US forces 'ready to strike Syria'

[æRLO]

---

so just because they have in possession of the chemical weapons and not a signatory to it was enough for you to conclude that they gassed their own people while the UN chemical inspectors are on site investigating prior incidents of chemical usage. dude, kataw-anan man ni imong logic. as what one syrian general commented earlier, why use chemicals when they can do it with air power which they can use legally? and besides, ug naduwa pa ni sa basketball, ang kontra gibyaan nas puntos.

as opposed to blaming the side that nobody has concrete evidence of ever possessing or having the means to use those weapons. That's the same thing in Iraq, bai. Why did Saddam gas the Kurds, when they have conventional means to slight them? Because chemical weapons delivers the a new level psychological terror, that conventional weapons cannot deliver. I think in this case sir, your logic is the faulty one here.

ahh... here is your smoking gun dude, youtube my ass...ayg palabi anang youtube... you may find out someday you are losing your sanity because of too much western media.

get some reading comprehension please. basaha ug usab akong post, because if you even had the slightest bit of comprehension you'd see nowhere did I say anything promoting youtube as a souce for evidence.

go back read your original post... i wanted a link from you that says russia agreed syria was responsible for the chemical attacks. nahadiin diin nalang ko ug daghang sites but i never heard russia agreed on this. ayaw gani i misled ang mga readers dire dude kay mora na ka ana ug taga CNN... and may i correct your notion that russia is to blame for this because of its full support on syria. dude, russia is following the international law in honoring contracts with syria in delivering russian made weapons.

ahh now kasabot nako nga novice ka about foreign policies and matters. Since when will a leader admit blame, ever? protip man, its a cardinal error in international diplomacy to accept that they were wrong. They might change position, but they will never admit that they were wrong. International law about selling weapons? kadungog kag weapons embargo? its exercised when one party in an agreement decides to do something stupid, OR there is a quesionable conduct in the activities that the party partook in, so the vendor suspends the transactions indefinitely. Russia didn't even try to investigate what was going on in Syria, because it was profitabe for them. Putin is simply a hypocrite.

Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed, annotated and fact-checked

and you want me to believe obama is the peace keeper? lols...

Moscow Confronts Washington: Obama is “Losing the Battle to Destroy the Syrian Government

The U.S. is the reluctant police, but like any country it has interests, and its foreign policy weighs heavily on public sentiment. But that's something you tin-foils will never believe.

IMO, it doesn't matter who gets to play the hero, what matters is that the civil war is kept in check. And that at least iregardless of who did use the weapons, there is something being done about the caches of chemical weaponry--so that it is secured. But I guess some of us are too caught up in being edgy and will take any chance to discredit the U.S. for at least making the whole thing a scene and allowing Russia to open up dialogue with Syria, being its close ally.

[godwhacker]

That's the same thing in Iraq, bai.
Why did Saddam gas the Kurds, when they have conventional means to slight them? Because chemical weapons delivers the a new level psychological terror, that conventional weapons cannot deliver. I think in this case sir, your logic is the faulty one here.

no saddam was becoming desperate... he was fighting Iran and facing unrest internally with the kurds at the same time. he wanted to make a statement that with the chemical weapons given by USA he can chose to use it as he wishes. of course, way kahadlok kay sponsor man niya ang USA that time...while in syria assad has the upperhand and winning the war. ang tanang pabor naang assad so why take the risk of the banned CW when he can do it with with his tanks...

get some reading comprehension please. basaha ug usab akong post, because if you even had the slightest bit of comprehension you'd see nowhere did I say anything promoting youtube as a souce for evidence.

dude... reading comprehension...lols... ikaw ra nagingon nga debunked evidence... saman ka oi, nasakit kag alheimers? where is the link i ask you about Russia's agreeing to syria as responsible for this dastardly act...

ahh now kasabot nako nga novice ka about foreign policies and matters. Since when will a leader admit blame, ever? protip man, its a cardinal error in international diplomacy to accept that they were wrong. They might change position, but they will never admit that they were wrong. International law about selling weapons? kadungog kag weapons embargo? its exercised when one party in an agreement decides to do something stupid, OR there is a quesionable conduct in the activities that the party partook in, so the vendor suspends the transactions indefinitely. Russia didn't even try to investigate what was going on in Syria, because it was profitabe for them. Putin is simply a hypocrite.

Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed, annotated and fact-checked

novice siguro ko dude but i don't rely on meanstream media such as the washingtonpost...

The U.S. is the reluctant police, but like any country it has interests, and its foreign policy weighs heavily on public sentiment. But that's something you tin-foils will never believe.

