Syria 'chemical' attack: France says force may be needed

reply to post by crazyewok


... that video posted here in this thread, would probably be better served in a thread of it's own, to highlight the propaganda behind the scenes, carried out by the foreign Rebels in the Syrian conflict.

reply to post by Rodinus

The Islamic politics and cultural website Islamic Invitation Turkey claims that several videos were uploaded one day before the reports on chemical weapons use near Damascus in Syria. This evidence shows that the terrorists massacred people then recorded the scenes to deceive the world, but they gave themselves away. Terrorists in Syria uploaded the video of their crimes in East Ghouta, Damascus on August 20, 2013 and then blamed the Syrian government for the attack early on August 21, 2013, says the IIT website. Read more at investmentwatchblog.com...

Source


And here Al Jazeera, Reuter published the news of massacre in East Ghouta, Damascus one day before the massacre happened

reply to post by LexiconV


Thanks for that Lex

If... and If this turns out to be true (heck knows how the truth can really be proved?)...Who do we believe nowadays???

With all the reader grabbing money hungry MSM out there, people are becoming so blind to what is really going on! I would be interested to find out if this story can be proved or debunked and who will prove or debunk it???

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus



An RT report about the timing of this event... unbiased compared to western media newspapers that maintain a presence of accusations against the Syrian army along with photos of dead bodies on the front cover.
Sensationalisms to sell bloody newspapers !

This is a feature video and I'm unable to embed it here so I guess just copy and paste the link. Sorry guys.

See the embedded video in Rodinus's post below.... thanks Rodinus.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ejyqn__c6RY

______________________________________.....

"They show that people rendering first aid to the victims are not wearing protective clothing," Jean Pascal Zanders, an expert on chemical and biological weapons at the European Union Institute for Security Studies wrote in his blog. "It cannot be so, as far as sarin is concerned. There would be many postprimary poisonings without protective clothing." - Zanders is sure. The action in the suburbs of Damascus was committed at the very moment, when the UN Commission on investigation of the allegations concerning the possible use of chemical weapons started its work in Syria. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, it “resembles attempts to undermine the chances of convening the Geneva conference” on the Syrian settlement. Another meeting of Russian and American experts dedicated to discussion of preparations for the Geneva-2 is scheduled for August 28. "The opposition has nothing to lose. It cannot win and it does all it can to force the West to intervene in the conflict, to convince the West that the regime is "bloody and inhuman," - expert of the Institute of Strategic Assessments and Analysis Sergei Demidenko says. He reminds that "chemical attacks"on the part of the regime are invariably reported by TV channels, which are financed by sponsors of opposition fighters from the Persian Gulf countries. "It has all happened before. As soon as America has declared that it would intervene in case chemical weapons were found in Syria, when the Qatari al-Jazeera channel has announced that it had already found it. As soon as the group of UN experts arrived in Syria in order to examine the data about chemical weapons, when the Dubai Al Arabiya channel immediately reported that it had been used by the government troops. This is a very rough work." Read more: voiceofrussia.com...

Source

________________________________________.....


I've added this article as it's well worth a read and objectively demonstrates the use and potential of propaganda in the past and within this latest event... there's also the same RT video in there.

The focus of the UK and US government-media-complex led efforts to win public support for a “humanitarian intervention” similar that which was perpetrated in Libya in 2011, is now centred around the main victims of the conflict being portrayed as that of children. No one within the government media complex is asking the most fundamentally important question here: were real military-grade chemical weapons actually used at all? The reason no one is asking this is because the answer to this question so far is a resounding ’no’, which means that despite all the media hype neither the UK nor the US governments have a case against the Assad regime regarding the use of chemical weapons during this conflict.

Article re ... The Media Deception About the Terrorists Attacks in Lebanon

reply to post by crazyewok


I would not worry about that. French government is just trying to flex some muscles, just trying to simply exist...
François Hollande (president) and Laurent Fabius (foreign affairs minister) are not known for their strength of character, quite the opposite.

And they will not even dare so much as lifting an eyelid without US consent - ref. the refusal of France (and other EU countries) to let Bolivia's president's airplane to fly over France on its way back to Moscow, as Snowden might be in there and would be in a position to request asylum...

Just empty words to satisfy French public - which by the way is not even working, as it appears that Syrian rebels are infiltrated by muslim extremists. More & more French people actually support Al Assad.

reply to post by LexiconV


Vid fixed here :



Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bekod

 

Stop with the French bashing, dude. There are plenty of examples of the US bodging their little wars up too, not least Vietnam as well.

France did a bang up job in Mali - sorted it all out and they've just had elections which were judged free and fair. All in 6 months.... How long has the US been in it's little sandboxes?

