BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 04:53 PM

Be under no illusions, the people being assisted by the West in Syria, are the very same people who are slaughtering civilian men, women and children in Nairobi.....They will never stop.
The "Arab Spring" so lauded by our "democratic" leaders and some here, has turned out exactly as I said it would.
All order has been removed and we have helped to create a huge nest of terrorism.

It is my opinion, that this state of affairs has been created intentionally, but perhaps most here will see my view as "conspiracy theory"?.......Do you think our leaders are so stupid and incompetent, that they did not realise what was about to happen?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:47 PM

Kennedy distanced himself from the "Bay of Pigs" which he was instrumental in organizing.
It's a case of another political leader stepping in front of the parade.

Chemical weapons as a pretext for war won't work with the US public today because it has become transparent that the US, due to its debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention Vietnam, doesn't have a political or moral leg on which to stand. Besides, the question is begged, who had these chemical weapons in the first place and how did Assad get them?
Russia? China? The US? Israel? The questions are still unanswered.

We know how Hussein got them. Rumsfeld has pictures of himself shaking hands with Hussein. The US supported Hussein as well as Assad until either became less of a toady
for US foreign policies. Let's face it. The US has a history of supporting dictators until they attempt to overthrow our own.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:10 AM

"played very well".

The parallel is in fact not there.

Obama is seen as the stupid sabre-rattler--even by some of his supporters.    Kennedy was not seen that way at the time.

It is quite unlikely that this incident will strengthen Obama in the least politically.   It was a waste of political capital-- and time--for a president who only has a prayer of being effective for about the first two years of his second term.

Could it have been worse?   Sure, if there had been an actual vote by Congress it would have been a disaster for Obama---and a huge waste of political capital and time.

But he has not precisely covered himself in glory on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 12:25 PM

The word is out on the Cuban missile crisis. It is not being hailed as the macho thing it appeared to be. Turkey had American-made missiles pointed at the USSR and this was the reason for missiles in Cuba by the Russians.

True enough, but not too relevant - the point was, it looked like war, and it ended with a stand-off which played very well for Kennedy at the time. (Not so well for Kruschev, rather unfairly perhaps, since he achieved what he wanted, no further invasions of Cuba, and reduction of the threat from US missiles in Turkey.)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:56 PM

No Brain Damage here, Don....I don't believe either side!
The puppet masters are beating the shit out of the American people with them. All they do is make excuses for the liars that they elected, then fail to see that the 'other side' has been having to do the same thing!

Music!...It doesn't lie!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 05:42 PM

""That's what I call brain damage from partisan politics!""

Well GfS, if you have managed over the last six years to miss the Republican stone walling of every single Obama initiative, as well as missing the point that those initiatives were all intended to benefit the citizens of the USA, while the avowed and acknowledged Republican intention was "To stop Obama and to Hell with the citizens", then perhaps the brain damage is closer to home than you think.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 05:29 PM

""There are reports that outside fighters tied to Al-Qaeda type movements are involved in anti-Assad actions. I suspect these folks do not support interests of the USA or the west.""

I am particularly bothered by the fact that elements of the rebel forces have taken time off to go slaughter and dispossess Syrian Christians, who are not part of their target group.

One has to say that neither side in this fight is attaining to, or even seeking to attain to, the moral high ground and that neither side is particularly appealing as a potential victor.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:29 PM

Yes Frank.... we were aware of the situation in Turkey at the time, though the mainstream media never mentioned it.
Good for you, we need more Independents. People who see beyond the Party Line.
Mr Obama has not been "hog tied" by the Tea Party or conservatism, but by his own "liberal" ideology, this Syrian crisis is an excellent example of an administration which doesn't really know what it stands for.
Is it "war", "peace", "democracy", "equality", "minorities" or it's own people.
They need to understand that every minority is not of value to society, every minority does not deserve promotion or defence.

