We are being LIED to about Syria and Chemical Weapons Use

reply to post by JBA2848


This does seem fake.

They used WMD to get us into the iraq war.

John Kerry: US 'has evidence of Syrian sarin use'

www.bbc.co.uk...

Just thought this belongs here. Seems it was Sarin that was used

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

People are dying in Syria in hundreds every day from war. It helps little if one dies from a bullet or a gas.

I would welcome USA if it stops the war. That would mean making a significant commitment to Syria.

What is the benefit of 'bomb and run'? How does that help Syria?

There's a definite difference between bullets and gas which is why the international community is supposed to act in cases where the latter is used. Obviously if you're dead you probably don't care, but chemical weapons are more likely to kill civilians and they have horrible side effects so one can see why they're undesirable.

I agree with your main thrust though. I'm not sure bombing Syria would help much.

Originally posted by phantomjack


Lets focus in on the subject of this thread -- for what reason would Assad use chemical weapons to begin with? Not a very smart move if the entire world is going to crash down on top of you.

So now we see most of the NATO nations backing down and just the USA wanting to go in. Hmmm......makes you wonder. So what is it that 90 countries see (or don't see) that Obama apparently sees?

Obama is seeing what he wants to see, so that he can kill Assad -- his plan from the beginning. Assad has been setup. PERIOD

Well, there is another possibility, which is that Assad correctly judged the mood of the global community and their appetite for intervention.

I don't think the other countries seriously entertain the notion that it wasn't the Syrian authorities who launched the attack. They just think the potential downsides of intervention outweigh the one advantage - which is really to put a marker down against future such occurrences.

I am about to flip on the next person that says the U.S are the Good guys protecting Syrians. We are only worried about ourselves and what we can profit from this country. My Government teacher said that he was mad how the U.S always got involved in protecting countries. I really want to show him this sight and this video to change his mind.

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by phantomjack

 

No you were not right by any stretch of the imagination. Crank theories, yes but right, no.

How about now?

source

Source II

I find it hard to believe, that a week after I made this initial post that more and more evidence is coming out showing that Assad did NOT gas his own people, that there are still those who are taking the crap that this criminal administration is feeding everyone.

If this bombing is allowed to proceed, I will have lost all faith in humanity for letting it happen. Obama is nothing but a thug, along with Kerry and everyone else who is beating the drum to bomb Syria.

reply to post by phantomjack


The American people are the only ones who can stop it from happening.....and as you can see from many posts, that many simply do not care, or agree with it.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

People are dying in Syria in hundreds every day from war. It helps little if one dies from a bullet or a gas.

I would welcome USA if it stops the war. That would mean making a significant commitment to Syria.

What is the benefit of 'bomb and run'? How does that help Syria?

There's a definite difference between bullets and gas which is why the international community is supposed to act in cases where the latter is used. Obviously if you're dead you probably don't care, but chemical weapons are more likely to kill civilians and they have horrible side effects so one can see why they're undesirable.

I agree with your main thrust though. I'm not sure bombing Syria would help much.

United States and allies have the ability to remove Syria's chemical arsenal by special forces action, without getting involved in the civil conflict.

Syria's chemical stockpile is estimated at 1000 ton, not a very large amount of ordnance.

If removing Assad's chemical stockpile is an objective, then Russia can effectively do that, if US does not want to use its forces.

However if objective is to remove Assad, then it is all fruitless.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by phantomjack

 

The American people are the only ones who can stop it from happening.....and as you can see from many posts, that many simply do not care, or agree with it.

Why not Turkey and Saudis. Both are armed to the teeth.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by phantomjack

 

The American people are the only ones who can stop it from happening.....and as you can see from many posts, that many simply do not care, or agree with it.

That is not the point .... the point is that the man behind the curtain is making Assad to be the bad guy, to "force" the US into yet another war that it can not afford and the people do not want.

So the questions are:

1. Who is the man behind the curtain
2. Why another war
3. No war is fought without a beneficiary -- who benefits from this war?

