Prove the US is lying about who used the chemical weapons on whom

tekkychick said:
I missed the whole rape story, I guess. We went into Libya - with the French leading - to stop the killing of civilians. That's what the no-fly zone was about.

Were there members of Al Quaeda among the rebels? Yes, but all the rebels weren't Al Quaeda; there was a small number of them that were.

But I don't want to re-debate Libya on a thread about Syria.

I think we all agree that there is a large number of Al Quaeda people among the Syrian rebels. And so far, we have not been drawn in to support either side.

My impression is that if we DO respond to the chemical attacks, no one on this board wants us to send troops in to fight Assad - that we want any response (if any) to be measured, short, tactical.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think anyone here is arguing for an indepth involvement in Syria.
Click to expand...

Al Qaida is not a small part of the Syrian rebels. That is who Obama supports, just as he did in Libya.

U.S. Travel Warning: Al Qaeda-Affiliated Syrian Rebels Have 'Claimed Nearly 600 Attacks;' State Dept.: 'Numerous Innocent Syrians Have Been Killed'

(CNSNews.com) - While President Barack Obama is now asking Congress to authorize him to use military force against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad because that regime used chemical weapons on its own people, the State Department is maintaining a travel warning advising Americans not to travel to Syria because the al-Nusrah Front, the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria--which is participating in the rebellion seeking to overthrow Assad--has carried out about 600 attacks in the country since November 2011.

These al Qaeda terrorist attacks, according to the State Department, have killed many Syrian civilians.

"There is also a threat from terrorism, including groups like al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front," says the current State Department travel warning on Syria. "Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks--ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations---in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. Public places such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces have been targeted."

more
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rian-rebels-have-claimed#sthash.i4SkWojz.dpuf

Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...aeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/326178/483/Syrian-rebels-pledge-loyalty-to-al-Qaeda

U.S. Official Concerned Weapons May Go to Al-Nusra
Covert U.S. military aid likely to boost al Qaeda-dominated rebels in Syria
http://freebeacon.com/fog-of-war-may-complicate-arming-syrian-rebels/

It's a bitter truth for Obama supporters, but truth it is.
 
Yes, that's what I said - "I think we all agree that there is a large number of Al Quaeda people among the Syrian rebels. And so far, we have not been drawn in to support either side."

I don't think Pres Obama is supporting the rebels in particular or at least not a lot; he's trying very hard to stay out of it. Chem weapons thing is more against Assad than pro-rebel.
 
tekkychick said:
I missed the whole rape story, I guess. We went into Libya - with the French leading - to stop the killing of civilians. That's what the no-fly zone was about.

Were there members of Al Quaeda among the rebels? Yes, but all the rebels weren't Al Quaeda; there was a small number of them that were.

But I don't want to re-debate Libya on a thread about Syria.

I think we all agree that there is a large number of Al Quaeda people among the Syrian rebels. And so far, we have not been drawn in to support either side.

My impression is that if we DO respond to the chemical attacks, no one on this board wants us to send troops in to fight Assad - that we want any response (if any) to be measured, short, tactical.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think anyone here is arguing for an indepth involvement in Syria.
Click to expand...
not going over Libya either - no point except to say we have seen this movie before -a no fly zone turned into a regime change.

As of now, any Syrian intervention (cruise missiles -stand off weapons) is probably all that will happen.

Still, it could shift the delicate balance of power there -and do we really want "Assad Must go" (Obama) ?

What would replace him? We don't know, but it could very well be a more AQ backed state.

Thing is we really have no game plan, other then the hit and run approach; which is just silly.
The best thing that cold have happened was the Geneva conference with Russia -for various reasons both partys decided to use Syria as a proxy war.

It's not helpful to get sucked into this -not at any level, not even to 'send a message on Iran", since that commits us to war there.

Time to condemn this, and let the players sort it out, without our 'help'
 
tekkychick said:
Yes, that's what I said - "I think we all agree that there is a large number of Al Quaeda people among the Syrian rebels. And so far, we have not been drawn in to support either side."

