Get honest:
Again, I note: I'm not singling out Israel - all advanced powers, who find primitive people living on land they want do the same. Certainly earlier Americans and Brazilians did much more violently with unprovoked active killing.
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Again, I note: I'm not singling out Israel - all advanced powers, who find primitive people living on land they want do the same. Certainly earlier Americans and Brazilians did much more violently with unprovoked active killing.
Nice try Hitler.
Sorry to quote Al Jazeera, but you will not easily find this, less than 20 days old news, in the western press.
* The official reason Israel gave years ago for forcing the Bedouins from their land / nomatic live style more than 5000 years old and in harmony with the environment, was to educate their Children. Not a big task now that there is only one bus load of kids left. Ironically the guard force making sure none of he enclosure Bedouins try to return to the desert on moonless nights is called the “Green Patrol” as they are protecting the desert environment – same one that survived >5000 years of Bedouin use.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/08/2013828125945288209.html said:
Congratulations - you just got my first ever issued warning. This was for name calling.
I have been reluctant to issue any warnings etc. but a few days ago Fraggle told me it was a mod's duty. You made it easier for me to change and do my duty.
I might not have done my duty but as you only quoted part of the sentence, which continued to say:
" all advanced powers, who find primitive people living on land they want do the same. Certainly earlier Americans and Brazilians did much more violently with unprovoked active killing."
That dishonest distortion too made it easier to "do my duty."
Get honest:
Again, I note: I'm not singling out Israel - all advanced powers, who find primitive people living on land they want do the same. Certainly earlier Americans and Brazilians did much more violently with unprovoked active killing.
I'm being entirely honest. Your maps don't include the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel controlled and partially settled for 10 years. They gave up an area the size of their whole country for peace and recognition from Egypt- that's not typical behaviour for an expansionist power. True, they haven't officially relinquished their control over the West Bank, that's an area the world regards as "expansion territory". However, they've demonstrated no designs on any additional territory for the last 35 years, which is very different from the story told by Iranian propaganda.
In my opinion, it's Iran and Hezbollah who want to expand, throughout the Middle East and beyond, which is why they project these same ambitions onto Israelis and Westerners in general, and use these projections as justifications to fight and pillage. If you read the comments and articles on their propaganda sites, the Palestinians are a political tool who will either convert to Shia en masse once they've been "liberated", or will eventually be swept aside so a Shia Islamic state can be established in their place.
Ok, so Russia insists everything be done through the UN, they insist that a neutral inspection process will show that their pitbull wasn't responsible for gassing his own people. Now through technical arguments the UN report does everything to point towards Assad's guilt without actually uttering the words, and Russia says it's biased.
Why bother with the news, with independent sources, with scienticians and all that other nonsense? Anything America agrees with is evil, like oxygen, so don't breathe it! If you want the truth, all that's necessary is for Putin to rub a crystal ball across some dead Orthodox saint's corpse and it'll tell us all we need to know.
Why bother with the news, with independent sources, with scienticians and all that other nonsense? Anything America agrees with is evil, like oxygen, so don't breathe it! If you want the truth, all that's necessary is for Putin to rub a crystal ball across some dead Orthodox saint's corpse and it'll tell us all we need to know.
CptBork, just like any issue, there is more than one side to be fully considered - and usually way more than just a few.
As far as the Syrian Issue goes, the "kitchen is overflowing with cooks trying to ensure that it is their recipe that ends up on the customers table".
Question: why did we not argue for going in with UN forces and Assad forced permission and taking all the chemical weapons, would be a lot better then paying him to destroying them, and a lot faster then 1 year. As is we aren't even sending in someone to guard and check these stockpiles, what if they fall into the wrong hands (hands wronger than Assad's), what if they have already?
Bells
Staff member
It is hardly unexpected of Putin. All the evidence does point to Assad's forces using those weapons:
The munitions - unguided rockets - are the key element in this report. Samples of sarin were recovered from the majority of fragments of the warheads.
But more importantly the two types of rocket used - a Russian-supplied 140mm system and especially the larger 330mm weapon of unknown origin - are significant since according to both Human Rights Watch and a number of independent arms experts - these are weapons that have only been observed in use by Syrian government forces during this conflict.
There is significantly more detail on these weapons in the Human Rights Watch report Attacks on Ghouta (caution: disturbing images) published earlier this month.
But more importantly the two types of rocket used - a Russian-supplied 140mm system and especially the larger 330mm weapon of unknown origin - are significant since according to both Human Rights Watch and a number of independent arms experts - these are weapons that have only been observed in use by Syrian government forces during this conflict.
There is significantly more detail on these weapons in the Human Rights Watch report Attacks on Ghouta (caution: disturbing images) published earlier this month.
And Putin's stance gets even more ridiculous.
The Syria disarmament plan was unveiled by the US and Russia last weekend.
The West wants the deal enshrined in a UN resolution backed by the threat of military force, but Russia objects.
The West wants the deal enshrined in a UN resolution backed by the threat of military force, but Russia objects.
I doubt the plan to have him destroy his chemical weapons stock is going to work. Assad cannot be trusted and Russia will object and veto any plan to punish him through the UN if he fails to deliver on his promises.
"Assad: Syria needs one year to destroy chemical weapons" from link ^^above^^ : "Putin's stance gets even more ridiculous." -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24155674
Chemical weapons are evidently fairly hard to destroy :
link - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-chemical-weapons-destruction
"US struggles show hazards of chemical weapons destruction"
"If the Obama administration wants an example of the difficulties involved in destroying chemical weapons, it might reflect upon its own struggles to get rid of cold-war era chemical arsenals stockpiled in tightly controlled storage facilities in Kentucky and Colorado.
The United States promised, but failed, to destroy these stocks by 2012 at the very latest. The most recent forecast from the US is that the process of "neutralising" the chemicals in its Colorado weapons dump will be finished by 2018; the date for Kentucky is 2023. That will be 11 years after the US promised to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles, and eight years after Russia – the other major possessor of declared chemical weapons – says it will have finished destroying its arsenal.
Since the late 1990s, the US has made great efforts to destroy its own chemical weapons caches, and facilitating the process in the handful of other so-called "possessor states" – in some cases helping fund the process through aid.
However, technological and political challenges have resulted in lengthy delays. By missing its deadlines, the US and other countries have arguably breached a founding principle of the same treaty cited as a reason to justify an attack on Syria.
When the convention came into force in 1997, participating countries agreed to destroy their stockpiles within 10 years, with an option to apply for a five-year extension. Five countries – the US, Russia, South Korea, India and Albania – all missed the main 2007 deadline.
Two years ago, the United States, Russia and Libya were granted further extensions to a previously agreed final deadline for destroying their weapons." - quoted from link at top of quote
Personally, I only know what happens when they are not properly destroyed - over real quick - but lots of "Blowback" or "Unintended Consequences"!! (think GWS)
p.s. There may be other major possessors of "undeclared chemical weapons" and/or under the convention, the nations do not have to destroy "their undeclared chemical weapons"!
Perhaps "expensive" to destroy is a better description, but not hard to make unusable.
If it takes Syria a year to destroy everything, that doesn't sound excessive.
Of course, it depends on how much of it there is.
In the United States, neutralization was first selected as an alternative to incineration to destroy stockpiles of chemical agent stored in bulk. Depending on the type of agent to be destroyed, neutralization destroys the chemical agent by mixing it with hot water or hot water and sodium hydroxide. The U.S. Army’s Chemical Materials Agency applied this method to safely eliminate its stockpile of mustard agent in Edgewood, Md., and VX nerve agent in Newport, Ind. Both stockpiles were stored in large steel containers without explosives or other weapon components. The industrial wastewater produced by the process, known as hydrolysate, was sent to a permitted commercial hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facility for treatment and disposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_chemical_weapons
The same method is used for Sarin.
If it takes Syria a year to destroy everything, that doesn't sound excessive.
Of course, it depends on how much of it there is.
In the United States, neutralization was first selected as an alternative to incineration to destroy stockpiles of chemical agent stored in bulk. Depending on the type of agent to be destroyed, neutralization destroys the chemical agent by mixing it with hot water or hot water and sodium hydroxide. The U.S. Army’s Chemical Materials Agency applied this method to safely eliminate its stockpile of mustard agent in Edgewood, Md., and VX nerve agent in Newport, Ind. Both stockpiles were stored in large steel containers without explosives or other weapon components. The industrial wastewater produced by the process, known as hydrolysate, was sent to a permitted commercial hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facility for treatment and disposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_chemical_weapons
The same method is used for Sarin.
WSJ is suggesting that the Islamist factions are now going after the FSA. If true (a confirming report would be nice), it would be a little earlier than expected. If the Islamists win, I think one can confidently expect much more widespread massacre of Syrian minorities.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579082924138453120.html?mod=trending_now_1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579082924138453120.html?mod=trending_now_1
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Separate timelines should be established for when Assad is going to be effectively defanged, and when Syria will be rid of all the toxic byproducts. The former is what the international community should be most concerned with, the latter is more of a domestic issue. If it only takes a few months to neutralize Assad's arsenal and the rest is simply cleanup, then perfect, let's get cracking.
Well then maybe the West should start providing the support it's been promising the FSA for months without delivering, the same aid it should have started providing 2 years ago, so we can ensure that your scenario doesn't become reality. All the same, even if the secularists somehow manage to overpower the Islamists and drive them back into the woodwork, watch Assad's allies continue to label them all as godless takfiris and maintain the slaughter.
Go for a negotiated settlement. Arming the opposition will only mean more arms and support come behind Assad. Russia is not going to allow the loss of her base.
Maybe we could teach them to say nice things about Assad when they get slapped around by the Shabiha, maybe that'll solve it. You must come from a really, really, really nice gated community, probably never had to deal with any militiamen or KGB agents, but I assure you there are nasty people in this world who will take whatever they feel they can get by whatever means necessary, and they don't really care for how it makes you feel. To hell with what Russia wants, they want Poland and the Ukraine too but it ain't gonna happen. Maybe if they ask nicely and pony up enough cash, the Syrian people and their future democratically elected leader will opt to let Russia keep its base- maybe.
Is there an opposition side that is pro-Russian then? Maybe they can beat Assad and Russia still get its way.
The opposition is too fragmented to win.
CptBork, with all due respect, and fully hoping that you do not read anything other than pure curiosity, (which is Indeed, all that it is!), into my following question.
Have you personally ever "...had to deal with any...KGB agents"?
That's a reach. Another question - admittedly also a reach - is whether the threat posed to the future of syria by jihadis might become so serious that the assad regime and syrian free army are forced into negotiations to create a unified front against the islamists? Such a threat could even mobilize syrian civilians because this is now a war against foreign invaders.
Last edited:
"syrian free army" are the jihadists, they just sticked a pretty boy general for media for all to see their civil image upkeep.
Sounds like you describing CIA there pal. To hell what USA wants, they want Egyptian and Syrian oil, but it aint gonna happen. Maybe if they keep their hands to themselves, their "democratic" bullet-in-head agendas will be kept in their own country instead. No wonder US citizens are killing each other in rampages and massacres.