It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Administration now says 'very little doubt' Assad used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Maybe somebody's financing both sides ?

Maybe somebody like Rothschilds and Israel proxies perhaps.

Wouldn't be the first time.

All these outfits have one thing in common.

Not much 'business' with Syria.


LENDING

Syria : Lending By Volume (Millions Of US Dollars)

The World Bank does not have any recent lending to Syria.
World Bank




Delayed Article IV Consultation with Syria
Press Release No .13/294
August 2, 2013

On July 26, 2013 the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was informed that there could not be a briefing to the Board with an assessment of economic developments and policies in Syria, whose Article IV consultation is delayed by 26 months, due to a lack of adequate information that would allow staff to make such an assessment.
International Monetary Fund




Role in banking supervision

The BIS provides the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision with its 17-member secretariat, and with it has played a central role in establishing the Basel Capital Accords of 1988 and 2004. There remain significant differences between United States, European Union, and United Nations officials regarding the degree of capital adequacy and reserve controls that global banking now requires. Put extremely simply, the United States, as of 2006, favoured strong strict central controls in the spirit of the original 1988 accords, while the EU was more inclined to a distributed system managed collectively with a committee able to approve some exceptions.

The UN agencies, especially ICLEI, are firmly committed to fundamental risk measures: the so-called triple bottom line and were becoming critical of central banking as an institutional structure for ignoring fundamental risks in favour of technical risk management.
Bank for International Settlements
^ see who's not a member and see where recent wars are ?



A characteristic of the global financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2008 is that central banks have usurped the role of policy maker in sovereign states from the politicians. In the absence of coherent economic and fiscal policies in the United States, Japan, the eurozone and United Kingdom, central bankers have employed their power over the printing press with unprecedented vigor, unleashing a tidal wave of liquidity in a desperate effort to stave off a global economic depression. With the manipulative aplomb of a snake charmer, they have sought to push down interest rates to a point where short-term rates in most advanced economies are at virtually zero, while arousing confidence from investors and consumers who would have otherwise have little to cheer about.

The central bankers, in the minds of many, are the heroes of the economic crisis, supposedly saving the global economy from credit atrophy and demand destruction while the feckless politicians stood by helplessly. In case you would otherwise be unaware of the supposedly epic achievement performed by the central bankers, they have engaged themselves in a massive public relations drive during the crisis, paralleling their mega-liquidity dumps, seeking to persuade the public that central banks have become the new temples of salvation in an otherwise bleak economic and fiscal dystopia.
Have Central Banks Gone Too Far? A Warning From the Bank for International Settlements




posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Are we expected to fight over this? Seriously folks? I know I'm just another tit with too much time on his hands writing about a conflict I could never imagine being in (even with hours of playing Xbox fictional wars) but reading what's on the news today looks nothing less than fight talk. (not them provoking, it's a two way dance!)
I'm gonna be honest, the biggest problem in my life is whether or not I pay my council tax this month so I can pour more money into moving house (which is planned) or do I watch the footy match on Sky Sports or BT Sport! I must add though, I'm not a complete abortion, I do look past the national news reports and I do know that a proxy war has been in fought in Syria, albeit the middle-east, for a long time now. But really? We as the the public, are we really expected to fight in another world war on the basis of this?

I'm talking about a proper world war, not just a Gulf War, even if the loss of life on both sides was despicable, because that is what it was as with every conflict, but a war that effects people like you and me. A war where our cities are devastated again as was the case in World War 2 (in Europe and Asia). Or watching a news bulletin that says the allies have dropped a war winning weapon on the enemy and be told it is for the good of the people. I don't want to get in to the obvious politics on that but these days folk are different. As much as detest reading about other conflicts and certain atrocities it will always be a world away for me and it's not something I can never imagine happening to my peaceful country (UK), but if another world war happens then this # will be at my front door. If that does happen and the enemy, whoever that is that day (1984?), then I'll happily fight for these shores. But to ask me to go to war for some foreign land is a joke. To ask me to go to war for a people a thousand miles away is a joke too.

You can state your opinion on me if you want...I don't care! I know that is opening doors but still; all I care about these days is myself and my families welfare and I think nowadays most people think like that, especially in the worlds richest nations. We want our MTV! Well I don't. Scuzz and Kerrang will do for me but you can see what I'm getting at hopefully. I won't refrain from saying that all I look forward to these days is a visit from my parents, the PS4/Xbone launch and the hopefully a good imagining of Ender's Game for the big screen! Not a #ing war with some nation that I've only ever seen in a Champions League Play-Off Final!



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I guess we got tired of trying the "Arab Spring" approach... time for some direct action. Iran cannot have a local ally when they get attacked.

TheRedneck

That's precisely what I think it comes down to in a nutshell. Nothing more or less, in the end.

Iran always has been the ultimate target. Whats left of Persia has to join the New World Order, even if it kills them.


