You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: we bombed syria , to stop syria from bombing syria :'(
I am not saying that I support the bombing campaign, but are you implying that the chemical attack by Assad's troops did not take place?
I am not saying that I support the bombing campaign, but are you implying that the chemical attack by Assad's troops did not take place?
What about you? Are you implying that it did take place?
I do not need to, the evidence speaks for itself. I was just wondering if OP was denying that the event itself was a"fraud", or the explanation for the motive behind it was, i.e., Assad launched the strikes.
The "evidence" is all brought to us by known liars. Untrustworthy at best.
I regret even posting. It's like arguing with Flat-Earthers. Photographic and videographic proof corroborated by thousands of eye witness accounts and reported further on by thousands of different media outlets is somehow not evidence? Not to mention testimony from NGO's on the ground, via twitter and other social media accounts?
Watch the videos of the shaking children foaming at the mouth. They must be child actors on a Hollywood sound stage right?
Don't like American news outlets? Neither do I, I agree they are untrustworthy, 100%. Then check Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera or Daily Sabah, all ME sources all reporting the same story. A gas attack took place!
Let me say I completely agree if you want to debate who is behind the attacks, but to deny them completely is just ignorant.
I am sorry if the tone is aggressive, but there are hardworking journalists out there with good hearts. Not everyone in media is in on a global conspiracy.
Be aggressive all you want, I don't give a crap. I'm not sure what conspiracy theory I'm supposed to have spouted, but whatever.
Believe whatever you want. Liars can't be trusted. Everything on TV is propaganda.
I am implying that the one who benefits , made it occur
Assad damn well know this kind of thing will be his end .
Why would he do this. All because he didn't want to comply to a petrol dollar.
All those poor people.
Assad has launched several gas attacks against his own people, this is not the first of the civil war. He was most likely counting on Russia's involvement in the conflict to deter any retribution from the US, however that did not work out well for him.
I will repeat myself though, I do not approve in US involvement in Syria, they are better off keeping out of the ME entirely. The US bombing Assad will only prolong the war.
And i always keep green screens in my mind for sure !
Being nobody is sure that the Syrian army was responsible for the Ghouta sarin gas attack in August 2013, how can we be so sure that this same army was responsible for the recent gas attack? It could have been Assad's army or the rebels, the more important question is, who supplies these people with these chemical weapons? As far as I know Syria can't produce them, so someone is supplying either Assad or the rebels, shouldn't that someone be held at least in part responsible for these tragedies?
Syria has been producing chemical weapons since the 80's. Look it up. They area a rich nation, with absolutely the capabilities to maintain a stockpile of chem weapons. These are facts.
I did look it up, all it says is "it is believed", another one says that Syria is were Saddam hid the WMD, George Bush didn't find in Iraq. The only one I could find that was sourced was this:
The US stated in 2002 that Syria had a "long-standing chemical warfare programme", which was first developed in the 1970s. A recent report from the US Congressional Research Service said Syria probably began stockpiling chemical weapons in 1972 or 1973, when it was given a small number of chemicals and delivery systems by Egypt before the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
And frankly if it is the same source that put the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, somehow I am not convinced.
Anyway, I'll ask you something, no matter if it is true that Syria produced chemical weapons or not, how can the US be so sure that Assad's people were behind this attack? The rebels are supposed to have them also, and they are the ones who gain the most if the US attacks Assad.
Look this is certainly a no win situation for everybody, on one side you have a totalitarian despot, on the other you have very militant and frankly crazy rebels, then you have the US getting involved with Russia there, and the scenario doesn't look good.
"In September 2013, Syria provided information about its stockpile to the OPCW as part of its disarmament obligations. However, the exact composition of its declared chemical arsenal will not be disclosed to the public, due to OPCW rules.[16]" -Wikipedia (number for source)
Syria has publicly admitted to having chemical weapons, but had said they had destroyed them. The OPCW is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international organization.
As to the US's response, I am in complete agreement with you. I don't really believe that the US can impact anything positively in the ME. Nobody wants us there, not our "allies" or the people we are claiming to help. It's a lose-lose scenario.
Attacking Assad will only prolong the war and lead to more death.
They could also have bought them, there are enough money hungry companies and people in the world willing to sell these weapons, I believe there is a black market for them so anything is possible, but it is also possible that Syria was producing them as you say so let's leave it at that.
fair enough.