Syria Officially Admits It Has Chemical Weapons

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by AlienScience
 


But don't you think that the whole chemical weapons thing was a big PITA for Obama *and* Putin ?

Neither want the U.N. involved do they ?

They both need to keep the 'civil war' going right ?

A lot of people think the chemical 'attack' was a '3rd party' false flag anyway.

It got in the way of the plan.

Now everything continues as before.

No chemicals = no problem.

btw, why does Obama appear to be more concerned about 1500 chemical 'illegal' deaths and less concerned about 100,000+ 'regular' 'internationally legal' deaths ?

Hmmm.


It only got in the way of the fictional plan that conspiracy theorist and ultra Conservative Obama haters made up out of thin air.

If Obama wanted to attack Syria for this mystery plan, he had every chance to...instead he was patient, went to congress, and is now in discussions about not striking if Syria does actually hand over their weapons.

This is a win for Obama, he forced Syria to disarm their Chemical Weapons without firing a shot. And it also proves all the doom porners wrong, and look how pissed off they are that they were wrong...some of you really wanted WWIII just so you could say you were right.

Really, the only people's plans that were ruined are the doom porn people.




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

OneManArmy

AlienScience


Try to spin it all you want, but Obama's threat of a strike forced Assad's hand in giving up his Chemical Weapons.

Obama did that without even having to strike...just by the threat of a strike...that sounds like a win to me.


That sounds like a spin to me.

And a cunning one at that.


How is it spin?

If Obama's goal was to remove/destroy Assad's Chemical Weapons...he has succeeded without having to strike, without putting soldiers in danger, and without spending any money.


The only way this is spin is if you are operating from the viewpoint that Obama was hell bent on attacking Syria...but then you have to somehow reconcile that he had amble opportunity to do so but has delayed as much as he could, even going to Congress knowing they might deny it. So if that was Obama's plan, why did he stall so much?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Thanks for your views.

..... just wanted to confirm the 'civil war' will continue and that *not* ending the 'civil war' was discussed.

Putin and Obama are comrades in crisis.

Great for NWO agenda.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

AlienScience


How is it spin?

If Obama's goal was to remove/destroy Assad's Chemical Weapons...he has succeeded without having to strike, without putting soldiers in danger, and without spending any money.



Obama's goal was to weaken Assads army which had started to turn the tide of battle and was making ground against the "insurgent" rebels. The chemical strike was the catalyst, whoever launched it.





The only way this is spin is if you are operating from the viewpoint that Obama was hell bent on attacking Syria...but then you have to somehow reconcile that he had amble opportunity to do so but has delayed as much as he could, even going to Congress knowing they might deny it. So if that was Obama's plan, why did he stall so much?


He stalled so much because of the opinion of the masses. The people said no, and resoundingly so.
The people wouldn't buy the bullsh*t circumstantial or manufactured "evidence" passed off as proof of Assads guilt.
People started to call their congressman, soldiers said No to a war supporting Al Qaeda.
A rush to war on flimsy evidence would be political suicide.
I have to ask, have you been asleep for the last week?

It would be political suicide to rush into a war that NOBODY wants.

And thats how its spin.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The Civil War was going to continue regardless, Obama stated over and over it wasn't their intention to end the civil war or tilt the scales with the strikes...just to take out the chemical weapons.

I really don't understand people trying to spin this as a negative for Obama, they are spinning themselves in circles. First he wasn't responding and you guys were made, then he was going to strike and you were outraged, now he isn't going to strike and you are angry that the civil war is still going on.

At some point you have to look at your own opinions and admit that you are allowing your emotions to dictate them.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Now we need to pressure Israel to announce their stockpiles of Chemical, Nuclear and Biological weapons.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 



Obama's goal was to weaken Assads army which had started to turn the tide of battle and was making ground against the "insurgent" rebels. The chemical strike was the catalyst, whoever launched it.


