Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

[Amnesia]

Does anybody else find it comical that the US/UK/France wen't to such lengths to oust Saddam and get what was supposed to be out puppets running Iraq, but now their giving oil contracts to China, buying Russian military hardware and politically backing Assad? lol.

But what currency is iraq now selling its oil in ?

 

[B&W]

Obama is a jewish puppet.

If there is such proof is was Assad show it to the world, and prove Assad ordered it and he is not some weak puppet being over ruled by a strong alawite army.This is purely Iraq all over again a minority versus a majority and if america have interests in that region history shows both they and the british will do whatever it takes to gain favour with the majority.The minority will be subject of course to culling and genocide.


The alawites just like in iraq are the minority ruling the majority.All alawite jobs are mostly military directly in indirectly realted (military food or clothes) and the alawites form the bulk of it.They will die before they give in, they know they will die anyways if they lose so either way is death only victory will siffuce for the alawites.So yes they could have used chemical attacks fearing rape of the woman and children.


I mean just look at the animals barking at thier doors? The guy who wanted to eat out thier hearts and liver's,public executions of young men and islamic terrorists among thier ranks.Personally the USA should step in and enforce peace and democratic elections.Either they safeguard the alawites loss of power and protect them or they throw bashar to the wolves and back the islamists.


And it seems like they are going to back the islamists too.To me it is the assad supporters who like like sane educated syrians not that non educated animal who was eating livers and hearts on video.Why would the upper class and educated part of syrian society be dumb enough to use chemical weapons and why did it take so long? Personally this is a cover up no sane person would use a chemical weapon when the world is baiting for your blood.Somehow somewhere the islamists managed to get sarin gas.

Saddam was sunni not alawite. The guy who cut out the soldiers heart claimed he saw a video on the soldiers phone of him stripping, abusing and murdering a mother and daughter.

Doesnt mean what he did was right, but its not black and white like people are portraying it here. "All rebels are terror scum" or "assad is hitler".

It's all ****** up shades of grey with the innocents in between, from the start it was our job to broker a peace not arm one side over the other and help start a civil war.

If Israel wasn't there I dont think the americans would be that interested ive got this horrible feeling that the middle east map is being shaped to there desires.

There is no moral argument (rwanda, sudan, burma etc) and no economic either (america is doing pretty good with shale gas).

Or could be to get one over on russia and iran. Whatever it is, I hope it ends soon.

 

[Freakbro]

But I remember as a kid in this country having to practice for nuclear war and watching the cartoon with the two old dears. Media drove that fear.

When the Wind Blows...I remember watching that too

The pertinent part...

 

[Domo]

Remember 'Threads'? It was a film for TV about a nuclear attack on Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads

 

[Muzy]

I came across this article which sums up some of the facts pretty nicely.

That title is not a prophesy. It is a realistic interpretation of several facts surrounding recent events.

There's a line from a A Few Good Men: "Truth? You can't handle the truth!" I don't know how many will be able to handle the truth in this instance, but a recent realization has led me to believe that maybe, just maybe, it's time to again try and tell the tale I have so far only alluded to in various posts. Maybe someone somewhere somehow will read this and it will make a difference.

I apologize for the length, but so many things tie into this one story that it will take a few posts to explain even a condensed version.

The story has many facets, but I will start with the reality of why we are talking about going to war with Syria and let things tie in as they come up. It all starts with Iran and Saudi Arabia, way back in 1901 when a wealthy Englishman, William Knox D'Arcy, approached Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qatar, the ruler of Iran, about an oil concession. The oil industry worldwide was booming and growing, and local reserves, especially in England, were insufficient for the demand. Shah Qatar agreed, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was founded with vast oil reserves found under the sand. This started a boom in the Middle East with other countries searching for oil under various countries with various concessions... at least outside the United States, who was behind the curve in exploration of International oil.

When the Standard Oil of California (SOCAL) finally decided that perhaps foreign oil reserves would be a profitable venture, there were precious few countries left to explore. Europe and India had closed all concessions except for one: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not have the geological signatures that at the time were thought to coincide with oil deposits, and as a result the Saudis watched as their neighbors became filthy rich while they were left destitute. So they were happy to grant a concession when SOCAL approached them in 1933. SOCAL struck oil, which would turn out to be the largest reserves in the area, in 1938, making the Saudis wealthy. Since that day, the Saudis have been friendly to US interests.

In Iran, there were problems brewing almost since the concession was signed. Iran's Constitutional Revolution started in 1905 and lasted for two years before giving way to various attempts by deposed Shahs to reclaim the throne from the ruling body, the Majiles. The Majiles were a democratically elected parliament that has for a short time served as a type of co-ruler beside the Shahs of the Qatar Dynasty, but the Majiles were unhappy about the concessions signed to the oil companies. The feeling was that too much control had been given to outside interests over what was an Iranian asset. Finally, after a series of internal events too numerous to list outside of a large book, the Majiles accepted Reza Shah as ruler in 1921.

What most people don't realize is that Reza Shah had help obtaining his position. American business men had begun investing in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company during this time, and both American and British interests assisted the new regime. Reza Shah was sympathetic to Western interests and would put to an end the turmoil that had threatened the concession rights to Iranian oil. The main accomplishment so far as the oil interests were concerned, was that he managed to decrease the authority of the Majiles. He turned out to be a fairly decent ruler, however, and in general had the support of his people. Reza Shah was responsible for the vast majority of the Westernization of Iran, even changing the name from Persia to Iran. In 1941, British troops forced his abdication to his son, Mohammed Reza Shah.

Mohammed Reza Shah was another story altogether. The Iranian people hated him; Mohammed Reza turned out to be a poor ruler who ignored the needs of his people and who ruled with an iron hand and according to his mood. In 1975, that mood saw proper to establish a single-party government and to declare any citizens who disagreed with the Monarchy as illegal activists. He did retain one characteristic of his father: he was happy to accommodate Western interests. He also was forced to abdicate his throne, but this time it was by the reformed Majiles who seized power in a violent revolution. In 1979, several Iranians seized the United States Embassy and held its occupants hostage until January 20, 1981, demanding the return of Mohammed Reza Shah to Iran for justice. The Shah was never returned, and that incident has left a deep scar in the psyche of Iranians who now see the United States as the major cause fo the tumultuous history they endured.

Why is this history lesson important? Because Iran is important. Mohammed Reza Shah was the leader of OPEC during its early years, and as he was friendly to US interests, he and Saudi Arabia conspired together with those interests to establish an oil distribution system that tied the value of Middle Eastern oil to the United States dollar. No country could purchase oil unless they had dollars; rubles, yen, lira, or pounds were not accepted. Monies had to first be converted to dollars. This was a boon to the US banking industry, and especially to the newly-created Federal Reserve. Instead of having to have gold and silver on hand to meet demands for redemption of gold and silver certificates, the dollars could be backed by the absolute need for oil shared by every developed and developing country across the globe.

In 1934, the United States, in response to the Great Depression, nationalized gold. This act effectively suspended the conversion of dollars for gold, since any citizen demanding conversion was assured of then having his money confiscated. While this did not last forever, it was an interesting experiment in that it proved that obvious monetary backing is less important for those using the currency than faith in the currency itself. When OPEC formed in 1960 and began the dollar-oil peg, movements began to completely remove the gold standard, movements which reached fruition in 1976. The dollar was now assumed to be fiat, although in actuality its strength was backed by the dollar-oil peg.

The foundation for this movement was laid shortly after WWII at the Bretton Woods Meeting. The United States, playing on its status after the devastation of the war left other countries in tatters, came out with the dollar as the International Reserve Currency, which made the dollar-oil peg easier to accomplish later on.

Everything went fine with this plan, especially with Saudi Arabia maintaining a leadership role in OPEC, until the dollar started showing some signs of instability. Under International Reserve Currency status, the dollar has value by definition to any developed or developing nation. That's how the United States has managed to get away with fiscal policy that would flatten any company if a similar measure of "borrow-spend-print more-pay back maybe someday" were used. That is why the US debty is hovering around $16 trillion with no end in sight. To Americans, this has become just the way things are: the United States can print whatever it needs and everything will be OK. But to the rest of the world, this extravagance began to be troubling... especially to the Middle East, with their most precious resource tied so closely to that stumbling dollar.

