Syrian Poison Gas Conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by AUSSIEABORIGINAL, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Well, it's a good point. He's no Hitler, but he is a problem. But how does one deal with the political fall-out of having dropped bombs on his troops, which will also hit civilians? Let alone being completely sure that he actually used the weapons. In elder days I'd be a lot more interventionist, but I've learned some lessons along the way.

    What is needed is a system that is genuinely proactive, rather than reactive, and which costs little.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Could you expand on this?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    I ask where is the UN troops? They are the ones that are supposed to be responsible for preventing gassing of anyone by any means neccessary.We pay billions for the upkeep of the UN forces and yet they are n9o where to be seen during this problem, why is that?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Something which shuts down the dangerous cases before they become too dangerous. It's likely but not certain, for example, that Assad ordered the chemical attack - but even if he hadn't, he's a vicious Baathist. You don't want him in there anyway. What if he'd been quietly dispensed or destabilized earlier? I suppose this is a suggestion along the lines of the CIA's black operations in the 70s-present era, mind.
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Assad used gas to weaken the biggest threat to his life and power. He isn't trying to intimidate Israel or do a suicide attack.

    But it's a fallacious comparison because their intentions are so different. Hitler went after Communists because he believed it was a Jewish conspiracy to weaken Germany. Assad did this because the rebels are going to depose him. Completely different. People could tell you in the early days that Hitler had bigger plans; nobody is saying that about Assad.

    Again, you were more correct in your comparison with Hussein, who gassed people to end a threat to his regime.
  9. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    Do you know how many times Syria has attacked Israel since 1948, with no valid reason(other than they are Jews), do you know the history of their collaboration with Nazis and terrorists? Just because he hasn't directly said it since last week doesn't mean Israel can rest easy(at any time and from several different neighbors). Seems like Israel is the favorite whipping boy for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East so any time any Muslim countries crops fail, Israel is attacked for a distraction. Got no money? Must be Zionist dogs.

    So you think the intentions of a murderer make a difference for the murderee? I don't condemn people for intentions, but for actions. Hitler and Assad are not so different to those they have murdered, and if Assad is not corrected he may one day surpass Hitler's record, I would rather not wait for that outcome, let's swat him like a fly. In 1933 Hitler had killed no one(Corporal Hitler was a messenger and was gassed in WW1 before he could kill anyone), by 1945(just 12 years)he had killed or caused to be killed more than 15 million people, only Stalin has a higher tally.

    He went after communists because they were rivals in politics and power, and because he was a racist asshole as well, he blamed the Jews for everything that ever went wrong. Assad learned his bigotry from previous rulers of Syria that were actually Nazis and the whole country would make the racist back-woods, sheet wearing drooling idiots in south Georgia feel right at home. Like I said, they just don't get this civilization thing at all.

    So, his life is worth thousands of innocents dying horribly? As I said, actions speak louder than intentions. He deliberately targeted innocent civilians, he needs to die for the good of humanity.

    Really? Why did they do nothing, then? Hitler was no more predictable then than Assad is now. Nor was he any more or any less moral or civilized than Assad isn't now. Assad is every bit the immoral dictator that Hitler became, it is only a difference in scale, not in kind.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    I don't dispute that Israel is the boogeyman for the Arab world. If they're in such clear and immediate danger, however, let them handle it.

    Context is everything. Well, okay, when it comes to an atrocity like gassing over a thousand people to death, context isn't everything, but it's a big part of the puzzle. Pretending Assad has any chance of being the next Hitler is just silly. He's not Hitler, he's not Stalin, he doesn't stand a chance of becoming either. And I don't think nothing should be done; I'm just not convinced it should be us who does the "correcting."

    I agree with you that he's scum. And I'd probably feel a bit differently if the people who stood to gain from strategically neutering this douchebag weren't anti-western pieces of shit themselves. I don't see a problem with letting them figure it out themselves. Or maybe letting Israel handle it, since they're apparently the ones who are threatened. They're a pretty serious military power, aren't they?