IMO, it doesn't matter who gets to play the hero, what matters is that the civil war is kept in check. And that at least iregardless of who did use the weapons, there is something being done about the caches of chemical weaponry--so that it is secured. But I guess some of us are too caught up in being edgy and will take any chance to discredit the U.S. for at least making the whole thing a scene and allowing Russia to open up dialogue with Syria, being its close ally.

dude... you are now singing a different tune...lols..kanang imong statement nga di na mo matter kinsay naggamit sa chemical just shows your insufficient understanding of the issue. you initially were harping about the rebels as the innocent party and assad's boys as the culprit to convince the readers here that syria goverment is to blame...pero karon,,, kalit lang kag ingon iregardless of who did use the weapons...blah...blah....

one more thing, what is happening in syria now is not a civil war as trumpeted by the mainstream western media but it is the result of foreign countries sponsoring terrorists to topple a legitimate government for a regime change.

obama should be thankful that putin gave him a face saving solution on the CW issue. ug sa tagalog pa,,, iwas pusoy...

[godwhacker]

Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War

This GRTV production by James Corbett was first released in January 2012. In the light of the recent media disinformation campaign in relation to Syria, we bring this carefully researched video-documentary report to the attention of GR readers.

As the drums of war begin to beat once again in Iran, Syria, the South China Sea, and other potential hotspots and flashpoints around the globe, concerned citizens are asking how a world so sick of bloodshed and a population so tired of conflict could be led to this spot once again.

To understand this seeming paradox, we must first understand the centuries-long history of how media has been used to whip the nation into wartime frenzy, dehumanize the supposed enemies, and even to manipulate the public into believing in causes for war that, decades later, were admitted to be completely fictitious. more

[Renz8]

I was just wondering ug ngano jud nga hangtod karun lunod patay man jud ang support ni Pres.Putin ni Assad nga unta klaro man nga ni gamit jud ug chemical weapons ang Syrian troops as per UN inspections?there's more than meets the eye here......

[godwhacker]

I was just wondering ug ngano jud nga hangtod karun lunod patay man jud ang support ni Pres.Putin ni Assad nga unta klaro man nga ni gamit jud ug chemical weapons ang Syrian troops as per UN inspections?there's more than meets the eye here......

wala pai official report ang latest UN inspections on the the use of chemical weapons... so walay ebidensya nga syrian troops ang naggamit niini. daghang naghuwat sa UN report but a few months ago, there was already a report by a UN team, the spokeswoman, carla del ponte in her report that the use of such weapons has been attributed to the rebels and not the syrian government...


‘Either rebels are responsible for the chemical attack, or Assad’s forces lost their minds’ - French ex-hostage

Turkish prosecutors indict Syrian rebels for seeking chemical weapons

[æRLO]

no saddam was becoming desperate... he was fighting Iran and facing unrest internally with the kurds at the same time. he wanted to make a statement that with the chemical weapons given by USA he can chose to use it as he wishes. of course, way kahadlok kay sponsor man niya ang USA that time...while in syria assad has the upperhand and winning the war. ang tanang pabor naang assad so why take the risk of the banned CW when he can do it with with his tanks...

Just because someone is winning the war doesn't mean they wouldn't use Chemical weapons. And Saddam wasn't desperate in the 80s--he also had the tanks, the aircraft--why didn't Saddam use his 200,000 strong force allotted for the campaign to quell 4000 rebels in the north, and instead used mustard gas?, he is in the same situation Assad is in right now--he knows fully well a larger power is backing him. That's why he has wanton use of CW. Dili ta mag sige ug speculate--here's the facts: Syria was not a signatory of the CWC, it was supplied Chemical weapons as early as the 70s--And its army has the equipment, the training, and firing position to carry-out an attack, the incident (or the area that was affected by the attack was in a strongly opposition-controlled district), the affected area is also part of the supply route for the rebels for the fighting in the eastern part of the country, a route Assad has been trying to disrupt for months but failed in doing so. How a regime can trumpet that it is winning when it can't even subdue the suburbs around its capital, makes the reports of the regime routing the opposition reek of propaganda. And isn't mainstream media reporting that Assad is winning? So doesn't that contradict your mistrust of mainstream media?

dude... reading comprehension...lols... ikaw ra nagingon nga debunked evidence... saman ka oi, nasakit kag alheimers? where is the link i ask you about Russia's agreeing to syria as responsible for this dastardly act...

here's what I said...

