Assad says chemical weapons claims 'insult to common sense'

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    Syria warns U.S. not to intervene militarily

    Assad, you are too late now. By the time everyone reads this, we are moving closer to Damascus and we are ready to strike.

    . I am sure Assad has already moved chemical weapons to undisclosed locations prior to UN inspection team arrival. But we are determined to find them and remove them from hands of Assad, so that there will be no more terrible chemical attacks to innocent civilians. .

  • 2

    Jeff Ogrisseg

    Why would Syria's Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day the inspectors arrive, just miles from where they are staying?

  • -5

    globalwatcher

    Jeff, I think the facts are that Assad launched a chemical weapons attack first, then UN inspectors are moving in for the inspection.

  • 1

    JeanValJean

    " Assad, you are too late now. By the time everyone reads this, we are moving closer to Damascus and we are ready to strike. . I am sure Assad has already moved chemical weapons to undisclosed locations prior to UN inspection team arrival. But we are determined to find them and remove them from hands of Assad, so that there will be no more terrible chemical attacks to innocent civilians. ."

    Why does this sound familiar? Oh, that's right. It's the recycled GWB idiocity that led to the Iraq mess.

  • -22

    Bluescript

    Why does this sound familiar? Oh, that's right. It's the recycled GWB idiocity that led to the Iraq mess.

    Yeah, they have one MO, and they just recycle it for each regime change.

    Anyway, as far as I know, nobody is denying Syria has chemical weapons. But there is NO evidence that Syria has ever used them. There is plenty of evidence pointing at the rebels having used it.

    Anyway, here is another informative video by Ben Swann:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLTkMYg4zbI#t=369

    And if you still believe this attempted regime change was not planned long ago, please watch this video of General Wesley Clark :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    Jeff, I think the facts are that Assad launched a chemical weapons attack first, then UN inspectors are moving in for the inspection.

    No, Syria invited the inspectors; and soon after their arrival, the chemical attack was carried out nearby.

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    Why does this sound familiar? Oh, that's right. It's the recycled GWB idiocity that led to the Iraq mess.

    I think you love distorting the truth. I have never approved for GWB going to the war, and I was one of the few Americans. Let me tell you I was also strongly against the Desert Storm operation by Bush Sr. But this one is totally different from that. There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians. You need to get the facts straight. UN lead possible attack is, therefore. very justified.

  • 1

    Spanki

    Has anyone noticed how western media outlets are now showing more and more graphic footage? Seems to me they are trying to bend our minds into thinking that the right thing to do is send forces in.

    Personally, I think someone who wants the west to be dragged into the conflict is behind this,

  • -1

    sisirendud@gmail.com

    Wipe your hands across your mouth and laugh.Had there been no intelligence failure the tragedy would have been averted.No nuclear explosion,no chemical attack for these are extreme points from where you cannot return.Make sure the shaft that has been shot has alighted.

  • -11

    Bluescript

    There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians. You need to get the facts straight.

    Since you have your facts straight, could you please share with us the proof that Assad is behind any chemical attack?

  • -1

    AKBfan

    UK, US France and other busybodies will still launch strikes.

  • -10

    globalwatcher

    BluescriptAug. 26, 2013 - 12:45PM JST

    There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians. You need to get the facts straight.

    Since you have your facts straight, could you please share with us the proof that Assad is behind any chemical attack?

    Why should I share the security info to you? I do not know who you are, and I do not trust you.

  • 1

    JeanValJean

    " But this one is totally different from that. There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians."

    "Why should I share the security info to you?"

    There's a difference between speculation and fact. Just as in the run-up to the shrub's desert adventure, what they're doing is what they did 11 years ago, and that was reported in the infamous Downing Street Memos, that is, fixing the intelligence around the objective. The US, the British and the French are leaning that way in seeking to overturn the government of Syria, led by Bashar Assad and the Baath party. It's almost incomprehensible to almost anybody who thinks logically that the Syrian government would launch a poison gas attack at the very time the UN investigators are in the country investigating an earlier reported use of nerve gas in the country. So, we have really the US doing what it wants to do, saying what it wants to say to try to mobilize public opinion in the United States to justify potential intervention.

  • 1

    Lizz

    . There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians

    Are you serious ? I don"t know why Assad would use them when he is winning. There was even more proof Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds 30 years ago in Iraq. I don't think literally anyone disputes that.

  • 2

    slumdog

    No, Syria invited the inspectors; and soon after their arrival, the chemical attack was carried out nearby.

    Yes, and the inspectors having already arrived in the country asked to be allowed to go to the area. They were refused until now.

    Personally, I think both Assad and rebel sides are not to be trusted and couldn't hit the truth if it were pointed out to them with neon blinking arrows.

  • 1

    Serrano

    If the Americans attack Syrian government military targets, wouldn't the Russians be obligated to defend them?

  • -16

    Bluescript

    It's almost incomprehensible to almost anybody who thinks logically that the Syrian government would launch a poison gas attack at the very time the UN investigators are in the country investigating an earlier reported use of nerve gas in the country. So, we have really the US doing what it wants to do, saying what it wants to say to try to mobilize public opinion in the United States to justify potential intervention.

    That's the problem, most people seem incapable of thinking logically, so the US can indeed do whatever it wants. Another problem is the fact that the biased western media, which is tied to the military industrial complex, does paint a pretty evil picture of the Syrian forces.

  • -1

    slumdog

    That's the problem, most people seem incapable of thinking logically, so the US can indeed do whatever it wants

    You seem to fail to realize that the US is not the only one voicing concerns. You also seem to fail to realize that just because the rebels are bad does not mean your attempt to paint a pretty, pretty picture of Syrian forces will be any more successful. You would do better to admit the Syrian forces are also guilty of some pretty gruesome stuff and work from there. That is, if you did not seem to have an alternative agenda that seems to have little to actually do with the situation in Syria.

    While you are at it, could you provide that unbias and trustworthy source that shows the rebels are responsible for these attacks? You keep saying it, but you keep avoiding real attempts to prove it. I am perfectly happy saying neither side has convinced me of anything solid.

  • -2

    Laguna

    ...so the US can indeed do whatever it wants.

    Ah, Bluescript, if that were only the choice. You see, what is known as the "paradox of power" works like this: Power is derived from either the actual exertion or anticipated ability of force; without frequent exhibition of the former, though, the latter quickly loses potency. Thus, what is expected of a superpower becomes what is required of a superpower if it is to remain so; and thus, a superpower actually has far fewer choices than other countries.

    Case in point: Obama desperately wants to avoid American involvement in Syria, for he knows that neither side is particularly good and that American involvement will likely cause blowback in greater proportion. Unfortunately, he will likely have little choice. The left will cry out against allowing another Rwanda; the right will cry out against any perceived blow to American prestige; and the world will continue to begrudge the US for atrocities which it is neither responsible for nor capable of preventing. The result is that Obama will be forced, against all better judgement, to do something just when the standard, "Don't just do something! Stand there!" would be most appropriate.

    Here is an HTML copy of Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant." This phenomenon of "paradox of power" is nothing new.

    http://alexgolec.github.io/orwell/elephant

  • 0

    Darren Brannan

    help the jihadIs and then use them as a pretext to invade and further encircle Iran. then isolate china.

  • -2

    AKBfan

    makes sense. still our leaders are already firing up the jets and missiles.

  • -2

    JeanValJean

    " Thus, what is expected of a superpower becomes what is required of a superpower if it is to remain so…"

    Good post Laguna. But I think Obama isn't really so opposed to intervention as you believe. He's framing himself as reluctant for appearances. After all, he drew a line in the sand.

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    Hope Assad remembers these comments when in a few days it is FURTHER proven fact he used chemical weapons.

  • -18

    Bluescript

    While you are at it, could you provide that unbias and trustworthy source that shows the rebels are responsible for these attacks?

    There is no direct conclusive proof that the rebels are behind this last attack. But if you look at the big picture, everything points at the rebels (or Israel) being behind this last attack and everything points at Syria NOT being behind this last attack. Such as:

    General Wesley Clark stated that over a decade ago, the Pentagon had plans to "take out" Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (notice how some on the list have since been "taken out").

