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.

 

UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 





The Soviet Union later supplied chemical agents, delivery systems and training. Syria is also “likely to have procured equipment and precursor chemicals from private companies in Western Europe.” According to the report, Syria doesn’t yet appear to have the capacity to produce the weapons entirely on its own, relying on outside help for precursors.


I have a headache.




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
article updated with video -




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha
 


The twat is feeling left out coz France has taken centre stage with Obama....
David is feeling Insecure... Twat



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Its amazing that ONLY usa, france, uk seem to be SURE that ONLY assad used chemical weapons and the rebels are "pure virgins" that deserve sympathy, weapons and air support. The SAME countries that attacked libya and iraq and have also been threatning iran.

Question? What about what all the other countries think? How come none of them care? USA a country that is at least 5000 miles away seems to be the most interested in "helping" yet again. Of course the millionares and billionares that own shares in military industrial complex firms have nothing to gain and thus support assad. Or those that think the world is over-populated with useless eaters have nothing to gain by causing more death and destruction.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


So the new evidence is that Sarin was used. This agrees with what the Russians just said.

However the Russian argument based on their chemical analysis is that it was most likely the rebels (as the the UN concluded in the previous incident).

I didn't read anything new from Mr Cameron on the subject of who did it. Where is the detailed findings explaining that the analysis supports use of industrially developed substances consistent with use in the strategic weapon of a nation state.

Cameron looks a desperate man and the media war drum beating in the UK is now reaching levels of parody.

On another note, the attempt to link 'willingness to invade countries' with trade and economic success is interesting. Osborne was at it earlier and now Cameron is joining in. I suppose somebody forgot to tell post war Japan, Germany and South Korea about that.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 



However the Russian argument based on their chemical analysis is that it was most likely the rebels (as the the UN concluded in the previous incident).


Other than a U.N. representative stating that they thought the rebels might have been behind the attack on March 19th, was there ever a report drawn up about that from the U.N.? If there has been, I've never seen this "conclusive" evidence from the U.N.. Do you have a link showing an official report?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


Not only do they make it but they have also sprayed it all over the place doing ` tests `on the local british population. Nothing but a lying twat is Camoron and his pal Hague. Thats were they should be, in the Hague along side bush bliar and gang. I wouldnt trust the word of people who did chemo tests on their own people without them knowing. Now they are saying what?
We should round up all these politicians and other trigger happy public servants. Along with any others who want to go to war and grant them their wish. Arm them and ship them to Syria.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by justwokeup
 



However the Russian argument based on their chemical analysis is that it was most likely the rebels (as the the UN concluded in the previous incident).


Other than a U.N. representative stating that they thought the rebels might have been behind the attack on March 19th, was there ever a report drawn up about that from the U.N.? If there has been, I've never seen this "conclusive" evidence from the U.N.. Do you have a link showing an official report?


Just the interviews given by Carla Del Ponte who was leading the investigation in May. If there is a published report I cant find it. It may still be under review.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I do not believe this is about the people of Syria being chemically attacked, that was their final excuse to enter this powder keg. What of all the 100,000 killed before this 1400 to 1500? What about people being killed by gunfire and bombs up until the 'Red Line' was crossed, . Why now, why do they care now? This is about oil and natural gas and pipelines through Syria and who gets to put one there. Another poster put this on a different thread and it is a very good read. Thanks for the link St Udio.
The Economic Collapse Blog

and
AMERICA, SYRIA, AND RUSSIA: OPENING THE GATES OF HELLAmerica, Syria and Russia: Opening the Gates of Hell



What is happening in Syria will not only affect America, Russia, Great Britain, China, Syria, Iran, and Israel. It will affect the entire world because Syria, controlling major oil assets off its coast, occupies a critical position in the global oil economy. It is possible for oil prices to go through the roof, and that would send a tsunami across the global economy. There have been reports put out by big banks like SocGen and Goldman Sachs that oil could soar to $150 a barrel if the Syrian conflict goes hot and draws in Russia and China.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Yet more ridiculous rhetoric from our Etonian war-mongerer. This 'new' news that Sarin was used in Syria isn't even new, and to add 'highly likely it was the regime' is nothing different at all from what he was saying last week. It's almost like he's treating the British public like idiots, either that or he doesn't realise that assisting the rebels in order to fight Assad may just be helping the very people who let off the Sarin gas in the first place.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I still find it utterly ridiculous that military intervention is being planned for Syria, before any one of the investigations launched into the chemical attacks has actually born fruit beyond a simple, did it, or did not happen. We KNOW some horrible crap went down there, thats not the bloody issue.

What I find really aggravating about all the coverage and investigations so far, is that the UN started an investigation (ok, thats great), but its mandate was simply confirmatory in nature, seeking to make sure something had indeed happened. Since then, various world leaders, both for and against a military solution in the region, have used the fact that the UN investigation had no mandate to attribute blame for thier own ends. The USA have used it as an excuse to band together with other nations sympathetic to the idea of a frag fest in Syria, as a lever, a debate point, saying that plainly, the UN investigation has not got the mandate to blame anyone, and therefore someone else (meaning the intelligence organisations of several western powers) MUST band together in order to find out whodunnit.

The problem I have with this, is rather similar to the one I have with rich politicians taking pensions and benefits away from poor folk. That is ,that there is going to be MASSIVE bias against the target of thier collective wish to kick an arse.

