What's new

Will there be American invasion in Syria?

Let alone doing this kind of inhumane treatment to Assad troops they also doing it to the civilians and 12-15 year old kids. There is no living human being on this Earth crueler than this mercenaries. Theyre worshiping money and power more than their so-called god. Theyre creating troubles wherever they go for the sake of imperialists.

Exactly. Their core was camping and waiting the day in the northern Syria, way before the events started. They were about 3000-7000 people that consisted of ex-soldiers, high ranked agents/soldiers, ex-prisoners, al-qaeda members, recruits and the members of some other terrorist organizations in the area. After they have grown enough and the conjuncture was
convenient the orders came and everythings started.

The sad thing is, they also managed deceive thousands of regular Syrian people.
 
For Franklin:

Congresman Dennis Kucinich: In the lead-up to the Iraq War, I researched, wrote and circulated a document to members of Congress which explored unanswered questions and refuted President Bush’s claim for a cause for war.

The document detailed how there was no proof Iraq was connected to 9/11 or tied to al-Qaeda’s role in 9/11, that Iraq neither had WMDs nor was it a threat to the U.S., lacking intention and capability to attack. Unfortunately, not enough members of Congress performed due diligence before they approved the war.

Here are some key questions which President Obama has yet to answer in the call for congressional approval for war against Syria. This article is a call for independent thinking and congressional oversight, which rises above partisan considerations.

The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:
Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.

The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.

Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?

Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?

Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?

Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?

Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?

Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

Which opposition?

Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government?

Has your administration independently and categorically dismissed the reports of rebel use of chemical weapons which have come from such disparate sources as Russia, the United Nations, and the Turkish state newspaper?

Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized?

Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels?

Was any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents?

Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime’s conventional weapons were insufficient.

Who is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad’s conventional weapons were insufficient to secure “large portions of Damascus”?

Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements.

Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on?

Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not?

If, on August 21st a “regime element” was preparing for a chemical weapons attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense, and not offense?

Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad’s brother ordered the attack.

What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad’s brother personally ordered the attack?

Who made the determination that Assad’s brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source?

Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack.

Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release?

Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively?

Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated?

Based upon the evidence, is it possible that a rocket attack by the Syrian government was aimed at rebels stationed among civilians and a chemical weapons attack was launched by rebels against the civilian population an hour and a half later?

Is it possible that chemical weapons were released by the rebels — unintentionally?

Explain the 90-minute time interval between the rocket launch and chemical weapon attacks.

Has forensic evidence been gathered at the scene of the attack which would confirm the use of rockets to deliver the gas?

If there was a rocket launch would you supply evidence of wounds from the rockets impact and explosion?

What is the source of the government’s analysis?

If the rockets were being tracked via “geospatial intelligence,” what were the geospatial coordinates of the launching sites and termination locations?

Claim #7: The administration claims 1,429 people died in the attack.

Secretary Kerry claimed 1,429 deaths, including 426 children. From whom did that number first originate?

Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to videos and photos of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria.

When and where were the videos taken of the aftermath of the poison gas attack?

Claim #9: The administration claims a key intercept proves the Assad regime’s complicity in the chemical weapons attack.

Will you release the original transcripts in the language in which it was recorded as well as the translations relied upon to determine the nature of the conversation allegedly intercepted?

What is the source of this transcript? What was the exact time of the intercept? Was it a U.S. intercept or supplied from a non-U.S. source?

Have you determined the transcripts’ authenticity? Have you considered that the transcripts could have been doctored or fake?

Was the “senior official,” whose communications were intercepted, a member of Assad’s government?

How was he “familiar” with the offensive? Through a surprised acknowledgement that such an attack had taken place? Or through actual coordination of said attack? Release the transcripts!

Was he an intelligence asset of the U.S., or our allies? In what manner had he “confirmed” chemical weapons were used by the regime?

Who made the assessment that his intercepted communications were a confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the regime on August 21st?

What is the source of information that the Syrian chemical weapons personnel were “directed to cease operations”?

Is this the same source who witnessed regime officials mixing the chemicals?

Does the transcript indicate whether the operations they were “directed to cease” were related to ceasing conventional or chemical attacks?

Will you release the transcripts and identify sources of this claim?

Do you have transcripts, eyewitness accounts or electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or other regime officials which link the CW attack directly to President Assad?

Who are the intelligence officials who made the assessment — are they U.S. intelligence officials or did the initial analysis come from a non-U.S. source?

Claim #10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the attack.

Please release all intelligence and military assessments as to the reason for the sustained shelling, which is reported to have occurred after the chemical weapons attack.

Who made the determination that was this intended to cover up a chemical weapon attack? Or was it to counterattack those who released chemicals?

How does shelling make the residue of sarin gas disappear?

The American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of great consequence for America, Syria and the world. Congress must be provided answers prior to the vote, in open hearings, not in closed sessions where information can be manipulated in the service of war. We’ve been there before. It’s called Iraq.

https://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/05/322265/kucinich-10-unproven-prosyria-war-claims/

Not that it matters, war was decided when the redline was drawn, everything since has been posturing for support. Today Turkey is moving tanks and soldiers to the Syrian border and the US State Department is evacuating the embasy in Lebanon.

In the battlefield men grapple each other and die;
The horses of the vanquished utter lamentable cries to heaven,
While ravens and kites peck at human entrails,
Carry them up in their flight, and hang them on the branches of dead trees.
So, men are scattered and smeared over the desert grass,
And the generals have accomplished nothing.

