What's new

Military strikes against Assad's Syria | Updates & Discussions.

Syria will surprise aggressors, Foreign Minister Muallem says


Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem says Damascus will defend itself against any foreign military attack, adding that the country has capabilities that will surprise the aggressors.


"Syria is not an easy case. We have defenses which will surprise others," Muallem said during a news conference on Tuesday in the capital Damascus.


"We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal," he said. "The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."


Muallem also stated that any military action against Syria would serve the interests of Israel and al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting against the Syrian government.

"The war effort led by the United States and their allies will serve the interests of Israel and secondly al-Nusra Front," the Syrian foreign minister said.


In the last few days, US officials have repeatedly referred to “surgical strikes” on Syrian military installations while discussing US military options for the Arab country.

The call for military action against Syria intensified after the foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus last week.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to set the groundwork for US military action against Syria by leveling chemical weapons accusations against the Assad government.

In Tuesday’s news conference, the Syrian foreign minister challenged the US and its allies to present evidence that the government had used chemical weapons.

"We are hearing war drums around us. If they want to launch an attack against Syria, I think using the excuse of chemical weapons is not true at all. I challenge them to show what proof they have,” Muallem said.

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that President Barack Obama was still undecided about launching a military strike, saying that Washington was not considering "boots on the ground" option.

However, France, Israel and Saudi Arabia, among other opponents of the Syrian government, are pushing for a US offensive against Syria.

Russia urged the West not to jump to conclusions on the chemical weapons attack, and await the findings of a UN inspection team that on Monday examined the area in Damascus suburbs, where the alleged attack reportedly killed hundreds of people.


All countries should wait for the results of the probe and "show prudence and avoid tragic mistakes" by jumping to conclusions about the incident, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Sunday.

"Our American and European partners must understand what catastrophic consequences this kind of politics would have for the region, for the Arab and Islamic world as a whole," Lukashevich said, advising the West to avoid military action against Syria.


SOURCE:

PressTV - Syria will surprise aggressors, Foreign Minister Muallem says
 
'American saviors', the gaurdians of freedom, people's lives and democracy are coming againg to 'save' a Muslim country, the same way they freed Afghanistan and Iraq and, after all their lies, some so called 'Muslims' are cheering for them and actually are happy about it. That's a shame.




Can you prove that Syrian government did it? From every perspective we look at it, the rebels gained the most from it while the govt not only gained nothing, but it's also under the threat of American saviors' attack.

One thing is for sure there was a use of chemical weapons either by govt or rebels. If its not by the govt, then it should not have escalated things so wildly that it gets out of control but it failed, and remained on stance of crushing the so called terrorist. Now it will have to face the odds which for sure will be against it, because whatever russia china or even iran says, that wont make any slightest of difference on the outcome of the conflict. Hint: Look at Libyan example.
 
That would be some unprecedented humilation for America going to war against another third world country with a goal to destroy few buildings from safe distance out of desperation to prove itself :lol: What an amazing decline in all aspects.
 
FYI BBC reported itself with reference of UN special, even had interview. You can be ignorant, here is the video

UN's Carla Del Ponte Stupefied By Syrian Opposition Sarin Use - YouTube

It is mere specualtion. All hearsay, no solid evidence.

The important thing is to weaken the syrian regime so that the rebels can defeat them. All now is needed are some 100 tomahwak cruise missiles falling down on the syrian regime military sites. I am sure thats all everyone wants.

If it takes evil to do that, then we will use one evil against the others. As all the good guys apparently are gone on holiday and innocent syrian civilians are being killed and millions are now refugees.
 
'American saviors', the gaurdians of freedom, people's lives and democracy are coming againg to 'save' a Muslim country, the same way they freed Afghanistan and Iraq and, after all their lies, some so called 'Muslims' are cheering for them and actually are happy about it. That's a shame.

Can you prove that Syrian government did it? From every perspective we look at it, the rebels gained the most from it while the govt not only gained nothing, but it's also under the threat of American saviors' attack.


Nobody can prove it. In the meantime, people have died because of chemical weapons. We are wasting time trying to find evidences. Thousands more will die by that time, now is the time to inflict punishment on the syrian regime. I know as you are from Iran, u will be having sympathies with Basher al-assad as he is also shia. But look at the collateral damage being done on innocent children.
Most of the people killed in Syria are sunnis who are victims. I dont care much for rebels. They too have committed atrocities on innocent shia civilians. But i get p.iszed off when I see innocent children dying and everyone wants to play the blame game.
If US atacks and cripples the govt and the fighting stops than I am all for it. I just dpont want anymore children dying be it sunni or shias.
 
CIA helped Iraq use chemical weapons on Iran​




Published on Aug 26, 2013​

According to declassified CIA documents,US intelligence officials disclosed the location of Iranian troops to Iraq knowing that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons against them back in the 1980s.

According to the new revelation from Foreign Policy Magazine, not only did they the US provide the location, but were aware of the scale of nerve gas attacks. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern weighs in on the report and explains how America's intervention changed history.
But how could we know Saddam was going to gas them? Remember....Saddam HAD NO WMD's according to you guys. The best course of action is to bomb the whole lot of them.

That would be some unprecedented humilation for America going to war against another third world country with a goal to destroy few buildings from safe distance out of desperation to prove itself :lol: What an amazing decline in all aspects.

Even more humiliating is the spineless backers of Assad who will do nada but wet themselves like frightened kittens. (Russia, Iran, etc.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BSseVKOCMAE7NIv.jpg


:laughcry::omghaha:
 
Did you forget what you posted yourself.
No. I did not.

First you claim US makes advances by testing weapons in war. In this case Syria, of course US would have tested it before using it.
Here is what I actually said...

The only way to truly advance weapons development is to actually use it, either in pure unadulterated testing or in combat.
There are weapons that cannot be truly tested, such as nuclear ICBMs for one. We can test the rocket part of it and see where it is going to land. Then we take the nuclear warhead and carefully detonate it in an isolated area. From this, we assured ourselves that we have functional nuclear ICBMs in our fleet. But this is unlike the rifle where we can take a complete weapon and run it through every single condition on land and even under water and prove pretty much beyond any reasonable doubt that a rifle in an inventory of many rifles will perform exactly alike. We do not disassemble the rifle and test one part of it here and another part of it there. The more complex the weapon, the more demanding the testing regime and we may STILL end up like the nuclear ICBM where we can never know if all weapons in a particular inventory will perform as expected.

My claim is that the US would lose resources that would otherwise by used for getting new equipments as well as developing new ones, I never claimed that US would slow because Syria is weak.
Of course you did.

Here...

America should go in, another 10 year war should at least slow American military advancements. Perfect chance for us to catch up.
Slow American military advancements? How much more clear about what you wrote can I get?

A weapon is essentially a resource that is waiting to be discarded. Funds that were allocated for its development are not counted in a country's total wealth precisely because of the potential of a war that may cause the loss of a tank or a ship. When the Iraqi occupation was started and peaked, resources were already allocated, in a manner of speaking, and finances were already budgeted for weapons development, and often, depending on a program's progress, its allocation may be less from previous budget year due to technical issues rather than because of the need to reallocate/reapportionment of money to meet other needs.

You have no idea of what you were yakking about.

This is the problem with debating with you, you never seem to remember the previous posts, and without that, somethings are taken completely out of context, like this post I quoted.
Speak for yourself, as shown above...:lol:

As to your Engrish comment, the good folks at UBC who gave me my degree in info tech didn't seem to think so.
It is 'English', not 'english'. You criticize my 'Engrish', I only returned the favor.
 
Syria crisis: Where key countries stand





_69502212_d4cf8f88-d8a2-4573-b6c5-999e0ac042b1.jpg

The possibility of Western strikes on Syria has divided opinion in the region



The US and its allies are said to be considering military action against sites in Syria. But what do countries in the region and beyond think about any possible action?



Syria's neighbours


Turkey

The Turkish government has been one of the most strident critics of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since early on in the uprising. On Monday Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkey's Milliyet newspaper that the country was ready to join an international coalition for action against Syria even in the absence of agreement at the UN Security Council.



Saudi Arabia and the Gulf




The monarchies of the Gulf are said to have been key in funding and supplying the rebel forces fighting against forces loyal to President Assad. Saudi Arabia has been a rival of the Syrian government for years and has been particularly active in pushing for action against Mr Assad, with former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan reportedly trying in recent weeks to garner international support for further support for the rebels.



Israel



Despite initially avoiding becoming involved in the conflict, Israel has carried out three strikes on targets in Syria this year, reportedly to prevent weapons shipments reaching the Lebanese Hezbollah militia. Shelling and gunfire from Syria has also hit the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, drawing return Israeli fire.

In recent days, Israeli officials have condemned the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces and hinted at support for military action. "Our finger must always be on the pulse. Ours is a responsible finger and if necessary, it will also be on the trigger," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday.

However, Israeli officials will be aware that any Western action against Syria risks a repeat of events in the first Gulf War in 1991, when Iraq attacked Tel Aviv with Scud missiles in attempt to draw Israel into the conflict and prompt the withdrawal of Arab countries from the war. Reports say sales of gas masks in Israel have gone up in response to speculation over military action.



Lebanon



The Lebanese Foreign Minister Adana Mansour told Lebanese radio on Monday that he did not support the idea of strikes on Syria, saying: "I don't think this action would serve peace, stability and security in the region."

Two bomb attacks which killed almost 60 people in Lebanon this month were linked to tensions over the Syrian conflict. The Lebanese Shia militant movement Hezbollah has openly taken part in combat in Syria on the side of the government, and there have been reports of some in the Sunni community fighting on the side of the rebels. In addition, the country is already playing host to the largest number of Syrian refugees of any country.



Iran



Iran has been Syria's main backer in the region since well before the current conflict and has been highly critical of any prospect of intervention.

On Tuesday, Iran warned a top UN official visiting Tehran of "serious consequences" of any military action.

Foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi also repeated claims that it was in fact rebels who used chemical weapons, AFP reports.




Outside the region



US



Following a cautious reaction to the initial reports of a chemical weapons attack, American rhetoric has hardened in recent days. Secretary of State John Kerry said the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was "undeniable" and a "moral obscenity".

Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, prompting speculation that preparation for an attack is underway. Analysts believe the most likely US action would be sea-launched cruise missiles targeting Syrian military installations.



UK



The UK is drawing up contingency plans for military action, Prime Minster David Cameron's office has said. Any action would be "proportionate", lawful and follow agreement with international allies, a spokesman for Mr Cameron said.

On Monday Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC that diplomatic pressure on Syria had failed and that the UK, "the United States, [and] many other countries including France, are clear that we can't allow the idea in the 21st Century that chemical weapons can be used with impunity".



France



The day after the reports of the attack near Damascus, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called for "a reaction of force" if the use of chemical weapons was proven. He has also suggested that the UN Security Council could be bypassed "in certain circumstances".

France has been amongst the most hawkish Western countries with regard to Syria, being the first Western power to recognise the main opposition coalition as the Syrian people's legitimate representative. In May France, along with the UK, successfully lobbied for the EU's arms embargo to be lifted so as to allow further supplies to the rebels.



Russia



Russia is one of Mr Assad's most important international backers and has stressed the need for a political solution to be found to the crisis.

It has sharply criticised any possibility of Western strikes on Syria, saying action taken outside the security council threatened "catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and Northern Africa".



China




China has joined Russia in blocking resolutions critical of Syria at the UN Security Council. It has also criticised the prospect of strikes against Syria.

The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who might have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation.


SOURCE:

BBC News - Syria crisis: Where key countries stand
 
Even more humiliating is the spineless backers of Assad who will do nada but wet themselves like frightened kittens. (Russia, Iran, etc.)

For a start Russian ships will stay there and relay radar data on all targets to Syrian comand centers. That would be enough :lol:
 
Syria Population Religions:

Sunni 60%
Alawites/Shia 12%
Christianity 10%
Others 18%

Hope it will be Sunni government instead Alawites Assad.
 
What do you know, the Sherminator giving English advise now. A Vietnamese Sherminator at that :lol:
I give more than just Engrish advice to the Chinese members here. I actually SCHOOLED them on many things they are clueless about.
 

Back
Top Bottom