They didn't do such a bang up job in Vietnam someone else had to come clean up their mess.

Yep, but the cleaners messed the thing up even more, and in the end got their backside as properly kicked as the French before them.

reply to post by RedCairo

Originally posted by RedCairo
Perfect solution: France sends all its Sharia communities (except women and small kids) as soldiers to Syria.

This is actually sort of happening, many converts are traveling from France to Syria.
For example: www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by Rodinus


Much better Rodinus... Thankyou.

I've edited some of my posts to add in further articles regarding media propaganda as well. They make for interesting reading as they are less inclined to have a war mongering agenda unlike the Western popular newspapers and web pages.

Originally posted by stumason

I doubt there will be, to be honest. Most people would support limited action designed to stop the use of chemical weapons, regardless of who is actually using them and I think to a further extent, to enforce a ceasefire so the killing can stop.

As long as we remain impartial that is, which is the only fair way the international community should react - however, something tells me that it would be regime forces targeted the most while the more extreme rebel groups are left untouched.

Well seeing as our troop numbers are being cut when the armys over strechted as it is, we barely have a airforce as we are waiting on the F-35 and we have no aircraft carriers I dont see how we can do much.

And I doubt there will be a influx of new volenteers either.

reply to post by stumason


I do believe the reason the U.S. did have to involve itself in Vietnam was because of the French and the aftermath of the Indochina war, anyhow I believe the U.S. will be reluctantly involved and become committed in Syria, within the next months.

reply to post by phinubian

I do not agree with you, I do believe that US involvement in Vietnam had nothing to do with France.
The history as I see it, in a short summary:
France was kicked out of Vietnam (Indochine) following the independence war of Vietnam.
US then came in to support the "liberal" side of Vietnam against the commie side.

Yes, France had some effect on the commies trying to take power in Vietnam, but this would have happened with any other country in my opinion.

Originally posted by Rodinus

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by crazyewok

 

France calls for force to be used, FRANCE!,I'm sorry, but that's akin to being threatened by a soft toy.
Wasn't it Norman Schwarzkopf who said that "going to war without France is like going bear hunting without an accordion!?

Oh... you listened to BBC1 and what Norman Schwarzkopf the FAMOUS (in some peoples eyes) 4 star UNITED STATES OF THE WORLD SAVING AMERICA (ONCE AGAIN!!!) said in front of all the cameras?... BRING IT ON HOLLYWOOD AND SHEEPLE!

Guess that in Aberdeen you have not had time to take your slippers off and travel the REAL world but just listen and believe what the MSM has to say when it concerns the arrogant good old U.S of A?
Sincere apologies for maybe upsetting my NON ARROGANT ATS USA cousins here (which are a good majority), but i am SOOO Angry with a certain population of Ignorant members right now!

Sorry been to Aberdeen myself and thought that people had a more broader outlook on life!

I ask myself why some people are actually member of a site whos motto is DENY IGNORANCE???

Some people should be ashamed of themselves on this thread!

Rodinus

edit on 23-8-2013 by Rodinus because: Phrase added

edit on 23-8-2013 by Rodinus because: Rant over

Get you head out of your a** my friend, and try not to choke on that rarefied air that you encounter so high up on your moral high horse.
My slippers have been well and truly shed, especially on an excursion to the Kuwaiti desert, in part organised by the aforementioned Mr Schwarzkopf (I trust from your vast experience of our French friends that you have witnessed their armed forces in action?)
Anyway, just had to respond and would suggest that you take heed of the DENY IGNORANCE reference yourself.

BREAKING. @CBSNews has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a Cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces

CBS Twitter Feed
Looks like we are taking the plunge.

Anyone else confirm?

Reuters

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces in an attack near Damascus this week, likely with high-level approval from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, according to American and European security sources.

The early intelligence finding could increase pressure for action by President Barack Obama, who made clear that he planned to tread cautiously even as his aides sought to narrow their differences in debate over possible military responses to the Syrian government.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, cautioned that the assessment was preliminary and, at this stage, they were still seeking conclusive proof, which could take days, weeks or even longer to gather.

But with a mounting international outcry over the apparent mass poisoning of hundreds of people, the issue appeared to have taken on a sense of urgency for the Obama administration.

Guess we have no choice at this point.

Originally posted by Thorneblood

BREAKING. @CBSNews has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a Cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces

CBS Twitter Feed
Looks like we are taking the plunge.

Anyone else confirm?

Reuters

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces in an attack near Damascus this week, likely with high-level approval from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, according to American and European security sources.

