• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

who killed these babies ?

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
News The World Syria: Opposers Use Chemical Weapons
Syria - Chemical Weapons
Syria: Opposers Use Chemical Weapons
Armed opponents in Syria admit use of chemical weapons
Members of mercenary and radical Muslim groups fighting in Syria to topple the government, aided by foreign powers, admitted to be in possession of chemical weapons to be used in their attacks.

According to on-line Dampress journal, Saudi terrorist Abdola al-Jaledi revealed recently on his Twitter account @abo_almonthir that his colleages develop and store toxic agents.

If it were not for confidentiality of this matter, I would reveal who was the fighter who made the said chemical bombs, wrote Al-Jaledi on his Twitter account.

Abdola Al-Jaledi was a high ranking member of the Al-Nusra Front, but he left it and joined another group also linked to Al-Qaeda terrorist network, said the journal.

Last Thursday, state-run television in Syria released two conversations among members of rebel groups who shared information about the lethal substances in their hands to attack civilians and the Syrian Arab Army.

The revelations occur as an international campaign intensifies to blame the Syrian government for the alleged use chemical weapons against the civilian population, currently under investigation by a UN team invited by the government since August 18. / Source: PL.

Syria: Opposers Use Chemical Weapons - Radio Angulo


Ja Kar
Why would the goverment use chemicals attack when Asad is actualy wining?! Why is the USA supporting the islamic rebels?
· 14
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The U.S. Navy will expand its presence in the Mediterranean with a fourth cruise-missile armed warship because of the escalating civil war in Syria, a defense official said on Friday.




The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, stressed that the Navy had received no orders to prepare for any military operations regarding Syria.

( as if it would be announced if the navy was ordered to prepare

U.S. Navy expanding presence in Mediterranean due to Syria: official | Reuters
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,146
Reaction score
14,368
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The animals waging war in Syria did that.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,963
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Cuban Institute of Radio and Television or ICRT is an agency of the Cuban government
Google Translate

It's a totalitarian government agency in charge of all news on the island.

Nice source.
 
Last edited:

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,074
Reaction score
45,021
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
News The World Syria: Opposers Use Chemical Weapons
Syria - Chemical Weapons
Syria: Opposers Use Chemical Weapons
Armed opponents in Syria admit use of chemical weapons
Members of mercenary and radical Muslim groups fighting in Syria to topple the government, aided by foreign powers, admitted to be in possession of chemical weapons to be used in their attacks.

According to on-line Dampress journal, Saudi terrorist Abdola al-Jaledi revealed recently on his Twitter account @abo_almonthir that his colleages develop and store toxic agents.

If it were not for confidentiality of this matter, I would reveal who was the fighter who made the said chemical bombs, wrote Al-Jaledi on his Twitter account.

Abdola Al-Jaledi was a high ranking member of the Al-Nusra Front, but he left it and joined another group also linked to Al-Qaeda terrorist network, said the journal.

Last Thursday, state-run television in Syria released two conversations among members of rebel groups who shared information about the lethal substances in their hands to attack civilians and the Syrian Arab Army.

The revelations occur as an international campaign intensifies to blame the Syrian government for the alleged use chemical weapons against the civilian population, currently under investigation by a UN team invited by the government since August 18. / Source: PL.

Syria: Opposers Use Chemical Weapons - Radio Angulo



Ja Kar
Why would the goverment use chemicals attack when Asad is actualy wining?! Why is the USA supporting the islamic rebels?
· 14
Well, considering that Saddam sent his weapons to Assad....however, that part of the world is just crawling with insane Salafists so who knows.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We all did.

By participating in religious wars since the Crusades, agitating sectarian violence for millennia, feeding into secular schisms, and it hasn't changed much since the 11th Century and before. Some parts of the world like the US, have progressed, but other areas of the world haven't changed much since the 7th Century when Muhammad was alive.

Secular violence has killed more humans than any other disease in the history of the world. Even the Black Plague was a mild head cold compared to killing that takes place in the name of God.

Why did I say we all did? Because some feel that what happens in some other part of the world is not our problem. On the other hand, some think that it's our destiny to take our religion (democracy and capitalism in some cases, or a different religion of God in others) to everyone around the world. We have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable, not just here in our own country, but elsewhere as well. We did so in the Balkans, and those we protected were Muslims, so their religion wasn't a factor to us, although that's why they were being exterminated. We did so in Europe in WWII, where religion was also the reason for the genocide, but religion wasn't the reason we got involved. But we tend to look the other way lately when it's politically incorrect however, especially if there's oil involved, or it could effect our oil supply.

This particular example of genocide is a little different than what we've seen on the past from a geopolitical standpoint, but the fact that it could inflame the Middle East and effect our oil supply makes it a hot potato. The fact that Russia and China have opposed any intervention has also scared, yes scared our politicians in power. But the horror is no less real, and our responsibility to protect the vulnerable is no less relieved.

Sitting back and watching is not what we as a capable group in the human race should do. Making blustery statements about red-lines and then doing nothing isn't either. Using the excuse of having to get approval from the UN, which cannot agree on much of anything, and Russia or China could veto any resolution, isn't either. Getting a coalition together of like minded nations is a good idea, but it should not be a 'go/no go' line we have to cross before we take action to protect these babies.

A strategy of actions that can progressively escalate when and if required, such as what President Obama is reportedly looking into now, is exactly what we should be doing. Do I like it? No. Does that mean I will not support the President if he makes the decision and gives the order? Of course not. Most things that are worth doing are hard, and uncomfortable. And the choice to use force to protect the vulnerable is no different.

We should still stand for something in this world. Not expansion of our power and control, but standing for human rights and protection of the vulnerable. We should protect our economic interest around the world as well, but protecting the least among us from genocide shouldn't even be considered a debatable political choice. There is no choice, because the alternative to action is to be complicit in the murder of these children and those that follow, and that... is an unthinkable result, and is a thought I would not want to live with if I were the President.
 
Last edited:

ThirdTerm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
691
Reaction score
162
Location
Trumplandia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Doctors Without Borders said there were roughly 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" and it has tallied 355 deaths from chemical weapon attacks possibly committed by the Assad regime. There are gruesome video footages posted on YouTube, which match the aid group's description, and David Cameron and Barack Obama are moving closer to military intervention as they agreed that the alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime merited a "serious response". Surgical air strikes by ballistic missiles to hit selected regime targets such as suspected chemical weapons sites are expected in coming weeks.
 
Last edited:

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, considering that Saddam sent his weapons to Assad....however, that part of the world is just crawling with insane Salafists so who knows.
You've brought up an uncomfortable truth regarding Iraq's WMD. And you're correct to bring it up.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
20,317
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You've brought up an uncomfortable truth regarding Iraq's WMD. And you're correct to bring it up.
Okay, we see a terrible thing. I am totally down for humanitarian aid including food, medical supplies and medical treatment as long as both parties to the conflict allow us to fly in and fly out without hindrance.

Other than that, it is not our business. We are not the World's Policeman.
 
Last edited:

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
57,712
Reaction score
28,899
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
We all did.

By participating in religious wars since the Crusades, agitating sectarian violence for millennia, feeding into secular schisms, and it hasn't changed much since the 11th Century and before. Some parts of the world like the US, have progressed, but other areas of the world haven't changed much since the 7th Century when Muhammad was alive.

Secular violence has killed more humans than any other disease in the history of the world. Even the Black Plague was a mild head cold compared to killing that takes place in the name of God.

Why did I say we all did? Because some feel that what happens in some other part of the world is not our problem. On the other hand, some think that it's our destiny to take our religion (democracy and capitalism in some cases, or a different religion of God in others) to everyone around the world. We have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable, not just here in our own country, but elsewhere as well. We did so in the Balkans, and those we protected were Muslims, so their religion wasn't a factor to us, although that's why they were being exterminated. We did so in Europe in WWII, where religion was also the reason for the genocide, but religion wasn't the reason we got involved. But we tend to look the other way lately when it's politically incorrect however, especially if there's oil involved, or it could effect our oil supply.

This particular example of genocide is a little different than what we've seen on the past from a geopolitical standpoint, but the fact that it could inflame the Middle East and effect our oil supply makes it a hot potato. The fact that Russia and China have opposed any intervention has also scared, yes scared our politicians in power. But the horror is no less real, and our responsibility to protect the vulnerable is no less relieved.

Sitting back and watching is not what we as a capable group in the human race should do. Making blustery statements about red-lines and then doing nothing isn't either. Using the excuse of having to get approval from the UN, which cannot agree on much of anything, and Russia or China could veto any resolution, isn't either. Getting a coalition together of like minded nations is a good idea, but it should not be a 'go/no go' line we have to cross before we take action to protect these babies.

A strategy of actions that can progressively escalate when and if required, such as what President Obama is reportedly looking into now, is exactly what we should be doing. Do I like it? No. Does that mean I will not support the President if he makes the decision and gives the order? Of course not. Most things that are worth doing are hard, and uncomfortable. And the choice to use force to protect the vulnerable is no different.

We should still stand for something in this world. Not expansion of our power and control, but standing for human rights and protection of the vulnerable. We should protect our economic interest around the world as well, but protecting the least among us from genocide shouldn't even be considered a debatable political choice. There is no choice, because the alternative to action is to be complicit in the murder of these children and those that follow, and that... is an unthinkable result, and is a thought I would not want to live with if I were the President.
Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. I remember when we helped in the wake of the earthquake in Haitii, we were accused of "occupying" it. We'll be bashed whatever we do or don't do and I'm pretty tired of it myself.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,899
Reaction score
3,581
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You've brought up an uncomfortable truth regarding Iraq's WMD. And you're correct to bring it up.
-----------------
Why would Syria bother to import Iraq's crap?
Poison gas is pretty simple to manufacture.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,899
Reaction score
3,581
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. I remember when we helped in the wake of the earthquake in Haitii, we were accused of "occupying" it. We'll be bashed whatever we do or don't do and I'm pretty tired of it myself.
---------------

I share your disgust.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Okay, we see a terrible thing. I am totally down for humanitarian aid including food, medical supplies and medical treatment as long as both parties to the conflict allow us to fly in and fly out. Other than that, it is not our business. We are not the World's Policeman.
I agree regarding humanitarian aid. We are members of the human race, and cannot just sit by and allow genocide to take place although giving them rice, flour and water will not stop the killing.

And I agree that we are not the world's policeman. And involving ourselves in internal strife of other countries, like what's happening in Egypt right now, is not what we should be involving ourselves in directly, especially militarily. Genocide, on the other hand, should be something that we should never allow ourselves to just stand by and say it is not our concern. I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal, but I cannot approve of our allowing this type of government organized mass murder to stand unopposed.

Being a combat veteran, and one that still caries the physical and mental scares of that combat, I am one of the most reluctant to approve of the use of military force. But there comes a time, when the alternative is an unthinkable horror.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. I remember when we helped in the wake of the earthquake in Haitii, we were accused of "occupying" it. We'll be bashed whatever we do or don't do and I'm pretty tired of it myself.
Then pick up a weapon, go over there and start shooting babies. Because your apathy has the same result. I would rather be part of a nation that saves lives, like in Haiti, rather than one that condones genocide, like in Syria, because I'm concerned someone may not like it, or I have better things to do like play video games or pontificate on an internet forum.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-----------------
Why would Syria bother to import Iraq's crap?
Poison gas is pretty simple to manufacture.
Poison Gas isn't the only thing Saddam took there. Syria didn't import it. They hid it for Saddam, and helped spread it across the region, where some of it ended up in Libya, as was found by a CNN news team.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
20,317
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I agree regarding humanitarian aid. We are members of the human race, and cannot just sit by and allow genocide to take place although giving them rice, flour and water will not stop the killing.

And I agree that we are not the world's policeman. And involving ourselves in internal strife of other countries, like what's happening in Egypt right now, is not what we should be involving ourselves in directly, especially militarily. Genocide, on the other hand, should be something that we should never allow ourselves to just stand by and say it is not our concern. I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal, but I cannot approve of our allowing this type of government organized mass murder to stand unopposed.

Being a combat veteran, and one that still caries the physical and mental scares of that combat, I am one of the most reluctant to approve of the use of military force. But there comes a time, when the alternative is an unthinkable horror.
I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Each society is responsible for it's own internal affairs without hindrance. Your appeal to emotion would have us involved in conflicts all over the world, and even where we won we'd need to stay in place a significant period of time in order to "rebuild" their civil affairs. That is not our job.

If we see genocide we can offer sanctuary to refugees, we can boycott and take other political and economic measures against the offending government. IMO we should NOT intervene militarily.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
-----------------
Why would Syria bother to import Iraq's crap?
Poison gas is pretty simple to manufacture.
Saddamn needed a hiding place.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Each society is responsible for it's own internal affairs without hindrance. Your appeal to emotion would have us involved in conflicts all over the world, and even where we won we'd need to stay in place a significant period of time in order to "rebuild" their civil affairs. That is not our job.

If we see genocide we can offer sanctuary to refugees, we can boycott and take other political and economic measures against the offending government. IMO we should NOT intervene militarily.
That al depends. If there's a vettable "good guy", then we should become involved. In the case of Syria, we would be helping the bad guys, no matter who we sided with.

Personally, I believe that if we did become involved, I would like to see us target government AND rebel units.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,899
Reaction score
3,581
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Poison Gas isn't the only thing Saddam took there. Syria didn't import it. They hid it for Saddam, and helped spread it across the region, where some of it ended up in Libya, as was found by a CNN news team.
-------------
Is that right?
Since poison gas is easily manufactured, how would anyone know it originated in Iraq?
I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but poison gas can be made by anyone.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
20,317
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
That al depends. If there's a vettable "good guy", then we should become involved. In the case of Syria, we would be helping the bad guys, no matter who we sided with.

Personally, I believe that if we did become involved, I would like to see us target government AND rebel units.
I disagree. We've done exactly that time and again and it's only gotten us into trouble. If there is a "vettable good guy" then the people will support him and he will eventually succeed on his own. If not, then maybe the next "good guy" who tries will. The best way to deal with any situation involving internal strife is to let the citizen's settle it on their own. IMO eventually they'll get it right, even if the government isn't one we'd approve of.

Meanwhile we would not have made any enemies like we have from past interference.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,899
Reaction score
3,581
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Saddamn needed a hiding place.
-----------

Why would he bother?
The invasion was going to happen and exporting his WMD's wouldn't have saved his sorry ass.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it.
Thank you, I respect your opinion as well.
Each society is responsible for it's own internal affairs without hindrance.
I agree totally.
Your appeal to emotion would have us involved in conflicts all over the world, and even where we won we'd need to stay in place a significant period of time in order to "rebuild" their civil affairs. That is not our job.
Genocide is not a global problem. Thank goodness. Nation building is not what the military is for. We have USAID and other parts of our government that can help with that. We have been in that business since the turn of the last century. We've only recently began to use the military to do so. Even after WWII, the military wasn't the part of our government that rebuilt Europe of Japan, even though MacArthur thought he was.

If we see genocide we can offer sanctuary to refugees, we can boycott and take other political and economic measures against the offending government.
And I agree with this as well. This should be our first, longest and most focused effort.
IMO we should NOT intervene militarily.
99.9% I would agree with that. But realistically, there may come a time in every event in life, where force is the last remaining option. That is why we have civilian police here at home. Negotiating sometimes works, like when Antoinette Huff talked down that shooter in the Georgia school other day. But there are other times, when SWAT has to go in. I hate use the police analogy, since you and I agree our military isn't the world's police force. But it is an apropos analogy regarding force.

I'm not beating the military intervention drum. And I hope that a stand-off launching of cruise missiles at Assad's military targets will get the point across to stop the genocide. If they stop the chemical warfare, but continue the civil war, then we stand down and let them fight it out. If the Syrian military starts using conventional means to restart the genocide, like what happened in the Balkans in the '90's, then we must step up again.

I know we don't agree on this. I would like to to tell you though that I appreciate and respect both your opinion and the way you put it forth in this thread.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,627
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, considering that Saddam sent his weapons to Assad....however, that part of the world is just crawling with insane Salafists so who knows.
I've been suggesting this possibility for years, but since there's no way to prove it it's usually dismissed and laughed at. One possible benefit of the Syrian civil war is that we may get an answer in the future unless, of course, they get moved to Lebanon.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,963
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Poison Gas isn't the only thing Saddam took there. Syria didn't import it. They hid it for Saddam, and helped spread it across the region, where some of it ended up in Libya, as was found by a CNN news team.
Citation?
 
Top Bottom