Russia unconvinced by evidence of Syrian chemical weapons use

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Russia unconvinced by evidence of Syrian chemical weapons use


www.abc.net.au

Russia says data provided by the United States on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons, including sarin nerve gas, was "unconvincing" and warned that direct military aid to rebels would hurt peace efforts.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.ria.ru

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Problem With White House Claim of the Chemical Use By Assad Force.
Data on chemical arms use by Syria's Assad fabricated: Russian MP




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Greetings fellow ATS citizens, earlier today I posted in a few threads that the US had shared their findings on the use of chemical weapons by Assad. It was an attempt to quell the knee jerk reaction against the US government claims.

Tough ask I know, but I was sure that they did have good enough evidence to convince the Russians.

Apparently not!



"What was presented by the Americans does not look convincing to us," Yury Ushakov told reporters.

"The information that has been presented, the facts that have been presented do not look convincing to us," he stressed.


So, an apology is in order on my part.

Perhaps they really are using the Bush-Iraq playbook.

Seems absurd though.



www.abc.net.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Just hope the general populace doesn't fall for it all again.
I will not hold my breath though..



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Sure, why would Russia believe the US......we are cutting their throat if we arm the rebels.
No more Syrian money making scheme for you MR. Putin.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 
So first there was proof of Assad using chemical weapons, then there wasn't. Then there was proof of the rebels using chemical weapons, then there wasn't. Now there is proof again of Assad using them. Who can blame Russia for not believing? The story keeps changing from week to week and honestly can we believe anything we don't witness firsthand anymore?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Let's consider the NSA leaks true.

With that in mind, considering the level of severity of the issue, having this come up at this time seemed to me to be very suspicious and "coincidental".

Sure is nice to be able to blame someone else for a mass atrocity meanwhile ignoring the complete mess under your own belt.

I think Russia has some merit to their skepticism I am afraid. I share the same sentiments. The timing of this just looks really questionable in itself.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think its pretty obvious that only the terrorists are using chemical weapons. Assad has a military to defend his secular government and does not need desperate genocidal methods, whereas the terrorists backed by the imperial forces of uk, france and usa DO need them.

If I were putin I would be pissed too. Nato is stealing trading partners from russia and helping non-seculars at the same time. These non-seculars do not tolerate ethnic minorities very well.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Greetings!

It sounds like someone is using chemical weapons in Syria and whoever it is, needs to pay.

Maybe both sides have?

What would happen then I wonder?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Russia 'unconvinced' eh?

Anyone wondered where Assad got his chemical weapons from?

Could be Russia right?

Now why would Russia say 'Yes Assad has chemical weapons' ?

Because they don't want people to know who gave them to Assad?

Never put much stock in what Russia says.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Let's assume Syria did use chemical weapons for a minute.

Ok, well that sucks for them they destroy their own nation like that.
Too bad the USA cannot afford to help because we desperately need to tend to our own affairs and get this government in prison asap.

How about we here in the USA seek to hold our govt accountable for their crimes, and those in Syria can try to hold their govt accountable? That way we don't have to worry about other people so much and can worry about our own business.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


You just know that the U.S. is determined to find chemical weapons in Syria, and you know what happens when they don't? Check out Iraq, they just make it up and say there are some there


I wonder if a Syrian farted, would the U.S. call that chemical weapons?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Anyone wondered where Assad got his chemical weapons from?


It's worse than you think Neo.
Look at this sick stuff (most big nations do this including ours even if secretly)::


The site at Cerin is also associated with an active biological weapons research and production program. According to NATO Consultant Dr Jill Dekker, Syria has worked on: anthrax, plague, tularemia, botulinium, smallpox, aflotoxin, cholera, ricin and camelpox, and has used Russian help in installing anthrax in missile warheads. She also stated "they view their bio-chemical arsenal as part of a normal weapons program".[38]


Syria WMD's wiki
That is some serious weaponization there. Just imagine how dangerous their government really could be with these kinds of possibilities.

Russia even worked on Ebola-pox hybrids, and I would wager to guess that the USA and UK did too once they found out the other side was doing it.

Biopreparat wiki
edit on 14-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Russia 'unconvinced' eh?

Anyone wondered where Assad got his chemical weapons from?

Could be Russia right?

Now why would Russia say 'Yes Assad has chemical weapons' ?

Because they don't want people to know who gave them to Assad?

Never put much stock in what Russia says.


