Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

Assad is a tyrant dictator who has been mass slaughtering the people of Syria for more than two years now so that he and his small corrupt and cruel gang of oligarchs can retain power and control the wealth of the country. Assad is a mass murderer, a merciless tyrant.

Putin supports Assad. Putin is the guy the European Court on Human Rights found guilty of human rights violations of civilians in Chechnya and who murders opponents in his own country..

We're talking about two peas in a pod, two tyrants who are presidents for life. For life.

Brutal mass murderers.

Putin: Russia doesn't defend Assad, we defend international law

They lie, plainly. I watched the Congressional debate. A congressman asked Mr. Kerry: Is there any Al-Qaeda [in Syria]? There are reports they have been growing stronger. He [Kerry] replied: No. I say with all responsibility: there is no [Al-Qaeda] there, Putin explained.

The Russian President then said the Al-Nusra Front terrorist organization, which pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, has been at the forefront of the rebel groups fighting Assads forces, and that the US is well aware of that.

Well, he [Kerry] lies. And he knows that he lies. This is sad, Putin remarked.

http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-interview-ap-387/

Putin defends international law?!

The only thing funnier than the notion of Putin defending international law is the US bombing another country because they have (allegedly) started using chemical weapons.

Actually, what is funnier even is that Russia comes out of this looking like the more responsible nuclear power - AGAIN - by not bombing another country that happens to be Muslim and run by brown people

Putin, the butcher of Chechnya looks responsible?

Putin, leader of the worst host of the International Olympic Games in Sochi looks responsible?

Putin, principal sponsor and defender of Assad the butcher looks responsible?

Not in this world.

[JDGRUEN]

For those that are so OUT OF THE LOOP that they don't know WHO Senator RAND Paul is ... here is a good educational link ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

Senator Rand Paul has announced that he will conduct a filibuster to stall and defeat the Senate Resolution to approve War in Syria ...

I am so glad that some uneducated posters edited their post on Ron/Rand Paul

Edited September 5, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[Publicus]

For those that are so OUT OF THE LOOP that they don't know WHO Senator RAND Paul is ... here is a good educational link ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

Senator Rand Paul has announced that he will conduct a filibuster to stall and defeat the Senate Resolution to approve War in Syria ...

I am so glad that some uneducated posters edited their post on Ron/Rand Paul

Saying "uneducated" is just typically OTT.

Especially for one who goes to a juvenile website to quote 14 year olds on issues or war and peace.

[Publicus]

How A Strike On Syria Could Actually Accomplish Something And Reduce Human Suffering In The War

"Specific targets should include the Damascus-area headquarters, barracks and support facilities of the fourth and Republican Guard armored divisions, two units heavily involved in the bombardment of civilian areas," Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank told Agence France-Presse (emphasis ours).

"Russian and Iranian military and commercial planes arrive daily to offload weapons (some of them advanced air or sea defense systems), ammunition, and personnel," Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael D. Weiss explained in a detailed piece about degrading Assad.

And a detailed report by Chris Harmer of the Institute of the Study of War notes that only 100 Syrian Air Force fixed-wing planes are operable because all but six of the 27 airbases in Syria are either rebel controlled or fiercely contested.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-us-strike-on-syria-could-do-good-2013-8#ixzz2dyzuWJ4K

[lannarebirth]

For those that are so OUT OF THE LOOP that they don't know WHO Senator RAND Paul is ... here is a good educational link ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

Senator Rand Paul has announced that he will conduct a filibuster to stall and defeat the Senate Resolution to approve War in Syria ...

I am so glad that some uneducated posters edited their post on Ron/Rand Paul

I salute Senator Paul for taking a principled stand against illegal military interventions by the US in contravention of international law. Another politician of conscience, who impressed me during the unconstitutional NSA spying on Americans and others was Rep. Grayson of Florida. He likewise will be whipping up opposition to Obama's proposed conflict in Syria.

Meet The Democratic Congressman Who Thinks He Can Stop The US From Striking Syria

MOLLY BALL, THE ATLANTIC in

A "conscience vote": That's the congressional euphemism for an issue on which partisan loyalties are so scrambled that lawmakers must make up their own minds. Both Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner have used the term to describe the authorization of military force in Syria, meaning they won't be "whipping," or pressuring members to vote a certain way.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-democratic-congressman-who-thinks-he-can-stop-the-syria-war/279309/#ixzz2dz14az5J

[simple1]

Doesn't seem much sense in keeping repeating over and over again Assad bad, Putin bad as some sort of excuse for bombing Syria.

Consider the Syrian people and what sort of Govt would they get if Assad is routed.

Look at post #152 for an example.

Do you really think that is what the majority of Syrian people want, a forced Islamic state with Shiite law?

Would that be any better for them than living under Assad?

But that's not what's important, at present its all about Obama saving face by doing what he said he would do even if it means helping Al Qaeda backed rebels take over the country.

It is hyperbole to suggest that the Obama Administration actions would help Islamic extremists to gain power in Syria.

The Syrian Free Army (rebels) was originally formed by mass desertions from the Syrian Army when Assad violently suppressed the Arab Spring demonstrators. Al Qaeda affiliated fighters have infiltrated Syria- many from an umbrella group known as Islamic State of Iraq - more commonly known as Al Nusra Front. There has been fighting between the moderate rebels and Al Qaeda groups. Besides territory power plays, the cause has been reportedly due to the anger generated by excessive killings and oppression in the areas held by Al Nusra.

As had been reported in the international media the rebel moderate forces are receiving more effective war fighting weapons and tactical training in Jordon and Turkey by US/NATO forces. Two reasons given are the destruction of the Assad military and militia, together with the depredation of Islamic extremists in their efforts to seize control.

What never ceases to amaze is Arab governments supporting US/NATO efforts in Syria and at the same time the apparent impunity of elements within Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States to fund Islamic extremists in Syria.

[JDGRUEN]

Report: Assad Moves Weapons Underground as U.S. Strike Looms

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has begun to move his arsenal of advanced weapons underground in preparation for a possible strike on the country by the United States, Israel’s Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/04/report-assad-moves-weapons-underground-as-u-s-strike-looms/

[JDGRUEN]

Liberals reject Obama's case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying

President Obama’s liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.

PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/sep/4/liberals-reject-obamas-case-syria-strikes-believe-

[NeverSure]

Report: Assad Moves Weapons Underground as U.S. Strike Looms

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has begun to move his arsenal of advanced weapons underground in preparation for a possible strike on the country by the United States, Israel’s Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/04/report-assad-moves-weapons-underground-as-u-s-strike-looms/

Maybe he hasn't heard about the US's latest bunker buster bomb.

June 7 2013

"Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had upgraded its bunker buster bomb.

The state of the art GBU-57 B bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), is 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg.) and has recently been upgraded with “adjusted fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to improve its precision and hi-tech equipment intended to allow it to evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow nuclear enrichment complex,” according to the Journal.

Each MOP bomb costs $3.5 million to manufacture and its development cost half a billion dollars, according to Yediot.

Link

[Mosha]

Putin says an attack on Syria will be viewed as aggression.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655

[geriatrickid]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

Why do you feel the need to say "standard US military arrogance" to a comment made by a poster on a Thailand forum that does not cite or quote millitary intelligence or a millitary statement? I am sure the US millitary has as good of a handle on post 1992 Russia buildup as you or Wikipedia.

As for the rest of what you said, it really depends on the strategy. US losses were minimal when intervention involved only air strikes and missiles. Assad cannot do <deleted> to US unless US has human targets on ground inside Syria. I don't remember much of a meaningful response against Israel when Israel bombed millitary positions inside Syria a few months ago.

I used the term because it conveys IMO the mindset of a the US military command. There is an assumption that cruise missiles come without costs. There is no such thing as long term "surgical strikes". There is however collateral damage. The death of Russianswill nto go over well and Putin's ego will force him to retaliate. I don't think the US military planning takes into account the Hizbollah wild card, nor Putin. . Neither is a force to be trifled with and the Israelis learnt the hard way getting their butts kicked in Lebanon. The Syrians and the Iranians will retaliate using Hizbollah operatives and there will be an attempt to widen the conflict by specifically targeting Israel with retaliatory strikes. Iran may very well move into Syria to lend assistance, much as the Syrians occupied Lebanon. What then?

If the Syrians used poison gas , then let the UN inspectors do their job. Table the case before the appropriate bodies and force the hand of the UN.

Launching a cruise missile now or in a month doesn't matter, but it must be done within the framework of international law. It is not the USA's responsibility to intervene.

