Syria to U.N.: 'Serious fear' it will be framed for the use of chemical weapons
28 replies, posted
[QUOTE](CNN) -- The newly elected head of Syria's opposition will brief European foreign ministers Monday on the worsening crisis there, European Union foreign affairs representative Catherine Ashton said.
Ashton met Monday with Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib and pledged European support ahead of the monthly meeting of European Union foreign ministers.
"We want to help, but it's their country," she said.
Al-Khatib is to discuss his proposal for a political transition plan, part of a comprehensive effort to end the hostilities that have left thousands of people dead in nearly 21 months of fighting that the administration of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad characterizes as a fight against terrorism.
Ashton said the world must take a stand against al-Assad's actions.
"It is important that we recognize the terrible things that have been happening in Syria and the responsibility that Assad has," Ashton said. "We said from the very beginning that it is no place to be in a position of power in your country if you respond to peaceful demonstrations with the murder of your citizens."
On Sunday, the joint United Nations and Arab League envoy on Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said a political solution is still possible even though the situation is "bad and getting worse."
Brahimi's comments came after a meeting with U.S. and Russian diplomats.
He released a statement saying the meeting "explored avenues to move forward a peaceful process and mobilize greater international action in favour of a political solution to the Syrian crisis."
Meanwhile, Syria accused the United States of working to frame the country for using chemical weapons, according to Syrian state-run media.
"The U.S. administration has consistently worked over the past year to launch a campaign of allegations on the possibility that Syria could use chemical weapons during the current crisis," the Foreign Ministry wrote in letters to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency reported.
"What raises concerns about this news circulated by the media is our serious fear that some of the countries backing terrorism and terrorists might provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons and claim that it was the Syrian government that used the weapons," SANA quoted the letters as saying.
U.S. officials have expressed concern about intelligence suggesting that Syrian military units may be preparing chemical weapons for use.
President Barack Obama has called the use of chemical weapons a "red line" that would prompt swift U.S. reaction.
The United States and European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles, according to a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats.
The training is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, and involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.
Some of the contractors are in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, one of the officials said.
Opposition groups said fighting continued across the country on Monday.
At least seven people died Monday, including a woman and two children killed by shelling in a Damascus suburb, the Local Coordination Committees of Syria said.
In one Aleppo neighborhood, opposition activists said, they discovered 10 handcuffed and blindfolded corpses killed by government forces in recent weeks, the observatory reported.
CNN is unable to confirm casualty reports as the government has severely restricted access by international journalists.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3[/url]
"We're about to use chemical weapons, but it totally won't be us!"
God damn that would be a fucking shit storm if the rebels captured a secret chemical weapons dump.. something similar to the Libya SAM's that magically went missing.
[QUOTE]"What raises concerns about this news circulated by the media is our serious fear that some of the countries backing terrorism and terrorists might provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons and claim that it was the Syrian government that used the weapons,"[/QUOTE]
Well this is some paranoid bullshit.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38778339]Well this is some paranoid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. What happens if Al Nusra Front finds/captures/executes their way through to a chemical weapons depot. Already a big enough issue with nuclear materials, chemical weapons won't help.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38778352]No it isn't. What happens if Al Nusra Front finds/captures/executes their way through to a chemical weapons depot. Already a big enough issue with nuclear materials, chemical weapons won't help.[/QUOTE]No, what they are saying is that nations opposed to Assad's regime will give the revolutionaries chemical weapons to use then blame it on Assad.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38778352]No it isn't. What happens if Al Nusra Front finds/captures/executes their way through to a chemical weapons depot. Already a big enough issue with nuclear materials, chemical weapons won't help.[/QUOTE]
What? They don't mention anything about jihadists capturing stockpiles.. read the quote
They're specifically afraid of the US giving WMD's to rebels to frame their gov't.
Once again, paranoid bullshit.
And if the revolutionaries found chemical weapons, Syria would be just as complicit for having the things to begin with.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38778390]And if the revolutionaries found chemical weapons, Syria would be just as complicit for having the things to begin with.[/QUOTE]
"It's ok for us to have them but not them"
[QUOTE=aydin690;38778616]"It's ok for us to have them but not them"[/QUOTE]The fuck is that even supposed to mean? You think the U.S. or U.K. have chemical weapons on hand and ready to deploy?
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38778387]What? They don't mention anything about jihadists capturing stockpiles.. read the quote
They're specifically afraid of the US giving WMD's to rebels to frame their gov't.
Once again, paranoid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Oh okay, its still a big nightmare when it comes to what I mentioned though. I was surprised when I found out how many jihadi they capture with nuclear materials.
Imagine if that shit finds it's way from the opposition to REAL terrorist groups.
Something''s gotta be done.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38778339]Well this is some paranoid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I don't know. The US has supplied weapons and materiel to aid friendly rebels (Cuba, Afghanistan) and we did invade Iraq on the (incorrect) premise that they had WMDs, so putting the two together doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
I wouldn't assume that, if chemical weapons are found, they were planted, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38778680]The fuck is that even supposed to mean? You think the U.S. or U.K. have chemical weapons on hand and ready to deploy?[/QUOTE]
Get a load of this guy!
[QUOTE=catbarf;38779066]Eh, I don't know. The US has supplied weapons and materiel to aid friendly rebels (Cuba, Afghanistan) and we did invade Iraq on the (incorrect) premise that they had WMDs, so putting the two together doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
I wouldn't assume that, if chemical weapons are found, they were planted, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.[/QUOTE]
You're kidding, right?
This is nothing but thin cover, so that if they ever actually use chemical weapons, they can now claim they were framed and rally support with their allies.
And yes it is a huge stretch from small arms to WMDs
[QUOTE=entertainer89;38779082]Get a load of this guy![/QUOTE]Is this supposed to mean something either? Neither of you have actually said anything yet.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38779066]Eh, I don't know. The US has supplied weapons and materiel to aid friendly rebels (Cuba, Afghanistan) and we did invade Iraq on the (incorrect) premise that they had WMDs, so putting the two together doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
I wouldn't assume that, if chemical weapons are found, they were planted, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.[/QUOTE]
The US wouldn't give chemical weapons to a rebel group the same way it wouldn't give a nuke.
It's just too dangerous to give such weapons away to rebel groups, they might lose it, sell it, or worse.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38778616]"It's ok for us to have them but not them"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=entertainer89;38779082]Get a load of this guy![/QUOTE]
How about you guys stop trying to be witty and actually, you know, make complete statements?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38779239]Is this supposed to mean something either? Neither of you have actually said anything yet.[/QUOTE]
All major western powers have stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. So, why is that they can have it all? but when syria stockpiles them, they suddenly 'would be just as complicit for having the things to begin with'.
It's a classic case of do as we say but not as we do.
[editline]10th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38778680]The fuck is that even supposed to mean? You think the U.S. or U.K. have chemical weapons on hand and ready to deploy?[/QUOTE]
Yes, as a matter of fact, they do.
[editline]10th December 2012[/editline]
And yes, i'm aware of the fact that they have signed the CWC but they still haven't destroyed their arsenal yet.
Lets all sit in our computer armchairs and pretend that we know whats really going on on the other end of all those media videos. We can all act like self-righteous assholes and condemn anything Assad says as paranoia. Or we can recognize that just about anything could be happening out there and spin could make it look like anything else.
What do we know?
-Syria DOES supposedly have chemical weapons
-Al-Qaeda and other less savory factions have been known to be supporting and inciting the revolts.
-During similar revolts in Libya, NATO actually bombed many humanitarian facilities such as schools, hospitals, water and food supplies. When this happened it was originally blamed on Qaddafi.
-No major power is condoning the use of chemical weapons.
-Assad, the late Qaddafi, and Ahmadinejad have all been adamant about certain efforts to effect and influence public opinion against them.
My conclusion from the past year:
I think there is something more going on, I think this is a calculated smear campaign.
With Libya at least, it is funny how the whole thing started as plans for the Gold backed Dinar were going through.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38780036]All major western powers have stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. So, why is that they can have it all? but when syria stockpiles them, they suddenly 'would be just as complicit for having the things to begin with'.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah but our political situation is just a bit more stable than Syria's.
If the US was in the same state of turmoil, we would be fault as well if our WMDs fell into the wrong hands
and no, our chemical weapons (in accordance with the CWC) are not "on hand and ready to be deployed", they (the 10% that are left) are in storage and being monitored by the OCPW until they are destroyed, so it isnt really an arsenal at all.
also we dont retain any deployable biological weapons (other than minute quantities for the purposes of making vaccines)
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38780224]
-Syria DOES supposedly have chemical weapons
-Al-Qaeda and other less savory factions have been known to be supporting and inciting the revolts.
[b]-During similar revolts in Libya, NATO actually bombed many humanitarian facilities such as schools, hospitals, water and food supplies. When this happened it was originally blamed on Qaddafi.[/b][/QUOTE]
Back that ass up, what?
[editline]10th December 2012[/editline]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNAcECXLuxw[/url]
Only source I could find, and its RT.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;38780706]Back that ass up, what?
[editline]10th December 2012[/editline]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNAcECXLuxw[/url]
Only source I could find, and its RT.[/QUOTE]
RT isn't that bad today. They just have the odd shit article from a source like DEBKAshit. Its like AlJazeera not reporting on a dissident that gets arrested in Qatar.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38786356]RT isn't that bad today. They just have the odd shit article from a source like DEBKAshit. Its like AlJazeera not reporting on a dissident that gets arrested in Qatar.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212195556278357.html[/url]
[QUOTE=smurfy;38786442][url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212195556278357.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I couldn't find the same article on their arabic site.
Im pretty sure the context for the US entering Syria will be rebels/terrorists having obtained/used chem weapons. Read somewhere the US is ready to label nusra front as terrorists but they are waiting for the right time to do so. Also (i believe on RT) was a news piece saying that they (the rebels/terrorists) WILL use chem weapons if they get their hands on it. Who knows if that was correct or a Syrian govn tactic to show the rebels in bad light.
Either way, if the US enter's syria on this pretext, Russia cannot whine about it, and they can get rid of Assad and soon after launch the campaign to kill the very islamists they are using to fight assad.
Why wouldn't a group like Al Nusra Front, a front for Al Qaeda try to use/steal it if they found it? Thats the question.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38787492]Why wouldn't a group like Al Nusra Front, a front for Al Qaeda try to use/steal it if they found it? Thats the question.[/QUOTE]
Did they declare they are an extension for Al-Qaeda? If so why is the US tolerating KSA and Qatar providing funding to them?
Edit: They have already declared them terrorists. [URL]http://news.yahoo.com/us-designates-syrias-jabhat-al-nusra-front-terrorist-222557608.html[/URL]
Typical backstab. But they probably saw it coming, because its not AQ the US is fighting, but islamists in general (dare I say islam). AQ is just a term used for diplomatic purposes.
Except Al-Nusra is in fact a jihadist extremist organization, and they're as bad as Al-Qaeda.
Like I've said many times before. The 'Syrian rebels' are not a unified group. There are many different factions vying for the control of Syria, the Al-Nusra are just one of them. It's more of a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' scenario rather than a solid alliance.
This is kind of a big deal because those factions have all [I]very[/I] different plans for Syria. What happens after they overthrow Assad? You think the jidahist groups are gonna let the SNC go ahead and establish a secular democratic state?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.