Syria: air attacks loom as Britain and US pledge to use force within two weeks

reply to post by crazyewok


me too

reply to post by AurelioMaghe


its been my contention for quite some time that the syrian rebels
are most like not even syrian or rebels.
they are mongrels that follow the money
these same faces i imagine were seen in libya and elsewhere.

reply to post by AurelioMaghe


Your right, there are many questionable elements in the rebel forces. Even Gen. Dempsey (Obama's top military advisor) has pointed this fact out repeatedly and has taken it into account in his dealings with the President. This is one of the primary reasons that we seem to have chosen Air Strikes as opposed to the many other options that have been put on the table. The other is probably financial as many have pointed out how broke their own countries seem to be.

As for the UN, they have been there for five days waiting for Assad to give them the green light to begin their inspections, so have some journalists. In all that time they have been told to wait. That's plenty of time to clean up the evidence on the ground but as i pointed out the UK has a spying center right in the Middle East so i believe they have at least some confirmation that they simply cannot divulge for various reasons i am sure you can surmise.

Let's face it. Chemical weapons are bad, we have known Syria has them for awhile and there is at least one journalistic report from May detailing the attacks that took place at that time.

Everyone from Russia to Iran to the US seems to be arming someone there, its a #ty situation of that i cannot argue.

Ultimately though the point seems moot. They are going to do it, and the time frame of two weeks was obviously mentioned to allow for the final evidence to be gathered and presented.

I fail to see why everyone is so bent out of shape over this. This is what governments do. You all knew this was coming from the moment it happened and have had plenty of time to review what has been presented by the media to form your own opinions just like i have.

We can spend all day and night, and likely will, going round and round about this but it is clear to me at least that Obama and Cameron know more then they can say and are just allowing due process to do its duty before they let those missiles fly.

I say good. Bombs away.

Know why? Cause whenever i see a local story in my area or even in my country where some bastard hurts, rapes or kills a child it pisses me off and i want blood. I am sure many of you feel the same way anytime you see a similar story from where ever you may be.

However, when video and pictures of rows of dead children are shown from Syria everyone immediately starts to deflect and push the issue aside citing all sorts of reasons.

So perhaps the real question should be, and one i have asked before but yet to have answered, is that if this were your country or those were your kids gasping for air and dying slowly would you want someone to intervene if you did not have the power to face down your own military yourselves?

Is the life of a child in Syria worth any less then the life of a child in America, the UK, etc?

As another poster pointed out, if the Assad regime was innocent they wouldn't have waited around. If you're innocent you proclaim your innocence at all costs, you call to Russia, Iran, China, maybe even resort to North Korea to put some pressure on the west. You'd do everything in your power to plead for you life while being as convincing as possible. If you fail to do so you're going to get what's coming. Assad better hurry.

Originally posted by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
reply to post by HappyWarrior

 

Hi there.

What jumps out at me in this news is why say "We are going to attack in two weeks!"..?

Havnt the USA got some boats parked off the coast down in that area? m.nypost.com/p/news/international/weapons_warships_move_towards_syria_uBryxh9YzBrHlvWu6ZdwUL


They have agreed to let UN inspect, yet attack is to happen.
m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23833912


What's the thinking?

eee.

edit on 25/8/13 by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire because: Trying to fix links............

I`m thinking the same thing, if they have already made up their minds that assad is the guilty party and that an attack will take place then why even bother sending U.N. inspectors there?

reply to post by Thorneblood


The sad thing is, they won't be fighting against the invaders who kill and rape, even kids.. no they will backup the invaders and fight against Syria.

reply to post by Tardacus


Because you need scientifically backed evidence to prove anything, except online (with the exception of ATS in most cases.)

Neither Obama nor Cameron can just print out whatever copies they have of their various intelligence gathering resources and just publish it.

Think about it, we have highly powerful spy satellites, a vast communications monitoring system, and as at least one other thread has pointed out there are in all likelihood special forces already in this area. None of that can just be said openly though, especially not with the world watching. So you call in the UN and let them do as they do.

@Earthling
No, at least not in as far as i can tell. This is why they chose air strikes, to take out the strongest parts of Syria's army and level the playing field. I doubt this will end anytime soon, and lord knows we don't want any troops on the ground, but if we can balance the equation then we can at least step back and allow Syria's people to choose their own course.

As Americans, at least, we all have guns but do you think the people of Syria are as well armed as the military there is because i seriously do not. This is why we have been arming and training them, to give those people a chance to fight their own battles on at least relatively even terms and so far they have been doing a fair job of it.

Be honest with yourselves, the CIA or the SAS could have taken out Assad with little more then a whisper but the moment it came to light we just assassinated him then all hell would really break loose. Some of these things have to be done in a certain order, and this is it.

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Because you need scientifically backed evidence to prove anything, except online (with the exception of ATS in most cases.)

