No thread on Syria's chemical/gas attack massacre...

[HipHopStan]

He's either playing chess or about to put a huge black eye on his Presidency.

Spoiler

Don't even ask me how.

Well, according to NBC, he played a game of golf right after his Rose Garden press conference on Friday.

 

[Consigliere]

we get the luxury of not having world war 3 break out

We've been at war non-stop for the last 50 years. Whats the difference between WWIII and what we've been doing?

 

[Rapmastermind]

Sorry guys. I'm disappointed in Obama with this. We don't need to get involved. That's the problem now. We've stretched ourselves too thin. Sure they will say it's just bombing now but really then what? It's going to escalate and I don't think we need this right now. Plus a lot of our allies aren't even backing us on this. He pushed it on to congress so everyone can take the blame. We see who votes what but I'm against America getting in any wars or strikes unless it's a threat to the U.S. If the Syria issue can't get the rest of the world to go in with us then what are we doing? I'm not saying horrible things aren't happening I'm saying that America can't police the world. This has to stop.

 

[acri1]

He's either playing chess or about to put a huge black eye on his Presidency.

Spoiler

Don't even ask me how.

Nah, to be honest, this is a win-win for Obama, at least in the political sense.

If Congress agrees with him, then they have to take the blame too if the war is unpopular or doesn't go well, and Obama can say he went through Congress. If they vote it down, then Obama has an out on this issue and doesn't have to deal with it. Not to mention, it'll cause infighting in the GOP, since half are neocons and half are Tea-Party extremists who vote against anything Obama proposes just because.


As far as the issue of whether anybody should actually intervene, tho, I'm still undecided, although I generally lean against unilateral action. Plus the international community has pretty uch already decided that pretty much any military action the US takes is automatically warmongering. So I lean towards staying out...but then again, it's fukked up what's going on over there.

 

[NSSVO]

It's going to happen, deal with it y'all.

 

[88m3]

lol , love the not a threat to America

lol, love the wait to hear what the UN says , they weren't mandated to subscribe blame

 

[Jello Biafra]

lol , love the not a threat to America

lol, love the wait to hear what the UN says , they weren't mandated to subscribe blame

This is an international problem that should be dealt with by either the UN or NATO nations in a broad coalition...this is not something the US should be playing world police on and going it alone.
And unless Assad has sarin gas on some missiles on deck that he plans on shooting at the US this Syria situation is not a prominent threat to this country.
There are many countries committing atrocities against their own people in this world that are routinely ignored so unless Obama plans on showing some moral consistency and drop some bombs on Burma or any number of Central African countries, this whole appeal based on how morally repellant Assad is holds no weight.

 

[FAH1223]

warrah you done lost the plot

somebody forgot to shut up some of the rebels who have been mouthing off.
They have been claiming responsibility for the attacks and that it was an accident.

 

[FAH1223]

I would like to think congress will do the right thing here and vote it down but I have a bad feeling these b*stards will give the go ahead...The lobbyists always get what they want and there is money to be made from war...

it depends on how badly isreal wants this, if it wants it badly enough congress will obey instructions.
AIPAC has stronger influence on congress than the president, american presidents have on occasion gone against isreals policies e.g bush senior
but congress has never disobeyed.

since this false flag was so shoddy and crudely set up, the consequences of exposure is too high,
i think the isrealis will not be touching this with a ten foot pole, and let the blame fall elsewhere, maybe saudi

maybe they will not push congress, and obama can use this as a an escape hatch.

 

[88m3]

This is an international problem that should be dealt with by either the UN or NATO nations in a broad coalition...this is not something the US should be playing world police on and going it alone.
And unless Assad has sarin gas on some missiles on deck that he plans on shooting at the US this Syria situation is not a prominent threat to this country.
There are many countries committing atrocities against their own people in this world that are routinely ignored so unless Obama plans on showing some moral consistency and drop some bombs on Burma or any number of Central African countries, this whole appeal based on how morally repellant Assad is holds no weight.

The UN won't/can't do anything because of Russia. NATO is basically focused on defending Europe from Russia. America is basically NATO, most of the countries can't field an international response.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_101606.htm

It's not about playing world police or any other stupid catchphrase. Syria poses a real threat to our interests and economy. You would have to be dumb, deaf, and blind to feel otherwise.

The later is a logical fallacy and shouldn't detract from the issues Syria poses.

Burma?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma–United_States_relations

Do you live in a cave or are you trolling?


Africa has been pretty restive since Obama has been in office.
America has payed a very active roll in Africa since Bush Jr. and throughout Obama's presidency.

You seem pretty ignorant, why don't you do some more reading instead of making sweeping statements on subjects you clearly know nothing about.

 

[FAH1223]

Intelligence Experts Decry Weak Case For Syria Strike

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/syria-strike-chemical-weapons_n_3844469.html

As the United States and France prepare for a seemingly inevitable military strike on Syria, intelligence experts around the globe are sounding the alarm that the justification for intervention is far from established.