You cannot expect impartiality from the people who are looking into these matters, let alone the people who write thier paychecks, sign the marching orders and so on, its the fox and the hen house, and its all bloody well happened before! And you know, I expect this sort of mercenary behavior from the US, France, Britain, as well as a plethora of other tag along nations who like to feel included when all the bigger kids shake down the first year.

What I am constantly appalled by is the fact that we have a United Nations organisation, which has the power to place weapons inspectors and incident analysts on the scene of these attacks (at massive risk to themselves, and that I applaud in the strongest possible terms), but sees fit to prevent thier inspectors from actually doing a proper job. Let me say this with the utmost clarity. The UN weapons inspection and incident investigation team that went into Syria, went in there with a mandate to fail in thier duties as investigators from the very begining.

The reason that I say this, is that any investigation of any severity or importance has to be able to track an incident from the time it actually happened, right back to the time that it was concieved, from the place at which a bullet or a bomb lands, to the place from which it was fired or otherwise delivered, and from the plastic wrapped victims, living and dead, right back to the perpetrators themselves. A murder investigation does not end when the coroner confirms the cause of death to be a single GSW to the head. It has to trace the culprit, link the lead to the gun, the gun to the hand, and place the owner of that hand in a courtroom before a jury.

Therefore the entire premise of sending a UN team into the hell hole that Syria has become in recent years, cannot have been to investigate, but to appear as if they were doing so. Sending a team to merely confirm that an incident has indeed occured was at best wasteful, and at worst an element of an illusion which is being performed purely to entertain the mindless, while the real power is exerted else where. I am pretty sick of my own government doing that kind of thing, but for the UN to be pulling that crap... well, it kind of makes me want to slap Ban Ki Moon, and thats a shame, because I think he would be a cool guy to talk politics with.

Potential coffee meeting material aside however, he must be either ashamed of himself, or some sort of a bastard for allowing this crap on his watch. Lets be real here for a second. The only organisation which I would have trusted to come up with a fact based conclusion to who is responsible for this attack, as opposed to one mostly based on rhetoric, would have been the UN. And they arent playing. That stinks so badly that Hazmat breathing apperatus will shortly be required, and I have had an awful lot more than enough of that BS.

We put up with Iraq, we stumbled into Afghanistan, we buggered up Libya, and right now the scene is set, and all that stands between this world and chaos, is some egomaniacal bunch of halfwits screaming ACTION!!



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Off topic - how do you have so many stars with such a low post count? Like WOW!

On topic - hmm more evidence eh? This stuff must be the good # yeah ? No more of that dirt, er I mean shwag, er I mean bogus stuff?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


Was that post aimed at the OP?

Just checking, because theres no real clue in your post



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


The off topic comment about stars? Yeah it was for the OP. Unless its just my view of the profile but i see less than 1500 comments and over 25000 stars...I mean whoa.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Rosinitiate

On topic - hmm more evidence eh? This stuff must be the good # yeah ? No more of that dirt, er I mean shwag, er I mean bogus stuff?



Sorry to disappoint, its the same sh*t, just with a pretty bow attached.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha
 


This guy has a lot to learn if he wants to make a case and not get caught while making a powell point.

Look at him supressing his laugh at 2.40 when he says that for some people there will never be enough evidence.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
There seems to be, to me, only 3 questions that need to be asked and answered here:
1: Should we allow the use of chemical weapons.
2: Were chemical weapons used.
3: Who used them in the case that they were used.

Once these questions have been answered of course one can begin with the debate of who gets punished, should they get punished, are we prepared to pay the price for a punishment or indeed if any punishment is applicable.
It may sound strange, but these very questions are being debated as we speak.

The world is changing, and not for the better I fear.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


The military intervention in Syria is been in the planning since the destabilization of the middle east started, Obama in 2012 warned Syria about an invasion.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

jonjonj
There seems to be, to me, only 3 questions that need to be asked and answered here:
1: Should we allow the use of chemical weapons.
2: Were chemical weapons used.
3: Who used them in the case that they were used.

Once these questions have been answered of course one can begin with the debate of who gets punished, should they get punished, are we prepared to pay the price for a punishment or indeed if any punishment is applicable.
It may sound strange, but these very questions are being debated as we speak.

The world is changing, and not for the better I fear.


Well that just happens to be the debate they want you to have.

The real questions are:

Who are the Syrian Rebels really?

Who pays there check?

Qui bono?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Rosinitiate

jonjonj
There seems to be, to me, only 3 questions that need to be asked and answered here:
1: Should we allow the use of chemical weapons.
2: Were chemical weapons used.
3: Who used them in the case that they were used.

Once these questions have been answered of course one can begin with the debate of who gets punished, should they get punished, are we prepared to pay the price for a punishment or indeed if any punishment is applicable.
It may sound strange, but these very questions are being debated as we speak.

The world is changing, and not for the better I fear.


Well that just happens to be the debate they want you to have.

The real questions are:

Who are the Syrian Rebels really?

Who pays there check?

Qui bono?


I have no debate either internal or external about this issue, my thoughts are clear.
1: NO
2: YES
3: I DON'T KNOW
Who are the Syrian rebels...well, they are your brothers today and your killers tomorrow, right? Who pays the check? Does it really matter?

Qui Bono? It's obvious who benefits, however, is it so obvious that the benefit is actually a real benefit? Are these people SO stupid as to actually believe that there is a win here? I don't think so. It's rather facile to just throw out the ideas of "lets create hell on earth" right?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join