Neither Obama nor Cameron can just print out whatever copies they have of their various intelligence gathering resources and just publish it.

Think about it, we have highly powerful spy satellites, a vast communications monitoring system, and as at least one other thread has pointed out there are in all likelihood special forces already in this area. None of that can just be said openly though, especially not with the world watching. So you call in the UN and let them do as they do.

You mean like for Lybia when they made up the whole reason to invade in the first place?

Or Gulf War I?

Or Gulf War II?

reply to post by AurelioMaghe


As the above show intervention and nation in the middle east work soooooo well.

We can argue about this all you want guys. Reference any war in the Middle East that you like and we will just start the endless circle of "this and that" all over again.

But can we at least agree that Putin could have ended this with a snap of his fingers? He is by far the most influential power in that area and he has just been selling guns to Syria instead of doing anything. Russia could have vastly improved it's appearance to the rest of the world by handling this situation itself, so could China, both have much more diplomatic power there then the US or the UK.

Neither chose to do so, it wasn't in their own best interests, what does that tell you?

Why is doing something for a real moral reason such a bad thing when either of those two powers could have done so as well and just sat on their thumbs while the money rolled in?

Originally posted by Thorneblood
We can argue about this all you want guys. Reference any war in the Middle East that you like and we will just start the endless circle of "this and that" all over again.

But can we at least agree that Putin could have ended this with a snap of his fingers? He is by far the most influential power in that area and he has just been selling guns to Syria instead of doing anything. Russia could have vastly improved it's appearance to the rest of the world by handling this situation itself, so could China, both have much more diplomatic power there then the US or the UK.

Neither chose to do so, it wasn't in their own best interests, what does that tell you?

Why is doing something for a real moral reason such a bad thing when either of those two powers could have done so as well and just sat on their thumbs while the money rolled in?

First of all, you ASSUME the Chem attack is 100% Assad's because... your government "must know so".
Secondly: how would have Putin ended the situation with Islamic US-EU-NWO backed extremists rampaging Syria?

With a snap of a finger? Meaning:
a)depose Assad and let the Muslim Brotherood or whatever else terrorist is in charge take power

b) actually intervene militarily to defeat the West-backed "rebels"

?????





To make a long story short:
my point is West intervention in the area are detrimental to their own (western) interests.

So not only we violate countries' sovereignity but we do it so that terrorist (aren't they the ENEMY for which we are giving up more and more liberties every other day???) can take control of countries.

And how are these invasions/interventions motivated by western govs/MSM?
Human rights violations! Must be a joke.
Especially since most of the time the alleged facts are completely made up.

SO you got the trifecta:
-waste billions of taxpayer's $$$$
-put al-Qaida or similar in power
-violate sovereignty (does this even mean something anymore? idk)

Also, another invasion/intervention will only brew more resentment for the West.

I think we should not be involved other than sending medical aid. There is a case that going in is morally correct, but then again, its also wrong.

Hasn't Saudia Arabia been helping the Rebles? Why don't they go in, in a fuller capacity?

That way the West can sort of bypass retaliation by Iran (Likely to be against Israel or any western bases in the region)

Why does the virtue of the West come into play to try and solve problems all the time?

Do the West love Drama so much, we run head first into conflicts?

Sure, if we did nothing and there was further massacres we would feel bad. Hence the morals that we should step in, but do we really need to always bare the brunt for other local nations that may be too affraid to interveen?

eee.

reply to post by HappyWarrior


well that sould settle the stock markets & bond markets in those 3 named countrries...

mostly the US 10 year Treasuries is why the British & French joined the US in a bombing Syria adventure disclosure...

if it don't happen ~for any reason~ then the U7SA 10 year bonds do not increase their interest rates that are way above the Fed Reserve desire of only 2.9% and on their way to a 4% yeild if this war action is not pre-announced as it was




whats the adage...money talks...BS walks
i think that all three nations want a mechanism to subdue their individual bond-/-treasury markets from an unwanted increases in yields to pay-out....

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

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

reply to post by St Udio


Well when you put it like that WAR WAR WAR yeeee haaaa!!! Make investiments proud

I hope people realize, we're in for the long haul and occupation for this. This babble of air strikes as if it's all we'll be required to do ...IF we get away with those without losses... is foolish banter.

Libya was FAR less a chaotic situation with *FAR* less dangerous weapons to come up for grabs to whomever can physically reach each bunker first than Syria.

Iraq may have been rumors of weapons by the time 2003 rolled around. However, there is no theory to Syria. They aren't part of the Chemical Weapons treaty and so, have been producing them more or less in the open for 30 years. Their stockpiles are modern, presumably top quality and pretty much the worst of everything to include the mother of all :"why can't we uninvent it?!?", VX Gas.

Now what are they telling us is going to happen?? They are going to weaken Assad to let the rebels over-run Damascus and....then what? They'll just meekly hand-over the chem stocks? Part of what they'll see as hard won spoils of war...they'll just surrender?? We can't, in good faith to ANYTHING...let terrorists like some elements of that group HAVE them ...

So when they say we'll be in it to HELP them win it? Bull Puckey. We'll have to be boots on the ground to AT LEAST secure chemical stocks of REAL warheads which we don't even know the location of, for all of it. What could go wrong??

Putin could have ended this with a snap of his fingers? He is by far the most influential power in that area and he has just been selling guns to Syria instead of doing anything.

reply to post by Thorneblood


So:

Russia sells guns/arms to Syria=bad, and US gives arms/guns "rebels"=good? Sounds about right.

Why are they rebels and not insurgents/extremists/terrorists?

Why only when it fits the western agenda do we attach the positive label, but when they don't we affix extremist, or terrorist? Why aren't they "rebels" fighting occupation in Iraq/Afghanistan, why are they "extremists, terrorists?" The answer is obvious: Why, because "rebel" sounds better for the rallying for the PR cause and selling it to the West in this case. Terrorist and Extremist sold better in the other.

Hell, even the founding fathers were extremists, said as such and defined by current "standards."

The hypocrisy is suffocating.

And the smell of BS is nauseating.

Originally posted by AurelioMaghe
y shouldn't he pay the price?

Do you actually believe what you are saying?

Rebels are:
1-al-quaida infiltrated
2-backed by the US (EU just lifted their weapon embargo too)
3-muslim extremists culpable of several atrocities

Ask yourself, why is the US government backing hostile forces in Syria, Lybia and Egypt?
Can you come up with a reason other than "kill baddies dictators" (formerly US backed too)?

Also you may have got it backwards, the attack took place right as the UN investigators arrived in Syria, as far as I've read.

This.
Anyone supporting the rebels are terrorists per George Bush's definition:

www.wisegeek.com...

The core of the early Bush Doctrine, however, was formulated in the wake of the September, 11th attacks. President Bush famously announced, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

In this declaration of the Bush Doctrine, the president paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that the state apparatus of Afghanistan had not actually attacked the United States.

The ones that committed those acts were Al Queda, the same ones "we" are supporting against Asad.

reply to post by AurelioMaghe


Russia could have done something earlier, the same way that Russia got Assad to allow the UN inspectors into the regions they needed to reach. They are even going so far as to claim so openly and vigorously. The whole reason they have blocked every attempt so far is because of their own interests in that country. This has been going on for nearly two years, what other reasons do you think there are for Russia and China blocking the UN's attempt at sanctions or the reports of Iran's weapon sales to Syria?

So yes, Putin could have done a lot more to bring Syria to the table and force some kind of negotiations and chose not to. They have been blocking every attempt to find a more peaceful solution. He has been in power long enough to have significant diplomatic pull over Assad. Instead he has made billions of their civil war.

We tried to stay out of this one, we tried every other method available to the US to force some kind of resolution that didn't involve military force. All those options are no longer available, so now we have to act.

You might not trust the US anymore, you might simply not trust Obama, but do you really think that Russia or China is somehow more trustworthy? Is Assad?

I hate to say it but at some point you will have to choose your allegiances. If you deeply and honestly believe that the US is somehow this vast puppet master nation that is secretly backing the NWO then hop in your car or on a plane and try your luck in Russia/China or the Middle East. If you don't want to be an American, or a Brit, or a Canadian or whatever you may be then just leave your country and find another.

It isn't that hard to just go and remove yourself from what you might perceive as the big bad west.

Some of us choose to stay, and while we might not agree with everything that the "Western Devils" choose to do in these situations we all ultimately have to accept that as one of the leading world powers we are going to be called on time and time again to intervene. Sometimes it will be diplomatic, sometimes it won't be.

It sucks being one of the biggest kids on the block because sometimes you have to get up and knock out the bully that is picking on the 'small fry's"

reply to post by wrabbit2000

Now what are they telling us is going to happen?? They are going to weaken Assad to let the rebels over-run Damascus and....then what?

this will be the prophetic destruction of Damascus... which the USA puppets of the globalists are committed to accomplish....

see the globalists want Syria (along with Egypt & Libya as recent conqured states) to be Balkinized into dozens of war-lord states (spoils to the victorious forces of all them AQ affiliated groups fighting for the USA/0bama)


all readers, figure it out if it don't make sense righht now....thanks wrabbit2K

Originally posted by Thorneblood

Ultimately though the point seems moot. They are going to do it.

That about sums it up. The elite at the top are going to do as they please regardless of how the people feel.
The chemical weapons is not the cause to invade but the excuse, like the wmd excuse in Iraq.

The main objective is to overthrow Asad so they are one step closer to Iran.
Human Rights, Chemical Weapons and everything else is a selling point to give them an excuse but people are not buying it.

The responsibility and blood will fall on their shoulders, not the people in our countries.




2/3 of Americans were against the war in Iraq and Cheneys Response was "SO"