This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The World is on the brink!

Jump to new

I tend to agree with you. Assad has a lot to lose by using chemical weapons particularly as he has the upper hand at the moment. This smells a lot like the WMD issue in Iraq. Some of the rebel extremists would have little concern about murdering their own so long as it is in the name of Allah.
 
Sorry couldn't post this before, it could be propaganda for all I know

At 7.20 am 21 August in East Ghouta began a large-scale counter-terrorist operation. Strategically important area of Ghouta - Jobar is the key to Damascus. At the end of last year, it's was captured by the elite forces of the Al-Nusra Front. Because of the ongoing fighting all civilians has left this area for a long time. Now there only militants - not civilians. Consequently, there is not, and cannot be any womens and childrens, whose bodies are now showing the Western media.
Attack was preceded by a powerful 45-minute barrage. Under air and artillery strikes the foreign militants began to bear huge losses, actually faced the threat of encirclement and annihilation.
At 8 am the infantry approached the enemy and all along the contact line began fightings. Fights go inside the buildings, killing dozens of militants. Therefore quite clear their desperate appeal to sponsors in the West under any pretext to stop an offensive. In this case, under the pretext of a mythical use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army on a proven model of earlier intervention of UN observers, when at 10 am with a Saudi, American and Israeli mass-media began stuffing misinformation about the use of Army chemical weapons. In the early hours by the nonsense or desperation militants openly pointed Jobar as the area of ​​application of chemical weapons.
We continuously document the entire course of the operation by dozens of cameras from different directions. Any expert by the nature of blasts can clearly say that the army used only standard ammunition. No fumes creeping along the ground. Taking into account the windy weather conditions, fightings at short range and the absence of the gas masks for soldiers, inevitably massive loss among soldiers and journalists who are at the forefront from chemical weapon. But none of that. And this is another argument for the falsity of the media reports on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army.
About fierce fighting says increased use of heavy weapons by terrorists - rockets, recoilless rifles, anti-tank missiles and mortars, modern air defense systems. On the first day, militants hit the IFV and tank. Killed a tank driver - Zeid Afifi, who has a small child. Was killed and 1 infantryman, 17 soldiers were wounded. On the second day a few steps away from the operator of our crew was killed by shrapnel from missile a young crew member recoilless guns B-10. On the third day, about the same picture. Needless loss ratio indicates a high efficiency of counter-terrorist operation.
At the same time, the alleged sarin slacked off militants engaged in an intensive back fire, and this is another argument that the Syrian army has not applied chemical weapons against them.
In impotent rage fighters deliberately shelled from mortars and rocket launchers the journalists and adjacent residential neighborhoods of Damascus, inhabited by peaceful citizens. A few mortar rounds precisely hit the street Fares al Khouri near Al-Abbasyeen square, which at this point were walking women and children.
Loss of Jobar - key to Damascus - before Geneva-2 is political death for the Al Nusra Front. In a desperate attempt to save the remnants of professional terrorists in Eastern Ghouta, the U.S. State Department made an unforgivable mistake. Running the worn-out record provocation with chemical weapons, the West has actually signed the open support for Al Qaeda.
 
moXJO, what is the source of the above. It is less than literate which provokes suspicion imo.
Agree. As I listened to this on the news where John Kerry was assuring us the evidence was incontrovertible that the Assad government had used chemical weapons against the people, I thought, hell, we can all remember similarly incontrovertible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.
 
For anyone interested in whats going on over there, this thread is more or less videos + insights from people on the ground.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?204322-Syrian-Uprising-Photos-amp-Videos-only-no-commentary-or-discussion&

Might be propaganda throughout

- - - Updated - - -


It was translated from abkhazian news from what I think was a govt soldier (video via the site I posted). No idea how reliable the source is so take it as bs.
Worth digging around before the US causes another war though
 

+1
another good job by the military lobby playing the bleeding hearts in the west
 
Gore Vidal for years stated,with all of his certainty, that the US was out to get Syria.
From the very start of this uprising against Assad it seems that he was right on the money.
 


This is just more media horse crap Kenna's! Why is no one demanding to know for certain who did this? Would you strike back at an accused murderer without knowing for sure if they did it?

If is entirely probable that the gang of muslim thugs called rebels has done this to bring in the yanks, gullible war mongers that they are.

I have no trust left to accept that the US will do the right thing in the name of justice....
 

You need solid proof before putting even more lives on the line. Bombing targets wont do alot when Assad will just pack targets with human shields. And if Assad was to lose we then have a greater number of chemical weapons in the hands of an even greater threat.
At this stage you need to question who is the bigger threat to stability in the area on any evidence we have. Maybe Russia should step in and regain control. imo US just makes it worse. Bombing Assad risks dragging the west into a full blown war, in an effort that will change little on the ground in Syria.

