Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Syria gives Russia proof , the Rebels did it

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I have been suspecting this form the star , not that I ma an Assad backer nor one that believes he should stay but it odes make sense to me that the rebels would be behind the Chemical attack

news.yahoo.com... from the link

Syria gives Russia 'evidence' rebels behind chem attack
Firefighters try to put out a fire at the site of an explosion on the Syrian border crossing of Bab al-Hawa.

Damascus and key ally Moscow joined forces on Wednesday in a bid to thwart plans for a Western-backed UN resolution on Syria's chemical weapons that allows the use of force.

The United States, meanwhile, said it will maintain the threat of force in case Syria's regime fails to abide by an agreement to relinquish control of its chemical weapons.

Russia came out swinging, saying Damascus had handed over new evidence implicating the rebels in an August 21 sarin gas attack near the capital that killed hundreds, while slamming a UN report into the incident as "biased."
One has to see both sides of the Coin to see the full picture.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Wed Sep 18 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


While I'm very skeptical as to which side did the gas attack. And I certainly would not put the attack past the rebels.

You have to consider the source.

Russia has a ship base in Syria. And they recently spent billions to upgrade the base recently.
And the base in Tartus is the only one they have in the medeterranian. So it's very important to them.

So you gotta wonder how altruistic Russia's reasons are for supporting the Assad regime.
edit on 18-9-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Two things make little or no sense.

1. Syria (Assad) had no advantage to use CWs.

2. The rebels had no advantage to use CWs.

Both scenarios attract U.N. interference.

Neither side wants U.N. interference.

Obviously a 3rd party was involved.

Probably a 3rd party in support of rebels ( anti Assad ).

All U.N. efforts have been failures for years, and have wasted millions of dollars.

Hmmm.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The rebels had a lot to gain by using CW.....the big advantage being that it causes the US to get involved and take out Assad if they can make the world believe he did it.

We are being suckered into another conflict and we are too stupid to notice it.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 

I can think of a lot of ways why Russia wants to back Assad, for one Stability, Two they know if he falls there will be no security , and the US will be the ones making the power play



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


You're wrong on this, Syria has repeatedly called for the UN to come because there have been more chemical weapons attacks in the past.
The rebels had an advantage as soon as Obama stated that chemical weapons would be a red line.
So it is plausible that this attack was a provocation to get the west to attack Syria.
Obviously they were and are very disapointed that the US will not bomn Syria.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


We arent too stupid to notice. This has been the very focus on most of the discussions here on ATS.

We have been screaming for proof- because nothing that comes out of our lying govt can be taken at face
value.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

well not all of us, I stated form the start that they the Rebels did it to bring in the US, if it was not for the voice of the people in the UK and US, we would be in there right now, this does not mean we wont be , for now it is a game of Diplomacy. One that is sure to fail, M.I.C. gains nothing from it, only in war does M.I.C.make money.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I'm speaking of "we" as in a general mindset within the US. Many people are against the war...but fail to see the game being played trying to get us into war in Syria.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


They said they were handed evidence....

WHERE IS IT?? I'm not saying it doesn't exist but are we supposed to take Russia's word for it?

NO THANKS! LOL



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Yes, the moves being made by Obama could be an act of treason and high crime or misdemeanor's this would not be that hard to prove, but the thing is, National Security is the Trump card he can play.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Therein lies the biggest problem with all of this.

We can't believe what Russia says, or the US government, or Syria, or the rebels......or.......Take your pick.

This is what happens after years of unjustified intervention by the US. We have lost credibility and the moral highground. How about we forget the mess, mind our own business and let them work it out for themselves.

Oh, and we should no longer fund the UN for these wars either.
edit on 18-9-2013 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

So do you take the US evidence where is that? and no use of Ytube Videos they can be faked, UN has the info and the report it does not say whom did it.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Well Russia has two options.

1. Turn in the proof.
2. Pull an Obama and talk about this so called evidence that will never be seen.

Hopefully we see it. Or at least the UN.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

sheepslayer247
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The rebels had a lot to gain by using CW.....the big advantage being that it causes the US to get involved and take out Assad if they can make the world believe he did it.

We are being suckered into another conflict and we are too stupid to notice it.


I agree.

But I still think a 3rd party ( in favor of the rebels ) did the 'work'.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


What you don't realize is that Obama and Kerry both played the national security card and it failed miserably this time!

No matter who used the CW's....Americans don't want any part of it and it is going to take something drastic to get public approval for any action at all.

Even then, it may be hard to sell it to Americans. I think they finally screwed the pooch here.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Oh I know they did , i was referring to the arming of the rebels how he, Obama Circumvented the NDDA act and other laws forbidding the arming or giving aid to Terrorist, yea Kerry said only 15% of them Rebels are , but whom can say whom is whom there.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

earthling42
reply to post by xuenchen
 


You're wrong on this, Syria has repeatedly called for the UN to come because there have been more chemical weapons attacks in the past.
The rebels had an advantage as soon as Obama stated that chemical weapons would be a red line.
So it is plausible that this attack was a provocation to get the west to attack Syria.
Obviously they were and are very disapointed that the US will not bomn Syria.


And how many successful failures has the U.N. produced ?

A 3rd party was/has been used because if conclusive 'proof' ever was actually produced that the rebels or Assad did it, they would be fools.

The suspicions of a 3rd party has always been present.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
If the Russians thought for one second the rebels really did it they would not have made Assad give up his weapons. They know he did it and that compromised their position so as punishement they are taking away Assads chemical weapons. If the rebels were capable of that type of strike they would have hit Assad and his HQ not their own people.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Could it have been McCain , that whispered in someones ear "you do this , it will be to your best interest , we will come in and in force you will win Assad will lose" just saying






top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join