The USA And Israel Step Up Their Propaganda On The Syrian Chemical Weapons Lie

Here we go...again...the pattern has become rather obvious...what could they be aiming for?

U.S. Official Warns Against Syrian Chemical Weapons

A U.S. intelligence official said that Syrian president’s Bashar al-Assad’s regime is crumbling, which may force the country’s “increasingly beleaguered” government to use chemical weapons to maintain authority on its people.

“The opposition is gaining in strength; it is gaining territory… at the same time, the regime is experiencing shortages in manpower and logistics,” said James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, in a statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday, where he testified together with the heads of the CIA, FBI and other intelligence organizations in an annual assessment of global threats.

Syria’s biological weapons program “may have advanced beyond the research and development stage,” and “could be modified for biological agent delivery,” Clapper added, according to the Washington Post.

And if that wasn't enough...

Top Israeli General: Assad Planning to Use Chemical Weapons Against Rebels

Israel’s military intelligence chief says Syria’s embattled president, Bashar al-Assad, is preparing to use chemical weapons.

Speaking at a security conference in the coastal town of Herzliya, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi said that Assad is planning to step up an offensive against rebels in the increasingly fractured country.”The regime is trying to survive,” he said, without going into detail about how Israel knows Assad is planning to use the weapons.

So we have two baseless claims with the intention to put fear into the people about Syria's chemical weapons, and their intent on using them. Meanwhile, they fail to mention that the only people to use or threaten to use chemical weapons so far are the Western backed "rebel freedom fighters".

Shock Video: Syrian Rebels Test Chem Weapons On Rabbits As Warning To Civilians

Terrorists Release Second Film Showing Chemical Weapons Test in Western Syria

Syria: Terrorists Use Chemical Weapons against Army

Armed rebels used chemical weapons in their attacks against the Syrian army in Reef (outskirts of) Damascus on Sunday.

The terrorists used chemical weapons against the Syrian army forces in Darya district of Reef Damascus today.

"The terrorists have already thrown three cube-shaped plastic bags towards the (Syrian) army's forces that killed seven forces due to the gases emerging from the bags," a commander of the Syrian Presidential Guard told the Iran-based Arab-language Al-Alam news channel on Sunday.

The commander noted that a yellow button is installed on the bags and by pushing that a yellow gas came out and those who inhaled it died after nearly one hour.

Now that I have pointed this out, let's get back to reality, something the Israeli and American mouthpieces have difficulty grasping, or at the very least acknowledging.

The US has made the accusation that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is planning to use chemical weapons on his own people, something that experts, Syria watchers and the Government of Syria itself claim is a ludicrous accusation being promoted by the West to justify the forceful removal of the country’s elected leader. The chemical weapons lie has been used before, most notably in Iraq, but the West continues to use the same old playbook. Will the world listen again? Probably not.

The United States of America has once again accused the Syrian Government of Bashar al Assad of being prepared to launch chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian people, which of course if true would then give the US and its allies the reason it needs to carry out yet another “humanitarian invasion” of yet another sovereign country, to remove yet another elected leader who the US can not manipulate and just simply, “Does not like.”

Claims such as these have been attempted in the recent past with regards to Syria but the world’s public has not bought them or rallied behind the US and its allies in an invasion scenario to forcibly remove the elected Syrian leader as had been hoped by the US Government.

The chemical weapons claim to justify an invasion by the US was first shown to have been falsely made in the run up to the Iraq war, when the American and the World populace were lied to and deceived by US officials including the Minister of Defense Colin Powell and the then Director of Central Intelligence Tenet, on that issue and many other including Uranium yellowcake and the famous 4 minute Weapons of Mass Destruction, that posed an imminent threat to the world and the United States.

At that point in history the world was still naïve enough and believed the United States enough to believe whatever they were told. Things have changed and the world’s population has grown wiser.

We have seen and the US has itself proven that they will say and do absolutely anything imaginable to bring about the fulfillment of their goals. The US goal in Syria has been repeated time and time again to be the forceful removal from power of the country’s elected leader Bashar al-Assad. The US has done everything to bring that goal about, from funding, arming and importing Al-Qaeda terrorists to arming and training the small number of Syrian extremist armed insurgents.

