Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
9 December 2012, 13:05,
#1
What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
Saturday, Dec. 8, British Foreign Secretary William Hague reported evidence from intelligence sources that Syria is preparing to use chemical weapons. British intelligence sources added that Syria's chemical weapons are concentrated at five air bases and are being closely watched. They said contingency plans have been drawn up if they show signs of being readied to be loaded and used as weapons.
Who are the close watchers and what are the contingency plans?
In its last issue, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources disclosed that US, Israeli, Jordanian and Turkish special forces are spread out on the ground in Syria, armed with special gear for combating chemical arms. They are close enough to count the convoys carrying canisters, shells or bombs loaded with poison gas and their reports are supplemented by orbiting US military surveillance satellites and drones able to pinpoint the position of the chemical munitions at any given moment.
debkafile also reported Saturday that the rebels had seized a “chlorine factor” at Al Safir, the cover name for Bashar Assad’s largest chemical store and base, where also he keeps Syrian Scud D missiles armed with chemical warheads ready to fire at Israel.
The strange thing about these tactics is this: If “US officials” – military and intelligence – were able to keep track step by step of the movements of Syria’s poisonous weapons, believe that sooner or later Assad will use them and have issued grave warnings, why didn’t they take preventive action in good time?
Yet to date, President Barack Obama has held back from ordering an attack on the Syrian army’s chemical units – just as the Syrian ruler is abstaining from issuing the final “go” order to use those weapons.
It seems that neither wants to go first.
We seem to be witnessing a high-stake poker game between Washington and Damascus over a deck of chemical cards, each waiting to see who blinks first.
If the Americans attack, Assad will feel he is justified in releasing his poisonous gas over Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
But if Assad loses his nerve and lets loose with chemical weapons inside or outside Syria, the Americans will come crashing down on him with the full might of the US air, sea and marine forces standing by off the Syrian coast, along with Turkish, Israeli and Jordanian strikes against targets in Syria.

Tuesday Dec. 6, Syrian chemical weapons units positioned near the capital, Damascus were first sighted by military and intelligence personnel heading north on the road to Aleppo armed with shells loaded with nerve agents - sarin and possibly XV. Three days later, the movements continued to destinations unknown.

Intelligence experts are speculating that these convoys may be decoys for distracting attention from still- undiscovered poison gas caches. Large-scale Western naval and marines forces are therefore on elevated readiness for responding to any unexpected Syrian moves.

Those experts offer two theories about the destination of the chemicals weapons. One is that they are not destined for any of the battle fronts against the rebels, but for the Alawite Mountains; Assad is getting ready to retreat from Damascus and barricade himself in his mountain stronghold accompanied by the forces still loyal to him. Another theory is that from the Allawite Mts. near the coast, the Syrian ruler was planning to hit American and Turkish soldiers with chemical weapons as they came ashore.

http://www.debka.com/article/22598/What-...y-showdown-
I tried to be normal once.... Worst two minutes of my life...
Reply
9 December 2012, 13:11,
#2
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
Does not matter P1....its coming down no matter what
Reply
9 December 2012, 14:36,
#3
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
Should NATO ground troops and aircraft go in and the whole thing escalates,just wondering whether it's likely to remain confined to that region.It's quite good fun when it's on TV and 3000,or so,miles away.
Suburban neighbours= stranger- danger.
Reply
9 December 2012, 14:43,
#4
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
looks like its going to kick off soon don't think that's in doubt my question is how bad is it going to be ? how far reaching will it be, could it cause us problems now or further down the line ?
Reply
9 December 2012, 15:32,
#5
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
Be really exciting if Israel comes under bio-chemical and/or nuclear attack,but ONLY if there are no repercussions for us.
Suburban neighbours= stranger- danger.
Reply
9 December 2012, 15:41,
#6
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
The thing as soon as we get involved there is always reprecussions for us in one way or another
A major part of survival is invisibility.
Reply
9 December 2012, 15:44, (This post was last modified: 9 December 2012, 15:48 by Wildman.)
#7
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
notice how the intelligance is nothing solid, media storys are what start wars these days. there's no chem weapons, there was no truth surrounding the u,s and uk's attack on gadaffi and there were no waepons of mass destruction. there's only the boogy man the ptb are oh so good at fooling the sheeple into being affraid of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlaMUq6MKU well worth a listen, and remember this is the news contradicting the news, nothing more
he never planned to fail, he just failed to plan. like lambs to the slaughter the wolfs look down from the hill tops. we are those wolfs!!!
Reply
9 December 2012, 20:58,
#8
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
(9 December 2012, 15:44)Wildman Wrote: notice how the intelligance is nothing solid, media storys are what start wars these days. there's no chem weapons, there was no truth surrounding the u,s and uk's attack on gadaffi and there were no waepons of mass destruction. there's only the boogy man the ptb are oh so good at fooling the sheeple into being affraid of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlaMUq6MKU well worth a listen, and remember this is the news contradicting the news, nothing more

..And bear in mind that Debka is an Israeli news agency.
Find a resilient place and way to live, then sit back and watch a momentous period in history unfold.
Reply
9 December 2012, 22:38,
#9
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
(9 December 2012, 20:58)Tarrel Wrote:
(9 December 2012, 15:44)Wildman Wrote: notice how the intelligance is nothing solid, media storys are what start wars these days. there's no chem weapons, there was no truth surrounding the u,s and uk's attack on gadaffi and there were no waepons of mass destruction. there's only the boogy man the ptb are oh so good at fooling the sheeple into being affraid of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlaMUq6MKU well worth a listen, and remember this is the news contradicting the news, nothing more

..And bear in mind that Debka is an Israeli news agency.

this is piracy, pure piracy!
he never planned to fail, he just failed to plan. like lambs to the slaughter the wolfs look down from the hill tops. we are those wolfs!!!
Reply
10 December 2012, 07:13,
#10
RE: What comes first – a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?
sounds a lot like just before we went into iraq for the second time, we where told they had weapons of mass destruction and found nothing ! intel sucks
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)