I see this said quite often on ATS and even in this thread with Iran having Rusisan, and China, and Pakistan as their allies, Syria really doesn't mean that much to them.

Only thing Syria is good for is what it has been used as supply route through Lebanon so Iran can continue it's proxy war against Israel.

Russia and China are just using Iran.
Iran thinks they are using Russia, and China.

All of them are using Assad for their own interests.

Other opinions will vary.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





Maybe somebody's financing both sides ?


Yeah China the worlds newest banker.both east and west.




posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by farhad
 


I agree I do not think Assad would be silly enough to use chemical wepons on his own people. Khan Al Assal were the attack took place was taken from the rebels by forces loyal to Assad after fighting.. Why would he attack his own town.

There is evidence that the US was aware of this attack in January this year.. Thread here if you are intrested..

Syria 'chemical' attack backed by US
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I thought I read somewhere that both Syria and Iran have a military agreement. Both defend if one it attacked from external forces.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by neo96
 


I thought I read somewhere that both Syria and Iran have a military agreement. Both defend if one it attacked from external forces.


So why would a Islamic state 'defend' a secular country like Assad ?

Doesn't make sense to me.

They might have a 'defense' pact, but in the course of history we have seen how much they are really worth.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TwiTcHomatic
 


The chemical attack was perpetrated by the 'rebels' - ie the mercenaries hired by Qatar, Saudi, Israel and the US - with a strong contingent of CIA backed Al Qiada. That this is the truth is hard to deny given the evidence that is available. None of that evidence is shown on the MSM of course.

Russia apparently located the source of the launch of the (likely) sarin filled missiles using satellite data, deep inside rebel territory. News sources in the ME also released information showing that the video footage of dead bodies (killed by rebels) was uploaded the day before they claimed the attack happened.

This is purely a false flag, and now that Syria is allowing inspections, the US is saying 'Too late.' Well, if the US is really interested in finding who made the attacks, then they would investigate - this simply proves that the US govt is not at all interested in who actually did it - revealing that it is very likely they already know, and in fact organized this false flag event through the CIA and the proxies they control.

Many who are well informed in the region make the case that the rebels are being funded and armed severally by Qatar, Saudi, and the US. Qatar currently has the largest natural gas field in the world, and is the top exporter of gas. They want to build a pipeline running through Syria to Turkey.

The controllers of those interests in Qatar have animosity for Assad on many levels, and also do not wish to share profits with Syria.

The pipeline would end in Turkey, and from there be able to supply gas to the EU - Russia is very obviously opposed to such a move as it holds a monopoly on gas supplies to Europe.

Due to being an Islamic nation, Syria does not have a central bank attached to the international banking system - this is of course problem for the international interests, and is also a reason why the US is keenly interested - as well as opening a stepping stone to surround Iran on all sides.

When a nation has a central bank, this bank is used to corrupt the nations govt through bribes and so on, and take over without war - so this is not an option for Syria - and it is the same case in Iran. These kinds of banks are not allowed in these states due to the levying of interest which is prohibited by Islamic law.

So the rebels are not at all a homogeneous group - they have different funding, and different political interests - Saudi is involved in an attempt to limit the growth in influence of Qatar - and likely there will be ongoing fighting between the different rebel factions even if the Assad regime is toppled.

This is a mess of biblical proportions, and the fallout will be tremendous - never mind that Russia has little to lose by blocking the US factions by providing arms and even troops.

This is not a small matter - what happens in Syria is going to have massive geopolitical effects, possibly resulting in wider conflicts between Russia and the US



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Assad lies. He kills. Obama lies. He kills. The 'Rebels' lie. They kill.
I don't believe anything that any of them say.
Maybe Assad used chemical weapons. Maybe he didn't. I don't know if we'll ever really know ...



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I have very little doubt that Syria is a wag the dog the current administration is using to deflect from his nsa spying.

The current administration is guilty of using weapons of mass distraction against us not that I like Assad, don't like him, don't like my current administration.

Hell I don't like anyone



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


They have sent a warning out.. There is a thread up about it here..

Iranian military chief warns against U.S. crossing Syria 'red line'

A top Iranian military chief warned on Sunday that the U.S. will face “harsh consequences” if it intervenes in Syria over claims of chemical attacks, reported Agence France Presse citing a Fars new agency report.

“If the United States crosses this red line, there will be harsh consequences for the White House,” armed forces deputy chief of staff Massoud Jazayeri was quoted as saying


english.alarabiya.net...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I have never been a big fan of Nostradamus. However there was one prediction that WW3 would start in the Middle East.

We as a country should know better than to push the Bear (Russia). Personally I think the TPTB (read that as the banking cartel) and our Government is pushing for a WW3 scenario as that is what they do every time they have robbed the bulk of humans of most of their cash.

Keeps the attention off them quite nicely.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Also, not a fan of prophecies myself, however there was this one end times prediction that said the first sign would be Damascus burning.

Would love to know which one that was exactly.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Assad lies. He kills. Obama lies. He kills. The 'Rebels' lie. They kill.
I don't believe anything that any of them say.

Don't forget, Benjamin Netanyahu. He misleads. He murders, too. He's part of this dark puzzle, as well.

They're all nothing more than a bunch of self-serving scumbags, trying to impose their will on others.


edit on 25-8-2013 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by neo96
 


I thought I read somewhere that both Syria and Iran have a military agreement. Both defend if one it attacked from external forces.


So why would a Islamic state 'defend' a secular country like Assad ?

Doesn't make sense to me.

They might have a 'defense' pact, but in the course of history we have seen how much they are really worth.


View it through the prism of the old Sunni / Shia conflict and it makes more sense.

Syria was secular but control of the levers of power was not evenly distributed. Control of the country was mostly in the hands of the Alawites (a Shia islam sub sect) to which the Assad family belongs. Iran is a Shia Islamic republic.

The Sunni Gulf states are desperate to see Syria fall to the Sunni majority and the Shia get put in their place (the coptic christians and others will get crushed in the process but they don't care about that).

Thats one dimension to whats going on. I don't think i've ever seen a conflict with so many different dimensions and power plays as this one. A good reason to stay well clear.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
You seem to all forget about the Havok that was caused in Egypt not that long ago.

Personally i don't think you can blame this all on the US. I legit think that there are REAL Islamist extremeists out there.

I mean if you read the Torah.
You kind of get an idea of what these people believe in. Muhammed believed in some very strange superstitions. And spread unessisary ones like killing all black dogs with read eyes?
Yeah shoot the hell hounds of Hades. Sounds like a great idea. If you want to have your soul devoured.

I pray for the citizens of syria Who are innocient in these affairs. But we all saw the chemical weapons.
We know that the tourmoil in Egypt was partly caused by this. This isn't just one event leading to the next.
This looks completely out of sych.

Do you honestly think they will beable to get a pipe line in there if the state goes up in arms?
Think in afganistan and other areas are not quelled. Why would you think they would just brush this over.
it took nearly a decade to sort Iraq out.

And besides, World war? on whos part. IF i recall the last world war excluded the middle east... They were kinda not even present at all.

So now everyones up in arms because Islam can't get away with what ever they want? you must be joking.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite

Originally posted by dominicus
After Bush/Cheney WMD's B.S. spiel, I believe this as much as a believe in Unicords.

If Syria really does have chem-weapons, then I bet you a hundred grand, the US Mil-Industrial complex sold them the chems in the first place a few months back, knowing they can use this to "justify" invasions.

I'm guessing Russia has Syria's back? And this could get messy?


Russia will not get involved if Syria has used chemics! They will be angry and embarrassed for sure!!
Syrai and Iran need change however it comes!! New dawns only come after bloody ones!!
I dont think Russia really gives a rats ar.e about Syria and Ass-ad!
We shall see soon enough...

And then, eventually you get the same deal as Egypt. Meet the new boss, same as the old, ala Muslim brotherhood and all the other old timers that started the mess end up back in power



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
The West demanded that UN inspection teams be allowed access to the site to determine who is responsible for the attack - however now that they've been granted access the US and UK are conveniently saying that the evidence has probably been destroyed.

So if this evidence has been destroyed then how can they prove that the Syrian government is responsible for the attacks any more than the rebels?

They can't - but that doesn't matter, because they're going to intervene now anyway, whether we like it or not.

The drums are beating and when has the United States backed down in situations like this? It's like Libya back in 2011. People are slaughtering each other so we'll cob some missiles at them and make it all better. Everyone will like that, won't they?



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Very little doubt is not the same as proof. Thats verrrry convenient for any agenda.

We're not saying their is or there ain't. Just that our Navy is parked of shore and three hundred cruise missiles will give the rebels a hella jump start.

Russia has said not to jump the gun and make a tragic mistake. By jumping the gun they mean they would at least like US to wait until the inspection by the investigators begins tomorrow before coming to any conclusions.

After Iraq 1 and 2 it became well known that any claims of WMD was BS. They didn't care then either.

Who are these friggin' people at the reigns of power who have usurped our countries government?

Remember Shock and Awe? We had live front row seats to the bombing of the palace in Baghdad. Think they will run that this time...


...not.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senduko
Also, not a fan of prophecies myself, however there was this one end times prediction that said the first sign would be Damascus burning.

Would love to know which one that was exactly.


Isaiah 17
"Damascus has become feeble, and all of her people turn to flee. Fear, anguish, and pain have gripped her as they grip a woman in labor. That famous city, a city of joy, will be forsaken. Her young men will fall in the streets and die. Her soldiers will all be killed. And I will set fire to the walls of Damascus that will burn up the palaces of Ben-had ad (Jeremiah 49:24 - 49:27. There is something in Isaiah 17 too. Maybe Ezikiel but that require looking at ancient maps to figure out where the ancient city of Edom is now. I've read they place it where Jordan is and also where Syria is so I don't know which to believe.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join