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    Why would countries like Saudi Arabia be the main backers of the rebels? Because they care about the living conditions and democracy in Syria??? This is clearly not a grass roots rebellion of Syrian people wanting freedom and democracy.

    "Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who once served as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, believes that the chemical weapons used in Syria may have been an Israeli "false flag" operation aimed at implicating Bashar Assad's regime."

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/former-bush-administration-official-israel-may-be-behind-use-of-chemical-arms-in-syria.premium-1.519172

    Assad is beating the crap out of these terrorists and he knows that he will win as long as he does not use chemical weapons.

    The rebels are losing badly and they know that the use of chemical weapons will get the west to provide desperately needed help.

    The rebels are on video killing rabbits with poison gas and threatening to use poison gas on the Alawites. I am sure you can find this on YouTube if you are interested.

    A significant rebel poison chemical weapon facility has been uncovered by the Syrian forces.

    We have the UN investigator Del Ponte stating a few months ago:

    Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.

    Russian investigations also point clearly to the rebels.

    Obama desperately wants to avoid American involvement in Syria,

    America IS involved. In fact, they started this mess.

  • 1

    Lizz

    If the Americans attack Syrian government military targets, wouldn't the Russians be obligated to defend them?

    I doubt they would hesitate to arrange a chemical attack against civilians just to embarrass the US, and the situation is so chaotic it might not even be found out. Haven't the Syrian rebels also used gas 3 or 4 times already ? So many sticking points, not to mention only the support of 10% of Americans, I doubt when all is said and done even Obama is going to set the cheese in a trap of his own making. The U.S. has intelligence through drones and special forces, but how do you strike a storage facility without releasing more chemicals ?

  • -1

    slumdog

    There is no direct conclusive proof that the rebels are behind this last attack.

    Exactly. Everything you have written says it is not confirmed and not conclusive. Yet you seem to want to persist in definitively saying:

    'No, previous chemical attacks were by the rebels'

    When you should be writing that one person in the UN suggests it is possible. Russian investigations point to suggestions, not facts. You have just admitted this above. Yet again later in your post seem to mistake a suggestion of something equally it to be a fact. This is something you consistently seem to do. A suggestion or suspicion is not a fact. As I wrote to you before, a big hint that something is a suggestion is that words like 'may' are in the suggestion. You bring no confirmations at all to the table. Until you do, you might want to try being more circumspect.

  • 3

    Neo_Rio

    Maybe there were chemical attacks in Syria. The question is.... who ordered it?

    Just proving that there were chemical weapons is easy enough. Who gave the order for that, however... is where the real proof actually lies.

  • 0

    WilliB

    I find it fascinating to see how the general media/intelligentsia community is itching to get involved in military action Syria because of alleged chemical weapons use by Assad.

    I remember that these are the same people who were opposed to the attack on Saddam Hussein, altough Husseisn chemical massacre on the Kurds (remember "Chemical Ali" and Halabadscha?) were well documented an on a scale exponentially larger than anythin that has happened in Syria.

    Somebody must be getting whiplash from these 180 degreen turns. Hypocrits.

  • -2

    VicMOsaka

    BluescriptAug. 26, 2013 - 12:45PM JST There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians. You need to get the facts straight. Since you have your facts straight, could you please share with us the proof that Assad is behind any chemical attack?

    I have to ask the same question- where is the proof. Anyway, What is the point of Assad killing his own people ? Completely illogical.

  • 0

    ludlt

    This chemical attack, if true will be the straw that will break Assad back.

    Have you seen his eyes, they are too close to his nose. Something ponder about.

  • -2

    JeanValJean

    In a further development, the UN inspectors' vehicles was hit by sniper fire in the buffer zone. Whose snipers is unknown.

  • 1

    praack

    nato rules of engagement hold that until the US gets involved the countries involved are responsible for cost.

    once the US becomes involved then the majority of all costs to wage a campaign move to the US.

    Libya was not a US based war, neither is Syria- but the key is to get the US involved to bear all the cost.

