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
ExpandMyMind

Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and the truth about

38 posts in this topic

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

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.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/syria-bashar-alassad-and-the-truth-about-chemical-weapons-and-who-may-or-may-not-have-them-8393539.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experts skeptical Syria is preparing to use its chemical arsenal

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.

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

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pravada is a bit like The Onion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Precisely told

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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......

So if tomorrow we begin to see images of piles of corpses frozen in some horrific death masks from being poisoned we are to just shrug and say the Syrians have a right to do this? The LAST thing I would want is for US military to be killed in that cesspool of a place but the world has become a very small place and what happens in Syria today can happen in Canada or Rome tomorrow. We don't have the luxury of a pity party where this stuff is concerned. You mention raw power - an exercise of that kind of power is precisely what will be seen if any of these weapons get used. Assad's regime will quickly be toppled due to massive airstrikes and then US and British forces will descend on the bases where this stuff is stored. If the "rebels" decide to attack the US or British forces then it all could get really complicated. But where this stuff is concerned there is no other choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So why was their Russian ships turning around which were carrying helicopters, Syria cannot make them or update them.

Well maybe not oil but other means but Russia still acts like in the early cold war years, you still have huge problems with parts in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why was their Russian ships turning around which were carrying helicopters, Syria cannot make them or update them.

Well maybe not oil but other means but Russia still acts like in the early cold war years, you still have huge problems with parts in Russia.

No, too many in west, US/UK, politicians and media are those still living in cold war. "Russia in the geo-political enemy" said Romney....

There is a self righteous attitude from west that is sickening, and the anti-Russian propaganda I see in your media would have the authors arrested for "hate crimes" if they wrote about minorities in their own countries in such a way. You are not the world government or police and have no claim on any truths or moral high ground. Seems US/UK can act in their own interests, but if Russia does then it is "cold war". Situation in much of middle east is chickens coming home to roost that were let loose by Britain and France after First World War. Syria is a problem directly caused by Britain and France. For your further illumination I reckomend reading "A line in the Sand" by James Barr, published 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if tomorrow we begin to see images of piles of corpses frozen in some horrific death masks from being poisoned we are to just shrug and say the Syrians have a right to do this? The LAST thing I would want is for US military to be killed in that cesspool of a place but the world has become a very small place and what happens in Syria today can happen in Canada or Rome tomorrow. We don't have the luxury of a pity party where this stuff is concerned. You mention raw power - an exercise of that kind of power is precisely what will be seen if any of these weapons get used. Assad's regime will quickly be toppled due to massive airstrikes and then US and British forces will descend on the bases where this stuff is stored. If the "rebels" decide to attack the US or British forces then it all could get really complicated. But where this stuff is concerned there is no other choice.

You put words in my mouth that I do not say, or even think, particulary you have twisted my words about power. It is the power that US uses, and this should be clear to all who read my post. About "pity", well, it is a pity US did not descend on Iraq when gas was used against Halabja in 1988. Or perhaps they did not because they were friends of Saddam then..... Hypocracy, and it stinks

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, too many in west, US/UK, politicians and media are those still living in cold war. "Russia in the geo-political enemy" said Romney....

There is a self righteous attitude from west that is sickening, and the anti-Russian propaganda I see in your media would have the authors arrested for "hate crimes" if they wrote about minorities in their own countries in such a way. You are not the world government or police and have no claim on any truths or moral high ground. Seems US/UK can act in their own interests, but if Russia does then it is "cold war". Situation in much of middle east is chickens coming home to roost that were let loose by Britain and France after First World War. Syria is a problem directly caused by Britain and France. For your further illumination I reckomend reading "A line in the Sand" by James Barr, published 2011.

You should be blaming Tunisa for all of this. It concerns all of us, whether we are connected or not. You call the West policing nations, isn't that exactly what Russia is doing? policing Syria? You also did not mention about the helicopters which seems to me that you know something that you don't want to share?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You put words in my mouth that I do not say, or even think, particulary you have twisted my words about power. It is the power that US uses, and this should be clear to all who read my post. About "pity", well, it is a pity US did not descend on Iraq when gas was used against Halabja in 1988. Or perhaps they did not because they were friends of Saddam then..... Hypocracy, and it stinks

I apologize if I took you out of context or misunderstood. But the anger over hypocrisy real or imagined is pointless when dealing with this issue. This is a very real problem with global ramifications. As for Halabja - countries have interests not friends. It's a harsh reality but there it is. Iran was considered to be an enemy and a threat to the region even then and using Saddam probably looked like the least of evils to accomplish the weakening of Iran. Sort of like using the Afghans to kill Russians. America has made many mistakes - as have other nations over the years - but America has also done great good in the world. Frankly it disgusts me to see how many so casually spit on my country when their very lives have been guaranteed through the force of US arms. If the US simply walked away from this issue and left it to Europe or the Arab League to deal with I firmly believe that regional war would begin almost immediately. We are hated for what we do and hated for what we fail to do. If we watched from the sideline while hell was well and truly unleashed in the region then perhaps some measure of respect for our sacrifices would be found again. Not likely though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be blaming Tunisa for all of this. It concerns all of us, whether we are connected or not. You call the West policing nations, isn't that exactly what Russia is doing? policing Syria? You also did not mention about the helicopters which seems to me that you know something that you don't want to share?

Ridiculous to say that Russia is "policing" Syria. How? what evidence? what purpose?. You take a short term view of history. Syria is a mix of people and religions because of France and Britain. Just like in Africa, they have created false countries from people who never had any, or little affinity with each other. The affair about the helicopters is common knowledge. They were actually Syrian helicopters that were being returned to Syria after refurbishment. Further, they were Mi-8 helicopters, not Mi-24, Mi-28 or Ka-50, which are proper attack helicopters. western media described the Mi-8 as "flying tank" :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize if I took you out of context or misunderstood. But the anger over hypocrisy real or imagined is pointless when dealing with this issue. This is a very real problem with global ramifications. As for Halabja - countries have interests not friends. It's a harsh reality but there it is. Iran was considered to be an enemy and a threat to the region even then and using Saddam probably looked like the least of evils to accomplish the weakening of Iran. Sort of like using the Afghans to kill Russians. America has made many mistakes - as have other nations over the years - but America has also done great good in the world. Frankly it disgusts me to see how many so casually spit on my country when their very lives have been guaranteed through the force of US arms. If the US simply walked away from this issue and left it to Europe or the Arab League to deal with I firmly believe that regional war would begin almost immediately. We are hated for what we do and hated for what we fail to do. If we watched from the sideline while hell was well and truly unleashed in the region then perhaps some measure of respect for our sacrifices would be found again. Not likely though.

That US would show any interest in Middle east if not for Israel and oil?......

How many Afgantsy died because of US Stinger missiles supplied to Bin Laden and others in Aghanistan. And for what purpose? simply to kill Soviet soldiers for amusement of TV stations that showed video given to them by their jihadist "friends". Until your rather strange "friends" eventually gained power in Afghanistan, the country was doing reasonably well, with Soviet help. Girls were educated, no burkas for women, or public executions in football stadiums. Boys could fly kites, and on and on. All went when your "friends" took over. Look at situation in Balkans, for which Clinton/Blair get credit. By joining in, all that happens is a situation has been shelved for a few more decades. Centuries of under the surface tensions are not resolved by 7th Cavalry riding in and imposing US world view until media get bored and move on. You really think Balkan situation is resolved? hardly, and likely the same will happen in middle east.

Not making this post in antagonism, it is simply some truths. I am not anti American or Israeli, I just try to look at reality. I am in situation to see two sides, and I know when lies are told, and at the moment most of the lies and obfuscations are coming from the west.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That US would show any interest in Middle east if not for Israel and oil?......

How many Afgantsy died because of US Stinger missiles supplied to Bin Laden and others in Aghanistan. And for what purpose? simply to kill Soviet soldiers for amusement of TV stations that showed video given to them by their jihadist "friends". Until your rather strange "friends" eventually gained power in Afghanistan, the country was doing reasonably well, with Soviet help. Girls were educated, no burkas for women, or public executions in football stadiums. Boys could fly kites, and on and on. All went when your "friends" took over. Look at situation in Balkans, for which Clinton/Blair get credit. By joining in, all that happens is a situation has been shelved for a few more decades. Centuries of under the surface tensions are not resolved by 7th Cavalry riding in and imposing US world view until media get bored and move on. You really think Balkan situation is resolved? hardly, and likely the same will happen in middle east.

Not making this post in antagonism, it is simply some truths. I am not anti American or Israeli, I just try to look at reality. I am in situation to see two sides, and I know when lies are told, and at the moment most of the lies and obfuscations are coming from the west.

I respect your views and even agree with you at some points. But the fact remains that blaming will do nothing to help in the current situation. It's my hope that my country will find the wisdom to use force judicially to help with this situation before it spirals out of control.

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.