Oh, nefarious war! I see why arms were so seldom used by the benign sovereigns.
 
Thankfully it appears that the House will not approve a Syrian attack. I doubt that stops it though.

Turkey is not the only middle east entity gearing for war. Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Iraq...Everyone is getting ready. They see what could happen.

Edit:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013...syria-border-as-erdogan-backs-u-s-attack.html

Turkey sending tanks, rocket launchers, anti aircraft guns, warplanes and drones to the Syrian boarder.

Syria threatens to attack Turkey, Jordan and Israel if attacked by the US.

UGH!

Edit #2:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/us-iran-syria_n_3877515.html

Iran planning to attack American interests in Iraq in response to any attack on Syria. One target mentioned would be the American embassy in Baghdad.
 
Last edited:
Obama gave a speech this morn'.
I got the impression that they don't know for sure that the Syrian gov was behind a chem assault, but he feels it is politically necessary to try to rally everyone to agree to take military action.
I also got the impression that the press was taking him to task for not being as a good a lying warmonger as Bush.
 
For Franklin:



Not that it matters, war was decided when the redline was drawn, everything since has been posturing for support. Today Turkey is moving tanks and soldiers to the Syrian border and the US State Department is evacuating the embasy in Lebanon.

Dude, I got 1.5 hours of dead time so here goes:

The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:
Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.

The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.

It takes time to run the samples. So what? Symptoms are consistent with chemical weapons attacks along with secondary effects on medical personell (meaning it wasn't random food poisoning or other biological agent) and nobody doubts that they were used, except bonehead politicians like Kucinich.

Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

Which opposition?

Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government?

Kucinich want's the President to prove a negative? Umm, kay. Where's Kucinich's proof? The Russians you say? 1.A) **** Russia. 1.B) We looked at their junk science already, and summarily chucked it into the waste bin.



Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized?

You mean rumors from that Lebanese newspaper or the Iranian one? Either way, not only no, but shut the **** up Dinnis. You're embarrassing your country.


Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels?

This has nothing to do with the chemical weapons.


Was any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents?

Is this linked to that cute little story from the Russians that you fell in love with, Dinnis?


Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime’s conventional weapons were insufficient.

Who is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad’s conventional weapons were insufficient to secure “large portions of Damascus”?

Telephone calls between his generals, for starters. We've already covered this. Are you drunk again Dinnis?


Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements.

Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on?

Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not?

If, on August 21st a “regime element” was preparing for a chemical weapons attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense, and not offense?

You may not be aware, Dinnis, and this doesn't suprise us, but we were not active in the situation on August 18th. Becoming active is what these proceedings are about.

Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad’s brother ordered the attack.

What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad’s brother personally ordered the attack?

Who made the determination that Assad’s brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source?

Some of that is classified. If you weren't so damned crazy you might have clearance, but you know, national security precludes that and all.

Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack.

Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release?

Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively?

Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated?

No. The targets and releases were coordinated. Unless you think that the rebels guessed where Assad would shell Demascus and got lucky releasing the chemical weapons on their strongholds simultaneously. That sounds kinda crazy, so we guessed you'd come to this conclusion Dinnis.




Okay okay, that was too easy. I'm not reading the rest of Dinnis' blather. His nasty lips are burned into my brain enough already.
 
Did China just call one of their floaty toys an assault ship? They're so cute some times.

I got as much of a kick out of them calling the people onboard marines.

Let's put 1000 of our Marines and 1000 of their marines on an island and see what happens.
 
I agree Franklin* and Gameface but China having assets in the area is a new development and not necessarily a good one for America.
 
These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
full storyhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
 
Russia has the dominance over the pipeline projects/plans. Too many plans died because of Russia and Turkey is the most suffered one in all this strategy wars over pipelines. Nabucco project being the most recent fiasco of US, EU and Turkey.

At first I didn't think oil was the major factor here, but after reading the articles that you all posted about Russia,China,Iran, and Iraq getting srs, I figured that energy must be a bigger component then I first imagined.

What was the Nabucco project? I haven't heard of it.
 
At first I didn't think oil was the major factor here, but after reading the articles that you all posted about Russia,China,Iran, and Iraq getting srs, I figured that energy must be a bigger component then I first imagined.

What was the Nabucco project? I haven't heard of it.

It was a project aiming to reduce European dependence to Russian gas. It was a huge project that will bring Azerbaijan, Iraq and Iran gas to Europe through Turkey. Even though US and main European countries backed the project, Russian pressure on the source countries blocked it.

Meanwhile Russia developed alternative projects and they are realizing them fast. They now got the Italian support and they will continue to be the main energy supplier for Europe over the mid-long term.
 
even though i'm generally not for going to war for reasons other than being attacked or stopping a third reich type behemoth, the fact that supporting the rebels who hate the west as much as any other nutjob group really makes me totally disapprove a war in Syria.

Sent from my SGH-T679 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
No surprise seeing Albania and Kosovo on this list

It appears that Spain and Germany are giving vocal support to the US but want no part in a military strike. The EU just condemned the Syria chemical wepaons attack and stated all evidence points to the Syrian government. However, they want to wait till the UN report comes in this week before deciding on a course of action.

Germany has indicated that if the EU, NATO (who has condemned the attack) or the UN authorizes military action that they will support it.
 
Back
Top