Syria Chemical Attack - False Flag?

[simmo]

I never really heard the term "false flag" much until recently but something about this chemical attack in Syria doesn't sit right for me.

[Grecia]

I never really heard the term "false flag" much until recently but something about this chemical attack in Syria doesn't sit right for me.

 

Me either - and the Daily Mail were apparently predicting this scenario back in February:http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/79175-why-has-this-massive-story-of-global-importance-been-removed-from-the-daily-mail-website

[pablo]

Must be right if David Icke predicted it.

[simmo]

Must be right if David Icke predicted it.

He didn't actually predict it pabs:confused:

[pablo]

He didn't actually predict it pabs:confused:

 

Looks to me like he did,reading the link,more Icke conspiracy theories

Aren't you supposed to be on a family holiday btw sparrer?

[Guest Guest66881]

Materials implicating the forces of Syrian president Bashar Assad in chemical weapons use near Damascus were prepared prior to the alleged incident on August 21, the Russian foreign ministry said.

 

Moscow continues to monitor closely the event surrounding the“alleged” chemical attack near Damascus, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said in a statement.

 

“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”

 

The Damascus chemical attack accusations indicate the launch of “another anti-Syrian propaganda wave” and, in this context, the calls on the UN Security Council to immediately use force in Syria “heard from some EU capitals” are “unacceptable”, Lukashevich said.

 

The Foreign Ministry spokesman said that Assad’s government has demonstrated a “constructive approach” to the chemical weapons issue by allowing UN experts into the country.

 

But it’s alarming that the “same signals” aren’t coming from the Syrian opposition, which so far hasn’t displayed willingness to ensure the safety and efficient operations of UN investigators on the territory it controls, he said.

 

“This directly impedes the objective investigation of allegations of possible cases of chemical weapons use in Syria, which is called for by a number of countries and which the Russian side supports,”Lukashevich noted.

 

The Russian foreign ministry “strongly appeals to those who should put pressure on the opposition, making it take the necessary steps in order to ensure the full realization of the objectives of the international expert mission,” the spokesman said.

 

Meanwhile, the UK has put the blame for the Damascus chemical attack on Assad’s forces, saying it thought the Syrian government had “something to hide.”

 

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria,” William Hague, British Foreign Secretary, is cited as saying by Reuters. “I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime.”

 

The reports of a chemical weapons use in the suburbs of the Ghouta region on the outskirts Damascus appeared in the pro-opposition media on Wednesday, August 21, coinciding with the arrival of the UN investigators to the Syrian capital.

 

The Islamist rebels claimed that over a 1,000 people, including many children, were killed in the attack, with the government saying that the accusations were fabricated in order to cover up the opposition’s battle losses and undermine the work of the UN mission.

 

 

Source: http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/

 

[Maruska]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/22/un-seeks-access-tosyriagasattacksite.html

 

We might know for sure soon, however I am inclined to believe that Assad`s government was indeed responsible for the attack.

[simmo]

Aren't you supposed to be on a family holiday btw sparrer?

 

Yes. Thanks for caring;)

[pablo]

Yes. Thanks for caring;)

 

Welcome.

[Bobj]

Get the priorities right?? K. Rudd was urgently called to Canberra to be briefed on the Syrian situation. It was important enough for him to stop his election campaign...but not enough to stop him diverting to Brissie to do a short cooking film...

 

Cheers, Bobj.

[Johndoe]

That was a smear Bob. The film was pre-recorded.

[Bobj]

That was a smear Bob. The film was pre-recorded.

 

On ABC news??

 

An extract

[h=2]Criticism for timing of briefing[/h] Video: Rudd halts campaign for Syria briefing (7pm TV News ACT)

 

Before the briefing Mr Rudd did make sure he travelled to Brisbane, as originally planned, for long enough in the afternoon to film an episode of the ABC's Kitchen Cabinet at his home.

The episode is one of two election specials - the other with Mr Abbott - and broadcast in the final week of the campaign.

Responding to a Sunday Telegraph article on the timing of the filming, a Labor statement said the full national security briefing on Syria could not be organised until the evening.

"Had a full national security briefing on Syria been possible earlier, Mr Rudd would have made arrangements to be in Canberra earlier," the statement said.

 

Cheers, Bobj.

[Johndoe]

Yep, he did it in the arvo as the briefing was to be held in the evening. Of course, some commentators tried to hint at the briefing being held in the evening just to accommodate Rudd cooking in the arvo. As much as i dislike Rudd, I dislike all attempts at smearing (anyone) more.

[Parley]

I think K Rudd was just trying to look Prime Ministerial, thinks it will look good to the electorate.

[Bobbsy]

Medecins Sans Frontieres (who support two hospitals in the Damascus area) have confirmed that they treated around 3500 people (of whom 355 died, including 2 doctors) suffering from the effects of neurotoxic agents. BBC STORY.

 

Obviously this doesn't solve the question of who used the chemical agents but it puts paid to some commentators I've seen (mainly Assad supporters) who tried to say the video footage was faked.

 

My mind is still open about which side did it--though if forced to bet I'd probably say it's more likely it was the government regime.

[Diane]

As much as i dislike Rudd, I dislike all attempts at smearing (anyone) more.

 

Some have suggested that as Murdoch owns most of the press in Australia and a large share in Foxtel, and the NBN would enable a lot of people to download stuff from the internet rather than subscribing to Foxtel, whereas Abbott's alternative wouldn't, that there might be some ulterior motives to some of the smear campaigns...

[Parley]

Some have suggested that as Murdoch owns most of the press in Australia and a large share in Foxtel, and the NBN would enable a lot of people to download stuff from the internet rather than subscribing to Foxtel, whereas Abbott's alternative wouldn't, that there might be some ulterior motives to some of the smear campaigns...

 

But that argument doesn't hold water.

The NBN is very good for Foxtel as they are moving in to IP products, and people who want to download already do.

And the coalition's nbn will be plenty fast enought for downloads and video streaming and will be delivered sooner and will be cheaper for customers.

[Bobbsy]

Some have suggested that as Murdoch owns most of the press in Australia and a large share in Foxtel, and the NBN would enable a lot of people to download stuff from the internet rather than subscribing to Foxtel, whereas Abbott's alternative wouldn't, that there might be some ulterior motives to some of the smear campaigns...

 

It's not just the Foxtel link (although that's part of it) but Murdoch has a right win agenda that's obvious all over the world. The fact that he's allowed to own 70% of the print media in Australia plus a huge chunk of broadcasting is appalling. NOBODY (right or left) should have that sort of stranglehold over the media we can see.

 

But that argument doesn't hold water.

The NBN is very good for Foxtel as they are moving in to IP products, and people who want to download already do.

And the coalition's nbn will be plenty fast enought for downloads and video streaming and will be delivered sooner and will be cheaper for customers.

 

They're moving to IP products but would prefer to do so over their own cable network so they can control what you see. With the NBN you could just as easily subscribe to BBC iPlayer international as the Foxtel channels (just as an example).

 

As for the coalition NBC being "fast enough" that'll depend on where you live. Speeds on FTTN systems drop rapidly as the distance from the node increases. At 300 meters the MAXIMUM will be about 20 Mbps and even that will rely on your copper being in good shape (which much of the Telstra network patently is not). However, think of how your internet needs have grown over the last 10 or 15 years. In about 2000 I moved from a 14.2 dial up system to a 56k one and thought it was great. Within 2 years I moved from dial up to 512k ADSL and THAT was great. Less that 2 years later I moved to 8 Mbps ADSL and THAT was great. However, since moving to Australia, distance to the exchange and crappy copper wiring mean that now I'm running at about 4Mbps and curse that speed daily, especially as our household has three computers, 3 smart phones, a netbook and a tablet.

 

The need for digital bandwidth will only increase and likely exponentially. Investment in FTTN will be a waste of money that'll have to be replaced in a few years anyway. Abbott's plan will be a disaster for Australia.

[Parley]

Australia cannot afford the $90B or so the NBN under Labor would cost.

It is not necessary to provide fast broadband for the foreseeable future.

 

Typical Labor to try and build a Ferrari when a V8 Commodore will do perfectly well.

 

And the takeup of consumers so far who can get the NBN has been poor, which will mean higher prices for the people who do take it up.

[Guest Guest66881]

I wonder what the existing export market is against what a forward thinking plan of using the NBN would be for Australia?

The internet is a good work tool, but not going to create the vast sums the costs entailed for it i bet.

[familybonesinoz]

I never really heard the term "false flag" much until recently but something about this chemical attack in Syria doesn't sit right for me.

 

Lets be perfectly honest (although some will decide that I am being anti-islamic and totally non pc) we all know that to advance the 'Extreme Islamic Fundamentalist cause' the extremists will do ANYTHING. Now before anybody bothers typing racist or the like I suggest you look no further than the hundreds of suicide bombers including children (and jihad videos that accompany them) that have killed other muslims.

 

It might read as sick or disgusting BUT how many people on here would bet their own families health against the possible scenario that

 

'the extremists carried out this atrocity so as to gather favour from the west'

[Bobbsy]

That $94 billion number for the Labor NBN is a number that the LNP plucked out of the air. There is little or no evidence to support it. It may go over the original $44.1 billion but not by anything like that much.

 

The Liberal plan isn't isn't a V8 Commodore. It's a 20 year old mini with a serious oil leak.

 

I hear what you say about not needing the NBN now but ten years ago you wouldn't have believed you needed the ADSL speeds which are already inadequate for many people. In ten years time we'll be using the internet for things not even dreamt of today. To not plan for that--and the Liberal scheme barely caters for today's needs, much less the future--is short sighted in the extreme. I'll bet you a pint or three that in five years time you'll wish you had fibre (if the LNP get in) and in ten years time whichever government is in power will be spending many more billions playing catch up.

 

This isn't just me by the way. Some years back (while in the UK) I was lucky to participate in a BBC-sponsored think tank about future technology. The most interesting person there was the BT "Futureologist"...the man who predicts technology trends to help BT plan their network. One of his key predictions was that, before 2020, huge numbers of people will be telecommuting rather than actually travelling to work.

 

The same guy predicted that, by 2025, virtual reality will be such that you will be able to live anywhere you like in the world and work anywhere, all via electronic communication.

 

(He also predicted that national governments as we know them will disappear by 2030--when all work and commerce is in a virtual world, how can a national government raise taxes and be relevant?)

 

I don't know about that but I've been following his predictions and, so far, he's been right to within a year or two each time.

 

The Labour NBN can handle all that. The Liberal one can't and will need replacing within less than a decade. This is a question for engineers and scientists, not politicians.

[Bobbsy]

Lets be perfectly honest (although some will decide that I am being anti-islamic and totally non pc) we all know that to advance the 'Extreme Islamic Fundamentalist cause' the extremists will do ANYTHING. Now before anybody bothers typing racist or the like I suggest you look no further than the hundreds of suicide bombers including children (and jihad videos that accompany them) that have killed other muslims.

 

It might read as sick or disgusting BUT how many people on here would bet their own families health against the possible scenario that

 

'the extremists carried out this atrocity so as to gather favour from the west'

 

You're pretty sure of yourself.

 

However, I wouldn't assume that Assad is a nice guy who wouldn't use chemical weapons. He's an evil despot with a history of supporting terrorism. His government is/was known to have large stocks of chemical weapons salted away. You don't spend the money on making such things unless you're at least thinking of using them.

 

I don't know who was responsible for the chemical attack outside Damascus and neither do you. However, if I had to bet I'd say the odds slightly favour the Syrian government rather than the rebels.

[Xenon4017]

You don't spend the money on making such things unless you're at least thinking of using them.

 

 

 

I hope you do. Or rather, I hope _we_ do. when you think of some of the weapons we've developed.

 

But back to the story. What is Assads motivation to use chemical weapons? He's not really losing ground by engaging in a conventional civil war. And he knows that the one thing that would precipitate foreign intervention is a chemical attack on civilians. He could shell and shoot civilians by the thousand, and has probably already done so, and no one will do a thing. Why risk that by employing chemical arms? When he knows full well that pictures of such an attack would be broadcast around the world within minutes.It just doesn't add up.

[Xenon4017]

Well we're way off topic, but have a read about what you've just written. Play the game of "Spot the vested interest" and "Spot the unrealistic perspective". Here goes:

 

 

In ten years time we'll be using the internet for things not even dreamt of today.

 

Or "If you build it, they will come". Most of the hoohaa today revolves around how much bandwidth do you need to stream video. The ALP attack Murdoch because they believe that he feels his cable TV operation will be threatened. Forget the idea of new tech bringing new jobs to a great extent; new tech will just bring more entertainment at your fingertips. That's all well and good, but its not really a new idea. It's just more of the same old idea.

 

 

This isn't just me by the way. Some years back (while in the UK) I was lucky to participate in a BBC-sponsored think tank about future technology. The most interesting person there was the BT "Futureologist"...the man who predicts technology trends to help BT plan their network.

 

That's a vested interest.

One of his key predictions was that, before 2020, huge numbers of people will be telecommuting rather than actually travelling to work.

 

Well , we're now in 2013. How huge is huge, because we've only got 7 years to go. And although many peoples' work could be done from home, most peoples' can't.

The same guy predicted that, by 2025, virtual reality will be such that you will be able to live anywhere you like in the world and work anywhere, all via electronic communication.

 

But you could have said the same thing about the telephone 50 years ago. Yes video enhances the experience, as does a whiteboard. Maybe holographic images would be cool for a while too. But ultimately most people communicate in a written or oral format, and the tech is already advanced enough for that.

(He also predicted that national governments as we know them will disappear by 2030--when all work and commerce is in a virtual world, how can a national government raise taxes and be relevant?)

 

And this is where it starts to get wacky

I don't know about that but I've been following his predictions and, so far, he's been right to within a year or two each time.

 

So what did he predict that has already happened? Not "in the near future" but verifiably already happened?