But is there any proof?

originally posted by: pale5218
I believe they do have proof from the tracking data of the flight that left that airfield. US government may seem like a cancer to you but if you have Sarin gas dropped on you and your family, I think you would want support and if it means by the cancerous US.

Ok I just looked a little bit more into this and some sources say a missile struck a rebel controlled stock hold of chemical weapons. That to me seems like the most plausible explanation, does Syria even have missiles with chemical payloads? We know from past reports that rebels have stored chemical weapons in their bases and they were most likely behind the initial chemical attack several years ago. It seems like you'd have to ignore all the evidence to assume Assad purposely carried out a chemical attack on his own people. It's funny how they didn't even mention other possibilities in the one hour "special segment" they had tonight. It's very obvious to me the only reason why the MSM presents a single narrative is because they're pushing an agenda which they've been pushing for a very long time.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: pale5218
I believe they do have proof from the tracking data of the flight that left that airfield. US government may seem like a cancer to you but if you have Sarin gas dropped on you and your family, I think you would want support and if it means by the cancerous US.

Ok I just looked a little bit more into this and some sources say a missile struck a rebel controlled stock hold of chemical weapons. That to me seems like the most plausible explanation, does Syria even have missiles with chemical payloads? We know from past reports that rebels have stored chemical weapons in their bases and they were most likely behind the initial chemical attack several years ago. It seems like you'd have to ignore all the evidence to assume Assad purposely carried out a chemical attack on his own people. It's funny how they didn't even mention other possibilities in the one hour "special segment" they had tonight. It's very obvious to me the only reason why the MSM presents a single narrative is because they're pushing an agenda which they've been pushing for a very long time.

I agree with your view on the MSM, I try not to rely on one source, especially the extreme biased ones. I look through several other sites including what I can get here from ATS. The MSM have become mouth pieces for who pays them, not for the report of news.

The other members here have also stated the possibility of a storage of chemicals were hit and frankly, I didn't think about that, so it makes it plausible.

I don't want to seem naive here but I would think that the position of the Trump administration days before would support the idea that they were extremely confident that the intel was good. This event turned their policy toward Syria from staying out of Syria to engaging by initiating this strike. It just seems like a significant step without empirical evidence.

Well, thanks for bringing this to a discussion, like I said I'm not trying to argue. I need to hone my critical thinking skills.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

www.bbc.co.uk...

The Syrian military denied using any chemical agents, while its ally Russia said an air strike hit a rebel depot full of chemical munitions.

Who's air strike? Who were the pilots and from which state? Are they Syrian, Russian or Iranian?

So the Russians admitted there was an air strike. They say they hit a chemical weapons depot belonging to rebels.

Either the bombs used the chemical agent or the chemical agent was dispersed by the bomb blast in the factory.

It makes no sense why Russia would provoke the U.S this way though? Are they just covering for Assad because they have weighed the thing and that is the best response? Are they telling something like the truth?

I know that this is just the kind of thing Russia do though. It seems a bit of a cold denial with no remorse for the mess they are making and cynical to say the least. It has the smell of BS to a certain degree.

I have lost all trust. That is the only thing I can be sure of. The propaganda from all sides is working against them all now.

a reply to: pale5218

I don't want to seem naive here but I would think that the position of the Trump administration days before would support the idea that they were extremely confident that the intel was good. This event turned their policy toward Syria from staying out of Syria to engaging by initiating this strike. It just seems like a significant step without empirical evidence.

I agree they must have some sort of good intel in order to launch this strike. But what I think happened is that they saw a missile launched and saw the chemical devastation, then assumed it must have come from the missile, without considering the possibility it hit a chemical stock house. Well they probably considered that, but they wouldn't have fed that information to Trump if they wanted to pursued him to launch an attack.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh

Do these even need a description?

Holy sheet man! What source are you looking at, that is beyond damning, I've been scouring sources all night. Nothing came close to those photos.

a reply to: Vector99

The autistic army.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: butcherguy

I just can't believe anything anymore, except that anything from the media is an effing lie.

There is another thing: If your side is winning ... you're winning with them!!

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
the news tonight (in Australia) is obsessed with this recent attack in Syria.

As some of you may know, I've been following the events in Syria since they began and even before that with the events in Libya which led up to the events in Syria.

i'm also in aust. i don't follow these events that closely but something i noticed is i couldn't pick assad out of a lineup if it was just him and some random. msm spammed saddam and gadaffi pics for years before they got hit. if we see an assad pic on the front page monday he should prolly find the nearest russian bunker and settle in..

I was thinking of making a thread about why...

I would love for someone to explain why assad would order a chemical attack... or even one of his generals... they gain nothing and risk losing the gains they had made in the international community.

So if someone has a reason why... that is not he is a monster I would love to hear it.

That MIT report looks like a middle school report. I have no doubt that Assad used chemical weapons on his people in 2013 as well as the other day. He's a monster. I also don't think, as tragic as it is (I saw the heartbreaking video of kids dying and it broke my heart, too.), we should get involved.

I marched through the streets of Boston with a group and we ended up protesting in front of John Kerry's house to stay out of Syria and were I healthy enough, would do so again. Not because Assad should be let off easy but because we continuously make things worse by acting as opportunists rather than altruists.

I think Assad was testing Trumps allegiance to Putin.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Despite no proof and it makes absolutely no sense why Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people, the cavalry of cruise missiles are launched yet again, because according to Trump the use of chemical weapons is 'not acceptable'.

Few points there, the U.S. will keep destroying countries in the name of greed, and if it's a comparison on the most deadly types of weapons, what's worse? Using chemical weapons or uranium-tipped weapons which kill and deform any future generations for years, as is the case with Iraq?

Syria; the reasoning is a lie, the hypocrisy is astounding, it isn't about humanitarian issues, it's about greed as usual and the U.S. government once again seems like a cancer on this planet.

You win post of the week.

a reply to: Kali74

Why would Assad risk pissing off his strongest ally Russia?
Why would he risk losing all the ground he made by using chemical weapons now? Especially knowing the ramifications it could have by those who do support him?

It doesn't make sense that he would do that, and I don't believe he did it in 2013 either. There are numerous reports that show the contrary.

Again it's much more plausible that it was a jihadist owned target that had chemical weapons in it that they hit

Someone posted on another thread specs that show that the aircraft that dropped the bombs couldn't even carry weapons capable of carrying chemical payload....

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Despite no proof and it makes absolutely no sense why Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people...

...the U.S. will keep destroying countries in the name of greed, and if it's a comparison on the most deadly types of weapons, what's worse? Using chemical weapons or uranium-tipped weapons which kill and deform any future generations for years, as is the case with Iraq?

Syria; the reasoning is a lie, the hypocrisy is astounding, it isn't about humanitarian issues, it's about greed

Exactly my thoughts, every word of it! Why would Assad gas his own people 1 day before peace talks? Why were there photos of "professionals" taking care of victims without proper protection from said chemical gas?


Reminds me exactly of the whole "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" BS justification for going into Iraq.

General Wesley Clark - March 2nd, 2007: "We're going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off, Iran"

What a world we live in

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I don't think Assad pissed off Russia in the least. I don't think Putin cares one bit that Assad used chemical weapons on children. All Putin cares about is free access to Syria. If rebels and jihadists had access to chemical weapons they would have been being used against Russian and Syrian troops.

Ok, there was or wasn't gas used or let loose secondarily.

Kills people and kids, right?

Trump hammers an airbase.

What's the problem? Not the right perps?

If it was the rebels or isis's stash, should he have sent 59 missiles into the city?

Troops? Nothing?

If it was all fake? No gas, what was lost? 1 crappy airbase.

Rattle some cages and see who reacts and how.

I bet the ships are reloading for the next round.

a reply to: Kali74

Open use of chemical weapons would cause loss of training and material support for the rebels, but if the regime appeared to use it then that might increase training and material support for the rebels.

If you ignore the dictator and just look at the situation the only people that benefit from this are the jihadist rebels, every other group in the area loses with the use of chemical weapons.

A report late last night said the U.S. has images of the planes that carried the "barrels" leaving the airport we bombed last night. The planes were detected going to the area of where they dropped, and a heat detector of some sort even caught the serin gas bombs dropping. The planes then returned to the same airport. They were Syrian planes.

So yes, the evidence is unimpeachable.

a reply to: Irishhaf

If it were as simple as pointing to ISIS or al-Qaeda, I could go for that but it isn't. We're talking about an area, extremely well controlled by the Syrian government.

originally posted by: angeldoll
A report late last night said the U.S. has images of the planes that carried the "barrels" leaving the airport we bombed last night. The planes were detected going to the area of where they dropped, and a heat detector of some sort even caught the serin gas bombs dropping. The planes then returned to the same airport. They were Syrian planes.

So yes, the evidence is unimpeachable.

Then why isn't it being provided if it's so unimpeachable and they know that it's such a great concern?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Irishhaf

If it were as simple as pointing to ISIS or al-Qaeda, I could go for that but it isn't. We're talking about an area, extremely well controlled by the Syrian government.

If it's so well controlled by the Syrian gov then why were they bombing rebel targets in it

A well controlled area wouldn't have opposition forces and supplies in it, that's pretty much the opposite of well controlled