    I never justified it, and I don't appreciate your straw man inferring that I did. I simply gave you the reason why he did, as a contrast to the reasons behind Hitler's actions.

    So you find moral equivalency between the murder of 1400 and 6 million? See, I don't. And the reasons nobody stopped Hitler were complex, but primarily owed to the fact that he arrived at the perfect time in history for a power-mad tyrant to succeed in Europe. He had resistance from within because they knew he was a maniac with ambition, but they thought they could wrangle him with the political machine (red tape, bureaucracy--it's worth noting that "nothing" was the opposite of what was done). They never underestimated his intentions; rather, they overestimated their ability to rein him in. By the time the English and Americans woke up from their slumber, he had already gotten rolling. There is zero chance of that happening again, and Assad isn't that guy to begin with. If he were, he'd have already done it. Instead, he gassed his opposition, something that isn't unheard of in the region.
  11. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    For evil to triumph requires only that the good do nothing. Americans love to crow about being the number one superpower, until the responsibility of being the number one superpower becomes uncomfortable. While it should not have been abused for the profit of Haliburton in the last Administration, that it was so abused does not excuse us from our responsibility today. I would like to see a max effort hunt for Assad's scrawny butt and a special delivery package through his bedroom window, we need to see how civilized the next guy will be. Sarah Palin wants to nuke the place and let Allah sort them out, I think a more precise demonstration would make all the despots sit back and reconsider(and not kill lots of innocents). War is immoral, we should make it be as little immoral as we can, lets hold this asshole personally responsible for the evil he has done, instead of killing any innocents in the usual way. Failing that, we should totally degrade his ability to deliver any more such attacks. I personally don't care much who wins in Syria, but I want both sides scared crapless to even THINK about using gas, disease or nukes as weapons, Assad should be a bedtime horror story for all little dictators-in-training for the next one hundred years, just like the trenches of WW1 were for the last one hundred years. I'm not sure the world can any longer afford to put up with the evil these kind of leaders cause, I know we cannot claim to be moral people or nations if we do. Think of all of the money spent on Mideast conflicts caused by one asshole dictator after another followed by his sons or wives, money better spent educating the ignorant bigots in those countries out of existence(killing one begets two more, educating one at the least removes them from the stupid group).


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    LOL, and that is how you justify Balerionidoicy? I guess that is the best you can do when you have limited understanding of the facts, zero evidence, and have trouble with rational thought.
  13. Undefined Banned Banned

    Hi Grumpy. In this I am firmly of like mind with you. I long ago mentioned (in another forum) that the sensible take on this would be as one of shakespeare's characters in Romeo and Juliet said about the House of Montague and the House of Capulet: "A pox on both their houses!".

    Because, as you so rightly point out, in Syria the only 'good ones' are the ones who want neither the Assad tyrant crazy nor the Islamic fundamentalist crazy to run the place. All the rest are out for themselves to become the next tyrannical crazy running the country for themselves and not as a proper democracy where everyone has a say.

    But Russia makes a lot of dough selling weapons and using them as 'satellite states' like the old soviet union sued to in order to retain 'power and presence' elsewhere both politically and militarily. They never learn.

    I also agree very strongly with your take on allowing such crazies to get away with such mass murder (irrespective of means used).

    In the instance of 'poison gas' weapons used by Assad, and some people's willingness to turn a blind eye and "let them sort it out themselves", I wonder what these same people's opinions would be if ISRAEL had gassed Assad and his civilian supporters?

    Would Russia be so non-challant while people died in the thousands in one of their 'satellite states'? Would the same 'tolerant' ISOLATIONIST types be any wiser if ISRAEL took the 'tacit approval' to gas Assad, the Palestinians and Iran, saying that it was because it was necessary for their future survival? I think not!

    And I also long ago spoke about the United Nations going the way of the old League of Nations. Where political craziness and old hatreds and paranoia still rule in crazy dictatorships like Syria, North Korea, Iran and to some (but not much less) extent in Russia and China, then the United nations is fatally flawed from the word 'go' as long as those same crazy dictatorships can 'veto' rational action to prevent current and future repeat of past tragedies which could have been avoided by 'a stitch in time' action (as you advise now regarding Assad, Grumpy).

    All tghis bellyaching about US intelligence gathering activities amkes me wonder why the same things are not being discussed when it comes to Russia and China activities. Political double standards at their silliest and most dangerous propagandist worst. A nation which does not gather intelligence to prevent being caught off guard is not safe. That Russia and China and their satellite crazy states also engage in such intelligence gathering activity, but with a view to supporting dictatorship not democracy, should be ringing alarm bells more loudly than anything....but obviously the 'leakers' use the weaker target (more open society/democracy) for self-aggrandizement, while allowing the real scum tyrant states get away without so much as murmur of disapproval for their 'intelligence/weaponry' in support of crazy states in this day and age after the lessons of WW! and Cold War should be fresh in people's minds. I wonder where Lasange, Snowden et al 'leakers' would be right now if they were leaking Russian and Chinese intelligence information? Either dead or in a gulag making sneakers as slave labor for the state. Brave leakers who choose to damage democracies rather than tyrannical states, hey? I would have more respect for them if they also treated the Russian-China-Iran-Syria axis of crazies with the same attention when it came to leaking secrets.

    Well, Grumpy, that's my two cents worth. Good luck to us all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    We are living in an age of an informational war, how pathetic can you people be to believe that the Syrian government on a verge of UN sanctions and interventions would commence an anthrax attack on its citizens? Grow up.

    Israel attacking Syria? Not to dwell into a hypothetical scenario, because Israel has attacked Syria many times with rockets. That is intervention into another territory.

    Axis of evil? Who are the aggressors, the USA, Britain, and France in this case. The USA is the axis of evil, they are not waiting for UN independent tests to be done to figure our who used the anthrax, because USA was behind staging the whole thing.
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Who says getting involved in every international crisis is a responsibility of a superpower? People throw that around so casually, but I've never heard anyone justify it. I, for one, don't see why it's my responsibility, or my neighbor's, to sort out a dictator is Syria. You said yourself that Israel was at why aren't you calling on them to do something? Why does it fall to us? "Because we're a superpower" doesn't cut it.

    (And spare the platitudes, please)

    I haven't argued any such point. My problem is in us being the ones who have to intervene, while the rest of the world watches. Let someone else do the dirty work.

    You mean just like ousting Saddam made Assad reconsider?


    Right, and we should punish him for killing innocents by killing more innocents ourselves. Makes sense.

    Or, or...maybe we could just stay out of it, and let them--or someone else--sort it out.

    Edit: We've already lost the moral high ground, Grump. And I don't believe for one second that my moral worth as a human being, nor my country's, is tarnished by staying out of a no-win situation. Civilians die in situations like the one in Syria, and if we strike them, whether it's from the air or the ground, plenty more innocents will die by our own hand. For someone who says there's no moral difference between killing a thousand people and killing six million, I can't fathom how you rationalize killing innocents to stop Assad. /edit

    I guess airstrikes are a decent compromise, but I have to wonder how many innocents will die in the bombings. Is it really worth it, knowing that they probably won't be much better off--and could be worse off--under a new regime? I don't see it. That's why I say let them handle it.

    Pffffff. :spank:
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2013
  16. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    How many will die? as many as USA will require to take control of Syrian resources through its Halliburton-like companies...under a "save against chemical attacks" military campaign.
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Erm... had my disagreements with Balerion, but that is not something you should be posting, and definitely not about him. Is this the only playlist on your 8-track? You do this again and again and again with everyone who disagrees with you. Can you not come up with a competing idea, just once? I thought you were all about that whole capitalism thing. Surely that extends into the intellectual arena.
  18. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    Anthrax? No, Assad has nerve gas, it kills much more quickly and then biodegrades in hours and Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council and will block any UN action. Before you speak about a subject you really should at least know something about it.

