It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Assad Keep Half His WMD’s?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:40 PM
I believe Assad should keep at least half of his chemical weapons, because if he doesn’t, he is going to be accused, and then treated by America in almost exactly the same way as if he had got rid of them completely. This is just one of Iraq’s many lessons that: False accusation can be made, and then acted on as if they were real.
Exactly the same media “reporting” is being used as in 2003 Iraq, including the non-reporting of inconvenient news….

1. On where chemical weapons are coming from
2. On scientific evidence of who used chemical weapons

Samples taken at the Syrian town where chemical weapons were allegedly used indicate that it was rebels - not the Syrian army - behind the attack, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin has said.
“It was determined that on March 19 the rebels fired an unguided missile Bashair-3 at the town of Khan al-Assal, which has been under government control. The results of the analysis clearly show that the shell used in Khan al-Assal was not factory made and that it contained sarin,” he said.
Churkin added that the contents of the shell “didn’t contain chemical stabilizers in the toxic substance,”and therefore “is not a standard chemical charge.” The RDX - an explosive nitroamine commonly used for industrial and military applications - found in the warhead was not consistent with what the armed forces use.

3. And Misused Intelligence

Despite the Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.

So: Rather than broadcast the fact that (at the very least) both sides have used chemical weapons, we hear that just the Assad side has.
Rather than broadcast the opinion that it would be madness for Assad to have consciously ordered the U.S of chemical weapons, we hear (time and again) the opinion (and it really is only an opinion given we’re not being shown the evidence) that whatever evidence there is, is undeniable.

Last year: The BBC even pulled a news story that showed the rebels tricking a prisoner of war, into becoming an unwilling, and unwitting, suicide bomber.

For western media to be repeat Iraq’s 2003 media propaganda, is to give literal meaning to Obama’s campaign phrase “yes we can!”
And he can because there is no law against it (as Bush & Blair both being filthy rich, free men, confirms). They’re free because although what they did is a moral crime, it certainly wasn’t a crime legally (so be it, mostly thanks to them obtaining UN Resolution 1441).
The fact neither the U.N or Congress will approve military action is why Obama looks weak –not because of Putin’s mater diplomacy as the Western media would have you focus on.

The Real Truth About Syria…
America has only recently started (effectively) arming the ideology that (apparently) did 9/11, because Syria’s opposition have made little progress into territories who’s people sincerely wish to be led by President Assad, and also because Obama has (long) been under immense political pressure to send weapons to the rebels.
In a way that political pressure, makes Obama’s America, a victim of propaganda found politically favourable by those advocating “Humanitarian Bombing” within Syria –it’s a media message which basically says: “Syrian opposition are fighting for freedom & democracy, against a government composed of evil people, headed by a tyrannical despot.”

How Chemical Weapons Have Limited Our War Efforts…
The biggest reason why the opposition hasn’t already received all the weapons, and all the finance required, to overthrow Assad (as of about 2 years ago) is because regime collapse for Assad, also means chemical weapons falling into the hands of up to 30 groups. I’m not saying there’s a risk of chemical weapons literally falling into the hands of 30+ groups (more like 10-20% of that number -depending on whatever battlefield geography may exist at the time). But it’s a no-brainer regime collapse would see WMD’s falling into the hands of jihadists since discipline (including even ideological discipline) within the Syrian opposition, isn’t exactly strong.

And yet conventional weapons are now being sent to Syria’s opposition. These weapons, paid for by American taxes (from a population relatively generous in world terms, for donating towards charity) are not being given to the Syrian opposition because Obama possesses a large heart, that aches for the 100,000 plus, Syrians killed (so far).
If this were true, then the Whitehouse would have sought to quickly end the war in one of two ways…
1. By giving weapons in abundance to Syria’s opposition (despite the risk of WMD’s falling to terrorists).
2. Or to end the war by not arming the opposition, and obstructing them, because the WMD risk means they are not fit to run Syria, and therefore it would be in the Syrian’s people’s interest for the conflict to not happen –at least until they have formed a better run opposition.

3. The option Obama is choosing is to weakly arm Syrian opposition, in the knowledge this will maximise the conflicts bloodiness & duration. Totally foreseeable because Russia has made a geopolitical point, of arming Assad, whilst covertly threating to consciously neutralise American aid efforts (if the Kremlin judges necessarily).

President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday revealed Russia had suspended deliveries of sophisticated S-300 missile systems to Syria even though some components had already been handed over.

MOSCOW: Russia could expand arms sales to Iran and revise the terms of U.S. military transit to Afghanistan if Washington launches a strike on Syria, a senior Russian lawmaker said Wednesday.

Why We Arm…
So the biggest reason why Obama assists Syria’s opposition is because not only does Obama (the politician) not care a lot about Syrian suffering, but because (those advising him prominently) wish to further degrade the Syrian population’s living standards, in order to further degrade Syria’s regional power as a sovereign state.

There are strong motivations for wanting this outcome: Syria is: An ally of Iran, Russia, and China.
Syria has almost always been this way, and under Assad (or if after Assad’s death; Syria remains under Assad’s Shiite dominated, political ideology) it would most likely to continue being an ally of the said, and so not a very co-operative place towards Western economic, and military interests.

And Yet…
America (a strongly Christian country) is financing weapons to people we know donate & share weapons with those who will happily convert others to Islam, at gunpoint. Who proudly use suicide bombings, and who’s ideological “philosophers” (somewhat idly) fantasise over not merely destroying Israel, but also all the Western world too. In short we directly supply weapons to people who really are benefactors our enemy.

But when you look at 9/11 see how 15 of the 19 hijackers came from 1.76% of the world’s Muslims (Saudi Arabia), and then discover its unsurprising these hijackers sincerely believed killing 3000 civilians was a morally good thing to do, because their values are from a country which: Still has a secret police, gives homosexuals the death penalty

A British man was arrested and beaten in Saudi Arabia by religious police when they discovered he was gay.
Stephen Comiskey, a 36-year-old nurse, was threatened with beheading and thrown in a cell, the Sun reports.
He says he was tricked by religious police who sent him a text message pretending to be a friend. Homosexuality is a capital offence in Saudi Arabia.

Practices crucifixion

Saudi seven face crucifixion and firing squad for armed robbery
One of group to be executed, speaking from cell on smuggled phone, says most of ring were juveniles at time of thefts
Bans all women from driving, and teaches religious extremism in schools…

Anti-Western and Extremist Views Pervade Saudi

And then discover how 12 years after 9/11 not only Saudi Arabia not been “regime changed” but it’s not even been given an ultimatum of regime change unless it substantially improve the barbaric & evil laws, that quite unsurprisingly produces a society produces terrorists who’s personal beliefs sincerely represent the society they come from.

That Alone Tells You…
The “war on terror” is a complete sham (fantasy) and it’s no wonder then, why America so readily, goes about effectively arming Al Qaeda (especially when the objective is bringing about the degradation of Syria as an enemy territory!).

It’s no surprise there was a delay in arming the rebels when chemical weapons might fall to the Islamists equivalent of EBay, or when giving the rebels a lot of support would have entailed ending the conflict early -something that would save Syria from this conflicts full potential to degrade Syria as sovereign power (regional actor).

None of our policy has anything to do with human rights!!! Instead concern over “Human Rights” is merely a useful propaganda concept, for sending people (both allied & enemy) to their graves. It’s useful for avenging Russia over e.g. Syria (by degrading their image) when they pass a law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality to under 18’s (whilst our cars simultaneously fill-up on oil purchased from homosexual crucifiers). This is the reality of our policy: Smoke & mirrors, to screen people without a gram of human compassion, and to more importantly utilise the populations sincerely held human right compassion, to support wars, for reasons that are not even the government’s sincere concerns –let alone real foreign policy objectives.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Have you ever heard of the "Guns For Cash" Programs that local governments offer throughout the U.S.?

That is basically where local governments offer cash to people for turning in guns to make the city a safer place.

However, what they usually get are weapons that have been buried in mud, and pitched in rivers, and are basically Useless and inoperable. After all, what criminal wants to turn in a perfectly good working weapon?

I suspect Assad will operate the same way. I am certain that he will Not give an accurate inventory of what chemical weapons he has, and I suspect that what chemical weapons he does turn in will be either corroded, leaking, or just plain useless as T:TS on a Boar.

By the time it is all said and done, he will still have maintained a large stock pile.

If you want a prime example of this, just look at the Nuclear Arms Treaties that require countries to reduce and eliminate their stockpiles of Nuclear Weapons.

Make Note. .. . .. . .

Why do we still have such a LARGE stockpile of Nuclear Weapons after that?

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:02 PM
He should be allowed to keep what he wants. Other nations in the region has unknown amounts of WMD's and they are not being forced to hand theirs over so why should he? What he does in his country is his business.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by buster2010

I'd have to agree with this. What other nation, aside from North Korea (and we've given up..100% given up even trying to say they can't have what we spent 2 decades saying they could never have) is being told they MUST give up their weapons or be murdered for it?

India and Pakistan went nuclear. Full blown Nuclear and with a "SURPRISE!" way of letting the world know too. Are they paraiah nations and relegated to the ash heap of trade and history? Hell no.. Pakistan is a major strategic partner to both the United States and China at the same time, to show how much it matters in that case. India is, likewise, courted by all major powers and can pick their deals an alliances...for all their WMD hurt them.

Only the nations we covet as our own or under our control do we seem to say Absolutely NOT and they MUST surrender everything or die!......

Question: Where was this "surrender the WMD or die" crap for the last 33+ years the Assad family has been making it? Why now? Oh..yeah.. now, becuase our rebel buddies need us to kill Assad by ANY means necessary ..and this is a pretty good excuse by recent history.

America went from a land built on least in a regime getting as rogue as any we've rooted for the destruction of. (goes back to sleep...wake me in 3 years)

edit on 16-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

First, remember that when it comes to international politics, no one has clean hands. Russia is SAYING that the evidence points to the rebels but unless you've seen such evidence it doesn't exist. Keep firmly in mind that Russia has a basic business desire (everything's a business model) to keep Syria status quo. Hundreds of billons of dollars hang in the balance. They'll say and do anything to protect that.

Initially, like most people, I believed it was likely the rebels who had launched the attack hoping to draw US firepower into the fight on their behalf. However, Human Rights Watch and now the UN Mission have released their reports on what happened and it seems very, very unlikely that the 'opposition' launched the attack. Why?

1. The Aug 21st attack was carried out with 140mm and 330mm rockets KNOWN to be in the Syrian arsenal.

2. They carry ~20liters and ~50liters respectively. There were between 5 and 8 (depending upon sources) impacts in each of two areas of Damascus (16km apart) that would have required between 350 and 560 liters of Sarin. That is a lot!

3. The azimuth calculated at impact sites strongly indicates that multiple rocket launchers were used. It further suggests that the rockets were launched from government controlled military bases and/or areas.

4. The mixing and filling of rocket warheads requires specialized equipment and expertise.

Add to the forgoing the evidence presented by Western intelligence and the case is even stronger against Assad. We know that the opposition has been caught with nerve agents. And they may well have used them in the past (there have been 14+ incidents in Syria). But it seems very clear that as far as the August 21st attack is concerned, no way could the opposition have mounted that attack. They don't have the equipment, munitions and most especially the trunk-mounted launchers needs to fire the rockets.

I, too, suspected the opposition. But when the independent evidence came out and was duly analyzed by professionals, my position changed. If Russia has photographs of the opposition in possession of the launchers, munitions, and 130 gallons of Sarin used in this attack let me see them.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 04:10 PM

Hell no.. Pakistan is a major strategic partner to both the United States and China at the same time

A bit off topic but...

Pakistan aint no friend of the US and China should damn sure watch their backs *Western Province* when dealing with them.

Fair warning

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 05:28 PM
Jtma508 I do not dispute there is a lot of evidence that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons. It’s just worth remembering that…

August 2012: Rebels capture town with chemical weapons facilities…
Syrian Rebels Claim to Take Over Chemical Weapons
A statement published by the Syrian rebels says that they have taken over a military base and found missiles with non-conventional warheads.

I wonder what they could do with Chemical weapons made by Assad. Make it look like Assad used chemical weapons, or is that this over-imagining stuff?

Saudi Arabia has been keen to supply the rebels with the basic ingredients, and

Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis

The rebels like to gas their rabbit stew…

In Any Cae…
Even if Assad did use chemical weapons (and it wasn't even the work of some rogue officer in e.g. a desperate military situation)…

This does not mean anyone has a moral right to arm an opposition which is dominated by Jihadists, in which Jihadists look to remain dominant because (like in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) they fight more fantatically than anybody else and have ways of killing secular-peaceful, political candidates, come election time.

This is an opposition not merely guilty of war crimes often worse than Assad’s (like tricking war prisoners into becoming suicide bombers) but who's members are ideologically, purposefully destroying Syria’s once secular, multi-cultural society, and who have every indication of delivering Syria a much more intolerant “government” (i.e. tyranny) than anything so far witnessed under Assad.

The only logical motivation for arming these people is to prolong a war which is degrading Syria, almost as much as it’s degrading Syria’s population. And although Syria is an ally of Iran, anyone arming the rebels joins Iran as a state sponsor of religiously motivated fighting (i.e. Islamic terrorism).

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 05:39 AM

Pakistan aint no friend of the US and China should damn sure watch their backs *Western Province* when dealing with them.

Gotta agree with this. Pakistan is a friend of itself. It can't control itself either.
It's 'friendship' is bought easily and even that 'friendship' is superficial.
I'd trust China before I'd trust Pakistan with anything.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 06:33 PM

Question: Where was this "surrender the WMD or die" crap for the last 33+ years the Assad family has been making it? Why now?

Because Assad used them on his own people....

India and Pakistan did in fact suffer consequences for their development of nuclear weapons, yet you seem to be willfully ignoring that.

The United States did in fact sanction India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons tit for tat testing. The UN also passed UNR 1172, which passed unanimously. So to make the claim that nothing happened to either country because of their relations with the US is based on faulty logic and knowledge on your part.

Its one thing to develop a weapon to act as a deterrent... It becomes something else entirely when those weapons are sold to the highest bidder to be used in a manner inconsistent with that of a legitimate deterrent.

While some love to invoke the Israeli's into these argument, Israel has not threatened to use them on another nation, as Syria and Iran have done time and time again.

India and Pakistan claimed their programs were geared towards each other. China and India have fought 3 major wars in the past, and Pakistan and India have fought a similar number. The moment you throw China into the mix and both countries have a right to claim them as a deterrent.

But by all means though, continue to blame the US.. It seems to be the popular, yet woefully ignorant, thing to do in these forums.
edit on 17-9-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

India and Pakistan did in fact suffer consequences for their development of nuclear weapons, yet you seem to be willfully ignoring that.

Actually, I was aware of the short term issues both nations had after surprising the world with dueling tests. They've come pretty close to general war since too, and who knows quite where the line is for those nations. I sure couldn't guess.

Long term, and what I was referring to, they have shown the pattern true for other nations before and since. Once becoming a WMD capable power, almost nothing lasting is done for the simple reality that nothing beyond that can be done, while all involved know it.

Now perhaps Assad, as a willful act, used Sarin on this people and maybe he didn't. I'm not really sure what happened but for the types of weapons the UN seems to be certain of. I know his Father used them in the 80's...yet it's been tolerated since. ...and yes, the balance of WMD capability with Israel is largely why, in my opinion.

While some love to invoke the Israeli's into these argument, Israel has not threatened to use them on another nation, as Syria and Iran have done time and time again.

Iran is Iran and not Syria. We're talking about Syria and maybe Israel hasn't made a lot of threats. They've just sent missiles and rockets right into Damascus itself. That really trumps the 'threat' issue by quite a margin when Syria hasn't returned the favor with fire into Israeli cities. I can see their point in desiring a counter to Israel's nuclear ability though.

But by all means though, continue to blame the US.. It seems to be the popular, yet woefully ignorant, thing to do in these forums.

It's got nothing to do with trying to find ways to blame the US and I call them like I see them ... defending as often as pointing out the errors of our nation, as each topic applies. I try to be fair and equal in that way.... as much as circumstances allow anyway. I'm no apologist for America though and some are looking for that on the other extreme.

In this particular instance, the United States is supporting the organization which numbers Al Qaeda itself among it's ranks and major factions. It's so far beyond insane for "What could possibly go wrong??" I just don't know what to expect in the headlines from one day to the next anymore.

When the US stops screwing the pooch so bad, the poor thing howls all night? I'll stop pointing out how blatant the screw ups are, IMHO.


log in