Terrorists used chemical weapons in Syria

reply to post by superman2012


Probably because Russia has been using their seat on the U.N. security council to suppress evidence.
If you wanna ignore the facts of how Assad came to power and what kind of man he is and what he is capable and the evidence that's points a giant I like to envision as a middle finger instead of the traditional index finger at Assads just so you can say nanner boo boo at America then your welcome to have the opinion it was the rebels.

Agit8dChop
reply to post by SasquatchHunter

 

The ONLY thing your

scientific and expert analysis

concluded is that chemical weapons were used, I don't know about you, but that was never the doubt in my mind.

Logic, dictates that Assad would lose more than he would gain if he did some random, mass, chemical attack. He'd been restrained in the past when things were worse and the rebels were on the back foot needing outside intervention.

No one has proven where the rockets came from or who fired them accept some mysterious Israeli claim.

Did you read the 48 page U.N. report PDF? I did and so did a lot of experts that can calculate from the trajectories of the rockets fired came from. You say "logic dictates" let me stop you right there. Your applying logic to the workings of the mind of a dictator that has already proven he will do anything to stay in power? This is of course assuming your logic is sound in the first place.

If you want an organization to fail, create an internal struggle. Play Mom against Pop. External agitation only unites the organization. The organization may not be strong enough to overcome the forces against it, but it forces the agitator to expose itself. Now imagine in this day and age, an agency that WANTS to create this turmoil so the organization fails. How could one country justify actions that were designed to effect the failure of another country? If said agency is subject to public acceptance and scrutiny, then although they may be part of a much larger and more powerful organization than the one they want to destroy, they are still subject to the scrutiny (and ethic) of their own organization.

The agency has been gnawing away at the Assad regime to make it unpopular. At the same time, the same agency has been gnawing away at the opposition to the Assad regime. The accusations are flying from one side to the other. It never made a lick of sense for either side to involve these supposedly taboo weapons (after all, dead from a bullet or dead from sarin is still dead). But the weapons are taboo and the news flies about how both sides could be responsible for using them. Sounds to me like the aggressor only has to pick the one he wants to attack and mold the public information scheme to fit the attack.

There is more design in this than is being reported. Reporting is being designed. The best thing the citizens of the US or any other nation that is teetering toward involvement in this mess, is to challenge their leadership and refuse to participate. Furthermore, the better thing is to demand of leadership that clandestine agencies stay the hell out of other countries' business.

SasquatchHunter
reply to post by superman2012

 

Probably because Russia has been using their seat on the U.N. security council to suppress evidence.
If you wanna ignore the facts of how Assad came to power and what kind of man he is and what he is capable and the evidence that's points a giant I like to envision as a middle finger instead of the traditional index finger at Assads just so you can say nanner boo boo at America then your welcome to have the opinion it was the rebels.

Neither how Assad came to power or what US does to stay a world power have anything to do with suppression of evidence.
If the US has the evidence, they would have struck Syria, plain and simple.
If Syria has the evidence, they would have released it.

Circumstantial evidence is not damning evidence. The whole US judicial system is based on that. To turn it around and say that it does not apply when the US is judging another country is pathetic and laughable at best.

SasquatchHunter

Agit8dChop
reply to post by SasquatchHunter

 

The ONLY thing your

scientific and expert analysis

concluded is that chemical weapons were used, I don't know about you, but that was never the doubt in my mind.

Logic, dictates that Assad would lose more than he would gain if he did some random, mass, chemical attack. He'd been restrained in the past when things were worse and the rebels were on the back foot needing outside intervention.

No one has proven where the rockets came from or who fired them accept some mysterious Israeli claim.

Did you read the 48 page U.N. report PDF? I did and so did a lot of experts that can calculate from the trajectories of the rockets fired came from. You say "logic dictates" let me stop you right there. Your applying logic to the workings of the mind of a dictator that has already proven he will do anything to stay in power? This is of course assuming your logic is sound in the first place.

Did the rockets for sure have the chemical weapons on them? Is it possible someone set off chemical weapons before the rockets were fired? Are those rockets exclusive to Syria or could the rebels have gotten them? Do other countries have anything to gain by the US and others attacking Syria?

You say that Agit8dChop cannot fully understand how a dictators mind works...but you can?

The simple fact is; many people died from chemical weapons. It was horrible. No one can prove who did it. Thank God the US wasn't allowed to go "free" the people like they did in Iraq.

reply to post by superman2012


Your tip toeing around the fact that Russia is possibly using their position on the U.N. security council to suppress information. This would would completely support the narrative that the U.S. has proof but can only release certain information.

I don't claim to know the inner workings of the mind of dictator. I'm also not trying to apply logical thinking of what someone might do and present that as evidence.

The point about rockets and where they came from and who had them are reasonable questions to ask. I will pull up the PDF in a bit that has the pictures and information aswell as what the actual members of the council have said regarding the report.

How Assad came to power is relevant it clearly shows what he is capable of. How the U.S. stays in power that's apple's to oranges but if your saying something about a particular official. We have elected officials and practically ever part of their lives is scrutinized by the enitire world. I'm not buying conspiracy hocus pocus on that front. There are shady things that go down but this the same magnitude as one man using an army to rule his people and kill off any opposition.

reply to post by superman2012


Just to be clear. I hope that I'm wrong and I hope the U.S. is also and for the evidence comes back conclusive and this resolves in the quickest possible way which undoubtedly would be the rebels staged these attacks and no more innocent people have to die whether Syrian American or from any other nation. Then the U.S. can pump more money in aid to Syria so they can buy Russian weapons and the whole world can feel all warm and fuzzy hating America for everything that has ever happened in history ain e history only seems to matter when it concerns shaking a fist at America.

I hope we were right about Iraq and that will be one of the top nations in the world just like South Korea! That is already done no going back on that one. We just don't know if that was the "perfect" decision yet.

SasquatchHunter
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your tip toeing around the fact that Russia is possibly using their position on the U.N. security council to suppress information. This would would completely support the narrative that the U.S. has proof but can only release certain information.

I don't claim to know the inner workings of the mind of dictator. I'm also not trying to apply logical thinking of what someone might do and present that as evidence.

The point about rockets and where they came from and who had them are reasonable questions to ask. I will pull up the PDF in a bit that has the pictures and information aswell as what the actual members of the council have said regarding the report.

How Assad came to power is relevant it clearly shows what he is capable of. How the U.S. stays in power that's apple's to oranges but if your saying something about a particular official. We have elected officials and practically ever part of their lives is scrutinized by the enitire world. I'm not buying conspiracy hocus pocus on that front. There are shady things that go down but this the same magnitude as one man using an army to rule his people and kill off any opposition.

lol Thanks for the laugh!

Since when would the US not release information that would help them get what they want because Russia said so!??
Everyone knows that the UN is a joke organization, just like everyone knows that if the US could afford another war/win another war, they would already be landing in Syria.
How Assad came to power is irrelevant for this thread, and if you look to the POTUS, you will see that he has approved many things that if done against the US, would be met with a rain of missiles on their country.
I do agree that I am happy that this is resolved for the time being, even if that means that we will never know the truth about what exactly happened.

superman2012

SasquatchHunter
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your tip toeing around the fact that Russia is possibly using their position on the U.N. security council to suppress information. This would would completely support the narrative that the U.S. has proof but can only release certain information.

I don't claim to know the inner workings of the mind of dictator. I'm also not trying to apply logical thinking of what someone might do and present that as evidence.

The point about rockets and where they came from and who had them are reasonable questions to ask. I will pull up the PDF in a bit that has the pictures and information aswell as what the actual members of the council have said regarding the report.

How Assad came to power is relevant it clearly shows what he is capable of. How the U.S. stays in power that's apple's to oranges but if your saying something about a particular official. We have elected officials and practically ever part of their lives is scrutinized by the enitire world. I'm not buying conspiracy hocus pocus on that front. There are shady things that go down but this the same magnitude as one man using an army to rule his people and kill off any opposition.

lol Thanks for the laugh!

Since when would the US not release information that would help them get what they want because Russia said so!??
Everyone knows that the UN is a joke organization, just like everyone knows that if the US could afford another war/win another war, they would already be landing in Syria.
How Assad came to power is irrelevant for this thread, and if you look to the POTUS, you will see that he has approved many things that if done against the US, would be met with a rain of missiles on their country.
I do agree that I am happy that this is resolved for the time being, even if that means that we will never know the truth about what exactly happened.

The UN is a joke organization got me there. The U.S. can't afford/win another war???? WHAT? I thought we were having a serious conversation till you made that statement. Look what propaganda has done to you and so many others! Here's some real facts that might be a little hard for some folks to absorb.

Yes that is the nations of the world's defense spending
If you want to compare U.S. vs the rest of the world ? You can start with China #2 and end with S. Korea #12 and combine their spending its almost as much as the U.S. thas right if you combine the rest of the world's superpowers and in the top 11 countries they don't match the U.S. How many of those countries are our allies almost all of them and the majority f those countries militaries are heavily subsidized by U.S so they can do other cool stuff with their countries budget.
Instead of worrying about situations like being invaded like Syria is facing. Even China says they're military is no match for the U.S. and they have no desire whatsover to challenge us.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
Link added for edit

reply to post by SasquatchHunter

You got me there. The US is #1 when it comes to military spending...who did they borrow all that money from? Are they ever going to repay it? How would they fund another war? Let's say I have a nice shiny expensive sportscar. If I can't maintain it, how long is it going to last?
Just because you have the biggest and baddest toys doesn't give the title of being the best. When has the US gone against anyone that could give them a run for their money? (I'm glad they haven't don't get me wrong) They won't even attack Syria because they don't have the UK's backing and Russia said no even though Obama had a red line and Kerry had 100% proof(he sounds like he should be on ATS).

reply to post by superman2012


I think you severely underestimate the situation and that's ok lots of Americans do too. America has a large debt. We are also the world's largest creditor. If we owe the world 17 trillion. The rest of the world owes us 12 Trillion. Really 5 trillion of that is our own debt here so its a virtual wash. of U.S. China and Russia have no desire to call in any debt, they have invested in America they rely heavily on the interest they make. Even if a few of them called for our "debt" its not even a chink in our armor the Dollar would take a hit but so would their currency. If we called in our debt it would bankrupt nations. A lot of our debt holders these nation's like the Swiss and many others are just tax havens for U.S. corporations or individuals.

This has nothing to do with money or military there's a huge disparity between the U.S. and the rest of the world on both issues.

reply to post by superman2012


Russia and China selling their junk weapons to Syria is big business, and now that its gotten out of hand the U.S. is being forced into cleaning up the mess. Why do you think Assad himself said its gonna cost the U.S. a billion dollars.

SasquatchHunter
reply to post by superman2012

 

Russia and China selling their junk weapons to Syria is big business, and now that its gotten out of hand the U.S. is being forced into cleaning up the mess. Why do you think Assad himself said its gonna cost the U.S. a billion dollars.

Going to cost billions because the US will mobilize their military. Look up how much it costs to run the amount of ships/men that are in that area. The US's red line with Iran also cost a boatload of cash to try and scare them, all over faulty intelligence from the Israelis. Maybe Iran will have the bomb in the next decade because Israel has been screaming that Iran has been this close for the last decade.
The US isn't cleaning any mess in Syria. They are just as guilty as Russia and China as well...only they were funding the very people that they claimed were the mastermind behind 9/11. If my government did that, I would leave. But not only did the american public go along with it, they were allowed to (and did) donate money as well!