While something needs to be done, dropping a few bombs on them will cause a lot more trouble.
 

+1.
You need solid proof before putting even more lives on the line.
Click to expand...

There's enough proof IMO. What happens when nothing is done and more children are killed?
 
So lets drop bombs on them and kill em ourselves.
Can you say for sure which side killed those kids?
Cause the proof is real vague at this time.
How many died in Iraqi after we went in on proof, look at the mess in Egypt or Libya.
How much more killing goes on if the rebels do get the upper hand and start killing Assad supporters families without discretion, or don't they matter?
How many of our young men should we tally up to be allowed to die in another useless conflict.

If Assad is Russia's 'backed man' then they should be pushed to provide stability instead of the west going in and setting off WW3. That or the UN needs to push for a decision.

It's not as easy as just dropping bombs on them to sort out this mess. What kind of f*cking long term plan is that seriously and what exactly do you think it's going to achieve. From what I know the US is just going to drop some bombs on them then watch the mess from afar. How exactly does that stop any killing?
Yes something needs to be done. But a longer term plan involving Russia would more than likely provide a solution that may not be ideal for anyone but would be better then any alternatives at this time.

Don't drop that "think of the children crap on me either. Because I want the least amount of pain for them in a bad situation. Weighing up Assads position of more then likely wanting to limit civilian casualties because the world is watching and the rebels position of do what is needed to take out Assad using any means, becomes making the best of a bad situation.
I do not support one side or the other in the conflict.

I hope you lot are thinking of the children starving in third world countries and are supporting charities that feed them. Because that is an action you can have a direct part in to save lives without starting a fricken war over.

It's not as simple as lets drop bombs on them.
 
Not to mention Vietnam,Iraq etc...perhaps they do not suit this righteous scenario.Is the US responsible for the most killing in the last fifty years?At last their propaganda has not got the same credibility as it once had.
 
Charlie Rose interviews Assad, to be broadcast Sunday night in the US on Bloomberg radio. Check Bloomberg for listings....should be available as a podcast after as well.

All of this as the Obama PR machine goes to work to change the minds of the people...
 

Who cares which side did it. If they want to kill each other that's their business. I think most of those who are scared of the murderous thugs on both sides have already fled the country. I saw on the news the other day a guy with two wives and 10 kids had fled to Lebanon. Thank god they won't be coming here now.

A lot of Syrian thugs from here have gone over there to fight for one side or the other. I hope the Abbott government has the guts to refuse them re-entry.

However if the Americans can't decide which side to bomb, I suggest they write on the sides of their Smart Bombs "BADDIES ONLY" and let them decide if they're so smart.
 
Calliope said:
Who cares which side did it. If they want to kill each other that's their business.
Click to expand...

Right or wrong, the argument for taking action is that if we stand by and do nothing when someone carries out a chemical attack, it sends the message to others that we will stand by if they too break international convention and use chemical weapons to attack people.

I don't know who attacked whom or if the entire thing is fictional propaganda from those wanting to go in for their own reasons, but if someone actually did use chemical weapons to attack people it does make sense for action to be taken against them. If no action is taken and others start attacking their enemies with chemical weapons, or if other governments control protestors with chemical weapons, and it gets out of hand, action will need to be taken, and the question will be asked "Why now and not earlier?" and it will certainly seem that whoever is hit first is being treated as the enemy while all those before are being given immunity.

It's a messy situation. Either a chemical attack was carried out, which necessitates action which will be difficult, or someone is being framed, which is even messier.
 

Okay Sdajii. I guess you are suggesting a limited surgical missile strike to remove the cancer. What are your targets? I think the likely outcome of such an adventure would be a retaliatory strike on Israel. Assad, Iran and the Hamas are itching for an excuse.

The Middle East is a powder keg just waiting for some idiot to light the fuse. America always seems to be the idiot that puts its hand up, even when their citizens are against it.
 
Calliope said:
America always seems to be the idiot that puts its hand up, even when their citizens are against it.
Click to expand...

I'm glad they were idiots during the second world war. You'll be lucky if, in your life time, you will not need them to be idiots again in the same way.
 
There are a wider range of Geo-political considerations at stake here. As usual the US will go into this with the "humanitarian" flag waving proudly...then go about killing and maiming just as many innocent unarmed civilians as whomever perpetrated the gas attack, with their stray smart bombs and missiles.

This conflict will end up being more about Iran and Israel, than Syria at some stage...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
10K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...