Chemical Weapons

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

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

Yes it is true it tested positive for sarin. The thing is these wernt samples from that August 21 st attack but from before that. Again it makes no difference as they still cant prove who used it.

[piscinin]

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[/url]

 

To be fair that's an ex-pipeline and a pipedream.

[Nightcat]

To be fair that's an ex-pipeline and a pipedream.

 

yeah that's the point.

[Red Phoenix]

From wikipedia :

 

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski; ( born March 28, 1928 ) is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

 

This is from June, he accuses the US gov of taking part in mass propaganda :

 

0SXBeMhIgFo

[Red Phoenix]

Putin on Skull and Bones Kerry : "He is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."

 

Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yes it is true it tested positive for sarin. The thing is these wernt samples from that August 21 st attack but from before that. Again it makes no difference as they still cant prove who used it.

 

Did you think that's why I posted the link? To make the case that Assad did it? I was showing how the UK was changing its stance, hence my quote. This is the first step.

 

The US and French already have plenty enough evidence to show it was Syria. The only debatable thing is whether that evidence, released in two dossiers, is some huge conspiracy with fabricated evidence or if its just evidence.

[piscinin]

Putin on Skull and Bones Kerry : "He is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."

 

Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria

 

All politicians are liars.

[zigackly]

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

 

I'd be interested to see your thoughts on this development NV, since it now goes far beyond what you said you would support, and is beginning to resemble what others have suggested would happen.

[Coro]

 

The US and French already have plenty enough evidence to show it was Syria.

 

They do?

 

It will be enough to justify them falling on the side of and supporting terrorists many of who are not Syrian?

 

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni - “The one thing we should learn is that you can’t get a little bit pregnant.”

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'd be interested to see your thoughts on this development NV, since it now goes far beyond what you said you would support, and is beginning to resemble what others have suggested would happen.

 

I'd need to see the amendment in order to make my own judgment on what it means, to be honest. However, I've been pretty clear from the beginning on this one, mate. I said right at the beginning that, 'there must be solid evidence' and 'there must be legal grounding' but that 'stopping the use of chemical weapons against civilians - especially children - isn't the worse use of a costly military'. To me, that still sounds like a reasonable position to take.

 

In regards to your question, and as I said earlier, "I don't want ground invasions" and that I think any mission should only be "to stop Assad's regime from killing their own civilians". If the objective are different to that, I don't support it. I said, 'I'd only ever support a short intervention with the sole aim of stopping CW against Syrians. I certainly understand people having doubts about whether or not that's the only motive, though; we've been here before'.

 

Having spend a few years on this site, sharing many anti-US foreign policy opinions - mainly anti-US foreign policy opinions - I felt comfortable sharing an opinion on what I, personally speaking, think should happen and what I'd support, without thinking I'd be taken as some pro-US war-hawk. It seems I was mistaken, and that what I posted above wasn't 'I'd only support it if...' but 'yehaw, kill them nappy-headed sand niggers'. I should feel ashamed of myself for being such a US propagandist.

 

As for what 'would happen', I made no predictions on what the US would do. What it would turn into, only what I'd support. If they go from attempting to protect civilians to hegemony and imperialism, then I object to it. You know, what with being anti-imperialist an' all.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Did you think that's why I posted the link? To make the case that Assad did it? I was showing how the UK was changing its stance, hence my quote. This is the first step.

 

The US and French already have plenty enough evidence to show it was Syria. The only debatable thing is whether that evidence, released in two dossiers, is some huge conspiracy with fabricated evidence or if its just evidence.

 

Of course they will have evidence that is was Syria, the key part is which side does the evidence point to?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

Of course they will have evidence that is was Syria' date=' the key part is which side does the evidence point to?[/quote']

 

?

 

Yeah. The evidence points to the Syrian regime. The only thing left to debate now is the validity of the evidence.

[VladimirIlyich]

McCain is the definition of a war criminal. His support to the Libyan rebels ended up quite badly for America' date=' 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:

KirkukâEUR"Baniyas pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Seems as though,despite being ill informed and a conspiracy theorist,my point about oil being close to the top of the reasons the US wants to take military action in Syria.

Oil and Construction contracts are two possible reasons and bombs and weapons reaching their use by date is another.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Erm, what? A pipeline that was blown up ten years ago by the Americans? The Americans are going in to protect it? Okay.

 

As for weapons and 'use by dates', which weapons are those? Are they only going to use ageing munitions? Do they only select the bombs from the front shelf and when they restock they put the new ones at the back?

 

Which 'construction projects'? Which towns, which buildings, which companies, which projects?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Numero Veinticinco

[Pureblood]

It's always "evidence", isn't it? How about some proof?

[VladimirIlyich]

Erm' date=' what? A pipeline that was blown up ten years ago by the Americans? The Americans are going in to protect it? Okay.

 

As for weapons and 'use by dates', which weapons are those? Are they only going to use ageing munitions? Do they only select the bombs from the front shelf and when they restock they put the new ones at the back?

 

Which 'construction projects'? Which towns, which buildings, which companies, which projects?[/quote']

 

Haha! I actually started to write at the end of my last post that the sell by date remark was only sarcasm but didnt as i thought that everybody would realise it was.

Now it seems I should have written it.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

?

 

Yeah. The evidence points to the Syrian regime. The only thing left to debate now is the validity of the evidence.

 

According to the US and the French?

 

The two sides are who are looking to jump in feet first.

[Stu Monty]

I'd need to see the amendment in order to make my own judgment on what it means, to be honest. However, I've been pretty clear from the beginning on this one, mate. I said right at the beginning that, 'there must be solid evidence' and 'there must be legal grounding' but that 'stopping the use of chemical weapons against civilians - especially children - isn't the worse use of a costly military'. To me, that still sounds like a reasonable position to take.

 

In regards to your question, and as I said earlier, "I don't want ground invasions" and that I think any mission should only be "to stop Assad's regime from killing their own civilians". If the objective are different to that, I don't support it. I said, 'I'd only ever support a short intervention with the sole aim of stopping CW against Syrians. I certainly understand people having doubts about whether or not that's the only motive, though; we've been here before'.

 

Having spend a few years on this site, sharing many anti-US foreign policy opinions - mainly anti-US foreign policy opinions - I felt comfortable sharing an opinion on what I, personally speaking, think should happen and what I'd support, without thinking I'd be taken as some pro-US war-hawk. It seems I was mistaken, and that what I posted above wasn't 'I'd only support it if...' but 'yehaw, kill them nappy-headed sand niggers'. I should feel ashamed of myself for being such a US propagandist.

 

As for what 'would happen', I made no predictions on what the US would do. What it would turn into, only what I'd support. If they go from attempting to protect civilians to hegemony and imperialism, then I object to it. You know, what with being anti-imperialist an' all.

 

I don't think you should take any suggestion of you being a war-hawk seriously, it's hardly worth bothering yourself with.

 

I do think you're giving the US far too much of the benefit of the doubt on this one though. You're like the guy in a zombie flick who is willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when not doing so is wiser. It usually end up with you seeing your own innards before you die.

[Red Phoenix]

Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, told a news conference in New York: "Even in the wake of the flagrant shattering of the international norm against chemical weapons use, Russia continues to hold the council hostage and shirk its international responsibilities.

 

Syria divides deepen during Putin's G20 dinner | World news | theguardian.com

 

I don't think that's true if the evidence is a mixture of biased and fake. And holding the council hostage and shirking international responsibilities? It's ok for the US to do it though when it suits : U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel

 

Oh I forgot, the US gov is part-owned by Israel, sorry.

[Red Phoenix]

All politicians are liars.

 

Yep, just like the way Putin is quoted as saying "this is sad" at the end, almost as if he's making extra effort to show how pathetic he thinks Kerry is.

[Ranxerox]

I'd need to see the amendment in order to make my own judgment on what it means,

 

The wording is in the amendment as reported by Reuters. It clearly states going beyond merely attacking CW facilities and invokes the idea of regime change.

 

McCain has been championing this idea from the get go and threatened to withhold his support unless he got it.

 

This is the main reason why the Russians would veto UN action, they don't want regime change, the US/Isreal does.

 

Fortunately the US House is currently onboard with the vast majority of US popular opinion against the idea of intervention. Even they don't buy the Administration's propaganda.

 

The “no’s” keep piling up on Syria resolution in the House

[zigackly]

I'd need to see the amendment in order to make my own judgment on what it means, to be honest. However, I've been pretty clear from the beginning on this one, mate. I said right at the beginning that, 'there must be solid evidence' and 'there must be legal grounding' but that 'stopping the use of chemical weapons against civilians - especially children - isn't the worse use of a costly military'. To me, that still sounds like a reasonable position to take.

 

In regards to your question, and as I said earlier, "I don't want ground invasions" and that I think any mission should only be "to stop Assad's regime from killing their own civilians". If the objective are different to that, I don't support it. I said, 'I'd only ever support a short intervention with the sole aim of stopping CW against Syrians. I certainly understand people having doubts about whether or not that's the only motive, though; we've been here before'.

 

Having spend a few years on this site, sharing many anti-US foreign policy opinions - mainly anti-US foreign policy opinions - I felt comfortable sharing an opinion on what I, personally speaking, think should happen and what I'd support, without thinking I'd be taken as some pro-US war-hawk. It seems I was mistaken, and that what I posted above wasn't 'I'd only support it if...' but 'yehaw, kill them nappy-headed sand niggers'. I should feel ashamed of myself for being such a US propagandist.

 

As for what 'would happen', I made no predictions on what the US would do. What it would turn into, only what I'd support. If they go from attempting to protect civilians to hegemony and imperialism, then I object to it. You know, what with being anti-imperialist an' all.

 

That's a bit of a defensive reply mate, I wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was just wondering if you had changed your mind any, seeing as the goalposts have already started moving. I think we all deplore the use of chemical weapons, but I know I don't trust US motives in this at all and that rewording of the objective at such an early stage is a cause for concern.

[Ranxerox]

From wikipedia :

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

 

This is from June, he accuses the US gov of taking part in mass propaganda :

 

0SXBeMhIgFo

 

Brzenzinski was also an early skeptic (ultimately proven correct of course) of the Ira war.

 

Transcript: Zbigniew Brzezinski on the geopolitical lessons of the Iraq War | What The Folly?!

[Ranxerox]

?

 

Yeah. The evidence points to the Syrian regime. The only thing left to debate now is the validity of the evidence.

 

That viewpoint relies only on US/UK sources (yellowcake anyone?).

 

The full UN report has not been completed yet.

 

US must wait for UN chemical weapons report before acting on Syria - CSMonitor.com

[Nightcat]

It's getting a bit serious. No?

 

Putin:

Russia will help Syria in case of Western attack.

 

PUTIN: Russia Will Continue To Help Syria If The US Attacks - Yahoo! India Finance

 

According to Putin The "coalition" in fact is, US, their puppet state Turkey, their lovechild Saudi Arabia, their Poodle UK, France and Canada. That's about it. The rest are either against or really reluctant. hmmm...