Author Topic: Syria: The Next Stop?  (Read 21477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #210 on: September 09, 2013, 12:15:34 AM »
Germain intelligence sources claimed that Assad was not responsible for the attack. They evidently intercepted a phone call that confirmed this. This latest news added to the other items that showed that all wasn't as it was portrayed to be by the cherry-pickers. The intelligence has been massaged more than a group trip to Club Med.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #211 on: September 09, 2013, 12:50:35 AM »
Too-Shay.

[attachimg=1]

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #212 on: September 09, 2013, 02:03:32 AM »
Germain intelligence sources claimed that Assad was not responsible for the attack. They evidently intercepted a phone call that confirmed this. This latest news added to the other items that showed that all wasn't as it was portrayed to be by the cherry-pickers. The intelligence has been massaged more than a group trip to Club Med.
You got any links on that Nucky? If I'm quick I can e mail them to our boy William who's having a shindig with your boy John today. Cos, I think they might have 'overlooked' it...The irony is that German intelligence found out that the Iraqi 'spy's' in 2002 were lying through their teeth, and no-one took any notice then.


I found this, which says otherwise...It's impossible to know what to believe, politicians lie.
http://news.yahoo.com/german-spy-agency-sees-assad-behind-gas-attack-165519905.html

Which contradicts this (However, the above is supposedly real time stuff)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/12-u-s-intelligence-officials-tell-obama-it-wasnt-assad.html


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #213 on: September 09, 2013, 02:11:40 AM »
You got any links on that Nucky? If I'm quick I can e mail them to our boy William who's having a shindig with your boy John today. Cos, I think they might have 'overlooked' it...The irony is that German intelligence found out that the Iraqi 'spy's' in 2002 were lying through their teeth, and no-one took any notice then.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #214 on: September 09, 2013, 06:05:34 AM »
Richard Fernadez writes about gas warfare, including the latest in Syria
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/09/08/advances-in-malice/

He has photographs of the missiles used to deliver the gas - terrifyingly low tech.  They're simple rockets, filled from a tank with a funnel, then fired by pointing, and the gas is released by a simple altimeter. These things could be used anywhere a crowd gathers.  Take a look at the photos.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #215 on: September 09, 2013, 01:03:12 PM »
How much do you think this would take the rug from under the hawks and Obama's feet if it came about?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #216 on: September 09, 2013, 02:18:44 PM »
A question just popped into my mind: what would a world leader do differently than Obama if what s/he really wanted was to leverage Assad out of power in Syria, and replace him with the Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda, without making it appear that was the goal? For that matter, what would a leader have done differently if his main goal was to likewise respectively replace Egypt's and Libya's governments with members/followers of the Muslim Brotherhood? Or what would be done differently if the goal was to leave Iran in position to complete the final steps in building its nuclear weapons program?

Indeed, what would be done differently if the real goal was to deniably destabilize the entire Middle East, so as to leave Israel surrounded by newly installed, radicalized Muslim governments led by terrorists who have spent their lives organizing other Muslims to purify Palestine and destroy the Jews?

In other words, what if Obama isn't nearly as inept and incompetent as he appears?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #217 on: September 09, 2013, 02:43:42 PM »
Finally, efficiency in government.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #218 on: September 09, 2013, 02:45:08 PM »
A question just popped into my mind: what would a world leader do differently than Obama if what s/he really wanted was to leverage Assad out of power in Syria, and replace him with the Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda, without making it appear that was the goal? For that matter, what would a leader have done differently if his main goal was to likewise respectively replace Egypt's and Libya's governments with members/followers of the Muslim Brotherhood? Or what would be done differently if the goal was to leave Iran in position to complete the final steps in building its nuclear weapons program?

Indeed, what would be done differently if the real goal was to deniably destabilize the entire Middle East, so as to leave Israel surrounded by newly installed, radicalized Muslim governments led by terrorists who have spent their lives organizing other Muslims to purify Palestine and destroy the Jews?

In other words, what if Obama isn't nearly as inept and incompetent as he appears?

Hmmm, but why would the (Insert spook organisation of choice) develop and infect the Iranian nuclear plants with a virus that literally destroyed their centrifuges? It was an incredibly well thought out and brilliantly executed plan. Would they do that if they were really helping Iran? Somehow I don't think so. I do think there is no haste to have any lasting (if any) peace in the ME, and for the reasons and powers behind that, as Deep Throat said...Follow the whatsit.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #219 on: September 09, 2013, 03:15:38 PM »
... In other words, what if Obama isn't nearly as inept and incompetent as he appears?


I'm long past that.

In fact, what would he do differently if he wanted to damage the US as much as possible from within?

Look at his associates (Rev Wright, Bill Ayres, Valerie Jarrett, David Axerod, David Plouffe, Rahm Emanuel, the Moslem Brotherhood, people like Huma Abedin), his past as an 'activist' and star of the corrupt leftist Chicago political party machine.

All these Leftists that hate the US and get together for their riots - they tell us they hate our government, our history, our culture, our system of free exchange.  They burn our flag, lie about us, and are as divisive as possible.  They don't want a country of freedom and responsibility, they want a one world totalitarian government with themselves at the top.

Why would anyone insist Obama couldn't possibly be one of those?  Because he has a nice smile and seems 'cool' and laid back?  And sounds so wonderful reading a teleprompter?



Every step he's taken is in that direction.  We don't even need to rehash everything he's done to damage the economy and our relations with our friends and allies, or how he's done nothing to make either better.  Or talk about all the scandals, each so damaging in it's own way.  Or bring up the illegal 'czars', all left-wingers that mostly wouldn't have been confirmed, or would have embarrassed the Ds had he gone through the required process of confirmation

All the lies, all the phoniness, all the above - the burden of proof is on him to convince us otherwise at this point (but hey, at least we didn't get Romney because, well, because he's rich).





Edit to add:  I think it's these 'czars' that are doing much of the damage.  Like a bunch of termites.  I don't think Obama is all that competent or hardworking.  Interesting we never hear a thing about the 'czars'.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #220 on: September 09, 2013, 03:25:01 PM »

I'm long past that.

In fact, what would he do differently if he wanted to damage the US as much as possible from within?

Look at his associates (Rev Wright, Bill Ayres, Valerie Jarrett, David Axerod, David Plouffe, Rahm Emanuel, the Moslem Brotherhood, people like Huma Abedin), his past as an 'activist' and star of the corrupt leftist Chicago political party machine.

All these Leftists that hate the US

The problem with that list is that Muslim Brotherhood are not left wing; not even a little bit. They are so far removed from any notion of being left wing they don't actually recognise red lights being used on the port side of ships and aircraft as being legitimate. In fact, some say they don't actually ever refer to port side as being left. No idea about the others, never heard of em. Well, some I have, but no idea what they are.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #221 on: September 09, 2013, 03:27:50 PM »

....Why would anyone insist Obama couldn't possibly be one of those?  Because he has a nice smile and seems 'cool' and laid back?  And sounds so wonderful reading a teleprompter?...


He's pretty good at laying down a tune, too.  Hey, what more does one need to be a "world leader?"  ;)


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #222 on: September 09, 2013, 03:38:02 PM »
Hmmm, but why would the (Insert spook organisation of choice) develop and infect the Iranian nuclear plants with a virus that literally destroyed their centrifuges? It was an incredibly well thought out and brilliantly executed plan. Would they do that if they were really helping Iran? Somehow I don't think so. I do think there is no haste to have any lasting (if any) peace in the ME, and for the reasons and powers behind that, as Deep Throat said...Follow the whatsit.


The Sunni and Shia branches of Islam hate each other more than they hate the Jews, Israel, the West, and the US.

Iran is Shia.  As is Assad (his Alawite religious group is an offshoot of the Shiites), as is Hezbollah.

Al-Qaeda, the Moslem Brotherhood, the Taliban, the Palestinian leadership, the Saudi royal family, and the Turkish government are Sunni.  Most of Islam - the large majority - is Sunni.  Of course they don't want Iran to have nukes.  We have more mutual interests in the Arab and Moslem world in agreement about Iran NOT getting nukes than is discussed publicly (each of these countries has their own problems with Islamists, and Shia/Sunni tension and don't want to be seen siding with the US and Israel)

The other split is secular vs Islamic.  The terrorists want to replace the secular regimes with Islamic Republics, and eventfully unite them all under a single caliphate, with themselves at the top.

This is why Iran is coming in on the side of Assad even though he has a secular government, and why the Saudis and Turks are aiding the rebels even though the rebels are Islamists

Obama appears to have thrown in with the Sunni terrorists who want to defeat secular governments.  They don't want Iran to have nukes

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #223 on: September 09, 2013, 03:43:46 PM »
I love chess.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #224 on: September 09, 2013, 03:44:11 PM »
The problem with that list is that Muslim Brotherhood are not left wing; not even a little bit...


That's true, with the Arabs it's more tribal  there is no Left or Right, just brute force.

The Brotherhood has been around a long time.  They were allies of Hitler in WWII


I think one of the reasons the Left and the Islamists get along so well is because they have a common enemy - the rest of us, and a common goal - a one world government.  The fallout comes when they finally achieve their one world totalitarian state and don't agree on which is going to run it.  They'll worry about that later.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #225 on: September 09, 2013, 03:44:11 PM »
The problem with that list is that Muslim Brotherhood are not left wing; not even a little bit. They are so far removed from any notion of being left wing they don't actually recognise red lights being used on the port side of ships and aircraft as being legitimate. In fact, some say they don't actually ever refer to port side as being left. No idea about the others, never heard of em. Well, some I have, but no idea what they are.
I agree. They aren't measurable by any usable scale, coming as they do from the mind of the 12th century.

Hmmm, but why would the (Insert spook organisation of choice) develop and infect the Iranian nuclear plants with a virus that literally destroyed their centrifuges? It was an incredibly well thought out and brilliantly executed plan. Would they do that if they were really helping Iran? Somehow I don't think so. I do think there is no haste to have any lasting (if any) peace in the ME, and for the reasons and powers behind that, as Deep Throat said...Follow the whatsit.
Hey, I go to the trouble of erecting a fairly elaborate rhetorical edifice, using hyperbole to clarify and isolate the guy's immense incompetence and the incredible damage he's done not just to my country but to world equilibrium ("Hey! He's not a monster - he's just an incredibly arrogant, incompetent twat, sort of like George Noory."), and you step on the punchline with a few of your facts. Shut up, okay? Damn.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #226 on: September 09, 2013, 11:44:55 PM »
As we edge toward the abyss, you can tell who the "wise old heads" are by how they avoid hyperbole, keep the temperature down and keep their remarks calm and measured: Harry Reid compares the use of gas in Syria to the Holocaust and the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazis.  http://washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-invokes-holocaust-in-push-for-syria-resolution-sets-test-vote-for-wednesday/article/2535463

Yes, when a crisis hits, it's good to know who the statesmen are and who the flyweight hacks are.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #227 on: September 10, 2013, 02:28:14 AM »
Germain intelligence sources claimed that Assad was not responsible for the attack. They evidently intercepted a phone call that confirmed this. This latest news added to the other items that showed that all wasn't as it was portrayed to be by the cherry-pickers. The intelligence has been massaged more than a group trip to Club Med.

I'm evidently talking about the Comte de Saint Germain's spies. Who's the prankster?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #228 on: September 10, 2013, 08:39:28 AM »
A question just popped into my mind: what would a world leader do differently than Obama if what s/he really wanted was to leverage Assad out of power in Syria, and replace him with the Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda, without making it appear that was the goal? For that matter, what would a leader have done differently if his main goal was to likewise respectively replace Egypt's and Libya's governments with members/followers of the Muslim Brotherhood? Or what would be done differently if the goal was to leave Iran in position to complete the final steps in building its nuclear weapons program?

Indeed, what would be done differently if the real goal was to deniably destabilize the entire Middle East, so as to leave Israel surrounded by newly installed, radicalized Muslim governments led by terrorists who have spent their lives organizing other Muslims to purify Palestine and destroy the Jews?

In other words, what if Obama isn't nearly as inept and incompetent as he appears?
paranoid. that level of conspiracy theory bullshit speaks to how eager you are to invent reasons to hate Obama

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #229 on: September 10, 2013, 09:29:37 AM »
paranoid. that level of conspiracy theory bullshit speaks to how eager you are to invent reasons to hate Obama
That President BH Obama is not incompetent is the height of paranoia heh. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #230 on: September 10, 2013, 10:18:19 AM »
The Russian President Putin gives everyone an out.  The Islamist rebels who were sure the US would attack the military targets they supplied us with are furious.  Whatever stunt Obama was trying to pull is over for now.  Obama makes Putin look like a world leader. 

Obama and Kerry, amateur hour. 


Is it really that farfetched that the worst of the Leftists actually mean what they say, and that one of them finally got elected President?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #231 on: September 10, 2013, 10:24:27 AM »
The Russian President Putin gives everyone an out.  The Islamist rebels who were sure the US would attack the military targets they supplied us with are furious.  Whatever stunt Obama was trying to pull is over for now.  Obama makes Putin look like a world leader. 

Obama and Kerry, amateur hour. 


Is it really that farfetched that the worst of the Leftists actually mean what they say, and that one of them finally got elected President?


As long as your 'leftist' president doesn't order a strike on Syria in a fit of pique, then I'll be happy and sleep a bit easier. Hopefully the proposal for Assad to have the weapons that he's claimed to possess are removed and safely disposed of will happen. It does of course mean that only the ones known about will be disposed of, and guarantees bugger all as far as long term stability is concerned.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #232 on: September 10, 2013, 11:11:37 AM »

As long as your 'leftist' president doesn't order a strike on Syria in a fit of pique, then I'll be happy and sleep a bit easier. Hopefully the proposal for Assad to have the weapons that he's claimed to possess are removed and safely disposed of will happen. It does of course mean that only the ones known about will be disposed of, and guarantees bugger all as far as long term stability is concerned.


I would guess Israel knows where they are and knows where they went if they are moved.  I doubt if Assad was the one that used them in the first place, or would use them down the road - especially now.  He has to know using them after this would be suicide. 

I wonder if the Islamist rebels would use them (again?) now or at some point.  Their supporters are still with them, which means they could easily miscalculate and try to draw us in again.  Subtlety and nuance are not Al-Qaeda's strong points.

Tonight's speech should be interesting.  Originally it was to drum up support for attacking Syria - they must be scrambling to change it to just another empty speech that he sounds good reading and is soon forgotten.  Maybe with some bluster and more threats.  I hope he fires John Kerry, then resigns.



Making threats (red lines) that he didn't think through, then jumping to assumptions before the facts were in (Assad did it), then asking Congress for authorization for action he already had the authority to do (yet ruling by decree many times in the past when Congressional approval actually WAS required), then allowing Putin to look like the Statesman.  Wow.



And tomorrow is 9/11, and the Million Terrorism Supporters March at the National Mall in DC.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #233 on: September 10, 2013, 11:52:11 AM »

Sorry guys and gals, I just had to remove my post. I felt it was going in a little too depth about my military service.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #234 on: September 10, 2013, 11:53:55 AM »
Too-Shay.

[attachimg=1]

I don't know who to believe anymore.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #235 on: September 10, 2013, 12:00:43 PM »
Sorry guys and gals, I just had to remove my post. I felt it was going in a little too depth about my military service.

Not to worry, I did a screen dump and e mailed it around the world.  ;D



Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #236 on: September 10, 2013, 12:01:51 PM »
Hey, we're facing possible all out war so we might as well have a laugh while we can.

I haven't screen dumped it btw, but I did read it; and fully understand your retraction.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #237 on: September 11, 2013, 02:15:12 AM »
Help me out here. Syria is not a signatory to the international ban on chemical weapons. How could that country be in violation of a charter or contract with which it never agreed? What *legal* grounds do we have to "degrade" their weapons system?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #238 on: September 11, 2013, 02:32:47 AM »
Help me out here. Syria is not a signatory to the international ban on chemical weapons. How could that country be in violation of a charter or contract with which it never agreed? What *legal* grounds do we have to "degrade" their weapons system?

It gets better; the UK is a signatory to the ban yet this week it's been revealed UK companies supplied the chemicals to make the compounds to make said weapons. So my worry is that a trigger happy US four star general might extrapolate the field of responsibility and I wake up one morning, dead. As for pesky legal grounds; I know you asked that, tongue firmly wedged behind your molars. Since when has an exercise in "pick a country on the world map to bomb" involved legalities? Syria have apparently (Or more specifically, Assad) said that once their alleged weapons have been removed and disposed of by the UN, they'll sign up to the chemical weapons ban; although I wonder if that includes biological weapons too? Certainly won't include conventional ordnance; they kill people 'nicely' by all accounts.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #239 on: September 11, 2013, 02:38:35 AM »
Obama is so feeble and out of touch he sent Susan Rice around this week to the Congress to drum up support for his attack on Syria. 

The last we heard of her was this time last year - she was the one he sent out to all the Sunday political shows to insist Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video.   

All the while both of them knowing it was a complete lie.