The gas attack came from the rebels?

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (104 posts)

64
maxoxam41posted 10 years ago
How come my president is prompter to believe takfiri dogs/criminals versus Assad? Any interests involved? Your opinion. I've noticed that not many people are concerned on the subject. Fear of a potential retaliation from the NSA?
Satellites showed the ambassadors that the missiles were shot from the rebels' fief. Finally the truth. When the weapons (satellites) they made to watch the world turn against them, it is an agreeable sensation, isn't it?
reply report
1. 64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That strikes me as conspiratorial baloney.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What is false?
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It came from a gov controlled zone and hit a rebel controlled zone. That seems self-explanatory to me. I don't love the rebel side, but I doubt they would sneak deep into the gov controlled, launch multiple strikes undetected, and wipe out their own people. For a start, they don't have that level of skill.
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, psycheskinner.
  reply report
  72
  lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And you believe everything the government tells you? How naive.
  
  The US supports the rebels. Doesn't the US have the capability. Don't be an idiot.
  
  The US government has a long track record of lies and deception. And they have a track record of destroying democracies when it suited them. Making the world safe for democracy? What a crock! CIA finally had to admit to destroying a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953.
  
  The CIA and US military have a history of false flag operations and yes, conspiracies, to do criminal (Black Ops) acts.
  
  You can hide your head in the sand, but it won't make War Crimes by American presidents go away. Obama even recently gave immunity to Bush and gang for their war crimes so he couldn't easily be sued by foreign nationals who had already started to file suit.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjN9KtEHny0
  
  Syria is a direct extension of 9/11. That dark day continues to be used by this administration, as did the last, as an excuse to do all kinds of crimes -- like attacking a country that has done nothing to America (first Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya, and now Syria). Madness. WMDs? Lies! And if you attack someone on false pretenses and then continue to occupy their pockets, you are the criminal. America did not apologize and leave. They stayed and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. Now, they want to do it to Syria. Pelosi invoked the name of her grandson in favor of attacking Syria. Have her put her grandson in Damascus and see if she wants to attack.
  
  You guys make me sick with your dismissively smug attitude and lack of critical thinking -- using labels to demonize or marginalize.
  
  9/11 was an inside job. That is a fact. We now have lots more information that point to the real culprits.
  www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8
  
  For more than a decade, I went along with the official conspiracy theory. I changed my mind. I was wrong. There really was a conspiracy, but not the Osama Bin Laden conspiracy. The Kroll, AIG, Stratesec, Carlysle Group, Marsh & McLennan, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and likely many others.
  
  Thanks to whistleblowers like Lindauer, Drake, and others, we're learning of the government's crimes and just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
  
  If you still don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, then try your intelligence on these simple facts:
  
  Fact: WTC7 collapsed at perfect free fall for 8 floors.
  
  Fact: Free fall means zero resistance.
  
  Fact: Solid steel never offers zero resistance.
  
  Fact: WTC7 was built of solid steel.
  
  Fact: Office fires cannot remove solid steel to the point where they offer zero resistance (instantaneously melt or vaporize).
  
  Conclusion: Controlled demolition which can only be set up after months of preparation. Thus 9/11 was an inside job.
  
  And now we have a corrupt government which uses 9/11 as a reason for all manner of crimes, including destroying the Constitution of the United States.
  
  When the president of the United States tells us that prisoners in Gitmo should stay there forever, even if found innocent, you have a president who has committed Treason against the Constitution for which he swore an oath to protect.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Could you possibly stay on topic? We are discussing the gas attack and the information on it I got from BBC World, which is not the US government.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Psycheskinner is VERY naïve. Too much to deal with for my rationalism.
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hello LoneStar.
  
  The folks who told you about Gitmo must not have mentioned the following facts so I thought it appropriate that I should.
  