We now return to our history lesson... shortly after the Iranian Hostage Crisis, war broke out between Iran and Iraq, an essentially religious war between the Shia Muslims of Iran and the Sunni Muslims of Iraq. Concerned about Iran gaining too much power without the strong hand of an American-led Shah to guide them, the US turned to the enemy of Iran, a man named Saddam Hussein, who was also friendly to the West, having been assisted into power by Western operatives. As the enemy of our enemy, Saddam was aided in the war by Jimmy Carter's administration. After the war, however, an argument broke out between Saddam and the tiny port country of Kuwait. Iraq had protected Kuwait throughout the war, and asked that, in lieu of reparations for their protection and to aid Iraq in rebuilding a devastated country, Kuwait forgive a $30 million loan to Iraq. Kuwait refused, and also refused to cooperate with Saddam in other efforts to raise capital to rebuild Iraq. Finally, Saddam learned that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields and approached the US with his grievances. The US refused to help, and Saddam took the only measure he could reasonably take: invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

This action had much more interest in the United States than his arguments had. Under George Bush Sr., the US went to war with Iraq. In the middle of the war effort, the United States stopped actions against Iraq, immediately after forcing them to withdraw from Kuwait. The American people were perplexed, but if they had realized that this was not a war but rather a "spanking" to an ally who was simply misbehaving, they would not have been so.

The aftermath of the war included severe economic sanctions on Hussein, which further exasperated his efforts to rebuild Iraq. Finally, after the UN implemented the Oil-For-Food program in 1996 in response to humanitarian concerns, Saddam found a way to get his oil sold for profit, with the assistance of an oil-hungry Russia. But this meant that in order to circumvent the oil embargo, Hussein had sold his oil for rubles... not dollars.

This revelation was coming to light in intelligence circles prior to the events of September 11, 2001, and the attack on the Twin Towers was just what was needed to get the American people behind a full military overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Suddenly pulling back after forcing a retreat was not enough; Iraq was invaded and Hussein's regime was overthrown, leading to George Bush Jr.'s infamous early declaration of victory. Bearing in mind the purpose behind the war, Saddam Hussein's complete overthrow, his declaration was actually quite well-timed. Unfortunately, the remnants of his regime were not so easy to eliminate, and continuous fighting kept us active in the region until it was finally realized that there was an even greater need to be in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had started a trend, and with the dollar's strength in question, other countries decided to depeg their oil from the dollar as well. Starting in Egypt, the Arab Springs saw several countries overthrown and new pundits placed into power amid rumors that each was influenced by American black ops. When one looks at the revolutions compared to each countries fiscal policies regarding the dollar-oil peg, it becomes clear these are more than just rumors; each revolution occurred soon after an intent was shown to depeg from the dollar.

This correlation has one major exception: Iran. Iran depegged from the dollar officially in 2007 and in 2008 unveiled the Iranian Oil Bourse, a commodity trading exchange based in Iran and open to all currencies. The only reason this was allowed was because the United States was unable to stop it; Iran's intense hatred of the West makes covert operations inside Iran notoriously difficult, if not nigh impossible. As a result, the United States has had to take other steps to protect its economic interests. Enter the Iranian nuclear weapons program. To date, no uranium enrichment has been found that tested for over the 20% enrichment limit for LEU fuel, save a tiny amount so small it was reported by the UN inspectors not as an amount, but as a "trace." Considering that Iranian centrifuges have been tampered with by Western interests via the infamous Stuxnet virus, some amount of anomalies is not surprising. Stuxnet operated by reprogramming the PLCC interfaces between the Iranian nuclear research network and the centrifuges used to enrich the uranium. BY making minor adjustments rapidly while the centrifuges were turning, the virus caused them to literally shake themselves apart. The virus could have very easily caused the centrifuges to increase their spin speed, causing anomalies in the resulting uranium enrichment.

It was never officially proven who created and released Stuxnet, but the code bears strong resemblance to US and Israeli code used elsewhere in the defense departments.

Yet, this trace amount combined with a few national security delays when inspectors showed up unexpectedly, have been used to stir up a firestorm of sentiment against Iran. Everything is now set to not just invade Iran, but to remove Iran from existence. All that is needed is for one country to decide that it has no choice but to respond to these "obvious" threats than to take immediate proactive measures and launch a pre-emptive strike. I am talking about Israel. Israel has some legitimate concerns: their small size means a single nuke would wipe them out of existence, and since Israel is a strong ally of the US, Iran has indeed made as many strong comments against them as they have toward us. Should the US strike against a sovereign country without direct provocation or obvious cause, it would be seen as ghastly an act as Hitler's actions at the beginning of WWII. But Israel, with its concerns, might be able to pull it off, especially with a little covert help from the US.

One problem still exists, and this of course is where we started: Syria. As Iran's major ally in the area, Syria under Assad is a loose cannon waiting to go off should Israel strike against Iran. Syria must therefore be subjugated just like the other countries in the Arab Spring. But Syria has not given in to revolution quite as readily as did Egypt or Libya. Doubtless with aid from Iran, who obviously can see what's going on, Syria has stood... and stood... and stood... until now we must get involved personally to correct his heinous abuse of chemical weaponry.

It's not about religion... it's not about oil... it's not about Israel... it's all about the dollar and its relation to global oil supplies. Should we lose the International Reserve Currency status, our economy will collapse into something unrecognizable overnight. The dollar will become so worthless it would take a wheelbarrow to carry enough money to buy a week's worth of food. The stock market will crash to an extent that it will not recover from. The Great Depression will look like a hiccup in a ticker tape by comparison... and the politicians, power brokers, and bankers know it. It will not just affect the middle class and below; this one will take everyone invested in the dollar out.

The real problem now, and the reason I have decided to put this out there for all the ridicule and disbelief that will inevitably be the result, is that the American people aren't buying it this time. The public and even the Congressional sentiment is against direct intervention in Syria, despite the chemical weapons card being played to great advantage. It's almost as bad as in the days prior to our involvement in WWII, when FDR wanted badly to bring America into the war and America refused. It took an attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor in 1941 to bring American sentiment around. Memos found after the war indicate that the Japanese were not just deciding to commit suicide on the US for the fun of it; American military actions, intentionally leaked information, and International posturing tricked the Japanese into believing America was about to strike them, and they simply chose to strike first. Those brave soldiers who died that day died for one reason: so we could fight the war.

Today, the President finds himself in a similar position. He has to bring the US military to bear in an unpopular action, directly against the will of the American people and Congress. How to do it? Look at history. We tricked the enemy into attacking us back in 1941, and we will do it again. This time the target will not be military, and the attackers will not appear out of a blue Hawaiian sky. This time the attackers prefer homemade bombs set off in civilian targets to cause the most devastating effect possible.

I believe we will see a terrorist attack on par with 9-11 within the next short time frame. I also pray I am wrong.

*********************
The preceding was a condensed version of a much more detailed explanation. This is necessary due to post size limits and the unfortunate concentration limits of many readers. Many of the details have been omitted or glossed over quickly and many of the events mentioned have only been mentioned in summary fashion. Also, links are not generally included because all of this information is either found elsewhere on ATS or is easy found by doing a simple Google search. All I do is put it together as the pieces fit.
*********************

TheRedneck

Source: ATS.

 

[elmarko]

I came across this article which sums up some of the facts pretty nicely.

Source: ATS.

Assuming all the data is factually accurate it seems the most probable explanation of events.

It has reasonable motivations & matches historical patterns of behaviour.

War has almost always been about the acquisition of land or the resources under it (with money as a by-product) with ethnic & religious glazes to appease the population of the aggressor nations).

I actually also expect a terrorist strike over the next six months, somewhere in the western world to whip up nationalistic fervour & aid the appetite for war.

 

[doodah]

John Kerry really is a piece of work!

US Secretary of State John Kerry has warned that not responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would be riskier than taking action

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad has said if the US does attack militarily, it should "expect every action"

Mr Kerry said that if there was to be no response to the attack, then Damascus would think it could intimidate anybody

The White House has admitted it has no "irrefutable" evidence of Mr Assad's involvement in the August attack, but said a "strong common-sense test irrespective of the intelligence" suggested his government was responsible.

