Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
Dunno who he was, but just now there was a Russian bloke being interviewed on C4 news claiming it was the rebels who used Sarin and not the Syrian regime. Under some fairly benign questioning he was forced to admit that he had no proof at all for his claims, and only thinks the way he does because President Assad is a sound, logical bloke. Guess he's used to Russia Today journalists and wasn't prepared for an interview from a proper journalist. No doubt the conspiracists won't care though as the interview won't be on youtube.
 
steve55 said:
yahoo-news-syria-chemical-attack.png


usa-false-flag-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh you crazy conspiracy theorist. The US government have helped the rebels use chemical weapons. No you are wrong it's Assad using the chemical weapons.

By the way I am joking. I believe the UK and USA will have been helping the rebels. Russia gave forensic proof the rebels have been using chemical weapons. Our press seems to forget to report about that.
 
Last edited:
Daily Record said:
Chemicals Tale Sparks Outcry

02/09/2013

...The Sunday Mail story told how chemicals used in the production of nerve gas sarin are widely available in the UK. The licenses to send the powders to Syria were granted by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, currently led by MP Vince Cable, on January 17 and 18 2012 as, at the time, there were "no grounds for refusal"....
Click to expand...
 
A2Z said:
I hope they attack Syria, regardless of who did this last attack, from reading around seems there have been quite a few uses of chemical weapons in the region in the past. I would hope they also add a few other Arab countries to the list..can't see what good they add to the world all they seem to add is trouble!
Click to expand...

Trouble we gladly engage in, every...chance...we...get.
 
As this Independent-Robert Fisk Article points out Iran is the real target.

With the rebels winning, the US sat back even though 10's of thousands have died under conventional weapons. There has even been previous chemical attacks, still no US action save bleating in the impotent UN.

Recently though, Assad/Iran has been making gains. The US wont let Iran succeed, so used the excuse of the latest chemical attacks to intervene.

Also, as we all know Saddam killed thousands of Kurds with nerve agents. Why no military strike then?
Maybe it was because Saddam was an ally then and fighting Iran for the West?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html
 
scorza said:
Dunno who he was, but just now there was a Russian bloke being interviewed on C4 news claiming it was the rebels who used Sarin and not the Syrian regime. Under some fairly benign questioning he was forced to admit that he had no proof at all for his claims, and only thinks the way he does because President Assad is a sound, logical bloke. Guess he's used to Russia Today journalists and wasn't prepared for an interview from a proper journalist. No doubt the conspiracists won't care though as the interview won't be on youtube.
Click to expand...

And people like you will ignore the fact the United Nations has said the rebels have used chemical weapons and ignore the fact many different press have reported things like "US backed plan to launch chemical weapons attack and blame it on Syria and blame it on assad Government".

A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.

Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-8604920.html



yahoo-news-syria-chemical-attack.png


usa-false-flag-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd not seen that article in the Independent before. Is this just about to backfire spectacularly on plans to strike Assad?

Nate
 
Last edited:
magick said:
There is no "verifiable, significant and new evidence", just turds like Kerry spouting lies and thinking people will fall for another dodgy dossier.
Click to expand...

This. They attacked Iran on dodgy information of weapons of mass destruction. It has since been proven Saddam had no WMD. It has been alleged both Bush and Blair knew Saddam had no WMD. 1 - 2 million ordinary Iraqi people like you and me have been killed and are still being killed. Many UK and US soldiers have died. Bush thinks the fact there was no WMD is one big joke. Look at him and his cronies laughing and joking about it in this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI8gI8-QNck and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ

They attacked Libya on dogy information. It has been proven Obama misled the USA over Libya and broke constitutional law to attack Libya as he never put it to congress or to the American people.

Now they seem hell bent on saying (lying) that it's Assad using the chemical weapons not the rebels and Kerry said if congress votes no to attacking Syria Obama may do it anyway. Again breaking constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
Robbo said:
America aren't even planning the deployment of ground troops, so it's not really that big of a deal (in the sense of putting people in harms way).
Click to expand...

How do you know that? Just because they have not (yet) said openly that they will deploy ground troops does not mean they don't plan on doing it. They probably do not want to give Assad advanced warning.
 
Last edited:
majestyk said:
As this Independent-Robert Fisk Article points out Iran is the real target.

With the rebels winning, the US sat back even though 10's of thousands have died under conventional weapons. There has even been previous chemical attacks, still no US action save bleating in the impotent UN.

Recently though, Assad/Iran has been making gains. The US wont let Iran succeed, so used the excuse of the latest chemical attacks to intervene.

Also, as we all know Saddam killed thousands of Kurds with nerve agents. Why no military strike then?
Maybe it was because Saddam was an ally then and fighting Iran for the West?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html
Click to expand...


This. Both the UK and USA didn't care when the rebels seemed to be winning. Now the rebels are starting to lose they suddenly care.

The lied over Iraq, they lied over Libya and now it appears they may be lying over Syria.

When they finally get around to attacking Iran get worried. Iran will fight back and fight back hard. You will not watching that war from the safety of your living room chair.
 
Last edited:
From steve55 on another thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I

France's Former Foreign Minister: UK Government Prepared War in Syria Two Years Before 2011 Protests

France's Former Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, has stated in a televised program on LCP that UK government officials had told him about preparations for war in Syria two years prior to the start of the 2011 protests and conflict. The reason given for this war is the Syrian government's anti-Israel stance that made Syria a target for Western-backed regime change.
 
Nate--IRL-- said:
I'd not seen that article in the Independent before. Is this just about to backfire spectacularly on plans to strike Assad?

Nate
Click to expand...

nope

the articles are false - the e-mails cited didn't actually occur, the guy posting them is a bit delusional/into his conspiracy theories....

edit - the other articles that is... not seen the indy story either tbh...
 
Last edited:
Unaware of the Halabja poison gas attack until now, my faith is America's stance about the recent sarin attack is further diminished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom