Syria warns of chemical attacks in Western Europe

| August 28, 2013

While the Associated Press reports that the Obama Administration says that Syria “must be punished” without telling the American public why the US has to be the ones doing the punishing, or what that punishment might end up being, according to Reuters, the Syrian government warns that the US, the UK and France had aided rebels in using sarin gas in Syria and that those same rebels will eventually use the same gas in Western Europe eventually;

Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence that “armed terrorist groups” had used sarin gas in all the sites of alleged attacks.

“We repeat that the terrorist groups are the ones that used (chemical weapons) with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and this has to stop,” he said. “This means these chemical weapons will soon be used by the same groups against the people of Europe,” he added.

Actually, I’m not finding any of these parties very credible. The Obama administration should be convincing us why they think that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, instead of “because we said so” which sounds more like “because F-you, that’s why”. No one has come out to tell us why this is a national security issue that must be answered with very limited military action. Historically, limited military strikes have never solved anything except pissed everyone off. Obama spokesdinguses have said that they don’t want the strikes to result in removing Assad from his seat, then what is the desired outcome? That they say “Sorry”?

No one was worried about chemical weapons in the Syrians’ hands week before last, but now all of a sudden it’s a concern enough to rocket someone’s ass, for little to no effect? I don’t get it. And why is no one asking where Syria got the sarin in the first place?

Reportedly Putin renewed his support for the Assad regime, so the UN isn’t doing anything useful (not that they would otherwise).

As someone mentioned the other day in the comments, the Democrats weren’t concerned when Saddam Hussein gassed some Kurds in the 80s, so why are they so hopped up to do something about this? I’m guessing that they’re anxious to be seen as the national security party – like when Johnson sent ground forces to Vietnam to end the meme that the Democrats “lost China” in the 40s.

I’m just wondering why, since Syria is a bigger threat to Europe, we aren’t just letting the Europeans handle this whole thing while we take notes for them.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. gunner3_4 says:

    Did our government not get the memo that the same people we are trying to defend are the same dudes we’ve been fighting for the past 12 years? What do they think is going to happen if the rebels win the war and get their hands on those chemical weapons? Do they think they’re just going to hand them over to the U.S. to destroy? No, they are going to turn around and use them on us. We obviously didn’t learn from Libya.

  2. Jas says:

    Pax Americana – thats why.

    You won’t stay leader of the free world by not participating. And the US WANTS to participate, meaningless of which administration it is.

    There are two forms of participation. Money or troops. Countries with comparable small or/and unpowerful military (e.g. Germany, Italy) more often choose the first option. But the US actually has the biggest military in the world. And is damn broke. So if the US choses to stay out they actually have to “pay twice” (well 1.7 times considering training cost for non deployed units is about 60-70 percent of it being used in war) 😉

    Doing non of the above isn’t an option. Trust me. Germany had the biggest military in 1991 in Europe. And choose to not really deploy and not really pay too much. Nowadays noone asks us a friggin thing considering military actions. We’re on the edge to oblivion

  3. USMCE8Ret says:

    One thing I learned from dealing with middle-easterners is they have no problem lying to your face, while looking you in the eye, and otherwise have no intent on following through on promises they make.

    In my mind, Faisal Maqdad is no different. No one should be listening to anything he (or the rest of the Assad regime) has to say.

  4. Combat Historian says:

    This coming war against Syria is not about any compelling national interest; it is about protecting obamao’s personal ego because he spouted gibberish about “Red Lines” and shit, and Assad called him out on it. Any American blood spilled and treasure wasted on this personal vanity trip shall be stained directly on obamao’s hands…

  5. TN says:

    The Syrian govt or the Syrian terrorists may in fact, and probably are (about many things) lying. But given that this conflict has been going on for so long, and so many Syrian military bases have been overrun, including those which at some point had chemical weapons, we MUST consider that the Syrian terrorists are lying, and did use the chemicals.

    SecDef Panetta told Congress more than a year ago that the Administration (then) had no intention of getting permission to go to war in Syria, or even notifying even select members of Congress, if they decided to do so. The Senate panel was astounded but silent in reply.

    Two years ago, there was a strategic national interest in Syria. That national interest was in effecting a future government friendly to the US, in a volatile part of the world. Today, that national interest is NOT obtainable. It was squandered by inaction and handwringing.

