Initial Western intelligence finds Syrian forces used chemical weapons

Comments (73)
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
citizen782 wrote:

Ya, ousting those middle eastern strongmen to make way for radical Islamist regimes with even greater hostility towards the US has proven to be quite expensive.

Aug 23, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:

When did American politicians start worrying over the cost – fiscal, political or otherwise – of invading another nation.

That’s what lying is for.

Aug 23, 2013 10:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:

When did American politicians start worrying over the cost – fiscal, political or otherwise – of invading another nation.

That’s what lying is for.

Aug 23, 2013 10:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Is there any credibility left for American Intelligence? For the NSA? CIA? I do not think so. They would issue a paper insisting that the Moon is most likely solid green cheese. Then there are those objective Israeli sources. Send in the Swiss and the Swedes.

This is the price of cutting corners with US citizens. For their employees, this has been a career-ender. Now we have to build a law-abiding intelligence community that respects the rights of Americans that they swore to protect. It will probably take a very long time to rebuild any significant trust with our own people.

Aug 23, 2013 4:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
westernshame wrote:

“U.S. and allied intelligence agencies’ have made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces”

would these be the same intelligence agencies that have been caught lying to achieve their governments agendas repeatedly in the past??

of course they are. fool me once, etc, etc, etc………

Aug 23, 2013 6:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ToshiroMifune wrote:

Anyone who believes anything U.S. “intelligence” says about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is a fool.

Aug 23, 2013 6:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TastySalmon wrote:

I seem to remember our intelligence agencies confirming the existence of Iraqi WMDs. We all know how well that turned out.

Don’t trust the government is a good message to take away from this. They’ve lied, cheated and manipulated many times before to draw us into wars for profit.

Aug 23, 2013 6:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wfwilson6 wrote:

Looks like RED is not working. Obama better use another color.

Aug 23, 2013 7:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Google: U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

Aug 23, 2013 7:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
vickster339 wrote:

None of this makes sense, and it all stinks.

Aug 23, 2013 7:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kjhseoul wrote:

Nigeria , Siria , Egypt , Afgnistan ,
Irac , Palestin , Rebanon , Yemen…
All the countries of Islam have the endless quarrel/civil wars.
In Africa, Arab, South/middle America, Asia are about the same quarrels.
What is the devil problem with them?
And when will they stop to kill each other?

Aug 23, 2013 7:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dencal26 wrote:

Last year Obama said this was his RED LINE. So now what? Either he invades Syria or looks like a lying fool

Aug 23, 2013 7:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
majkmushrm wrote:

Intel sources, huh? Like curveball? Rather than trusting a bunch of intelligence weenies, I’d prefer to wait for the UN to make an actual assessment on the ground.

Aug 23, 2013 7:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oxen wrote:

Collin Powel was very precise at UN spelling out WMD, and delivery means etc Saddam had. In the end, there was none. Now Al-Qaeda rebels supported by CIA and Israel intelligence are claiming with precise details on how Assad approved use of Chemical weapons! Now the West( US/UK /France) & Israel believe that the world will take them at their word with their Al-Qaeda cannibal rebel friends! That is a disgrace to make judgements before any investigations are carried out. The most likely suspects are MOSSAD, Al-Nusra, M17, and CIA. Russia and China must stand firm at UN security council and foil all nefarious attempts to dupe UN and manipulate any mandate like NATO did shamelessly in Libya. That must not be tolerated this time.

Aug 23, 2013 7:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
freedombattle wrote:

Those who support a man who attacks women and children with chemical weapons are shame to humanity.

Aug 23, 2013 7:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jeanmichel wrote:

The purpose of the intelligence etc. is to fool the naïve and stupid western people.
People in other countries know that the western countries are murderers. They know that the western countries started the war in Syria and support the rebels and will use everything, including the most shameful lies, to discredit the legitimate Syrian government.

Aug 23, 2013 7:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
eJunior wrote:

I think it was pretty obvious that there were a chemycal attack. The key point here is who launched the attack.

What doesnt make sense is why the attack was launched, what would Assad pobibly gain from it? It was a irrational unestrategic move that of course was going turn against him

Aug 23, 2013 8:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Neurochuck wrote:

Was it an attack by islamists (al Nusra/al Qaeda/Chechen jihadi) on an area held by other rebels (FSA, etc) ?
Most of the video/reporting seems to come through western linked channels.
Was it delivered by military artillery/rockets or can ordinary cooking gas pressure cylinders be used to smuggle and transport poison gases ?
TV programs demonstrate Roman/Crusader era catapults etc which could be used to silently lob gas cylinders hundreds of yards from a rooftop.
Or carried by suicide “bombers” wanting 5 star martyrdom from Big Al with an endless supply of 10 year old virgin takfiris to torture and screw.

Aug 23, 2013 8:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

With as much money as the US spends on intelligence, watching the internet and other spies, we should get this one right.

Aug 23, 2013 9:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
c0menter wrote:

When reading articles like these, remember that the law banning US govt from spreading propaganda to influence US people ended last month. Furthermore, know the govt has been (likely) feeding you propaganda for years and is struggling to make a case against either side in this current conflict.

Aug 23, 2013 9:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Reidhos wrote:

And then we started counting in reverse.

Aug 23, 2013 9:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
branchltd wrote:

There were 5 areas on opposite sides of Damascus attacked at the same time. The attacks were followed by Syrian artillery and air strikes in the same area. The next day the Syrian army made ground assaults in the same area. I doubt the rebels could predict when and where the Syrian army was attacking. Moreover, this involved at least several hundred pounds of chemical weapons delivered either by multiple rocket launchers or missiles. The rebels in the South don’t have any of this stuff. Finally, I seriously doubt they could convince enough of rebels of the merit of attacking their own populations to carry out such an alleged scheme. No. The evidence clearly points to Syria and to Syria only.
So why did they do it? Step back a couple of weeks and remember the rebel attacks in Alawite areas. They took over a dozen villages before Syria shifted enough force to drive them out. If Syria can’t defend it’s most important territory, right near Assad’s home town, they clearly have a manpower shortage. City fighting is very costly, just look at Stalingrad. They used poison gas because it was hoped to reduce casualties, casualties they obviously can no longer afford to take.
I wasn’t privy to the decision. However, my guess would be that Assad already figured out that Obama, at most, would make symbolic attacks directed against chemical weapons stores. I’m guessing he was probably right if that’s what he thought.

Aug 23, 2013 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
acpa4u wrote:

I retire this year from 43 years in the US military. If Obama sends us in to invade Syria I think the military will finally say enough is enough and will mutiny.

Aug 23, 2013 9:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
eJunior wrote:

@branchltd How can he possibly be shortage of resources to take over a city if he is having backup from Iran and other countries to fight the rebels?

Also, Sudan have chemical weapons and have been seen sending shipments to the rebels 1 week prior to the attack http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/world/africa/arms-shipments-seen-from-sudan-to-syria-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Also you are implying that Assad didnt foresee that all the world is against chemical attacks and the world were gonna turn up to rebels support if he did so. He was going to win this fight without it anyway he just took a huge-risk factor over nothing.

Ultimately, it isnt Rebel’s ‘population’, the rebels just conquered the city. As Assad’s citys dont necessarely support Assad either.

Aug 23, 2013 9:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
eJunior wrote:

In my opinion it makes much more sense this would be a move planned by extremists to gather world support. They are the only one benefiting from it.

But I rather see how the investigation develops, too much thing to be uncovered up yet.

Aug 23, 2013 10:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

@branchltd:

Help me out here, please. So Assad first let in UN chemical weapon inspectors and then launched the kind of attack they were looking to prove right next to them, while they were there? So is Assad stupid, or what?

And if this kind of attack would benefit someone, who would it benefit?

Aug 23, 2013 10:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DiegoSaa wrote:

It would be interesting to know the official position of the US as to why it has been supporting and arming fundamentalist groups that want to take down a moderate and democratic government which is the only secular regime in the region.

It would be interesting to know the reasons why a government would want to commit political suicide by attacking its own civilians, in its capital city which is mainly pro-regime and which is under its control.

It would be interesting to know why so many people are still so gullible after having been lied to so many times.

Aug 23, 2013 10:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheBornLoser wrote:

1. Assessment coming from the same agencies that claimed that Saddam had nuclear weapons? No credibility, sorry.

2. Mounting international outcry – propaganda statement.

3. “The credibility issue is very high here…” What credibility?

Aug 23, 2013 10:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

quick, Obama, talk about another Red Line!

Aug 23, 2013 10:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rhino1 wrote:

World, UN!

This is terrorism in its purest form! WorldCitizens being gassed. I thought we won’t let that happen anymore???

This is not only the US’s responsibility (although they always seem to think it is), this is everyone’s responsibility.

Please, do something. Just send some mercenaries, for Dog’s sake. This prick and his friends need to disappear from the face of this earth and I don’t see why regular soldiers with wives, husbands and kids have to risk their lives in this case.

World governments, as we just found out thanks to Mr. Snowden, you are breaking so many rules, it makes you sick only thinking about it, just splash out 20 or 30 million euros and get it done and over with.

Aug 23, 2013 10:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
blackout wrote:

when Obama stop helping terrorist in Syria, the war and killing overthere will soon end. American involvement in sporting terrorist activity in syria is the biggest reason of the long civil war over there.

Aug 23, 2013 11:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
grasspress wrote:

i can’t help but wonder if the best strategy at this late point in the game is to target bashir al-assad himself for a cruise missile attack. if he were killed the military would compete with civilian politicians and high ranking alawite players for preeminence to control and run the country and this would force them to either seek a quick cease-fire or to persevere with even more heavy-handed destruction and murder. either way it would speed up the end game which couldn’t possibly be any worse than what has played out so far. i think the time has come to stop thinking that things may turn for the better and put an end to the catastrophe while there are still some syrians left.

Aug 23, 2013 11:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TastySalmon wrote:

grasspress wrote:

“i can’t help but wonder if the best strategy at this late point in the game is to target bashir al-assad himself for a cruise missile attack.”

Yes, let’s kill the leader of the only military that is actively slaughtering Al Qaeda mercenaries. Smart.

I suppose you’re one of the many who was duped into believing Saddam had WMDs and was harboring terrorists.

Aug 23, 2013 11:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RandyC wrote:

Hundreds of videos showing apparent victims of a chemical weapons attack in Syria were uploaded to YouTube on August 20, a day before media reports say the attack actually happened, prompting Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman to assert the incident was a “pre-planned” provocation staged by rebels.

As PBS reports, “At around 3 a.m. (on August 21st) , patients started streaming in from neighborhoods in suburban Damascus like Zamalka and Ain Terma,” following the alleged chemical weapons attack.

However, a playlist of videos entitled ‘Alleged Chemical Attack in Eastern Ghouta August 21st 2013‘ contains 159 videos – every one of which was uploaded to YouTube on August 20th.

While no one is denying that some kind of attack did indeed take place, the fact that hundreds of videos showing victims of the attack were uploaded to YouTube a day before the incident is supposed to have actually happened remains unexplained.

The time stamp attributed to uploaded videos applies to the country in which they were uploaded, meaning that the videos were uploaded in Syria on August 20th, which is seemingly impossible given that the attack took place in the early hours of the 21st. The only way the videos could display as being uploaded on the 20th was if they were uploaded in America, which is on an earlier time zone.

Aug 23, 2013 11:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
whuppsadaisy wrote:

Its all about the money, and it always has been, besides gas mask sales are up.

Aug 23, 2013 11:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
whuppsadaisy wrote:

Its all about the money, and it always has been, besides gas mask sales are up.

