Huge Nerve-Agent Chem Attack in Syria?

[cmailliard]

Forgot to add, on the tactical side our target should be the CW's, regardless of which side they are on. This keeps us neutral but targets the true threat to the United States and our allies. This must be done with boots on the ground which nobody wants, but it is a specific objective and best option from a national security standpoint.

Right now we look like a monkey fucking a football. It is amateur hour in Washington.

[waxthis]

You're right, it isn't our place, we have no business being involved.

Sometimes I wonder if there would be more freedom in the world if the United States would just wait for the citizens of other countries to get pissed off enough to revolt against their tormentors. Once the citizens are so pissed off that they start taking action against their dictators we just mail them a copy of The Constitution and Bill of Rights and a promise to help them after they overthrow the dictator. That way the revolution would belong to the citizens of that country and not to the American soldier. The citizens would have run the risks, spilt the blood, and sacrificed themselves on the altar of liberty and they would have self-respect and self-determination instead of watching the soldiers of another country do their fighting for them.

Self-respect is earned by doing things yourself, not by having someone do them for you.

Agreed! This is exactly how it should happen.

[HoneyBadger]

[<MADDOG>]

So here are my thoughts and have been the whole time since the Sarin attack. We must do something....The CW threat to the Unites States is real, especially when the Federal Government is currently reducing its capability to respond to Weapons of Mass Destruction...

Based on that methodology of thinking; I guess we better strike Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea at the same time. We cannot allow CW's to get into the hands of terrorists right?

[Ronin13]

If the UK is saying they won't get involved, regardless of if we do or not, that says something. One of our most loyal and steadfast allies won't back any action we may take, we should probably take a hint.

I just watched a documentary from the BBC last night on the history of Syria and how it got to this point. Bashar Al-Assad's old man was a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood (sounds like a certain world leader we know of in the west), Bashar can't have fallen that far from the father. They both are also part of the Ba'ath party (so was Saddam)- which the Ba'athists align quite closely with European Socialist ideology (see: Nazi Germany) but then they throw in a mix of secular Islamist ideas, which when mixed together equal just about everything we do not stand for here in America- traditionally. So the choice is which evil does Obama want to support? The socialists who want "equality" for all Syrians (which includes 10% of the population that is Christian)? Or the Al Qaeda rebels who want to adhere to strict Sharia Law (which would seek to eradicate the Christian minority in Syria if they gain power)?

[wctriumph]

Well, just to simplify things, we should keep Israel's back and remove ourselves from the middle east, let the muslims have their civil wars in which eventually they will kill millions of them selves with Russian and Chinese arms. After they do that they will have then become a "state" of sorts and we will have a real target to shoot at. Once they unite their hold in the middle east they will go after Europe as hard as they can and make a big push into our extremely tolerant neighbor to the north, Canada. Europe will need to grow some balls to stop the islamic take over of their own countries. While they go after Europe they will at the same time push into India too. Then Russia will be targeted for extermination. The communists will hold out in China and the mostly Catholic areas of South and Central America will go commie before they go muslim.

I'm old so simple works for me, still trying to figure out which way things will go here in the USA but I have an idea where I will stand if things get really out of hand here.

[roberth]

http://www.examiner.com/article/brea...emical-weapons

This just popped up as a link in one of my FB feeds. Still trying to verify.

Ah! So the coverup (mishandling my 'Merican ass) has started because the initial plan to blame Assad failed.

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/eviden...ons-not-assad/

http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress...mical-attacks/

The other question is "Why would Assad need to use CW when he is winning?" The logic doesn't follow, CW is for when you're desperate and losing or you're trying to influence the politics surrounding your conflict.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Ah! So the coverup (mishandling my 'Merican ass) has started because the initial plan to blame Assad failed.

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/eviden...ons-not-assad/

http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress...mical-attacks/

The other question is "Why would Assad need to use CW when he is winning?" The logic doesn't follow, CW is for when you're desperate and losing or you're trying to influence the politics surrounding your conflict.

Good reading & some interesting video. Thanks!

[cmailliard]

Based on that methodology of thinking; I guess we better strike Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea at the same time. We cannot allow CW's to get into the hands of terrorists right?

If Intel shows they are supporting AQ with direct aid (supplying and training) in CW's, yes, absolutely. This is what AQ has wanted all along, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[roberth]

If Intel shows they are supporting AQ with direct aid (supplying and training) in CW's, yes, absolutely. This is what AQ has wanted all along, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

What if that intel discovers the Saudis and our own oval office participated?