Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 88

Thread: Syria: Cameron and Obama agree to military strike over chemical weapons

  1. #21
    I'll most likely shit myself



    bacpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    7,610
    Here is a little different take on it. The way things have been going on the last several years, it is hard to argue with. Time will tell how true it is.

    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ar...9339#more-9339

    Intelligence insider: Syria, World War III & the hidden objective
    hagmann082613

    Image courtesy of Canada Free Press

    Please comment on this article at Canada Free Press

    By Douglas J. Hagmann

    26 August 2013: ”Pay attention! You are seeing the opening acts to a global war, to World War III. Refer to the information I gave you right after the attacks in Benghazi, specifically to the information contained in ‘Lemmings…at the precipice of WW III‘ and you will see that everything I divulged to you was precisely correct. World War III will begin in Syria, and no one on the planet (and Americans in particular) will be left untouched by what is about to take place. This has been planned for some time, and we are now seeing it happen right in front of us.” Those are the words of a trusted source with deep ties to the intelligence community, before providing more insight into what we might expect as this ‘crisis’ escalates and “Syria explodes.”


    As I wrote in that article published on October 8, 2012, “All that is needed now is for a dutiful media to present one image, a video, or some other proof that Assad or someone else is using, or has their hands on, unconventional weapons. This will provide the necessary pretext for the U.S. and NATO, to intervene and ramp up the war against Assad. The UN will assist, and the red line will then have been crossed.” That will be the trigger event for U.S. involvement, and the escalation into a global conflict.

    We are now at that critical moment, as the images of the use of chemical weapons are all over the news, and all fingers are pointing to Assad as the culprit. Just as predicted, The Guardian among other media outlets reported that “David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the West closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week’s alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a ‘serious response.’” But it’s a lie, a magic show, to keep people’s attention away from something much bigger on the horizon.

    Syria through the lens of the Arab Spring & Benghazi

    “The entire scenario we are seeing is one big magic act that began long ago, and Syria is just the ‘flash-bang’ diversion of the act, albeit a vital one. To understand how we got here is critically important, as it identifies the larger agenda or the big picture too few are seeing and too many are attempting to hide.

    Consider the blatant continuity of agenda that has spanned several American presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Progressive and Conservative. This transcends political parties and the ‘political theater’ that has been designed to keep Americans occupied. Both political parties, however, are unified under a much larger globalist agenda, which explains why the policies of the Bush ‘dynasty’ have been exponentially increased under the Obama ‘regime.’

    “Think about it. The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for awhile. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were in getting position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat? It makes no sense, unless you understand the larger objective and the ‘big picture.’”

    “Okay, so explain the big picture,” I asked my source. “And please do it in a way that I can explain it to my neighbor, or my family, so they too can understand what we’re seeing.” What follows is an uninterrupted monologue from my intelligence insider.

    The big picture explained

    “Here’s the global picture. When you see it, it will make sense. This is about reshaping the entire power structure of not just the Middle East, but of the world.”

    “Remember that the 2001 attacks against the U.S. was the catalyst for our military operations in Afghanistan, and then ostensibly Iraq under George W. Bush, a so-called ‘conservative republican.’ We could have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned up what we needed to, and come home. Instead, while still in Afghanistan, we went into Iraq after convincing the world they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember that George H. W. Bush, also a ‘conservative republican,’ engaged Iraq in ‘Gulf War I’ in 1990. Essentially, we’ve been in Iraq for the last quarter of a century! Why? Think about that.”

    “And, we’ve been in Afghanistan for the last dozen years or so. Why? Oil and opium. It’s a ‘international bankers war.’ [Note that a recent report from 'The Guerrilla Economist lays this out here, excerpted as follows]: ”…[L]arge US military bases are on the very path of the purposed [Caspian Sea oil] pipeline. This as well that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find its way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.”

    “Oh, and by the way, if you mention Iran’s nuclear ambitions, why did we wait so long to really address this and keep Israel from doing so before any action would require a very protracted military campaign? Keep that in the back of your mind.”

    “Now here’s another important part of the magic act. After eight years of George Bush, Americans were weary of war. So, a little known man named Barack Hussein Obama was selected to run against John McCain in 2008. Why Obama and not Hillary? Because the real power players needed a man with Muslim Brotherhood connections to accomplish what was needed in the Middle East. Think back to his Cairo speech. Consider that all of his campaign promises to end the wars were not only broken, but the wars and unrest were expanded by his policies, or the policies of those who put him into power.”

    “So we’ve stayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq.” Then comes the Arab Spring, which was planned years in advance. It was not some serendipitously spontaneous movement by oppressed people longing for democracy, but a Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood plan to regain control of what was once the Ottoman Empire, this time on steroids. People must think bigger, outside of the confines of the Middle East.”

    “As much as I don’t like the thought of saying this, Putin was correct in asking what sense it makes to destabilize the entire Middle East, especially Syria, a client state of Russia. In the context of regional affairs, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now, we are going to send cruise missiles into Syria… to hit what? Chemical weapons stockpiles stored in densely populated areas? How is this going to help the Syrians? The refugees fleeing from Syria?”

    “I’ve told you, and you have written that we are implementing the Saudi agenda across the Middle East. But who is behind the Saudis? It is the international banking cartel, those ‘too big to jail,’ who are behind the Saudis. It’s their war and they’re funding all sides of the conflict. No matter what, they win. But what do they win?”

    “Admittedly it’s difficult if not nearly impossible to tell all the players without a scorecard, and even then, the players will change their uniforms to keep everyone confused. But here’s the important part. Syria is a proxy state for Russia, as is Iran. China has interests in Iran as well. If you look at all of the major powers, they all have interests in the Middle East. So who will we, the U.S. ultimately be fighting when Syria explodes? Russia. And what will be the blowback? That’s important to understand, for it is also the objective.”



    The rest of the article can be found at the link above.

  2. #22
    CC Gray Panther
    eagle326's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ohio surrounded by farm land
    Posts
    1,998
    This along with the guy from D.H.S. and you have two possible war front openings to battle. Never have one front if you're capable of more ; this way you stretch the enemies resources. Or so they believe.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    50
    Surprise surprise. Senator John Mccain thinks we need to give weapons to the rebels and attack/bomb the Syrian military. Here is the interview I captured a couple minutes ago.


  4. #24
    Let him know if you need 550 cord, a hank of generic rope, and some duct tape

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    344
    I wonder where the WMDs came from...

  5. #25
    Is kinda partial to Charmin...can you spare a square
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Richarddbeck View Post
    Surprise surprise. Senator John Mccain thinks we need to give weapons to the rebels and attack/bomb the Syrian military. Here is the interview I captured a couple minutes ago.

    McStain, the traitor!

    Bob
    III

  6. #26
    I'll most likely shit myself



    bacpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    7,610
    That man is an IDIOT!

    WMD's hell Iran and Iraq both used them in their war in the 80's. Saddam used them against the Kurds after G.H.W Bush pulled back after the 1st Gulf War. I just heard one of the talking heads mention that on the news over the weekend. I thought funny thing that wasn't brought up when W sent troops to Iraq. Syria has had them all along to. Most likely Eygpt as well.

  7. #27
    stark assed naked and butt to nut with no issues
    Stormfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,350
    Quote Originally Posted by MegaCPC View Post
    I wonder where the WMDs came from...
    They are leftovers from Saddam Husseins arsenal. . . duh. . .I thought everyone knew that?!?!
    RELIGION IS LIKE A PENIS
    Its fine to have one,
    Its fine to be proud of it,
    But please dont whip it out in public and start waving it around,
    And PLEASE dont try to force it down my children's throats.

    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

  8. #28
    Claptrap's Problem Solver



    The Stig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    3,115
    Original story HERE at wallstreetjournal

    Loose Lips on Syria
    U.S. leaks tell Assad he can relax. The bombing will be brief and limited.

    An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

    The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed." The Times adds that "like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity."

    Thus do the legal and moral requirements of secret military operations lose out in this Administration to the imperatives of in-the-know spin and political gestures.

    It's always possible that all of this leaking about when, how and for how long the U.S. will attack Syria is an elaborate head-fake, like Patton's ghost army on the eve of D-Day, poised for the assault on Calais. But based on this Administration's past behavior, such as the leaked bin Laden raid details, chances are most of this really is the war plan.

    Which makes us wonder why the Administration even bothers to pursue the likes of Edward Snowden when it is giving away its plan of attack to anyone in Damascus with an Internet connection. The answer, it seems, is that the attack in Syria isn't really about damaging the Bashar Assad regime's capacity to murder its own people, much less about ending the Assad regime for good.

    "I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. Translation: We're not coming for you, Bashar, so don't worry. And by the way, you might want to fly those attack choppers off base, at least until next week.

    So what is the purpose of a U.S. attack? Mr. Carney elaborated that it's "about responding to [a] clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons." He added that the U.S. had a national security interest that Assad's use of chemical weapons "not go unanswered." This is another way of saying that the attacks are primarily about making a political statement, and vindicating President Obama's ill-considered promise of "consequences," rather than materially degrading Assad's ability to continue to wage war against his own people.

    It should go without saying that the principal purpose of a military strike is to have a military effect. Political statements can always be delivered politically, and U.S. airmen should not be put in harm's way to deliver what amounts to an extremely loud diplomatic demarche. That's especially so with a "do something" strike that is, in fact, deliberately calibrated to do very little.