Aug 23, 2013 11:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Neight83 wrote:

The best thing President Obama could do in this situation will be exactly what I hope he DOESN’T do, which is send US troops into another middle eastern country where our soldiers die for for someone else’s freedom.
I don’t want to sound cold-hearted, but let these people kill each other already! For once, lets stay out of it and focus on the really big problems we have right here at home.

Aug 23, 2013 11:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TastySalmon wrote:

Here’s a video that talks about recent reasons to start wars, US government lies, false flag events, etc. Highly suggested for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQFfhqUBacg&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA

Aug 23, 2013 11:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JMWinPR wrote:

Anyone have any idea how Syria acquired chemical weapons?

Aug 23, 2013 11:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Anthonykovic wrote:

Thousands of people die each day worldwide due to brutality and injustice. Why should THIS INCIDENT be on the top of the list, on the headlines ?

Aug 23, 2013 11:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Swissik wrote:

Might these be the weapons of mass destruction that, a number of years ago, were observed being transported from Irak to Syria?

Aug 24, 2013 1:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Swissik wrote:

Might these be the weapons of mass destruction that, a number of years ago, were observed being transported from Irak to Syria?

Aug 24, 2013 1:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Leonard001 wrote:

Assad didn’t do it. Rebels did.

Aug 24, 2013 2:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
covington.13 wrote:

This is most likely the rebels doing! Why would Assad do this when the momentum of the war is on his side and there are weapons inspectors right there in the same city? It would just give the US justification to intervene. On the other hand, the rebels have every reason to do it and blame it on Assad, they definitely want the US to get involved!

Aug 24, 2013 3:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
oldwatusi wrote:

The last time our president “sat out” a genocide was in Rawanda. Bill Clinton made a trip there after he left office to “say he was sorry”. Will we get this same scene from Obama regarding Syria and chemical weapons used upon their own people? I doubt it, Obama seems to feel he is above any and all responsibility for anything. This defines he is a 0 – or of no value. Only the media that worships at the Obama alter considers him of value.

Aug 24, 2013 4:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
WJL wrote:

Russia also has fleet in the vicinity. The US should stop escalating the situation.

Aug 24, 2013 6:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
anthony.in wrote:

Enough of this!! 10 years back too the intelligence agencies found evidence of WMD in Iraq we are still searching for them. Let the Syrians fight it out amongst themselves to sort out their issues.

Aug 24, 2013 6:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
divebubba2 wrote:

A year later Western Intelligence doesn’t know what happened in Benghazi, but we know what happened in Syria last week. We are sooooo smart!!

Aug 24, 2013 7:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
joegreene wrote:

If Assad chems Syrian kids he’d be cutting his own throat. If this did happen we’d never find out who, that would be too close to home.

Aug 24, 2013 7:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cooldela wrote:

Even though Obama gave us the surge in Afghanistan and has kept troops there throughout his time in office I do not consider Afghanistan to really be Obama’s War. If he is going to have his own war then Syria is his best bet. If he gets us involved in Syria’s domestic troubles then I think history will be justified in calling it “Obama’s War.” Many Presidents want their own war.

However, it saddens me to think of all the American deaths to come.

Aug 24, 2013 8:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Hundreds of operatives trained by the US and Israel started pouring into Syria from Jordan a week ago, and UN weapons inspectors just arrived in Syria.
How difficult would it be for the US/Israeli/Saudi/UK/Turkish coalition to swap a few regular Syrian artillery shells with chemical-weapons shells? Piece of cake.

Aug 24, 2013 8:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
teaisstronger wrote:

ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY DEMOCRATS TO CREATE A BAY OF TONKEN INCIDENT

Its probably a case of food poisoning. Obama needs another war to use up what few logistics the US Armed Forces have left.

Aug 24, 2013 8:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SpeaktheTruth wrote:

Wow, you should be tried for treason with this article.

It was pre-determined and pre-planned to launch a chemical attack and blame it on Assad. There were actually memos that were leaked that showed exactly that.

Multiple doctors have debunked the so called “scores of dead”.

First off, there are people standing over the bodies that were supposedly just gassed. This would have infected them as well.

Scientists and doctors have also stated that the white foam should have been discolored.

The videos that were shown of the “victims” or actors, was made the day before the attacks even began (Check the timestamp on youttube).

The terrorists, I mean FSA, were caught using and testing chemical weapons and even were stupid enough to film it.

The terrorists, I mean US supported Al Qaeda forces of the FSA have been cuaght waving the flag of Al Qaeda, throwing kids off rooftops, burning churches, killing and torturing Christians, and murdering anyone whom is not Islamist enough.

But yet this article tries to paint a sympathetic and victimization of the people of Syria at the hands of Assad and his troops while failing to mention all of the above.

Anyone who supports this attack and the terrorists whom are about to commit is are terrorists themselves.

Stop lying to the American people.

The propaganda is simply not working anymore.

Aug 24, 2013 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SpeaktheTruth wrote:

Wow, you should be tried for treason with this article.

It was pre-determined and pre-planned to launch a chemical attack and blame it on Assad. There were actually memos that were leaked that showed exactly that.

Multiple doctors have debunked the so called “scores of dead”.

First off, there are people standing over the bodies that were supposedly just gassed. This would have infected them as well.

Scientists and doctors have also stated that the white foam should have been discolored.

The videos that were shown of the “victims” or actors, was made the day before the attacks even began (Check the timestamp on youttube).

The terrorists, I mean FSA, were caught using and testing chemical weapons and even were stupid enough to film it.

The terrorists, I mean US supported Al Qaeda forces of the FSA have been cuaght waving the flag of Al Qaeda, throwing kids off rooftops, burning churches, killing and torturing Christians, and murdering anyone whom is not Islamist enough.

But yet this article tries to paint a sympathetic and victimization of the people of Syria at the hands of Assad and his troops while failing to mention all of the above.

Anyone who supports this attack and the terrorists whom are about to commit is are terrorists themselves.

Stop lying to the American people.

The propaganda is simply not working anymore.

Aug 24, 2013 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SpeaktheTruth wrote:

Wow, you should be tried for treason with this article.

It was pre-determined and pre-planned to launch a chemical attack and blame it on Assad. There were actually memos that were leaked that showed exactly that.

Multiple doctors have debunked the so called “scores of dead”.

First off, there are people standing over the bodies that were supposedly just gassed. This would have infected them as well.

Scientists and doctors have also stated that the white foam should have been discolored.

The videos that were shown of the “victims” or actors, was made the day before the attacks even began (Check the timestamp on youttube).

The terrorists, I mean FSA, were caught using and testing chemical weapons and even were stupid enough to film it.

The terrorists, I mean US supported Al Qaeda forces of the FSA have been cuaght waving the flag of Al Qaeda, throwing kids off rooftops, burning churches, killing and torturing Christians, and murdering anyone whom is not Islamist enough.

But yet this article tries to paint a sympathetic and victimization of the people of Syria at the hands of Assad and his troops while failing to mention all of the above.

Anyone who supports this attack and the terrorists whom are about to commit is are terrorists themselves.

Stop lying to the American people.

The propaganda is simply not working anymore.

Aug 24, 2013 10:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
frek149kie wrote:

I suspect this is an orchestration to provoke US involvement which nobody except the Islamist rebels wish to see. Where were these calls for international military intervention when Assad’s father used poison gas on a village containing political opponents years ago? There is no memory, no understanding on the part of the public, no ability to retain knowledge, and certainly NO ability to engage critical thinking.

Aug 24, 2013 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
thamnosma wrote:

Like I believe “western intelligence agencies” who have been arming and funding these jihadist mercenaries. Agencies, in this case the CIA, who were assisting in the smuggling of surface to air portable missiles from Benghazi to Syria via Turkey (as reported by CNN) by these same jihadi mercenaries. The “rebel” forces are made up heavily of paid islamist mercenaries from Libya and other North African countries.

The “western intelligence agencies” likely supplied the chemical weapons themselves to the “rebels”.

Aug 24, 2013 11:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.