I agree that seeing images of children gassed in their sleep is sickening however I don't think the Assad regime is behind it. The US has all along been supporting the "freedom fighters" who all along have been made of various Islamist Extemists groups. Then you take the Russian's who have presented the UN with spy satelitte images of the rebels moving the chemical weapons into place. We already know that AQ has had chemical weapons or at least have experimented with them based on videos that were found in Afghanistan years ago with them testing on dogs and camels. Something needs to be done to end this and I agree we cannot turn a blind eye to these atrocities which are in line with as you said the holocaust but the American people really need to ask are we supporting the right people.
We need to figure out who used the WMD's and come down on them like a pile of bricks. If we don't the next attack will be someplace we really can't manage.
I'll bet there is a certain organization that is known as 3 letters that knows exactly who used them. But it really doesn't matter. It has already been "concluded" who used them. Air strikes are imminent. Just like 9/11. There is no investigation or anything else to follow. This was supposed to happen. Russia and China know it,thats why they got up and walked out.
The problem is that might mean supporting Assad which also means working with Iran which obviously would not sit well with our overlords the Saudis and Israel. That is exactly why it's a no win situation. In order to hold those who used them accountable it would mean going back on decades or hardline nonsense.
If AQ or one of their proxies used chemical weapons to draw the US into the conflict we need to know that and we need to flatten that group, even if it ends the conflict. Can't bring the US into the conflict in a way that serves our apparent immediate interests but actually brings about our downfall a bit down the road. People who do not want the US in the conflict: Assad, Iran, Iraq, Russia, China. People who do want the US in the conflict: AQ (Sunni's, another chance to bleed us on the battlefield and bleed the Shiites at the same time), Saudi Arabia (Sunni's, want an Iranian ally crushed), Turkey (want the fighting to stop one way or the other, want all the refugees to go home), Syrian Democrats (in over their head and they know it). People who don't know what they want at this point: Israel, Jordan, Europe. This conflict does have a small but measureable chance of starting WWIII. The small chance is based almost entirely on the bigger powers getting drawn into the conflict by a combination of atrocities that must be answered but that put the bigger powers on a collision course.
Where would the rebels get chemical weapons? From Syrian government stockpiles? Iran and Iraq both want the US to stay out of it. So do Russia and China. So the question is where did the WMD's come from?
who wants the us to get involved? Israel,Saudi,the US. It wouldn't be the 1st time we actually brought the chems into the equation. (Iraq/Iran 80s)
Israel may want the US in the conflict but not to flatten Assad. They'd want the US in to create the ground for a negotiated settlement that kept Sunni fundamentalists from participating in any way in the government of Syria. Israel definitely did not want to see WMD's used in this conflict and certainly not if there was any chance that either the Syrian government or Sunni fundamentalists had used them. When you live in glass houses you don't throw stones and the Israelis have put up with a lot of provocations in the region to avoid throwing stones. As an example when Iranian and Syrian backed terror groups shoot rockets into Israel the Israelis limit their responses to flattening the groups responsible not retaliating directly against Iran and Syria. The two notable exceptions to the don't throw stones policy have both been to lower the potential for WMD's in the regions. The strikes against Iraq and Syria to take out nuclear reactors that were seen as part of WMD programs. The Israelis could probably live, albeit warily, with Assad having gassed his own people. They put up with Iraqi chemical weapon use under Saddam as an example. They'd be horrified if they thought private, unaccountable actors had gotten their hands on WMD's and used them. That's an Israeli nightmare scenario. The Saudi's have laws that strictly forbid the possession, production or storage of chemical weapons. They probably do want the US in the conflict as a stabilizing force to offset Iran but there's no evidence that they possess or have a plan to use chemical weapons. The Obama administration wants no part of a Syrian intervention. They've gone out of their way to avoid beating the war drums for 2 years now.
Yes, that is exactly where they would have gotten them. There are reports that they have used them on Syrian military as well but that isn't being reported in the US. Syria has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. Hard to think it wouldn't be possible for a few extremists to get a hold on them. We know AQ has dabbled in chemical weapons as I vividly remember a video that surfaced of them using them on a puppy.
You do realize that the U.S. has (and continues to) arm and train the rebels... Yes, the U.S. has armed and trained fighters affiliated or aligned with an offshoot of al-Qaeda. And yes, the U.S. would be partially to blame if the rebels were responsible for the attack. Syria...
Everyone is against a military strike. Other nations,Us citizens,i'm damn sure our congress would not allow it. Uk lawmakers are against it. In my opinion,if it happens anyway,then it was in the cards and the chem attack was false flag that didn't work in swaying support. It wouldn't be the 1st time.
WMds are not obtainable to anyone that our intelligence does not want touching them. If wmds are used,they were slipped under the table most likely by us or Israel. A military strike imo will confirm that. There is no way Israel or the US will have a live and let live policy when it comes to Syria or Iran. Getting at one of these goals has been in the works since Bush was in office.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...damned-if-you-do-or-dont-dilemmas-like-syria/ An interesting look at the situation that rightly demands that the US not do things that make it look like the bad guy while it is trying to get the bad guys.
I have no problem assuming the US are not the bad guys in this case, although if I was Middle Eastern I'd have no problem assuming the US were the bad guys. We're paying a huge amount of money to set ourselves up to be seen as the bad guys by a lot of the world. It's a crappy place to be even when it is keeping us on top. It's a horrific place to be when we start slipping.
During a short interview with Germany’s DW News last Monday, former US National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski commented on the growing inefficiency of war due to the increased political knowledge of the public. forthechildren“Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings ‘Global Political Awakening,’ a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual solution to the regional problem,” said Brzezinski, referring to the situation in Syria. Despite Brzezinski’s noted long-term relationship with Obama which included a top foreign policy adviser position, Brzezinski denied any specific knowledge of his plans regarding Syria, saying that if the administration has a strategy, it’s a “very well-kept secret.” Obama’s Middle Eastern strategy has been a mere continuation of the policies seen under Bush, exemplified by former four star general and NATO commander Wesley Clark’s admission of the Bush-era Pentagon plan to overthrow several countries including Libya and Syria. Although Brzezinski at times attempts to appear opposed to military interventionism, President Obama’s actions in Syria, which include the support of admitted Al Qaeda fighters, closely mirrors several of Brzezinski’s previous policies, most notably the opposition to the Soviet Union in 1979, where decisions made by Brzezinski led to the creation of Al Qaeda through the CIA funding of the Afghan Mujaheddin. Brzezinski’s call of warning to the “global political awakening” has only intensified in recent years. Last year during a speech in Poland, Brzezinski noted that it has become “increasingly difficult to suppress” and control the “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples.” Brzezinski also blamed the accessibility of “radio, television and the Internet” for the “universal awakening of mass political consciousness.” “[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,” said Brzezinski during a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal. Despite attempts by both the Republican and Democratic leadership to gain support for a war in Syria, a new Reuters poll revealed that only 9 percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria. If the United States intervenes, it will be the least popular war in American history. The massive and growing evidence forced out by the alternative media, which points to a US backed chemical attack by Al Qaeda led rebel forces to be blamed on Assad, has only accelerated the inevitable downfall of the corporate press that is now only trusted by 23 percent of the public.
There is no way that the US gave Al-Qaeda chemical weapons for any purpose at all. That's patent bullshit. If you believe that this occurred then you likely also believe that Al-Qaeda takes all of it's marching orders from the US, that the US planned and executed the attack on the WTC, Pentagon and White House, and that the Turner Diaries are a true account of life in the US.