  January 2009…
  On his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order to review the disposition of prisoners and to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year. {1}
  
  May, 2009…
  Congress withholds funds needed for closing Guantanamo Bay from a war-funding bill. “But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wasted no time in coming up with another Guantanamo amendment, ensuring that the issue will continue to be debated as consideration of the second fiscal 2009 supplemental spending bill resumes Wednesday.” {2}
  
  September 2009…
  President Obama was unable to find satisfactory destinations for the approximately 240 prisoners held at Guantanamo. “The administration must also win congressional funding for the closure process, find host countries for detainees cleared for release, and transfer dozens of inmates to federal and military courts for prosecution.” {3}
  
  October 2009…
  President Obama continued to battle for congressional approval and won funding from the House of Representatives to allow some prisoners to be transferred to the United States for prosecution. “The 307 to 114 vote removes one of many roadblocks the Obama administration faces as it tries to empty the internationally condemned prison by January.” {4}
  
  January 2010…
  After a year of stop and go progress and an October signal from Congress in favor of funding efforts to move prisoners to Thomson, IL, the GOP voiced public opposition to the Presidents plans to close the facility. “Guantanamo remains the proper place for holding terrorists, especially those who may not be able to be detained as securely in a third country,” according to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell. “He urged Obama to revisit his decision to shutter the prison.” {5}
  
  May 2010…
  Despite facing a cool Congress, the President’s Guantánamo Review Task Force submitted a report giving lawmakers, for the first time, an outline for determining what do with each detainee. Specifically, the report called for transferring 126 detainees to their home countries or to a third country, prosecuting 36 in federal court or a military commission and holding 48 indefinitely under the laws of war. {6}
  
  January 2011…
  It is clear that President Obama really wants to close Gitmo but the Congress really does not. The New York Times noted “President Obama signed a major defense bill on Friday that includes strict new limits on the government’s ability to transfer detainees out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He sharply criticized those restrictions, but did not claim that he had the constitutional authority to disregard them.” {7}
  
  May 2013…
  In a second term speech before the National Defense University, President Obama renewed this pledge to close the facility forever. “As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States… Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.” {8}
  
  August 2013…
  Two Algerians were released from Guantanamo Bay prison and returned to their homeland. “Their release, the first from Guantanamo in nearly a year, followed a pledge by President Barack Obama to renew efforts to close the prison on the U.S. base in Cuba, an initiative that has been thwarted by Congress,” reports the Associated Press. “[Mutia Sadiq Ahmad] Sayyab was cleared for release years earlier but stayed at Guantanamo because of congressional restrictions on transfers,” the report goes on to say. So far, 606 prisoners have been transferred and 164 still remain at Gitmo. {9}{10} [Emphasis added]
  
  Therefore, LoneStar, after five years, it appears the President is still working on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo. The facts reveal reasons beyond his control. While he may not succeed before 2019, it will not be because he did not try. Obviously, he has not given up on his pledge even if some uninformed critics have not been paying attention.
  
  {1} http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off … acilities/
  {2} http://www.rollcall.com/news/73886-1.html
  {3} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 93_pf.html
  {4} http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/idUSN15311213
  {5} http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … &pos=9
  {6} http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_9/-48 … e_friendly
  {7} http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/po … .html?_r=0
  {8} http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off … rack-obama
  {9} http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir … o-20104310
  {10} http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  When the POTUS was elected, he controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Why was he unable to shut Guantanamo Bay when he controlled Congress? Are you saying that he couldn't even garner enough support from his own political party?
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hi EA.
  
  Actually, EA, the President was not able to garner enough support from either party, which proves the folly in your claim “he controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives when elected in 2008.” I trust you will remember this the next time someone here in forum tries to argue that President Obama controlled both houses of Congress during his first two years.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Quill, once again you are factually correct, Pres. Obama did not control both chambers in his first two years.
  
  But before taking EA to the wood shed, perhaps you might consider that contextually he might be right. And I believe the intent of his, (and others that make the same claim), comments were contextual.
  
  As in; the 2008 110th Congress was composed of a Democrat majority in both chambers, (source), and the President is the leader of his party - so numerically Pres. Obama did have majority control of Congress from 2008 - 2010. (excepting of course "super Majority" issues)
  
  The fact that the party could not garner enough internal support to exercise that control does not negate the truth of EA's claim. Maybe it's just a case of semantics.
  
  GA
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure Quilligrapher will respond himself. Just to add my own comment, the President's political party had a numerical majority in both houses, but with 59 seats they were one shy of the 60 needed for filibuster-proof control. So they did not have total control. The Stimulus Bill, for example, was only approved by the senate after three Republicans (Collins, Snowe, Specter) voted to break a filibuster. The Democratic Party did have 60 seats in the Senate between 09/10, but only for around 4 months, during which time the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (obamacare) was passed. Then Ted Kennedy's seat was illed by a Republican and the Democrats went back to having a numerical majority, but not total control.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't that what I said already? Or did you just want to flesh out the details of a point already made?
  
  GA
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Just adding some detail. There is a big difference between a numeric majority and a filibuster-proof majority. While people commonly refer to a numeric majority as "controlling" both Houses, in practical terms only a filibuster-proof majority represents real control in my opinion (assuming voting along party lines). Not everyone is aware of the distinction.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  GA Anderson is correct when he says that this is semantics. It's also spin.
  
  Democrats had a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Despite this reality, President Obama wasn't able to garner enough support, during the honeymoon period of his presidency, to get Guantanamo Bay closed. Is he a poor leader? Was his plan not well received? Was his plan hokey? Did he use all his political capital on other issues? That's up for debate, but what you are doing is spinning this into some kind of ludicrous positive for Obama, a way to defend him and make it look like nobody supported him. The truth is quite different. He failed. Let's call it what it is, a failure.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He didn't fail, he is the perfect puppet!
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Good evening EA and GA.
  
  I should not have said the President did not control congress in 2009 and 2010. The Democratic Party held the majority in both Houses of Congress and the President is expected to wield sufficient influence to effectively control the actions of his party members in Congress. In the vernacular, this is considered control of the Congress. In the real world, this is a concept with countless exceptions like Quantanamo.
  
  My origin premise, however, remains correct. The President failed to garner enough support and his attempts to move prisoners and close the prison were thwarted by the congress.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, we can agree on that. I do believe that he did try to keep a pledge. The POTUS failed to do so, but he did exert effort to keep it. That's a fair point.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think there is pervasive failure associated with the current administration.
  
  We see yet another example this morning when, as the US has capitulated to Russia in an unprecedented way, the United Nations is reporting that the Assad regime has engaged in the bombing of hospitals.
  
  I am sad this morning. I fear that the "American Century" has indeed ended.
  reply report
  75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Lone77star, couldn't have said it better myself. No point trying to convince the blind who are in love with lies and fairy-tales.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have the same information. In fact, it contradicts yours.
  reply report
  72
  lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why, Ralph?
  
  You don't think there have been any conspiracies in the history of humanity? That's a bit naive. And to dismiss something based on your shallow label (or anyone else's) is the height of lunacy.
  
  Turkish investigators found sarin gas in rebel held territory some time ago.
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say that I think there have "never been any conspiracies in the history of humanity." I just don't buy your theories about 9-11 or the Syria poison gas attacks.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  For a scientist, where is your rationale? Or are you from the same breed than the ones who also believe in God? If it is so I understand but don't lecture us, then!
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And more interesting what is the source of this sarin gas! But everybody shuts up.
  reply report
2. 82
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In your first sentence you call the opposition to the Assad regime "takfiri", "dogs" and "criminals" which suggests you're not entirely impartial, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. So what is the evidence that missiles were shot by the rebels?
  
  And looking at the alternative view, is it possible that the Assad regime could have calculated that they might be able to get away with using sarin if they confuse the issue just enough, particular at a time when various revelations about the NSA are causing people to distrust the official line on things? If so I'm not sure Assad would have made that calculation himself. I think a certain President Putin might have been whispering in his ear.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  An Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak said that "Syrian" rebels just acknowledged their involvement in the chemical attack stating that it was an accident. Also Russia gave to the UN investigators satellite pictures of the launching of the missiles.
  It would be inconceivable that a president that is supported by the majority of the people be engaged in a killing that would damage his popular image. You have to remember that he is still fighting, contrary to the real dictators that flew Egypt, Tunis. I read several of his interviews and I admire his love for his country. As Obama gave up on us, Assad stands still by his people and carried by his people!
  I wish that I would once in my lifetime carry my president but, it would be illusory.
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That doesn't constitute evidence. If you can point to the evidence that Dale Gavlak has that supports his claim, that would be useful.
  
  That's more useful. Do you know if those images been independently verified?
  
  Really? You don't think laying down artillery barrages on residential areas could be something that might "damage his popular image"? And Assad can't be that popular if the number of people willing to take arms against him is significant enough to cause a civil war that drags on for two years.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly...I cannot imagine that shelling residential areas and hospitals is the stuff of popularity---even in Syria. I am sure, that like in Iraq or in ANY dictatorship, the people in the streets are not there of their own free will; not there because they are exercising political freedom of speech. They are there in the streets waving the pro-Assad signs and chanting pro-Assad words because if they don't the next bomb drops on their house.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In what imagined universe does a dictator who kills his people in order to retain his power and his wealth become the exemplar of the leader standing by his country and his people?
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Dictator to the eyes of who? Westerners? In what way Bush wasn't a dictator when he decided that he would avoid congress to take a decision? And so did Obama. Did you send our army to overthrow him? Then why are you more lenient towards our governments versus others?
  Once again a NATO stated that more than 70% of the population are behind him? In the name of who do we condemn Channing and Snowden of being traitors because they showed us the wrongdoings of our government? Is it the example of democracy that we want for the rest of the world?
  reply report
3. 0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Since as of this morning (10 September 2013) Mr. Assad has agreed in principle to a yet undisclosed Russian plan to turn over Syria's chemical weapons under some sort of Russian "supervision", it is highly likely that is was, in fact, the Assad Regime who used chemical weapons on its own people.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Let's say that this little trick will allow us not to loose face given that we ridiculed ourselves in thinking that we would reiterate the lies we said in our past middle eastern invasions.
  reply report
0
Onusonusposted 10 years ago
And to commemorate the anniversary of the brutal murder of nearly 3,000 Americans by Al Qaeda terrorists, this September we should give military aid to Al Qaeda backed Syrian rebels lead by a psychopathic maniac who literally eats the hearts of his enemies on television.
And why not have some icing on our cake with a nice million Muslim march on DC.
reply report
1. 70
  crazyhorsesghostposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I agree 100 percent.
  reply report
2. 64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who were the Jews dancing watching the towers collapse? They were not involved them, were they? STOP THE DISINFORMATION!
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh boy, more unprovable conspiracy theories. I couldn't find any actual footage of Jews dancing but I did see some Muslims dancing.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-GzAQWTsRI
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-p1LEBAujE
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCrKnO6jKw
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoY-hdxMkz4
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmo64fcvKs0\
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX17oIPKubA
  
  So lots of Muslims celebrating, not so many Jews. Are you a holocaust denyer as well? Ha!
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The truth is my limit. I don't see why I would deny the holocaust since it happened as much as those jews celebrating the killing of 3000 people. As I said both information are factual. You wish I were an idiot therefore you could stamp me not only as a conspiracy theorist (what I am proud of since it means to be on the side of the truth) but also as a denier (which you failed). You wish I were an anti-Semite but I am only an anti-Zionist.
  If you didn't find anything it means you didn't look and therefore you become a liar and unworthy to argument with. As for your dancing muslims, they don't interest me since they didn't participate in the destruction of the towers. Three countries were involved in the attack, the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the rest is a lie!
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry dude but you need a little more than wishful thinking to lay the blame on Israel. I know you wouldn't be interested in thousands of Muslims celebrating the deaths of Americans because you want to believe that three or four Jews that were nowhere near the crash sight did it! No evidence required.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Don't dude me, I am not your friend and proud not to be given your reasoning.
  What is it with Americans supporting Zionists who would attack us if they had to? America is my only country. Israel is for Israelis. An American woman witnessed it. You are telling that you won't believe a compatriot but will believe a Zionist? Most of the American jews at the head of our government are Zionists, meaning people who are working for the interest of Israel over the US interest, are you conscious of this fact? Why do they have a double passport if they are Americans?
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Because the law allows them to?
  
  Many people other than Israelis and Americans these days have double passports.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You mean people we were not born in the US?
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Any American can and do possess dual citizenship.
  
  One does NOT need to be born outside of the US to have dual citizenship with the US and another country. One simply needs to qualify for citizenship in the US and in whatever other country they are seeking citizenship.
  
  While there are some restrictions, the US government (basically) no longer actively works to restrict US citizens---including those who are "natural born" citizens, from seeking secondary citizenship.
  
  The most common dual citizenship among Americans: Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Great Britain,Germany, Japan Israel. In fact, many Americans born to parents who are living abroad at the time of their birth hold dual citizenship.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well I'm sure you would rather see jihadists in charge of America over a few Jews in office. Which is probably why you want to go with the unprovable stuff rather than actual facts. But it's totally plausable that some random lady's opinion trumps atual facts. I had a neighbor who said she saw a UFO once. No proof, just plenty of cocktails.
  So relax buddy, and have some more Kool Aid...
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What about Americans who care for America, is it too much to ask for?
  You seem to enjoy discrediting the truth, however it still remains the truth.
  Don't flatter yourself, I need more to lose my "cool" as you said it.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  like I said in order to posit an accusation one needs evidence which your theory is severely lacking.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Cool!
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Israel should love America. We give them $2 billion a year and a security blanket.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So should Pakistan.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, but instead Pakistan takes our money and then harbors terrorists including Osama bin Laden.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  US made terrorists. Al-Qaeda is a proud US made organization, enough of your lies. Once again, one of the best international intelligence service could not find that terrorists were on the verge of destroying the twin towers? Sure! Then, where does go the $56.2 bn yearly budget?
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Israel loves Israel.
  reply report
  75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Jihadists will be in charge of America soon, you know why? Because your sick joke of a government is supporting them in Syria. The world knows that and the world knows that they have trained them for years.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If the US government is, as you claim, a "sick joke", then what exactly is a government that gasses its children and bombs its hospitals?
  
  Why so much hatred for America and its government?
  reply report
  75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I love American people so much that It makes me sick to see what their government is doing to destroy the world. September 11th never had to happen if they didn't make so many enemies all over the world. Did those innocent people have to die for American corruption, imperialism and ego. God help all us people who live in western countries getting blamed for every aggression America has to cause.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you understood the American people you would understand that in the US the government is "We the people"; that no matter how much WE may criticize of government and our president, we have about zero tolerance for foreign criticism of either.
  
  You would understand that WE do not accept---and never will accept, that WE---as in "We the people" were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack on our homeland.
  
  As for the September 11 terrorist attack on the US, please do not try to change history and try to make the claim that Al Qaeda's actions were simply a response to imagined US aggression.
  
  Al Qaeda never did, and currently does NOT, limit its attacks to the US homeland OR to US interests. Al Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of innocent people globally---including many of whom live in countries with express hostility toward the United States.
  reply report
  75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  WE foreign people have ZERO tolerance for stupid governments such as yours messing up the world! Where were you when the US was bombing the following countries?...
  Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
  Guatemala 1954
  Indonesia 1958
  Cuba 1959-1961
  Guatemala 1960
  Congo 1964
  Laos 1964-73
  Vietnam 1961-73
  Cambodia 1969-70
  Guatemala 1967-69
  Grenada 1983
  Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
  Libya 1986
  El Salvador 1980s
  Nicaragua 1980s
  Iran 1987
  Panama 1989
  Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
  Kuwait 1991
  Somalia 1993
  Bosnia 1994, 1995
  Sudan 1998
  Afghanistan 1998
  Yugoslavia 1999
  Yemen 2002
  Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
  Iraq 2003-present
  Afghanistan 2001-present
  Pakistan 2007-present
  Somalia 2007-8, 2011
  Yemen 2009, 2011
  Libya 2011
  Oh you were sitting on your cosy sofa eating pop corn while watching it on CNN while shouting 'God bless America' as long as you were not one of the murderers in the army. For your information I was in one of those countries in an under ground shelter fearing my family was going to die. So I will tell you something lady, I will make it my business to criticize a corrupt evil American regime with blood on their hands, a regime that was built with stolen people, indian blood and now world invasion.
  Everyone knows that your government was training those terrorists that could have taken down the twin towers or maybe it was an inside job as there seems to be so much evidence that other hubbers have posted on this forum which you seem to ignore. Your corrupt government should be arrested and held for treason. And if another september 11th happens, you are part responsible for your ignorance and supporting terrorism.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Good job. When someone kills the laws of his country punish him. When a country like the US remains unpunished whereas others are through the biased International court of Justice, it is questionable because it sets the wrong message.
  report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "War Made Easy" by Norman Solomon trailer
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5CF5pfVzLI
  
  The entire movie is well worth watching.
  report
  80
  HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you understood the American people you would understand that in the US the government is "We the people"; that no matter how much WE may criticize of government and our president, we have about zero tolerance for foreign criticism of either.
  
  That just makes you stupid then!
  reply report
59
sannyasinmanposted 10 years ago
What you see on CNN is pure propaganda. Its lies, lies and more lies. Its Iraq all over again. They will say anything to attempt to justify military action. It has nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons. This is just a pretext for intervention –and you can be sure that it will not stop at a few missiles. . . .

If you care to know, here are some other viewpoints on the situation in Syria

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/05/u … -in-syria/

Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading the public on Syria & Weapons Inspectors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … AUByw#t=81

http://chasvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09 … -from.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-wh … ck/5347542

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-supp … eda_092013

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/03 … us-record/

http://www.infowars.com/twitter-flooded … -on-syria/

Did you believe what they told you about WMDs in Iraq? It was all lies.
Do you believe what they are telling you about chemical attacks in Syria? Do you?
reply report
1. 75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks you! another person who is not a blind sheep
  reply report
70
crazyhorsesghostposted 10 years ago
Thank you Ralph. I don't buy it either. I truly believe that the Syrian President ordered the gas attack on his own people. And it was Muslim Extremists that carried out 9-11. And if we ever let down our guard they will do it again. I will never forget what was done to us on 9-11. I say to hell with the Muslim extremists. We don't need another smoking hole in New York or any other American city. We should attack Muslim extremists where ever they are found and we should never rebuild any country we destroy. If we would do what God says they would leave us along. Its time for America to stop trying to be politically correct. I don't buy the wild conspiracy theories either.
reply report
1. 59
  sannyasinmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  . . regarding 9-11. Would you be interested in what the Architects and Engineers who design and construct buildings like the WTC and building 7 have to say? Would you be interested in their opinion? These are professionals, surely they know what they are talking about . . .
  
  http://rethink911.org/
  
  What they say is not theory, it is hard EVIDENCE which would probably stand up in a court of law . . please read it
  reply report
59
sannyasinmanposted 10 years ago
Gas attacks in Syria? Whats really going on?
The evidence is here . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 8jpk#t=684
reply report
1. 75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks just finished watching. A must watch for all
  reply report
75
Ranziposted 10 years ago
Wow I never thought that I will see the day when USA is supporting a Jihad. The next September 11th that happens, I blame all the ignorant American people who are blind and support corrupt criminals who are fighting for evil terrorists trying to overtake Syria. When Syria becomes a extreme muslim sharia country overtaken by jihadists, I blame you! When the jihadists turn their backs on America and start to over take Israel, blame yourselves. And when these jihadists eventually call for a world jihad and overtake the world, I blame you! I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him. Except for Kennedy who was okay, but oh they had to get rid off him because he didn't have a criminal corrupt mind. Assad is a man of principle, he loves his country and people. He is a victim of US propaganda, painting him as a tyrant evil killer, where in fact he is not. I have many friends in Syria who tell me he has more support from his people than your president Obama. You people are all media zombies, wake up and from your BS fairytale and love for a government that has been deceiving you and destroying the world. When the world someday gets its revenge on the innocent, gullible and free Americans, I BLAME YOU!

This video shows the support Syrian people have for their president, I can never imagine Americans doing that for their president http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9gqq-FFgJM
reply report
1. 0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You say about a man who gases his OWN people---his own country's children and who bombs hospitals: "I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him."
  
  There is no possible response to such a sentiment. None.
  reply report
  80
  HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You say about a man who gases his OWN people-
  
  Here we go again! Where is the irrefutable evidence? And even, even, if it is Assad, why do you believe that military action will help those poor people in Syria? There is no shame in Obama's admission that strikes would be about the punishment of Assad's govt. Get your head out from your ass and realise that this should be about preventing further atrocities! Atrocities like 9/11, and the west should stop arming and funding those types- types like the rebels.
  reply report
2. 0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Of a man who used chemical weapons on his country's own children and who bombed hospitals you say: "I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him."
  
  There is truly no response to such an ill-timed and uninformed statement. Truly none.
  reply report
  75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Get your facts straight, before you make accusations. Oh I forgot you must believe everything mainstream media tells you. There's more proof that the rebels did it, this is who your government is funding after all. The fact that your government was so quick to point the finger and start world war III says it all. Plus although I'm not into conspiracy theories, there's more proof pointing that your government is to blame for September 11th than there is for Assad gassing his own people,
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So are multiple United Nations reports and multiple intelligence reports---some even coming from Assad's allies, complete frauds?
  
  What exactly and specifically is the source of your information?
  
  What documentary evidence can you direct readers to that clearly proves that the rebels alone are responsible for all war crimes in Syria?
  
  What documentary evidence can you direct readers to that clearly proves that the US government is funding anti-government rebels in Syria?
  
  And finally, on this 12th anniversary of the murder of some 3000 Americans by Al Qaeda terrorists, what documentary evidence can you direct readers to that clearly proves that the US government is to blame for the attack?
  reply report
  75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you not the one that made the accusation of Assad gassing his own people without proof?
  
  http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence- … not-assad/
  
  In the 2 years I've been on hubpages I never went on forums as they are time wasting, however the US painting Assad as a tyrant and all these sheep believing is sickening I have many friends and family in Syria and they tell me straight out how it is there, how they are been terrorised by rebels, how those rebels are not even syrian, how Assad is uniting the people and they are finally waking up that US is funding terrorists. I'm sure your mind is already closed and are not even bother looking at the link. I added it anyway for all those with an open mind and are sick of being spoon fed by the mainstream media as well, sick of being told what to think/believe.
  reply report
  80
  HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Of a man who used chemical weapons on his country's own children and who bombed hospitals you say: "I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him."
  
  We still need irrefutable proof that it was Assad. But tell me, why do you continue to support presidents that refuse to hold Israel to account for their use of white phosphorus against Palestinian people? What is the difference? Funny, I was listening to a former US diplomat on British TV last night, she didn't want to answer that question either. And when she was asked what the difference was between chemical weapons, drones and air strikes, she said that that the latter represented "humane warfare"
  
  You really couldn't make this sh*t up. All kill! And many presidents and prime ministers are responsible for this murder.
  
  Why would you defend any of them?
  reply report
64
Ralph Deedsposted 10 years ago
Vladimir Putin's op-ed in today's NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini … n&_r=0
reply report
1. 75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wow thanks for this Ralph. Strong speech, even Putin sounds more sane than Obama.
  reply report
2. 64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So far the Pope Francis wrote a personal letter to him to act in the name of peace, if he was whoever charlatan why would the pope credit him of such power? The world is behind him. The world has enough of our meddling!
  reply report
75
Ranziposted 10 years ago
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It is time that our boys speak up for themselves because the government won't. They are expendable to them!
  reply report
74
Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago
Troops oppose strikes on Syria by 3-1 margin

To the list of skeptics who question the need for air strikes against Syria, add an another unlikely group — many U.S. troops.

“I haven’t heard one single person be supportive of it,” said an Army staff sergeant at Fort Hood who asked not to be identified by name.

A Military Times survey of more than 750 active-duty troops this week found service members oppose military action in Syria by a margin of about three to one.

The survey conducted online Monday and Tuesday found that about 75 percent of troops are not in favor of air strikes in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to kill civilians in that country.

A higher percentage of troops, about 80 percent, say they do not believe getting involved in the two-year-old civil war is in the U.S. national interest.

The results suggest that opposition inside the military may be more intense than among the U.S. population at large. About 64 percent of Americans oppose air strikes, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll published Monday.

The Military Times survey is an unscientific sampling of Military Times readers and reflects the views of many career enlisted members and officers.

For many troops, money is a key consideration. Troops question the cost of bombing Syria at a time when budget cuts are shrinking their pay raises, putting their benefits package at risk and forcing some of their friends to separate involuntarily.

“We don’t have money for anything else but we have a couple hundred million dollars to lob some Tomahawks and mount an expensive campaign in Syria?” said Army Sgt. 1st Class Chris Larue, a 39-year-old maintenance expert at Fort Eustis, Va., referring to the precision-guided missiles that are likely to be used in any strike.

http://www.militarytimes.com/interactiv … 3-1-margin
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If the military industrial complex wants to wage wars, fine with me, at their own risks and costs. The Syrian army will handle them. Then they will have to face the UNO. Our men don't have to kill and be killed for their interests.
  It is good that the American army opposes Obama's decision. The more they will be involved in wars the more likely men will die. Let's preserve them for a real case scenario when a foreign army will step on our land. Meanwhile let's remain skeptical as for their justifications to send our boys offshore.
  reply report
  61
  b.croweposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We will need them. I know how i would feel if other nations we sending their military to my country. We have gone to far. What next, Iran?
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well look at it this way, at least our new found friends at Al Qaeda will be advocating attacks on Americans to bleed out our economy.
  You gotta love this president, he makes all the right friends in the right places.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G3atWsQCyU
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Al-Qaeda were our friends under the Bush administration too, didn't you know? Ignorance is bliss!
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In case you didn't hear, they aren't now. Ignorance must be bliss.
  reply report
  61
  b.croweposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are we this blind? This administration? Go back several years, many Presidents before Obama. This has been going on in BOTH parties for many, many years. Lets just finally admit it, America rapes and plunders at will. Why? Slave labor, cheep oil.
  Our military is spread out all over the world. How can we so easily miss the obvious? This is not rocket science.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So you don't care that we want to help out the same group of people that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, or that their leaders do this;
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4wcuvhLDXo
  
  And this;
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYTkttBBIfs
  
  And this;
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vc48uAlpGw
  
  It's not usually as clear who the bad guys are as it is in this case. Clearly the bad guys are on both sides.
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago
Since when is the army a democracy?
reply report
1. 75
  Ranziposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you against the army opposing an invasion on Syria?
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The army is fundamentally never supposed to be a political force. That is a fundamental part of the US civic system. It is part of what protects us from situations like the ones in Syria, and Fiji, and Libya. Politics, religion and the military stay *out* of each other's business in terms of lobbying--they pass only information--not agendas.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  According to Psyche the army has to obey and shut up. And this is democracy. Which situation is it? Protect against who? Enemies that we create? You need to revise your books, your knowledge seems limited.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That would be correct. Shut up and follow orders.
  
  Allow your army to decide whether they want to attack based on how much they're being paid (apparently a big consideration) and you won't have an army. Allow them to be the moral compass, attacking based on what they personally feel is right (or, more likely, won't get them killed) and you won't have an army.
  
  Is that so hard to understand?
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That we can agree on.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So long as their actions are not illegal under national or international law, of course they do. That's the whole point of an army. They do what they are told.
  reply report
  74
  Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You do realize there is a contingency that the military is responsible for reigning in an rogue government?
  
  It almost occurred during the FDR administration and was emboldened by JFK's creation of the special forces. I am not saying it should happen, yet, but we are almost at the point that it is blatantly obvious that the federal government is not representing the will of the people or obeying the Constitution. Above all, the military owes it allegiance to the document and the people. Should it be determined that the government is operating in an illegal manner, it is the duty of the military to take action.
  
  NDAA-Patriot Acts, yeah, we are pretty much there!
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Should it be determined that the government is operating in an illegal manner, it is the duty of the military to take action."
  
  Based on what? Who would make the determination that the government is operating "in an illegal manner,"? The Tea Party?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who will make the determination that a govt is or isn't operating illegally?
  
  Come on, Ralph - it's never the losers! The winner of the coup or revolution will make that call!
  
  Or am I just too dark and gloomy today?
  reply report
  61
  b.croweposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The US armys job is to protect us from Syria? What the hell is Syria doing to us?
  reply report
2. 64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Since the government gave up on its people to the benefit of the oligarchs.
  reply report
64
Ralph Deedsposted 10 years ago
This sounds like very good news!!

"U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Secure Syria's Chemical Arms"

GENEVA — The United States and Russia have reached an agreement that calls for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world … p&_r=0
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If we destroy Syria's chemical weapons (that it did not use against civilians), we may as well push bellicose Israel to imitate Syria. After all, if Syria represents a danger why not Israel that invaded and bombed Lebanon few weeks ago?
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago
A military coup is never a good idea in the long run. because they are like potato chips, you never have just one.
reply report
75
Ranziposted 10 years ago
http://www.sott.net/article/266240-Vide … sad-full-i

The First Bashar Al-Assad Interview with an American news outlet since 2011. He made the Puppet journalist look like a big idiot. Even if you hate Assad you can watch it for entertainment purposes just to see this idiot Charlie Rose play emotional detective
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

The gas attack came from the rebels?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The gas attack came from the rebels?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies