It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
The White House announcement was a revelation :-

We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the UK tonight. The US will continue to consult with the UK government - one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.

You get that ?

President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

Not of Syria & it's people. Or the wider Middle East. But of the United States.

And Israel, of course, although strangely they're missed off the statement. I wonder why ?

Because it's a talking point forbidden by the Israelis who own the media and actually dictate
what their governments do. Besides, with that previously mentioned 9% approval rating of the
government, the best interests of the United States should have been assumed the MIC's
continued vitality. God forbid we let discretionary spending on "Defense" drop under 51%...

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:40 PM
I think there is something more going on that we are not being told. Obama being so adamant to go it alone against his own people's wishes and that of his allies, there has to be something else of immediate urgency they are not telling us about. If I knew what it was I would share, in the meantime I am going to keep digging. But one poster did mention Syria maybe producing bio weapons, or drugs as weapons which is currently not under any UN mandate or resolution to deal with.


This should give you a basic idea of what they are concerned about and why it is now such a big concern.


Today the British Medical Association (BMA) will release a report on the use of drugs as weapons, marking the third time it has examined the militarisation of medicine and its potential for waging a new form of warfare. The subject has been an issue for at least a decade, but its highly technical nature has kept it out of the public eye.

Meanwhile, military interest in incapacitating biochemical weapons has grown, as the capabilities of pharmaceutical companies have been transformed by developments such as the unravelling of the genome. What once were seen as distinct chemical and biological processes - the function of the lungs or the brain - can now be targeted with increasing precision.

There was this nice little bit though..

The convention does not permit the use of riot agents for waging war. However, "law enforcement" is undefined; and the role of incapacitating agents as counter-terror weapons has opened up a significant loophole. That is being exploited by the fast-expanding field of "non-lethal weapons" - especially in the US, via the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate at the US Marine Corps' Quantico base, where incapacitating chemicals are presented as humane weapons. Drug syringes that can be fired like bullets, most often used for animal control, are now available in the commercial sector as narcotics guns.

This should give you an idea of how that research is expanding across a broader range...
Chemical Weapons Convention
The continued development of BioChemical Weapons
Pentagon's drug weapons
Syria's expanding weapons program
Syria used hallucinogen on Rebels

Agent 15 is similar to 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, a powerful hallucinogen that the American military tested out on its own soldiers during the Cold War. Its emergence on the Syrian battlefield would be nothing short of bizarre. While Syria is well-known to have a massive supply of chemical weapons, international observers haven’t ordinarily included BZ on that list.

Over the years, there have been rumors of BZ being used on a battlefield — including one that Iraqi insurgents were dosing themselves with the drug to pump up their aggressiveness. If the cable is accurate, this would be the first confirmed case of BZ employed as a weapon. At the moment, however, the cable’s claims are not confirmed.

They say it is one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in 2003 and so on and so forth, so it is possible. Very possible, and there would be few places better in the world to produce this stuff then right in Syria.

They had the means, the money and the motive to do so.

edit on 29-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:49 PM
Step 1: Collect underpants

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Profit!

The Path to Persia

Hubris on the part of POTUS?

Or easiest way to impeach...

It's a script. Or madness. Or scripted madness...

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

He's in such an all fired up hurry to throw rocks at terrorists while chanting nya nyaa nyaaa.

I have a theory on this. Like GWB he is letting himself be manipulated in to action in the ME. GW took the bait. Looks Like Obama is going to take the bait this time as well.

Don't entirely know whose agenda is at play. Could be Russia, or China's trying to break the 'superpower'. Could be the Sunni and Shia trying to weaken us further.

Pretty much like how ole Reagan out spent the Soviet Union in to bankruptcy. Either way, Seems the best course of action is prudence.

Do nothing at all imo.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by neo96

I agree with you. since when is it wrong to mind our own damn business? Yes, it's wrong to use chemical weapons. But what good are missile strikes? What can they have that is worth destroying? What are WE, the good ole' USA, trying to accomplish?

And people wonder why most of the world is fed up with the USA.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Maybe he should go...

It was his stupid red line.

Our enemy is fighting our enemy.

Time to sell some PPV...

How is Assad exactly Amerika's enemy? Because Syria is at odds with Israel?

So my friends enemy is also my enemy?

