What will Assad do if he is backed into a corner....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Assad's by using Chemical weapons has made it clear that, if baked into a corner. He could potentially use his chemical weapons arsenal to wipe out his enemies. That is the problem ,in relation to that, is the issue, of this sudden agreement and in regard admitting, to the fact he has access to chemical weapons.

His quick response to the idea that he could stop the American response. By supporting the destruction of his chemical weapons. Assad has admitted the US, in relation to their "Limited response," will effectively pulverize any real advantage he has over the Rebellion.

Assad has enough chemical weapons to wipe out the rebellion in one servo........in effect he can kill one half of Syria's population in about 15 minutes.

Any thoughts?




posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Chemical weapons kill people like "Raid" kills Roaches.


Any thoughts?
edit on 11-9-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed and added content



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 



I can think of better questions.

The first better question would be, how would you respond if you found your own government was supporting Islamic extremists inside the US, arming them, training them, providing political and military cover to them and allowing them to kill your children and citizens with impunity while blaming, say, the Oath Keepers groups for it all?

What if the IDF, in support of their own agenda and in material support of Islamic extremists, ignoring international law and the sovereign right of your nation, flew in tomorrow and took out New York, or NORAD and every other base you had to defend yourself against these terrorists?

What if you knew for certain it was your own President that had ordered this aiding and abetting and had allowed a third party, supposedly not invested or involved, to land unilateral air strikes on your soil? What would you do or not do to stop them?

Everyone is looking at Obama and Assad and of course the rebels but few are looking to the real masterminds, conveniently. Its like people are so intent on the chess board, they are not seeing who controls the table and the room the board is sitting in.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Assad has already been backed into a corner and I believe he has acted with great restraint , as for using chemical weapons I don't believe he was stupid enough to use them on his own troops and people on the same day UN inspectors arrived to check on the use of chemical weapons he didn't need to he already has the rebels routed , if anything he has backed Obama into a corner which is far more dangerous



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilder
 


Then why admit to actually having chemical weapons when he never did???



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Kashai
reply to post by Bilder
 


Then why admit to actually having chemical weapons when he never did???


I never said he didn't have chemicals weapons , its well documented that he has , I said he wasn't stupid enough to use them when he had basically beaten the rebels



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilder
 


Based upon current intelligence Assad controls half of Syria, in relation to populated territories.

Honestly, why would he be prepared to offer the conclusion he is ready to destroy a chemical arsenal, he never admitted to.

The alleged attack occurred on 8/21/2013 and today we know for sure he actually has chemical weapons.



edit on 11-9-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Kashai
reply to post by Bilder
 


Then why admit to actually having chemical weapons when he never did???


HAVING is not the same as USING. 8 countries other than the United States HAVE nuclear weapons, none of them have ever USED it in a confrontation.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Pistoche
 


But in this case chemical weapons were used and to be honest there is plenty of evidence this occurred.

You see I am considering that the fact the Russians and Syrians were so quick to respond is because they realize they are at fault.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Kashai
reply to post by Pistoche
 


But in this case chemical weapons were used and to be honest there is plenty of evidence this occurred.

You see I am considering that the fact the Russians and Syrians were so quick to respond is because they realize they are at fault.

Any thoughts?


Yes, they were most definitely used in Syria, the question remains, by whom? From the evidence presented to the public, there is not enough evidence to support any claim as to which party used the chemical weapons, and if you claim to know who did it, I cannot help but concluded you're pushing an agenda. From looking at the evidence, I see no reason as to why Assad would use it knowing how the US would react. However, the US and its allies have everything to gain by claiming that Assad used it.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Pistoche

Kashai
reply to post by Pistoche
 


But in this case chemical weapons were used and to be honest there is plenty of evidence this occurred.

You see I am considering that the fact the Russians and Syrians were so quick to respond is because they realize they are at fault.

Any thoughts?


Yes, they were most definitely used in Syria, the question remains, by whom? From the evidence presented to the public, there is not enough evidence to support any claim as to which party used the chemical weapons, and if you claim to know who did it, I cannot help but concluded you're pushing an agenda. From looking at the evidence, I see no reason as to why Assad would use it knowing how the US would react. However, the US and its allies have everything to gain by claiming that Assad used it.


In context I think the only realistic way to determine who caused the problem is by putting boots on the ground, but in reality and in all sincerity. Assad would never had admitted he had chemical weapons if the rebels had somehow. actually done this to themselves.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
To e honest if you look and the major news networks this matter has not been brought up. which is really strange.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I don't think there is any need for boots on the ground and it will only mean yet more literal bloody trouble for the poor people of Syria. It could also stop people returning back to their country as no one wants another Iraq or Libya in their own country.

Assad has given Obama a 'Get Out Of Trouble Card' which had probably been behind the scenes earlier on.
He could easily give up part of his chemical arms and keep some back.

This whole point of chemical weapons only in Syria annoys me intensely because its pure nonsense that people are appearing to think that only Syria has these loathsome weapons. You can bet your life that their neighbours all have them as indeed do most countries - and that includes biological weapons also for many of them and one neighbour even worse, atomic weapons.

Hands up who thinks Israel and Saudi don't have these weapons as indeed would the USA and UK. A lot of other countries certainly would fight shy to admit having them, but we all know they are a part of a country's arsenal against invasion and a psychotic dictatorship's means of controlling their public.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Kashai
reply to post by Pistoche
 


But in this case chemical weapons were used and to be honest there is plenty of evidence this occurred.

You see I am considering that the fact the Russians and Syrians were so quick to respond is because they realize they are at fault.

Any thoughts?


You misunderstand the game. Russia reacted so quick with the idea to get the chemical weapons out because that is what Obama is claiming to be the issue. Now if America agrees it becomes a non issue and Obama would have to admit the real reason for attacking Syria.

Everyone has known forever that Syria has chemical weapons. This is not new, and for you to think that means you are not paying ANY attention or you are being very disingenuous.

This is about a power struggle over Syria, in which Russia wants to keep the old guys and Saudi Arabia, Israel, the US and Turkey are on the other side. Both teams stand to benefit from controlling or allying with Syria.

Did you not see the report saying the rebels do in fact have and did USE chemical weapons?

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator

(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Actually and in reality it is very possible that by this time every country in the world, has access to chemical, biological as well as nuclear weapons (hypothetically even the Fiji Islands).


Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


I posted them two above you. In essence pretty much along the same lines as your thoughts on this.

I suspect this is about Israel getting its hands on the oil/gas under the Golan Heights which I seem to remember the International Community had decided was actually Syrias and Assad would certainly agree with that; which leaves Israel unable to grab those resources while Assad is in Power. However, another Syrian may not sell his people's oil reserves so cheaply to its neighbours or let them have it at all. If Israel does get these resources they could effectively control the ME alside with their very odd bed-fellow Saudi. Not exactly a group of individuals I would want controlling the ME reserves and I suspect neither the Chinese, whom many seem to be overlooking.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


There is no realistic reason to consider that as a result of a Syrian civil war, that Israel will gain some advantage (rationally). Just like there is not reason to believe that Egyptian women today experience some advantage (in relation to civil rights) to a change in government related to Egypt.

The reality is such changes are effectively baby steps and perhaps in 1000 years there will be a difference consistent with western standards.

Meaning it could take that long before a woman raped is not sentenced to death for admitting it.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
What will Assad do?
...read on.

Isaiah 17:


“See, Damascus will no longer be a city
but will become a heap of ruins.
2 The cities of Aroer will be deserted
and left to flocks, which will lie down,
with no one to make them afraid.
3 The fortified city will disappear from Ephraim,
and royal power from Damascus;
the remnant of Aram will be
like the glory of the Israelites,”
declares the Lord Almighty.

4 “In that day the glory of Jacob will fade;
the fat of his body will waste away.
5 It will be as when reapers harvest the standing grain,
gathering the grain in their arms—
as when someone gleans heads of grain
in the Valley of Rephaim.
6 Yet some gleanings will remain,
as when an olive tree is beaten,
leaving two or three olives on the topmost branches,
four or five on the fruitful boughs,”
declares the Lord, the God of Israel.


...sounds like a chemical weapons attack to me. "The fat of his body will waste away..."



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 


The glory of Jacob is the God of Jacob....Some Christian sects imply that the God of Jacob was an incarnation of Jesus Christ.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Where would you get the idea that every nation has access to chemical weapons? Technically speaking, I have access to one of the most deadly chemical weapons ever discovered by man. Chlorine Gas. It's sitting in my kitchen cabinet. It's simply in precursor form, in two different cleaning agents, labeled very differently. Mix them together and take a whiff to get the smell of what results? You'll be dying before you hit the floor and realize the fatal mistake. (ONCE in awhile..you hear about a traffic accident with a soccer mom carrying those chemicals in grocery bags that rupture and mix.....to make a truly tragic ending)

In THAT sense? yeah. every nation has access to chemical weapons. In the actual sense of WEAPONS? Warheads? Well, it's like people saying North Korea has an ICBM. Okay, and I have a Unicorn farm....because I said I do.

If you look on YouTube, History Channel and others have long shows up there which cover, in documentary form, the actual use of chemical agents as well as their development cycles in World War I and other periods. The real thing. Not the Media fantasy version. It takes a lot of time, research, TESTING and development to get a warhead right and delivery of chemicals accomplished.

To have watched some of that? It's a lot more difficult than I would have imagined, to be honest.

Unfortunately....in Syria? Some of those defectors who make up the FSA were also among Assad's Chemical corps and/or the troops guarding/handling it all. All levels defected to some degree in the early days. So, Government chemical experts and Rebel chemical experts are to be found easily enough, and definitely under both flags in this fight.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join