So you automatically assume the secular Syrian government was responsible rather than the muslim extremist Al Qaeda rebel groups who were also responsible for 9/11? Interesting.
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago.
Amazing how subject everyone is to corporate media's propaganda. Syrian government lets UN chemical investigators in with full cooperation and 3 days later there is a large scale chemical attack and you automatically assume Syrian government was responsible with no thought or reason.
The prime reason they want to go into Syria is because Syria doesn't have a private, central bank like we do. This is why it was named one of the countries in the infamous PNAC document from the year 2000 which called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to provide a catalyst to advance their global agenda by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz. So don't be surprised if their lackeys created the problem (chemical attacks) to get the reaction that they want out of you (attack Syria) so they can carry out their agenda (take over, centralize power & install a private monetary system).
Sorry for posting here, as I can't get the private messages on this site to work. But I was wondering what the consensus seems to be on just what the upcoming strikes on Syria will cause? If possible could Mick or one of the other prominent debunkers here send me a pm please? Thank you for your input, I have been following this site for awhile so I decided to register here.
Alchemist: wouldn't it be more beneficial to ask what others' positions are instead of just assigning them yourself? I think participants here are quite interested in seeing allegations supported by evidence.
Alchemist: wouldn't it be more beneficial to ask what others' positions are instead of just assigning them yourself? I think participants here are quite interested in seeing allegations supported by evidence.
I disagree - perhaps she'll clarify, as I won't presume to speak on her behalf - however the approach you're taking here isn't very conducive to reasonable discussion.
Syria’s envoy to UN Bashar Jaafari accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons to“bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria.”
"Many facts tend to prove the innocence of the Syrian government, which has been subject to false accusations," Bashar al-Jaafari told state media.
Such facts also showed that "armed groups have used chemical weapons in order to bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria," he said.
His remarks came as rebel fighters said they fired Katyusha rockets at government positions in central Damascus on Wednesday in retaliation for the alleged chemical attacks on civilians.
Syria’s envoy to UN Bashar Jaafari accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons to“bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria.”
"Many facts tend to prove the innocence of the Syrian government, which has been subject to false accusations," Bashar al-Jaafari told state media.
Such facts also showed that "armed groups have used chemical weapons in order to bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria," he said.
His remarks came as rebel fighters said they fired Katyusha rockets at government positions in central Damascus on Wednesday in retaliation for the alleged chemical attacks on civilians.
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.
The officials have pretty much concluded that the government was behind the attacks (with no evidence) and calling for strikes on Syria "as early as Thursday":
The officials have pretty much concluded that the government was behind the attacks (with no evidence) and calling for strikes on Syria "as early as Thursday":
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.
It's all just such a crap-shoot. 'Intelligence' is sketchy there and I hope we have learned that the rational behind foreign polity in past decades and in other parts of the world just doesn't work in the M. E. It's basically just religious fanaticism, of a sort we really don't understand, which can NEVER be "fixed". They just don't seem to operate on the same set of logical or political parameters as do we. We are never going to be able to force them to accept Israel, in their midst, for instance.
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. 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"!
'Intelligence' is sketchy there and I hope we have learned that the rational behind foreign polity in past decades and in other parts of the world just doesn't work in the M. E. It's basically just religious fanaticism, of a sort we really don't understand, which can NEVER be "fixed".
Indeed, and I really wish I could be more optimistic. Seems like there's a slight improvement in foreign policy under the current administration compared to the previous, but in all honesty that's still not saying much. Policymakers seem stuck on outdated or unsound strategies, and I'm not confident that past lessons are being taken to heart. I also fail to see how we (the US) can claim to be enforcing international law by skirting or violating it ourselves in the process.
They just don't seem to operate on the same set of logical or political parameters as do we. We are never going to be able to force them to accept Israel, in their midst, for instance.
Agreed completely. Those are two of many reasons why I wish we could stay out of it entirely, or at least develop and implement more appropriate diplomatic solutions.
It looks like the UK is not spiralling into an attack and Parliament is rightfully cautious. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114
I think this does show that governments do learn from previous lessons and just because they did an action in the past does not mean they will do it in the future.