The Obama administration joined by French President Francois Hollande have vowed to punish the Syrian government for what they claim is irrefutable evidence that it unleashed chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus, killing hundreds. But a growing number of analysts who have scrutinized military intelligence in past conflicts warn that the case linking the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad to a chemical weapons attack is incomplete.

One of the world's leading experts on chemical weapons, Jean Pascal Zanders, on Friday told The Huffington Post UK that he has significant doubts about the identity of the chemical agent widely blamed for the deaths in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

"We don't know what the agent is," said Zanders, who until recently served as senior research fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, an EU agency that scrutinizes defense and security issues. "Everyone is saying sarin. There is something clearly to do with a neurotoxicant [such as sarin], but not everything is pointing in that direction."

The agent used is a crucial piece of information, Zanders said, because the family of neurotoxicants that includes military weapons such as nerve agents also encompasses industrial products like those used to control rodents. Until the actual agent can be identified, any link to the Assad regime is tenuous, Zanders said.

"If say, for example, a neurotoxicant was taken from a factory and used at [Ghouta], then the number of actors who might be responsible for that then increases," he said

Zanders' caution was merely the latest bit of skepticism to emerge from the ranks of experienced experts now challenging the adequacy of the case for a strike in Syria.

On Thursday, Lawrence Wilkerson, who reviewed the intelligence presented by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell as justification for the war in Iraq a decade ago, told HuffPost that the preparations for a Syria strike seem devoid of authority.

Wilkerson likened the current debate to a repeat of the days he spent preparing for Powell's since-debunked testimony, "with people telling me [former Iraq President] Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction with absolutely certainty."

He added: "It seems like the same thing again."

That pronouncement followed a striking caution from Hans Blix, who was chief United Nations arms inspector for Iraq in the run-up to the war. In an interview with Nathan Gardels, Blix said that while "indications are certainly in the direction of the use of chemical weapons" in Syria, those now contemplating military action should wait for U.N. inspectors now on the ground to complete their work.

"As we've seen before, the political dynamics are running ahead of due process," Blix said, adding that the dynamic was reminiscent of the way the Bush administration launched the war in Iraq.

"I do not go along with the statement by the U.S. that 'it is too late' for Syria now to cooperate. That is a poor excuse for taking military action."

Most pointedly, Blix warned that missiles aimed at eradicating Assad's chemical weapons capacities could exacerbate harm.

"Attacking stockpiles with cruise missiles, as I understand it, has the disadvantage that is might spread chemical weapons in the vicinity of any attack," Blix said.

Zanders, the former EU chemical weapons expert, went even further, arguing that outsiders cannot conclude with confidence the extent or geographic location of the chemical weapons attack widely being blamed on the Assad regime.

He singled out the images of victims convulsing in agony that have circulated widely on the Web, including on YouTube.

"You do not know where they were taken," he said. "You do not know when they were taken or even by whom they were taken. Or, whether they [are from] the same incident or from different incidents."

Zanders added: "It doesn't tell me who would be responsible for it. It doesn't tell me where the films were taken. It just tells me that something has happened, somewhere, at some point."

 

[88m3]

it depends on how badly isreal wants this

This is bigger than Israel, find someone else to demonize.

usual suspects in here whining about evil jooos

 

[FAH1223]

This is bigger than Israel, find someone else to demonize.

usual suspects in here whining about evil jooos

this isn't about demonizing

this is about regional politics, Syria shares border with Israel and Israel is the strongest country in the region that has interests on what happens to the Assad regime and who may come after.

 

[FAH1223]

Syrian Rebels in Ghouta Report Chemical Attack Was a Rebel Mistake

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6...ta-report-chemical-attack-was-a-rebel-mistake

Syrians in Ghouta, including rebels and eyewitnesses are reporting that the chemical attacks on August 21 in Ghouta were the result of rebel mistakes. This story comes from veteran Associated Press writer, Dale Gavlak, via his new gig at MintPress. Gavlak has been covering the Middle East for years for the AP and other outlets.

In his most recent story, Gavlak interviewed numerous "doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families" in an attempt to find out what happened from people that live in the affected regions. Many of those interviewed believe the weapons came from Saudi Arabia via Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of one opposition rebel who died in the chemical attack is quoted, "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry." He went on to describe the weapons as "having a 'tube-like structure' while others were like a 'huge gas bottle.'"

A female rebel fighter, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution stated, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons. When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them."

Yet another rebel fighter says, “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions."

So far, this story has been absent the mainstream media, even as the White House on Friday released its report outlinning that President Bashar al-Assad had fired the chemical weapons against Syrian civilians in the Damscus suburb, killing over 1,400 people. Gavlak goes on to explore and explain many other details that seem to piece together a puzzle that is very different from the shoddy "evidence" being put forth by the American government.

 

[88m3]

Syrian Rebels in Ghouta Report Chemical Attack Was a Rebel Mistake
http://www.policymic.com/articles/6...ta-report-chemical-attack-was-a-rebel-mistake

ridiculous