Syrian Crisis...2013

kalel17

New Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
We will have to wait for confirmation form another news source before accepting that one.
Mean time.



One point I would like to make is Sarin right now in the middle east is popping up like starbucks! A few months back a AQ sarin gas lab was found in Yemen. IN Iraq Insurgents attached to AQ in Iraq attempted to use Sarin on a number of occasions against both Iraqis and occupation troops notably
The compound has been manufactured by small groups before notably the Japanese subway attack in 95 by Aum Shinrikyo . so really the gas could have come from any one.

A high school student with access to a well equipped lab can build sarin in no time. The ordinance to deliver the gas is also very easy to build and design. As a matter of fact it could take any individual with base chem knowledge just a few weeks to build sarin if they have access to the money.

I used to boast to my friends at high school in grade 8 at 14 years old that I could build nitroglycerine and hydrocyanic acid(cyanide) in 5 minutes... Knowledge from all that came from reading chemistry textbooks when I was just in primary(elementary school)... Like seriously these things are very easy to build and as such they could have come from anyone. There are several independent weapons manufacturers in Syria turning out weapons for the rebels, it has become big business, imagine the money they could make from creating sarin and selling to the highest bidder? It could be the ultimate trump card as it could make the buyer very very powerful afterwards(Sarin used, western intervention, buyer gets high post in government)...This I would suspect that many of these manufacturers are out there gathering all they can on how to make sarin..

If the west does not see who would benefit they are surely blind.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China said on Monday it had been briefed by the United States about evidence on the use of chemical weapons in Syria after U.S. President Barack Obama delayed a military response to last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus until after a congressional vote.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday tests had shown sarin nerve gas was fired on rebel-held areas in Syria on August 21. The United States says more than 1,400 people, many of them children, were killed in the attack.

"The U.S. side briefed China on what evidence the U.S. had in relation to the use of chemical weapons by the relevant party in Syria as well as the relevant decision by the United States," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, told a daily news briefing.

He did not elaborate on what China thought of the evidence it had been shown. China has said that no side should rush to pre-judge the results of an investigation by U.N. chemical weapons experts in Syria, who it said should carry out an objective and impartial investigation in consultation with the Syrian government.

Hong repeated that China opposed the use of chemical weapons by any side and that China supported the independent, objective investigation by the U.N. experts. "China expressed serious concern about preparations by relevant countries for unilateral military action," Hong said.

"Any action by the international community ought to respect the rules of the U.N. Charter and basic norms of international relations and avoid further complicating the Syria issue and avoid further disaster for the Middle East."

Russia and China have both vetoed previous Western efforts to impose U.N. penalties on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But China has been keen to show it is not taking sides and has urged the Syrian government to talk to the opposition and take steps to meet demands for political change. It has said a transitional government should be formed.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
The US has moved Nimitz CSG to the Red Sea.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early on Monday, U.S. defense officials said, describing the move as "prudent planning" in case the ships are needed for military action against Syria.

The officials said Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 a.m. EDT, but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria.

Moving Nimitz into the Red Sea was aimed at putting more U.S. assets in place if they are needed to support what U.S. officials still describe as a limited attack against Syria after it used chemical weapons against civilians.

"It does place that strike group in a position to respond to a variety of contingencies," said one official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The nuclear-powered Nimitz is accompanied by the Princeton, a cruiser, and three destroyers -William P. Lawrence, Stockdale and Shoup, according to the officials.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Obama Syria decision adds a twist to G-20 summit
Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY 1:58 p.m. EDT September 2, 2013
WASHINGTON — With the U.S.-Russia relationship already strained, President Obama's decision to delay a possible military strike against Syria adds an unexpected twist to what was already shaping up to be an awkward G-20 summit hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in St. Petersburg.

Obama leaves Tuesday for Sweden, a stop added to his itinerary after he canceled a one-on-one meeting with Putin in Moscow ahead of the G-20, which begins Thursday.

The U.S. and Russia have long been at odds over the conflict in Syria as Russia, the only major patron of Syrian President Bashar Assad, has blocked any possibility of the United Nations Security Council mandating action against him in the 2½-year-old civil war.

Russia's blocking of the United Nations on Syria, along with the decision to grant former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden temporary asylum and a lack of recent progress between the two countries on other issues, led Obama last month to cancel the long-anticipated Moscow visit.

Obama announced over the weekend that he wants to take military action against the Assad regime in response to an alleged chemical attack Aug. 21, but first he wants congressional authorization. The G-20 meeting will offer the American president what is likely his last chance to muster international support from leaders of member countries for a potential strike.

Officially, the G-20 summit's focus is geared toward talks on a slew of global economic issues important to member countries. But Obama is likely to use sideline meetings with leaders to try to build a broader political coalition of countries willing to support U.S. military action in Syria, even if they aren't contributing militarily.

The White House says there are no plans for a one-on-one meeting between Obama and Putin on the sidelines of the summit, but the two will inevitably have some interaction during the course of the meetings.

In the days since Obama announced his desire to take military action against Syria, the chasm between the United States and Russia — at least rhetorically — has widened.

Over the weekend, the Obama administration and Putin traded barbs after Obama declared he wants to carry out a military strike.

Putin called it "nonsense" that Assad would authorize a chemical attack and urged Obama to consider whether a strike would have any impact to end the internecine violence or be worth the civilian casualties an American strike potentially could cost.

Secretary of State John Kerry expressed frustration that the Russians have turned a blind eye to evidence the United States has provided to demonstrate that the Syrian regime was responsible for chemical attacks against Syrian opposition this year, first confirmed by the U.S. intelligence community in June.

"They chose – I literally mean chose – not to believe it or to at least acknowledge publicly. I think this evidence is going to be overwhelming," Kerry said in an interview on ABC's This Week. "If the president of Russia chooses yet again to ignore it, that's his choice."

For the past two years, the Obama-Putin relationship has been "like watching a slow-moving train wreck," says Andrew Kuchins, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The two leaders held glum expressions when they appeared for the cameras after their last meeting, the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland in June.

Last month, Obama described Putin as looking like the "bored kid in the back of the classroom" while acknowledging that the two have differences of opinion on some matters "and we're not going to be able to completely disguise them."

In perhaps Obama's most stinging rebuke, which came in a recent interview with The Tonight Show's Jay Leno, Obama lamented that Putin had a "Cold War mentality."

"One thing is clear to me, that this is the worst personal relationship between U.S. and Russian — perhaps even U.S. and Soviet — leaders in history," Kuchins said.

Despite the differences, Kerry said that the administration is looking at ways to internationalize efforts to secure Syria's chemical weapons cache and that he hopes Russia could play a role in that effort.

Though the relationship is undergoing particular strain because of differences on the Syria crisis and Russia granting asylum to Snowden, the White House notes that cooperation with Russia has not halted.

In recent weeks, Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel held meetings in Washington with their Russian counterparts, and the two countries have held high-level meetings on the sticky issue of missile defense.

By delaying any military action until he has congressional approval, Obama has avoided having to defend the aftermath of a strike in a summit setting, notes Angela Stent, a Russia analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"Syria might still come up, but it won't dominate the G-20 agenda as it might have had there been a military strike," Stent said.
France accuses Syria of 'massive use of chemical agents'
Karine G. Barzegar, Special for USA TODAY 11:37 a.m. EDT September 2, 2013
PARIS — On Feb.14, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told members of the United Nations Security Council that taking part in the war in Iraq without absolute proof of weapons of mass destruction and without a UN endorsement was not an option for France.

But now, a decade later, France is the only major European U.S. ally likely to support military strikes against Syria, and French President Francois Hollande seems even more eager to go to war than President Obama.

A French intelligence estimate released Monday alleges that the Syrian regime launched an attack Aug. 21 involving "massive use of chemical agents" and could carry out other strikes of a similar nature in the future.

The government published a 9-page synopsis about Syria's chemical weapons program that found that at least 281 deaths could be attributed to the attack in areas outside Damascus.

But even last week President Francois Hollande was backing a call from Obama for a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government in retaliation for the attack.

"The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished," Hollande said in an interview on Friday with the newspaper Le Monde.

"There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means. France is one of them. We are ready," he said.


On Monday, the prime minister met top members of parliament to discuss military intervention ahead of a debate in the French parliament Wednesday. The international community is watching what France will do following the defeat in the British parliament last week of a motion on military intervention.

"I think France is committed in a way that is worrying — Paris had strongly criticized the American intervention in Iraq in 2003, which proved to be a fiasco, and in Libya, President Sarkozy had made sure he had the U.N. backing," said Denis Bauchard, analyst at the Institut francais des relations internationales (IFRI), a think tank in Paris.

"We are the only important Western country taking the U.S. side and that will lead to a certain misunderstanding in Arab opinion, a certain isolation within the European Union, and create tensions at the domestic level," said Bauchard.

Elected president in 2012, Hollande was widely seen as a soft leader but since then few have called him dovish.

In January, he launched a successful offensive against Islamist rebels in northern Mali. He is standing firm on military action in Syria, saying he's "determined to punish" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

In France, legislative approval is not required for military action, and Hollande is only obligated to alert lawmakers three days before any intervention expected to last

Still, Hollande is under pressure from his own party to hold a vote on military action in parliament. Like Obama, Hollande faces legislative opposition to engagement in Syria.


A document from French intelligence was leaked to the weekly Journal du Dimanche reporting that the Syrian regime holds "several hundred tons of mustard gas" and "sarin (gas)," the total inventory exceeding 1,000 tons of chemical agents.

Both former Prime Minister Francois Fillon and current head of the conservative opposition party the UMP, Jean-François Cope, have warned Hollande against "tagging along with the U.S.," while the head of the Parti de gauche, leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has accused him of becoming a "back-up soldier" of the U.S.

"Military action would give power to the so-called rebels who are mainly Islamists," said Florian Philippot, deputy leader of the Front National, the far right party. "It would make the situation worse and turn Syria into what we already see in Libya.""France should not get involved — past military experiences in Iraq and Libya were counter-productive, very expensive and they have put Islamists in power," he said.

Hollande faces an uphill battle with the public also.

Almost two-thirds of the French public do not support French military action against the Syrian regime, according to a poll published by newspaper Le Parisien.

"I do not understand this decision — it's completely irresponsible," said teacher Abdel Khelif in Paris. "We're going to engage in a war, God knows for how long, and for what? The region is a powder keg, and this will destabilize it even more with consequences we can't even imagine."
USA today
 

delft

Brigadier
My Dutch newspaper supposes that by getting the agreement of Congress Obama will be stronger when he attacks Syria and that he would be weakened to such an extent if doesn't get it that Congress will not dare deny him.
But if in a weeks time a significant part of the world thinks that Saudi paid mercenaries are the guilty party be will be weakened whatever he gets from Congress, something the paper doesn't consider. The G20 meeting promises to be fraught.

Some else:
Last month, Obama described Putin as looking like the "bored kid in the back of the classroom" while acknowledging that the two have differences of opinion on some matters "and we're not going to be able to completely disguise them."
from TerraN_EmpirE's posting.
If a President can see himself as a teacher in front of more or less attentive pupils, the other leaders of governments in the world, he should look for another job.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
My Dutch newspaper supposes that by getting the agreement of Congress Obama will be stronger when he attacks Syria and that he would be weakened to such an extent if doesn't get it that Congress will not dare deny him.
But if in a weeks time a significant part of the world thinks that Saudi paid mercenaries are the guilty party be will be weakened whatever he gets from Congress, something the paper doesn't consider. The G20 meeting promises to be fraught.

Some else:

from TerraN_EmpirE's posting.
If a President can see himself as a teacher in front of more or less attentive pupils, the other leaders of governments in the world, he should look for another job.

firstly I would like to state. That it seems way to soon to have bed rock evidence one way or the other on who gassed who. Could it have been anti Assad? Yes could it have been pro? ALSO POSSIBLE. I want more evidence.

secondly, Congress has it own will and right now it's divided. He could get a yes then again it just as likely a no. The Republicans have told him to get bent before and o would not be surprised if they do it again. If he does get told no. He will just do it anyway. This president has been using and pushing to use executive power for anything he wants.

finally President Obama does not view other world leaders as students in need of lecture... He views EVERY SINGLE HUMAN as a student in need of a lecture. Every one of his speeches is a teacher's lecture some times.complete with a lauding for misbehaving. He pretty much chewed out the supreme court in one of his state of the union addresses.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
.... Lol

idiot+guide+pharaoh.jpg
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I would just like to share a thought or two with you all, largely as a result of listening to a quite extraordinary interview on BBC radio 4 this morning with a retired US General, who had just finished a phone call with Senators McCain and Graham.

What seemed extraordinary was that the General was happily on air, repeating the contents of a "supposedly" secret briefing just given to McCain and Graham by President Obama.
The content of the discussion is that the US indeed considering actions far more akin to Regime Change, than simply a punitive strike. That of itself comes as no real surprise as both I and many others of you have had little doubt that this is what many in the US Establishment have wanted all along.

The surprise the brazen (and presumably deliberate) way that these secret briefings are being made public.

I can only really think of two ultimate objectives to this whole exercise, one very benign, the other utterly malign.

The benign option is based on the ease with which David Cameron accepted defeat in Parliament last week and which left a strong impression that he was only to glad to have given the "Get out of Jail" Card and that he has absolutely no intention of trying to reverse that decision.
On that basis, I wonder if Obama is now spreading a story so scary that a rejection from Congress is guaranteed and that he too would be able to wipe his brow in relief and then complain about how Congress has tied his hands but that the will of the people must be paramount.

The malign option is naturally the very opposite of all this. This option is based on something of which I have discussed at length over the years on other forums. It is the notion that if the US were indeed determined to retain its position of Global Hegemon, this is the decade in which it must deal with the rising Chinese challenge, because by the early 2020's it will undoubtedly be way to late.
In this scenario, these revelations simply confirm in the Kremlin and Forbidden Palace the total lack of trust in US good intentions and determine to draw both powers into a major global confrontation while it still carries the advantage.

I know that I am taking a risk introducing such thoughts, but his is a "Grown Up" forum and will expect members who respond to reply in the appropriate adult manner
 
Top