    1948, 1963, 1973, three dates you obviously know nothing about. Israel has never attacked the Syrian state to start a war, but the Syrians have attacked the Israeli state with massive tank assaults three times(and gotten their asses handed to them each time, only 6 days in 1967). And, of course, before WW2 Syria was an ally of Nazi Germany, they agreed on the value of a Jewish life.

    The stupidity displayed in that sentence is simply awesome to behold! Surely it is not possible to pack more stupid into one sentence.

    I stand corrected. Hint, child, THERE WAS NO ANTHRAX INVOLVED! When you figure out what Sarin is, get back to us.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    We never had it, but we like to claim we are trying to reach it, are we? If we are truly trying to be moral, then we are our brother's keeper. That is all the "Why" we should require for why we should do these things. Doing nothing and waiting for others to intervene is precisely why Hitler got as far as he did. He skillfully played one group's prejudices against another's, or as the Catholic Priest put it "When they came for the Communists I said nothing, for I am not a Communist...". As far as to whom they put at the top of the pile of pig poop that is Syria there is no moral choice, nothing we can do to improve that condition. But the world drew a line one hundred years ago on the use of poison gas as a battlefield weapon, it cannot be tolerated, the direct experience of that generation compelled them the same way the experience in 1945 compelled that generation to say the same about nuclear weapons, their use is not simply a local concern, it is a concern for the whole world, hopefully we can learn the same lesson about biological weapons BEFORE they are used on a battlefield and get spread worldwide.

    Quote? I said there is no difference to the one being murdered, and one murder is equal to another. There is no difference in kind, just one of degree. A person who murders an innocent is just as evil as one who kills more than one, if the society he lives in refuses to stop him the first time it is also immoral because they bear at least partial responsibility for all his other murders(as Germans WERE responsible for what Hitler did, they ALLOWED it to happen because his first victims were not popular). And, in the cases of nuclear, chemical and biological battlefield weapons the whole world is the effected society(orbital weapons will eventually be in the same category). It matters not at what scale they are used in the beginning, any use must be sanctioned, it is in our national interest.

    Our being a superpower gives us the ability to do something, our desire to be moral gives us the incentive to do so. That is why. We could be an immoral superpower like Russia, they support Syria's use of poison gas and would stand back if Syria, Egypt and others once again ganged up on Israel to distract from the very real internal problems they have inside their own countries. It falls to us because we want to be a moral country in a better world and because the last century has taught us that what happens elsewhere in the world does affect us, the next world war is likely to be in the area that Syria is dead center in. Ignoring Syria is not a moral option any more than ignoring Hitler's annexation of Austria was. If the nations of Europe had protested at that time WW2 may have had a much different course, if it occurred at all. Looking back on history there were many points in the thirties where standing up to German aggression could have led to a different outcome, by letting these little things go for too long, there was no way to stop the bigger things that led to nearly 40 million people dying worldwide.

    Not an option, there is no one else. Israel has no ability to start a war while surrounded by enemies in turmoil, they will get enough blame for the situation without actually being involved anyway and they don't want to volunteer to be a scapegoat for Arab dictator's failures.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Maybe it had been considered but dismissed out of hand because of the vacuum it would create?
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Another fallacious analogy. Assad is not Hitler. Assad is in no danger of becoming Hitler. This comparison is beneath you.

    As for being our brother's keeper, why aren't you advocating for the invasions of Iran, or North Korea, or China, or anywhere else there exists gross human rights violations? You've arbitrarily decided that using gas weapons is the line? Why? Other rights violations cause far more suffering and death than this chemical attack did.

    So then you want to intervene because of a political decision made a century ago. That's as silly and vapid a reason I've ever heard. Might as well intervene because they don't line their troops up correctly.

    Whether there's a difference to the person being murdered is irrelevant to the question of whether we should use military action against Syria. By that logic, we shouldn't attack simply because more innocents will die by our actions and their deaths are the same to them as they would have been if Assad or someone else had killed them. Obviously, what the dead think doesn't matter.

    And I'd have to disagree with the idea that all murders are equal. The philosophical reasoning behind that is a conversation for a different thread, but it's irrelevant anyway. What matters in this case is Assad's intentions, because if he's just gassing his opposition within Syria, it's a different problem than if he's planning on expanding beyond his own borders, or gassing civilians indiscriminately (which he isn't doing at the moment).

    I certainly hope you don't believe that. For one, it isn't true that the man who kills his wife in a fit of anger could in no way be compared to Ted Bundy, who killed for pleasure. There are too many motivations for murder to say that all killers are equal. That simply doesn't wash. Secondly, equating mass murderers to anyone else does a disservice to the victims of those crimes. I don't want to hear that George Zimmerman is the moral equivalent of Anders Breivik. That's just not true.

    The Germans tried to stop him. They underestimated his willingness to break laws in his power-grab. He had many supporters, of course, but to say all of Germany is culpable for Hitler's crimes is ridiculous.

    This is a slippery slop fallacy. Failing to intervene against Assad does not mean that future generations will believe it is acceptable to use such weapons against Americans. And again, context has to be taken into account. If he were attempting genocide, then I'd be in favor of stepping in. But he isn't. He was attacking rebels, and innocents were collateral damage. We do the same thing every time we drop a bomb, and use the same rationale. I don't disagree that gas is a particularly cruel way of killing someone, but I don't see its local use as reason enough for us to risk American lives.

    Suppose we depose Assad, and the person or people that take over are worse. Not only are they worse, but they take a more active role in international terrorism, and their support costs innocent American lives in a future terrorist attack(s). This is why your black-and-white morality becomes dangerous when there are actual consequences; the world isn't black-and-white. Our options aren't as simple as being heroes or enablers. Staying out of it militarily doesn't make us Russia. We have to take more into account than just "He's gassing people."

    Again with the fallacious analogy. Assad is not Hitler, nor will he ever be. Syria is not Germany during the Third Reich. If your only argument is that Assad and Syria will become the next trigger for world-wide war, then you don't have an argument.

    Nonsense. If Israel is the boogeyman you say they are, then they'll get the blame for our actions anyway. They're already a scapegoat, so what's to lose?
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    LOL, I am still awaiting an honest rational fact based argument from you.
  23. AUSSIEABORIGINAL Abnormally original Registered Senior Member

    Thanks Guys!

    Thanks for the responses. The focus of this thread however has to do determining any possible deception on the part of the mainstream media, false flags, and terrorist groups possibly being trained and supplied chemical weapons by the U.S. government, NATO (same as), as well as the U.K. and France. Conspiracy.

    I appreciate the emotions, but I really would like for the thread to stay focused on what the globalist powers are up to, while the mainstream media continues to distract the public with all of it's daily psychological operations.

    "If the terrorist opposition is responsible for the WND attacks as you claim, why is it none of Assad's troops were affected by the gas? Probably because they were issued gas masks before the attack. One of the reasons militaries stopped using gas in WWI was because when they gassed the enemy, they also gassed themselves."

    I am not making any claims here, sir/madam. However, I did read (or heard) somewhere several days ago that an admission was made from a "Syrian Rebel" that the chemical attack was actually an accident that occured in a tunnel where the gas was being stored by the so-called rebels.

    I seem to recall that all of the people affected/killed by the gas were sleeping or hiding underground in the tunnels to avoid bombs and gunfire on the surface. Some speculation had been done earlier on why it seemed that no one above ground had been affected by the chemicals. One early theory, that the gas was heavier and traveled along the ground into ditches and tunnels, was ruled out by some experts. I've lost the link/source to it, but it's out there somewhere . . .

    The reason that Assad's soldiers were not gassed was because they were not in the area, I presume. I seem to recall that there were a couple of government rescue people (or maybe soldiers) who went into the tunnels looking for survivors afterward. They were affected very strongly by the residual gas in one area of a tunnel and did have to go to a hospital for medical treatment with the other survivors. This is the sort of information that I am hoping that some might want to help me to look into and verify, if possible.

    In regards to whether or not the "Syrian Rebels" are primarily Al Qaeda mercenaries of the New World Order, here's a link that I quickly came across while I was looking at another story:
    "NATO wages a covert war against the Syrian government: Analyst"
    Note that Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley is a pretty Progressive guy, as far as I know . . .

