Questions about Syria.

1. Why would Assads regime risk chemical weapons use when they know that would result in UN intervention and the eventual demise of their power in the region?

2. How is the UN to prove that the government of Syria used the chemical weapons? How will they distinguish between the rebels using the chemical weapons and the government? How do we know a separate country in the middle east didn't drop a bomb that contained chemical weapons?

3. What if the rebel forces are found to have been the ones responsible for using the chemical weapons? Will the UN /USA be so quick to step in and offer assistance to the Syrian government in tackling the uprising rebel forces? I think you know the answer to that one. The UN/USA are only interested in toppling Assad's regime.

reply to post by unknown known


1 = mining resource
2 = mining resource
3 = mining resource

Syria's mineral resources were not extensive, but deposits of iron, petroleum, and phosphate have been exploited in recent years; Syria was the fifth-leading exporter of phosphate rock. Petroleum was the leading industry in 2002— the oil and gas industry accounted for nearly three-quarters of Syria's export earnings and more than one-third of its GDP—and phosphate rock mining was its sixth-leading industry. Production of phosphate rock (gross weight) was 2 million tons in 2001, down from 2.5 in 1998; 74% was exported, most to Europe. Other mineral deposits included asphalt, salt, chromite, and marble. Marble and salt were mined in commercial quantities, although no marble was produced in 2001. Output of salt totaled 106,000 tons. The country also produced hydraulic cement, refractory-grade dolomite, natural gas, natural gas liquids, gravel and crushed rock, gypsum, nitrogen, phosphatic fertilizers, phosphoric acid, construction and industrial sand, steel, dimension stone, sulfur, and volcanic tuff. No metal was mined in 2001, and no marble was produced. Deposits of silica sand in al- Qaristyn had resources of 150 million tons. The mineral industry was owned and controlled by the government. In 2001, the government announced its intentions to open the mineral industry to local and foreign private investors. The rapid expansion of the construction sector in the near future was expected to increase Syria's demand for cement, gypsum, limestone, gravel, sand, and steel.

do you remember iraq?
after osama died they still around in that country why??
1 trillion jackpot mining resource..
gold, iron, nikel and gigantic lithium source for your blsckbery, i phone etc..
they will keep try to take over such country all over the globe, no matter how hard with anyway it can..

reply to post by unknown known


"Both US and Nato officials have said repeatedly they do not want to be sucked into the civil war but they might be be forced to if chemical weapons became a threat to Turkey or spilled over into a country such as Lebanon."
www.theguardian.com...


forced to... they don't want to....but they will have to.... *sarcasm*

My gut tells me this is a set-up. A recent report stated Syrian forces had discovered traces of chemical agents in a "rebel tunnel." Even if this is true, we'll hear nothing more about it because...

WE NEED MORE WAR!!

Originally posted by Q33323
My gut tells me this is a set-up. A recent report stated Syrian forces had discovered traces of chemical agents in a "rebel tunnel." Even if this is true, we'll hear nothing more about it because...

WE NEED MORE WAR!!

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. Rebals use Chems
2. Blame Syria
3. US takes over Syria.

We will attack Syria within the week. I'm guessing by the 28th of August. Cruise missles and no fly zone. That's how it will start.

1. Why would Assads regime risk chemical weapons use when they know that would result in UN intervention and the eventual demise of their power in the region?

Because they are as foll as OBL.

2. How is the UN to prove that the government of Syria used the chemical weapons? How will they distinguish between the rebels using the chemical weapons and the government? How do we know a separate country in the middle east didn't drop a bomb that contained chemical weapons?

They look in their agenda and the opportunities. Then they make a story and give all MSM to repeat. Like WMD's and 9/11.

3. What if the rebel forces are found to have been the ones responsible for using the chemical weapons?

Uhhhhhh

That is the red line.Don't even consider that. get it out of your head. those organizations are made to bring peace to the planet.There are only few countries who don't cooperate and don' surrender.

reply to post by unknown known


1. There is no definite evidence yet whether the Syrian Military used chemicals weapons on there own people, however the media (propaganda) are stating it is most likely the Syrian Military hence the UN restrictions to the sites that were attacked with chemical weapons. Other skeptics believe it was the doing of the Rebels Groups within syria President Al. Assad also states it was not an attack by Syrian forces.

2.By Force; The US and other countries such as France, UK will intervene using Military force as stated in the news President Obama and David Cameron was in a telephone call for 40 mins this is most likely on what plans to be taken in an invent of military action.

This could stir up even a bigger strain on the relations between the US and Russia with also threats coming from Iran.

3. The rebel forces wont be found responsible because this is an operation to oust the Assad government. The US support the rebel fighting groups that are trying to oust Assad from the inside.

It seems Syrian military has more powerful capabilities to keep rebel groups under control. However let see how this all plays out.

Who knows what the end all decision may be who knows without definite evidence I think we're all the the blue to who set out those attacks.