The truth behind Syrian chemical attacks U.S. supports terrorists again:

[Deleted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbfcceEkn_M

[Reeve]

You have anything you'd like to discuss, or are you just going to link a youtube video?

[Deleted]

So your only proof is a conspiracy channel on youtube?

[Deleted]

I'd like to discuss the linked video. Why are they supporting syrian rebels? Syrian rebels = radical moslem terrorists.
I really don't get it.

[Barendon]

Actually it's Israeli Intel that made the U.S convinced in that fact, there's a recording of a Syrian personal commanding the attack. You may wanna check about the 8200 unit .

[Felya]

You have anything you'd like to discuss, or are you just going to link a youtube video?

I always knew truth was hidden in a YouTube video.

[Templar 331]

Stopped watching after 30 seconds when he says "we're going show you definitive evidence to support this claim." Oh really? "Leaked" documents show that we are behind the chemical attacks? How about actual evidence to show who did this.

[Kellhound]

How much help a limited strike would be to the opposition will depend on what we actually hit. We have been telling Syria we will be hitting them, so if we respond with a cruise missile based strike the amount of ACTUAL damage to the Syrian military will be minimal. A strike now will more likely be a face saving action on Obama's part more so than an actual damaging strike.

[Deleted]

How much help a limited strike would be to the opposition will depend on what we actually hit. We have been telling Syria we will be hitting them, so if we respond with a cruise missile based strike the amount of ACTUAL damage to the Syrian military will be minimal. A strike now will more likely be a face saving action on Obama's part more so than an actual damaging strike.

I don't only mean supporting the rebels by striking the army, there is a lot of evidence that the chemical attacks were fired by the rebels and not by the army. Western media doesn't mention anything about it but in fact the army had a lot of casualties themselves from those chemical attacks and the rebels are regulary detonating hospitals and other public places in syria, you just have to watch something else than western media, here a russian documentary for example (french subtitles) about the syrian terrorists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZkDb...ailpage#t=1064

[Templar 331]

I don't only mean supporting the rebels by striking the opposition, there is a lot of evidence that the chemical attacks were fired by the rebels and not by the army. Western media doesn't mention anything about it but in fact the army had a lot of casualties themselves from those chemical attacks and the rebels are regulary detonating hospitals and other public places in syria, you just have to watch something else then western media, here a russian documentation for example (french subtitles) about the syrian terrorists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZkDbjMh7ok

Aren't the Russians backing Assad? So wouldn't they benefit from painting the rebels in a bad light? Not saying they're saints, but.......

[Kellhound]

I don't only mean supporting the rebels by striking the opposition, there is a lot of evidence that the chemical attacks were fired by the rebels and not by the army. Western media doesn't mention anything about it but in fact the army had a lot of casualties themselves from those chemical attacks and the rebels are regulary detonating hospitals and other public places in syria, you just have to watch something else then western media, here a russian documentary for example (french subtitles) about the syrian terrorists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZkDbjMh7ok

You are failing to look at the grand strategy issues here. Obama has to respond in some matter, but the US doesn't want either side to win. Syria in perpetual civil war is the best outcome at the moment.

[Reeve]

You are failing to look at the grand strategy issues here. Obama has to respond in some matter, but the US doesn't want either side to win. Syria in perpetual civil war is the best outcome at the moment.

Honestly, the rebels winning or Assad winning would be equally bad, but perpetual civil war isn't a good outcome. The best outcome would probably be Turkey invading and annexing the country, or at least occupying it until a benevolent secular leadership can be installed.

That'd still probably be a crap outcome though.

[Netherspark]

I'd like to discuss the linked video. Why are they supporting syrian rebels? Syrian rebels = radical moslem terrorists.
I really don't get it.

This quote invalidates your entire topic (not that it had any validity anyway).

There are NO evidence, at least for us,public that it was Asaad who used chemical weapons.NO ONE is arguing that they were not used, its a matter of who did it.And thats where I am doubtful about this thing.USA said it has undeniable evidence...so show us!Oh wait, you dont have.Same as with Iraq.

Actually the Russians are outright denying they were used at all.

[Kellhound]

Honestly, the rebels winning or Assad winning would be equally bad, but perpetual civil war isn't a good outcome. The best outcome would probably be Turkey invading and annexing the country, or at least occupying it until a benevolent secular leadership can be installed.

That'd still probably be a crap outcome though.

Turkey would want nothing to do with Syria. And there cannot be a benevolent secular leadership, the country can maintain integerty by force of arms only, and breaking it up would have very bad issues. In the mean time, it is keeping Assad and Iran tied up far more than they would like, which is good for the rest of the world. Sadly, no matter what happens, a large slice of the Syrian population will pay the price for losing.

[Barendon]

There are NO evidence, at least for us,public that it was Asaad who used chemical weapons.NO ONE is arguing that they were not used, its a matter of who did it.And thats where I am doubtful about this thing.USA said it has undeniable evidence...so show us!Oh wait, you dont have.Same as with Iraq.

If you fancily ignored my recent comment, please do so and read:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/25/is...tack-to-assad/

[Rukentuts]

Honestly, the rebels winning or Assad winning would be equally bad, but perpetual civil war isn't a good outcome. The best outcome would probably be Turkey invading and annexing the country, or at least occupying it until a benevolent secular leadership can be installed.

That'd still probably be a crap outcome though.

Which is why we should just remove the chemical weapons from the picture and let nature take its course.

[Barendon]

Which is why we should just remove the chemical weapons from the picture and let nature take its course.

I can tell you, both the U.S and Israel prefer Assad. It is better to have a known enemy than someone entirely new.

[Rukentuts]

I can tell you, both the U.S and Israel prefer Assad. It is better to have a known enemy than someone entirely new.

Yes, but whether or not he used chemical weapons (or just didn't keep them safe so the Rebels got them) it's clear he has lost the privilege to possess them.

[Barendon]

Israel speaking truth..urgh,what?

Well, it's a matter of trust in the american government for you then, because it's their only valid evidence. Israel sent an expedition with the recordings and presented it. Biased thinking over anything won't bring you truth, only biased opinions.

[klmg8]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-sho...tack-in-syria/

When these reports of Chemical weapons first started happening Assad was winning the war. Why would he use chemical weapons if he was winning?