Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria

There is a YouTube video going around the web these days which uses so-called evidence from "leaked documents." What I've found from researching CTs is that most of these YT claims are faked or entirely photoshopped! In this case all of their claims comes from Russia and the Syrian government. Yea, I'd believe those outlets over American outlets. :rolleyes: The facebook link is another telling example that these people are just trumping up support for whatever CT or Isolationist view point they have. The facebook page StormCloudsGathering has gathered nearly 70,000 fans since the leaked documents were viewed almost 200,000 times by the YT community.

The Facebook Group is purporting Government takeover conspiracy theories (like the now debunked Government buying all the amo) and worship of Ron Paul and protests of GMO crops are rabid! The Website appears to be a new doomsday YT channel calling for a domestic revolution oh and as always asking for "Donations"!
 
Sure the rebels killed their own people . WMD ? where have i heard that before ? Meet the new Boss Same As The Old Boss War Mongers
 
moderateGOP said:
There is a YouTube video going around the web these days which uses so-called evidence from "leaked documents." What I've found from researching CTs is that most of these YT claims are faked or entirely photoshopped! !
Click to expand...

Here is one of them. Now people reading this thread can see it and make up their own minds.



Since the "Rebels" (why don't they identify themselves?) have been accused by Carla Del Ponte of using CW before, perhaps waiting for an investigation is in order.

Clinton's secretary of defense William Cohen said there were "up to 100,000" dead Albanians in "Mass graves" in Serbia but after the 78 day US bombing (not UN approved) the FBI and the UN investigators could only find a few thousand, of mixed nationalities, a common occurrence during a civil war.

After Milosovic, Hussein, and Gaddafi, now there''s Big Bad Assad. It's Backing up Globalization with Military Might
 
I don't remember a bombing campaign against Albania? When was that? In fact I don't remember a civil war in Albania either.
 
Cairenn said:
I don't remember a bombing campaign against Albania? When was that? In fact I don't remember a civil war in Albania either.
Click to expand...
That was Kosovo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/cohen051699.htm When clinton was war mongering as well . My brother was there at the time . when Clinton bombed every bridge on the danube river and killed many in a passenger train

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing The most widespread religion among Albanians in Kosovo is Islam (mostly Sunni. Just like the rebels in Syria ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was the orthodox Christians in Serbia that were killing Muslims.

I thought the rebels in Syria had a higher percentage of Shia and not Sunni fighters. Most of the Christians lean toward the status quo, since they have not been persecuted under Assad.
 
Cairenn said:
It was the orthodox Christians in Serbia that were killing Muslims.

I thought the rebels in Syria had a higher percentage of Shia and not Sunni fighters. Most of the Christians lean toward the status quo, since they have not been persecuted under Assad.
Click to expand...
No the rebels are mostly from saudi arabia and qatar they are sunni as Al Queda and the muslim brotherhood .Assad is backed by Iran which are shiites . yes the christains as well as other religions are better under Assad .Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite which makes him a twelver which is odd because he is from the baath party as was Saddam who was Sunni ?
Islam in Syria total population.[1]Sunnis make up 74%[1] of the total, mostly of Arab, Kurdish and Turkoman ethnicities. Shia's make up the remaining 13%:[1]Alawites are the predominant Shia group, followed by Twelvers and Ismailis. Sunnis are mainly of the Shafi'imadhhab with pockets of Hanafi and Hanbali. Several large Sufi orders are active in the country, including the Naqshbanditariqa, and Qadiriyya. Although not traditionally considered as Muslims, the Druze make up 3% of the total population.[1]
Content from External Source
the twelvers belive they can bring the mahdi back with a worldwide conflict , The Mahdi is their version of the second coming but to christains he is the antichrist .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi the chrisatin muslim thing in serbia goes way
Bosnia was the cultural home of the Serbian people, as recorded in the 10th or 11th century AD when writing [via the Cyrillic alphabet] came to the area.

The Serbs lost a series of wars with Turkish Muslim invaders in the 15th and 16th century which lead indirectly via Tito's Yugoslavia to the present situation with those people who adopted or inherited the Islamic faith from the Turkish invaders outnumbering the 'native' Serbs in Bosnia.
Content from External Source
 
Id like to take a poll . Do you think we should attack Syria and why ? I say no its none of our business and we should have learned from our past mistakes . Seems like his all leads in the end to Iran . NO MORE WARS !
 
