm not talking about when Hillary jumped for joy once Gadafi was murdered).

As for Obama, he just said what he thought would make him look good prior to the upcoming election. Nothing he says should be taken seriously, in fact, anything he says you can pretty much expect for him to do the exact opposite.

No matter which way you try and spin it, the USA shares equal guilt with the EU for the Libya fiasco regardless of who sent more money or aid to the rebels. In fact, the US navy did more damage to Libya than the rebels did if you consider how they destroyed several urban centers with their barrage of rockets and missiles that rained upon the civilian population of Libya in order to support the rebels. The rebels would have had no chance of winning that war without the assistance of the US Navy and the airforce of other NATO members, including Canada as I previously mentioned.

In my opinion it is quite clear that the United States did the most damage in Libya so I find it odd that you would try and distance your government's actions from this conflict. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, please forgive me if I have done so.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Rebels did not use chemical weapons Propaganda from Assad.


Source?

I only ask because you presented it as fact.

At the very least provide the reasoning behind your unsubstantiated claim, please



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


unsubstantiated eh?

That comment is soooo rich .


WASHINGTON — White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday there's "no evidence" that Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons.


www.usatoday.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rodinus
they too have done as many warcrimes as Bashar al Assad...


Could you mention some of those?
Cause i've never really heard any even the MSM were vague.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


unsubstantiated eh?

That comment is soooo rich .


WASHINGTON — White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday there's "no evidence" that Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons.


www.usatoday.com...



Well you seem to believe anything that comes out of the White House so of course you will dismiss any news that isn't supported by the White House.

If the White House said it, it must be true


We all know how accurate their track record is (sarcasm)

That being said, as I mentioned on page one, from December of last year...


Syria: Terrorists Use Chemical Weapons against Army

Armed rebels used chemical weapons in their attacks against the Syrian army in Reef (outskirts of) Damascus on Sunday.

The terrorists used chemical weapons against the Syrian army forces in Darya district of Reef Damascus today.

"The terrorists have already thrown three cube-shaped plastic bags towards the (Syrian) army's forces that killed seven forces due to the gases emerging from the bags," a commander of the Syrian Presidential Guard told the Iran-based Arab-language Al-Alam news channel on Sunday.

The commander noted that a yellow button is installed on the bags and by pushing that a yellow gas came out and those who inhaled it died after nearly one hour.


I am willing to admit the possibility that this was Assad propaganda, but there were several reports of this incident and unbiased witness testimony to back it up...in fact I even saw the videos of the victims convulsing from the previous attack that never received any MSM attention.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 





Well you seem to believe anything that comes out of the White House so of course you will dismiss any news that isn't supported by the White House.


You? are posters the topic here?

Since when?

The decision was based off Assad/Syrian Propaganda video( easily found on youtube)now when a chemical attack occurs everything those people do in that video just does not ever happen.

Ever.

No proper gear, and no training





I am willing to admit the possibility that this was Assad propaganda


There is no "possibility" a chemical attack is one of the most nastiest things a person will ever see, and none of the visual indicators were present.
edit on 19-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Why is that alot of people on this board support dictators, fascist, islamic terrorists and communists whom all would block freedom of speech and sites like this? Why do you guys support them?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
Why is that alot of people on this board support dictators, fascist, islamic terrorists and communists whom all would block freedom of speech and sites like this? Why do you guys support them?


Are they so different from our so called leaders?

Yes we are allowed to talk about it, but are we allowed to act on it? Nope.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

How can it be off topic when I moved that direction in the first place? Besides, the OP is about Chemical Weapons in the hands of a group that is drawn from the street fighters and irregular forces all over the region...including Libya. So, when those warheads may be flying to and fro, I'd say the entire region is very much in play and VERY much in line to the discussion. Particularly when, if this is verified one way or another, no one seems to know where they came from?

Anyway.... I'll meet you half way on this U.S is equally to blame for something we just played a bit part and support role in ...as long as you're not taking any double standards on that. If by mere support of the Libyan operation to kill Gadaffi, we're equally to blame and accountable? Well, then at the risk of being a touch off topic here, I will hold to saying Canada, the UK and Australia are all 100% equally guilty for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Logistics and support from those nations started before the shooting did...they they all contributed active combat forces in both places (England controlled an entire sector of Iraq for that matter).

If we're good to holding that standard of accountability when it's NOT the U.S. coming up on the short end of it, then that's fair enough. Right?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
They are discussing this topic on Infowars.com on Alex Jones Show.

According to AJ the "global elite" used chemical weapons to try to pin it on Assad. It's actually pretty interesting.

-SAP-
edit on 19-3-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Actually, Libya was Europe's baby..not America's, Credit where credit is due...



USA were a major part of the operation including but not limited to dropping propaganda pamphlets and blasting propaganda via loud speaker as they fly by,

Sorry Wrabbit, you can't distance Uncle Sam from that one.


I'd like to see the source on that one.

I do know however that we did provide logistical and air support.

Everything is not the PSYOP boogyman.

But then again...it's a matter of perspective.






top topics



 
117
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join