And you have proof this was his goal? He stated this as his goal for the strikes in some speech or official statement?

Or is this just your conspiracy theory?


He stalled so much because of the opinion of the masses. The people said no, and resoundingly so.
The people wouldn't buy the bullsh*t circumstantial or manufactured "evidence" passed off as proof of Assads guilt.
People started to call their congressman, soldiers said No to a war supporting Al Qaeda.
A rush to war on flimsy evidence would be political suicide.
I have to ask, have you been asleep for the last week?

It would be political suicide to rush into a war that NOBODY wants.

And thats how its spin.


Actually, before he asked Congress, not many people were paying attention and he could of gotten away with a strike by saying he needed to act quickly to prevent any further chemical attacks.

He stalled because he first said he was waiting for more intelligence and the UN inspectors, then once they got more evidence where they said there was little doubt, he still said he was going to wait for Congressional approval. This has been going on for more than a week, if you were only paying attention for the past week...you missed a whole lot. All of these point to someone who is looking for another options besides striking.

Not many people were supportive of the Libya strikes and he went ahead with those because there was no doubt, even in the international community, that Gadhafi was targeting civilian areas.

Obama doesn't care about political suicide, he has no more elections to win...your argument doesn't hold water.

If you actually sit back and critically think about Obama's actions, they are all stalling to find a way out of striking Syria. His actions do not match someone who is hell bent on attacking a country no matter what.

The Obama haters are in a circular argument, first Obama wasn't reacting to chemical weapons and he was weak, then he said he would strike and they cried about him not having approval, then he goes to get approval and people cry that he is weak again, then he says even without approval they may still have to strike, back to being a dictator, then with this new option he says they can avoid a strike and now he is weak again. I wish they would examine their own logic and string of complaints so they can see how contradictory they are.

But what do you think his motives are, do you think he really wants to attack Syria?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

AlienScience

But what do you think his motives are, do you think he really wants to attack Syria?


I think his motives are to serve the military industrial complex and banking cartel, and they seek to control Syria and ultimately Iran.

There was an epic push to rush into a "limited strike" that would be a slippery slope into war. Obama drew a red line and had to stand by his red line.

Having drawn that red line and the resulting evidence that later came to surface was completely at odds with the "official" story, the administration started back-peddling.

Finally when a NON violent answer to the chemical weapons "crisis" was put on the table by Putin, Obama's political naivety was plain to see, he had put himself in a corner. He was checked.

So here we are now. This of course is just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


again, thanks for confirming the left views.

but, is there any guarantee yet ?

what could go wrong ?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


So what? It was well known fact that Syria started to manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons in a response to Israel after they got their hands on the nuclear weapons. It was just a move to restore a balance in the region and was the right one.

BTW: USA, Russia, China and many others have chemical weapons too. USA even used white phosphorus (chemical weapon) in Iraq, agent orange (chemical weapon) in Vietnam ...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   

OneManArmy

FlyersFan
Also, the UN inspectors aren't the brightest bunch. they are easily fooled. In Iraq, the UN inspectors would be coming in the front door of a facility, and the chemical weapons stored there would be going out the back to be re-hidden.

What are you talking about? There was no WMD's remember. You do realise that WMD's(in the context of Iraq) are CHEMICAL and biological weapons. Explain how they can move something that doesnt exist out of the back door.

What are YOU talking about. Of course there were WMDs. You do realize that WMDs are CHEMICAL and biological weapons. Explain how they didn't move something that did indeed exist and that was recorded as being moved in a shell game.

Just one article of many that are available about the shell game Iraq played -
The Atlantic

Back in the 1990s, we had an agreement, we had leverage, and we had a U.N. team that went around Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. But still, Saddam impeded the monitors. He lied and cheated. He played a shell game — moving stuff out the back door of warehouses while the inspectors were pounding on the front door to come in. All the while, in the United Nations, the Russians played lawyer for the defendant.


The sell game was very much in the news and was known to be happening.
It's no secret. The WMD were there. They were hidden in Syria.
What is being used in Syria now may be the WMD that Saddam sent there.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

AlienScience
Try to spin it all you want, but Obama's threat of a strike forced Assad's hand in giving up his Chemical Weapons. Obama did that without even having to strike...just by the threat of a strike...that sounds like a win to me.

WOW. talk about spin .... That's funny! Sounds like talking points straight from Valerie Jarrett.

AlienScience
the fictional plan that conspiracy theorist and ultra Conservative Obama haters made up out of thin air.

And Obama's other failures are 'phony scandals' ... right?
Okay ...

Dude ... this is a MASSIVE FAILURE for Obama. He's flip flopping so much that even the Obama-shills at MSNBC are complaining about whiplash. Obama said that he wanted to, and that he had the authority to, bomb Syria. (Which is wrong). He said he wanted to turn the tide of the civil war to benefit his Muslim Brotherhood buddies (who are torturing and murdering people in Syria). The ONLY reason that the strike isn't happening yet is because the American people spoke up and said 'hell no!' and congress wasn't going for it.

Obama wants it. It isn't happening. And Putin - his rival that he doesn't like - is calling the shots. This is a failure for Obama on an epic scale.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

baburak
So what? It was well known fact that Syria started to manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons in a response to Israel after they got their hands on the nuclear weapons. It was just a move to restore a balance in the region and was the right one.


Israel doesn't threaten Syria. However, Syria does indeed threaten Israel.
Israel has never threatened to use nukes. It's a deterrent. and it works.
To say that Syria making chemical weapons is the right thing??? HOW???
They are using it on civilians .. on their own people ...
Assad is a mass murdering monster. (it's still not a reason for us to get involved).
Obviously the chemical weapons he has isn't a 'balance for Israel'.
That's an excuse made by those who hate Israel.
So how is Assad using Chemical weapons on his own people 'the right thing'?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Could you post directly from the horses mouth.... Assad or his FM admitting to Chemical Weapons. I'm not saying they don't have them, but... I tried searching when this News came out and I cannot find where they admitted to having these Chemical Weapons.

Charlie Rose interviewed Assad and he never said during that interview that he had them when asked about Putins new deal. He said, " your Assuming I have them " ole Charlie boy was trying to twist things.

I found where this human right sect said that his FM admitted to these Chemicals on Lebbenon TV ... I can't find that either.

I am in no way saying they don't have them but I do feel threw all the evidence so far that Assad did not gas his own people.

If I were a Country and I didnt have all the Nukes that my so called friend has... But I knew I had to protect myself and my people at all cost I'm going to use whatever is available.

Someone said it's more humane to bomb and kill people then the use of chemical weapons. No matter how you kill my child, I'm coming after you!!! And I will NOT back down because you decided to blow them to kingdom come and " make it quick"

Chemical Weapons are a bad thing... A really horrible thing... But what are people thinking? Because we're more advance we're more civilized when it comes to killing innocent Men, Women and children because the big boys want to fight for power ( ? ) ha!

Anyways... If you could post from the horses mouth said chemicals will be turned over and not from a bought and paid media... I sure would feel better about all this.
edit on 11-9-2013 by tracehd1 because: Sp chk



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

tracehd1
Could you post directly from the horses mouth.... Assad or his FM admitting to Chemical Weapons.


I did .. .Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem

Wall Street Journal

Syria said it would cease production of chemical weapons and disclose the locations of its stockpiles to the United Nations, Russia and others, as Damascus seized on a possible diplomatic route to avert international military action.

The statement by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem represented the first direct admission by the Syrian government that it possesses chemical weapons. Mr. Moallem said Syria aimed to sign the international convention banning chemical weapons...