Joe said:
Id like to take a poll . Do you think we should attack Syria and why ? I say no its none of our business and we should have learned from our past mistakes . Seems like his all leads in the end to Iran . NO MORE WARS !
Click to expand...

That's probably a thread all its own. (For the record, I'm strongly anti-war.)

That being said, I don't see how resorting to conspiratorial thinking addresses the complex situation in Syria better than recognizing numerous shortcomings in US foreign policy. (Hanlon's razor comes to mind.)
 
Joe said:
Id like to take a poll . Do you think we should attack Syria and why ? I say no its none of our business and we should have learned from our past mistakes . Seems like his all leads in the end to Iran . NO MORE WARS !
Click to expand...
I think the result would be a massive vote to not attack. But to entertain such a concept as voting on it, (even with propaganda induced fears), would imply that we lived in a 'democracy'.

The fact is, there is a lot of truth IMO in the notion that if 'Bush' or any other GOP Neocon was in charge... the attacks would already have happened. I don't think Obama wants to attack but I think the pressure from within is overwhelming and he will therefore comply.

I think those ordering or in favour of war should be the ones fighting it... and not from 'out of range' but up close and personal. If they want to use proxies (due to age or ill health), it should be their family members not some poor smo who signed up rather than be on foodstamps.

Neocon warmongers like Alan Mendoza (from the Henry Jackson Society (think tank?)) is typical of the war machine propaganda.



ROGER WATERS - The bravery of being out of range
 
Oxymoron said:
So what, loads of countries have chemical weapons... they were even supplied by Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

According to the wiki article on the subject, Syria is estimated to have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. That's why it's a big deal. Also, it seems they produce it themselves, but that's really besides the point.

What do you make of this? Why didn't the White House take this and run with it, if their intention was to false flag a chemical attack?

Allegations that chemical weapons have been used in Syria first began to emerge on 23 December 2012, when Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs.[27] Less than a month later, a leaked U.S. cable revealed that American officials felt there was a "compelling case" for the use of Agent 15 by regime forces.[28][29] The White House subsequently rebuked this by stating that "the reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program".
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Syrian_civil_war
 
jvnk08 said:
According to the wiki article on the subject, Syria is estimated to have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. That's why it's a big deal. Also, it seems they produce it themselves, but that's really besides the point.

What do you make of this? Why didn't the White House take this and run with it, if their intention was to false flag a chemical attack?

Allegations that chemical weapons have been used in Syria first began to emerge on 23 December 2012, when Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs.[27] Less than a month later, a leaked U.S. cable revealed that American officials felt there was a "compelling case" for the use of Agent 15 by regime forces.[28][29] The White House subsequently rebuked this by stating that "the reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program".
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Syrian_civil_war
Click to expand...
I make of that, that "compelling cases" are not proof, as such arguments as I have posted on here have been rebutted thusly. Add to that the wealth of contrary evidence and you have had a situation in which it was untenable to go to war 'at that time', on 'dodgy, secret' evidence.

They have been trying it for a long time but there is strong opposition... maybe even Obama himself is opposed... but that does not negate the strong hawking of the warmongerers and there has been much evidence of what they are up to.

So far they have failed but they are relentless... inching ever closer to their goals and seemingly on the brink of fruition, at least with Syria... Iran is likely next.

The gameplan is obvious and tried and tested. Ways of circumventing the legalities are honed. Propaganda of WMDs in underpants and the heart strings of 'We are bringing democracy to the people'... funding of insurgents and CIA agitators, instigating no fly zones, (scuppered on this occasion by Russia and China) economic sanctions designed to rouse public unrest and weaken defences, false allegations, allegations which are true but nothing to do with us, and then the coup de gras... another one bites the dust and millions are killed and the oil is transferred to trading in U.S $ and Halliburton grow ever fatter from the spoils whilst the people suffer and radical Jihadists increase exponentially meaning ever more invasive monitoring of the West's civilians and more abuses of anti terrorism law.

Never ending bogeyman. Prostrate yourself before our government and we will protect you... question us and you are a terrorist.

So in short... They tried to pin it on Assad, failed and kept going and looks like they are just going ahead without any proof exactly like they always have.
 
Oxymoron said:
I make of that, that "compelling cases" are not proof, as such arguments as I have posted on here have been rebutted thusly. Add to that the wealth of contrary evidence and you have had a situation in which it was untenable to go to war 'at that time', on 'dodgy, secret' evidence.

