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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?