Chemical Weapons

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Fuck Isreal.

 

What with?

[Bjornebye]

What with?

 

a 4 mile long palestinian dildo that spunks nasty spiders with aids when it comes

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Fuck it, I just ebayed my last one. :(

[Stu Monty]

I'll be astounded if these attacks on the chemical capability of one of the sides in the conflict that have used chemical weapons don't also have the objective of destroying infrastructure. A broken Syria is a better outcome than a functional one for the US.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

That wasn't aimed at you' date=' it was a reply to Skidders. The questions about my blinkered acceptance of media and government lies and Syrian oil pipelines was aimed at you, though.[/quote']

 

I did a big reply to this and Forum Runner crashed again!

To summarise what i was saying is that even if there are no pipelines in Syria then Oil is somewhere near the top of the agenda.

The fact that Stu is surprised by your stance on this issue is echoed by me and others have provided sources to dispute the US humanitarian line on it.

You mentioned that I said you were swallowing the US humanity story and all i can say is thats how it seems in this thread. So much so Im expecting a rendition of U-S-A anytime soon.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

To summarise what i was saying is that even if there are no pipelines in Syria then Oil is somewhere near the top of the agenda.

 

Surely you can see why I have a problem with accepting and then running with this? I mean, if you're going to accuse me of 'swallow' things without question - which is your right, but I find really offensive because it's akin to being stupid, thoughtless, and very poorly informed - surely you don't mind me asking questions of the things you say.

 

If you read back what you've written there, surely you have to admit it's total conjecture. There's absolutely nothing to back it up other than your guesswork. There are, however, a great many things to say that it's very unlikely. I can't swallow it just because you say they're going in to protect oil pipelines. Mainly because you've shown that you don't know anything about the pipelines and you've admitted you've not even read into what's happening.

 

I'm fully prepared to accept any evidence on why they're going in there, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions just because you are. I'm not saying the Americans are a self-less nation driven by their own humanity. I'm saying I'd like to know what you're talking about when you're saying they're going in for their own benefit. Considering how well I know the region, and being that I can't see anything of serious and significant benefit for them to attack Syria, I've got to be a little cautious believing one baseless sentence on a forum. I think that's just sensible.

 

The fact that Stu is surprised by your stance on this issue is echoed by me and others have provided sources to dispute the US humanitarian line on it.

 

You mentioned that I said you were swallowing the US humanity story and all i can say is thats how it seems in this thread. So much so Im expecting a rendition of U-S-A anytime soon.

 

I've not swallowed anything from the US. This is a bizarre and totally unfounded thing to say. I've said - and repeated several times - that my position is that I support a limited intervention. If that's what the US do, then I'll support it. If they don't do that, it's different to what I want and I won't support it. That's simple and, in my opinion, the most sensible position to take at this stage.

 

I'm not accepting anybody's word on anything. I don't think that's what's annoying you, though. It's that I'm not accepting your word on it. Your entire argument is 'yeah, but it's the bloody Americans though isn't it?'. It's not convincing. I fully accept, and have done more than once in this thread, that the Americans might have a nefarious plan. But before I believe they do, I'd personally like to have at least some logic behind what they stand to gain.

 

I promise you this, if you say something like 'the US does hundreds of billions of dollars in oil business (they don't, but that's beyond the point), which Assad is threatening to cut off but the rebels are keen on protecting', I'd check it out and if it was reliable I'd say, 'hands up, that's a great reason for them to go in. This is clearly a ruse'. As it is, there nothing. 'But Iraq though, eh?'. Yeah, if this is a pre-cursor for a ground invasion and occupation, I don't support it. I don't think it is, personally, but it has nothing to do with what they say. It's because they're no significant benefit for them doing so. I can accept they work in their own interest, I just don't see the interests here.

 

I don't think there's much more I can say on it, because in my opinion that's a sensible, non-partizan way to look at the situation. If they're good to their word and attack Assad's ability to deliver chemical weapons strikes on civilians, I'm for it. If it's a crazy new-world order attempt to attack Iran via Syria whilst having a proxy war for Israel, I firstly want a bit of evidence before I trumpet that case myself, and secondly wouldn't support it.

[Kevin D]

Surely you can see why I have a problem with accepting and then running with this? I mean, if you're going to accuse me of 'swallow' things without question - which is your right, but I find really offensive because it's akin to being stupid, thoughtless, and very poorly informed - surely you don't mind me asking questions of the things you say.