    The big issue with Syria is because of the instability it is now turning two other relative stable countries back into quagmires- Lebanon and Iraq- yes Irag was in pretty good state for a bit. but both Lebanon and Iraq are now back to being hotbeds,

    if the Syrian rebel groups (no real 1 group there) get in - it will probably turn into first full out tribal warfare- destroying all existing infrastructure- remember this country at one time resembled the EU until we decided War was the answer- and then the extremists will probably get in place- as they are the more dedicated of the rebels- and you have now lost the region to a faction you did not want in place- Al Queda.

  • -3

    JeanValJean

    From Yahoo:

    " US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report

    By ANI | ANI – Wed 30 Jan, 2013

    London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.…"

    Looks like a false-flag. Smells like a false-flag...

  • 1

    SuperLib

    No one knows what really happened. Just hold your horses and see what the investigation turns up.

  • 2

    slumdog

    Looks like a false-flag. Smells like a false-flag...

    A tiny Yahoo news article from eight months ago about rumored emails that were released by a Malaysian hacker from which nothing materialized? Just where are those documents now?

    Looks like a baseless rumour. Smells like a baseless rumour.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Isn't it about time something gets coordinated and done?"

    Get a subscription to Inspire, louis, I'm sure they'll supply you with a backpack and some coordination....

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    Why does this sound familiar? Oh, that's right. It's the recycled GWB idiocity that led to the Iraq mess.

    Blah, blah, blah, and you are not saying anything why you are on the right side of history on this.

    "Why should I share the security info to you?"

    There's a difference between speculation and fact.

    Blah, blah, blah, and again you failed to support your position why there were no chemical weapon attacks. And the rest of your story is actually shooting your own foot.

    Good post Laguna. But I think Obama isn't really so opposed to intervention as you believe. He's framing himself as reluctant for appearances. After all, he drew a line in the sand.

    By ANI | ANI – Wed 30 Jan, 2013

    You need to update your thinking. He is waiting for the UN inspection findings.

  • -1

    iWorld

    Right now there are no definitive proofs who is behind the chemical attack other than that it have been used.

    However, just like other criminal cases, just look which side have the motives and the most to gain by using such attack.

    Before the use of this attack, the Syrian government was winning in this civil war(It have financial and military resources to keep going while the rebel does not). The government also knows that if they does any chemical attacks the western governments will use that as an excuse to invade. Also, before this chemical attack, the Syrian government allows UN inspectors into their country. From these points, we can see the Syrian government officially have nothing to gain but everything to lose from using chemical attacks.

    Now, on the other hand, on the losing side, the rebels have everything to gain from such attack. The rebels were losing and with such attack, the western militaries will invade, turn the tide, help the rebels and most likely put them in power of the country. Now, thats a great motive to use such attack and everything to gain.

    However, that doesn't mean the rebel used the chemical attack either. As other have stated, it could be a false flag attack from a foreign force.

    The best course of action now, by the UN and/or other international group, is to find out exactly who is behind this chemical attack. Lets hope the US/UK doesn't rush into their invasion of Syria and create another Iraq/Afgh. which will result in much greater civilian deaths and destruction to the country.

  • 2

    Triumvere

    Why would Syria's Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day the inspectors arrive, just miles from where they are staying?

    Plausible deniability. The regime can always blame the rebels, and people will believe it.

    It's possible Assad has calculated that A) the inspectors will not be able to gather conclusive proof both that there was an attack and that the regime was responsible, B) that Russia and China will block any UN action, and that NATO countries lack the will to intervene. According to this logic, the regime would gain the benefit of its most devastating weapons without suffering any consequences. (Quite possibly a miscalculation... but then overconfidence is a common failing.)

    Now, am I saying this is what happened? Not necessarily; certainly the timing is suspicious, and one wonders why Assad would take the risk if he is indeed "winning." The point is, that this scenario is not a unbelievable many as many here seem to think. There are pros and cons for either side to have used these weapons.

    Note, the first part is highly likely to be true: the inspectors have already been delayed, and now that they have permission they have been turned back by sinper fire. By the time they get to the actual site, it will likely be very hard for them to do much beyond confirm that the weapons were used - something that appears to already be the consensus.