Due to the wide support within Syria of the country’s beleaguered president the West’s efforts have been for the most part unsuccessful, with even the direct violation by Israel of launching a missile attack deep into Syria not provoking the reaction that the West was seeking. Bashar al- Assad was too smart to react then, as he should have, and he is too smart and reasonable to do anything even remotely close to using chemical weapons on his own people.

Even if Assad had the desire or the intention to commit such a heinous act he knows that it would be suicide and it would give the West and the US the perfect pretext they are seeking to launch an invasion of Syria to remove and kill Assad and to allow them to control the country’s resources.

No matter the propaganda by the West the record has shown that the majority of the Syrian people support Assad, that Assad would never even think of using chemical weapons and that what is failing in Syria is the US aggressive attempt at regime change.

english.ruvr.ru...

Yes, I acknowledge Assad is not a leader I would choose if I had a choice, but as I have said before he is not nearly as bad as other Middle East dictators such as the Saudi Royal family which just so happen to be American allies...weird huh? One would guess that the USA would be aiming for regime change in Saudi Arabia but that would not fit within their obvious agenda. Syria was one of the most stable countries in the ME before this staged uprising which has been funded and supported by Western interests and fought by non Syrian religious extremists.

It's time for the world to wake up.

I must be misunderstanding you, CE. You aren't saying Syria doesn't have Chemical Weapons, are you? They've been more or less openly developing and producing them since at least the early 1980's. They aren't a part of the treaty which forbids it (Iraq was) so it's been legal as these things go.

Israel made nukes.. Syria made slime. The two have been tolerated because they've balanced each other and in a warped kinda way since the '79 Camp David Accords...they've more or less insured their own MAD. If Syria falls...it's actually a bad thing, IMO. Israel loses that natural balance and war becomes far more likely as people around Israel understandably get more nervous. Nervous people in that region tend to shoot what makes them nervous by what I've watched over the years.

- confused bunny

*And I DID read every word... ..didn't lessen the confusion in your general position and this for what you're saying?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My apologies if I wasn't very clear while expressing my opinion on the material I have presented. It is a known fact that Syria has chemical weapons, what I am questioning is Israel's and the United States motives for making baseless claims that Assad is planning on using these weapons. My answer to my own question is that this is an obvious propaganda technique aimed at preparing the sheeple for an outright invasion of Syria on reasons based on lies, just like iraq.

Let's never forget the Iraq lies...we must learn from history and not repeat it.

Yes, Syria is a war zone and I feel for those who are caught up in this horrible mess but this does not change the fact that this is just another Western backed attempt at regime change in the Middle East, and we have seen quite a few over the last decade...

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Oh, heck... We're on the same side for this one, no doubt then.

I agree entirely that Assad is no threat to use his Chem weapons. Why would he now? He never has before. He and his family have had them for 3 decades after all. The rebels? Well.. Those little heathens killed fuzzy bunny rabbits with bathtub chem weapon concoctions and then released the video as if it would be helpful to them or something.



I really was a bit confused. No more though ..and Indeed, we're in total agreement. The U.S. has NO place in Syria but damn sure, I think we'll see U.S. Combat boots on Damascus streets in at least some limited role by the end of this Presidential term. Maybe quote soon? The rhetoric seems to rise and fall on that?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm glad we could clear up the confusion

Also, I'm glad that we both see this for what it really is regardless of our differences on certain issues, especially ME topics.

I have said it many times, and will say it again, Assad has nothing to gain by using these weapons on his own people or even against the terrorists. It would be suicidal and certainly ruin his chances for exile once his regime finally crumbles which it most likely will due to the powers involved. Personally, I have no idea how this will end exactly but I have a few logical theories...none of them look good for Assad or the Syrian people.

Sorry for the delayed response...multi-tasking at work.