They have been trying it for a long time but there is strong opposition... maybe even Obama himself is opposed... but that does not negate the strong hawking of the warmongerers and there has been much evidence of what they are up to.

So far they have failed but they are relentless... inching ever closer to their goals and seemingly on the brink of fruition, at least with Syria... Iran is likely next.

The gameplan is obvious and tried and tested. Ways of circumventing the legalities are honed. Propaganda of WMDs in underpants and the heart strings of 'We are bringing democracy to the people'... funding of insurgents and CIA agitators, instigating no fly zones, (scuppered on this occasion by Russia and China) economic sanctions designed to rouse public unrest and weaken defences, false allegations, allegations which are true but nothing to do with us, and then the coup de gras... another one bites the dust and millions are killed and the oil is transferred to trading in U.S $ and Halliburton grow ever fatter from the spoils whilst the people suffer and radical Jihadists increase exponentially meaning ever more invasive monitoring of the West's civilians and more abuses of anti terrorism law.

Never ending bogeyman. Prostrate yourself before our government and we will protect you... question us and you are a terrorist.

So in short... They tried to pin it on Assad, failed and kept going and looks like they are just going ahead without any proof exactly like they always have.
Click to expand...



But... did you read the excerpt in full? Some American officials thought there was evidence of chemical weapons, and upon further investigation the White House rebuked the notion.

If this is such a refined racket, why haven't we put boots on the ground already? Why didn't we do so after that earlier opportunity instead of rescinding the validity of the claims? Why didn't we put boots on the ground in Libya? Talk about moving the goalposts.
 
Gonna read the whole thread later when I get time. But I just want to point out that we really can't trust the government or the media when it comes to these conflicts (I'm being realistic not nutty) because we all know what happened in Iraq when there were no supposed WMDs. Chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories might be untrue, but we can never rule out the fact that government is evil - and will try to manipulate the populations to get support (War in Syria got low support, which is great). There is no solid proof of who even used the chemical weapons, and who knows if the investigation will be a fraud who knows really. Both sides in Syria are bad, and no one is good. But the outcome of a foreign intervention will be shiiiitty
 
Joe said:
Id like to take a poll . Do you think we should attack Syria and why ? I say no its none of our business and we should have learned from our past mistakes . Seems like his all leads in the end to Iran . NO MORE WARS !
Click to expand...

I think they can all go to heck, as far as I'm concerned. Let em have at each other.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Yeah... it seems there are really no "good guys" over there.
Click to expand...


Its interesting to note that the Syrian government allowed the Iranian TV crew in to interview soldiers etc (soldiers who did not look very sick or injured even though they were laying in a hospital bed - just saying :)

but will not allow in other journalists...

I think the situation is really murky- the "rebels" are a broad mix of groups of various ideological make-ups and origins...

There is an incredible amount of spin and manipulation on all sides....the fog of war.
 
qed said:
And we can pick up the pieces afterwards!
Click to expand...
I agree, everybody in the west should just mind their own damn business, and if they want to help they can provide support to the refugees. Let them fight their own fight. Intervening will just create more tensions between the West and RUssia and Iran etc
 
The US has gotten burned enough times recently when we intervened militarily, to make many Americans cautious about further military action and justifiably so. This is a very complex situation with China and Russia taking an adversarial stance towards any of America's actions. But.... innocent people are being slaughtered and standing idly by doesn't sit very well for many people. This is one of those lose-lose scenarios where after a careful analysis America ought to choose the least of the evils.
 
Critical Thinker said:
The US has gotten burned enough times recently when we intervened militarily, to make many Americans cautious about further military action and justifiably so. This is a very complex situation with China and Russia taking an adversarial stance towards any of America's actions. But.... innocent people are being slaughtered and standing idly by doesn't sit very well for many people. This is one of those lose-lose scenarios where after a careful analysis America ought to choose the least of the evils.
Click to expand...
THere will be more slaughter when the US will free the shit of Syria with their democracy bombs. Look at Iraq, 1 million civilians killed
 
Christian Svensson said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ Old, but still matters
Click to expand...

That's making the rounds again as newer developments play out, but it's important to note that that Del Pointe's suspicions weren't corroborated by the UN (Guardian; BBC). I've not been able to find any follow-up on those allegations since. All the tit-for-tat stuff is rather pointless unless UN investigators can actually obtain the necessary access to investigate all these claims, determine the type(s) of agents being used, and trace them back to the source.