Errr, I think you'll find most people here do not watch much in the way of television news.
Instead, what constitutes a conspiracy theory is an explanation for some phenomena which deviates from both rationality and scientific consensus. You'll find that few if any folks here think conspiracies in general are not real. Instead, the theories presented have of a lot of holes, do not adhere to logical principles or have bad/pseudo-science as supporting evidence.
It looks like the UK is not spiralling into an attack and Parliament is rightfully cautious. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114
I think this does show that governments do learn from previous lessons and just because they did an action in the past does not mean they will do it in the future.
Yes, and if the insinuation being made by some folks in this thread is that the west can't wait to go to war in yet another middle eastern country, why haven't we done so already? We had a perfect opportunity last year and instead of exploiting it the White House proved it false. There have been a number of other opportunities as well. Of course, now it will be argued that it wasn't the "right moment" or some such.
50% of Brits oppose military action in Syria whilst only 25% are in favour according to a Government poll.
Lets see democracy in action.
Similar in the U.S
According to a Gallup poll conducted on May 28-29, 68 percent of the US citizens are against any US military involvement in Syria even if diplomatic and economic efforts fail to resolve the 2-year old conflict.
More Republicans (31%) than Democrats (20%) are likely to support a possible US military action in Syria, the poll showed.
The poll also found that the number of college graduates in favor of military action in Syria is less than those without a college degree.
Other polls conducted by Fox News, CBS, and Reuters also indicate that the majority of Americans are against US military involvement in Syria.
Despite opposition from their publics, the US and its allies have been pushing for military intervention in Syria.
US President Barack Obama has said that the United States was "looking at all options" in Syria.
Late in April, a group of Republican lawmakers urged Obama to intervene militarily in Syria to “resolve” the crisis.
I don't think anyone is trying. However it is extremely difficult to intervene in a civil conflict without taking a side. Most will go for the underdog.
I don't think anyone is trying. However it is extremely difficult to intervene in a civil conflict without taking a side. Most will go for the underdog.
I admit that. But just from Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda is big and growing.
Please appreciate that most of the Islamic world does not like Al Qaeda, but for the opposite reason why Americans hated Al Qaeda until yesterday.
Al Qaeda is seen to further US interests which appears to be the destabilization of much of the world!
For example, in Iraq, the second war happened because Al Qaeda smashed down your buildings: relatively secular Iraq gets destroyed because of Al Qaeda. Further, the popular resistance to the US invasion turned in on its self, because Al Qaeda got involved, and now they fight themselves (I heard that 50+ where killed yesterday in Iraq but have not checked.)
Another example is Libya. A previously stable area of Africa is now spinning out of control, with Al Qaeda running amok.
The world feels that the US works hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda (and Saudi Arabia). An American shift in attitude in one day, only confirms such suspicions. We think you want to destroy Syria as a strategic step with aims on Iran (which was why we believe you destroyed Iraq).
Please don't let your country do this. How many of your sons must die before you see the pattern?
I am British mate Support for this action is lessening. There is slowly a general shift in policy from the US and more European militarily (think Libya).
I don't deny our wrong doings. My point was our motivations are different to that of the US. Britain had yet to find its place in the World as we sit between the EU and the US. Christ we are even having a vote on splitting the Union on Scotland going!!
Despite Cameron employing a 'much changed plan', debate still continuing but it looks to me like Cameron will fail to get Parliamentary support for his motion to 'punitively' strike Syria, (which is an unequivocal act of war), but we will see about 10pm tonight.
I was amazed to find myself agreeing with Ed Milliband and he surprised me by calling for caution and to await the findings of the weapons inspectors and to seek a U.N resolution or at least a 'large agreement'.
Obama seems to have chosen an extremely poor metaphor for justification of an attack, choosing to call it a "shot across the bows of Assad", which doesn't seem very apt as I am sure he does not intend sending a missile over Syria to explode harmlessly in the desert.
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey set out five options and makes these observations:
“Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next,” he wrote. “Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
The United States is currently providing humanitarian assistance and non-lethal aid to rebel groups battling to oust Assad.
President Barack Obama’s administration promised an expansion of military aid to Syria’s rebel forces in June after accusing the regime of using chemical weapons, but such aid has yet to be disbursed.
Beyond training, Dempsey said the United States could conduct lethal stand-off strikes that would degrade the regime’s air defenses as well as ground, missile and naval forces.
Such an option would require hundreds of aircraft and ships and, “depending on duration, the costs would be in the billions.”
Another option, one backed by hawkish Senator John McCain, is the establishment of a no-fly zone to prevent the regime from using its aircraft to bomb rebel areas.
A deeper commitment would be establishing buffer zones or so-called humanitarian corridors to protect areas such as those along the borders with Turkey and Jordan, where hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled.
It is doubtful whether airstrikes would establish deterrence. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has told Congress that while the US could intervene in the war, no moderate rebel group was ready to fill the vacuum. That leaves a regional war in freefall. This chemical attack may not be the last.
Can't help but notice the complete lack of acknowledgement or condemnation of the 'rebels' atrocities regarding the Kurds, (simply on the basis that they remained neutral and refused to be drawn into the conflict).
Also Cameron & co keep saying 'the rebels do not have access to nerve gas or the capability to use use it'... which appears to be against available evidence.
To my mind, if it is indeed the rebels who are using chemical weapons to draw in the west's support, giving them what they want is likely to increase their use of it to draw in further support and hand them victory on a plate.
Al Qaeda rules the day...?
The chemical attacks appear to be being used as a catalyst. It is notable that over 100,000 deaths have been caused by conventional weapons, (mainly civilians) and yet the death of around 300 by means of chemical weapons is deemed reason enough, (by some), to mount a military intervention, likely to kill many thousands more civilians... based purely on the grounds that it was chemical weapons.
Cameron also stated that no other nation in the area has chemical weapons which is clearly untrue as Saudi definitely has and Israel used white phosphorous in the Gazza quite recently.
Cameron's repeated statement that he is not seeking 'regime change' seems pretty disingenuous to say the least as they have been promoting regime change for years and aiding Al Qaeda to effect it.
Russia and the U.S have the largest stocks of chemical and biological weapons in the world.
I cant think of anyone thats supports what we are doing in Syria . Most right wing radio host are against it and most tea Partiers are also against it . Im waiting to see the people on the left and the antiwar movement to stand up . Only 9% of Americans approve . The progressive republicans like John Mc Cain and Lyndsay Gram are all for it . Samantha Power Cass Sustein s wife is behind the Arab spring
U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria's Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-behind-benghazi-attack-trains-jihadists-for/ So Libya worked at real well for us ?
British Parliament has rejected military action by the U.K.
272 Yes
285 No
So closer than I thought earlier in the day but considering yesterday I thought they would vote for military action... a good result for Democracy IMO
Looks like the U.S may still go it alone though. Al Nusra will appreciate the help no doubt.
The Obama administration opposes directly arming Syrian opposition fighters, in part out of fear that the weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.
But British Foreign Secretary William Hague this week announced he will try to tear up the EU arms embargo against Syria next month so weapons can be supplied to rebels in the country.
And earlier this year, the U.S. announced a $60million non-lethal assistance package for Syria that includes meals and medical supplies for the armed opposition.
In a rare TV interview given to state media, Assad said: 'Just as the West financed al-Qaida in Afghanistan in its beginnings, and later paid a heavy price, today it is supporting it in Syria, Libya and other places and will pay the price later in the heart of Europe and the United States.'
The Syrian dictator also lashed out at neighbour Jordan for allowing 'thousands' of fighters to enter his country through its borders and warned that the 'fire will not stop at Syria's border'.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Dr Mohammed Najjar, of the Syrian National Coalition, this morning rejected Assad’s claim that the rebels are sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
British Parliament has rejected military action by the U.K.
272 Yes
285 No
So closer than I thought earlier in the day but considering yesterday I thought they would vote for military action... a good result for Democracy IMO
Looks like the U.S may still go it alone though. Al Nusra will appreciate the help no doubt.
