37 replies to this topic

[ExpandMyMind]

A little article that shines a bit of perspective on the current sabre rattling involving Syria.

Quote

The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and Assad’s regime repeatedly said that if – if  – it had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.
But now Washington is playing the same gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…

http://www.independe...em-8393539.html

[The New Richard Nixon]

Werid, Syria has developed chemical weapons but denies having them and also refuse to sign the treaty.

[ExpandMyMind]

Experts skeptical Syria is preparing to use its chemical arsenal

Quote

WASHINGTON --  With concern over the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons stockpile reaching a fever pitch this week, international experts are cautioning against alarmism, saying there’s no confirmation that the Syrians are mixing weapons components or loading them into delivery systems, as some U.S. news organizations have reported.
Experts in the United States and Europe who monitor unconventional weapons said that President Bashar Assad’s embattled regime certainly has moved parts of his nation’s vast, acknowledged chemical arsenal. But that movement could be interpreted as reassuring rather than alarming, the experts said, if the intention is to keep the weapons from extremists in the anti-Assad movement who are at the forefront of recent rebel advances.
Syria has denied that it plans to deploy chemical weapons, likening such a move to “suicide” because of U.S.-led warnings that doing so would invite Western intervention in the nearly 2-year-old conflict.

Read more here: http://www.miamihera...l#storylink=cpy

I think the real risk to the Syrian people would be if the terrorists get a hold of those weapons.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 08 December 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

ExpandMyMind, on 08 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Experts skeptical Syria is preparing to use its chemical arsenal



I think the real risk to the Syrian people would be if the terrorists get a hold of those weapons.

which terrorist groups, I can think of 3 operating in Syria now

[Muzzybluezzy]

The New Richard Nixon, on 08 December 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Werid, Syria has developed chemical weapons but denies having them and also refuse to sign the treaty.

no, you're misinformed. Every country has arms right and chemical weapons, atom bombs.. and so on all those are imperialists' dramatization, to tell the truth I believe if any war begins, imperialists will first use those weapons to depopulation.

Iran and Syria are the war pretenses (for instance, please take a look at this http://english.pravd...ical_weapons-0/) Imperialist fags plan a dirty and bloody war in Middle East, in order to determine middle east as the center of forthcoming new world order(one world state).  They purpose without countries one world state that is just dependent on themselves, and when middle east based world war finishes, probably after 2020 or 2025 they will want to transition to new world order/one world state (Though I don't believe such a thing will come out, about that before I wrote here(third prophecy) http://www.unexplain...15#entry4562552) In my view you should check up on your info sources.

[MichaelW]

Muzzybluezzy, on 08 December 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

no, you're misinformed. Every country has arms right and chemical weapons, atom bombs.. and so on all those are imperialists' dramatization, to tell the truth I believe if any war begins, imperialists will first use those weapons to depopulation.

Erm, not they don't. You clearly haven't bothered to look up the Chemical Weapons Convention or the NPT, which prohibit states from building new chemical weapons and nuclear weapons.

Also, pravda? Really? How uneducated do you have to be so uneducated it isn't funny to believe anything they say.

[ExpandMyMind]

Pravada is a bit like The Onion.

[Muzzybluezzy]

MichaelW, on 08 December 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Also, pravda? Really? How uneducated do you have to be so uneducated it isn't funny to believe anything they say.

ExpandMyMind, on 09 December 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

Pravada is a bit like The Onion.

Lisa Karpova and Stanislav Mishin are very good analysts and writers on Pravda (the article on link was written by Lisa Karpova)

I think you judge Pravda unjust

[and then]

ExpandMyMind, on 08 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Experts skeptical Syria is preparing to use its chemical arsenal



I think the real risk to the Syrian people would be if the terrorists get a hold of those weapons.

As well as everyone else in the western world.  Look at the advanced weaponry used by Hamas in the latest dust up.  Israel's helicopters and jets were targeted occasionally by manpads.  Almost surely from Libyan stores.  Imagine a homicide "bomber" who is holding a large container of sarin and mixes it in a shopping mall or a football stadium.  Maybe only a few dozen people die, or if the wind is right maybe a thousand.  I don't give much credence to CT's but in this case I don't think it really matters who does what or why.  This stuff isn't worth taking chances with.

[Cradle of Fish]

If he's willing to deploy them against rebels in his own country I doubt he'll have any reservations about turning them on NATO forces, which in turn will lead to a lot of dead innocents.

This is just rhetoric, the western world has bigger problems and I don't think anybody wants a repeat of the Iraq war. At most we'll see more of the oh-so-popular drone attacks.

[and then]

Cradle of Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

If he's willing to deploy them against rebels in his own country I doubt he'll have any reservations about turning them on NATO forces, which in turn will lead to a lot of dead innocents.

This is just rhetoric, the western world has bigger problems and I don't think anybody wants a repeat of the Iraq war. At most we'll see more of the oh-so-popular drone attacks.