"We are ready to reveal the locations of the chemical weapon sites and to stop producing chemical weapons and make these sites available for the inspection of representatives of Russia, other countries and the United Nations," Mr. Moallem said, reading a statement to a pro-regime Lebanese TV station, al-Mayadeen. "We are ready to cooperate fully in implementing this [Russian] initiative, particularly given that we want to become a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention."



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





The WMD were there. They were hidden in Syria.


But you're only speculating? Do you have anything convincing. It can't be any of the phony intel the Bush admin used to fool the world, because they admitted it was just that. So other than channeling unsubstantiated speculations of FoxNews 'analysts, what's new?'


___________________________________________________




Syria's WMD

On July 23, 2012 Syria admitted to possessing a stockpile of chemical weapons which it claims are reserved for national defense against foreign countries.
During the Syrian civil war in August 2012, the Syrian military restarted chemical weapons testing at a base on the outskirts of Aleppo. Chemical weapons were a major point of discussion between the Syrian government and world leaders, with military intervention being considered by the West as a potential consequence of the use of such weapons.

A number of reasons have been postulated for Syria's adoption of a chemical weapon strategy in the 1980s:

-to act as a deterrent to Israeli use of nuclear weapons against Syria

-to compensate for the loss of Egypt as a military ally after the signing of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in 1979

-after recognising the limitations of Syrian air power against Israel in the 1982 Lebanon War, Syria adopted an alternative missile strategy, which required a non high-explosive warhead to compensate for lack of missile accuracy

-to act as a deterrent to its powerful neighbour Turkey in any possible dispute.

edit on 11-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by superman2012
 


You sound pretty confident....You think they are going to back down the great Obama? I am not so sure about that.....


10,000 ATS points?


It will happen. The US cannot afford (nor does the public want) another war. That will destroy the country from inside and out. It would be the stupidest thing it has done to date and will cement Obama's "legacy" in the history books. The man is an idiot, but even he has his limitations.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

FlyersFan

Just one article of many that are available about the shell game Iraq played -
The Atlantic

Back in the 1990s, we had an agreement, we had leverage, and we had a U.N. team that went around Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. But still, Saddam impeded the monitors. He lied and cheated. He played a shell game — moving stuff out the back door of warehouses while the inspectors were pounding on the front door to come in. All the while, in the United Nations, the Russians played lawyer for the defendant.




Oh so you are talking about the WMD's we sold him in the 80's and 90's. And did nothing about when he used them against Iran and the Kurdish rebels.

You are not talking about the non existent WMD's that had been destroyed or expired prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I think its an important distinction, that needs to be made clear.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

FlyersFan

baburak
So what? It was well known fact that Syria started to manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons in a response to Israel after they got their hands on the nuclear weapons. It was just a move to restore a balance in the region and was the right one.


Israel doesn't threaten Syria. However, Syria does indeed threaten Israel.
Israel has never threatened to use nukes. It's a deterrent. and it works.
To say that Syria making chemical weapons is the right thing??? HOW???
They are using it on civilians .. on their own people ...
Assad is a mass murdering monster. (it's still not a reason for us to get involved).
Obviously the chemical weapons he has isn't a 'balance for Israel'.
That's an excuse made by those who hate Israel.
So how is Assad using Chemical weapons on his own people 'the right thing'?


Do you have any proof of Assad using this weapons against his people?
Do you have any proof of Assad using chemical weapons against anyone?
Do you have any proof of Syria threatening Israel?
Do you have any proof that Israel never threatened Syria?
Do you have any proof that balance of power in the region wasn't restored by Syria manufacturing WMD? (it's the same thing Russia and USA did in the past and because of this the world only saw cold war and not a full scale war)

You're just repeating everything that was said by the US government. Meanwhile there are more people around the world who are pretty sure that US manufactured those evidence. I'm not taking sides here, but without proof i'm not believing US government who wanted to attack an independent country and supports terrorists (1 in 5 of those rebels is an extremist)
edit on 11-9-2013 by baburak because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join