John Kerry's 'slip' could have been deliberate

The BBC are reporting that the idea of Syria giving up it's chemical weapons to international keepers which John Kerry alluded to when he appeared to make an 'off the cuff' remark, but which was then almost immediately jumped on by the Russians, could in fact have been a deliberate tactic to get Obama off the hook.

I was watching the conference when Kerry made the remark and when he said it I knew right away that it was a new idea which I hadn't heard of before. And when he said 'it couldn't be done, obviously' I said right out, why not ?

The BBC just said this morning that this is not a new idea, and that it was discussed by Obama and Putin at the G20 last week. They are also reporting that the idea initially was put forward by Iran, and because of that the US didn't want to take it up.

So instead they secretly agree and then set up what looks like a slip by Kerry to fool us all.

What a twisted world we live in.

reply to post by bigyin


I heard something similiar on our Belgian news, An American " spokesman" came to talk about the solution and claiming that a chance of Militairy attack is declining by the minutes.

She said, it looks like this is a safe exit without Obama having to lose face. It's all there, can you Imagine Obama saying to the press, well Iran came with the idea LOL.

The only uncertain factor that remains is Qatar and Israel. Qatar is funding the "freedom" fighters Aka Rebels.


But Israel wants Iran.

reply to post by bigyin


in the bush era we had shock and awe, in this admin. we have shuck and jive, what else do you expect?

In news bite i got before work this morning obama said as best i can remember "we believe that the US strong threat of attack is why we have got this far on a peaceful resolution".

I thought that was a bit stupid since attack would have been illegal with no evidence and everyone including the states was screaming about not starting another war - now Obama claims that was a victory anyway for the use or threat of use of force.

All i could think of was leave everyone else to their peaceful resolutions and put your damned fists down for more than a few minutes and people might listen to your words and not your bombs.

reply to post by bigyin


Could you link to the video or quote the remark?

Netanyahu must be going ballistic! I can just imagine him pacing his office, throwing any object at hand against the wall and cursing profusely!

AIPAC, for it's big mobilisation in Washington to push for strikes, doesn't seem to be making much headway from what I have been reading. Maybe the Israeli dominance is waning a little and people are seeing just who is pushing all of this? Problem there of course, is that they are just crazy enough to do something to try and fool us all into an attack anyway. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time... would it!

All this new strategy would mean of course, is that the CW weapons would be taken under direct control, but the war is still on and the US and UK will keep pushing and arming the crazy islamic rebels as before. Despite Cameron losing the vote and having to pull back from any strikes, he has gone ahead and deployed 600 Marines to Jordan, for "pre-planned war games" anyway. I mean, seriosuly, put them right next door to a war zone for a training session? The prudent thing to do, of course, would have been to cancel the wargames and keep the troops at home, which makes me wonder if they will indeed be used in some way, even if it's just as a target for a false flag event to draw the UK in.

It was a total screw up by Kerry. The State Department tried to 'walk it back' immediately.

Putin jumped on the slip and got Syria to agree to it.

This shocked the Obama administration.

GET THIS .... Now Obama says this was his idea all along and that he had been discussing
this with Putin at the G20.

Unfreak'n believable. What a crock of .....
Obama's incompetence is beyond obvious.
He's brought us to the edge of WWIII ...

Senduko
reply to post by bigyin

 

She said, it looks like this is a safe exit without Obama having to lose face. It's all there, can you Imagine Obama saying to the press, well Iran came with the idea LOL.

No isnt that an interesting sideffect...

Ask this:

What would Obama GAIN, if telling the truth?
IF it was IRAN that came up with the idea.

Now, not telling the truth in that situation IS
an EPIC fail of monstrous proportions....

Im out of words here...Just....WOW...

This entire administration has shown itself to be pathetic and incompetent, in my humble opinion. Along with the GOP leadership that has shown the backbone of jello, our country has been turned into an international laughing stock!

come on is there anything that is a gaff,when it comes to controling the masses lol

reply to post by bigyin

I don't think he meant to say it, i think he got carried away with his hard sell, and regretted it the moment it came out of his mouth.

And the Russians and Iranians jumped all over it.

The American Jewry in Washington, would of been spitting feathers at Kerry, for that remark.

Deliberate slip?!? ......unless that journalist was planted to ask that question....
***remember, if you want to manipulate a person/people to behave a certain way/make a certain decision, you've gotta make them think it was "their idea"!

I'm no fan of anything to do with either the Reps/Dems. But as far as I'm concerned no matter how it came about we should be thankful that we MAY avoid what could very well have been a catastrophe. Not that we're out-of-the-woods yet. I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating the players in this whole drama. They're not nearly as stupid as you all seem desperately to want to believe. Look at it this way, had the Republicans been in office, tell me with a straight face that missiles wouldn't have been flying weeks ago...

bigyin
The BBC are reporting that the idea of Syria giving up it's chemical weapons to international keepers which John Kerry alluded to when he appeared to make an 'off the cuff' remark, but which was then almost immediately jumped on by the Russians, could in fact have been a deliberate tactic to get Obama off the hook.

I was watching the conference when Kerry made the remark and when he said it I knew right away that it was a new idea which I hadn't heard of before. And when he said 'it couldn't be done, obviously' I said right out, why not ?

The BBC just said this morning that this is not a new idea, and that it was discussed by Obama and Putin at the G20 last week. They are also reporting that the idea initially was put forward by Iran, and because of that the US didn't want to take it up.

So instead they secretly agree and then set up what looks like a slip by Kerry to fool us all.

What a twisted world we live in.

I wouldn't doubt it .. Obama later said in an interview that he and Putin discussed this very thing at the recent summit as an option, so it sounds like he's actively taking credit for it.

France jumped on it too, they are the ones working on a resolution to the UN to enforce it..

Ok.... I'm confused...( ?) What I'm not confused about is Assad gasing his own people....in my mind it's been proven he did not have anything to do w/ that.

Butt... He does have chemical weapons(?)

I feel any Country has a right to Energy ... ( nuke plants ) and they also have a right to protect them-selves. I'm not saying they have a right to gas people but what's the difference between a bomb killing innocents and chemicals.

Anyways... If anyone knows the answer... Please enlighten me. I think the question is... Does Assad have chemical weapons in his stockpile? And if it were you would you give up your weapons verses protecting yourself against threats ?

tracehd1
but what's the difference between a bomb killing innocents and chemicals.

I think the general "international" consensus is that death is a horrible thing, but dying from a chemical attack is worse because it's not instant for anyone, it's a slow torture depending on the chemicals used.. in this case, Sarin which can take up to 5 hours to kill you ( some die within a minute ) ..

So it would be a horrible way to go.. personally if you asked me to pick a way to die, I'd choose to have a bomb dropped on me over being gassed any day.

Wikipedia

Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms. Moreover, common mnemonics for the symptomatology of organophosphate poisoning, including sarin gas, are the "killer B's" of bronchorrhea and bronchospasm because they are the leading cause of death,[20] and SLUDGE - Salivation, Lacrimation, Urination, Defecation, Gastrointestinal distress, and Emesis.

And Assad has acknowledged he has chemical weapons but claims they are secured.. it's not a question about whether he has them, that's a big yes.. it's about whether he's used them.

They've agreed to hand them over to avoid an attack

miniatus

tracehd1
but what's the difference between a bomb killing innocents and chemicals.

I think the general "international" consensus is that death is a horrible thing, but dying from a chemical attack is worse because it's not instant for anyone, it's a slow torture depending on the chemicals used.. in this case, Sarin which in many cases can take up to 5 hours to kill you ( some die within a minute ) ..

So it would be a horrible way to go.. personally if you asked me to pick a way to die, I'd choose to have a bomb dropped on me over being gassed any day.

And Assad has acknowledged he has chemical weapons but claims they are secured.. it's not a question about whether he has them, that's a big yes.. it's about whether he's used them.

They've agreed to hand them over

edit on 9/10/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

That wasn't my (?) but thank-you. Besides... Do you think we have chemical weapons? lol

I was asking does Assad have them? According to this... He does.

Ok... You answered... It didnt show up when I read your answer the first time. Thankyou for helping out on this one. Much appreciated.

What's good for the goose...... If a Country is forced in giving up any weapon all Countries should. We have chemical weapons so let's turn them over. Right!

tracehd1
That wasn't my (?) but thank-you. Besides... Do you think we have chemical weapons? lol

I was asking does Assad have them? According to this... He does.

Ok... You answered... It didnt show up when I read your answer the first time. Thankyou for helping out on this one. Much appreciated.

edit on 10-9-2013 by tracehd1 because: (no reason given)

The US does have a stockpile but has claimed ( and apparently been verified ) that 90% of the stockpile has been destroyed so far as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Russia has destroyed 57% of of theirs .. ( also apparently verified )

darkbake
reply to post by bigyin

 

Could you link to the video or quote the remark?

edit on 10-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

I don't have a video. It was a section on BBC News where the anchor was speaking in the studio to another woman presumably an expert at something, and this other woman was providing this new take on the situation.

She also muted that the question that was put to Kerry yesterday itself could have been a staged question, ie was placed there by tptb in order to give Kerry the opportunity to say what he did.

reply to post by bigyin


You cited no sources, but I do not doubt anything you stated is true. It indeed is a strange world we live in where our leaders act like college kids or worse high school students playing games over who's idea it was. The fact is, it is a great idea and I have come to learn Iran and Russia seem to have a lot of them. It is no doubt that this will be spun politically to make it appear Obama was out negotiating such a deal, when in fact, the deal had been reached by other interested parties.

Our world is run by such leaders in all places. Both in corporate bodies and government bodies. The snakes always turn a good idea into their own and take credit for the action when they can.