It is becoming increasingly more and more obvious that Obama was installed into office for no other reason than to lead the USA into yet another war:

1. He is given the Nobel Prize for Peace -- WHAT A JOKE
2. He has not closed down Gitmo, as he promised
3. He takes endless vacations on the tax payer's dollars
4. He has installed a worthless healthcare system that will do nothing but destroy the US Economy

Obama is the classic definition of "Patsy" if you ask me. The US populous does not have the guts to remove this phony from office. From the fake birth certificate to the hidden college records, to the muslim background, this guy smells from high heaven. And anyone who can sit here and defend this guy with a straight face is absolutely insane.

I will continue to stand on my soapbox and scream at the top of my lungs SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE !!!!!!

reply to post by phantomjack


Why not remove the man behind the curtain who put Obama in office.

You need to get after the General, not the soldier.

reply to post by phantomjack


Why not remove the man behind the curtain who put Obama in office.

You need to get after the General, not the soldier.

Originally posted by mideast
Why do you think that Assad is not fool enough to use those weapons and open the ways to invasions ?

I think it is time for other American people to wake up too.

Was OBL fool enough to destroy two building to let the greatest army of the planet into Afghanistan ?

Was Saddam fool enough to let this happen to himself and to Iraq ?

Is Iran fool enough to make nuclear bombs and use it against the countries who have many many enhanced nuclear bombs ?

Yeah. And don't you find it interesting that all this leaders, capable of controlling masses and running a country, were so stupid to go and do exactly what they were not suppose to do and which would justify an action against them? So in other words the whole world is full of stupid people, only USA has the geniuses that need to run the world. LMAO

GargIndia


United States and allies have the ability to remove Syria's chemical arsenal by special forces action, without getting involved in the civil conflict.

Syria's chemical stockpile is estimated at 1000 ton, not a very large amount of ordnance.

I'm struggling to imagine what you mean. You're saying that a special forces unit could remove the chemical weapons exactly and absolutely without a fight? That they could locate it (hard enough) and then remove all of it without killing anybody or inflaming international opinion?

I just can't see it.

If removing Assad's chemical stockpile is an objective, then Russia can effectively do that, if US does not want to use its forces.

Perhaps. But what would you do if (and more likely when) Assad simply claims not to have any?

JuniorDisco

GargIndia


United States and allies have the ability to remove Syria's chemical arsenal by special forces action, without getting involved in the civil conflict.

Syria's chemical stockpile is estimated at 1000 ton, not a very large amount of ordnance.

I'm struggling to imagine what you mean. You're saying that a special forces unit could remove the chemical weapons exactly and absolutely without a fight? That they could locate it (hard enough) and then remove all of it without killing anybody or inflaming international opinion?

I just can't see it.

If removing Assad's chemical stockpile is an objective, then Russia can effectively do that, if US does not want to use its forces.

Perhaps. But what would you do if (and more likely when) Assad simply claims not to have any?

I don't think there has been a time where Assad has said he does not have any chemical weapons. If he were the tyrant that Obama and Kerry are trying to make you believe, wouldn't that actually be the line he would use? But you dont see him saying it do you?

That my friends, is exactly why he is being framed!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!

I found this YouTube video today done by: Thierry Meyssan who is a French journalist and political activist... It appears the guy is using facts to prove what we already know... Assad did not gas his own people.

Thierry Meyssan makes some valid points that would be hard for anyone to prove wrong.

reply to post by phantomjack


I'm not sure that the only options are "Assad did it" or "the rebels (or maybe the 'west') did it". One of the sources you yourself use above says that it was probably elements of the Assad regime operating without his sanction. And that kind of suggests regime change of some sort is a good idea.

But let's say you're right and this chemical attack was the work of the rebels or the US (or both). Hasn't a huge victory just been won against "the man behind the curtain"? He wanted us to go to war and we haven't. Shouldn't this be a cause for celebration?