    As you and others have previously pointed out: There is only one side that benefits from the use of chemical weapons: the terrorists fighting Assad’s govt. Chemical weapons kill in a grisly manner, but indiscriminately, and in relatively small numbers compared to the costs. Bang to buck, the Syrian govt would be better off using conventional artillery if it’s goals were to wipe out a city. The terrorists are more than willing to sacrifice, even their own supporters and “fighters” for propaganda purposes. They are certainly prepared to sacrifice neutral or even sympathetic civilians that aren’t otherwise fighting in their cause, if that means airstrikes by a common enemy on their enemy.

    The real question is: Is the politician in chief being played, or does he know that intervention against Assad means supporting Al-Qaeda? Two years ago, he was saying the situation too murky and the goals of the rebels too unknown to support. Now we know that rebel groups have been taken over by Islamists, and suddenly they’re worth supporting?

  6. Roger in Republic says:

    When the terrorists make good on their threats, and you know they will, I vote they use them in DC while the congress is in session. It would serve the political class right for the lack of oversight of this runaway administration. They have given up their constitutional powers to this imperial president. They should pay a price for this cowardice.

  7. USMCE8Ret says:

    @5 – You wrote “Now we know that rebel groups have been taken over by Islamists, and suddenly they’re worth supporting?”

    Apparently they are, considering the President is an Islamist sympathizer.

    Everyone is invited to prove me wrong.

  8. PintoNag says:

    @7 I’ve often wondered if the Pres thinks the jihadists will eventually take over here, and he wants to be on the right side of the fence when they kick in the WH doors.

  9. sqrlhntr says:

    I’ve heard estimates that close to a hundred thousand have been killed in this “uprising” in Syria so far. Yet, the White House is going to go after them because of three to four hundred killed by chemical attacks? Someone please explain the logic behind this.

  10. Combat Historian says:

    @9: It all comes down to personal pique. obamao spouted some crap about Syria “not crossing the red line” by employing chem ordnance last summer. Last week, Assad did just that, making obamao look like an idiot. Now, to protect obamao’s personal ego, we’re plunging into war. This is all pretty much about obamao getting ‘dissed, not much else, least of all a compelling U.S. national interest…

  11. Nik says:

    Obama spokesdinguses have said that they don’t want the strikes to result in removing Assad from his seat, then what is the desired outcome? That they say “Sorry”?

    No, I think it’s purely face-saving on Obama’s part at this point.

  12. Casey says:

    To pick a nit, it was JFK, not Johnson, who started pumping troops into Vietnam. Your explanation of the motivation was, however, spot on.

    I still don’t see the motivation for this, unless it’s parallel to the above. Obama is trying to burnish his “bad-ass” cred he got for killing* bin Laden.

    Don’t mind me, I thought dumping Qaddafi was a dumb idea, not to mention invading Iraq in the first place.

    *technically he didn’t, but he gave the ok. After doing a lot of polls. And asking Hillary. And letting Panetta make the real call. After which Teh Won played spades.

  13. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @7. Yeah, he’s that and an enabler, apologist, and stalwart revolutionary. It must suck to have to guard him, serve him, and treat him like the royalty he is. Did I mention that I despise him and all that he is doing to the country? But, hey, I don’t want to pick on him alone. Hey, he’s only doing what he was elected to do: destroy the country. I also despise John Roberts and the distaff members of the Supreme Court, as well as 99% of Congress. Congress is especially l;oathesome. It has the actual power to do something but is on its knees (one at a time) in front of obama bobbing for apples, or something.

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    Sorry, Casey, but the first troops sent to Vietnam as anything other than advisors, were the US Marines, landing near Da Nang in March 1965.
    Kennedy sent 100 advisors in 1961, along with 400 Special Forces, who were not to be officially engaged in any kind of combat but were to ‘advise’ the Vietnamese in clandestine operations against the NVA.

  15. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, two aircraft carriers are being kept in the Persian Gulf.

    One of them, the Harry S. Truman, has just arrived and the other, the Nimitz, was supposed to return home but has been ordered to stay there.

    Does anyone besides me have a really bad feeling about all of this? (crossposted from “oh, for pete’s sake….)

  16. Roger in Republic says:

    This looks like a job for NATO. Otherwise, I don’t give a damn if Assad kicks sand in face of Barry the pantywaisted girly man. He let his mouth write a check his skinny ass can’t cash. Not one american life to assuage his hurt feelings.