  • -1

    Kobuta Chan

    I have no idea which side is using chemical weapon but Assad hanging on power has destroying almost all building inn Syria. Assad does not love his country but he is very much in love with power. His army used Chemical weapons or not but he must go. US should support EU from distance if France wants to fight Assad regime. France and Germany cowardly run away when US and its alliance invade Iraq. France and Germany are not trust worthy partner of US. The Syria civil war is religion war and war of Sunni Vs Shia. I believe Arab League should send their soldiers and fighters to Syria. If US decided to involve in Syria and then US must attack directly on Assad. Let UN and Arab league to handle rebuilding Syria after Assad regime fall.

  • 2

    Triumvere

    Before the use of this attack, the Syrian government was winning in this civil war(It have financial and military resources to keep going while the rebel does not). The government also knows that if they does any chemical attacks the western governments will use that as an excuse to invade. Also, before this chemical attack, the Syrian government allows UN inspectors into their country. From these points, we can see the Syrian government officially have nothing to gain but everything to lose from using chemical attacks.

    I'd encourage you to be a bit more critical here:

    Firstly, it would probably be better to say that Assad appears to have the upper hand, rather than that he is "winning." The intervention of Hezbolla certainly seems to have turned the tables, but even with this advantage, the war could continue for years (with the rebels obtaining overt and covert backing from the west, gulf states, and jihadists). In such a context, the use of chemical weapons - and the terror that they bring with them - could be of substantial value to the regime. Secondly, as I tried to explain above, the presence of the UN inspectors is unlikely to have much effect. They have been and continue to be impeded. Even if they manage to confirm chemical weapons were used, they are unlikely to be able to say who used them. Third, I will agree that from my perspective the risk seems unjustifiable given the west's penchant for military intervention. However, it would be foolish to assume that we, in our comfortable chairs at home, have a good grasp of the situation on the ground. Most likely, the perspective is different from the presidential palace in Damascus. Obama has been quite hesitant, and the US public is fatigued. Meanwhile Russia remains and adamant support. That world will not act is still a possibility.

  • -1

    jeff198527

    America is flatass broke and doesn't know how to fight a war. This will just be another half-baked, half-assed war just like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    One side will stop at nothing and kill as many people as possible. The other side will stop at nothing and will kill as many people as possible. Now go ahead and apply your "logic".

  • -2

    Aaron Loki Brummett

    Ah! the Assad propaganda machine! Like no other. The U.S. has already traced the components to Assad forces and we already know his brother did it. Also, this is a good time for Assad propaganda... in the annual Qatar Israel hate march it instead turned into a bloodbath of who like or hates assad. that is how powerful the Assad propaganda machine is. Oh! Pro assad videos made by Pollywood productions.

  • -2

    CalvinMontblanc

    I remember that these are the same people who were opposed to the attack on Saddam Hussein, altough Husseisn chemical massacre on the Kurds (remember "Chemical Ali" and Halabadscha?) were well documented an on a scale exponentially larger than anythin that has happened in Syria.

    WilliB, why have you completely forgotten the time frame? I would like the U.N. to take action to prevent any more chemical attacks TODAY. But I would not support the same in 2033, 20 years after the fact, if and when the Assad regime has stablized. You know why? Invasions get people killed. When the potential death from invasion outweighs the potential death for not invading, the person concerned about death chooses not to invade. No hypocrisy. Just putting human life before punishment for old crimes.

  • -2

    globalwatcher

    globalwatcherAug. 26, 2013 - 01:14PM JST

    BluescriptAug. 26, 2013 - 12:45PM JST

    There is a proof Assad has used the chemical weapons against innocent civilians. You need to get the facts straight.

    Since you have your facts straight, could you please share with us the proof that Assad is behind any chemical attack?

    Why should I share the security info to you? I do not know who you are, and I do not trust you.

    Some critics (negative feedbacks) expect me to reveal the secret here on JT. They are crazy. Why should I reveal the security info to you? There are many life, safety, and American credibility are on line.

  • 0

    CalvinMontblanc

    There are many life, safety, and American credibility are on line.

    LOL. You are having a go at us!

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in World

View all

View all