    We wrote Tuesday that there is likely to be no good outcome in Syria until Assad and his regime are gone. Military strikes that advance that goal—either by targeting Assad directly or crippling his army's ability to fight—deserve the support of the American people and our international partners. That's not what this Administration seems to have in mind.
    If you think that come SHTF you are gonna jock up in all your kit and be a death-dealing one man army, you're an idiot - izzyscout

  9. #29
    Claptrap's Problem Solver



    The Stig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    3,115
    Original story HERE at skynews

    Syria: Phone Calls 'Prove' Regime Behind Attack
    A call in which a Syrian official demands an explanation for the use of chemical weapons is reportedly overheard by US spies.
    5:56pm UK, Wednesday 28 August 2013

    By Sky News US Team

    The US is certain an alleged poison gas attack in Syria was carried out by the regime of President Bashar al Assad after listening to intercepted telephone calls, according to reports.

    US intelligence services overheard panicked conversations in which a Syrian defence official demanded an explanation for the attack from a leader of a chemical weapons unit, according to the Foreign Policy website.

    The phone calls, as well as photo evidence and local accounts, are reportedly part of the portfolio of evidence the US is preparing before proceeding with a response - possibly a military strike - in the coming days.

    But the intercept raises questions about the nature of last Wednesday's attack in the capital Damascus that is believed to have killed hundreds of people, including civilians.

    If a Syrian defence official was questioning the chemical weapons unit about the assault, it raises the possibility that it was a rogue event.
    President Obama The Obama administration insists the Syrian government must be punished

    Or was it cleared at the highest levels, without the say-so from mid-level defence officials?

    "It's unclear where control lies," one US intelligence official told Foreign Policy.

    "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

    The Syrian regime has denied carrying out the attack, saying it was actually the rebels who were behind it with the aim of portraying the Assad government in a bad light.

    US officials are mulling what type of military strike in Syria might deter future chemical weapons attacks and are trying to assess how President Assad would respond, two officials said.

    The Obama administration has insisted the Syrian government must be punished for its alleged use of toxic gas on civilians last week but said regime change was not on the agenda.

    UN inspectors car UN inspectors have been gathering evidence at the site of the attack

    US intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out the evidence against Mr Assad's government on chemical weapons.

    The classified version would be sent to key members of Congress, and a declassified version would be released publicly.

    However, the White House says it was already convinced and was planning a possible military response and is seeking support from international partners including Britain and France.

    The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are meeting informally to discuss the language of a resolution drafted by Britain that would authorise the use of military force against Syria.

    But Russia, a Syrian ally and a permanent member of the Security Council, is all but certain to veto a resolution authorising force.

    Meanwhile, the UK parliament was being recalled for a debate and vote on the Syrian crisis on Thursday.

    British Prime Minister David Cameron insists any use of force would only be a response to the use of banned chemical weapons and would be legal and proportionate.
    *cough* Gulf of Tonkin *cough*
    If you think that come SHTF you are gonna jock up in all your kit and be a death-dealing one man army, you're an idiot - izzyscout

  10. #30
    Claptrap's Problem Solver



    The Stig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    3,115
    Original story HERE at isrealinationalnews


    Khamenei: Region is Like a Gunpowder Depot, US Attack a Disaster
    Britain to present a draft to the UN Security Council Wednesday "authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.

    By Kochava Rozenbaum & Gil Ronen
    First Publish: 8/28/2013, 2:02 PM

    Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the US on Wednesday not to attack Syria.

    "The US intervention will be a disaster for the region," Khamenei said as he spoke with the cabinet of Iranian President Hassan Rowhani, state television reported.

    "The region is like a gunpowder storage depot. (Its) future cannot be predicted" in case of a military strike against Syria, he added.

    Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi rejected reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had flown in to Iran as an “amusing joke.”

    Araqchi told the official news agency IRNA that the news is false and was “mostly like[ly] a funny joke made up by the Zionists.”

    The United Kingdom has drafted a resolution concerning a possible strike on Syria which will be discussed at a meeting Wednesday with representatives of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The resolution would contain wording "authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians."

    BBC News reported that the information was posted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron via Twitter.

    Meanwhile, a squad of UN weapons inspectors continued investigations into the alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people on August 21. The investigation had been suspended after investigators were shot at near Damascus by unidentified snipers on Monday.

    A spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that the inspectors were to “conduct on-site fact-finding activities” following General Ban Ki-moon's appeal to the council to take action.

    "The body interested with maintaining international peace and security cannot be 'missing in action'," said General Ban Ki-moon. "The council must at last find the unity to act. It must use its authority for peace," he added.

    British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a separate message regarding the council that, "we've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria. Today they have an opportunity to do that.”

    The draft resolution that the UK will put forward would condemn the "chemical weapons attack by Assad", he added.

    The opposition

    Russia and China have previously prevented resolutions critical of Syria and plan to block any text deemed to authorize military action.

    The Russian Foreign Ministry called upon the international community to make sure that their investigation into the use of chemical weapons by Syria be carried out in a fair and professional manner.

    Russia, China and Iran have previously warned against launching an attack on the war-ravaged country, where more than 100,000 people are thought to have died in two years of fighting.
    If you think that come SHTF you are gonna jock up in all your kit and be a death-dealing one man army, you're an idiot - izzyscout

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •