Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
docyabut2

Syria mixes chemical weapons into bombs

51 posts in this topic

Most likely propaganda.

It's hard not to admire the U.S. military at a time like this, because the potential for good here is great.

There may be a chance to change the course of history at this juncture, but I would not wade in without the Russians. There's no reason that Putin can't add "hero" to his resume.

My strong sense is that Panetta and Hillary are negatives here, and I'm a big fan of hers. This calls for a special knight on the chess board, possibly a European statesman with some past ties to Syria's wellbeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgJBblCRM6I

What an Ironic video. "I saved the world today and it shows all the destruction. These children in these videos are mostly from OUR bombs.

There is no heroes in these modern wars, just people doing the wrong thing, but thinking it's the right thing.

If the US/UK military etc are heroes then why do we not save the innocent people in Africa who want to be saved? They are treated far worse than people in they Middle East. Oh it's because it's not part of the governments agenda that's why.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely propaganda.

What an Ironic video. "I saved the world today and it shows all the destruction. These children in these videos are mostly from OUR bombs.

There is no heroes in these modern wars, just people doing the wrong thing, but thinking it's the right thing.

If the US/UK military etc are heroes then why do we not save the innocent people in Africa who want to be saved? They are treated far worse than people in they Middle East. Oh it's because it's not part of the governments agenda that's why.

Like, for example, trying to feed the starving and provide AIDS drugs? Last I checked America was doing a bit of that.... and you might remember a place called Somalia in the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil war. Let them sort it out. There is no reason to go there. Yeah, I wish we could save everone in the world from themselves too, but you can't. And you shouldn't.

Like, for example, trying to feed the starving and provide AIDS drugs? Last I checked America was doing a bit of that.... and you might remember a place called Somalia in the 90's.

Yeah, and how did that whole Somalia thing work out for you? And if you had a clue as to how we help them by giving them loans through the IMF, and how exactly all of that works you would see it's all part of a debt slavery scam. Not that there aren't plenty of private American charities doing great works in Africa but the government is not one of them.

Edited by OverSword
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, for example, trying to feed the starving and provide AIDS drugs? Last I checked America was doing a bit of that.... and you might remember a place called Somalia in the 90's.

When does the US government do this, it's charities etc that do that.

Also not surprised they give Aids aid. It was the US part of Bayer pharmaceuticals that spread Aids in Africa by selling HIV contaminated drugs there. And yes they did know they where HIV contaminated because Bayer had already been caught in the US and Europe for it and all that happened was that they were not allowed to sell those drugs again in the US or Europe but they carried on selling them in Africa.

For some reason not a lot of people know about this and it's one of the worst things in our "modern" history. This company carries on being the leading pharmaceutical supplier in the world. They even supply most of the drugs you can buy off the shelf. (like Rennie's etc)

Edited by Coffey
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not totally inconceivable that Russia could take control of such weapon stocks. It would be difficult and need nerves of steel and commonsense and at least some co-operation from Syrian rebels. Anybody noticed any unusual troop movements out of Ryazan recently....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it has now been confirmed by both Obama and Paneta, so all of this talk about unnamed sources and invisible men can stop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares who confirms what. We should not send troops or weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it has to be done it will be the US that has to do it. The only exception to that that would be acceptable would be for Russia to clean up the mess but they'll never cut us a break like that. If we let Assad gas thousands of his people then eventually he will still fall and those weapons will either be given or stolen away and THAT MUST NOT happen. Once news of that starts trickling out Israel will bust Syria wide open. No one lives on an island anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S.: if Syria uses chemical weapons, we will definitely attack.

Syria: Duuuh.. Think we're going to use chemical weapons, m'kay

:blush:

The Syrians will obviously not use chemical weapons on their own people for the simple fact that, if nothing else, it will be the smoking gun the U.S. is so desperately looking for - and they are obviously quite aware of this (unless they don't have the internet or TVs). Anyone who believes this bull**** is obviously walking around with a single digit IQ.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S.: if Syria uses chemical weapons, we will definitely attack.

Syria: Duuuh.. Think we're going to use chemical weapons, m'kay

:blush:

The Syrians will obviously not use chemical weapons on their own people for the simple fact that, if nothing else, it will be the smoking gun the U.S. is so desperately looking for - and they are obviously quite aware of this (unless they don't have the internet or TVs). Anyone who believes this bull**** is obviously walking around with a single digit IQ.

:rolleyes: Everyone seems to just have really simplistic thinking when it comes to world politics. If it were as simple as you and others portray, everyone would live in peace and harmony on this planet. Fact is--- people are neither logical, reasonable, nor privy to the full information.

Also, as corrupt and evil as some people believe the US government is, the rest of the world isnt as peaceful, lovey-dovey and uncorrupt as you make it out to be. Lets face it, there are plenty of other countries whose leaders are just as evil as you all claim the US to be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S.: if Syria uses chemical weapons, we will definitely attack.

Syria: Duuuh.. Think we're going to use chemical weapons, m'kay

:blush:

The Syrians will obviously not use chemical weapons on their own people for the simple fact that, if nothing else, it will be the smoking gun the U.S. is so desperately looking for - and they are obviously quite aware of this (unless they don't have the internet or TVs). Anyone who believes this bull**** is obviously walking around with a single digit IQ.

Hopefully they won't but when multiple sources say they've prepped the binary warheads it rouses some interest for those of us who are less enlightened than you, Ex.

I think you discount what desperation can make a person do. Assad has proven himself to be totally amoral. He has done everything, including allowing the slaughter of children to sustain his position. He sees that the game is nearly up and doesn't trust anyone with promises for his survival. He said months ago that if the West came in like in Libya he would set the region on fire, specifically mentioning an attack on Israel. So the real question is whether his military leaders are as hardcore as he is. I pray they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S.: if Syria uses chemical weapons, we will definitely attack.

Syria: Duuuh.. Think we're going to use chemical weapons, m'kay

:blush:

The Syrians will obviously not use chemical weapons on their own people for the simple fact that, if nothing else, it will be the smoking gun the U.S. is so desperately looking for - and they are obviously quite aware of this (unless they don't have the internet or TVs). Anyone who believes this bull**** is obviously walking around with a single digit IQ.

If I were Syria, I'd risk it. Obama has already caved once on this issue - remember his first "line in the sand" was if they "moved" them. Well, they're moving them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as corrupt and evil as some people believe the US government is, the rest of the world isnt as peaceful, lovey-dovey and uncorrupt as you make it out to be. Lets face it, there are plenty of other countries whose leaders are just as evil as you all claim the US to be.

When have I even insinuated that the World was a 'lovey-dovey' and 'uncorrupt' place? And there are plenty of other countries whose leaders are far more evil than Britain or the U.S.'s. You should be aware of this, since we are usually the ones supporting and enabling them (Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, China, half of South America, Rwanda, South Africa etc, etc, etc, etc).

And I don't have to claim that U.S. leadership is evil. They easily make the above list due to events such as Cambodia and Laos, and North Korea (just two examples) - situations where they carpet bombed entire villages of civilians, killing hundreds of thousands (Cambodia and Laos) and millions (NK) of civilians. It is the documented and entirely uncontroversial history that outright proves the U.S. leadership (not to mention the British) has been completely evil. I don't have to 'claim' anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When have I even insinuated that the World was a 'lovey-dovey' and 'uncorrupt' place?

Every time you and others talk condescendingly towards those who believe another country (other than the US or Israel) might do something bad.

You should be aware of this, since we are usually the ones supporting and enabling them (Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, China, half of South America, Rwanda, South Africa etc, etc, etc, etc).

Yeah, exactly my point. Clearly, others in the world that have no affiliation to the US are unable to commit evil :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-T, I have no doubt that Assad would be capable of using them against the U.S. and Israel IF he were attacked by either or both, but to suggest he would bring on such an attack by using them first is just ludicrous. This isn't some Al Qaeda numpty we're talking about.

And to suggest that he even needs them against the foreigners and foreign backed terrorists trying to take over the country is silly. The Assad regime at this moment in time is not under any great physical threat, regardless of what MSM would have us believe - this is why the West needs intervention in the first place. It is a PR threat more than anything else right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Every time you and others talk condescendingly towards those who believe another country (other than the US or Israel) might do something bad.

Yeah, exactly my point. Clearly, others in the world that have no affiliation to the US are unable to commit evil :rolleyes:

Way to completely dodge my points.

The first sentence is complete, unsubstantiated nonsense. No offence, but it is.

The second sentence is equally as silly as no one on here has ever, that I have seen, tried to claim that nations with 'no affiliation to the US are unable to commit evil'.

I simply highlighted a few of the many cases where the U.S. (or Britain) has supported and enabled far worse regimes than Assad's, and also showed that they have commited tenfold worse war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafterman said:

Well it has now been confirmed by both Obama and Paneta, so all of this talk about unnamed sources and invisible men can stop.

"it"? .... what has been confirmed? Obama is issuing warnings . Paneta says this: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the U.S. has serious concerns that Syria is thinking of using its chemical weapons .

I want to know the names of the people making the actual claims that have Paneta "concerned" . I don't give Un-named sources any credibility .