The Syrian regime has been storing and keeping the stores current for years.  At least 5 airbases are known to contain the stocks so I doubt mere drone strikes will stop this problem.  And even if he were assassinated by a bodyguard this stuff could still find it's way to other parties outside the government - look at Libya.  It's a bad situation.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

If Syria, or any other country, has not signed a treaty, then so what, it is their affair. There is no world government, no international law, only agreements between countries. No country is subjected to "International law", only the force of bigger more powerful countries. When one or more powerful countries get some super weapon, then you can bet there will be a flurry of treaties and "International law" stopping smaller countries obtaining these weapons. It is nothing to do with law or morality, it is naked power and most of the words from US/UK are only fit for toilet paper. They say harsh words against any supposed support for Assad, yet say nothing about the foreign Islamists flooding Syria, or the Saudis and gulf states showering money over the rebels. What hypocrasy! they scream and shout about "equality" and "minorities" etc in their own countries, make laws that turn normal human situations on heads, yet now will condemn minorities, Christians included, to possible death, or at least a very degraded future in a Syria ruled by Islamists. Why? why this stinking two faced attitude?. The UK foreign minister is saying same as was said about Iraq ten years back, and we are too believe these lying morons again?. Treaties, international law, all toilet paper, everything is about power, money, and more money, and yet more money, and if I forgot to say, it is about money, and power, with a bit of money thrown in......

[The New Richard Nixon]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 09 December 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

If Syria, or any other country, has not signed a treaty, then so what, it is their affair. There is no world government, no international law, only agreements between countries. No country is subjected to "International law", only the force of bigger more powerful countries. When one or more powerful countries get some super weapon, then you can bet there will be a flurry of treaties and "International law" stopping smaller countries obtaining these weapons. It is nothing to do with law or morality, it is naked power and most of the words from US/UK are only fit for toilet paper. They say harsh words against any supposed support for Assad, yet say nothing about the foreign Islamists flooding Syria, or the Saudis and gulf states showering money over the rebels. What hypocrasy! they scream and shout about "equality" and "minorities" etc in their own countries, make laws that turn normal human situations on heads, yet now will condemn minorities, Christians included, to possible death, or at least a very degraded future in a Syria ruled by Islamists. Why? why this stinking two faced attitude?. The UK foreign minister is saying same as was said about Iraq ten years back, and we are too believe these lying morons again?. Treaties, international law, all toilet paper, everything is about power, money, and more money, and yet more money, and if I forgot to say, it is about money, and power, with a bit of money thrown in......

Which is why Russia is in Syria, they want oil, Syria wants weapons

[Yamato]

Consider the US's position during the Iran-Iraq war.  We wanted to drag out a slugging match between Sunni and Shiite for as long as possible, aiding a wonderful man Saddam Hussein against the country he invaded.  I expect nothing more and nothing less from US foreign policy over Syria today.   We don't want Assad to get the chemicals out!  That would turn the tide of the battles and possibly even the war.   No, we need both sides hanging on by the precarious edge, killing themselves and their enemy as much as possible.  Just so long as it stays proportional, just so long as it continues letting the most motivated and/or violent Muslims (aka would-be terrorists) on either side die fighting in the crucible for Syria.

Syria produces 380,000 barrels of oil a day on a good year like 2010.   If Russia wanted oil they'd drill for it in Russia.  They're the largest oil producer in the world.   Oil is not their interest in Syria.  I think their interests are deeper than that.  They want a fingerprint on what kind of a country Syria turns out to be.  If only those miscreants, those "terrorists" that Assad is fighting a war on, would just behave themselves, we could have peace and stability.   Derp.  Maybe showing the US its own reflection (with UN vetoes) is also part of Russia's game (i.e. exercising some national pride and privilege on the world stage once again).

It's easy political action!   Veto your UN condemnation of violence, today!

Edited by Yamato, 09 December 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

The New Richard Nixon, on 09 December 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Which is why Russia is in Syria, they want oil, Syria wants weapons

No, Russia does not need oil from Syria, it is the naval base at Tartus that is important. And as for weapons, well, this is a red herring, as used as weak excuse for turning back ship with helicopters, which would have taken three monthes to assemble, and were gargo helicopters, not gunships. Yet I see in western media no mention of this. It is not realistic to think that Syria needs to import weapons. It is implying that before this rebelion they did not have sufficient to wage war with any neighbours. The fighting has not been anything like as fierce as in a full state on state war. Perhaps Syrian Airforce has lost two or three gunships, well, that is nothing, there is no need to import more. This talk of weapons being supplied to Syria is smoke and mirrors, propaganda that no longer fools anybody. When US/UK say, WMD this and wag their finger at that, then all point finger at them and go "Ha ha" like Nelson Muntz and just say, what about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. In western media there are photos/videos of people killed by Syrian state armed forces, and all the bleeding heart statements about such, yet I have not seen in western media the film of ordinary Syrians, loyal to state, being thrown off top of five story post office buliding. There is simple question here, what happens in other countries is their affair, not mine, not yours, so, you want stable Syria, or a hell hole full of anti Western(and I include Russian)/Christian Islamists? which is it? you want those who hate you, or those, with some nose pinching, will bring stability and peace