Syria and the Middle East

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
#41
Agreed, so lets do it.

So, let us.

We already have been siting back for years.

Yes so why all the rush now?

McGowan's War
Turbot War

There, now you have two. More importantly the logic behind your argument is flawed.
I will look them up, I didn't know these. How is my logic flawed, and how is that even more important? lol
We know already that children have died in Syria, this already has been established. If the US starts a war now, many more will die needlessly.


Agreed and it's been wrong since day 1.
Yes it is.


Agreed. Who "did this" may never become fact.
It may or not may ever become fact, Still no reason to immediately start a war. There probably are more things that can be done without having many more innocent people killed.

Because the US governments acts primarily in it's economic and political self interest.

There we go!
 
Props: [-KoRp$-]559
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
#42
regardless of what you guys think, a 5th US destroyer is set to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean sea and Russia has called for a closed door UN meeting at 1130am today. Also the the UK government just published legal reasoning for a strike on Syria, saying its justified on humanitarian grounds. The UK is saying Syria has used chemical weapons 15 times!
Oooooooohhhhh wel never mind me then.... if the UK says its alright, it must be the right thing to do then! :dead:
 
Props: [-KoRp$-]559
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
#43
The North Koreans are not using chemical weapons on its people.

There is a huge difference in people dying everyday because of their government and the use of chemical weapons on innocent people...

Oh really? You are retarded.

Soooooooooooooooooo it does not matter when people get killed by their own governments on the daily basis, only the matter of how they are getting killed.



Thought this was funny;

^^^
The dude in this picture is you Superfly Snuka @Superfly Snuka
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#44
There is a video of a Syrian rebel (western funded btw) eating a mans heart whom he had just killed and It's crazy to think maybe the rebels themselves used chemical weapons? Cmon, there is no proof who luanched that attack.

The US government does not care about the use of chemical weapons it just depends on which side they want to win. The US actually helped Iraq use chemical weapons on Iran which killed thousands of people in the 80's (wont even get into Vietnam ).
 
Last edited:
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#45
After British Vote, Unusual Isolation for U.S. on Syria
By*DAVID*E.*SANGER
August 30, 2013
WASHINGTON — With a few exceptions in the past half-century, there has been a simple rule of thumb when it comes to international conflict: America does not use force without Britain at its side.

So when Prime Minister David Cameron was unable to muster the votes in Parliament for support for a strike in Syria — even one limited to stopping the future use of chemical weapons — shock could be heard in the voices of senior White House officials who never saw the British rejection coming.

“Bungled by Cameron,” said one.

“Embarrassing,” said another. “For Cameron, and for us.”

Now Mr. Obama is left to cope with miscalculations on both sides of the Atlantic. If he goes ahead with the strike — which seems all but inevitable, based on the statements of senior administration officials who say the president is determined to restore “international norms” against the use of chemical weapons — he will look more isolated than any president in recent memory entering a conflict.
 
Dec 17, 2002
3,204
782
113
WWW.SICCNESS.NET
#46
Cmon, there is no proof who luanched that attack.

The US government does not care about the use of chemical weapons it just depends on which side they want to win. The US actually helped Iraq use chemical weapons on Iran which killed thousands of people in the 80's (wont even get into Vietnam ).
Your facts are wrong bro.

First of all, only a countries government has the capabilities of building chemical weapons, not a rebel opposition. You need years of research and development and tons of money to back this. The Syrian Government is 100% to blame for this. Why do you think they repeatedly shelled the gassed area after the attracts as to try and destroy the evidence and keep un inspectors out....

Also, The US government DID NOT help Iraq use chemical weapons. Saddam used chemical weapons to kill an estimated 190,000 Kurds between 1983 and 1988--along with 50,000 Iranian soldiers. The US Had no part in this. Stop stating unfounded claims!
 
Dec 17, 2002
3,204
782
113
WWW.SICCNESS.NET
#47
After British Vote, Unusual Isolation for U.S. on Syria
By*DAVID*E.*SANGER
August 30, 2013
WASHINGTON — With a few exceptions in the past half-century, there has been a simple rule of thumb when it comes to international conflict: America does not use force without Britain at its side.