Why can't we know the name of the "senior U.S. official" who 'told' Fox News. If he's all that senior i suspect we may have heard of him? Is his identity a matter of national security? .. ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to completely dodge my points.

The first sentence is complete, unsubstantiated nonsense. No offence, but it is.

No, actually, it isnt. Every time there is anything on the news regarding evil actions by a non US/Israeli government, people with your beliefs show up either

1. Denying it

2. Claiming that it's propoganda

3. Claiming that it is a false flag

Its as if you don't believe another country could do wrong without the US being behind the strings.

I simply highlighted a few of the many cases where the U.S. (or Britain) has supported and enabled far worse regimes than Assad's, and also showed that they have commited tenfold worse war crimes and crimes against humanity.

No, thats not what you "simply" did. What you "simply" did is implied that all of this is just baseless propoganda and insinuated that anyone who believes in it is a fool.

Why can't we know the name of the "senior U.S. official" who 'told' Fox News. If he's all that senior i suspect we may have heard of him? Is his identity a matter of national security? .. ridiculous.

He probably doesnt want to be known within the government as the guy who runs to the news agencies and gives them information such as this before the president himself can decide how he wants to approach this regarding the media...

You can't seriously sit there and tell me that you can't see any reason for someone to want to remain anonymous...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

No, actually, it isnt. Every time there is anything on the news regarding evil actions by a non US/Israeli government, people with your beliefs show up either

1. Denying it

2. Claiming that it's propoganda

3. Claiming that it is a false flag

Its as if you don't believe another country could do wrong without the US being behind the strings.

No, thats not what you "simply" did. What you "simply" did is implied that all of this is just baseless propoganda and insinuated that anyone who believes in it is a fool.

To your first statement: People show up to bring to light the double standards which the U.S. and its allies employ. We speak out against the U.S. and its allies, not because we think they are the only ones doing something wrong in the world, but because we often have a cultural bond with them (a lot ARE American), not to mention military alliances with the country (Britain just fought two wars for you). Of course we are going to speak out about the atrocities of your country (and to some people their own) - a country who falsely claims to be spreading freedom and democracy, while essentially terrorising the World for decades - more than the likes of Sudan or Rwanda. You can ignore and try to justify your country's history if you want, but I most definitely will not, nor will I my own.

Now, your claim that we always think anything committed by a non 'US/Israeli' govt as one of your three examples is, first, a completely unjustifiable generalisation. This board is full of many different types of people you have just grouped together; many types of people who often have different opinions when it comes to different, specific situations.

Second, it is completely understandable - after we just went to war in Iraq based on complete and utter fabrications, and attacked the country of Afghanistan, when it had nothing to do with attacking the U.S. on 9/11 - that people would have a very hard time believing anything that comes from not just the nations you mention, but others as well. Why are you trying to claim that this is something strange about the fact that the World doesn't trust the U.S.? It has been the most active warring country since WW2; doing so to serve the country's elite, at the expense of millions worldwide and its own taxpayers. Your post WW2 history is disgusting (as is Britain's) and by rights every president since WW2 could easily be tried for war crimes at the Hague. Yet you expect the world to hold you in high regard? If so, that is laughable.

It is only in relation to a country that the U.S. has been actively targeting that the theories of false flags, propaganda and lies crop up. It is no wonder, given their track record.

To speak more specifically about this current situation: it is abundantly clear that since 2001 - 2003, Iran has been the target. The U.S. has taken out all surrounding regional threats; tried, completely unsuccessfully to do in Iran what is happening in Syria (and what they do all over the World); and the one last regional ally left to Iran (and Iran's only military alliance) is now being targeted in the manner the U.S. is accustomed to. What has happened in Syria is not the popular uprising we have seen in other countries. Contrary to what Western media spews out, this situation was created in large part by the West (and also helped along by other close by countries - Turkey for example) as a means to oust a potential threat to U.S. bases and Israel in the lead up to a war with Iran, by inserting and backing terrorists in Syria - a country where the majority of people actually support the leader - and by trying to gain worldwide support for an assault against the country.

Now I'm not saying Assad is in any way a good man or great leader or any such thing (I think the opposite). But what I am sure of is that he is not stupid enough to practically invite a devastating war that will crush whatever chance he has at holding on to power, by using chemical weapons, especially on his own people. What I am sure of is that this is the usual U.S. lies and propaganda that has been known to precede their recent wars (nearly all wars, actually). And what I am sure of is that Syria will be a far more unstable and western unfriendly nation if these terrorists actually gain control.

In reply to the simply comment: Yes, I did say and imply those things and have justified my reasoning above, but when I used 'simply' in that sentence I was referring to the expanded discussion on the U.S., in reply to your comments.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does the US government do this, it's charities etc that do that.

