Syria: Nato Defends Military Strikes Option

Syria has handed Russia new materials which it claims implicate rebels in a chemical attack in Damascus, says a Russian minister.

"The corresponding materials were handed to the Russian side," said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.

"We were told that they were evidence that the rebels are implicated in the chemical attack."

Speaking to Russia's state news agency RIA, Mr Ryabkov said Russia would be looking at the materials with "utmost seriousness".

The comments came as UN weapons inspectors confirmed they would "soon" return to Syria to investigate various accusations against the regime and the rebels, according to chief inspector Aake Sellstroem.

Syria: Gas Attack Evidence 'Implicates Rebels'

So this comes after the UN report earlier in the week which concluded that chemical weapons had been used on a "relatively large scale" but did not lay blame on either side.

Deputy foreign minister Mr Ryabkov said his country had serious reservations about the United Nations report into the attack.

"We are disappointed, to put it mildly, about the approach taken by the UN secretariat and the UN inspectors, who prepared the report selectively and incompletely.
Without receiving a full picture of what is happening here, it is impossible to call the nature of the conclusions reached by the UN experts ... anything but politicised, preconceived and one-sided,"

It will be interesting to see what this 'new evidence that implicates the rebels' is and if it is presented openly.

The Russians would say this wouldn't they? They do not like the U.N report, therefore, they will come up with a report themselves.

They were implicated in the use of chemical weapons as it was their missiles that contained the chemical agents. Also, if it was the Syrian regime who fired them, they have been supporting a psychopathic despot who is willing to use any means to hold on to power.

They need to produce this evidence to the rest of the world in order for an informed decision to be made on what steps need to be taken next in dealing with the rebels if this is true.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

Also, if it was the Syrian regime who fired them, they have been supporting a psychopathic despot who is willing to use any means to hold on to power.

They need to produce this evidence to the rest of the world in order for an informed decision to be made on what steps need to be taken next in dealing with the rebels if this is true.

If I closed my eyes, ignored the thread title and context...then read your note? Well, all I need to do is swap "Syrian" for "Rebel" and "Despot" to it's plural form.....and you could be talking equally about either side of this thing. Heck of a war to pick sides in, eh?

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


Maybe this video shows the evidence, starting at 3:30 of this video.

rt.com...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Indeed and around and around it goes.

It's the innocent who gets caught up in all of this as always!!

Russia will back Syria no matter what, NATO will back the rebels/Jihadists no matter what.

Geo politics, don't you just love it?

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Oh yeah, it's a laugh a minute. I think "Hubris" is a word carrying about the same in English or Russian.

You know, I have this odd sense of Deja Vu...like I've seen this movie before. Moscow and Washington facing off through a 3rd party nation, using 3rd and 4rd party resources and warm bodies? Hey, I'm SURE I've seen this plot before, huh? Seems...almost like yesterday too.

Some movies didn't need a sequel. lol

Everyone in media lies, everyone has an agenda.

What do you think? Someone works in a field where people (sheeple, if you want) are doused with endless streams of information. It is so simple to add some mis-information into those streams. No danger, just more profit/fools(Sorry, followers) to gain.

Really, news are biased. On purpose, in the worst cases.

Cobaltic1978
The Russians would say this wouldn't they? They do not like the U.N report, therefore, they will come up with a report themselves.

They were implicated in the use of chemical weapons as it was their missiles that contained the chemical agents. Also, if it was the Syrian regime who fired them, they have been supporting a psychopathic despot who is willing to use any means to hold on to power.

They need to produce this evidence to the rest of the world in order for an informed decision to be made on what steps need to be taken next in dealing with the rebels if this is true.

Your argument is simple and pure ad hominem. Any retard attempting to blame someone else would think of using Russian missiles and this implicates no-body.

How can you ignore the emails from the defence contractors planning the attack months before the event?

reply to post by ManFromEurope

Then Logic and deductive reasoning must be used in determining the truth.

It seems that the evidence which is handed to Russia is not new, but the same evidence which was handed to the UN earlier, but was not sufficiently reflected in the report.

www.reuters.com...

The one thing I would like to know the most is, if they prove it was the rebels that fired the Sarin gas, with Obama come out in favor of attacking them? Will he want to use air strikes against them?

