Syria Chemical weapon Attack Accusation - up to 1,300 dead (McCain, Putin, lawyer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You want to know who I believe... I think the rebels did it... 1) The Syrian army is winning 2) They Syrian army doesn't need chemical weapons to win 3) The Syrian army knows chemical weapons are prohibited and everyone is watching... 4) The Syrian rebels are desperately losing 5) The Syrian rebels can have easy access to chemical weapons 6) They Syrian rebels are desperate for outside assistance...
One other thing, I never believed Iraq had WMDs... do you believe that Syria used a chemical weapon?
what a bunch of nonsense. So these FSA thugs want us to believe that Assad will use chemical weapons THE VERY DAY THAT UN INSPECTORS ARRIVE TO INVESTIGATE CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE.
Syrian authorities issued a statement saying there is “no truth whatsoever” to reports of chemical weapons use near Damascus.
Quote:
However, the Assad government denied there had been any use of chemical weapons. Dr. Abdulqader Azouz told RT’s Arabic channel Rossiya al-Yaum the Syrian army was “winning the battle against the rebels” and there was no need for chemical weapons.
“America has always put the pretext of using chemical weapons on the top of its agenda as a means of intervention in Syria,” Azouz told Rossiya al-Yaum. He went on to stress that the Syrian government has pledged “its commitment to full cooperation with the investigation committee and other specialized committees.”
Media reports about Syrian government troops using chemical weapons near Damascus are aimed at misleading international observers, the Syrian ambassador in Russia, Riyadh Haddad told Interfax.
“It’s not true,” he stressed.
In July, Russia submitted to the UN its analysis of samples taken west of Aleppo. Russia’s findings indicated that it was rebels behind the Khan al-Assal incident, in which more than 30 people died.
The US contradicted the Russian findings, stressing they had their own data which proved that the government forces were behind the attack. However, Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the UN commission’s inquiry into rights violations in Syria, said the evidence provided by the US did not meet required standards.
The Obama administration repeatedly called the use of chemical weapons in Syria “a red line.”
Obama supports terrorism, check this out.
This deserves a whole new thread, but I think it may be relevant to what we do with Syria, and the Middle East in general.
I don't like the Islamists any more than I like the Asad dictatorship but I say if we will not stand up now, in the face of an indisputable WMB attack, then I say our principles mean nothing. It is time to attack Syria and let the chips fall where they may.
I don't like the Islamists any more than I like the Asad dictatorship but I say if we will not stand up now, in the face of an indisputable WMB attack, then I say our principles mean nothing. It is time to attack Syria and let the chips fall where they may.
Will you be the first to step up and volunteer your life? Or are you just generous with the lives of other Americans?
The first principle the US should have is to itself.
We attacked Iraq, how did that turn out?
We went looking for OBL in Afghanistan and it turned into a war, how's that going?
We helped Libya to overthrow Ghadaffi, how did that turn out?
We backed Egypt to overthrow Mubarak and supported the Muslim Brother, how's that going?
We go into Syria, overthrow Assad, the rebels take over and it will look like Iraq.
It seems that General Dempsey gets it. Assad remains in power - no cooperation with US interests. Rebels take power - no cooperation with US interests. Opposition - will probably want no US interference. The US could do everything short of putting the boots on the ground, which the US doesn't plan to do, and it isn't going to change what is at the core of the battle in Syria - it is deep in political and ethnic beliefs, as is Afghanistan and the US will only end up putting itself into another war.
If the opposition succeeds, they will they be fighting with the various rebels - which translates into terrorist organizations - who want the power. It's a three way war - Assad, the opposition and the various rebel (terrorist) factions.
One has to wonder what Obama's agenda is - on the one hand arm the rebels (no mention of stopping those arms), on the other hand, realize that the rebels will never work with US interests.
The US should pull out of the entire region and let it crumble. The longer these animals fight amongst themselves, the less we have to worry about them bringing their problems to America. Who are you going to help? Every side in every country over there is littered with extremists and terrorists. Any help the US provides one side, they create life long enemies of the other.
Ironic how the Saudis pledged unwavering support to Egypt if the US cuts financial aid, but they won't get anywhere near the syria's, etc.
25,000 people die from starvation every DAY on planet Earth. The US government doesn't seem to care about saving people in Africa, why care about saving people in the Middle East?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,343 posts, read 54,470,554 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
Sounds good, but the US is not actually "tending" to our own problems. We "waive", we "delay", we talk about the "war" on this faction or that faction or any faction of the day that the media is willing to give air time to.
Makes sense to "tell every country in the ME" to do whatever ..... but then what? It's truly amazing how little people know about the world. Shut down the Suez - who cares? Give the nutter Iranians a nuclear bomb - who cares? Shut down all the US access to ME oil - who cares?
History is going to have a grand time when they actually sit down and look at what's going on, and what's been going on for a few years now. We are not "picking countries" to support, we are picking a specific type of people to support .... when you look at the total picture. We will have many decades to live with this mess. We will soon see the Friday Martyrs Day protests in Egypt - I'm familiar with that concept. Friday Martyrs Day protests were EXACTLY the way that the Khomeini took over Iran in the 70's .... and then he slaughtered (a real slaughter, not the fake "massacres" the press bleats about) the Iranian Military and Iran became a Shiite Twelver Theocracy.
It's very bizarre, this new "reality" - the real question is .... is it deliberate? or is it total incompetence?
And we should take sides when there is NO side that is 'our' side because?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