I used to watch the PBS newscasts during the Afghanistan war. Every Friday it provided a list of dead US personnel. Heartbreaking to see those faces. the best and brightest of young people, killed and for what? The same applies here. After the cruise missiles will come a "humanitarian" crisis, with demands for the US to provide aid. That will require NGOs and US military personnel to protect them. then the car and suicide bombings will start. The USA should make a public statement handing it back to the Arab League, EU and Turkey. Syria hasn't attacked any other country, nor does it present an imminent threat to the USA. This isn't the USA's responsibility and there is no moral obligation to intervene.

[Sing_Sling]

Putin defends international law?!

width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif>

The only thing funnier than the notion of Putin defending international law is the US bombing another country because they have (allegedly) started using chemical weapons.

Actually, what is funnier even is that Russia comes out of this looking like the more responsible nuclear power - AGAIN - by not bombing another country that happens to be Muslim and run by brown people

Putin, the butcher of Chechnya looks responsible?

Putin, leader of the worst host of the International Olympic Games in Sochi looks responsible?

Putin, principal sponsor and defender of Assad the butcher looks responsible?

Not in this world.

Your first point is quite sad, isn't it. Imagine the US looking worse than Russia for their war crimes in Iraq, Vietnam etc . . . Chechnya was nothing compared to the carnage the US has wreaked upon others since WWII . . . and if we're going to discuss chemical weapons like napalm/white phosphorous etc... in Iraq, Japan and Vietnam . . .

Here's a quick quiz: Which superpower has used both nuclear weapons and chemical weapons in a conflict?

Your other points are puerile to the extreme. We are talking about death and destruction . . . and you mention Russia being a bad host of the Olympics . . . Seriously? This is the level your 'debate' has sunk to?

You like inundating those opposed to your views with ream and reams of links, quotes, citations etc . . . well, here's one for you:

H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague .......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

Russia supplied Syria with chemical weapons . . . who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

Do you really want to get into a factual discussion about arms exports and condemn Russia as opposed to the US?

nationalism is one thing but jingoism and xenophobia are quite a different kettle of fish.

Hypocrisy sucks, doesn't it

(Not yours, rather your country's)

Edited September 5, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[Mosha]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

Why do you feel the need to say "standard US military arrogance" to a comment made by a poster on a Thailand forum that does not cite or quote millitary intelligence or a millitary statement? I am sure the US millitary has as good of a handle on post 1992 Russia buildup as you or Wikipedia.

As for the rest of what you said, it really depends on the strategy. US losses were minimal when intervention involved only air strikes and missiles. Assad cannot do <deleted> to US unless US has human targets on ground inside Syria. I don't remember much of a meaningful response against Israel when Israel bombed millitary positions inside Syria a few months ago.

I used the term because it conveys IMO the mindset of a the US military command. There is an assumption that cruise missiles come without costs. There is no such thing as long term "surgical strikes". There is however collateral damage. The death of Russianswill nto go over well and Putin's ego will force him to retaliate. I don't think the US military planning takes into account the Hizbollah wild card, nor Putin. . Neither is a force to be trifled with and the Israelis learnt the hard way getting their butts kicked in Lebanon. The Syrians and the Iranians will retaliate using Hizbollah operatives and there will be an attempt to widen the conflict by specifically targeting Israel with retaliatory strikes. Iran may very well move into Syria to lend assistance, much as the Syrians occupied Lebanon. What then?

If the Syrians used poison gas , then let the UN inspectors do their job. Table the case before the appropriate bodies and force the hand of the UN.

Launching a cruise missile now or in a month doesn't matter, but it must be done within the framework of international law. It is not the USA's responsibility to intervene.

I used to watch the PBS newscasts during the Afghanistan war. Every Friday it provided a list of dead US personnel. Heartbreaking to see those faces. the best and brightest of young people, killed and for what? The same applies here. After the cruise missiles will come a "humanitarian" crisis, with demands for the US to provide aid. That will require NGOs and US military personnel to protect them. then the car and suicide bombings will start. The USA should make a public statement handing it back to the Arab League, EU and Turkey. Syria hasn't attacked any other country, nor does it present an imminent threat to the USA. This isn't the USA's responsibility and there is no moral obligation to intervene.

Replace EU with France. No one else wants it

[Scott]

Troll and off-topic posts removed as well as replies.

[antfish]

Report: Assad Moves Weapons Underground as U.S. Strike Looms

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has begun to move his arsenal of advanced weapons underground in preparation for a possible strike on the country by the United States, Israels Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/04/report-assad-moves-weapons-underground-as-u-s-strike-looms/

Maybe he hasn't heard about the US's latest bunker buster bomb.

