Damascus a flase flag?

edition.cnn.com...

The government blamed terrorists inside and outside of Syria, but the opposition called the attacks the work of the regime.

I was just wondering what people who hold varying opinions on the events of 911 think about the explosions in damascus?

Do you think it were terrorists opposed to Assad who blew up people in Damascus to rally support for their cause?
Or are you more inclined to believe the retort of the opposition to the regime, who claims the explosions were the work of the regime in an attempt to erode the public image of the opposition and support for the opposition?

And how do you feel about CNNs choice to put the word terrorists in parenthesis?

there is no way "the opposition" has the knowledge and whereabouts of everyone opposed to Assad,
the same reason our opposition doesn't know everyone on ours, nor can they control everyone.

it could have been special forces or it could have been literal terrorists,
if it were oppositional fighters, they would more than likely take responsibility for any attack due to good propaganda.

reply to post by Cassius666


Assad's crazy ass military committing that attack would rally do him no good. It's not much he can do for himself at this point.

Also, if the opposition did carry it out, then it wasn't a false flag, lol. They're fighting, and no secrets there.

However, given denial on both sides, I'd say Assad isn't as smart as me, and thought carrying out a false flag would help him gain support from SOMEWHERE...... And when it failed he realize he'd made an ASSad of himself, so denied it. =)

Everything is a false flag.
Welcome to ATS.

reply to post by Cassius666


What do I think about Syria and their explosions?
I think the Syrian authorities best get on it.
I'm over here in the US so I can offer no help, hopefully the US Gumment will do the same and let them sort their own garbage.

hmm just like kony

Syria Activist Danny Caught Staging Complete Fake CNN Interviews ~

Syria activist Danny, the poster child to justify a military invasion in Syria, caught staging entire CNN interviews including directing fake gunfire off stage.

Raw video footage of the Syria activist Danny as he waits to do a live video interview with CNN shows him directing off-stage fake gunfire and explosions, as well as being directed to tell CNN he has been retrieving the bodies of civilians from buildings that collapse due to Syria army mortar fire. It also shows Danny totally exaggerating a sense of fear and urgency as he goes from being totally calm, smiling and even somewhat bored before the on air interview starts to acting totally scared, hysterical and pretending he is in the middle of a war zone as soon as the actual interview starts.

I have condensed footage of the original video to remove 5 uneventful minutes of watching him waiting around before the interview because most people will not stay interested long enough to get to the parts were he starts directing his off-stage actors to start the faked off stage gunfire. Also below are two detailed reports from the Intel Hub and Infowars on this incident, which outline more faked activist reports and other crimes committed by the rebels.

Syria CNN Danny Fake Interview Stage Offstage Gunfire Propaganda MSM Lies Shelling Mortar Fire

www.youtube.com...

iran contra deja vue all over again anyone?
betcha the drugs this time around are afghani

According to a bipartisan group of Senators, American taxpayer dollars are buying Russian helicopters for Afghanistan and the money is underwriting Russian arms trade with Syria.
A bipartisan group of seventeen Senators has sent a letter of protest to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta expressing “grave concern” that the Defense Department’s “ongoing business deals” with Russian arms export firm Rosoboronexport are helping the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad even as it continues to attack Syrian citizens.

The Senators’ concerns stem from a deal struck by the Pentagon to purchase Russian helicopters for the Afghan military. Rather than purchase American-made helicopters, under the terms of the deal the U.S. is purchasing 21 Russian Mi-17 helicopters for Afghanistan, worth $375 million.

Additionally, under the terms of the no-bid contract, there is an option for $550 million of additional purchases, making the deal worth potentially in the neighborhood of $1 billion.

That much U.S. taxpayer money being used to purchase Russian military equipment which will then be given to Afghanistan is questionable enough. Even worse, in the view of the Senators, is the fact that the money is going to a Russian arms export firm that has been implicated in supplying arms to Syria during that country’s violent and bloody crackdown on dissidents

www.americandailyherald.com...

www.cnn.com...

"This is the regime's game. This is how they play their dirty tricks. They carry out these types of explosions from time to time to get more international support and compassion. They are desperately trying to prove to the world that they are fighting against armed gangs,but the reality is they are the ones doing all the killings."

Replace Syria with American government and you have CNN finally admitting the truth about 9/11. However, because of their hypocrisy and double standards they think only governments they call 'regimes' do such things. It must be nice to be able to use that magic word 'regime' whenever you want to demonize a government. Well then, I guess the international 'regime' should pick better propaganda to dish out to the public.

Of course it is the terrorists. A similar event happened in September 2006 when they tried to destroy the American embassy. Assad told the US at the time he was battling the wahabi/salafi extremists and was ignored then, just as he is being ignored now.

Damascus is a good place to hit if your fighting the government don't you suppose? It is similar to targeting Washington DC

how would hitting the seat of government somehow detract support for the opposition? It would be ignorant to think this would be the case, in reality it would bolster the opposition and give them a sense of power.

No I do not appreciate the word terrorists put into quotation marks because it is explicit sarcasm.

I would like to know why in Syria these same terrorist groups who are on US terrorist watch lists (and are prohibited under US law from obtaining material support from any US citizen) are suddenly not considered terrorists. Would anyone like to explain that one?

reply to post by Jameela


If you attack the capital, yet only civillians die, or the poor chump, people from a societal sector who have no links whatsoever to the ruling class, then you did not target the government. Its akin to blowing up civilians in Washington. If the highest rank was a cashier, who died along with clerks and assembly line workers, then its a welcome opportunity for Washington to paint the opposition in the correct light, as terrorists who target the average American, even you.

reply to post by Jameela


You make a good point. Nobody in the west really got that upset when Bahrainis tried exactly the same thing because, um, the Bahrain government are apparently our pals. Try the same thing in a place where we don't like the rulers for whatever reason and suddenly the salafists are all brave freedom fighters.

reply to post by Cassius666


According to you, but these wahabis have long used car bombs and the like. It is the most effective use of force they have in heavily guarded areas because it is the easiest way to go unnoticed. The opposition forces do not have the capability yet for more than typical terrorist attacks on the capital.

Also, you are forgetting, the citizens in the capital are going to be larger numbers of alawite rather than the sunni extremest variety, and have a higher likelihood of supporting the government because of the higher likelihood of being in the government in some form. The extremists do not mind killing them irregardless if they are women and children, believing it their religious duty to kill them.

I do not go with your thinking on this matter for the above stated reasons.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jameela

 

You make a good point. Nobody in the west really got that upset when Bahrainis tried exactly the same thing because, um, the Bahrain government are apparently our pals. Try the same thing in a place where we don't like the rulers for whatever reason and suddenly the salafists are all brave freedom fighters.

What you say is true, it is what I am most against in all of this, US appears to support on hypocritical basis constantly, Israel was charged with over 400 war crimes against innocent Palestinian civilians and they are 'defending themselves', US is opposed to Al Qaeda on US soil and funds it on foreign soil, US is opposed to governments cracking down on protesters in Syria, yet supports and funds it in Bahrain.

The only sense it makes is whatever might end up being a benefit to US interest is supported and whatever has no benefit is fought against and the public told it is evil to gain public support. What is evil today might be wonderful tomorrow, and what is wonderful today might be evil tomorrow. The only basis is what they believe is in their interest at that time, without regard to human life.

reply to post by Jameela


The USA is a self serving entity, yes. This isn't a particularly new notion though!

I think it's more complicated than states just doing exactly what benefits them in terms of finance and power though. With Bahrain, for example, the 'west' sees one of the few gulf states that will actually approach Israel with any degree of realistic foreign policy. Hence they get something of a pass.

I sense we may disagree about Israel (although I'm certainly no cheerleader of theirs) but the fact remains that the US and Britain and so on sees a two-state solution as desirable. So, apparently, does Bahrain. And that means that weighing it all up, the aforementioned authorities think it wrthwhile to keep that government in place.

Not exactly selfless, but not a nakedly cynical approach either.

reply to post by Cassius666

Do you think it were terrorists opposed to Assad who blew up people in Damascus to rally support for their cause?

This, however without "rally support" thingy. It is just an act of terror, targeting those that they consider loyal to Assad. Not that Syrian government is all roses though. It does its share of nasty things but it hardly needs to go that low to tarnish rebels while it still can shell their neighborhoods in the province while enjoying Russia's protection.
And Damascus mostly pro-Assad anyway.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jameela

 

The USA is a self serving entity, yes. This isn't a particularly new notion though!

I think it's more complicated than states just doing exactly what benefits them in terms of finance and power though. With Bahrain, for example, the 'west' sees one of the few gulf states that will actually approach Israel with any degree of realistic foreign policy. Hence they get something of a pass.

I sense we may disagree about Israel (although I'm certainly no cheerleader of theirs) but the fact remains that the US and Britain and so on sees a two-state solution as desirable. So, apparently, does Bahrain. And that means that weighing it all up, the aforementioned authorities think it wrthwhile to keep that government in place.

Not exactly selfless, but not a nakedly cynical approach either.

What Iran is quoted as saying, and the stance of Iran is in regards to the Palestinian/Israeli issue is that a diplomatic solution be found, one that gives equal weight to all parties. Not necessarily a two state solution.

Back long ago, when a two state solution was offered, and turned down by the Palestinians, they would not have had control of their own airspace, would not have rights over resources such as water, and would have Israeli roads and checkpoints cut throughout Palestine due to the Jewish settlements. This simply was not a solution. This is saying you can have a national anthem but not really a country.

A purely diplomatic solution needs to be found, Iran is not for two states because of what two states appears to bring, but one state that recognizes everyone's right and all parties have equal say.

And by the way I am more in agreement with this notion, because of the resource and airspace issue, it is too small a parcel of land to be divided in such a manner that gives two states equal rights and access to those things that are necessary in running a country. They have to figure out how to work together while treating one another as worthy human beings.

Any extremist will oppose this idea, muslim extremists, christian extremists or zionist, but it is almost the only possible real solution for all parties involved to be fair minded. But the unwillingness of Israel and US to even consider this as a possibility and to look at the situation in a realistic light that sees everyone as their equal is what I believe to be wrong. The Israeli and US mindset is simply kill anyone who gets in the way, again regardless of human life. It is an incorrect mindset that has been called out numerous times by Iran and Syria.

reply to post by Jameela


I don't really want to get into a discussion of Israel and Palestine. My point was that America's (and others') foreign policy is not completely selfish. Or at least it aims for a series of goals that are not always immediately about short-term monetary gain.

At the moment the two-state solution is favoured (I agree with it, incidentally, although I also appreciate your concerns) and America is keen to back governments that endorse it. That Bahrain tends to deal with Israel in a reasonable manner is another reason the US favours them. This to me implies a reasoned (if not selfless) approach to the situation, and a weighing up of different factors. It doesn't suggest a vicious blood-hungry power that wants money and hegemony ahead of every other consideration.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jameela

 

I don't really want to get into a discussion of Israel and Palestine. My point was that America's (and others') foreign policy is not completely selfish. Or at least it aims for a series of goals that are not always immediately about short-term monetary gain.

At the moment the two-state solution is favoured (I agree with it, incidentally, although I also appreciate your concerns) and America is keen to back governments that endorse it. That Bahrain tends to deal with Israel in a reasonable manner is another reason the US favours them. This to me implies a reasoned (if not selfless) approach to the situation, and a weighing up of different factors. It doesn't suggest a vicious blood-hungry power that wants money and hegemony ahead of every other consideration.

To me it suggests just that. There are no reasonable considerations given to any people unless they are Israeli or American, this indicates extreme selfishness and the extent to which they are willing to go to get their way is abominable and against all manner of human rights, if you are one to believe in such a thing then the peoples of the world have rights, not only Israel and not only American.

The peoples of the world have the right to live free from oppression and tyranny that the US brings, they have the right to fight against those who will only destroy their freedoms.

The Catholic and Christian clergy in Syria are begging Christians not to support the uprising, but no one is listening to their voice, because it does not serve the interest of the US and Israel.

reply to post by Jameela


Let's assume America is as you characterise it. Why would the US that you envisage not have fired nuclear weapons at middle eastern countries, invaded them and instituted complete hegemony? Why would they have left Japan? Or Germany?

Remember, I'm not saying that the US is charitable, or without self-interest, just that it acts not solely with immediate financial gain in mind. It's a small poit I suppose, but an important one. You can characterise your enemies as blood-crazed savages (in fact America has often done this) but it isn't usually a good way to understand them or move towards some kind of peace.

Nothing is what it appears to be, this is for sure and i damn sure ain't going to believe anything that comes out of mainstream media, they've been lying before TV was ever invented and they use the same tactics Hitler did to whip up a fury in the people for propaganda's sake.

Originally posted by Cassius666
edition.cnn.com...

The government blamed terrorists inside and outside of Syria, but the opposition called the attacks the work of the regime.

I was just wondering what people who hold varying opinions on the events of 911 think about the explosions in damascus?

Do you think it were terrorists opposed to Assad who blew up people in Damascus to rally support for their cause?
Or are you more inclined to believe the retort of the opposition to the regime, who claims the explosions were the work of the regime in an attempt to erode the public image of the opposition and support for the opposition?

And how do you feel about CNNs choice to put the word terrorists in parenthesis?

I would put my money on the US or Isreal before I would accuse Assad. This is a planned and organized overthrow of the countries from North Arfica to the Middle East. Any person who seems to think these rebellions are NOT related is blind to the obvious! This is a continuation of the Bush/Chaney empire building agenda pure and simple! Obama is not the change we can believe in but a continuation of the NWO agenda set by Bush!