So when Prime Minister David Cameron was unable to muster the votes in Parliament for support for a strike in Syria — even one limited to stopping the future use of chemical weapons — shock could be heard in the voices of senior White House officials who never saw the British rejection coming.

“Bungled by Cameron,” said one.

“Embarrassing,” said another. “For Cameron, and for us.”

Now Mr. Obama is left to cope with miscalculations on both sides of the Atlantic. If he goes ahead with the strike — which seems all but inevitable, based on the statements of senior administration officials who say the president is determined to restore “international norms” against the use of chemical weapons — he will look more isolated than any president in recent memory entering a conflict.
have you been keeping up with this other than on the siccness? President Obama has the backing of many countries and even met with them on camera today. He is not alone going into this...come on now
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#49
The White House report reads:

On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.
Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.
We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos,*physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.*We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21​
Critics are asking why the hundred of videos of the attack haven't been presented to the public (though there remain ethical arguments against that) and why there remains a difference between indicating evidence ("We asses," "Our intelligence sources say," "We have identified") and actually revealing evidentiary sources. At the end of the report, it's noted that much information must remain top-secret because of the nature of the project.

After all, we've become accustomed to detailed information, courtesy of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. The White House's document seems vague in that light, but declassifying a document of that nature is a rare move for any administration. Certainly the public didn't have any such "insider knowledge" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#50
you guys are ignorant and uninformed. keep to you bay area rap talk and stop stating false claims about the us government
Says the guy who spent hundreds, at least, on bay area rap clothing. I hardly listen to ANY rap these days, let alone bay area (I couldn't even tell you one relevant rapper today besides e-40 from the bay).
 
Last edited:
Props: Sacsick
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#51
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#52
Even as the US and its allies intensify preparations for war with Syria, the lies they told to justify the looming assault are being discredited. On the same day as the British parliament’s rejection of military action against Syria, US officials admitted that there was no factual basis for their accusations that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons last week in Ghouta.




While the British parliament’s vote and the US officials’ admissions stunned the American media and political establishment, Obama administration officials announced their intention to proceed with plans to attack Syria late yesterday (See, “British Parliament votes down Syria action as US presses ahead with strike plans”). The New York Times reported Thursday evening that “all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the August 21 attack leave the country” on Saturday.

Such an attack would be an unprecedented act of international gangsterism, under conditions where both the British parliament and US officials themselves are making clear that the war is being launched on the basis of lies.
Anonymous US intelligence officials reported yesterday that intelligence confirming Assad’s responsibility for the attack is “no slam dunk.” According to two intelligence officials and two other US officials who spoke to the Associated Press, US intelligence is not certain that the government ordered the chemical attack. Moreover, the same sources say that US intelligence agencies cannot confirm which side controls many chemical weapons inside the country.
In fact, it is well known that the US-backed Islamist opposition militias have acquired and repeatedly used chemical weapons.

Already on Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Maria Harf said she could not identify who inside Assad’s regime had launched the chemical attack: “I don’t know what the facts are here. I’m just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I’m not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military.”
 
Props: [-KoRp$-]559
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#54
There is a video of a Syrian rebel (western funded btw) eating a mans heart whom he had just killed and It's crazy to think maybe the rebels themselves used chemical weapons? Cmon, there is no proof who luanched that attack

Totally plausible.

And this goes back to my comment about grade school level politics.

Involvement in this issue is not at all about the use of chemical weapons, but rather who used them. No one (nation) picks a side based on their belief of what is right and wrong but rather on economic and political interest. Sickening.
 
Props: 2-0-Sixx
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
#56
"We know they (Assad) did this, we have proof ..... which we are not going to show you."

5 minutes after the attack the US wanted to start a war on Syria.
"We will do everything it takes to resolve this on a diplomatic level, it cannot be resolved by military actions. It has to be done at the negotiating table and we are deeply committed to getting there."

"We respect the UN, but will attack without its approval anyway."

"They (Assad) needs to be punished, but there will not be a regime change."



The more I listen to the official statements the more it feels like bullshit and history repeating itself.