June 7 2013

"Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had upgraded its bunker buster bomb.

The state of the art GBU-57 B bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), is 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg.) and has recently been upgraded with adjusted fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to improve its precision and hi-tech equipment intended to allow it to evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow nuclear enrichment complex, according to the Journal.

Each MOP bomb costs $3.5 million to manufacture and its development cost half a billion dollars, according to Yediot.

Link

As the article says, those bombs are developed and build for an attack on Iran. Syria probably hasn't the kind of bunker. Or are you suggesting to US looking for a reason to test them?

[antfish]

Putin says an attack on Syria will be viewed as aggression.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655

He is right. That is not just Putins opinion.

[Jingthing]

Liberals reject Obama's case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying

President Obama’s liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.

PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/sep/4/liberals-reject-obamas-case-syria-strikes-believe-

That's misleading. You're talking about democrats who are more left wing than Obama. That doesn't include most elected democrats.

[antfish]

Liberals reject Obama's case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying

President Obamas liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.

PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it cant find any allies

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/sep/4/liberals-reject-obamas-case-syria-strikes-believe-

That's misleading. You're talking about democrats who are more left wing than Obama. That doesn't include most elected democrats.

why is it misleading?

Good to hear that the liberals are against that war and don't buying the lies the leaders told them.

being against wars of aggression - that is a true liberal spirit and not that left leaning and socialist tendencies the "liberals" somewhat falsely get identified with.

Edited September 5, 2013 by antfish

[Jingthing]

why is it misleading?

Good to hear that the liberals are against that war and don't buying the lies the leaders told them.

Calling that group liberals is misleading. They are left of liberal. Mainstream liberals I am sure are going to support Obama on this.

[hawker9000]

Liberals reject Obama's case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying

President Obama’s liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.

PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/sep/4/liberals-reject-obamas-case-syria-strikes-believe-

That's misleading. You're talking about democrats who are more left wing than Obama. That doesn't include most elected democrats.

More left wing than Obama?? THAT would be interesting to hear quantified. Obama IS going to have difficulty with a significant portion of the left over this, there's no denying it. And the demographics that got Obama elected and re-elected are not the same demographics as those that will be voting for each and every Congressional (House) seat in just a little over a year...

Obama's got his Senate action on a war resolution. 'Don't think that was ever much in doubt. The House is where the rubber meets the road. 'Wonder what the Russians are saying/warning behind the scenes. In a game of high-stakes chess with Putin - or would it be poker - I think Obama may be a bit overmatched.

[Jingthing]

More left wing than Obama?? THAT would be interesting to hear quantified.

...

Not really. Generally I am more left wing than Obama on domestic issues. For example, I am for universal health care, severe nationalized gun control, legalization of marijuana and prostitution, a huge national works program similar to FDR's in the depression, etc. The group mentioned in the article from the far right wing newspaper does not represent the majority of elected house democrats.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[antfish]

why is it misleading?

Good to hear that the liberals are against that war and don't buying the lies the leaders told them.

Calling that group liberals is misleading. They are left of liberal. Mainstream liberals I am sure are going to support Obama on this.

They are liberals in my book. warmongers are not.

Don't confuse liberalism with socialism.

Edited September 5, 2013 by antfish

[hawker9000]

why is it misleading?

Good to hear that the liberals are against that war and don't buying the lies the leaders told them.

Calling that group liberals is misleading. They are left of liberal. Mainstream liberals I am sure are going to support Obama on this.

They are liberals in my book. warmongers are not.

Don't confuse liberalism with socialism.

I think it's reasonable to counter that Obama's brand - or should I say "degree" - of liberalism IS socialism, and much of his followership IS patently progressive socialist. His apologists tirelessly insist otherwise, of course. Regardless of the fact, not only is the House not democrat-controlled, I do not think the vote when it comes will be as much along party lines as most other votes during the current session. That's not a prediction for success or failure of the resolution: I think it could go either way depending on how things develop both attendant to the debate within Congress, and on what's going on out in the real world during that window. I think both parties will prove to be split to a significant degree over this, though of course the majority of democrats in the House will end up toeing the party line I'm sure. It will be interesting to find out what Obama is willing to put on the table with his midnight, backroom deal-making (and that may even include concessions he has to make to democrats).

We're starting to hear more about how a resolution, no matter how delicately it's worded, essentially gives Obama a free hand to go beyond the limited missile strike he & Kerry insist is the only thing on the table, even to troop intervention, if he should so decide in the end, and many aren't going to be comfortable with that concept at all. Nobody thinks any judge is going to get involved over a presidential decision to "interpret" and exceed what might be specified in a war resolution, most are painfully aware of Obama's track-record in keeping promises, and so his credibility problem will undoubtedly be an issue for many on the right especially.

[Mosha]

Colbert on Syria.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/colbert-on-syria-if-america-cared-about-shooting-people-wed-be-invading-chicago/

Syrians are volunteering to act as human shields.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23966147#FBM281451

Edited September 5, 2013 by Mosha

[Scott]

Continued discussion of socialism and liberalism, although interesting, is off-topic.

Let's stick to the topic of Syria and a possible Western strike.

[F430murci]

Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.

Based on recent interviews with U.S. officials, allied intelligence officials and arms control experts, heres what is known and not known about Syrias chemical weapons arsenal and the looming showdown over what the U.S. says is its most recent attack:

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012.

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012

. . .

U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials tell NBC News that Maher Assad, Bashars younger brother, authorized the attack, and Syrian rebels confirm that the 155th and 127th brigades of the 4th Armored Division, both of which are under his command, played key roles in carrying it out.

P

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

[Sing_Sling]

Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.

Based on recent interviews with U.S. officials, allied intelligence officials and arms control experts, heres what is known and not known about Syrias chemical weapons arsenal and the looming showdown over what the U.S. says is its most recent attack:

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012.

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012

. . .

U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials tell NBC News that Maher Assad, Bashars younger brother, authorized the attack, and Syrian rebels confirm that the 155th and 127th brigades of the 4th Armored Division, both of which are under his command, played key roles in carrying it out.

P

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

These experts . . . where were they when this happened and why didn't the US intervene then? Why the brouhaha now? (Oh and repeating the same thing doesn't give it more credence)

In this day and age of how can anyone get away with the use of 'multiple times' as a determining factor with something as serious as this.

All this shows is an incredible hypocrisy from the US . . .

[midas]

Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.

Based on recent interviews with U.S. officials, allied intelligence officials and arms control experts, heres what is known and not known about Syrias chemical weapons arsenal and the looming showdown over what the U.S. says is its most recent attack:

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012.

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012

. . .

U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials tell NBC News that Maher Assad, Bashars younger brother, authorized the attack, and Syrian rebels confirm that the 155th and 127th brigades of the 4th Armored Division, both of which are under his command, played key roles in carrying it out.

P

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

These experts . . . where were they when this happened and why didn't the US intervene then? Why the brouhaha now? (Oh and repeating the same thing doesn't give it more credence)

In this day and age of how can anyone get away with the use of 'multiple times' as a determining factor with something as serious as this.

All this shows is an incredible hypocrisy from the US . . .

It has never made sense to me that a country which is $17 trillion in debt with 50 million people on food stamps can even pretend to afford to continue to be the world's policeman. Particularly when there are so many other nations that are listening to the people that don't want to go to war.

And then I read this...............................

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

[Chicog]

Al Sabah is the family name of the Kuwaiti royal family. I wonder.....

Edited September 5, 2013 by Chicog

[Sing_Sling]

Experts agree that the program is the most advanced in the Third World, and that the Syrian government has used the poisonous arms against its own people "multiple times" in recent years.

Based on recent interviews with U.S. officials, allied intelligence officials and arms control experts, heres what is known and not known about Syrias chemical weapons arsenal and the looming showdown over what the U.S. says is its most recent attack:

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012.

. . .

The U.S. reported last week that Syria has used chemical weapons "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. The British government places the number of attacks at 14 since 2012

. . .

U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials tell NBC News that Maher Assad, Bashars younger brother, authorized the attack, and Syrian rebels confirm that the 155th and 127th brigades of the 4th Armored Division, both of which are under his command, played key roles in carrying it out.

P

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite

These experts . . . where were they when this happened and why didn't the US intervene then? Why the brouhaha now? (Oh and repeating the same thing doesn't give it more credence)

In this day and age of how can anyone get away with the use of 'multiple times' as a determining factor with something as serious as this.

All this shows is an incredible hypocrisy from the US . . .

It has never made sense to me that a country which is $17 trillion in debt with 50 million people on food stamps can even pretend to afford to continue to be the world's policeman. Particularly when there are so many other nations that are listening to the people that don't want to go to war.

And then I read this...............................

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

Surely not . . .