The US Government has become such a Rogue State in recent times, and given the fact that no one can prove who used the Gas in Syria, attacking Syria at this point in time would seal the Rogue State label onto the US moving forward.

Instead of doing the right thing, which would be the UN intervening as peacekeepers to keep both sides apart until negotiations could take place.......that "would" get UN support....but not bombing.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:44 PM
Bust out your wallets people..time to pay for more war that we dont want.

Forced war and forced healthcare.

And dont give me that "limited engagement" bs---what he is doing is STARTING war .

instead of two guys playing tug of war- Obama has added a third end to the rope so he can play too; eventhough he is not on the roster..

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by neo96

Obama is possibly the worst world leader we have ever had. He is worse than bush for every reason the opposition stood against him...

Going into a blazing civil war to lose countless lives of our own troops for the sake of installing our sworn enemies, which little over 10 years ago killed thousands of our criminal. Not to mention we can't afford it. That is why I think he wants to really. TO BANKRUPT US......on purpose.

Anyone sending troops to die for the benefit of our enemies is actually a traitor and a murderous maniac.
I guess we know who loves alqaeda more than alqueda.....MR. obama.

I wish our sovereign king and lord, his Highness, Omaba the great, would get the hell out of office already and retire from the world.


edit on 29-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:53 PM
Don't worry, we're not gonna strike just yet. Our allies aren't buying our latest false flag, so we're gonna need a bigger and more convincing one to regain international support.

Maybe this time we'll have our "rebel" friends fire a chemical weapon into Jordan, complete with a video of the rocket leaving the grounds of the presidential palace. That ought to do the trick.

How quickly we forget...

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by neo96

I agree. Where is our representative vote in congress. Why do we keep voting in war mongers?

Doesn't matter. The president is falling back on and expanding his authority presented in the War Powers Act to claim that he has some mystical authority to project our military at his word under the dubious claim that we "need to protect ourselves", or "it is in our national security interests".

So does it matter if we vote in war mongers into Congress? It is becoming clear that our representatives have abrogated their responsibility, as set forth in Article I, and they want the president to be a dictator (READ THIS AS IT IS WRITTEN)

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:34 PM
i don`t see what the big hurry is in attacking Syria, if the "evidence" that obama has is so clear cut convincing then there is no reason why the U.N. won`t be convinced if he takes it to the U.N.
There`s no rush,Syria isn`t going anywhere, it`s not like the russians are going to pack the whole country up and carry it back to russia and hide it somewhere in Siberia where won`t be able to bomb it next week or next month or whenever the U.N. gives the go ahead.
The only possible explanation is that there is no convincing "evidence" for obama to take to the U.N.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by darkbakeHas anyone ever played a game against someone who is completely more capable than you think, but holds back because they are being nice? What happens when you try to screw them over and they actually respond?
edit on 29-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

The problem with this analogy is that our military is far more capable than the Russian one. I'm not saying it would be an easy fight but if it came down to it, we could take Russia+Syria+Iran.

That said, I find your analysis wrong. What's actually happening is a weird game of chicken. Russia and the US will not allow each other to get into direct conflict because of the nuclear weapon issue. So what's happening is Obama is going to push the line and Putin is going to say he'll back Syria. In the end though, neither side actually wants to fire upon the other. Since the US is the attacker here, we have the advantage. We can simply attack and tell Russia to stand down at which point they'll have no choice.

I'm not saying that that's the right thing to do, but it's the real breakdown of the situation.

Originally posted by Tardacus
i don`t see what the big hurry is in attacking Syria, if the "evidence" that obama has is so clear cut convincing then there is no reason why the U.N. won`t be convinced if he takes it to the U.N.
There`s no rush,Syria isn`t going anywhere, it`s not like the russians are going to pack the whole country up and carry it back to russia and hide it somewhere in Siberia where won`t be able to bomb it next week or next month or whenever the U.N. gives the go ahead.
The only possible explanation is that there is no convincing "evidence" for obama to take to the U.N.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

It's because Obama is using an argument based on emotion (concern for the CW victims) just like Bush pushed for Iraq using the emotion of fear. If one uses a slower process, emotional decisions aren't made and support quickly fades unless there's new factual information. Obama has to act quickly or absolutely everyone is going to oppose him and he won't be able to make his missile strikes. This would be a good thing, but Obama doesn't want to lose face so he won't let it happen.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by DAZ21

He can't and won't back down. If he does then it will give others the impression that the US makes hollow threats and there may not be consequences to using chem weapons. At least that's the theory. I personally think the world knows it was the rebels and if the US goes through with a strike we are wrong and willing to lie for war.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

The world is thinking the U.S. is directly involved in something , and is trying to cover it up with all this rhetoric and haste to attack.

The world is sick of whatEVER U.S. does, so I would say this is an interesting debacle to behold, you cannot win either way, hoodwinked this time by its own tactics, or shall we say, some "different" rebels.....

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:14 AM
The neocons, Zionists, and cruise missile liberals are knocking Obama around like a ping pong ball to get him to attack Syria.

The last remnant of his soul is being enticed by the above groups surrounding him who are drooling at the mouth for slaughter in Syria.

The world may pay a heavy price for stopping the slaughter and destruction of Syria by the neocons, Zionists and cruise missile liberals.

They, if they don’t get their blood bath will certainly strike back with some black op caper that will pay the world back for its minute of sanity in stopping the attack on Syria by the NATO and western forces.

The black op boys may get their revenge

We better watch out

I hope this isn’t oBamas bAY of pIGS

edit on 30-8-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say

There is something really wrong with this guy. :shk:
He's in such an all fired up hurry to throw rocks at terrorists while chanting nya nyaa nyaaa.
Clinton tossed around cruise missiles when ever he and Monica ... um ... 'got together'.
Does Obama have his own Monica or something ...????


Originally posted by thesaneone
If he goes at it alone ( I think he will ) would this be more proof that he is destroying America on purpose?

Yep. Gotta agree with this!

edit on 8/29/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

NSA gave the American Public Monica and had to toss missiels around to prent the American people from paying attention to the China Gate agreement. The China gate agreement wouldnt just have been bad for Bill Clinton, but for lot more of the political and Financial elites.

If any one was to fall for any of this it was sepoused to be Bill Clinton. It was staged that way.

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:45 AM
Did you know in most middle school's here in Texas they teach how war benefits the economy? I was born in 1977 and so far as I have seen my country has been at war. most of the times the united nations is like nooo..don't do it. and the us is like whatever..we are going in. what is the point of having the UN if the usa can just say um shut up mom and do what he wants.

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:55 AM
The UK Parliament voted NO on military action earlier today, and it's starting to look like the French are stepping back to. It's looking more and more like the US will have to start this on their own.

Earlier today also, the US is sending another Destroyer to the eastern Mediterranean

The US Navy has deployed a fifth destroyer to the eastern Mediterranean, a defense official told AFP on Thursday, as expectations grow of an imminent strike on Syria.

The USS Stout, a guided missile destroyer, is "in the Mediterranean, heading and moving east" to relieve the Mahan, said the official, who said both ships might remain in place for the time being.

I also watched a video clip from TYT (I know some don't like them at all, but I think they did good on this subject), and they laid out the statements from defense officials over the past few days, and with the way it's presented, it seems that even if the US cannot 100% prove Assad did the attack, the US is going in anyways.

"We ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies." - Marie Harf, State Department Deputy Spokesperson..... Translation - "Blame Assad no matter what".

And how the media is pushing for war. They use CNN as an example. They roll out figureheads after figureheads that say go go go!

edit on 30-8-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 01:14 AM
reply to post by buni11687

Chemical weapons have already been used by the rebles. And the US have not acted against the rebles. They have not even condemed them once for the use of Chemical weapons?

So basically what you want to get out is true. It only seams like if Assad uses Chemical weapons. The US will take actions, but not if the rebles use Chemical weapons.

There is no doubt that the US are only acting in thier own self interests, that is also why they will carry out the attack all by them selves.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 01:15 AM
The racists outlooks in this thread, whether its Jews, Arabs, or Blacks is sickening.

Bush did the same when he was President. Start Wars for no reason, or in Obama's case, the same exact reason.

Remember, when Bush was Pres. they said this War could last 100 years. Are you all now realizing this because a Democrat is Pres?? Come on now.

It will not matter who is our "picked" President either way the Chess Game still plays itself out. The ignorance will also play itself out but at the end of the Day....

You Vote For These Fools!!!!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in