Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria

[cosmic]

Also, according to RIAN, it doesn't look like the Russian fleet movement has anything to do with Syria

In fairness, isn't RIA Novosti the equivalent of state (or government-run) television? As such, it wouldn't be surprising that their coverage would downplay the naval deployment.

 

[Oxymoron]

This is intense. Talks about some of the rebel's supposed actions. I have no idea if what this guy says is true.

Thanks for posting that amazing oratory.

I reflect back to 2002 and 2003 at the way I viewed George Galloway at that time and marvel that I was so anti his sentiments at the time that I regarded him as bordering on traitorous. I therefore understand the viewpoint of those who oppose his outspokenness now and who regard my humble attempts at raising these types of issues on this forum as 'anti West and pro Russia' etc. In my defence, my analysis and condemnation of George Galloway was based on ignorance of the facts at the time. That has now changed for me and evidentially for a a very large percentage of the population who are clearly firmly opposed to further wars.

I also look back on my uninformed hostility toward Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran back in the 1980's with similar amazement. I was shocked, many years later, when the BBC aired a documentary showing how far the West had gone in demonising and portraying him as a fanatical, unreasonable madman, for their own political purposes.

The truth is, I was as blinded by propaganda and fearmongering put out by my government and the U.S government of the time, then, as it appears some people still are blinded by such propaganda now. Appeals to patriotism and demonisation have been stock tools of manipulation by many elements of government and big business with an agenda, for a very long time.

It takes a lot of research and open mindedness to search out the truth which is concealed deliberately and very cleverly. The catalyst for my research only came about through questions being raised about 9/11, which I immediately dismissed and then set out to debunk because I could not face the horror of thought that our governments could be so duplicitous. I failed miserably and the shock of what I learned was extremely painful to deal with.

George Galloway has changed in my view from someone who was bordering on being a traitor to a man who is prepared to stand up and speak the truth courageously, passionately and concisely, however unpalatable it is.

I believe what he says there is the truth and I am open to anyone challenging what he says and disproving it.

I can understand why some people may still hold similar views to the view I used to hold and I rationalise it to myself in the following terms.

1) Some still remain convinced due to continued propaganda and demonisation because they have not researched behind the propaganda.
2) Some remain convinced due to an understandable reluctance to believe their government is so sufficiently corrupt as to engage in such despicable practices.
3) Some know exactly what is happening and agree with it and will promote and justify it as acceptable

 

[Oxymoron]

One will have a crater the other won't.

That sounds eminently reasonable on the face of it Dave and obviously I value your assessment due to your experience but are you sure that is the case. Would it not be true that a chemical weapon would also contain an explosive charge for dispersal purposes and also dual damage or even concealment of use reasons?

 

[Oxymoron]

Off topic but I love the comment David Cameron made about Ed Milliband over the Syria vote. Read it yourself before the Guardian realise their error in proof reading
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...iliband-siding-russia?fb_source=feed&ref=feed#_=_

That is an incredible, (but highly believable) account of the backstage goings on over the debate. Thanks

 

[David Fraser]

That sounds eminently reasonable on the face of it Dave and obviously I value your assessment due to your experience but are you sure that is the case. Would it not be true that a chemical weapon would also contain an explosive charge for dispersal purposes and also dual damage or even concealment of use reasons?

There may be a small charge but nothing major. Anything to large runs the risk of destroying the agent as well as limiting how much can be carried. As I understand it the shells themselves are often complex inside as the agent is not in an active form. Instead it is in 2 parts which mix when the shell is in mid flight (I know Sarin has a short shelf life and delivering like this expands its life and safety in storage)

I have only seen pictures of the impact of chemical rounds but they are very different to day a HE round, as is a White Phosphorus round to HE (which I have seen)

 

[Oxymoron]

Sorry, but this reads like a long rant in reply to that particular post and without the context of what I'd said earlier. I don't support any action in Syria that involves the military. Did I not make that clear? I think if that were to happen it should have happened years ago. To so openly waffle on the supposed "red line" drawn well past the huge amount of destruction that's already occurred greatly saddens me.