Guess we have no choice at this point.

edit on 23-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

Here we go!

JPost

The Pentagon has updated the list of possible targets in Syria should US President Barack Obama decide to intervene militarily in the country, CNN reported on Friday, citing a US Defense Department official.

The report came as pressure mounts on Obama to take action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad in the wake of allegations that he killed more than a 1,000 people in chemical weapons attacks on Wednesday.

The US defense official told CNN that target lists for air strikes in Syria had been updated, and plans for using cruise missiles capable of targeting Syria without entering the country's airspace had also been included.

I guess that would count as confirmation.

Representative Eliot Engel cited Obama's statement that the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces would cross a "red line" and cause the United States to act to halt such violations of international law.

"If we, in concert with our allies, do not respond to Assad's murderous uses of weapons of mass destruction, malevolent countries and bad actors around the world will see a green light where one was never intended," Engel wrote in a letter to Obama and obtained by Reuters.

Syria denies being responsible and has in the past accused rebels of using gas.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Engel this week saying the United States had the capability to conduct targeted air strikes in Syria to destroy runways, fuel depots and helicopters.

While i am generally pretty neutral on Presidents, Obama really screwed himself on this one.

You will end up with a mountain of war crimes. Do you want that again USA war crimes? Cause thats what happend in vietnam when you sent low grade conscripts over.

No, that is what happens when you send any human being into a mind/body/soul-scrambling nightmare of hell to the degree that they have to become the nightmare in order to stand any chance of surviving it. No need to backseat drive why some soldiers in the worst of war act like the worst of warriors have throughout history: this is a predictable result of some % of any group of people no matter how educated or ethical they were before they walked into that situation. The issue is not the enraged animals with focus-hate they become but that we put humans in situations to cause that in the first place and then act surprised at the result. People who have perfectly normal safe lives in our world carry out plenty of heinous crimes without any excuse whatever and blaming soldiers by the many for the actions of a few under circumstances of the insane is totally injust.

reply to post by RedCairo


Then why is the rate of war crimes and bad practice lower in high grade volneteer units? Even in world war 2 the rate of masscaring and rapeing villages(includeing strategic bombings) was lower.

If you put drafted people who have low moral (IE dont beleive in the cause) into one unit with officers who dont want to be there either and of low quality and moral because the smart one found some way to dodge or join better units then you have set yourself for faliure.

Reuters

President Barack Obama called the apparent gassing of hundreds of Syrian civilians a "big event of grave concern" but stressed on Friday he was in no rush to embroil Americans in a costly new war.

As opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad braved the frontlines around Damascus to smuggle out tissue samples from victims of Wednesday's mass poisoning, Obama brushed over an interviewer's reminder that he once called chemical weapons a "red line" that could trigger U.S. action.

A White House spokesman reiterated Obama's position that he did not expect to have "boots on the ground" in Syria.

Mmmm double-speak much?
So cruise missiles but no boots on the ground....yet.

Which kinda makes sense because then we would be fighting side by side with Al-Qaeda.

This is making me dizzy lol


This is pretty much all the current options for involvement in Syria, some are more drastic then others but it seems pretty detailed.
Obama's Options on Syria

ORDER AIR STRIKES AT ASSAD'S MILITARY AIRCRAFT, AIR BASES AND BALLISTIC MISSILE UNITS.

This is an option favored by Republican Senator John McCain, who says the Democratic president hasn't done enough to protect the Syrian people.

Elliott Abrams, a former Bush and Reagan administration official, said Assad's use of air power has been a huge advantage for the regime, and eliminating or weakening it would tilt the battlefield toward the rebels.

"To me, the arguments are stronger now for a strike at Assad's air assets and any elements of his military connected to the chemical attack. And I believe we would have wide European support and participation," Abrams said on Thursday.

This option may already have some powerful support. In a meeting of Obama's top national security officials on June 12, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the United States should go beyond arming opposition fighters and use air strikes, a person familiar with the talks said. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed back, arguing that such a mission would be complex and costly.

THE DOWNSIDE:

Dempsey said in a letter to Engel, the representative, this week that although the American military could destroy Assad's air force, doing so would pull the United States into the Syrian conflict without necessarily ending it.

"The loss of Assad's air force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air," Dempsey said. "It would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict."

At this point it seems like it would be easier to let them all fight it out and come back and mop up. Sadly, that would certainly abandon innocents. Then again we happily abandoned innocents in Tibet, we continue to abandon innocents in Africa, and so on.

Edited to add: not saying I'm in favor of that approach. It's just that it seems like our military forces -- and our money -- are rather profoundly stressed at this point already.