Data on chemical arms use by Syria's Assad fabricated: Russian MP

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


That whole Kuwait thing was is fishy . Saddam asked our Ambassador what they would think about him invading Kuwait . We gave him permission to do so .Then we kick him out .
War is a money maker for the defense industry . Eisenhower warned us about the Defense Industry .




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Yes you are right, the military complex is just intertwined with the private military complex, is nothing but a war machine that while was sold to the Government as profitable is has cost more money to the tax payer than the profits that the government was supposed to make, at the end the private interest were the ones walking with the tax payers money.




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Well, geesh. The CIA armed religious zealots to kill 14k Russian soldiers who were INVITED to fight by the moderate Islamic gov't of Afghanistan and then called it an INVASION on 6 o'clock national news I watched on my grandfathers TV as a child. And now our soldiers are getting killed doing clean up work that Russian soldiers were already doing 20 years ago!!!!!!

These zealots, the Mujahadeen, eventually formed the Taliban and Al-Quaeda.

We use depleted uranium in Iraq, and other places why would Russia go along with this without question?

It's not like we refrain from using weapons whose damage is equal to or beyond sarin gas effects. Sarin eventually disappears. And if we arm the rebels we are no different than Assad using Hezbollah. It's hypocrisy!!!
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
It likely is fabricated. Hell last month the reports released said the rebels had used chem weapons and that's why Obama backed off his statements. I guess they figure Americans are so stupid that they will forget the reality of any situation as long as it's not being played on the t.v. in front of them. This is just another huge mistake that will hurt our country and population. Giving weapons to another terrorist force. Ironically giving weapons to people who have used chemical weapons because of dubious reports that the forces they are fighting has used chemical weapons. Everyone should be vocal and spread the truth to everyone that will listen, we should get out of Syria completely.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Hell last month the reports released said the rebels had used chem weapons




It's not North Korea. They will not be shot for leaving. It's not OPPRESSION. Oppression justifies armed rebellion.

The rebels have no justification while having the option of leaving Assad's rule peacefully.

If this were North Korea and people were being held in the nation by the use of arms and people were rebelling then we might have some justification in arming them.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Syria isn't in a good position to use chemical weapons. It would just hurt them (exactly in the way that simple reports of it's use is about to hurt them). Also I recall that Russia secured Syrias bio and chem weapons at the start of the war. If they managed to secure them all that would explain them knowing better.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Syria isn't in a good position to use chemical weapons. It would just hurt them (exactly in the way that simple reports of it's use is about to hurt them). Also I recall that Russia secured Syrias bio and chem weapons at the start of the war. If they managed to secure them all that would explain them knowing better.


Well that's curious. Russia had the presence of mind to secure those weapons and yet they were still used.

And now we have reports that they were used.

Why would Assad make Russia look bad by using weapons that were secured by Russia?

Something doesn't add up there.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The most interesting aspect of this scenario is that it is totally different to the WMD lie invented by Bush and his cronies to fabricate an excuse for invading Iraq.

The UN had repeatedly investigated Iraq with specialist weapons inspection teams over many months and confirmed Saddam had no WMD. This is not the case with Syria; we just don't know what she may or may not have.

Even when the Iraq war began, it was confirmed that Saddam was not using WMD in battle. This is not the case with Syria.

The claim that Iraq had WMD came directly from the USA. Eventually the UK agreed. Almost everyone else disagreed. This is not the case with Syria; several countries are now claiming to have proof that Assad has used sarin (USA, UK, France).

Personally I am undecided on the question of whether or not Syria has WMD and has used them in battle. I honestly don't know either way, so I don't take a position on it. But I can see this is a very different situation to Iraq.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Well my thoughts are this. They would have to be pretty evil, the FSA, if they have the option of leaving peacefully.

Unless Assad was using physical force to oppress before the rebellion, and I don't think that he was, then the use of chemical weapons is a last resort to gain the upper hand when the rebels are gaining control, and then it is justifiable as terrible as chemical weapons are.

And Assad if he did use them waited a HUMANELY and patiently long time before using abnormal weapons.

edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



Also I recall that Russia secured Syrias bio and chem weapons at the start of the war. If they managed to secure them all that would explain them knowing better.