    There are plenty of other reports and stories out there. Just type in some key words on the search engine and you'll get plenty of reading material on the subject. I had already looked at several myself, but my memory recall is not what it once was----one of the first things to go. . .

    What really began to peak my attention was this YouTube video. I took some notes on it earlier, regarding the names of the news sites shown in the video, with the dates and visible paragraphs. I mean to look up the stories on the websites, when time allows, to read them fully:

    From the video: "The Snowden Case: What You Are Not Being Told" uploaded to YouTube on June 25, 2013:

    video time: 00:02:17
    "... however, when the mainstream media covers a story constantly, as it has [in the Snowden case], and when they obsess over every detail as it unfolds, the first thing that you need to ask is what other big story are they distracting you from. Remember that when the right hand is doing something big, watch the left hand. In this case, the big, big story that's slipping right under the radar is the war that's about to break out in Syria."

    video time: 00:02:40
    ... a tiny little detail that you may not have noticed is that the United States, France, and Israel have just framed Syria for the use of sarin gas in the conflict . . .
    BBC News Middle East story on June 5, 2013:
    "Syria crisis: France claims government used sarin"

    video time: 00:02:43
    ... now, they are using this as a pretext to send in weapons . . .
    Fox News story on June 15, 2013:
    "CIA to arm, train Syrian rebels; Hagel says US jets, missiles brought to Jordan will stay"

    video time: 00:02:50
    ... the drama has taken a number of twists and turns. The first part of the story broke this past January when documents were leaked showing that a Qatar firm had been in negotiations to smuggle sarin gas to the "Free Syrian Army," in order to use it in an event that was to be blamed on the Syrian government. The firm claimed that the plan had the full support and approval from Washington . . .
    PressTV news story on Jan. 30, 2013:
    "UK-Qatari plot against Syria revealed"
    • "An email exchange between two senior officials at Britam suggested that the scene was approved by Washington, explaining that Qatar would fund the militants in Syria to use chemical weapons."

    video time: 00:03:02
    ... a few months go by, and then in April there were accusations by Israel that the Syrian government had used sarin gas on civilians . . .
    ABC News story on April 23, 2013:
    "Israel Accuses Syria of Using Chemical Weapons, 'Probably Sarin'"
    • written by Alexander Marquardt
    • "Jerusalem --- For the first time, Israel has accused the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria of using chemical weapons against rebel forces over the past several months, including "probably sarin," the deadly nerve agent that is one of the most feared elements in Syria's formidable chemical arsenal."

    video time: 00:03:08
    ... Obama initially said that a "red line" had been crossed . . .
    Yahoo! News (Associated Press) story on April 25, 2013:
    "Crossing A 'Red Line'? US Says Syria Used Poison"
    • written by Julie Pace & Bradley Klapper

    video time: 00:03:10
    ... but then the U.N. said that they wanted proof, . . .
    The Guardian news story on April 24, 2013:
    "Syria Crisis: UN to study soil samples for proof of sarin gas"
    • written by Ewan MacAsk, Jullian Borger, Dan Roberts
    • "Obama administration calls use of chemical weapons by Assad regime a 'red line' but is reluctant to make claims without proof"

    video time: 00:03:14
    ... and for a little while the United States went silent . . .
    MinnPost news (Christian Science Monitor) on May 1, 2013:
    "Obama 'red line' on Syrian chemical weapons gets a bit grayer"
    • written by Howard La Franchi
    • "Speaking at a White House conference, the president said that not the US alone but the "international community" as well has to be confident in the evidence that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons before action can be taken."
    • "Obama used the word "game changer" to define what the proven use of chemical weapons would constitute for him, but his reference to the international community hinted at what he may be envisioning if intervention becomes necessary."