Well then OP when Syria does use chemical weapons against the uprising are you going to buy us all a six pack and apologize? Just curious, you claim the Zionist states, if I'm reading you correctly are fanning the flames of war, I submit that if the US was even remotely interested in intervening in Syria we would have done so by now, period. The US and Israel have satellites that fly over Syria everyday, we have long know of Syrias existence and disposition of their chemical weapons, some of which in certain circles are well know to have come from Iraq previous to the US led invasion, when any military analyst sees heightened activity at those site they should say what?...... so we should believe your hyperbole, or them and why... curious, or are you simply on an anti Zionist argument?

reply to post by DangerMcBacon

Well then OP when Syria does use chemical weapons against the uprising are you going to buy us all a six pack and apologize?

I say deal if you buy us all a six pack after the rebels use chemical weapons...deal (rectro-actively)?

Just curious, you claim the Zionist states, if I'm reading you correctly are fanning the flames of war, I submit that if the US was even remotely interested in intervening in Syria we would have done so by now, period.

The US and Israel have openly admitted to be involved covert and overtly, do you doubt this?

Would you actually like for all of us to provide evidence of Syria being meddled with by countless organizations and regimes?

The US and Israel have satellites that fly over Syria everyday, we have long know of Syrias existence and disposition of their chemical weapons, some of which in certain circles are well know to have come from Iraq previous to the US led invasion, when any military analyst sees heightened activity at those site they should say what?...... so we should believe your hyperbole, or them and why... curious, or are you simply on an anti Zionist argument?

Ok, a few years ago Israel illegally attacked a Syrian site under the false pretenses that it was a nuclear facility but multiple fact finding missions proved it not to be of nuclear origin...now lets move forward to more recently when Israel bombed a convoy in the Golan Heights and deemed it to be illegal weapons shipments on sovereign land which in reality they have no jurisdiction and broke international law, or can we mention the Israeli missile strike outside Damascus recently?

I can keep going for ever, what would you like to know about?

I would gladly buy you a 6-pack OP were this all to end without the use of chemical weapons in Syria, gladly and happily. Now, it still begs the question from your original rant, does the Us and Israel not have the right, assuming they have evidence of so, to raise the alarm regarding the potential use by Assad of chemical weapons on his people, it all boils down to that in my understanding of your alarmist, accusatory statement. Period. You either have first hand information to the otherwise, or are simply ranting.

reply to post by DangerMcBacon

I would gladly buy you a 6-pack OP were this all to end without the use of chemical weapons in Syria, gladly and happily. Now, it still begs the question from your original rant, does the Us and Israel not have the right, assuming they have evidence of so, to raise the alarm regarding the potential use by Assad of chemical weapons on his people, it all boils down to that in my understanding of your alarmist, accusatory statement. Period.

Beer aside...for now

You ask me from my "original rant" whether or not the US and Israel have the right to raise the alarm about the Syrian chemical weapon threat if they have evidence.

My answer to your question is....

First off the only evidence they have is that Syria possesses these poisons, but they have no evidence to prove that they plan on using them. In the multiple sources I provided in my OP there are multiple unnamed could haves that substantiate these claims and forgive my difficulty in believing what they are saying but this is just the same story rehashed.

Please remember most these weapons were provided by Western nations, including the USA during various times of conflict including but not limited to the Iran/Iraq war and we all know who was supplying Iraq...

Alarms should be raised if the threat is valid but the alarms they are broadcasting are propaganda based lies that have not been substantiated and if anything have been proven false.

I am trying to keep an open mind here but you are condemning Syrian forces for something they "might do" in the future compared to something the rebels have already done. Should you not be calling for the USA and Israel to eradicate the terrorist rebels since they are the ones using chemical weapons? There is tons of evidence meanwhile the other parties have zero evidence and nothing but a bunch of could haves and ifs.

In my opinion you must reorganize your priorities before you continue with this discussion.

Biological and nuclear weapons are bad, the effects are incredible. But chemical?

.. I mean, this is war. The Idea is to kill the other guy. Getting riddled with bullets in the stomach/legs is just as excruciating as getting gassed. Ultimately you still die after a few hours of incredible pain.

I just.. cant see why Chemical weapons have such a stigma attached to them. Its not like you can kill someone nicely in a civil war.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


I agree with some of the points you have made, but you do honestly believe this is genuine civil war?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Don't know..
I think the bulk of the fighting is Syrian Vs Syrian, no doubt there is some international forces helping the rebels.