No of course he won't stupid thought really, but I hope the Russians do prove it was the rebels, would love to watch the administration trying to slime their way out of it

The Russians are not agreeing to the option of strikes if Assad fails to provide all the CWs in the inventory. This is right as NATO can always say that we have intelligence on more CWs etc. and do the Iraq 2003 all over again.

NATO should only reserve the options for strikes if Assad uses CWs again. Although that can also be managed by false flag type operation. It does not take much advanced chemist, I think only masters degree level, to make these deadly gases and poisons. When the whole government pushes for them then it becomes very easy to produce in secret locations.

Rebels can always make them and blame the Syrian government for use in order to invite NATO attacks.

Efforts should be make to cool the situation down not aggravate it.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


I always figured it was Assad, because you would think you would need some kind of military training to use chemical weapons...

I guess there are some ex-military people in the FSA right now. Just when you think the Syrian crisis is close to fizzling out, more stuff comes out.

-SAP-

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Question:- If it could be proven that the U.S was involved in either the use or the supply of chemical weapons , would it still be ok for the U.N to authorize a military strike against the United States?

In 1993, the international community came together to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a binding international treaty that would also prohibit the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer or use of chemical weapons. Syria is one of only eight of the world's 193 countries not party to the convention.

It was the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, which used chemical weapons on a scale far greater than any country had dared since their banning following World War I. The Iraqis inflicted close to 100,000 casualties among Iranian soldiers using banned chemical agents, resulting in 20,000 deaths and tens of thousands of long-term injuries.

They were unable to do this alone, however. Despite ongoing Iraqi support for Abu Nidal and other terrorist groups during the 1980s, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism to provide the regime with thiodiglycol, a key component in the manufacture of mustard gas, and other chemical precursors for their weapons program. In fact, recently released CIA documents show that DIA personnel were dispatched to Baghdad during the war to provide Saddam Hussein's regime with U.S. satellite data on the location of Iranian troop concentrations in the full knowledge that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against them.

Sorry , just got angry at the hypocrisy.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Pinkorchid


They could authorize it all they want but it would probably never happen... If the FSA used them they came from Saudi Arabia (most likely).

-SAP-

Wrabbit2000
If I closed my eyes, ignored the thread title and context...then read your note? Well, all I need to do is swap "Syrian" for "Rebel" and "Despot" to it's plural form.....and you could be talking equally about either side of this thing. Heck of a war to pick sides in, eh?

True however...


In this case the signs *even from their own source* are pointing in one direction. Simply because one or the other side are both as ruthless doesn't mean we should not take note as to which side has taken this type of despicable action. Simply because in this case it was Syrian as apposed the to Rebels doesn't mean it should be all swept under the rug imho.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


I do not believe any country should be bombed but the sheer hypocrisy of the U.N and the U.S is unbelievable. The numbers killed by the attack on Iran from U.S supported and assisted chemical weapons far outnumber that of this recent event.

The March 1988 massacre in the northern Iraqi city of Halabja, where Saddam's forces murdered up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians with chemical weapons, was downplayed by the Reagan administration, with some officials even falsely claiming that Iran was actually responsible. The United States continued sending aid to Iraq even after the regime's use of poison gas was confirmed. Bothe the Reagan and Bush administrations blocked Congressional efforts to place sanctions on the Iraqi regime in response to the chemical weapons attacks.

reply to post by SLAYER69


To be honest, Slayer? I'm still getting my mind around the weak proof being offered that it was Syrians who did it. Trajectory of shells no one actually saw fly and some dispute whether the remains even had Sarin on them...make for more questions than answers. Sarin WAS used...no question on that, it seems. By whom, how much and for what purpose (since nothing tactical is evident for motive)

I don't try to ignore anything here..but that's still the whole point. There is still 100%, absolutely NO logic or beneficial reason for Assad to have done it. It was entirely and without exception a benefit to the Rebels. Start to finish and slam dunk.

If Assad's people fired them? They didn't even hit or kill anyone worth the effort for a conventional attack, let alone a world changing attack with taboo weapons. Just ..no sense at all. It's easier to believe the Rebels fired from positions just off the fence line of military locations. As crazy as it sounds? It makes more sense than the official version by basic logic...just logic alone. ( ?? )