You know, it's the oddest way this works out but your point is both right and wrong as near as I could find by looking online. I hadn't checked that closely into just where and what movement was accurate for his arsenal of them. Knowing he had them seemed enough for me.

However, I think he made a major strategic move with them as it's turning now. Back in July of 2012, Assad ordered a bunch moved and that was widely reported as well as talked about here. You may recall it caused a bit of a tizzy over having lost track of them, temporarily. At least the stuff that was moved.

Assad has control of his own stuff according to this...except for one spot. Unless he just moved them there for the ...unique advantages of protection it offers. Like immunity from attack type protection. lol... He's a shrewd one and I was too caught up with election stuff in September of last year to have even noticed the second story a couple months after the first....

Assad Moves Chemical Agents to Tartus
(There are a variety of outlets that carried it. This one seemed the best for how it was laid out)

Very shrewd indeed. Tartus is, by some accounts, the most strategically important Russian Naval Base outside it's own waters and Black Sea. I'm not sure about that level of priority myself, as it seems some Asian ones are pretty critical to them too, but Tartus would be the red line for Russia, I'd guess. It is a full blown Russian Navy base and very much occupied by, naturally, the Russian Federation's Navy. Quite the wrinkle that tosses in. He quite possibly has access to a given quantity within general Russian Military protection. MAD is still in force, I suppose.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Miracula
 


Because Syria likely didn't and wouldn't use them, not while they are winning and receiving weapons and rocket systems from Russia. Though they may not have all been secured considering the FSA used chem weapons (unless they got theirs somewhere else). The fact is we (well our govt) wants to take down all the mideast and destabilize the region. The FSA is losing ground so we are giving them weapons we shouldn't (we are literally giving weapons and rockets to terrorists). To justify this to the world and to a lesser extent the American people (though at this point theyare barely trying and it's only a matter of time before we hear the first unexplained move that in no way benefits people. Even now they say it's to benefit democracy like that's what we are) they need Assad to have used chemicals. Even though it really would make no sense.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Miracula
 


Yeah.. I know they aren't really rebels. They are likely mercenaries and terrorist orgs that are jumping at a chance to remove an authority and collect millions of dollars in hi tech weaponry to fight their own enemies later. I just said rebels out of habit after reading it a thousand times in the media.

I wonder how many passenger jets will come down if they get the rockets they need to turn the war around. I heard a claim that we wouldn't supply certain weapons including systems that could bring down planes, but that's a damn lie. The only reason they need more help is because of Assad's air forces.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think Russia would have some concerns if Assad started getting chem from the bas at Tartus though. I honestly don't think Assad used them. What do you think? It seems like a desperation move that hurts politically and doesn't give a great advantage. Assad could predict the use would cause the US to intervene. However I guess he could predict the US would say he used them either way and so he went ahead. It just doesn't seem likely with Russia handing over rockets, and the FSA losing ground.

One more thing to note. The US reacting to chemical weapon use could propt a real show of force with chemical weapons. What if Assad decided to just start bombarding with chemical warheads? It could be insane death and destruction. What if that's what the US anticipates? We punish them for something we said they did and so they actually do it. A chemical weapon attack from a country with rockets and an air force is going to be more than 100 casualties, for sure.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Well, I certainly agree that Assad's Government didn't use chemical weapons. I'm not sure precisely what some people saw or watched, but it's just not logical. I think using them is a one trick pony for him because Israel won't ask our permission, clearance or opinion before attacking every known site Syria has in immediate preemptive war before any launch or 'fall' across Israeli cities.

I'm not saying the reaction is right or wrong, but simply saying it's a known and publicly stated cause and effect reaction that will occur. So Assad would never waste his one shot at using them on this sort of very localized stuff against people who have absolutely no impact either way on the war effort he's trying to win. This 'cover story' nonsense they came up with doesn't even pass the logic test, does it?

