Amos Yadlin + why bombing Damascus is important to Israel.

Yes the Arabs slaughter civilians as their primary tactic.

 

Which Arabs specifically?

 

That wouldn't be the same kind of "satellite imagery" that was presented to the UNSC by Powell would it? At the end of the day, no evidence implicating Assad to the alleged chemical attacks has thus far been presented.

 

www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/08/the-troodos-conundrum/

 

Are you privy to the closed session evidence presented to the senate foreign relations commitee? Seems they were convinced.
This situation has nothing to do with Powell or the fraud perpetrated by the neo-cons.

 

and naturally this blogger is in the know.

I have no idea what com intercepts say. A "highly placed source" means nothing.

Interesting on the one had you dismiss US evidence because of past experience with Iraq which was wrong, but you immediately believe an internet blogger who's track record has as many misses and hits. Nothing like a double standard.

 

The burden of proof lies with the US if they wish to accuse anyone of anything.

Seems no one is buying their BS anymore, not even the US public.

Just Jewish lobby groups and Abe Foxman, plus some questionable countries like S Arabia.

I guess we are just tired of the lies and BS, and obvious flaws in the story.

I guess we are just tired of hearing that by murdering people we save people.

I guess we don't trust a single word of what our Gov's say, and little wonder since they have proven themselves liars, time and again.

 

Ok, you don't know the credentials of the said blogger...Fine.

 

That you cannot even consider the possibility that this latest charade is akin the the debacle surrounding Iraq, is an indication of your gullibility.

 

Indeed. It's not as if the collective cynicism of the masses is groundless.

The excellent journalists at medialens offer some sober, if rare, analysis:

"In reality, the truth is simply unknown. Even US intelligence officials argue that the responsibility of the Syrian government, let alone Assad, is no 'slam dunk'. Chemical weapons experts are also clear that much doubt remains.

It is of course possible that government forces launched the attacks, although it would have been an inexplicably foolish, indeed suicidal, act for Assad to order the mass gassing of civilians three days after UN inspectors had arrived in the country. In the Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens offered a rare rational comment on this theme:

'In those circumstances, what could possibly have possessed him to do something so completely crazy? He was, until this event, actually doing quite well in his war against the Sunni rebels. Any conceivable gains from using chemical weapons would be cancelled out a million times by the diplomatic risk. It does not make sense. Mr Assad is not Saddam Hussein, or some mad carpet-biting dictator, but a reasonably intelligent, medically-trained person who has no detectable reason to act in such an illogical and self-damaging fashion.

'The rebels, on the other hand (in many cases non-Syrian jihadists who are much disliked by many ordinary Syrians because of the misery they have brought upon them), have many good reasons to stage such an attack.'

And recall that on May 6, speaking for the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria, Carla Del Ponte said, 'there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities'.

No matter, the front page of the Independent read:

'Syria: air attacks loom as West finally acts' (Independent, August 26, 2013)

http://medialens.org/index.php/aler...ts-2013/740-massacres-that-matter-part-2.html

 

What actual use are the UN when they turn a blind eye to all that Israel do, and the US crime cabal just do as they wish?

I honestly cannot see a single thing they achieve.

They are just not dynamic, they don't inspire, they seem like a lot of money for little return.

The only country that stepped up to the plate and showed any common sense was Russia, but they did that as Russia not as part of the UN.

 

I agree with you that the UN is toothless when set against US unilateral power. However, the world is changing and with it the said power is diminishing also. Power relations and the nature and extent of its projection shift accordingly depending upon global geopolitical and economic circumstances. The significance of the UN, despite its limitations and flaws, is its setting of an international legalistic benchmark irrespective of the specific prevailing orthodoxy of the kind described, the forces of which frequently attempt to undermine this legalistic framework. Just because international law is only ever enforced by the powerful who effectively control it at any given moment in time, is not, in my view, a sufficient enough argument to abandon the legalistic principles and the organisation responsible for binding it all together.

 

They are not the security council and they met infomally to agree on making up a resolution to present to the Security Cuncil and that meeting has not occured and no resolution was ever voted on so you lied when you said the the Security Council met and voted on a resolution authorizing action on Syria.

Nice try Bishadi but your shenanigans won't wash here.

No because I have not wondered if he did and have only been dealing with what we do know. I am not wondering why you defend a murderous dictator nor am I wondering why you feel the opposition mainly made up of genuine Syrians wanting freedom are villains but rather deal in facts and the facts are that we don't know.

 

no, merely pointing out that it doesn't appear as tho the use of chemical weapons is a charade. We aren't talking about having WMD, we are talking about using WMD.

I happen to believe that the world should wait on the UN report, before passing judgement on what transpired and who is culpable.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you suggesting that this particular blogger is always correct in reporting "highly placed intelligence source"?

 

The Germans also appearntly, his "credentials" dropped more...

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

but but but but how can it be that Troodos didnt catch it ???????

Perhaps they did but didnt publish it because they didnt know how it would be interpreted by the public in face of British possible attack ? who knows, whats obvious thou is you and that blogger are baised against Israel and every intel that comes from it, so your own conclusions lean toward politics rather than real essesment of the situation.

 

This is what known:

1) Assad has Chemical weapons
2) Chemical shells were used in Aug 21 around Ghouta - from Body examination, eye witnesess, Doctors without borders reports, Videos.
3) Assad had a motive but also reasons not to go with it so i'd say they cancel each other at this point.

Now for the abilty, Chemical wepaon shells are not like convetional shells that every Army train for, it carries a deadly poison which is colorless and odorless, evaporates at room temperture and lethel even in small doses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Since its illegal most armies dont now how to use such a round, no soldier will go near such weapons let alone try to use - unless properly trained, that's common sense not "Zionist propaganda"...., the ppl that manufactured this illigal weapons are the ones that are trained to use it - not some crazed Islamist that got desert training on an AK-47, they probebly wouldnt know what it is even if encountered with such.

That's healthy reasoning and what you do is turn a blind eye to all that because you favour that tyrant for his politic stance, it has nothing to do with the Syrian ppl.


Personally, I dont care much if Assad gets attacked or not, with all the misery in the world it would be nice to know that every now and then a butcher tyrant gets his due as well but he wont be the first if he gets away with it either, I think its known he did use it but ppl simply dont care enough for the Syrians, the Americans for example dont like the Syrian ppl very much so no reason for them to risk their soldeirs for that cause. but dont try to picture Assad innocent or US as guilty, everyone knows they simply dont care.

 

Murray and myself are biased in favour of social justice and human decency and against the actions an aggressive expansionist settler state and it's imperialist overseer. For that ma Lord, I plead guilty.

 

Russia's wrong-footing of America in respect to the latter's attempt at rushing to war, irrespective of he findings of the UN report, was a master stroke. The fact that America was willing to attack Syria in the absence of any evidence predicated on the said report, suggests to me that the American's - as was the case with Iraq - are busy manipulating the 'evidence' to suit their preconceived agenda of aggression first - evidence be damned.

I'm suggesting I have no reason to question the veracity of Murray's account of events.

 

The reasons you have to be blind are not important as to the fact you are, but I feel you made a big step today, admitting you have a problem is the first most important step to fix it.

 

WTF are you talking about? It's YOU who has the problem with your constant unconditional attempts at defending the historically indefensible actions of your expansionist aggressive state.

 

I can argue on that as well but that's not the issue, the issue is the Syrian crisis and the evidence toward Assad regime, evidence you turn a blind eye to because you are mad on another issue, that's just a wrong way to judge things.

 

Which is inaccurate. Nobody has yet stated unequivocally that Assad used these agents. Nobody has yet stated unequivocally that the opposition, whoever they are, used these agents either.
You have evidently taken sides. I prefer to wait for the evidence before commenting.

 

Please provide the details of this so-called evidence. Thanks.

 

I know you are smart + more involved in politics than me so let's keep it simple, if you wish you can answer post #116 and we'll carry from there.

 

Ok, let's agree then, that in the absence of any evidence thus far presented to the general public in a transparent way, Kerry's claims have, in many circles, been rightly ridiculed.. The truth is, Kerry's failure to be openly transparent with the public on this issue would suggest that the masses have rightly smelled a rat. On the basis of probability and logic alone of the kind I've previously outlined elsewhere, it seems highly unlikely that Assad
used chemical weapons as was claimed. Having said that, we don't as yet know for sure either way. But given the debacle over Iraq and Kerry's inability to come clean, added to the illogicality underlying the claim that Assad used chemical weapons from a winning position, as well as Del Ponte's previous assertion that it was highly likely that the rebels NOT Assad had used them up until this point, indicates to most sane people that the notion he used them in this latest incident is farsical.