Kerry said the Americans were planning an "unbelievably small" attack on Syria

Kerry said he did not know if Obama would release further intelligence proving the culpability of Assad in the chemical weapons attack, saying the administration had already released an unprecedented amount of information

So bombing a country who is allied to Russia and Iran is less risky? I guess if Assad was stupid enough to bomb his own capital with Sarin he would be stupid enough to do the same to Western interests/assets without provocation? One day it is 'overwhelming' evidence, the next day it is an unprecedented amount, then a series of YouTube videos, and yet not one shred of who did it? The world set the red line? It isn't about regime change, then they hint at giving the Coalition of Terrorists the edge? Finally.....we go from limited strike, to the possibility of extended strikes and boots on the ground, to an "unbelievably small" attack.

Secretary of trolling! Not that it will happen but I really do hope Obama is weakened by a no vote this week!

 

[oulton]

Hahaha! The Obama administration is the most clueless yet!

White House: Evidence against Assad not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but passes ‘common-sense test’

Common Sense test? Are they so stupid as to think we will swallow this crap!

The White House says it has no “irrefutable” evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the August gas attack in a Damascus suburb, but that a “strong common-sense test irrespective of the intelligence” suggests the government is responsible.

"We've seen the video proof of the outcome of those attacks,” White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough told CNN, speaking of multiple clips which show victims of the suspected sarin attack in a Damascus suburb on August 21.

“All of that leads to a quite strong common-sense test irrespective of the intelligence that suggests that the regime carried this out. Now do we have a picture or do we have irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence? This is not a court of law and intelligence does not work that way,” he said.

Two words - NO EVIDENCE!

 

[godinman]

So they're going to attack on the basis of Assad using chemical weapons, and their evidence for this is that a chemical weapon attack was carried out and it was most likely him 'cause he's a baddy and we don't like him'.

Excellent.

 

[V-Spec]

Taken from whitehouse.gov

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Seems like pretty damning evidence if it's true - do we think the US is lying or making this up?

 

[kwerk]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.545661

 

[kwerk]

Skip to 3:00 to see Obama's slip of the tongue which shows what he is really thinking about: Iran's nuclear weapon potential. Syrian chemical weapons would just be a small bonus for Israel, but this Syria thing is really about getting in to Iran and disarming/destabilizing them like all the other threats have been destabilized over the last decade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxyBKKYPT4c

 

[elmarko]

Taken from whitehouse.gov

Seems like pretty damning evidence if it's true - do we think the US is lying or making this up?

Do you think governments are above making things up for political ends?.

That's implied evidence with a possible hint at who was responsible - neither of which are certain & I'd expect much better than that to justify starting a war over.

If we act rashly & side with the rebels we could be assisting the very group responsible for the chemical attacks.

 

[V-Spec]

Do you think governments are above making things up for political ends?.

I don't think they're making it up no, there are too many other countries which have seen the same evidence who seem to be coming to the same conclusion - even if they're not so eager to join in with any action.

That's implied evidence with a possible hint at who was responsible - neither of which are certain & I'd expect much better than that to justify starting a war over.

But nothing can ever be 100% certain, if they have satellite images of such weapons being launched from regime controlled areas (which I'm sure they've been watching for years) weapons which only the regime is known to have and not the rebels, is it not reasonable to conclude that the judgement being made is a sound one?

If we act rashly & side with the rebels we could be assisting the very group responsible for the chemical attacks.

But as far as I can tell, this isn't really to do with the rebels, or who controls what, it's about punishing the regime for breaking an international norm on the use of chemical weapons.

 

[elmarko]

I don't think they're making it up no, there are too many other countries which have seen the same evidence who seem to be coming to the same conclusion - even if they're not so eager to join in with any action.



But nothing can ever be 100% certain, if they have satellite images of such weapons being launched from regime controlled areas (which I'm sure they've been watching for years) weapons which only the regime is known to have and not the rebels, is it not reasonable to conclude that the judgement being made is a sound one?



But as far as I can tell, this isn't really to do with the rebels, or who controls what, it's about punishing the regime for breaking an international norm on the use of chemical weapons.

It's a huge leap in total honesty.

If I was a terrorist in Syria I'd sneak in a small group of men armed with rocket launchers into government controlled area & launch the attack from that location.

In the rebels you have known terrorists groups from different nations (who are already known to be willing to kill large amounts of civilians for political gain) not to mention are not nationals to Syria & I doubt would care much for killing them, it's being reported at support for the "rebels/terrorists" has been waning recently (due to extremists factions taking part & the locals now working with the Syrian government - better devil you know).

If I put myself in the place of a government official I see no strong motivation to launch an obviously traceable chemical attack onto the very city the inspectors are located to find chemical weapons - not to mention as that very action is likely to bring the wraith of the US military.

It's not a clear cut common sense kind of thing from what I've read.

Besides, even if it was the actions of individuals aligned to the government - it may not be authorised by the government (I don't recall anybody wanting to invade the US in response to the actions of the murder of civilians in a number of cases - those are written off as the actions of individual soldiers).

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Assuming all the data is factually accurate it seems the most probable explanation of events.

It has reasonable motivations & matches historical patterns of behaviour.

War has almost always been about the acquisition of land or the resources under it (with money as a by-product) with ethnic & religious glazes to appease the population of the aggressor nations).

I actually also expect a terrorist strike over the next six months, somewhere in the western world to whip up nationalistic fervour & aid the appetite for war.

It would explain why Dave is so keen to cossie up to the US despite a democratic vote and public opinion going against him. My tin foil hat wonders if they have been told 'play ball or it will be in your country'. It also fits with the French immediate surrender to support US policy

 

[V-Spec]

It's a huge leap in total honesty.

If I was a terrorist in Syria I'd sneak in a small group of men armed with rocket launchers into government controlled area & launch the attack from that location.

But the rebels don't possess these weapons, pretty much all the nations who's seen the evidence all agree on this, the satellite footage implies it was the regime (unless the satellite footage is a lie) the rebels simply don't possess the capability.

In the rebels you have known terrorists groups from different nations (who are already known to be willing to kill large amounts of civilians for political gain) not to mention are not nationals to Syria & I doubt would care much for killing them, it's being reported at support for the "rebels/terrorists" has been waning recently (due to extremists factions taking part & the locals now working with the Syrian government - better devil you know).

But there's no evidence that the rebels, or any other factions have this sort of capability, the Assad regime has been known to have stockpiles of chemical weapons for many years.

If I put myself in the place of a government official I see no strong motivation to launch an obviously traceable chemical attack onto the very city the inspectors are located to find chemical weapons - not to mention as that very action is likely to bring the wraith of the US military.

I see it the other way, as a government official under attack in the midst of a civil war - if they use chemical weapons they can potentially turn the tide, Russia will strongly oppose any US intervention whatever the Syrian regime does - The Assad regime could kill 10 million of it's own and Russia would still fiercely oppose any US intervention no matter what Assad does, 100k dead already and Russia still supports the regime. We're seeing this in congress now, with many senators looking unlikely that they'll support the motion - Russian and chinese pressure will surely be a factor here, as far as I'm concerned it's part of the game Assad is playing, and it's working for him so far.

Besides, even if it was the actions of individuals aligned to the government - it may not be authorised by the government (I don't recall anybody wanting to invade the US in response to the actions of the murder of civilians in a number of cases - those are written off as the actions of individual soldiers).

But the US hasn't gassed civilians on purpose, there is always collateral damage in any conflict, the difference in this case is that Assad seems to have launched a chemical weapons strike on civilians.

You could talk about all manner of civilians who've unfortunately been caught up in all the conflicts spanning hundreds of years, but as far as I'm aware the US hasn't deliberately targeted civilians in any recent conflict.

 

[StriderX]

That Article posted above is about as good as it gets to understanding the Middle-east.

To add to it, i should say that if Syria has VX gas, the US might see it as a last ditch effort to bring the world around, thus well...the chances are low that the US would employ such a tactic as extreme as that, but considering Obama is up against a wall and is about to be ruined, anything could happen.

 

[V-Spec]

That Article posted above is about as good as it gets to understanding the Middle-east.

It looks like it's got Alex Jones written all over it.

 

[StriderX]

It looks like it's got Alex Jones written all over it.

What do you expect, for GWBush to confirm it or something?

Sometimes you take that grain of salt and you keep it, just in case.