23 votes

Syria: US chemical weapons charges 'full of lies'

"The White House has issued a statement full of lies about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, based on fabricated information," a statement issued Friday by the Syrian Foreign Ministry said. "The United States is using cheap tactics to justify President Barack Obama's decision to arm the Syrian opposition," it said.

The statement also accused the U.S. of "double standards," saying America claims to combat terrorism while providing support for "terrorist" groups in Syria, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, with arms and money. The group, also known as the Nusra Front, is an al-Qaida affiliate that has emerged as one of the most effective rebel factions in Syria.

Alexey Pushkov, chairman of Russia's parliamentary foreign affairs committee, wrote on his Twitter account Friday that "the data on Assad's use of chemical weapons were faked in the same place as the lie about (Saddam) Hussein's weapons of mass destruction," referring to the deposed Iraqi dictator.

"Obama is going down the route of G. Bush," he added, in reference to former President George W. Bush's assertion — never proven, but used to justify the invasion of Iraq — that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

DO as we SAY, not as we DO!

The US dropped atomic bombis on Japan, used Agent Orange in Vietnam, used depleted uranium and white phosphorus in Iraq, and tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib.... for starters. Who brought the US to justice for these atrocities? Do people die with more finality when attacked by chemical weapons? Just asking....

Big bump

The US decision to arm terrorist groups reflects direct involvement in bloodshed:

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Wag the Dog.

Too much in the news. Have to change the subject. Get the peeps minds of the gov. spying on them. Only thing is no one cares about what is going on in Syria. And there are more leaks to come. Next, a bubble will pop. Maybe the bond market. This will get the people off the government spy train. "It's the economy stupid."

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Why not let the UN then?

Let the inspections begin..

Did the inspections

stop bush from invading Iraq? The inspections are a publicity stunt only, and trust the UN?

Syria is a sovereign nation, and should be left in peace. If they want a nuke, let em have it. By what right do we suggest they comply with UN inspections? What if they suggest we should be "inspected"? is that ok? should we let Iranians come inspect all our facilities?

Just open the box and see

This is why I think 911 was a UN job

I don't believe the inspections are a publicity stunt. I believe the inspections would be great if the UN was nuetral rathr than the pawn of the global elite.

I agree Syria should be left in peace, but it is not, and this is global interference.

The inspections are not about nukes.. its about chemical weapons.

As for Iranians coming to inspect our facities.. I would have no prioblem with that since I went to a university that specialized in oil engineering and many students from all iver the mid-east had full scholarships from the oil industry. The shame was it sank the American kids who were engineers. If you didn't speack farci.. you came out with a huge dept.. where if you did speak farci.. you became very rich, got a corporate job at home. Ever look at real estate pages from there? http://www.glo-con.com/region_directory/country/IRAQ/real_es...

The UN itself is a publicity stunt

not just their actions.

There were inspectors saying that there are NO WMD's in Iraq. There was no publicity on that, but only on the US's agenda of invasion.

And any activity they use to gain publicity and support for their agenda is a "publicity stunt", though I wouldn't use the word mere to describe any activity by the UN. The Boston Bombing was a "publicity stunt", IMO. Hard to deny it got a LOT of publicity, or that it was a "stunt".

It's true that the connection to al-Qaeda is not directly to FSA.
However, the FSA says this:

"Tamer Mouhieddine, spokesman for the Syrian Free Army, a force made up of Syrian soldiers who have defected, said the recent announcements would not change his group's attitude toward al Nusra.

"The rebels in Syria have one common enemy — Bashar Assad — and they will collaborate with any faction allowing them to topple his regime," he said."

Is it even possible that al-Qaeda won't benefit from US arms?

Since they are the group held by our government as responsible for 9/11, whatever their agenda is, is irrelevant. How can we even entertain the possibility of arming anyone close to them? Have they become warm and fuzzy since they also think Assad is a bad guy?
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Frankly, there are at least 3000 souls that might say "better to sit this one out".

As far as chemical weapons, if there is no clear evidence of its use in Syria, why does the White House cite that as one of the reasons they want to arm the FSA? (I agree with the OP, that it was the FSA, if they were used)

"President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, officials said Thursday, a major policy shift after the White House said it had confirmed that Damascus used chemical weapons in the country's civil war."


Assad may be a bad guy, but it seems many Syrians believe the FSA is worse. They were already struggling for social changes.
I would refer you to SyrianGirls youtube channel for comments from an actual Syrian. ;) https://www.youtube.com/user/SyrianGirlNews

Any way you slice this one, its a civil war which America has no business involving itself with. Our government is fairly corrupt, how would you feel about Iran arming dissidents in America?.

All these things are simply prelude to the escalation of WW3. (yes, it's already begun).

As far as interest in oil, we have no interest in the oil they may have, just that its bought and sold in petro-dollars. Without that, our money collapses, period, end of story.

You also said, in another comment:
"The solution is for the world to go away and if they want the oil, trade for it, and let Israel defend itself."

We can't (them, not me) let that solution happen, though I certainly agree with you about Israel. They can and should stand on their own two feet, we should stop sending them arms and money, like right now.

Just open the box and see

Just wondering why you`re

Just wondering why you`re talking about favoritism to students that spoke farsi and then link to real estate in Iraq? Has Iraq switched it`s official language from Arabic to Persian? Do you mean that the high paying engineering jobs are given to Iranians that now live in Iraq? Have the Iranians taken control of Iraq`s oil industry? IDK. Just trying to follow your logic...

Because I am more familar with Iraq since 911

here's real estate in Iran http://realestate.classifieds1000.com/Iran

No.. the high paying oil jobs went to anyone in the ME that could help American interests.

If the UN is a pawn of the global elite

how can anything they do be anything but a publicity stunt?

And students at a university are hardly inspectors of secret facilities.

Besides, the chemical weapons used were CLEARLY used by the FSA.

The same FSA that came out today professing allegiance to al-Qaida.

The same FSA that the US is now thrown support fully behind, to the point of making a no-fly zone inside Syria (that's an act of war).

And no, I have never looked for real-estate in Iraq. That page seems laid out similar to many US real-estate pages. The most expensive first. Did you notice that the top entry was an entire building?

Just open the box and see


Because the UN is funded, empowered, and armed is how the UN advances from a mere publicity stunt.

There is NO clear information of any chemical weapons used by anyone. There are plenty of rumors.

Al-Qaeda has it's own agenda in Syria. Al-Qaeda is not for either side, but it's own side, and since there is NO WAY it could back Assad, it's only choice to be involved is with the rebels. It could be part of the undermining of the rebels in the big picture. There is NO allegence with FSA and Al Qaeda. The FSA is losing and this is very dangerous to the USA, not Israel. Israel could correct all this very quickly, and has only acted when Assad and Russia/Iran, bring weapons in that threaten Israel.

Russia is helping Assad for the oil, while Hezbollah is helping Assad to destroy Israel.

No matter how you cut it, Assad has clearly loss control of Syria.

The US also has an interest in the oil, more than they have an interest in "protecting" Israel, because Israel has repeatedly demonstrated they don't need, or want, US help. So Kerry/Obama are like Al Qaeda in not having any choice but to back the FSA, which they have not, and the pressure comes most from humanitary groups that are breaking from the influx of refegees.

The solution is for the world to go away and if they want the oil, trade for it, and let Israel defend itself.


There's not a hell of a lot of truth to any of this. It's all speculation based on untrustworthy sources. It's hard enough to prove what's going on in your own country let alone condoning or believing in stuff that's supposedly going on thousands of miles away.

Like what

Could you be specific about what you find to not be true?

I don't mean to call you out on

the opinion. It seems logical enough based on what's circulating in the media. But that's the problem. It's just crap circulating in the media. Your talking about political fractions and governments, and individuals and then implying their intents and persuasions. Apart from your personal experiences and interactions with a small subset of people that might be able to give you some genuine incite into what's going on in the middle east, we only have information that is purposely fed to us. We don't KNOW any of this. So I just wanted to assert that we should all be less certain of what's going thousands of miles away. For instance, what is Al-Qaeda? It sounds like a basic question, right? But, I've never heard a trustworthy answer. In fact, there's a fair bit of evidence that says it might be an entirely bogus label made up for media purposes in the first place. Yet, it still gets used as if it has a specific meaning and refers to specific people. Way back just after 9-11, when we first heard of this term, I watched an Afghan woman say that Al-Qaeda were just Afghan men. She was dressed in traditional looking garb and spoke perfect English. Does that make sense? None of this is trust worthy.

Or we could just pre-emptively bomb them

Works every time!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


This is why I say, I don't know if you are joking (making sick jokes), or if you are real. What has Syria done to us?

The USA needs to MIOB. We have enough of our own problems than continue Bush doctorine.