Maybe russia has given assad chemical weapons but nato gives weapons to whomever it pleases as well.

Both super-powers are guilty of meddling in external affairs but nato has gone way overboard after the collapse of the soviet union.

Again who do you think needs to use chemical weapons more because they lack sophisticated weaponry? I say the fsa terrorists.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
As expected considering this is some of the Iraq stores spirited out in 2003 in the 11 RUSSIAN trucks just prior to the Iraq invasion. At least the coalition troops got the many tons of yellow cake uranium out on a ship to Canada after the country was secured.

Just keep repeating the CIA/NSA psy-op out loud 20 times a day: "There were no WMDs in Iraq and Bush/Cheney are criminals".



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Russia 'unconvinced' eh?

Anyone wondered where Assad got his chemical weapons from?

Could be Russia right?

Now why would Russia say 'Yes Assad has chemical weapons' ?

Because they don't want people to know who gave them to Assad?

Never put much stock in what Russia says.


Sometimes google helps with getting information....ireport.cnn.com...

Apparently Assad got his chem/bio weapons from Iraq; who got them from the US when we were buddy buddy with Saddam.


International alliances and skullduggery are so complex that nothing is as it seems. Of course Russia wants to continue the cold war rhetoric even though now Russia is one of our trading partners and a bill has been introduced to make Russia a most favored nation trading partner.
americanagnetwork.com...

Nothing is as it seems and accepting things at face value is for the agenda driven and naive. Deny Ignorance is our code here I thought.
edit on 14-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


That article is BS wanna know why is BS?


Wikipedia's article on Iraq's WMDs gives a good rundown of the international contributions: All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.


jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com...

Gee I wonder why the above was left out of that article from CNN ?


While I see Assad as a murderer and have reported on this before, who gave him the gas he used? We gave Saddam Hussein gas and the means to produce biological weapons. But that was when Saddam was 'our guy'. He used chemical weapons on his people and the US said little because we used him to fight a proxy war with Iran after we caused a coup in that country in 1953.


So the "US was the only country'.

Yeah right.

ETA:

Also the US doesn't make SCUD launchers Russia does, that was the main supplier of Saddams' weapon systems.
edit on 14-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Wasn't there a story acouple weeks back about the rebels using the chem weapons?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This all academic:

If evidence true:
Russians, chinese, ATS conspiracists, government haters : all will say it is faked
Western governments : Will back the syrian rebels and condemn assad

If evidence faked (not that you will ever know):
Russians, chinese, ATS conspiracists, government haters : all will say it is faked
Western governments : Will back the syrian rebels and condemn assad

Conclusion: it makes no freaking difference !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If no arming of rebels takes place:
Assad (armed by the Russians and Iranians) with hezbollah fighters wil ethnic cleanse the Sunnis. Other Sunni countries could be pulled in, threat of US-Russian conflict possible.

If enough arming of rebels takes place
The rebels will overthrow Assad, the shias and alawites will suffer ethnic cleansing. Other Shia countries could be pulled in, threat of US-Russian conflict possible.

Conclusion : ethnic cleansing, atrocities, possible middle east war possible US-Russian conflict.

This inevitable unless : The ONLY solution is for the arms supply to create a stalemate and Assad assasinated ! Only then do you have a no win situation with the main problem (Assad) removed and only then can peace talks take place.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad





This inevitable unless : The ONLY solution is for the arms supply to create a stalemate and Assad assasinated ! Only then do you have a no win situation with the main problem (Assad) removed and only then can peace talks take place.


A stalemate and peace talks in the ME.
Not bloody likely with so many factions fighting for control and natural resources as the prize.

www.thenational.ae...

Sadly your earlier scenarios are more likely with more war, ethnic cleansing, refugees, torture and all sides being drawn in by those that profit from blood and conflict.

It's like Orwell's "war without end" is now a reality. www.veteranstoday.com...

edit on 14-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I put this in the other post but think US want a stalemate so that both sides carry on the killing and no-one gets the upper hand (sorry strictly the West not just the US).

There are two questions here - whether chemical weapons ave been found and more importantly - who has used them. In the Balkan wars of the 1990s, both sides fired on their own side in an attempt to get the outside world to be disgusted at what the "opponents" have done and then join on on their side. This Syrian bloodbath has so many similarities to the Balkan war, it would not surprise me that chemical weapons were deliberately used by one side on their own people.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join