    video time: 00:03:15
    ... the U.N. did their own investigation and they came back with a report indicating that it was the rebels that had used the gas . . .
    BBC News Middle East story on May 6, 2013:
    "UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'"
    • "testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commision of inquiry has said."
    • "Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof.""
    • Carla Del Ponte: "I was a little bit stupified by the first indication of the use of nerve gas by the opposition."
    • "Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons."

    video time: 00:03:20
    ... oh what a surprise. Again, you'd think that this would be a big story. You'd think this would be a scandal, especially since it's well known that the United States and NATO have been backing these rebels. But it was just a momentary blip on the radar, and then it was gone . . .

    video time: 00:03:33
    ... about a month goes by and then the French government, who's been the ever so trusted sidekick in this latest phase of the US and NATO's "War Of Terror," comes out claiming it was the Syrian government that used the gas, . . .
    BBC News Middle East story on June 5, 2013:
    "Syria Crisis: "France claims government used sarin"

    video time: 00:03:43
    ... and once again we're back to the "Red Line," and these criminals are getting geared up for the next war. . .
    Fox News story on June 15, 2013:
    "CIA to arm, train Syrian rebels; Hagel says US jets, missiles brought to Jordan will stay"
    • "As the United States prepares to supply Syrian rebels with small arms through a CIA-run program, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Saturday that U.S. troops temporarily in neighboring Jordan will leave behind fighter jets and a cache of Patriot missiles."

    video time: 00:03:48
    ... make no mistake though, this isn't about Syria, it's about Iran. Iran is the real target. Iran is Syria's closest alley, and they have a mutual defense agreement. This isn't just talk. They're putting their money where their mouth is. They're preparing right now to send thousands of troops into Syria . . .
    The Independent news story on June 18, 2013
    "Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria"
    • "World Exclusive: US urges UK and France to join in supplying arms to Syrian rebels as MPs fear that UK will be drawn into growing conflict"

    video time: 00:04:02
    ... this isn't a game, folks! Russia and China have both taken sides in this conflict and they are clearly in Syria and Iran's corner . . .
    Reuters news story on June ??, 2013:
    "Russia Warns West Over Syria After Obama Threats"

    video time: 00:04:04
    The New York Times news story on June 4, 2012:
    "China Warns West Against Using Force In Syria"
    • by Keith Bradsher
    • "Hong Kong --- The Chinese Communist Party's official newspaper warned on Monday against western military intervention in Syria, in a strongly worded reminder that China, like Russia, is wary of forceful international action even as the civil conflict in Syria grows much bloodier."
    • ""The Syrian question should be resolved by the Syrian people," said a commentary in People's Daily. "Outside powers do not have the right to stick their hands in.""
    • "The position taken by the People's Daily echoed remarks by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who said Friday that while he saw worrying signs of an emergency civil war in Syria, he was also opposed to Western intervention."

    video time: 00:04:06
    The Times Of Israel news story on May 28, 2013:
    "Russia-Syria S-300 sale still on, senior Israeli official says"
    • by Gavrel Fiske and Ron Friedman
    • "Sunday Times Report that says arms deal was canceled in return for Israeli pledge not to attack Syria dismissed as 'fairy tale'"

    video time: 00:04:08
    ... both have warned that if the U.S. and NATO goes down this path, the consequences will be disasterous . . .
    Haaretz news on September 06, 2012:
    "Russia Warns Israel, U.S. striking Iran would be 'literally disasterous'"
    • "amid tensions between Israel, U.S. over possible military action against Iran, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister warns strike would 'set off deep shocks' in the Middle East, and beyond."

    video time: 00:04:13
    ... Russia has even warned that thermonuclear war could result . . .
    Reuters news story on May ??, 2013:
    "Russia says Action on Syria, Iran may go nuclear"

    Since neither Iran nor Syria have nuclear weapons, this could only be interpreted as a direct threat from Russia, and yet these psychopaths running the U.S. and NATO are pushing forward. This is not going to be a replay of Afghanistan. This is not going to be a replay of Iraq. This is the beginning of something much, much bigger!
    references to 2 movies:
    • "The Road To World War Three"
    • "World War 3 Has Already begun"

    Thanks again . . .
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2013

Share This Page