The fact that Syria was not a signatory of the Chemical weapons convention at the time but had chemical weapons at the same time is the smoking gun. Aside from the Kremlin's accusation that it was the rebels' who are responsible for the attack, and the debunked "evidence" from youtube--they have no proof that it was the rebels.

what it means is, the only thing going for the argument that the opposition used chemical weapons is the Kremlin's statements, and youtube videos that are from unknown origin, undocumented, and questionable in nature (possibly dubbed and tampered with).

novice siguro ko dude but i don't rely on meanstream media such as the washingtonpost...

that just proves that you are cherry-picking. There are non-mainstream media outlets that have already released the U.N. reports that hinted the Assad as responsible for the attacks. Please do tell us what makes a source mainstream, and what doesn't. Is it because only a minority agree with a material? is that why it's more credible? I think that's just being edgy. AFAIK non-mainstream media is just as easily manipulated as you purport mainstream to be, even the beloved wikileaks. I just don't know where you're getting at with this assumption. What a lot of "conspiracy theorists" believe nowadays is that just because they do not adhere to mainstream credence they are not part of the "flock", when in fact they'll just swallow everything that is unconventional "wisdom" for the sake of being unconventional. Basically, you jumped one flock to another instead of being a discerning, questioning individual.

dude... you are now singing a different tune...lols..kanang imong statement nga di na mo matter kinsay naggamit sa chemical just shows your insufficient understanding of the issue. you initially were harping about the rebels as the innocent party and assad's boys as the culprit to convince the readers here that syria goverment is to blame...pero karon,,, kalit lang kag ingon iregardless of who did use the weapons...blah...blah....

singing a different tune? how? That's called not being close-minded. Please read carefully, where did I say nga di mu matter kinsay ga gamit sa CW? Do I have to keep telling you to comprehend first before forming a line of thought? For your own sake please do that. here's MY exerpt...

IMO, it doesn't matter who gets to play the hero, what matters is that the civil war is kept in check. And that at least iregardless of who did use the weapons, there is something being done about the caches of chemical weaponry--so that it is secured. But I guess some of us are too caught up in being edgy and will take any chance to discredit the U.S. for at least making the whole thing a scene and allowing Russia to open up dialogue with Syria, being its close ally.

Look, I am convinced it was Assad's side that used the CW, who knows if it was under Assad's discretion or maybe his soldiers broke the chain of command--which is especially common in attrition warfare and duress, but respondeat superior. If he can't keep his chain of command intact while at the same time he possess CW, then he's just asking for it. Again, let me reiterate, If the circumstances point to the rebels, then they should be punished--though in this particular case, that scenario is steep. Putin's meddling has only made justice hard to deliver, because he has clearly picked a side since the beginning. In this issue the stark majority of the evidences, thus far, point to Assad.

one more thing, what is happening in syria now is not a civil war as trumpeted by the mainstream western media but it is the result of foreign countries sponsoring terrorists to topple a legitimate government for a regime change.

obama should be thankful that putin gave him a face saving solution on the CW issue. ug sa tagalog pa,,, iwas pusoy...

no, I'm pretty sure its a civil war, that has gotten more out of hand with the use of CW. War was always a bloody business, but when you add a virtually indiscriminate weapon in the battlefields, like CWs, then you're adding a whole new dimension of warfare that the international community should not tolerate--Russia included.

And about Civil Wars with foreign proxies/sponsorship--it has always been the case since the world entered globalization. Point to me a civil war since the 60s that has no foreign involvement in any shape, way or form. Putin must think the world a fool for even decrying that, when Russia under him has also interfered with other countries' internal strife. And since a stark amount of evidence points to Assad, then maybe Russia should at least make an effort to tug on Assad's leash, instead of undermining everything the West does because of his KGB, Cold-War mentality.

The U.S. doesn't have a clean track record either, but Obama raising the fists after the attacks is commendable, even if it was pre-conceived on his part and did hurt his and the U.S.'s already waning credibility. Anyway, portraying anything in this world nowadays in black and white is pretty naive.

Also.

wala pai official report ang latest UN inspections on the the use of chemical weapons... so walay ebidensya nga syrian troops ang naggamit niini. daghang naghuwat sa UN report but a few months ago, there was already a report by a UN team, the spokeswoman, carla del ponte in her report that the use of such weapons has been attributed to the rebels and not the syrian government...


‘Either rebels are responsible for the chemical attack, or Assad’s forces lost their minds’ - French ex-hostage

Turkish prosecutors indict Syrian rebels for seeking chemical weapons

You complain of media that has agendas, yet you cite RT news, which is well-known to be funded by the Russian government. It's the modern-day Pravda, ffs.

It is a major critic of controversies and scandals in the west, virtually ignores the problems within the Russian government. It's practically Putin's mouthpiece.

Are you trying to tell us that RT News is not mainstream media?

[godwhacker]

Just because someone is winning the war doesn't mean they wouldn't use Chemical weapons. And Saddam wasn't desperate in the 80s--he also had the tanks, the aircraft--why didn't Saddam use his 200,000 strong force allotted for the campaign to quell 4000 rebels in the north, and instead used mustard gas?, he is in the same situation Assad is in right now--he knows fully well a larger power is backing him. That's why he has wanton use of CW. Dili ta mag sige ug speculate--here's the facts: Syria was not a signatory of the CWC, it was supplied Chemical weapons as early as the 70s--And its army has the equipment, the training, and firing position to carry-out an attack, the incident (or the area that was affected by the attack was in a strongly opposition-controlled district), the affected area is also part of the supply route for the rebels for the fighting in the eastern part of the country, a route Assad has been trying to disrupt for months but failed in doing so. How a regime can trumpet that it is winning when it can't even subdue the suburbs around its capital, makes the reports of the regime routing the opposition reek of propaganda. And isn't mainstream media reporting that Assad is winning? So doesn't that contradict your mistrust of mainstream media?

we have different views on this since you equate the situation of saddam fighting another country and the separatist kurds at the same time while assad is just fighting a ragtag group of terrorists in his country which would not drain his firepower so much.
it is a fact that the rebels are demanding more advanced weapons from their sponsors because they are no match with assads conventional weapons. pero ug mao nay imong pagtoo, nga pareho ang ilang sitwasyon ni saddam, i beg to disaggree.
As already reported by independent sources, assad is now in control of most parts of his country. of course some pockets with remaining resistance in highly populated suburbs are still to be tackled with.

here's what I said...



what it means is, the only thing going for the argument that the opposition used chemical weapons is the Kremlin's statements, and youtube videos that are from unknown origin, undocumented, and questionable in nature (possibly dubbed and tampered with).

thanks for the clarification.

that just proves that you are cherry-picking. There are non-mainstream media outlets that have already released the U.N. reports that hinted the Assad as responsible for the attacks.

ahhh. ok dude, hint ra diay. it is still not official as what you claimed earlier that even Russia (syria's sponsor) agreed that syria was responsible for the attacks.

Please do tell us what makes a source mainstream, and what doesn't. Is it because only a minority agree with a material? is that why it's more credible? I think that's just being edgy. AFAIK non-mainstream media is just as easily manipulated as you purport mainstream to be, even the beloved wikileaks. I just don't know where you're getting at with this assumption. What a lot of "conspiracy theorists" believe nowadays is that just because they do not adhere to mainstream credence they are not part of the "flock", when in fact they'll just swallow everything that is unconventional "wisdom" for the sake of being unconventional. Basically, you jumped one flock to another instead of being a discerning, questioning individual.

simple ra akong pagsabot sa (western) mainstream media dude, those that are being controlled by groups to invent stories , twist it to make wars. you can easily discern when lies are made... remember Iraq's WMD which never existed but mainstream media made a frenzied spin... the 9/11. again mag hisgot ta ini moingon ka nga conspiracy theorist ang motoo but slowly the truth is coming out because of the internet. and yes you are right non meanstream media can be easily manipulated pero tungod kay non mainstream, subject to more cross referencing ang information.

singing a different tune? how? That's called not being close-minded. Please read carefully, where did I say nga di mu matter kinsay ga gamit sa CW? Do I have to keep telling you to comprehend first before forming a line of thought? For your own sake please do that. here's MY exerpt...

i was expecting this from you. but that's not what i mean... ang buot nakong ipasabot nga pag salga nimo sa topic ingon dayon ka nga RUssia agreed that syria ...blah blah... wa pa gani ang official report sa UN inspectors, gusto nimo ipatoo nga agree man gani ang russia nga sponsor sa syria unsa na kaha ang tate? gusto nimong ihulagway nga sad-an ang syrian government ug inosente ang rebelde...that was implied by your statement. maong nangayo ko nimo sa link -unfortunately hangtud karon wa gihapon. probably, this is probably the reason why nikalit lang kang ingon "irregardless of who used..."