The people who lead the rebellion in Syria would slaughter all who did not share their beliefs, given the chance.
When they rule, as someday I'm sure they will, does anyone think that they will hold any finer feelings on the "rights" of infidels.....I think not, I'm afraid it will be the breadknife across the throat for us.

We were supposed to be sowing "democracy", but will reap terror.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:12 PM

Stringsinger: "Personally, I no longer call myself a Democrat but an Independent..."

Welcome to the club!!!.....However, you will probably be accused of being a 'right winger', 'KKKer' or 'Tea Partier' by some of the 'less endowed' on here. To them everything not out there in 'left field' or out of the ballpark, is a flaming right winger!!

But take heart, consider yourself, as I've been saying.."I'm NOT with the party, I'm in the band!"...and more than likely, that is the truth!!!!
Now about that 'other matter'....give Seeger a call!

Regards!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 02:25 PM

The American people have spoken. Poll after poll shows that they don't want war. If you lob a missile into Syrian territory, this is a declaration of war. Kerry is deluded.

The word is out on the Cuban missile crisis. It is not being hailed as the macho thing it appeared to be. Turkey had American-made missiles pointed at the USSR and this was
the reason for missiles in Cuba by the Russians.

If Obama takes the US into war, there will be a tumultuous reaction and his legacy will be like that of GW Bush. It may already be that due to drone strikes and rendition programs, not to mention the use of torture, undue surveillance and attacking whistleblowers.

Don't count on Hillary having an easy time as a result.

Personally, I no longer call myself a Democrat but an Independent like Bernie Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 12:23 PM

That guy Kerry is a serious liability....why on earth did Mr Obama appoint him?...

At a press conference this morning he was asked what they intended to do to protect the Christian minority in Syria, and he started to ramble obviously unaware of which faction was a threat to the Christians.
He finally plumped for Mr Assad's regime and promised that he would make sure that Assad was weakened and could no longer be a threat to the Christians.

Mr Obama should tell him that the Christians have been living well and safely in Syria well before Mr Assad's father was in power.

Of course everybody but Mr Kerry knows that the people who are slaughtering Christians, looting and destroying their houses and churches, are those he is in the process of assisting to power!

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable.
The whole administration appear to be incompetent and ill equipped to handle this crisis

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:21 PM

Now it's the Tea Party's fault??????????????????????????????????????

That's what I call brain damage from partisan politics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 10:35 PM

Don't know if this has been noted yet.

From "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", which as you know would never make up a story just for humorous effect:

Somebody--can't remember who-- was quoted as saying:    "Why is America going to war against Siri?    After all she's just an i-Phone app."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 08:49 PM

I would think that this could well strengthen Obama in his last few years as president. It would be possible to present it as a kind of rerun of the Cuban missiles crisis, in which the president held his nerve and kept his cool, and got an acceptable settlement out of a potentially disastrous situation. West Wing stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 08:38 PM

Guess what, Ake... Given the level of obstruction that the TeaPubs have thrown at Obama, who cares???

Obama isn't going to get one thing thru this Congress no matter what it is...

Obama don't gibe a flying fuck about politics at this point because the numbers don't add up to try politics... That is long gone as an option in the US and that isn't going to change until we fix out broken legislative branch...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:40 PM

Music?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 04:54 PM

It is possible Bobert, but whether true or not, it has certainly weakened Mr Obama politically.

I usually like to see all politicians weakened by events, but without a coming together of Left and Right against the atrocities committed in the name of Global Capitalism, I can only see a bleak future for the ordinary folks of the US and the UK.

Can you think of anyone with the vision to unite your country? It would have to be someone from without the political classes, probably a woman, and someone with a little faith.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 12:16 PM

L.H., that's a good point. But destroying chemical weapons is a red-herring. The U.S. has used them in Japan, Vietnam, and Iraq, and probably is using them in Afghanistan.

Chemical weapons are not necessarily any worse than the drone strikes or cluster bombs and the idea of moralizing about "rules of war" is absurd. All weapons in war will kill innocent people.

A "limited strike" is as General Zinni said is like "being a little bit pregnant".
Striking Syria with a missile is an act of war regardless of how Kerry attempts to spin it. It's an illegal act in the international court of law.

There is no reason why a madman like Assad will refrain from using whatever weapons he wants to regardless of whether his country is attacked or not.

"This would suggest that the case being made by the West, that the regime were the only ones in possession of such weapons, is either mistaken or false."

Ake is correct. The US and it's satellites possess chemical weapons that have not been destroyed but remain as part of a "deterrent" arsenal. Even worse than sarin is the dangerous stockpile of nuclear weapons in the US, India, Pakistan and North Korea. This nonsense about worrying whether Iran can obtain them is political grandstanding by elite administration officials that have ties to the MIC.

What Assad has done is horrific of course but breaking Syria as the US did to Iraq will only foster ugly reactions worldwide by extremist groups, now the major population of the Syrian Rebels. There are very few moderates with weapons in their hands.

As to Putin, it probably seems cogent to the casual observer that this man speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to human rights. His persecution of "Pussy Riot" along with his harsh treatment of gays and LGBT folk shows just how much he is exempt from Russian "exceptionalism". Don't expect democracy from those quarters.

Obama is trying the old lame "carrot and stick" approach to diplomacy, often referred to as "gunboat diplomacy" which never works. He could drop the "limited strike" canard in favor of shoring up international support for an economic sanction against Assad, which he may be doing. The problem is that the US
can't be an honest broker in any peace negotiations which may have to be moved out of the country to Denmark or some other more neutral place.

As to proof or evidence that Assad used sarin, that information is "classified".
This is reason for some to question the statements of Kerry and Obama. The problem with the propaganda statements being made by "authoritative sources"
is that there is a lack of transparency in the state department which makes any
declarative news item suspect.

All weaponry used to slaughter innocent people whether intentionally or not
is a form of insanity. The idea that there are "rules of war" is risible.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:27 AM

From what I read, it seems that the rebels are not a unified movement with the same goals, beliefs, vision for the future Syria, friends or even approaches to the conflict. The only thing that seems to unite them is removing the Assad regime. So, considering them as a united front seems like going down the wrong path when looking for their potential involvement.

There are reports that outside fighters tied to Al-Qaeda type movements are involved in anti-Assad actions. I suspect these folks do not support interests of the USA or the west.

The same goes for the other side in the conflict. Assad mostly has control of his forces, but it seems that Iran has a major influence on Hezbollah, that currently fights the rebels in support of keeping Assad in power. It is likely that both Iran and Hezbollah have broader interests than only what occurs in Syria and do not seem too warm to western countries influence in the region (especially those linked to Israel). With USA concerns over potential actions over it's nuclear program, Iran gains when another front opens for the USA and an additional wedge is placed between the USA, Russia, China and USA allies. USA looses much credibility when it uses bombbs- at home and abroad.

Many previous USA military involvements in other countries have been conducted with much PR to get the public (USA and potential allies) and political support. This one was different, as the Obama team seemed unprepared and faced an uphill battle. That leads me to believe that the administration was not involved. It is possible that rogue elements within the USA government was involved, but they seem more under control of the government in power than the past.

It is just as feasible that rogue elements within the Assad regime (for example the military)were involved, but unlikely that the regime would not know, or at some point know about it (considering the control he seems to have). Getting the USA mired in another unwinnable conflict could be a goal- especially when Russia is on your team as a friend. Sending a warning message (that chemicals are in your arsenal) to the rebels is another potential reason to use them in a small test situation.

There are plenty of potential groups among the potential that have little concern for civilian causalities in obtaining a broader goal. Additionally, all Syrians are not friends, civilians or otherwise.

I don't know who did it- just letting my mind wander a bit over potential candidates and potential reasons they may (or may not) have..

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

Hey, Ake...

Is it possible that Obama has played Syria 100% correctly???

If you listen to the same old losers who hate Obama their narrative is that Obama has blown in on Syria...

