Timeline of investigations into Syria's chemical weapons | Reute..
Ahead of ya! But thank you, yeah the long spill of 2013 attacks had slipped my mind.
Fingers pointing in all directions though, I would be arrogant and ignorant to suggest none of them were Assad, I'm sure multiple cases were.
Proven use of Chlorine gas in previous instances, and what the OPCW is doing with the 2017 samples is making it look like it was likely Assad too.
So, again, the parsimonious explanation is that Assad's forces gassed a rebel stronghold in advance of assaulting it, to minimise their own casualties. Not some fantasy about the rebels using chemical weapons on themselves to garner international support that hasn't manifested in any previous case.
Russia vetoing the OPCW-UN investigation is the final nail in the coffin too. Couldn't be because they have something to hide, could it? Nah, not Russia, they're paragons of virtue and openness.
It doesnt matter what the few civilians left alive in Syria think of Assad, thats not relevant. Again, this war started with mass murder, why would more mass murder be unbelievable?
Assad has used chemical weapons in the past, and theres no reason for him not to continue to do so. The only repercussions they faced was a pathetic slap on the wrist that the regime immediately recovered from. The UN will not do anything over chemical weapon use because Russia is hover parenting the regime. Any UN interventions and investigations have been and will continue to be vetoed by Russia and China. In short, Syria can continue their genocide unimpeded.
Yes, radical islamists are pretty radical. But know what they havent done? Used chemical weapons on themselves (for some reason?????????) You can try to discredit the rebels by saying some are foreign, but i doubt theyre the types to use chemical weapons on themselves lol. Plus nothing came of the prior uses, why would the rebels start a false flag they know would fail?
Can we stop the conspiracy theory workshops that fit your geopolitical ideals, just because reality doesn't fit said ideals? All rime, reason, rationale, and logic points to Assad using the CWs in the most recent attacks. His compamy holds chemical weapons, has used them, and will continue to.
If you'd read that article ravenholme posted you will see that alot of fingers are pointing to ISIS, FSA and other groups for multiple other attacks also.
I'm not saying this one wasn't Assad, I'm saying we have to proceed forensically before a war starts, and as the article above my post here states, it seems we are seriously considering jumping the gun. As I said, these things start World Wars, Russia is not going to sit idly by and watch us bomb the living shit out of Assad and we are risking this on a presumption.
Wait... so... is there an actual possibility of a big war starting up?
Or is this going to be another, like, smaller-scale thing going on?
Depends on if when US, France and UK, most likely Israel start attacking, Russia and Iran start shooting down aircraft and or taking out ships firing missiles. Half the middle east would jump at the chance to raise Israel to the ground. and this might be it.
It's all doubtful, but after all the recent sanctions against Russia, they are probably getting irate.
And Russia would side with Syria, I'm taking?
Fuck me. That's almost some WW3-type shit there.
Russia have sided with Assad from the get go, there have already been deaths but as they were no technically national military nothing was done about it.
The Coalition and Russia have been working closely to combat ISIS, but that is where the friendliness ends and even that was abused on both sides.
This is what I mean by conspiracy workshopping. The article youre talkong about states that all but one gas attack in Syria was committed by the Syrian government. The other one was committed by ISIS, which is defunct. Youre literally warping reality to your ideals and its fuckin dumb.
Every finger points to Syria having been responsible for this gas attack, and every recent one (excluding 1). Furthermore, ISIS used sulphur mustard gas (as stated in the article you ignored 90% of), the Syrian government has been using Sarin, which was used in the most recent attack.
Youre not saying this isnt Assad, youre theorizing that its definitely not Assad and its the MOOSLIM terrorists that did this attack. Theres no evidence pointing to that, none of your logic makes sense, but by god youre still gonna try to push that point.
...and, should things escalate, could Putin use this as opportune time to release blackmail on Trump or hyper-agressively use Russian bots to stir up more tension? With Trump already being blackmailed and a potential asset for Putin, I can't help but wonder whay may come of that.
You seem to have a hard time discerning proof with blame.
There isn't any motive for Assad to use chemical weapons is the main reason for doubt. He'd already effectively won in Douma by the time the chemical weapon reports came in, so what reason would he have for using them other than to incite foreign intervention against him at a time when he has the rebels on the run. I wouldn't throw out the idea of Jihadists using chemical weapons on civilians in the hope of a US intervention, the rebels have been losing left right and centre recently and are likely getting desperate.
I'll probably get out of it, cause I have a diagnosed mental disability. My brother on the other hand is already in the army, and his wife is about to finish boot camp. So they're both probably going to end up wherever our orange fuckwit in chief decides to play World Police.
Not exactly. Assad is an Alawite, a small religious minority in the mostly Sunni Syria. Most Muslims don't consider Alawites real Muslims and if Assad ever loses control of the country he and the rest of the Alawites there (as well as their Druze allies) are as good as dead.
That's because Sunni's don't consider anyone who isn't Sunni a real Muslim. Different religious sects not considering each other "not real x's" is nothing new in the world of religion. Alawite is a branch of Shia Islam.
I can blame the chemical attack on on Taiwan, and theres still just as much proof that Taiwan is responsible as the FSA.
Except it isn't as gas is notoriously bad in combat situations, which is pretty much the reason people stopped using them in the first place. If he wanted to attack them without committing troops he could just as easily use conventional bombs and artillery, both of which would be more effective than gas.
Did you skip the class in school about WWI and the chemical weapons used there? They arent used anymore because theyre internationally outlawed, not because theyre ineffective.
The Nazis even used chemical weapons on the eastern front for the reason Ive explained.
WWI, WWII eastern front sieges, and 1945 Berlin are concrete evidence that artillery doesnt solve urban combat. A pervasive gas weapon that floods every nook and cranny sure as shit can. Saying chemical weapons are ineffectual is just dumb. Saying infantry combat combined with artillery is better, is even dumber. Several million dead men in Stalingrad would disagree with you.
Well this post aged well
WW1 is exactly why they stopped using them, because they were pretty useless, no more useful than conventional weapons and would often blow back into friendly territory. The reason everyone was so ready to relinquish their use was literally because they were mostly ineffective.
Also the Nazis never used chemical weapons, at least not in any large quantity any way. Dunno where you got that information from.
Nazis used chemical weapons in Sevestapol to kill remaining resistance in the city, with good results. They used CWs later again in Kerch IIRC, with even better results. The reason the Nazis never went to full on chemical weapon warfare is because they were so far behind on the tech, didnt have the stores the Allies did, and didnt want to get caught in a losing battle with chemical warfare. Theres also rumors Hitler forbade it because of his own memories of its use from WWI.
You cant say chemical weapons were ineffectual when it caused over a million casualties, and the reason it didnt cause more is because it was easily and immediately countered. Thats not really the case in a besieged city held by poorly armed rebels. Even for lack of lethality, it can take a troop off the field for weeks and do psychological damage far worse than artillery can.
Chemical weapons are not ineffectual, if that were the case, then most nations would have disposed of the stuff decades ago. Most nations were still developing delivery systems well into the 90s until the CWC treaty was signed. The US still had 31,000 tons of the stuff before they started destroying it.
Sevestapol was literally them pumping it into caverns, not quite the same as bombing a city with it. In open air they're fairly useless, or at least no more effective than conventional weapons. There's literally no reason for Assad to use chemical weapons over conventional weapons in this case, particularly when he'd managed to clear the vast majority of the city without them quite easily and most rebels were already surrendering. The only group this has benefited is ironically the rebels who can now push for western intervention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43740626
Says he has proof, brings none to the table, guess we will hold out to see if this has any substance.
It'll take the OPCW's findings to provide any sort of clear picture on it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