Look, I am convinced it was Assad's side that used the CW, who knows if it was under Assad's discretion or maybe his soldiers broke the chain of command--which is especially common in attrition warfare and duress, but respondeat superior. If he can't keep his chain of command intact while at the same time he possess CW, then he's just asking for it. Again, let me reiterate, If the circumstances point to the rebels, then they should be punished--though in this particular case, that scenario is steep. Putin's meddling has only made justice hard to deliver, because he has clearly picked a side since the beginning. In this issue the stark majority of the evidences, thus far, point to Assad.

that is your belief. imoha sad na and I can only respect that. mas maayo maghuwat ta sa resulta sa report. to my simple understanding, the issue of chemical weapons supervision will be handled by the UN is just to buy time. my hunch is an attack by usa is sure to come and assad is not stupid. giving away banned chemical weapons and gaining more advanced weapons from russia to prepare for the war is one way of delaying tactic. win some lose some.

no, I'm pretty sure its a civil war, that has gotten more out of hand with the use of CW. War was always a bloody business, but when you add a virtually indiscriminate weapon in the battlefields, like CWs, then you're adding a whole new dimension of warfare that the international community should not tolerate--Russia included.

i agree with the idea that this is not a civil war. this is pure terrorism sponsored by foreign countries for a regime change.

You complain of media that has agendas, yet you cite RT news, which is well-known to be funded by the Russian government. It's the modern-day Pravda, ffs.

It is a major critic of controversies and scandals in the west, virtually ignores the problems within the Russian government. It's practically Putin's mouthpiece.

Are you trying to tell us that RT News is not mainstream media?

depende sa panabot sa tawo... to some RT news though as what you say, a mouthpiece of putin, maybe more truthful than CNN or BBC. gawas pa ana, tungod sa internet karon, even the americans would now resort to other foreign sources. RT i believed is one of those.

[Renz8]

@godwhacker wala pa btaw official report sa UN but unofficially g conform na sa UN nga Assad forces are using chemical weapons againts sa rebels ug civilians besides bsan walay confirmation gkan sa UN tataw man kaayo nga ni gamit jud ang Syrian troops ug chemical weapons tungod sa ka desperado ni Assad to hold on to power.......wala pa jud na leksyon ang kalibotan sukad pa sa WW2 panahon ni Hitler nga bsan kung kabalo sila nga ang mga Jews g pang patay na in Millions ni piyong lang ghapon kay lagi internal conflict man mao na g ingon nga History is repeating itself sa una si Hitler karon si Assad kung ang mga tao parehas nmo ug thinking no wonder there are many people in this world who are dying in the hands of despots.................

[flanker]

@godwhacker wala pa btaw official report sa UN but unofficially g conform na sa UN nga Assad forces are using chemical weapons againts sa rebels ug civilians besides bsan walay confirmation gkan sa UN tataw man kaayo nga ni gamit jud ang Syrian troops ug chemical weapons tungod sa ka desperado ni Assad to hold on to power.......wala pa jud na leksyon ang kalibotan sukad pa sa WW2 panahon ni Hitler nga bsan kung kabalo sila nga ang mga Jews g pang patay na in Millions ni piyong lang ghapon kay lagi internal conflict man mao na g ingon nga History is repeating itself sa una si Hitler karon si Assad kung ang mga tao parehas nmo ug thinking no wonder there are many people in this world who are dying in the hands of despots.................

Ayaw pataka ug istoryo oi. Youre delusional and reading too much propaganda instead of using your own common sense. Wake up! Wala pa nahuman ang investigaion sa UN brad. lol

Back last last May from UN:
U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator | Reuters

"The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"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," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.


"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian."


In TURKEY:

"A public prosecutor completed his indictment as part of the probe into the chemicals seized in the southern province of Hatay on Sept. 12, claiming that jihadist Syrian rebel groups were seeking to buy materials that could be used to produce highly toxic sarin gas.

The indictment, which included transcripts of several phone conversations between the suspects involved, said that a 35-year-old Syrian citizen, identified as Hytham Qassap, established a connection with a network in Turkey in order to procure chemical materials for the al-Nusra Front and jihadist Ahrar al-Sham "
LOCAL - Syrian rebel groups sought to buy materials for chemical weapons, prosecutors say

Ka klaro anang ang rebels nag use ug chemical weapons. gi confirm na sa UN last May pa. Akong advise nimo pls use your own basic common sense! Para quality ang discussion dili mogna-mogna ba

[Renz8]

@flanker ako nagpataka ug storyabuta ka dili ka kta unsa nahitabo sa Syria karunBsin kaliwat ka ni Assad ug Hitler brad ikaw mao ni lamoy sa propaganda sa Russia ug Syria mayta tua ka didto arun kana emo nawong pansakan ug chemical weapons or pa buak ka sa emo ulo sa bala ni Assad sa Syria pa suheto2x sad ka dah murag kinsa pweeee..........