Sometimes it takes finesse to get a desired result... Obama is a very intelligent guy who knows how to keep secrets... If he had told his critics what he was up to then it wouldn't have worked... But he played it real close to his chest and got the best results from a slobber knocker where there were no good options...

I mean, it's okay to think "Geeze, maybe what the right wing is saying is just sour grapes"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:00 AM

Come on Bob ole buddy, this is a serious business, we should be debating things!
I admired Mr Obama for his unwillingness to be dragged into Libya
He showed the same spirit on Syria to begin with, he then changed his mind on evidence that still has to be proved......that's when I lost confidence in him, the strikes he was proposing were ill considered and could have easily led to an international confrontation.

We should never be involved in something like that on what appears to be a personal whim, or orders from "higher up" the party machine. Only a blunder from Mr Kerry and the swift intervention of Mr Putin saved us from the law of "unintended consequences"

I'm afraid Mr Obama is fatally weakened by this exchange and we can expect to see someone like Hillary the Hawk represent the centre right of the Democrats in the next election.

Politics is a filthy game played by equally filthy people, I just wish more GOOD folk like yourself would see it. I see a definite "anti- politics" change happening here in the UK, the excesses of the last decade are being recognised the public are at last becoming politically aware and many are very angry indeed at the way in which they have been manipulated....at last they seem to realise that changing the name on the packet does not affect the taste of the contents.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 09:08 AM

Obama to the usual washrag, crybaby GfinSs and his right wing, Obama hating MudKK buddies, "Check mate"...

No new war, no wasted $2-3T, no boots on the ground, no missile attack, control of Assad's chemical weapons...

Nice work, Obama... That's why they are into their hissy fit mode...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 07:10 AM

Well, of course they would have to say that....duh, otherwise they would be admitting culpability. Is there any evidence for it though - that is the question.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:48 AM

On the subject of the chemical "attack", it is interesting to note that the Assad Regime has intimated that some of their chemical weapons capabilities lie in "rebel controlled areas".
This would suggest that the case being made by the West, that the regime were the only ones in possession of such weapons, is either mistaken or false.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 03:18 AM

Suzy Sock Puppet: "GfS, I can't remember which thread I made some comment about both if us burning in hell. Do you remember which one it is?"


Subject: RE: BS: LSD keeps you sane
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:39 AM

I don't know GfS, so far I have failed to recognize you as evil incarnate. That can only mean one thing. I am evil too and just don't realize it yet and one day we will rot in hell together with the rest of Satan's spawn. Cheers.


...and here's to ya'..."Cheers, To a quick plague, and a bloody war!"


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:46 AM

Bobert: "Thems is the facts, people... You may like war instead of diplomacy and maybe some back room hoodwinking by a clever Obama on Putin but I'll take Obama's approach over the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Rice model any day of the week..."

What do you mean that you like Obama's 'approach' better than the 'other list'?? Are you trying to say the 'others' were better liars??. Actually, they all score about the same...you don't see it, because you only want to believe that one of them isn't a lyin' bastard...with a hidden agenda...Then again, if you weren't such a political party driven fanatic, you'd be blind in just one eye!

Obama's 'handling' of this has been a joke! You must be the ONLY person on the planet that sees him as some sort of 'wizard of diplomacy'...rather than 'blithering from duplicity'. Putin is making 'hay' out of this, and making Obama look like a dizzying idiot!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:46 PM

Thank God John McCain doesn't have his finger on the button. Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:29 PM

Bobie, I feel that what Obama likely did is very similar to what Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. Used the back channels. Because his guys in the Pentagon were being very aggressive and really trying to push him into a rash and ill advised war with Russia. It was all resolved behind the scenes and I think that's basically what happened here too.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:37 PM

Maybe it seems so to you McGrath of Harlow but it was not intended as such. Just meant I have no leaning in that area (if it matters to anyone). Thanks for asking, rather than thinking I am suggesting something which I did not.

However, in a related matter I remain uncertain as to where Putin is taking Russia internationally, as I am uncertain as to how China is blending the concepts of capitalism. I couple of weeks ago I feared the emergence of another cold war type of scenario with more than two involved. I am a bit relieved today - but maybe it may only be temporarily postponed?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:14 PM

GfS, I can't remember which thread I made some comment about both if us burning in hell. Do you remember which one it is?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:01 PM

Here's one thing that cannot be disputed... Two weeks ago before Obama attended the summit in Russia and had a private little talk with Putin nothing was happening that could be construed as positive...

No one here knows what Obama told Putin but what ever it was worked... In less than a week Putin and Assad were playing nice...

No shots fired... No boxes filled with dead Americans at Dover Air Force Base...

Obama get's some credit here, Obama haters... No war... No trillion$$$ run thru the shredder... No Americans shot at...

Thems is the facts, people... You may like war instead of diplomacy and maybe some back room hoodwinking by a clever Obama on Putin but I'll take Obama's approach over the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Rice model any day of the week...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:00 PM

That last post, Ed, seems to suggest you see "communist leaning" as still having some kind of relevance to Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 08:22 PM

GFS, thanks for asking.

I don't know who launched the attacks - though I am interested, and have no personal theories nor bias (that I am aware of) that leads me to convincing evidence on any of the possible candidates.

I am interested in other unbiased perspectives that would lead us all to the most likely candidates - as much as we can speculate from our secondhand information sources and our logic.

My initial comments on this (and the related thread) were an attempt to open up reasoned and logical dialogue on the issue, without baggage, as I have no favourites and have no association with the USA, nor Britain (well,outside the fact that I live in the western world, not Russia, nor the middle-east - and I am not a Muslim, nor Jewish, and am not communist leaning).

I am very interested in mudcaters objective and logical views on who could benefit (without the "favourite team" baggage). Unfortunately, many on this and the related thread - including both of us (yes,that includes me), have wasted our resources on approaches that will never lead to much. What a pity.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 06:38 PM

OK...
What is YOUR evidence that Assad launched the attack??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 04:16 PM

Reiterate as much as you want gts, it does not change anything in the what you posted;)

My observation is that I suspect you may be confused with the words and concepts of proof and evidence? Evidence is often provided. Proof is another matter, and sometimes is never found to the level that satisfies some.

There are different standards and personal bias used in determining proof, from evidence provided (which may or may not involve past histories and likely intent and benefit of the parties involved.(Take the example of the OJ trial. Evidence was provided, which was enough for the level of proof required by the jury. But, the level of proof provided in the trial differed in the population - it was either enough evidence or not enough evidence for to be considered proof of his guilt by so many people, I suspect depending on their perspectives and personal bias).

IMO, you have shown your anti-USA administration bias in posts and in other threads. So, I suspect the level of evidence you would reflect this bias and require what would seem quite high to me, and possibly some others. Even if evidence were provided to meet whatever your standard may be,(if you even know this standard) I suspect you would busy yourself finding one or more "conspiracy theories" in one or more on-line media or opinion report to rule it out anyway,then lift the standard to and prove you right. IMO, being right, versus finding the most likely scenario, seems to be one fuel that stimulates your fire.

So, given this observation, please explain the point in participating in any logical discussion with you on what may or may not be evidence contributing to group speculation on the most likely candidates in launching the chemical weapons (from the likely lot) with you?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:38 PM

Ed T: "I note you do use the word "any" quite loosely. An odd approach for a person who accuses others of "jumping the gun" and advancing conspiracies. It is totally unreasonable to submit that some folks "in high office" have presented such proof to those in positions of trust in their governments, but not made it public - or to you directly and the public just haven"t seen it? Do you actually believe what you read in the media is thee full, unbiased information on reality?"

I reiterate: "NOBODY has come up with ANY proof that Syria is the one who used them".

McGrath of Harlow: "If conspiracies didn't happen there'd never be any bank raids - just for a start. Wouldn't be any banks either I feel tempted to say. "Commercial confidentiality" is the polite term used."

Ahh!...McGrath has hit on it, but not quite far enough...but he does make the most sense, and closer to the pulse than the rest...and lays the premise!!
This stuff in the Mid East, is not as much about 'boundaries', and 'countries', (as we know it, and led to believe), as it is about the monetary systems, who controls them, and their interests....and when the MAJOR bankers are fighting for control, nations are merely their pawns...including ours and yours! The control (or disposal of it)of the Mid East oil would definitely give 'certain' banksters leverage and advantage. If the major oil companies, in league with those same banksters, could disrupt the Mid East, while an alternative suppliers is waiting peacefully or more stably, ready to go....that would certainly be an incentive.
Now Anyone who doesn't think those same banksters don't have the resources to 'hire' anyone, countries, agencies, or mercenary groups to pull this off, is a tad bit on the naive side of reality..don't you think? This may be bigger than a lot of you have thought through..after all, we were actually hearing sabre rattling to the tune of WWIII.....and planners of that could easily anticipate WHO would emerge, ready to implement whatever financial system they want...and what form it should be, and who is on top.
I believe they are working for that goal......and so are the other ones, who are at war with each other.
Now, does that sound like a 'conspiracy theory'....or just a logical account of where we are now?? There is far more proof of that, than there is of Assad launching the attack.

OK, you can take your naps, again......McGrath, you scored big on that one!!.....and I've been sitting on posting what I've just posted for MONTHS now....since the 'Keystone Pipeline' thread, where I first made mention of it......and when push comes to shove Obama, if he's still in power, and the timing is right, WILL   sign off on it!!

Cheers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 01:30 PM

If conspiracies didn't happen there'd never be any bank raids - just for a start. Wouldn't be any banks either I feel tempted to say. "Commercial confidentiality" is the polite term used.

Gadaffi's Libya was every bit as much a "client state" of Western countries as of Russia. Though the terms not really too accurate - your client state would do what you wanted. If anything the relationship was the other way round, with other countries treating Gaddafi in a way designed to help them get cooperation on oil supplies.

I've still got a feeling that the only plausible explanation for the gas attack could have been people within the Assad regime aiming to get rid of Assad and getting control of a post civil war regime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 12:07 PM

So now there is an "agreement" between the US and Russia on removing and destroying Assad's chemical weapons. Sure there is.

Let's see how this so-called agreement is enforced.   Proof of the pudding...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 12:00 PM

""NOBODY has come up with ANY proof that Syria is the one who used them"".


Is that a fact, gfs - I note you do use the word "any" quite loosely. An odd approach for a person who accuses others of "jumping the gun" and advancing conspiracies. It is totally unreasonable to submit that some folks "in high office" have presented such proof to those in positions of trust in their governments, but not made it public - or to you directly and the public just haven"t seen it? Do you actually believe what you read in the media is thee full, unbiased information on reality?

In the world of high tech surveillance, very little escapes those with the technology and people in the right places to report back. Do you actually think that everything the Russians, the Iranians, the Syrians, the USA'ers, Israel has learned through various forms of espionage is actualy put in the public domain, to compromise such operation?

You seem to state out of one side of your posts that "we don't know, yet you tip the scales on the other side to say that Assad did not do it. Where is the proof that this is based on?


I suspect there are plenty of reasons to distrust what is put forward by those on all sides, and likely reasons that may seem quite strategic to them (at the time of the incident) to take such actions. Have you been personally briefed by all the parties involved on this, gfs?

A good question is who benefits the most out of what is occurring now, as it has evolved?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:35 AM

You are the one who is labeling people as 'conspiracy theorists'...are you trying to start your own conspiracy???...
..FACT IS, with all this blathering about chemical warfare, and we know that Syria(among others) have them, NOBODY has come up with ANY proof that Syria is the one who used them.

Maybe someone should look into the '(among others)'. Who has the most to gain???....Let me see....umm......Russia, for wanting more influence in the Middle East?...Hmmm..How about the U.S. for needing an excuse to tap into the largest oil reserves in the world, right here??...The rebels for...ummmm........ummmm.....needing more 'bad press'? Assad, because he already had them on the run??....Yeah That's IT !!!..They weren't running fast enough!
Follow the money, and you'll get to the motive!
(But then, money is not the end goal, just a tool to gain power).
I'll leave the rest to the 'conspiracy theorists'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:31 AM

"already recognize"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:29 AM

No problem Ed, if it had been any of the usual suspects I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.
Just seemed a bit out of character for you....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:25 AM

I don't believe this has yet been pointed out;   people seem far too interested in grinding their own axes, especially hypocritically asserting that the US has a duty to bomb Syria, or on the other side the knee-jerk anti-military reaction-- or senseless attempt to blame Israel for everything-- that we've come to know and love on Mudcat.

But I heard another story --on the BBC world service, I think--which supports my theory that Syria is the anti-Libya.    And for an obvious reason:    Putin in particular, as a big Who fan (not the Doctor), feels he was burned severely by the outcome of the Libyan crisis and is determined to not let that happen again.    Neither Russia nor China tried hard to prevent the international attack on Russia's client state, Libya under Gaddafi.   Now we have another Russian client state, Syria under Assad.    This time Russia will do all it can to prevent an attack, especially a multi-nation attack.   So far Putin's plan is a smash hit--and he even gets to play the voice of reason, while portraying Obama as the classic warmonger.

Now all he has to do is make sure the negotiations now starting go nowhere. Piece of cake.    And of course when the negotiations do collapse there is no way Obama will ever be able to convince the US public to support an attack on Syria by US missiles or something similar.

And there is even potentially something for Obama in this--which we see already;   he is claiming that without US pressure the negotiations to put Assad's chemical weapons under international control would never have started. Never mind that all sides aleady recognize these negotiations have virtually no chance to succeed.

At least Obama gets a chance to back off from his stupid and hugely unpopular plan to attack Syria, and instead concentrate on other issues---everything else. If Obama has as much sense as I think he has, he will start to push immigration reform hard--this is a a win-win for him (and for the US) and a lose-lose for the GOP.

Ironically enough, Putin has not only helped himself but pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So everybody wins--except of course the victims of Assad's chemical attacks.   Will there be more chemical attacks in the future?    Who knows?   But my guess is that is up to Putin;   when he says jump, the only question for Assad will be how high.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:11 AM

Last Guest was me, of course- minus cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:56 AM

McGrath of Harlow, Yes, I suspect folks many folks do have conspiracies on their mind, now and then. Most folks keep them to themselves, to avoid being viewd as "lacking in logic". But, posting odd conspiracies broadly, and attaching odd linkages (linking fact with fiction), to me, puts you in a different catagory.

akenaton, Yeah, I guess you are right on that one, maybe I got carried away in a quick response. (many, even thoase considered "reasonable posters", have been caught up in the "heat of the moment" in the past, in varying degree of course). What seemed me me like merely back and forth "toying" with "an annoying gent" could seem like "that" to those not tied into the two-way conversation. In the future, I will keep a more careful eye to it and heed your advice - thanks for that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:37 AM

Everybody is "a conspiracy guy", because conspiracies exist. It's just that some alleged conspiracies don't. There are plenty that do, in both private and public life..

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 08:49 AM

Get a grip Ed....didn't have you down for name caller.
Thought we had got rid of that nonsense on the "respectful boundaries" thread.
Just read and give your own views, they will be heard "respectfully"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 07:02 AM

Nice to see you self identify as a conspiracy guy guest without much sanity , as you confessed that you were out in the woods with the lunatic fringe- even though it is clearly evident from your frequent "lunatic " posts.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 04:01 AM

Very good point Little Hawk, I have no doubt that the time scale required will soon be used as "an excuse for non compliance"

Remember Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 02:07 AM

Naw..You were just speaking your mind!

GfS