But isn't that the definition of a civil war?

Definition: A war between factions or regions of the same country.

Is it any less a civil war when neighbors are helping certain sides?
Israel, Saudi and Turkey helping the rebels, Iran helping the government.

I think it fits the definition of a civil war more than anything else at the moment .

reply to post by Agit8dChop


In your defense the definition of a civil war is a tricky one to define. But, you did mention in your definition that it's a difference between factions of the same country. What I am trying to get at is that the majority of these freedom fighters are allegedly from other countries, the same monsters who fought in Libya and other ME and North African countries, these are religious extremists for hire which kind of throws their religion out the window.

I honestly believe that this is just another rehashed long planned regime change and many people are getting paid from all levels of the hierarchy. In my opinion, this does not meet my own definition of a real civil war.

What's going on in Syria has the potential to reach epic proportions due to the strategic area at stake and the allies involved on both sides so this specific conflict really does worry me, especially now that Israel has been adamant in it's participation of resolving the problem. I am all for successful resolutions, but the US and Israel have a crappy track record when it comes to amicable agreements or even half decent settlements for that matter, but that could be a whole other thread...

Well after the Iraq war and no WMDs Not sure if you can trust Syria has them either.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

I'd personally think the stigma to chemical weapons is well earned, myself. From the reports of Mustard and other Blistering agents in World War I to the use against the Kurds by the Iraqis and wider use against Iranians by Iraq, the modern world has seen what the ones NOT designed to simply kill will do to people.

After all, the ultimate strategic success is not a battlefield of some dead and some surviving with protection to fight on. Militarily, you want a battlefield of horribly wounded, screaming victims that require at least 2-3 able bodied men taken out of action to tend to them...each of them. The impact on morale should zap a good % of those left and not tending to the wounded.

Really nasty doctrines for warfare, but real ones I've read and I imagine some on here have learned more formerly at Military classes.

Frankly, I personally wouldn't see Chem like VX Gas as being as bad as Bio (A lunatics weapon..you can't turn it off) or Nuclear (which isn't as bad as it's made out to be, IMO anyway). VX kills horribly but it kills quickly. Real quickly. ....stunningly..nvm.

Anyway. Hows that going to work if you're hit with passing sarin to scorch your lungs for life or Mustard and Blistering that won't kill...but leave each person wishing it had for many years to come?

Chemical to kill isn't evil .... It's just SO many of them aren't meant to outright kill on the spot.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yeah that's fair enough, it has long term effects, but so does a bullet to the kidney or spine.

Only thing I can see with chemical, is saturating an area with a chemical renders it uninhabitable for the immediate future, meaning the enemy cannot occupy that town/land.

I don't know I think there's a lot of fear being placed on chemical weapons, the truth is they aren't that effective. Its hard to control them when used, the British learned this lesson.

I hope they dont get used, but I see that the west will use it and play on it, when realistically a well placed artillery round does just as much, if not more carnage.

But, cheers for your input Wrabbit.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Indeed and you make good points too. In thinking harder about my own feelings, I think it's really more based in the fear of escalation their use would likely bring. Escalation and into the unknown is far worse than a limited area nightmare like a chem warhead would bring. You really are right on that.

Israel may well go off on their own seek and destroy as they've implied they would when chems start going off. If they join the fight in a meaningful way? Well... Throw in the towel and hope a generation of survivors somewhere out in the distant future make it work where we failed cause it's quite possibly game over for numbers the world's never seen after that.

Just this bad and anxious feeling that not just THAT region, but multiple regions are sitting on Go and waiting for the trigger to have an excuse to do whatever each thinks needs done. I've never read reports of people feeling anything in the weeks or months leading to past world wars...I wonder if anyone did? The thing is... The tensions and war like footing isn't even coordinated like the clear 2 sides of World War II or even I. This is more a world of free for all...and Syria is a Biblical trigger point as well as what's come to be plainly obvious for a logical one.


I wish Obama would tell everyone he wishes them well and call the White House when they're done settling their fight....we're headed home. It's another bad feeling about having so many of our people within 200 miles of Syrian borders right now. It's a small small place if the bad stuff starts going off.