Also not surprised they give Aids aid. It was the US part of Bayer pharmaceuticals that spread Aids in Africa by selling HIV contaminated drugs there. And yes they did know they where HIV contaminated because Bayer had already been caught in the US and Europe for it and all that happened was that they were not allowed to sell those drugs again in the US or Europe but they carried on selling them in Africa.

For some reason not a lot of people know about this and it's one of the worst things in our "modern" history. This company carries on being the leading pharmaceutical supplier in the world. They even supply most of the drugs you can buy off the shelf. (like Rennie's etc)

B.o.B - Dr. Aden, contains the story and court precedual hearings about this, it's how I first heard of the contamination and made me look further into it. But it does link up quite nicely with the situations of today and wouldn't suprise me from the money hungry fear mongers, make a pill to deliver a disease the make more trying to "heal" symptons of the aids virus, which in itself should be considered the pandemic of the current age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

lightly said:

Why can't we know the name of the "senior U.S. official" who 'told' Fox News. If he's all that senior i suspect we may have heard of him? Is his identity a matter of national security? .. ridiculous.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

"He" probably doesnt want to be known within the government as the guy who runs to the news agencies and gives them information such as this before the president himself can decide how he wants to approach this regarding the media...

You can't seriously sit there and tell me that you can't see any reason for someone to want to remain anonymous...

... Then " He " should keep his mouth shut?

Of course i can 'see' why some would want to, need to, or should, remain anonymous. I'm just really tired of the multitude of .. "official", "un-named", "white house", pentagon, etc. etc. etc. "SOURCES" that are "quoted" in THE "news" . I don't trust an endless stream of "Information" that no one is accountable for and therefore cannot be VERIFIED.

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

lightly said:

Why can't we know the name of the "senior U.S. official" who 'told' Fox News. If he's all that senior i suspect we may have heard of him? Is his identity a matter of national security? .. ridiculous.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

... Then " He " should keep his mouth shut?

Of course i can 'see' why some would want to, need to, or should, remain anonymous. I'm just really tired of the multitude of .. "official", "un-named", "white house", pentagon, etc. etc. etc. "SOURCES" that are "quoted" in THE "news" . I don't trust an endless stream of "Information" that no one is accountable for and therefore cannot be VERIFIED.

If we went back to true journalistic standards we wouldn't have much in the way of "news" anymore. It seems the world has gotten a bit too secretive or else the journos too cowardly to risk their reputations by telling the truths they learn by investigating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unnamed sources is how journalism works. Not all news outlets and reporters who use sources that are kept secret can simply be dismissed as liars. In fact, I'd go as far as to say very few respectable outlets would ever allow false use of this to happen. If they get caught in such an act of deceit, it is the end of the journalist's career and can be the end of the editor's, not to mention the effect it would have on the actual outlet. In journalism, it's such a high risk that it really isn't employed unless the source is either known to the journalist AND the editor, or the journalist has built such a good reputation that the editor trusts him or her.

Without unnamed sources, investigative journalism would more or less die. Whistleblowers would not be able to come forward anonymously, leading to investigations into crimes such as corruption. Can you imagine that?

There is still a risk though that the actual source could be a plant, or could be passing false information. But then, so could any named source.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assad will use chemical weapons against his own people, when he'll accept the fact that they are no longer "his people". Already his Alawite forces are ethnically cleansing most of the Sunni muslims from the eastern parts of Syria, to create a base for an Alawi state. If and when Assad will see that Syria is lost to the rebels, he'll run with his gang to the east and base a militarized Alawi, Russian-backed state. Probably, most of the Syrian weapons and WMD will be relocated to that state, making it a well armed, well fortified Alawi state. It's quite clear now that if Assad would lose power tomorrow, a genocide will start against the Alawites. Question is, what about the Christians, who've seem to be totally on Assad's side during the conflict. Should they spared, or should they be allowed to immigrate to the Alawite state as well. Who knows. One has to remember that Alawites aren't really muslims - they are somewhat of pagan religion, with a face of islam. Hafez Al-Assad, Basher's father, got them recognized as Shiia by Lebanese Mullah back in the 1980s.

IMO, he'll use chemicals if he'll see that the plan for an Alawi state is doomed, and is still in power. Because then he'll understand that a genocide of his people, ie the Alawis, will come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thanks 'and then' and 'ExpandMyMind ' .. what you both say makes sense.. as far as 'reporters', whistle blowers and other sources who maintain their value through anonymity ..

But, I'm still puzzled as to why White house, or Pentagon, or other officials ,who are Public figures and public servants, must be secretive? I'd like people to be able to put them on the spot and hold them more accountable for their statements... somehow. .. thanks again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.