Meanwhile, NPR posted an article today offering historical reminders that the sort of military intervention being contemplated isn't a particularly wise idea: Limited U.S. Strikes ... Followed By Major Attacks On U.S.
 
cosmic said:
That's making the rounds again as newer developments play out, but it's important to note that that Del Pointe's suspicions weren't corroborated by the UN (Guardian; BBC). I've not been able to find any follow-up on those allegations since. All the tit-for-tat stuff is rather pointless unless UN investigators can actually obtain the necessary access to investigate all these claims, determine the type(s) of agents being used, and trace them back to the source.

Meanwhile, NPR posted an article today offering historical reminders that the sort of military intervention being contemplated isn't a particularly wise idea: Limited U.S. Strikes ... Followed By Major Attacks On U.S.
Click to expand...
Last time it was "limited" it went on for 10+ years
 
Christian Svensson said:
Last time it was "limited" it went on for 10+ years
Click to expand...

Iraq and Syria aren't equivalent situations though, so it's not prudent to frame it as a direct comparison. These are different scenarios under separate leadership with divergent foreign policies. It's of course important to remember poor decisions made in the past, but the type of intervention being contemplated in Syria's case resembles the US & allied response in Libya two years ago. Not a desirable situation no matter how you approach it, but there's no reason to blow it out of proportion.
 
cosmic said:
Iraq and Syria aren't equivalent situations though, so it's not prudent to frame it as a direct comparison. These are different scenarios under separate leadership with divergent foreign policies. It's of course important to remember poor decisions made in the past, but the type of intervention being contemplated in Syria's case resembles the US & allied response in Libya two years ago. Not a desirable situation no matter how you approach it, but there's no reason to blow it out of proportion.
Click to expand...

The risks inherent in getting even more deeply involved in the middle-east quagmire can hardly be "blown out of proportion".
 
Hama Neggs said:
The risks inherent in getting even more deeply involved in the middle-east quagmire can hardly be "blown out of proportion".
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not disputing the risks, merely the attempt at comparing a long term invasion and occupation with limited airstrikes and missile launches.
 
cosmic said:
I'm certainly not disputing the risks, merely the attempt at comparing a long term invasion and occupation with limited airstrikes and missile launches.
Click to expand...

Did you look at the NPR article? "Limited" is really not an operative word, in this situation.
 
Ah, okay. Again, I recognize that military action taken now may carry long-term, unforeseen consequences. Also, just to reiterate, I do not in any way support US/allied intervention here.

Going back to the timeline in the NPR article for Iraq (which I think is what you're driving at... please correct me if I'm mistaken): the Clinton and Bush administrations set different goals and sought to achieve them via disparate methods. What we do know, at present, is that this administration's intent doesn't involve large-scale military involvement or change of regime. Could that change in near-term or after Obama and his staff leave office? Of course, I don't dispute the possibility.

But my position remains that the potential for ultimate involvement still doesn't establish reasonable similarity between 2003 Iraq and present-day Syria. I understand there's plenty of room for concern because the situation is a complete mess, however being worried about future entanglement doesn't justify the direct comparison offered previously.
 
Christian Svensson said:
THere will be more slaughter when the US will free the shit of Syria with their democracy bombs. Look at Iraq, 1 million civilians killed
Click to expand...

Not minimizing those that have died, but the only group with an estimate north of ~150,000 has had their methods heavily criticized. IraqBodyCount puts the figure at between 114 and 125k. It's safe to say that, should the US intervene in Syria, the resulting death toll(that is, as a direct result of involvement and not the ongoing conflict) will be much lower than that of the 10+ year conflict in Iraq. That of course does not excuse such an intervention, but then again it doesn't excuse the lack of action either.

This is a really terrible situation with no clear moral high ground. Both sides have their negative elements, though personally I'd argue the regime is a bit worse since it has a long history of abuses before Bashar Al-Assad. The powers of the world have to do something, though. It's a shame the line is being drawn at chemical weapons and not the last 2+ years of conventional armed conflict that have literally torn the country apart.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
  • Locked
US Warned of Russian 'False Flag' Ukraine operation
Replies
32
Views
5K
Deleted member 17326
D
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
8
Views
3K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
Mendel
Claim: Putin placing "nuclear forces" on high alert is a translation error (false)
Replies
7
Views
3K
deirdre
deirdre
T
Claim: The Mariupol theatre bombing is a false flag
Replies
20
Views
4K
WhistlingWinds
W

Latest posts

Back
Top