Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

[deanolfc]

Is this acting also going on in SYRIA!

 

[Tombo]

http://izvestia.ru/news/556048

Apparently an interview with Assad by a Russian news organisation I guess.

 

[opstrat]

So the UN convoy was shot by snipers today on the way to the site.

the news does not say who it was nor can you believe who says what in Syria at the moment.

Now, if government invites UN to investigate why shoot at them? to stop them finding the truth? them why invite them there in the first place?

If the rebels shot at them then why? was it merely a trigger happy group of people?

 

[ubersonic]

I rather suspect that as Foreign Secretary of a major country Hague has a little more information to his hands than we do, even if we do have the all knowing foreign policy and intelligence expert arknor in our midst. That said from an uneducated position I find Hagues rhetoric concerning.

To be fair he doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation does he, he's basically know as the guy who will say anything to further his cause and when the facts come in forget he said anything if it turns out wrong. He's like a walking advert for a person who gets all their info from Wikipedia

He was blaming Assad and crying for intervention as soon as the news broke that the may have been a chemical attack, before it had even been established if the had been one and who did it.

Remember Libya when he announced how one of Gaddafi's planes that had been threatening rebels had been shot down in the no fly zone (then never mentioned it again when it came out it was a rebel plane) or how he applauded the USAF's destruction of a tank squadron (then fell silent when it turned out to be rebel tanks).

 

[Glaucus]

Now, if government invites UN to investigate why shoot at them? to stop them finding the truth? them why invite them there in the first place?

If the rebels shot at them then why? was it merely a trigger happy group of people?

If it was give end prevent them from finding the truth, but can also say we let you in and thus strengthen there position.

If it was rebels then shoot them to stop them finding the truth.
Pretty obvious reasons, why who ever it was for them to stop the investigation.

 

[kibblerok]

We should back off and keep the **** away, its not our place to get involved directly, its nothing to do with us and we're not that good at it. Lets not screw up another country by interfering.

In addition, like others on here I'm highly skeptical on the reasons our Goverment feel it necessary to poke their nose in, it all seems to be falling into place far to conveniently, with little solid evidence to back it up. You start supplying arms and weapons to 'rebels', and you'll find bad things happen.

The US have been unsettling that area of the world for decades, its high time they did one and stopped interfering, the era of American imperialism needs to end. Given the news a few months ago about a US sanctioned attack similar to what we've seen, and recent news of previous similar activity in that area with Sadaam Hussein and Iran, this has all the hallmarks of yet another US set up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/us-saddam-hussein_n_3815109.html

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Hague has been trying to get NATO involved in Syria for years, I don't know the grand plan but they want Assad out and the muz brotherhood in.

1. Why would Syria's Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day they arrive, just miles from where they are staying?

2. If Assad were going to use chemical weapons, wouldn't he use them against the hired mercenary army trying to oust him? What does he gain attacking women and children? Nothing! The gain is all on the side of the US Government desperate to get the war agenda going again.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I agree with both of those which is what makes it so bizarre. Whatever you think of the motives of the West in this I somewhat doubt they are stupid, surely they must know something we don't to have come to such a different conclusion.

 

[arknor]

So the UN convoy was shot by snipers today on the way to the site.

the news does not say who it was nor can you believe who says what in Syria at the moment.

Now, if government invites UN to investigate why shoot at them? to stop them finding the truth? them why invite them there in the first place?

If the rebels shot at them then why? was it merely a trigger happy group of people?

A portion of the rebels are known terrorist's with links to Al-Qaeda

if anyone shot at the inspectors it was likely them.

the rebels are fighting each other as well as assad but the western media doesn't like to talk about it much.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Strange, there seem to be plenty of articles in the 'Western Media' about divisions within the rebels. It's common knowledge?

 

[The Running Man]

It's being down played though.

 

[arknor]

Strange, there seem to be plenty of articles in the 'Western Media' about divisions within the rebels. It's common knowledge?

I meant any time there are talks of chemical weapon attacks it's always assad the media seems to implicate without mentioning anything about the terrorist groups that are fighting against both sides.

same as with the sniper shootings there is no mention of the terrorists possibly being involved as far as I can see.

it seems everyone is supposed to be lead to assume it was assad

The bbc seemed to have a lot of articles about them such as this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033
but more recently since the uk and usa have been talking of "action" the western media seems to be making out like they don't exist

a lot of people come into this thread and what they post suggests they aren't aware of them either which seems to be the aim of the western media right now.

mabe because public opinion wouldn't be so good if it looked like we were helping islamist fanatics that have labeled the UK and USA as enemies of islam

 

[[TW]Fox]

I have read numerous mainstream articles which make it quite clear there are two points of view. Have you not?

 

[arknor]

Not recently no.
such as this Q&A on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23788674

Who would be capable of such an attack?

The Syrian government has admitted that it has stocks of chemical weapons, but says they would never be used "inside Syria".

Syrian Information Minister Imran al-Zu'bi said attacks such as those reported on Wednesday would also not be possible because of the presence of the government's own forces in the area allegedly affected.

Meanwhile Russia has said that there is evidence that the attack was the work of the opposition. But the US and the UK say they do not believe the rebels have access to chemical weapons.

maybe the problem is the media are acting like there are only two point's of view when there are 3

the rebels
syrian army
al-Nusra Front


At least there is some truth to this

US and the UK say they do not believe the rebels have access to chemical weapons.

but they could mention al-Nusra Front likely do and the syrian army has uncovered multiple chemical weapon factories in basement's etc dating back months

but why no mention of al-Nusra Front in any articles relating to chemical weapons or the sniper attack on the UN? seems it's being left out that it could possibly be them on purpose

 

[B&W]

A syrian priest recently said that outside powers are not helping Syria but actually making things worser by actively supporting either the regime or the rebels instead of trying to broker a peace.

On one side you have the west/turkey/saudi supporting the sunni rebels and the other russia/iran/hezzbollah supporting the shia regime. All shaping up to be a grand clusterf***.

Whilst muslims kill muslims, Israel is standing there and laughing as all its enemies gradually weaken themselves..

 

[do_ron_ron]

A syrian priest recently said that outside powers are not helping Syria but actually making things worser by actively supporting either the regime or the rebels instead of trying to broker a peace.

On one side you have the west/turkey/saudi supporting the sunni rebels and the other russia/iran/hezzbollah supporting the shia regime. All shaping up to be a grand clusterf***.

Whilst muslims kill muslims, Israel is standing there and laughing as all its enemies gradually weaken themselves..

I asked myself 'Cui bono' as was once asked in Roman times. Who benefits from Muslim fighting Muslim? And who would help this division?

 

[Danthus]

Chemical weapons are bad, unless of course they are being used against your enemy.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...rica_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,0

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why stop there? Why not go back 200 years and say civil war is ok because the Americans did it?

This whole thing is a huge mess and none of us will ever be in command of enough of the actual facts to make a proper educated judgement on who is to blame. The conspiracy nuts are as bad as the warmongers, just on the other side of the fence. The only thing we can probably agree on is that its a mess we should be very keen not to get involved in.

 

[ubersonic]

But the US and the UK say they do not believe the rebels have access to chemical weapons.

So I guess when it made the news that the loyalists captured a rebel base complete with chemical weapons lab and chemicals which visably still had the shipping details from Saudi Arabia on them, that wasn't enough to arouse western suspicion?

 

[Tom_ed1987]

Russian foreign minister talking sense

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rns-West-over-illegal-Syria-intervention.html