26 votes

Syria submitted proof of chemical weapons use by terrorists

Damascus, (SANA) – Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Fayssal Mekdad, stressed that the US and its allies had no proof of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government and they were encouraging the terrorists to use these weapons.

In a statement to reporters, Mekdad said that this western policy means that such weapons will be used soon by the same terrorist groups they have supported against the European peoples.

He clarified that Syria submitted to the UN investigation mission proof on the use of chemical weapons by the armed terrorist groups in all sites.

In an interview to BBC channel, Mekdad said, "We do not trust the western countries which support terrorists in Syria, and Jabhat al-Nusra on top; we have the right to defend ourselves, dignity and lands by using all means available and our people is ready for that."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Did anyone vote NO

Not one NO vote.

I'm sorry, I should have posted,

"In 1948, not one country voted NO when the UN established Israel.

Got it. Thank you.

Your attempts

to weasel out of the BS you say is duly noted. When I post something it is my intention to say what I mean. It is one of those things that comes with character. Sometimes based on a response I think to myself ... well maybe the language I used didn't convey what I actually intended or meant. However it is not something that occurs virtually every post, like in your case.

Your intention is to legitimize the State of Israel. Because this can't be done based on any accurate record of history you will continue to argue your BS all day and night. Every time it is pointed you are lying you will come back and state ... what I should have said was this or that ... all the while reaching for an unattainable goal to legitimize Israel which is your ultimate intention.

If I was one of my ancestors I would have essentially been arguing some of the same bullshit about American natives I am with you. Unfortunately people like you who want to impose their will on natives prevailed in America. You might have argued Indians are savages with no legitimate claim to any resources or lands in America. You might have argued how the civilization of the United States is superior to native culture in every way. After several decades from the establishment of governments you might argue the legitimacy of some international treaty recognizing the United States government trumps the fact native people have been living on the land for centuries.

It's not like America and Israel are the only two instances in history of a group of people trying to take over lands that are already occupied using force. It is a recurring theme of human nature.

More and more I realize the only thing that is real in this three dimensional existence is a majority of force exceeds a minority of resistance. More and more I am prepared to confront this reality head on recognizing there are only two sides in a war of good and evil. There are those who believe in coercing or compelling others in the absence of an injury and there are those who don't. Those who do have already begun a war evidenced by their repeated actions to coerce or compel others unjustly.

In Palestine when the Belfour Declaration was negotiated there were like 60,000 so called jews and like 700,000 so called arabs. I wholly believe all people must share the earth, all people deserve to live how they want to live in communities of like minded people, and deserve to live in the peace of not injuring people of other communities. Let's be realistic here there is a proportionality between 60k and 700k. The State of Israel is no better than the United States. The United States wasn't content until large influxes of immigrants took all the land to the west confining natives to small reservations which it further reduced in size and still tells these people how to live backed up with threats of force.

This kind of world is unacceptable. If good people are not going to form a majority of resistance to the evils of coercing and compelling people who do not harm others then good has no value whatsoever. If good people of the earth are unable to figure out a way to share the earth so that all people have an opportunity to live in communities of like minded people in peace there is little point of the human experience. If the good of voluntary human interaction is not to prevail upon the earth parents may as well arm their sons and daughters beginning at infancy in order to train them in the proper ways of rape, pillage, and plunder.

So ... you can seek to legitimize Israel all you want but I will not aid you. I stand opposed to you. I would not even attempt to legitimize a United States government which claims to have dominion over 300 million people. The entire notion of any entity having some kind of just authority over that many people where millions are coerced or compelled to conform to the legislative whims of a political majority is wrong on every level.

I'm telling it like I see it

You can seek to de-legitimize Israel all you want, and they will continue to thrive despite you and a world like you. You will remain an angry, hatefulling, self righteous bigot spewing curses, threats, name calling, which is violence, while you stew in your delusioned soup of thinking you are for peace and justice.

To me, you have been brainwashed by the NWO that sells you Palestine because the UN and global government prefer, at this time, to have a global government of "Palestinian" polulations they can cycle through institutions of authority.

The problem with Palestine is not Israel. It is the layers of AUTHORITY. Palestinians are willing to be strip searched to get into Israel because Israel is FREE.. they are FREE to take off a scarf, be homosexual, have fun. Disputed territory is Jordan, but Jordan is never mentioned.. it is a kingdom, and it is sovreign. Ever search Jordan (Gaza is an "extention" of Egypt).

What do you think about this article? http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/monarch-...

Here is

how it is you lying, dishonest, propaganda spewing, diversity coercing, ignorant, whining, baby.

It is pretty impossible to de-legitimize something that has no moral legitimacy or discredit Zionists who have been denounced by intellectuals of Judaism. In addition, The Atlantic Monthly's current editor has a politically well connected father and Jewish mother, a recipe ripe for propaganda but I didn't read the article because as previously stated I am not wasting my time on your links.

Regarding your "violent" vitriol, Justice is revenge which I am not for. I am a grace and mercy fan with a streak of human imperfection. But since I have to live in a world of people who will never likely forgive everything ... I tolerate the concept of a just administration of justice with regards to people being injured or harmed. However the so called just administration of justice is a real fine line which does not involve coercing or compelling anyone who has not injured or harmed anyone.

I don't advocate any concept of justice established by conquest to serve as a foundation for commerce. Since I know you are ignorant what I mean by this is that if one reads all of the original charters of paid for expeditions to discover the new world ... they all pretty much say the same thing. Go forth to subdue and conquer. Some people seem to think all contracts must be en"forced" which can only occur after establishing a monopoly of force by way of conquest. These same kind of people seem to think property rights must be en"forced" and can also only exist in a monopoly of violence system.

If you are going to produce some "violent" vitriol come up with something accurate. I will help you out:

Self centered, self indulging, arrogant, intelligent, recognizer discrimination is the only peaceful tool of preference, truth seeking, abrasive, direct, sexy (according to others), fan of George Carlin's dirty words are all about context, one who falls short of the glory, and struggles with his own repentance. Just being a man I could probably throw in lustful for good measure but I don't want to be accused of inciting an orgasm.

With the brainwashed remark you further demonstrate your ignorance by again presuming I have an interest in the Middle East. Let's play the what if I was President of the United States scenario. I would be advocating completely ostracizing every country engaged in any hostilities including so called humanitarian aid. The only decent thing to do when people get a wild hair up their ass and decide to fight amongst themselves is completely cut them off from the rest of the world. Armies, none of which possess an ability to produce food, should again have to worry more about how they are going to eat than fight. No country could sustain itself if it were completely cut off and socially ostracized from the world. No exports of any kind, no imports. In a just world the price of hostilities would be complete isolation and economic ruin instead of a victor plundering a loser and then going about business as usual. I would prefer to shift the whole civilization dynamic of monopolies on violence or using violence to solve violence to broad coalitions which discriminate against violence by ostracizing it. Feel free to add idealist to my resume of faults above.

Obama should bomb Al-Qaeda in

Obama should bomb Al-Qaeda in Syria and then cut their US foreign aid.