I don't think Pres Obama is supporting the rebels in particular or at least not a lot; he's trying very hard to stay out of it. Chem weapons thing is more against Assad than pro-rebel.
Click to expand...

If you interfere in someone else's civil war, you inevitably support one side or the other. As Japanese nutters showed, sarin is easy to manufacture, and those on the government side who want to overthrow the Syrian President could use the stuff for that purpose as well. Saudis have been trying to overthrow the government of Syria for a long time, together with ' Israel' and other American colonies/'allies'. We are not going to be allowed the truth: the question is why anyone thinks outsiders should ignorantly interfere.
 
AQ is in Syria fighting against the Assad regime. That is a known fact. The Free Syrian Army is non-sectarian and contains both Sunni and Alawite elements in its ranks. They have well over 100,000 defectors from the Syrian armed forces. The FSA is totally opposed to AQ but unfortunately there are some on the cynical left that will try to tell you that virtually all of the opposition is AQ.

Much like what happened in Libya. AQ operatives will try to infiltrate and set up cells. Every player involved in this conflict has a vested interest in identifying the AQ operatives and preventing them from hijacking the rebellion. No one wants AQ to take advantage of the chaos. The Syrian rebels are not alone, much is going on behind the scene to support them. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan are heavily engaged in seeing that Assad is toppled. The irony is, the stronger the Iranian support for Assad, the stronger the Sunni Arabs' determination to remove Assad.
 
iolo said:
If you interfere in someone else's civil war, you inevitably support one side or the other. As Japanese nutters showed, sarin is easy to manufacture, and those on the government side who want to overthrow the Syrian President could use the stuff for that purpose as well. Saudis have been trying to overthrow the government of Syria for a long time, together with ' Israel' and other American colonies/'allies'. We are not going to be allowed the truth: the question is why anyone thinks outsiders should ignorantly interfere.
Click to expand...

Sarin is relatively easy to make but it is very difficult to deploy effectively, it has to atomised into an aerosol and that is is by no means simple especially in an outdoor environment.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
AQ is in Syria fighting against the Assad regime. That is a known fact. The Free Syrian Army is non-sectarian and contains both Sunni and Alawite elements in its ranks. They have well over 100,000 defectors from the Syrian armed forces. The FSA is totally opposed to AQ but unfortunately there are some on the cynical left that will try to tell you that virtually all of the opposition is AQ.

Much like what happened in Libya. AQ operatives will try to infiltrate and set up cells. Every player involved in this conflict has a vested interest in identifying the AQ operatives and preventing them from hijacking the rebellion. No one wants AQ to take advantage of the chaos. The Syrian rebels are not alone, much is going on behind the scene to support them. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan are heavily engaged in seeing that Assad is toppled. The irony is, the stronger the Iranian support for Assad, the stronger the Sunni Arabs' determination to remove Assad.
Click to expand...

So what sort of western weirdo would want to join in?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
AQ is in Syria fighting against the Assad regime. That is a known fact. The Free Syrian Army is non-sectarian and contains both Sunni and Alawite elements in its ranks. They have well over 100,000 defectors from the Syrian armed forces. The FSA is totally opposed to AQ but unfortunately there are some on the cynical left that will try to tell you that virtually all of the opposition is AQ.

Much like what happened in Libya. AQ operatives will try to infiltrate and set up cells. Every player involved in this conflict has a vested interest in identifying the AQ operatives and preventing them from hijacking the rebellion. No one wants AQ to take advantage of the chaos. The Syrian rebels are not alone, much is going on behind the scene to support them. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan are heavily engaged in seeing that Assad is toppled. The irony is, the stronger the Iranian support for Assad, the stronger the Sunni Arabs' determination to remove Assad.
Click to expand...
Turkey? when did that change?

Erdogan was singing Assad's praises last I looked -granted the situation is dynamic?

The FSA doesn't have AQ "brigades", but the do allow AQ (Al_Nusra) to fight besides them -not minding their support. a distinction with little difference.
Hard to say exactly on the ground -but yes FSA does not directly co-ordinate, but tacitly?? don't know.

found this about the Syrian Army defectors:

Syria army defectors say U.S. strikes could kill Assad opponents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-barracks-idUSBRE97T0N820130830
 
Once Syria's ally, Turkey turned its back on Mr Al Assad after the Syrian government fired against peaceful protesters after the country's uprising began in March 2011. Since then, Mr Erdogan has allowed the Syrian opposition to organise in Turkey and has allowed Syrian opposition fighters to use Turkish territory along the 900-kilometre border with Syria.


Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/news/worl...ia-will-bring-down-assad-regime#ixzz2dkjD6VBb
I'll be darned, didn't know this!
 
iolo said:
So what sort of western weirdo would want to join in?
Click to expand...

Doing nothing has many attendant risks as well. The truth of the matter is that Assad had the makings of a good ophthalmologist but a bad leader. His brother Maher al-Assad controls much behind the scenes. He has a reputation of being hot headed and erratic and I wouldn't be surprised if it was he that ordered the unleashing of chemical weapons.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Doing nothing has many attendant risks as well. The truth of the matter is that Assad had the makings of a good ophthalmologist but a bad leader. His brother Maher al-Assad controls much behind the scenes. He has a reputation of being hot headed and erratic and I wouldn't be surprised if it was he that ordered the unleashing of chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

Seems likely. Has 'the West' gained anything by all its interventions, other than some profit for some oil companies?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Doing nothing has many attendant risks as well. The truth of the matter is that Assad had the makings of a good ophthalmologist but a bad leader. His brother Maher al-Assad controls much behind the scenes. He has a reputation of being hot headed and erratic and I wouldn't be surprised if it was he that ordered the unleashing of chemical weapons.
Click to expand...
Israeli intel claimed interception of communiques saying just this -not knowing if Bashar actually ordered it
 
Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep
MARCH 26, 2011

There’s more evidence today that many of the men engaged in fighting against the Gaddafi regime have ties to an organization that killed 3,000 Americans about 9 1/2 years ago:

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25″ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”

more
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/connections-between-al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebels-run-deep/

Fast forward to today ..

Obama’s Liberated Libya is Now Al Qaeda’s HQ
MAY 6, 2013
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-liberated-libya-is-now-al-qaedas-hq/

Al-Qaeda virtually in control of Libya: Lawrence Freeman

Press TV: Muammar Gaddafi was toppled, but why is there still no sign of calm in the country?

Freeman: The destruction of the nation of Libya is designed to carry out policy of chaos and death across northern Africa.

Al-Qaeda now is virtually in control of the country and we’ve created a monster that is out of control except if you recognize that that’s the intention.

Press TV: Many say that the deteriorating situation in Libya, what we’re seeing now, is actually a legacy of NATO forces. What do you think?

Freeman: We know that the Syrian operation is a continuation of the Libyan operation, which is a policy that was put forth by Tony Blair and the British to destroy this area of the world.

And if we go ahead with the regime change policy in Syria as the British are advocating, then you will see more death and destruction and possibly war with Russia. This is a very, very dangerous policy that is being pursued by the West at this time.

Press TV: The way you’re relating the intervention into Libya by NATO to the Syrian crisis. What you’re saying is we might perhaps see NATO forces be stationed in Syria. Am I correct?

Freeman: Whether it is actually NATO forces or not, the policy right now is to remove the president.

And we’ve been working with al-Nusra, which is a well known al-Qaeda operation and in fact its credible intelligence that one of the operations that was being run out of Benghazi, that led to the attack against our ambassador there, was shipping arms into Syria for support of the al-Qaeda insurgents.

So this is very much a continuation of the Libya policy. Whether there is troops on the ground or not we could see massive chaos throughout the entire Middle East and Persian Gulf region and most dangerously a direct military conflict with Russia. And that’s what some of the wiser people in our military defense institutions now are actually opposing President Obama on escalating the policy for war in Syria.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/19/304334/nato-handed-libya-over-to-alqaeda/

This is a pattern that you'd have to be blind not to see.

Imagine what America's image is all over the world. All the anguish over 9/11 .. only to find America in bed with the same organization that supposedly pulled it off.

sticker,375x360.u2.png
 
evince said:
I PROVED Bush was lying with facts.

they ignored those facts and some still do.

EVIDENCE


give me some evidence Obama is lying
Click to expand...

You've proved shit.....here is the NIE of October 1, 2002

{PROVE to us that the National Intelligence was lies as of 10/1/2002..........this is what we KNEW as of that time, this is what was believed as of that time

Show us the intell. that Obama has that he is using as evidence....if the intell agrees with his public statements then he is telling the truth as he sees it.

We have the intell (the NIE) Bush relied on and that intell agrees with his public statements on what was known and/or believed as of October 2002....case closed.
 
blackascoal said:
Al Qaida is not a small part of the Syrian rebels. That is who Obama supports, just as he did in Libya.

U.S. Travel Warning: Al Qaeda-Affiliated Syrian Rebels Have 'Claimed Nearly 600 Attacks;' State Dept.: 'Numerous Innocent Syrians Have Been Killed'

(CNSNews.com) - While President Barack Obama is now asking Congress to authorize him to use military force against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad because that regime used chemical weapons on its own people, the State Department is maintaining a travel warning advising Americans not to travel to Syria because the al-Nusrah Front, the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria--which is participating in the rebellion seeking to overthrow Assad--has carried out about 600 attacks in the country since November 2011.

These al Qaeda terrorist attacks, according to the State Department, have killed many Syrian civilians.

"There is also a threat from terrorism, including groups like al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front," says the current State Department travel warning on Syria. "Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks--ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations---in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. Public places such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces have been targeted."

more
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rian-rebels-have-claimed#sthash.i4SkWojz.dpuf

Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...aeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/326178/483/Syrian-rebels-pledge-loyalty-to-al-Qaeda

U.S. Official Concerned Weapons May Go to Al-Nusra
Covert U.S. military aid likely to boost al Qaeda-dominated rebels in Syria
http://freebeacon.com/fog-of-war-may-complicate-arming-syrian-rebels/

It's a bitter truth for Obama supporters, but truth it is.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that if the US provided more support to the anti-Assad forces they wouldn't have to depend on al Qaeda?
 
tekkychick said:
With Iraq's WMDs - it just didn't make sense. Our own inspectors didn't find any.

With Syria/chem weapons - we have pics of rockets leaving govt space and landing in rebel space and we have people who have been proven through blood tests to have had chem weapons used on them.

Could the rebels have done the chem weapons and timed it with the rockets? possible, but Occam's Razor would say Assad did it.

Is it good to question the evidence? Sure. Govts lie. But Obama hasn't been the type to lie in the past, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it's possible they are misinterpreting the evidence. But Obama doesn't want to bomb Syria, so he doesn't have a bias to find the evidence true.

This is very different from Iraq where Bush/cheney were looking for any excuse to go to war with them.

I hope Congress examines the evidence closely. I don't think anyone on this message board has access to the same level of info as those in intelligence. And if they did, they couldn't speak about it.
Click to expand...


Lets try it again, fool....

what we found out in 2003 and 2004 has NOTHING to do with what we believed to be the facts in 2002

what we found out in 2003 and 2004 has NOTHING to do with what the NIE of October, 2002 presented to Bush as the the best available intelligence on Iraq as of that time.


What you believe to be the facts today will have nothing to do with what you may or may not find next year or the year after that.....
 
Howey said:
Would you agree that if the US provided more support to the anti-Assad forces they wouldn't have to depend on al Qaeda?
Click to expand...

No, I would not because it isn't true. It wasn't true in Libya either. Gaddafi would have easily crushed the Al Qaida rebels without US and NATO support.

Are you aware that the majority of Syrians support Assad, just as the vast majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi?

Even with US/UK/CIA help, the Syrian government is winning the war.

Respectfully, the pattern is just too damn easy to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top