If he uses them, yeah, I think satellites will be able to see the bodies, for how clear the evidence will be. Tragically, at that. No doubts or debate if it happens by the real thing and nation/state quality version, though.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I would have to agree, the so called rebels are more like on someones payroll (do I hear USA, CIA, or any combination of similar agencies). However, I am amazed by how often I read the comment, "I beleive the US government did this, but I don't think they would have done_____________." YES THEY WOULD HAVE! I can't beleive anyone in their right mind could even entertain the idea that anything close to the truth is coming from anything close to being government. I have been considering why it could be that so many American citizens are unaware of things that happening and/or generally don't care if they know one way or another or at all.
I was taught in school as well as in general upbringing, that government was good. Sure maybe polititions weren't exactly honest, but they would never, ever lie about something important. Heck, they surely wouldn't intentionally hurt America or its citizens. IMO. I think that my generation (Baby Boomers) thought that voting was all you had to do. After all that was why we voted, so someone else could take care of the country, while we took care of our lives. We didn't want to be bothered. So now we grin and bare it.
Thus, I am shocked to see so many enlighted people still willing to beleive some of what the government is saying. I would bet that anything government says is exact opposite of reality. Just remember, if Obama's mouth is moving he's a lyin'.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Miracula
 


Because Syria likely didn't and wouldn't use them, not while they are winning and receiving weapons and rocket systems from Russia. Though they may not have all been secured considering the FSA used chem weapons (unless they got theirs somewhere else). The fact is we (well our govt) wants to take down all the mideast and destabilize the region. The FSA is losing ground so we are giving them weapons we shouldn't (we are literally giving weapons and rockets to terrorists). To justify this to the world and to a lesser extent the American people (though at this point theyare barely trying and it's only a matter of time before we hear the first unexplained move that in no way benefits people. Even now they say it's to benefit democracy like that's what we are) they need Assad to have used chemicals. Even though it really would make no sense.


Because what we really need right now is another September 11th.

You'd think after the Mujahadeen became Al-Quaeda and the Taliban we would have learned to side with anyone that opposes radical zealots on the far right of any religion.

At the point of Semptember 11 it doesn't matter how bad Assad is, even if he has been arming Hezbollah zealots, arming anyone who has the ability to leave peacefully is insanity. Assad is not holding them in Syria against their will.
edit on 15-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Miracula
 


I agree. Let them go back to Libya, the first country these terrorists destroyed with our help. We, for some reason, are creating a reality to equal the fear perpetuated a decade ago about radical Muslim terrorists. During the original scare back in 2001 terrorists were greatly exaggerated and limited to a few places (afghanistan, pakistan, yemen). Saddam, Ghaddafi, and Assad, while far from good men they kept a grip on their country. I doubt there were any terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. For all I know crazy dictators are necessary in the mid east, thingssure aren't getting better without them. The whole region is destabilized and now a breeding ground for terrorists. After these wars are over we might actually have so many angry radical muslims and we might get ten years where the attacks are as real and numerous as the medias fear exaggerated threats of them were 10 years ago. Then we can really kick this police state into overdrive.

Again, as a disclaimer, obviously those middle eastern leaders were bad guys, but it wasn't our job to stop them and especially at the cost of our own economy and safety. 10,000 soldiers going over seas to force democracy on other countries. If it worked once we wouldn't have the reputation we do today.
edit on 15-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I'm not saying Russia has provided the chemicals or not (I'm sure they did), but let's be honest, the Bush administration made a big mistake lying about the WMD's in Iraq. After that who will believe the American government. Also haven't we forgotten that the Bush administration blatantly said they would fabricate information to change the publics view. I'm sure that didn't stop after 2008.

In this day and age of immediate access to information, nothing seems to be real anymore. But it never was.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


I disagree, there is no evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons. Any reports would be dubious considering what the west wants to do. Also "multiple countries" then you list UK, US, and France. I wouldn't exactly call that 3 independent, verified reports. I lol'd when I read that.

Even a month ago we knew it was the FSA using the chemical weapons and that hasn't changed. Assad isn't losing, so he's not going to go to his desperatin act and make things harder on himself first. Also when a govt with rockets and fighter jets uses Sarin you get more than a hudred deaths.When you start seeing dozens of Syrian villages that look like Jonestown Guyana then you will know.

Until then.. don't believe everything you read.
edit on 15-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join