 

If you read back what you've written there, surely you have to admit it's total conjecture. There's absolutely nothing to back it up other than your guesswork. There are, however, a great many things to say that it's very unlikely. I can't swallow it just because you say they're going in to protect oil pipelines. Mainly because you've shown that you don't know anything about the pipelines and you've admitted you've not even read into what's happening.

 

I'm fully prepared to accept any evidence on why they're going in there, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions just because you are. I'm not saying the Americans are a self-less nation driven by their own humanity. I'm saying I'd like to know what you're talking about when you're saying they're going in for their own benefit. Considering how well I know the region, and being that I can't see anything of serious and significant benefit for them to attack Syria, I've got to be a little cautious believing one baseless sentence on a forum. I think that's just sensible.

 

 

 

I've not swallowed anything from the US. This is a bizarre and totally unfounded thing to say. I've said - and repeated several times - that my position is that I support a limited intervention. If that's what the US do, then I'll support it. If they don't do that, it's different to what I want and I won't support it. That's simple and, in my opinion, the most sensible position to take at this stage.

 

I'm not accepting anybody's word on anything. I don't think that's what's annoying you, though. It's that I'm not accepting your word on it. Your entire argument is 'yeah, but it's the bloody Americans though isn't it?'. It's not convincing. I fully accept, and have done more than once in this thread, that the Americans might have a nefarious plan. But before I believe they do, I'd personally like to have at least some logic behind what they stand to gain.

 

I promise you this, if you say something like 'the US does hundreds of billions of dollars in oil business (they don't, but that's beyond the point), which Assad is threatening to cut off but the rebels are keen on protecting', I'd check it out and if it was reliable I'd say, 'hands up, that's a great reason for them to go in. This is clearly a ruse'. As it is, there nothing. 'But Iraq though, eh?'. Yeah, if this is a pre-cursor for a ground invasion and occupation, I don't support it. I don't think it is, personally, but it has nothing to do with what they say. It's because they're no significant benefit for them doing so. I can accept they work in their own interest, I just don't see the interests here.

 

I don't think there's much more I can say on it, because in my opinion that's a sensible, non-partizan way to look at the situation. If they're good to their word and attack Assad's ability to deliver chemical weapons strikes on civilians, I'm for it. If it's a crazy new-world order attempt to attack Iran via Syria whilst having a proxy war for Israel, I firstly want a bit of evidence before I trumpet that case myself, and secondly wouldn't support it.

 

Fuck off back to Crawford, you Vulcan twat.

[Red Phoenix]

Your spot on about the chemical stockpiles in Syria and that is why I cant see any missile attack happening either. It only takes one bomb to hit a stockpile to cause something even bigger than whats hapend already. Even in the west probably knowing exactly where the stockpiles are probably situated its to big a risk.

What is annoying me is Kerry saying its sarin that has been used. It cant be sarin as all them people you see helping in the videos of the attack would now be infected as well.

Iv e seen the Snowden stuff being mentioned more and more lately and its funny you mention about its being pushed out of the news lately, as it reminds me of sept 10th the day before the towers got hit and Chaney saying how 2.3 trillion dollars couldnt be accounted for from the military coffers and the next day the attacks happen. When the pentagon was hit it just so happens the only part of it destroyed was the part holding all the records concerning the budget and military spending.

Funny enough as that was also forgotten about as well after the attack.

 

Yeah there's so much connected to 9-11 that doesn't seem to make sense, or could make sense if you look at it in a certain way, that's it's mind boggling. Am going to steer clear of that here though because it obviously causes big divisions between people and the conspiracy loon accusations will probably just follow straight after too.

 

It'll be interesting to see what else Snowden has though, and how the whole issue is resolved with him. The US gov are clearly annoyed in a big way about him being in Russia, which I guess doesn't help the bigger picture with this when it comes to negotiations between the two countries either.

 

From The Guardian :

 

China has joined Russia in opposing military strikes on Syria, saying it would push up oil prices and create an economic downturn.

 

The Chinese intervention came as G20 leaders gathered in Saint Petersburg on Thursday for a summit likely to be dominated by Syria. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is expected to allow the issue on to the agenda for dinner, reflecting the reality that the fate of the world economy is inextricably intertwined with the risk of a Middle East conflagration.

 

The Chinese deputy finance minister, Zhu Guangyao, told a pre-G20 briefing: "Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on oil prices – it will cause a hike in the oil price."

 

Syria crisis: China joins Russia in opposing military strikes | World news | theguardian.com

 

So the Chinese gov finally steps into this, but nevermind concern for Human life, let's think about the economy and oil prices, as usual!

 

Things like this make me wonder why we even bother. It seems like the world would clearly be a better place if we just got rid of all the nukes, chemical weapons and whatever else, then got rid of all the governments too as they operate right now. They clearly don't seem to give a shit and have such a warped perspective on things that situations like this just end up a total farce.

 

It reminds me of the last US presidential elections, was researching a few things about the US including the NDAA, but hardly anything that involved Human rights and so on was brought up, it was basically about the economy. These people are just like puppets for the interests of the upper classes and the elite, and issues like environmental ones and Human rights just seem like something they have to put up with, not something they have any real care for. No wonder some think that the world is basically ran by a bunch of psychopaths.

 

If they cared about alternative energies as much as they do about oil prices, the world would probably be a much better place and quickly.

[Red Phoenix]

Fuck off back to Crawford, you Vulcan twat.

 

Hahah, that's almost sigworthy. (I didn't even see who it was directed at as I was scrolling back up, I just meant the line on it's own!)

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Thanks for the Polk link. Been waiting for some sort of reasonable summary.

 

 

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why Obama would want any part of that stupidity.

It was Chernobyl that bankrupted them . There s a superb documentary about Chernobyl and gorbachev is on talking loads and even he said Chernobyl is what bankrupted them.

That polk thing also says sarin gas but apparently it cant be sarin as anybody who comes into contact with someone poisioned by it gets infected to. if there not wearing full safety suits. Thats why a lot of the chemical experts who seen the videos of the gas attack cant understand how the people tending to the sick and dead havent got infected as well , as they wore no safety suits.

[Ranxerox]

Mission creep already

 

"The Senate committee adopted amendments proposed by McCain with policy goals of degrading Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, increasing support for rebel forces and reversing battlefield momentum to create conditions for Assad's removal."

 

 

 

 

U.S. resolution on Syria strike passes first hurdle in Senate | Reuters

[Red Phoenix]

Thanks for the Polk link.

 

Seconded, looking forward to reading it later.

[Stu Monty]

NV - You keep saying that you can't see interests and I keep pointing out to you that a broken Syria is very much a better situation than a functioning Syria as an ally of your enemy. Also, from Bush's own mouth: "War is good for the economy".

 

The idea that you'd need someone to prove there are hidden agendas at play, other than prove the opposite is a strange stance to take...with any nation, let alone one with the history of the US.

 

Apparently Kerry has been telling congress what a great bunch of lads the rebels are, and how the most powerful elements are democratic moderates, not jihadi lunatics. Yeah, pull the other one John, it's got fucking bells on it.

[Ranxerox]

Well, if you can give me evidence that this is a proxy war for the Israeli, that'd be great.

 

 

 

 

AIPAC in Full Court Press on Syria - The Daily Beast

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

NV - You keep saying that you can't see interests and I keep pointing out to you that a broken Syria is very much a better situation than a functioning Syria as an ally of your enemy.

 

What I keep saying is that I see no significant interests in Syria. You repeating the line about a broken Syria doesn't make it a significant interest. I'm happy to have a discussion on that, but you just saying it isn't really enough for it to be decisively true. I don't mean that offensively, I respect what you say much more than most on here, so I take it on board. On the face of it, without any discussion, I don't really see the case.

 

Also, from Bush's own mouth: "War is good for the economy".

 

Well, the minute we start listening to what Bush says about the economy... I've never really agreed with that, and if it's true it's only true in a narrow way.

 

The idea that you'd need someone to prove there are hidden agendas at play, other than prove the opposite is a strange stance to take...with any nation, let alone one with the history of the US.

 

I think it's perfectly sensible that when somebody says, 'they're going in because of oil pipelines', that I ask for some sort of rationale or evidence before parroting the same lines. Of course I expect the US to prove their case, they're held to a much higher standard.

[Stu Monty]

What I keep saying is that I see no significant interests in Syria. You repeating the line about a broken Syria doesn't make it a significant interest. I'm happy to have a discussion on that, but you just saying it isn't really enough for it to be decisively true. I don't mean that offensively, I respect what you say much more than most on here, so I take it on board. On the face of it, without any discussion, I don't really see the case.