Sorry but no you did not make that clear to me and I draw your attention to your following comments:

instead a "very precise" retaliation if anything(after consulting with congress). Other congresspeople are saying that fully supporting vetted elements of the opposition with lethal aid would be a better solution, which I tend to agree with.

Secondly, Syria has a marginally better equipped and trained military than Libya - there's nothing you can do about cruise missiles without some sort of advanced CIWS, and there are but a handful of countries that operate them. Libya had some advanced Russian AA equipment(the kind that makes NATO fighter pilots wet their pants), but without the training and the rest of the military operating cohesively it's effectively useless. Libya had shot down American planes before, though admittedly that was in the 80's and it was an F-111.

Which appears to me to be promoting the action as viable, effective and therefore desirable.

Russia is the only real threat, as there are reports that they are posturing by sending warships to the Mediterranean. But I personally don't think Russia will risk open conflict with the US over Syria, as they are enjoying quite a bit of economic success with both the US and China.

Which appears to me to be minimising the risks, (unjustly so IMO), and therefore appears as if you are promoting said action.

 

[jvnk08]

Sorry but no you did not make that clear to me and I draw your attention to your following comments:

instead a "very precise" retaliation if anything(after consulting with congress). Other congresspeople are saying that fully supporting vetted elements of the opposition with lethal aid would be a better solution, which I tend to agree with.

Does that qualify as military action? Perhaps it's a semantics issue since I would draw the line at actually mobilizing any NATO forces that would then deliver munitions themselves, not simply supplying or training the rebels as has been going on already.

Anyways, it seemed at the time that the US is going to do something, so if we have to make the decision as to what I'd prefer it to be that over actual strikes.

Which appears to me to be promoting the action as viable, effective and therefore desirable.

I was pointing out to Grieves that no, Syria does not have the capability to retaliate effectively to a "no-fly" zone or really anything else. While at the least I think the action is viable and perhaps would be effective(depends on whether the goal is a punitive measure or meant change the course of the conflict), I don't think it's the best move. The last part is a conclusion you reached on your own.

Which appears to me to be minimising the risks, (unjustly so IMO), and therefore appears as if you are promoting said action.

Well, we already know that Russia's movement has nothing to do with the issue. Russia has parts of their fleet all over the world.

 

[Mick West]

Obama passes responsibility to Congress:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/obam...sident-to-seek-congressional-approval/?utm=fb

President Obama announced Saturday that he will order U.S. military action against Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad against his own civilians earlier this month, but added that he will seek authorization from Congress first.

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets," Obama said in a speech from the White House Rose Garden, adding that the potential strikes would be "designed to be limited in duration and scope."

But he continued: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

Congress is currently out of session and is not scheduled to return until Sept. 9. It was unclear how swiftly it would rush back to session.

The U.S. government disclosed evidence Friday that it said confirmed that the Syrian government used rockets and artillery to fire a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb that is a rebel stronghold. The intelligence shows "that more than 1,400 died as a result of that attack, including more than 400 children."

Obama called the attack the "worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century," and "an assualt on human dignity." He added that it threatens U.S. national security and poses a risk to our allies in the region.

But nonetheless, he said he intended to ask lawmakers for authorization before proceeding. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I believe that the country will be stronger" with such approval, he said.

Video:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/live-video-president-obama-delivers-statement-on-syria/

Much better than going it alone. Interesting.

 

[David Fraser]

Obama passes responsibility to Congress:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/obam...sident-to-seek-congressional-approval/?utm=fb

President Obama announced Saturday that he will order U.S. military action against Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad against his own civilians earlier this month, but added that he will seek authorization from Congress first.

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets," Obama said in a speech from the White House Rose Garden, adding that the potential strikes would be "designed to be limited in duration and scope."

But he continued: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

Congress is currently out of session and is not scheduled to return until Sept. 9. It was unclear how swiftly it would rush back to session.

The U.S. government disclosed evidence Friday that it said confirmed that the Syrian government used rockets and artillery to fire a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb that is a rebel stronghold. The intelligence shows "that more than 1,400 died as a result of that attack, including more than 400 children."

Obama called the attack the "worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century," and "an assualt on human dignity." He added that it threatens U.S. national security and poses a risk to our allies in the region.

But nonetheless, he said he intended to ask lawmakers for authorization before proceeding. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I believe that the country will be stronger" with such approval, he said.

Video:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/live-video-president-obama-delivers-statement-on-syria/

Much better than going it alone. Interesting.

I thought the French were on board? They have been pretty scathing about the UK Parliaments decision as well. Do you think the parliamentary vote has influenced Obama's decision?

 

[moderateGOP]

Doesn't the U.S. have satellite or other technology to have observed the origin point of missiles which might have delivered gas attacks?

Apparently there is satellite evidence. I don't believe anything Al Qaeda says they will say anything to make themselves look tough! I don't believe the Syrian Government or the Russians when they say, they didn't do this. I believe the evidence that is on our side. The four-page document that intercepted communications between Syrian officials "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime". US satellites also picked up rockets being prepared and launched from regime territory into the rebel-held Ghouta area shortly before hundreds of civilians, including 426 children, began to foam at the mouth and fall dead "unstained by a single drop of blood". Are you going to dismiss all this as some great conspiracy, from the most anti-war President we've ever had? Really?

 

[Oxymoron]

I thought the French were on board? They have been pretty scathing about the UK Parliaments decision as well. Do you think the parliamentary vote has influenced Obama's decision?

The plot thickens... boil, boil, toil and trouble.

Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain during his speech and instead lavished praise on its 'oldest ally' France - which looks likely to join the U.S in a missile strike.

He paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the U.S in confronting the 'thug and murderer' President Bashar Assad. He also praised Australia and even Turkey for their support.

In a passionate speech in Washington, he urged the world to act as he warned 'history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator'.

President Barack Obama yesterday said he is weighing 'limited and narrow' action as the administration put the chemical weapons death toll at 1,429 people - far more than previous estimates - including more than 400 children.

Downing Street insisted the U.S special relationship was still intact following a telephone call between the Prime Minister and Mr Obama.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emical-attack-killed-1-429.html#ixzz2dZwbPOzh

'I'm sorry Mr President... I did my best but it was that bloody communist sympathiser, Ed Millibands fault... I told him to watch out, he will get his comeuppance'

'You idiot... I told you not to let anyone vote on it... You are supposed to be in charge man... now look what you have done... I've now got to ask those buffoons at the senate to endorse me otherwise people are going to catch on that I don't give a shit about the constitution and that makes me look bad instead of 'Bad Ass'.

 

[zelena_riba]

http://www.cyberwarnews.info/reports/a-look-into-the-britam-defence-data-leak-files/

From: "David Goulding"
Date: December 24, 2012 4:57:16 PM GMT+01:00
To: "'Phillip Doughty'"


Subject: Syrian Issue


Phil


We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?


Kind regards

David
0

-------

 

[Pete Tar]

Have they shared their evidence, or are people expected to just trust them?

 

[Oxymoron]

Obama passes responsibility to Congress:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/obam...sident-to-seek-congressional-approval/?utm=fb

President Obama announced Saturday that he will order U.S. military action against Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad against his own civilians earlier this month, but added that he will seek authorization from Congress first.

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets," Obama said in a speech from the White House Rose Garden, adding that the potential strikes would be "designed to be limited in duration and scope."

But he continued: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

Congress is currently out of session and is not scheduled to return until Sept. 9. It was unclear how swiftly it would rush back to session.

The U.S. government disclosed evidence Friday that it said confirmed that the Syrian government used rockets and artillery to fire a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb that is a rebel stronghold. The intelligence shows "that more than 1,400 died as a result of that attack, including more than 400 children."

Obama called the attack the "worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century," and "an assualt on human dignity." He added that it threatens U.S. national security and poses a risk to our allies in the region.

But nonetheless, he said he intended to ask lawmakers for authorization before proceeding. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I believe that the country will be stronger" with such approval, he said.

Video:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/live-video-president-obama-delivers-statement-on-syria/

Much better than going it alone. Interesting.

I watched that clip and was struck by the amount of waffle, conflation and deception.

He says: "The U.S Govt presented a powerful case that the Syrian Govt was responsible for the attack on it's own people... launching rockets in a highly populated area"

So apart from the distinction that it is a civil war scenario and terrorists are hiding amongst civilians, can anyone point out the difference between the Syrian Govt rocketing a highly populated area and Bush rocketing a highly populated area (Baghdad), or Obama drones doing it or Israel doing it in Gaza or Britain bombing Dresden or the U.S nuking Japan twice and then sending in fighter planes to shoot up those who survived?

But what I really want to know is 'how many civilians and kids are going to be killed when these nice friendly U.S missiles start to fly'?

He says: "Intelligence shows Syrian Govt preparing chemical weapons".

Well that sort of rhetoric sounds familiar... where have I heard the suchlike of that before?

He says: "All told over a 1000 people murdered".

But that is a conflation because the death toll for chemical weapons was around 350. The over a 1000 figure includes casualties from the attack in general, using conventional weapons and the question should be confined to the use of CW's.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130829-0001.htm

it is important to be clear what the issue that we are considering today is not. It is not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict. It is not about invading. It is not about regime change, or even about working more closely with the Syrian opposition. I know that this afternoon we will hear from many noble Lords with a huge amount of experience—diplomatic, political and military—and I am sure that we will hear many nuanced arguments and that there will be discussion about the complexities of the situation. I know that we will benefit greatly from that advice but, in essence, the issue is really very simple. It is this: what should our response be to the large-scale use of chemical weapons; and, with that response, what message do we want to send to the rest of the world about their use?

At least 350 were killed

Not as stated "1,400 died" Now I do not make that distinction lightly. I am appalled and disgusted by what has happened and personally I see little difference in being killed by CW's or bullets, bombs, bread knives, Napalm or any other method. But the proposal to attack is predicated narrowly on the very fine legal basis that Assad has broken the law in using CW's. It is therefore clearly wrong to deliberately and disingenuously inflate the figures by including other causes.

Obama is clearly propagandising his position here.

He further states:
"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets,". But likely being embarrassed into it by the British Parliamentary rebellion, he goes on to say:

"Having made my decision as Commander in Chief... I am also mindful that I am President of the World's oldest Constitutional Democracy".. blah blah govt of people for people by people etc as if he really cares... "and that is why I have made a second decision. I will seek authorisation from congress"...(so no one can point the finger at me and say it is all your fault). "For the last several days, we have heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard".

Well at least they appear to have finally learned something from the older Democracy... Parliament. I shall be interested to see if that is broadcast in full.

 

[Oxymoron]

Apparently there is satellite evidence. I don't believe anything Al Qaeda says they will say anything to make themselves look tough! I don't believe the Syrian Government or the Russians when they say, they didn't do this. I believe the evidence that is on our side. The four-page document that intercepted communications between Syrian officials "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime". US satellites also picked up rockets being prepared and launched from regime territory into the rebel-held Ghouta area shortly before hundreds of civilians, including 426 children, began to foam at the mouth and fall dead "unstained by a single drop of blood". Are you going to dismiss all this as some great conspiracy, from the most anti-war President we've ever had? Really?

Have you seen the four page document? Can you post it for us?

Can you explain the discrepancy in the figures given to the British Parliament and those figures you just 'quoted'?

What the anti war President who signs death lists every Tuesday for drone strikes which kill 10 civilians (often women and children), for every alleged terrorist.

What shall I do today 'kill a few terrorists', 'fund and train a few terrorists' decisions, decisions, decisions.

 

[moderateGOP]

Have you seen the four page document? Can you post it for us?

Do you even know how to do actual research??? http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-chemical-weapons-assessment-document-96088.html

This didn't take long to find...

 

[moderateGOP]

http://www.cyberwarnews.info/reports/a-look-into-the-britam-defence-data-leak-files/

From: "David Goulding"
Date: December 24, 2012 4:57:16 PM GMT+01:00
To: "'Phillip Doughty'"


Subject: Syrian Issue


Phil


We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?


Kind regards

David
0

-------

Funny the YT video that contained this "information" was taken down because the dude who made the video realized that most or all of the information in it was fake! He probably created the video and used screenshots of fake emails sent to himself. This isn't hard to do. I've seen it done countless times, by similar thinking CT's.

 

[Oxymoron]

Do you even know how to do actual research??? http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-chemical-weapons-assessment-document-96088.html

This didn't take long to find...

The rule on this forum is that if you make a claim... YOU provide the evidence.

What part of that 'uncredited document' do you see as the best evidence?
How does it differ from the highly criticised, general blurb coming out of the Whitehouse and being reported by the media as justification for unilateral attack?

Would you agree it is highly reminiscent of the "sexed up", "deeply flawed" and "highly politicised", intelligence which was proven to be false and was used to justify an illegal war in Iraq?

Apparently it was not so easy to answer my previous question, so you chose to ignore it. Namely:
Can you explain the discrepancy in the figures given to the British Parliament and those figures you just 'quoted'?

Do you agree it is 'hypocritical' at best and 'illegal' at worst to ignore the U.N and attack another Country unilaterally, especially whilst at the same time citing the reason as being to 'uphold International agreement'?

Given that Obama has now backpedaled from 'immediate attack', due to the democratic decision taken by the U.K not to become embroiled and now has stated "the attack is not time sensitive and action could just as easily be a month or so from now", can you give a cogent reason why 'the evidence', should not be made available to the U.N and time given for them to appraise the validity of said evidence and reach a decision on the best course of action?

 

[Oxymoron]

I thought the French were on board? They have been pretty scathing about the UK Parliaments decision as well. Do you think the parliamentary vote has influenced Obama's decision?

A salute to France... Some notable quotes... (for debunking obviously )

http://www.backwoodshome.com/humor/salutetofrance.html

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."
— Jed Babbin, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
— General George S. Patton

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
— Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
— Rush Limbaugh,

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
— Regis Philbin

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
— David Letterman

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
— Jay Leno

"Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without your accordian"
— Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense

 

[Oxymoron]

Comment on democracy:

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/democracy-stopped-uk-entering-syria-conflict/22680

So now even Obama is to consult the American people through their elected representatives.

This has been an extraordinary time to have been looking in on the Syrian debacle, and particularly Britain's vote, from abroad. David Cameron should take comfort from the fact that he is widely admired for actually having asked the "people's representatives", whether the people their constituents actually support military action against Syria.

Britain has been continuously at war now for longer than any period in the last 100 years.

All these wars have boasted some "democratic" undertow in the reasoning for our engagement. In Afghanistan we have endured twelve long years of combat, in part to "bring democracy" to this '"failed state".

So feeble were the grounds for taking UK forces to war in Iraq, that "intelligence" had to be "invented" in order for British MPs (many of whose constituents were already on the streets in active opposition) to vote in favour of war.

In Libya no one asked, because beyond a few Special Forces on the ground, our war would only involve bombing key installations to smithereens from the safety of the sea or the air.

The enduring shambles in Libya was reported in the FT yesterday to be costing the country losses of $100m a day. The Libyan government is losing the war with the militias, and oil production has fallen 75 per cent since we bombed Gadaffi out of his loathsome palaces.

 

[JRBids]

ANother false flag in conspira-land:


CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors
Posted on September 1, 2013by Womens Rights Advocate
Anderson Cooper and CNN have been caught staging fake news about Syria to justify military intervention.
The primary "witness" that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments. Recent video evidence proves that "Syria Danny", the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.


http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com...t-staging-news-segments-on-syria-with-actors/

 

[cosmic]

ANother false flag in conspira-land:

Those videos about Danny Abdul Dayem have been circulating since March 2012, too. At the time, Infowars popularized the story while hinting at an imminent US/NATO invasion of Syria. Now they're pushing "false flag" angle instead.

I really wish they'd come up with a different plot device. "False flag" has become as rote as time travel in Star Trek.

 

[Oxymoron]

Those videos about Danny Abdul Dayem have been circulating since March 2012, too. At the time, Infowars popularized the story while hinting at an imminent US/NATO invasion of Syria. Now they're pushing "false flag" angle instead.

I really wish they'd come up with a different plot device. "False flag" has become as rote as time travel in Star Trek.

If there is any dispute over the validity of that claim, I think it would be better off in it's own thread.

 

[Met Watch]

'I'm sorry Mr President... I did my best but it was that bloody communist sympathiser, Ed Millibands fault... I told him to watch out, he will get his comeuppance'

'You idiot... I told you not to let anyone vote on it... You are supposed to be in charge man... now look what you have done... I've now got to ask those buffoons at the senate to endorse me otherwise people are going to catch on that I don't give a shit about the constitution and that makes me look bad instead of 'Bad Ass'.

Nice baseless speculation there.

So you're happy that England deferred to Parliament, they said no, and so Britain is a no go. But you don't seem to care that Obama deferred to Congress (and you're already starting to assume that they'll vote "aye" on a strike)? Just trying to understand your stance on this.

 

[cosmic]

If there is any dispute over the validity of that claim, I think it would be better off in it's own thread.

That wasn't my point.

 

[Oxymoron]

That wasn't my point.

I know that wasn't your point and I did not mean to infer that it was. I was simply springing off your comment to opine that it may be better to create a separate thread if that claim becomes contentious.

 

[Oxymoron]

Nice baseless speculation there.

Thanks but I am not so sure it is 'baseless', given the type of behind the scenes recriminations reported in the Guardian between Cameron and Milliband. I can well imagine that Obama is deeply upset by the Parliamentary Revolt which we witnessed.

I also contend that had the vote gone the other way, (bearing in mind that Parliament was specifically recalled early), the attack would have gone ahead this week end without Obama seeking accord from Congress, which would have been a ghastly mistake with widespread consequences dwarfing the current level of bloodshed in Syria.

So you're happy that England deferred to Parliament, they said no, and so Britain is a no go. But you don't seem to care that Obama deferred to Congress (and you're already starting to assume that they'll vote "aye" on a strike)? Just trying to understand your stance on this.

I have no idea what Congress will conclude and I think that any inference that I have made such a conclusion from my previous post, would be a false interpretation of said post. I agree it was barbed but the barb was aimed squarely at Obama.

I sincerely hope that Congress agrees with the U.K Parliament and the American public who are clearly and overwhelmingly not in favour of an attack. If it does not vote in a manner commensurate with the overwhelming will of the American people, I suggest that would not be representative of democracy in action.

A decision had already been made for imminent military action and that has now been overturned by Parliament. So what was the 'rush' all about, given that Obama now concedes there is no need to act in haste.

 

[John Smith]

This is what a General was told just 10 days after 9/11. Syria take-over was planned long before before the "civil unrest" with Assad.

 

[moderateGOP]

The rule on this forum is that if you make a claim... YOU provide the evidence.

1. Can you explain the discrepancy in the figures given to the British Parliament and those figures you just 'quoted'?

2. Do you agree it is 'hypocritical' at best and 'illegal' at worst to ignore the U.N and attack another Country unilaterally, especially whilst at the same time citing the reason as being to 'uphold International agreement'?

3. Given that Obama has now backpedaled from 'immediate attack', due to the democratic decision taken by the U.K not to become embroiled and now has stated "the attack is not time sensitive and action could just as easily be a month or so from now", can you give a cogent reason why 'the evidence', should not be made available to the U.N and time given for them to appraise the validity of said evidence and reach a decision on the best course of action?

4. What part of that 'uncredited document' do you see as the best evidence?

1. Can you find me the numbers so that I can compare them? That's a new CT. I never heard of it before.
2. Not sure what you mean here. The International Community agrees that something must be done about Syria.
3. One step at a time. Congress has to decide now.
4. Not sure what you mean, as the Document came from the white house and simple google search will do you well if you didn't know the Government was going to be providing this evidence... At that point I will stop here.

 

[Joe]

Obama passes responsibility to Congress:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/obam...sident-to-seek-congressional-approval/?utm=fb

President Obama announced Saturday that he will order U.S. military action against Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad against his own civilians earlier this month, but added that he will seek authorization from Congress first.

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian targets," Obama said in a speech from the White House Rose Garden, adding that the potential strikes would be "designed to be limited in duration and scope."

But he continued: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

Congress is currently out of session and is not scheduled to return until Sept. 9. It was unclear how swiftly it would rush back to session.

The U.S. government disclosed evidence Friday that it said confirmed that the Syrian government used rockets and artillery to fire a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb that is a rebel stronghold. The intelligence shows "that more than 1,400 died as a result of that attack, including more than 400 children."

Obama called the attack the "worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century," and "an assualt on human dignity." He added that it threatens U.S. national security and poses a risk to our allies in the region.

But nonetheless, he said he intended to ask lawmakers for authorization before proceeding. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I believe that the country will be stronger" with such approval, he said.

Video:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/31/live-video-president-obama-delivers-statement-on-syria/

Much better than going it alone. Interesting.

Of course he does . So he can pass the blame on congress as usual when he fails to persuade . There were threats of impeachment if he went it alone . After Cameron defeat in parliament . conservatives and liberals agree no war with syria . Obama is just another Neocon

 

[Joe]

Byron York @ByronYork
Now watch this drive: Pretty amazing Obama would make big statement on Syria, then head straight to golf course. But that's what he's done.

Carrie Dann @CarrieNBCNews
From the pool: Obama and Biden are now playing golf.

 

[Joe]

Congressional letter to Obama http://lee.house.gov/sites/lee.house.gov/files/Lee Letter to President Obama_Syria.pdf

 

[Pete Tar]

Is there something inherently wrong with golf? So what if he played golf?

 

[Joe]

Is there something inherently wrong with golf? So what if he played golf?

Yea big speech on Syria and death then off to play more golf ? Like he just got off vacation as it was . If he was so worried he would call congress back now for a vote . He totally blew this Syria thing. The only thing he can gain is if Congress votes no and there is attack he can once again blame congress . He is not Tiger Woods .

 

[Pete Tar]

I still don't get it. What if he watches some DVDs instead, would that be okay?

 

[Joe]

I still don't get it. What if he watches some DVDs instead, would that be okay?

It depends on what he is watching that wasnt my point or the twitter tweets . The point is he comes out with this all important speech prepared by someone other then him acts as if he cares then plays games . He could care less . If he were concerned he call congress back in session before he goes to the G20 meeting . He is actually the laughing stock right now of the world . http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/w...ern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html

 

[Cairenn]

And W played guitar while folks drowned in NOLA. Sorry, it is unfortunate that you can not accept anything our President does as good. Playing golf had no importance in this, other than a dig at him. I would take what you have to say more seriously if you were less biased.

 

[Oxymoron]

U.K Govt, allows export of dual use chemicals to Syria, (precursor constituents necessary to make Sarin nerve gas and water fluoridation)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ort-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html

UK accused of 'breath-taking laxity' over export licence for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride

The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, will today be asked by MPs to explain why a British company was granted export licences for the dual-use substances for six months in 2012 while Syria's civil war was raging and concern was rife that the regime could use chemical weapons on its own people. The disclosure of the licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, which can both be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of nerve gas, came as the US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had evidence that sarin gas was used in last month's atrocity in Damascus.

In a previously unpublicised letter to MPs last year, Mr Cable acknowledged that his officials had authorised the export of an unspecified quantity of the chemicals in the knowledge that they were listed on an international schedule of chemical weapon precursors.

Critics of the Business Secretary, whose department said it had accepted assurances from the exporting company that the chemicals would be used in the manufacture of metal window frames and shower enclosures, said it appeared the substances had only stayed out of Syria by chance.

The licences for the two chemicals were granted on 17 and 18 January last year for "use in industrial processes" after being assessed by Department for Business officials to judge if "there was a clear risk that they might be used for internal repression or be diverted for such an end", according to the letter sent by Mr Cable to the arms controls committee.

Mr Cable said: "The licences were granted because at the time there were no grounds for refusal."

Although the export deal was outlawed by the EU on 17 June last year in a package of sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the licences were not revoked until 30 July. Chemical weapons experts said that although the two substances have a variety of uses such as the fluoridation of drinking water, sodium and potassium fluoride are also key to producing the chemical effect which makes a nerve agent such as sarin so toxic.

 

[Oxymoron]

1. Can you find me the numbers so that I can compare them? That's a new CT. I never heard of it before.

It is not a CT at all, it is fact as listed in my earlier posts above. See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...apons-attacks-in-syria.2276/page-5#post-63948

The numbers of deaths are listed by Obama & Kerry as "over 1000" and "1400". (which is quite some discrepancy in itself as they are claiming excellent intel)
The figure used by Parliament is "350".

2. Not sure what you mean here. The International Community agrees that something must be done about Syria.

So you are equating "Something must be done" to mean 'The U.S should blow up the Syrian people with missiles'. Do you honestly believe that to be a serious argument. Perhaps you would like to consider that, 'something must be done' would likely stop well short of military action, (which will only kill more innocents) and 'something must be done' would be far more likely to mean 'strong diplomatic action specifically in relation to the CW issue' or even greater humanitarian aid for the people we are alleging to be concerned about.

3. One step at a time. Congress has to decide now.

The question I posed to you... (not Congress), was ""the attack is not time sensitive and action could just as easily be a month or so from now", can you give a cogent reason why 'the evidence', should not be made available to the U.N and time given for them to appraise the validity of said evidence and reach a decision on the best course of action?"

Can you answer that question?

4. Not sure what you mean, as the Document came from the white house and simple google search will do you well if you didn't know the Government was going to be providing this evidence... At that point I will stop here.

You say it "came from the Whitehouse" but if you inspect the four pages, it bears no logo or official accreditation or indeed even an authors name, so how do you know where it actually came from and if it did come from the Whitehouse, can you explain why it does not clearly say that on the heading or anywhere at all?

 

[Oxymoron]

Of course he does . So he can pass the blame on congress as usual when he fails to persuade . There were threats of impeachment if he went it alone . After Cameron defeat in parliament . conservatives and liberals agree no war with syria . Obama is just another Neocon

I agree. It is very noticeable, (but I highlighted it anyway, for emphasis), how in his speech he keeps referring to 'I have decided this and I have decided that'. It is clear that he has been forced into allowing Congress to have it's say.

The key is that if the U.S was faced with an 'immediate threat' or 'clear and present danger', then he would not need to ask Congress but the fact of the matter is, Syria is no threat to the U.S and therefore it is an extremely large overreach for Obama to decide all by himself that he will order a punitive strike against Assad and his democratically elected Government for fighting against terrorist foreign insurgents.

It is appalling IMO that Obama thought he could totally disregard the Constitutional Democratic process and act against the clearly expressed wishes of the people, let alone initially dismiss the people's representatives.

Also it is entirely unclear that Obama will abide by the outcome of the Congress vote. At least Cameron voluntarily asked Parliament and graciously accepted the Parliamentary vote.

This is Democracy in action and anything else would be farcical in the extreme, given the circumstances.

Perhaps he should actually ask 'The People', if they want to be continually 'surveilled and monitored' or 'if they want the U.S Govt to spend as much as the rest of the world on armaments' or 'if they want the banks bailed out by their tax dollars whilst the CEO's receive millions in salaries and bonus' whilst he is at it.

Perhaps then America could really claim to be a democracy.