 

Well, the minute we start listening to what Bush says about the economy... I've never really agreed with that, and if it's true it's only true in a narrow way.

 

I think it's perfectly sensible that when somebody says, 'they're going in because of oil pipelines', that I ask for some sort of rationale or evidence before parroting the same lines. Of course I expect the US to prove their case, they're held to a much higher standard.

 

Obviously be sceptical of specific claims like that but to come to the issue with the view that you need proof of hidden agendas, other than the other way round, just smacks of ridiculous naivety; it also requires you to forget almost anything you ever learn about history and how nations operate.

 

We'll have to disagree about significant interests. The interests are clearly significant enough to merit the actions they are taking, otherwise they wouldn't be taking them. It certainly isn't about dead babies or naughty weapons, that's for sure; there's plenty of both been around before this without them acting.

[Ranxerox]

Considering how well I know the region,

 

Must have missed something earlier in the thread, how is it that you know the area well?

 

I'd say Fareed knows it better. A good analysis of why the conflict is unlikely to remain limited.

 

On Syria, Words Have Consequences | TIME.com

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Obviously be sceptical of specific claims like that but to come to the issue with the view that you need proof of hidden agendas, other than the other way round, just smacks of ridiculous naivety; it also requires you to forget almost anything you ever learn about history and how nations operate.

 

We'll have to disagree about significant interests. The interests are clearly significant enough to merit the actions they are taking, otherwise they wouldn't be taking them. It certainly isn't about dead babies or naughty weapons, that's for sure; there's plenty of both been around before this without them acting.

 

I'm not convinced either way, all I can say is what I support.

[piscinin]

Look out for plans for precision strikes, I mean precision strikes and wider strikes against infrastructure, I mean precision strikes, wider strikes against infrastructure and arms shipments, I mean precision strikes, wider strikes against infrastructure, arms shipments and rebel training.

 

The morality of chemical weapons, don't make me laugh. So we'll be making precision strikes against the opposition as well I take it. The USUK propaganda does not add up.

 

 

Mission creep already

"The Senate committee adopted amendments proposed by McCain with policy goals of degrading Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, increasing support for rebel forces and reversing battlefield momentum to create conditions for Assad's removal."

 

Well, well, what a completely unpredictable development.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Now for the u-turn from the British government.

 

BBC News - UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron

[Code]

What a load of fabricated bollocks.....again.

[piscinin]

BBC News - UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron

 

The UN samples haven't even made it to a lab yet. So guessing these are some "special" ones we get hold of. How convenient. And anyways none of them are going to show who used the gas. So, so what?

 

And where's the u-turn, I see him refocusing our role on humanitarian aid, ceasefire and peace talks and leaving the bombs, guns and killing people to the US.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The UN samples haven't even made it to a lab yet. So guessing these are some "special" ones we get hold of. How convenient. And anyways none of them are going to show who used the gas. So, so what?

 

And where's the u-turn, I see him refocusing our role on humanitarian aid, ceasefire and peace talks and leaving the bombs, guns and killing people to the US.

There s the thing with the UN summed up in one. They can test to see what is used but not who used it. So the UN wont back any strike against Assad as there is still no proof to who used it.

[BCM]

"The Senate committee adopted amendments proposed by McCain with policy goals of degrading Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, increasing support for rebel forces and reversing battlefield momentum to create conditions for Assad's removal."

 

What a Surprise

 

[YOUTUBE]w8iOOJcR0aI[/YOUTUBE]

[Nightcat]

McCain is the definition of a war criminal. His support to the Libyan rebels ended up quite badly for America, when the McCain-supported rebels seized power as a Thank you to America they stormed the US Embassy and gang raped the US Ambassador before they executed him and took his body out on the streets. But McCain doesn't give a shit.

 

McCain now demands the coalition to bomb the Syrian Army and help the AQ terrorists who are slaughtering Christian, Shia and Allawites. He is insane. The man is out of control.

 

He wants blood, he is thirsty for blood. He has no other interest or scope in his sad life. His atrophic penis can lift only with a crane, so he is punishing the world.

 

There was a nobody on this thread demanding info for the pipeline game. Kirkuk-Baniyas:

Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia