UN report: Assad is responsible for more than two dozen chemical weapons attacks in Syria

So.......

Assad used chemical weapons.

Meanwhile the USA funded terrorists who threw people off buildings, crucified Christians, beheaded so many citizens I've lost count, put women in cages to use as human shields, rounded up minority women to use as their own personal whores, trapped citizens to stop them from leaving,
Indoctrinated children into radical thinking by using food as a way to 'educate' them (by holding it back and issuing it as rewards for answering questions correctly) The list of atrocities is actually too extensive for me to put in here.

Not saying what Assad is justifiable in any way shape or form, but when you're fighting against animals like those described above, many of whom are NOT your own people. But are in fact trouble makers from abroad, enticed in by said US supported terrorists and the world is against you doing anything to stop your entire nation from collapsing because they want you gone like Hussein and Gaddafi, wouldn't you be tempted to use any and all options available to you?

a reply to: Ohanka

Well, the election was internationally observed. The observers said they were free, fair and transparent. The UN had issues with holding an election during a war but we were told that the "moderate opposition" wanted elections. Of course he only held it in areas he controlled. in the 1864 US election did the people in the confederate states vote? I think not. How exactly is he supposed to facilitate an election in the parts of his country occupied by terrorist forces? Of course, expatriates and refugees voted in the election. Except for those countries who support terrorist forces in Syria, theydid not permit the Syrian refugees to vote in the Syrian election. You can find the list on that wiki page. The terrorist opposition boycotted the vote, despite saying all they wanted was "democracy". They don't actually want democracy at all. That's why their forces in Syria bombarded polling stations with artillery. 50 people were killed by the terrorist opposition trying to participate in the election that the "opposition" apparently wanted. Even one of those early regime opponents who held the small protests for reform, before the Islamists began rioting, participated in the election. He was condemned by the "moderate democratic opposition"

During the these "elections" 4 million Of Syria's 23 million population were estimated to have left and 9 million were thought to be internally displaced. At least a further million have lost their identity papers in the fighting and thereby was disqualified. Refugees outside the country who fled "illegally" were not eligible to vote. "Legal" expatriate Syrians were able to vote in Syrian embassies in certain selected countries but not in others. From the people in Syria who did voted, many, justifiably assumed that voting anything other than for Assad is to sign your own death warrant and that of your family. This was a mockery of democracy.
But nothing of this really matters as Asad should have agreed to an election back when the uprising started in 2012.
Not in mid 2014 after massacring tens of thousands, at which point, no one just "wanted elections". At This point it was clear that Asad should be executed for crimes against his own people and nation.

Well, Jordan is a constitutional monarchy. The King doesn't have absolute political power. They have an elected parliament. Do you think the British Queen has absolute power?

Nope. Do you actually think that the British queen has the same authority as the king of Jordan?
If not, why bring her up then?

"Hmm, I still think it beats living under a maniacal dictator."
I don't know who you're talking about. Certainly not President Al-Assad.

Yep, he's the guy. At least according to the Syrian people.

Again you insist on calling foreign powers flooding terrorists into Syria and arming them in an attempt to overthrow the legitimate Government an "Uprising". This is no uprising.

I understand that in your mind, it's not. The thing is, that whatever is going on in your mind does not affect reality.
Here you go:

Definition of the word "Uprising": an act of opposition, sometimes using violence, by many people in one area of a country against those who are in power.

??? Well yeah Al-Assad will die one day, everyone will. He'll probably die an old man having lived a long and productive life.

No no no... you misread... I wrote:
"Assad will not die a natural death."

Syria would have won this war without Iran or Russia.

Hhmm.. so why they got involved then?

Though I am sure the Syrian people and her Government are thankful for Iran and Russia for coming to their aid in their darkest hour. I know I would be.

Well the government is thankful alright. Regarding the people... well, I guess we already established that we disagree on that.

Snipped your crap about the wars

Hahaha but it's not crap, it's Wikipedia hahahaha!

They lost some battles, yes. But they won the war.

What is this mysterious war of which the world never heard off, that was won by the glorious Syrian army?
Seriously, which one of the two is it?

George Washington lost almost every single battle he fought but he still won the war. The Vietcong lost almost every battle, but they still won the war.

Very useful and relevant information...

Zionists orchestrated a coup against the Lebanese Government.

Those pesky Zionists...
But isn't it Nasrallah who threaten a coup against the Lebanese Government? According to the Lebanese prime minister, Hezbollah was the problem, not the Zionists.

Is General Zahreddine, arguably the greatest hero in all of Syria, Iranian or Russian?

According to the wiki page you linked this guy got wounded in the leg by a bullet back 2013. There is nothing after that under 'Role in Syrian civil war'.
There is nothing arguable about it. This guy indeed is the greatest hero in all of Syria!

Is General al-Hassan Iranian or Russian?

Another great hero. Apparently was among officers who fired on unarmed demonstrators in 2011.

Now let me ask you, is Colonel General Alexander Dvornikov Syrian?
How about Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani? Or Brigadier General Reza Khavari? Or Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Allahdadi? Or Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Hassan Shateri? Or Major General Hadi Kajbaf? Or General Qassem Suleimani?
Any of them is Syrian? All (except the last one) are dead by the way :-)

Those fighting the terrorists are primarily Syrian men & women, led by Syrian commanders. Russia and Iran play a far smaller role than you seem to think.

Look, I understand that you are cheering for Assad, but even he would admit he would be counting worms with his dad if Russia and Iran wouldn't have saved his ass.

Syria has not sold her sovereignty.

Syria didn't, but Assad did. You will very soon find out that Putin and Khamenei are calling the shots in Syria from now on.

Russia and Iran are Syria's allies and have answered her call in her time of need.

You really think that this is how the world works, aren't you? Do you really think that all these dead Iranian generals are free?

Do terrorists from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Chechnya and Tunisia, funded and supplied by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK, and US

Is this it? How about Germany? France? Canada?

represent Syria more than the Syrian people? This is just an absurd claim.

How would I know? I never said that. You are arguing with claims made by yourself. Why waist time writing them then? You can debate yourself in your head.

a reply to: markosity1973

Meanwhile the USA funded terrorists who threw people off buildings, crucified Christians, beheaded so many citizens I've lost count, put women in cages to use as human shields, rounded up minority women to use as their own personal whores, trapped citizens to stop them from leaving, Indoctrinated children into radical thinking by using food as a way to 'educate' them (by holding it back and issuing it as rewards for answering questions correctly) The list of atrocities is actually too extensive for me to put in here.

All the things you mentioned here were committed by Arab Muslims, not Americans.
Muslims are very capable of doing all these things without any US funding. They are doing these things to gays, women accused of adultery, infidels etc. it's called Sharia law, and has nothing to do with the US.

Not saying what Assad is justifiable in any way shape or form, but when you're fighting against animals like those described above, many of whom are NOT your own people. But are in fact trouble makers from abroad, enticed in by said US supported terrorists and the world is against you doing anything to stop your entire nation from collapsing because they want you gone like Hussein and Gaddafi, wouldn't you be tempted to use any and all options available to you?

I actually would be tempted to use these weapons against terrorists. But after a couple of times I would probably notice that the collateral damage is in the hundreds, and then will probably stop. This guy did it at least 27 times (according to UN investigation).

a reply to: MaxMech


So....you're saying that the weapons drops the USA made to the rebel sides had absolutely no effect and have nothing to do with the atrocities these animals committed?

Yeah right......

You do realise that Trump put a stop to the weapon supply and now miraculously ISIS is faltering to the point of collapse, don't you?

Coincidence?

I think not......

The UN is about as significant as the "coalition of the willing"...

a reply to: MaxMech

Syria didn't, but Assad did. You will very soon find out that Putin and Khamenei are calling the shots in Syria from now on.

russia definitely are opening up some new assets in syria, iran not so much, iran being shia and syria being sunni means their religion differs vastly and ethnically those kurds are generally pee off all other arabs.
iran do see themselves as the superpower of the middle east and want to be seen as the peacekeepers of the region hence getting involved in syria, yemen and the like.
libya were seen as the peacekeeper of the region, ghaddafi was up to be leader of the arab league before we carpet bombed him out and helped daesh stick a broom up his bum.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

Let's be real, that article loses all credibility when they use that fraud as source of information.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Sorry...

But this all reads like blatant Zio-Hasbara...

Israel didn't mind when they were using White Phospherous in Gaza...
But now chemicals weapons are bad because their boogeyman Assad won't roll over and fall to their proxy army ISIS...

& it looks like many ageee with that here...

ATS isn't stupid, we know what Israel is and has always been...
A terror state!!!



Viva Assad. I hope he takes Golan back by force as well.

Ummm...Yes...Israel is a terror state...Just as every nation that surrounds them are terror states...with the possible exception of Jordan...Then we have the terror states of Europe...The united Kingdom terror states...and my fave...the terror state of USA INC...
Not to mention the terror state of Russia...China...all the Stans...India...Myanmar...Indonesia...the Philippines...why...practically the entire infestation of countries on the planet...

Now...as to your take by force statement...

Isn't it fun to watch the repetitive nature of humans...such a fine territorial herd...always showing their true natures when they group together and scrap over resources...

From the outside...looking in...they appear quite insect like...busy...busy little bees...




YouSir

a reply to: markosity1973

So....you're saying that the weapons drops the USA made to the rebel sides had absolutely no effect and have nothing to do with the atrocities these animals committed?

Not saying that at all. No doubt that weapons drops intended for the Syrian opposition made their way into terrorists hands.
But again, I don't see the justification to carry out 27 chemical attacks with hundreds dead civilians. This is what this thread is about.

You do realise that Trump put a stop to the weapon supply and now miraculously ISIS is faltering to the point of collapse, don't you?

In my opinion the weakening of ISIS has nothing to do with Trump.
Here you can see that ISIS have been loosing battles long before trump became president.

originally posted by: MaxMech
a reply to: markosity1973

So....you're saying that the weapons drops the USA made to the rebel sides had absolutely no effect and have nothing to do with the atrocities these animals committed?

Not saying that at all. No doubt that weapons drops intended for the Syrian opposition made their way into terrorists hands.
But again, I don't see the justification to carry out 27 chemical attacks with hundreds dead civilians. This is what this thread is about.

You do realise that Trump put a stop to the weapon supply and now miraculously ISIS is faltering to the point of collapse, don't you?

In my opinion the weakening of ISIS has nothing to do with Trump.
Here you can see that ISIS have been loosing battles long before trump became president.

Sorry, but I've been following the Syrian civil war all along, and yes Trump getting into office changed everything. Under Obama, the US did its best to ignore ISIS' atrocities. Maybe once a week we'd drop a bomb somewhere in ISIS territory as a token effort. It didn't make any difference that anyone noticed. But within weeks of Trump taking over, US bombing in ISIS territory intensified, and the tide of battle (vs the Syrian Army and the Kurds) began shifting against ISIS. It's not a stretch at all to conclude that ISIS lost a secret ally right around January 2017.

a reply to: MaxMech

Okay, let's acknlowledge that Assad's forces have dropped 27 Chemical weapons over the course of the war so far. Let's admit that Assad leaving office would be a good thing, and the USA's primary objective in the war over there and WHY they assisted the ''rebel' forces who went on to form ISIS.

Now let's look at who these so called rebel groups are - they are all terrorists. Many of the original rebels that were against the Assad regime at the beginning of this conflict have come to realise that what seeks to replace them (a purist Islamic state AKA ISIS) is far worse than Assad ever was or will be. As a result they have actually joined their government in the fight against the terror groups (ISIS is just the biggest and most well known BTW)

Assad has often on many occasions, ie not just once, offered full pardons to those who fight against the government forces if they lay down their weapons. Most of these people then join the SAA (Syrian Arab Army ie the government army) Assad has also used non lethal techniques such as encircling enclaves and then literally starving the terror groups and residents until they surrender.

Now, as for those chemical weapons.... Not a good idea. Not going to argue that. But when put in context and a realisation is had that the places he has dropped them are hardcore opposition areas that will simply not give in and surrender, the reasoning for their use becomes clearer. Hospitals have been bombed. Super terrible. But..... the very biased western media ALWAYS leaves out the fact that these hospitals are now in terror group hands. There have been several cases where groups like ISIS and El Nusra have actually kidnapped Doctors, taken then into the rebel held territory to these hospitals to force them to work on their injured fighters. Some Doctors stay out of free will, but in the end, the terror groups take over these medical facilities in order to give priority to their fighters and NOT the local residents. So Assad bombs them to take away another tool they have to survive.

Is the above a 'best practise' idea? No. But when you have an enemy that has absolutely zero morals and is prepared to use children as live bombs in food markets where the locals shop, what is best practise anyway?

Nobody is saying that Assad needs to stay in office when this war is over. Not even his Alles ie Russia, Iran et al. Russia has presented a very good roadmap to peace in Syria, but the USA rejects it because it 'does not trust' the players who put it together.

Now as for ISIS being on the decline......

There are two reasons for this; Russia joined the fray and started helping Assad. This was huge because now instead of the US coalition of dingbats who were bombing the SAA and arming the terror groups, Russia started providing protection for them and pushing back.

That is what started the turn of the tide. But the USA kept on arming the terror groups, because they want Assad gone by any means necessary, including by proxy (through arming these groups) committing crimes against humanity that make Assad's chemical weapons drops look like kindergarten material.

The real end for ISIS et al has come when Trump saw photos of what was happening to the children under ISIS (Trump has a soft spot for children apparently) He was quite rightly very moved and demanded a stop to the arming of these groups. So as their weapons stash is depleted, so is their power. Throwing rocks and sticks at the Russians and SAA is not going to ve very effective after all.

So, yes the war is nearing an end. The USA 'lost' Not that it is willing to admit it was fighting a war there in the first place. Which is why we dont hear about the war in media now. They are hoping to distract us from what has turned into a disaster caused by the West.

The worst part of it all? The USA's beligerence and refusal to work with Russia to end this war means two things; They will not have a place at the table for negotiations when the war finally ends. And you can 100% guarantee that if and when Assad steps down, the next leader will be even more hostile in their attitude toward the west.

And in all honesty, can you really blame them after what we have done?

Anyone else remember when Trump ordered the cruise missile strike and there was all the doom and gloom on here about how there would be a rash of false flags so we could invent an excuse to invade Syria in the next few months?

How long ago was that now?

a reply to: markosity1973

Okay, let's acknlowledge that Assad's forces have dropped 27 Chemical weapons over the course of the war so far. Let's admit that Assad leaving office would be a good thing, and the USA's primary objective in the war over there and WHY they assisted the ''rebel' forces who went on to form ISIS.

Acknowledged. Except the last part. ISIS formulated long before the uprising against Assad, and today there are many rebel groups which have no connection to ISIS.

Many of the original rebels that were against the Assad regime at the beginning of this conflict have come to realise that what seeks to replace them (a purist Islamic state AKA ISIS) is far worse than Assad ever was or will be.

Agreed. There is no need to change the whole governmental system, only the dictator should go.
Assad should give the control to his second in command, set an election day to some near future and step down. This will inevitably unite all of Syria to fight against the real terrorists, who aspire to change the nations nature. At this point Assad calls terrorists anybody who apposes him, exactly as every other dictator out there.
Of course he will not step down, as in his eyes he was born to rule Syria, and he prefers to watch her burn than swallow his pride.

There have been several cases where groups like ISIS and El Nusra have actually kidnapped Doctors, taken then into the rebel held territory to these hospitals to force them to work on their injured fighters. Some Doctors stay out of free will, but in the end, the terror groups take over these medical facilities in order to give priority to their fighters and NOT the local residents. So Assad bombs them to take away another tool they have to survive. Is the above a 'best practise' idea? No. But when you have an enemy that has absolutely zero morals and is prepared to use children as live bombs in food markets where the locals shop, what is best practise anyway?

Of course I see you point, but if we will start rationalizing the use of chemical/nuclear/biological weapons, this world will very fast become a post apocalyptic cliche.

Nobody is saying that Assad needs to stay in office when this war is over. Not even his Alles ie Russia, Iran et al. Russia has presented a very good roadmap to peace in Syria, but the USA rejects it because it 'does not trust' the players who put it together.

To my understanding what Putin is proposing is for Assad to stay in power till the war ends, and then to hold elections in which he is fully allowed to take part.
In my opinion, this road-map ensures with a 100% certainty that Assad will remain in power.
Russia and Iran have no interest in anybody else taking power in Syria, as their deal was made with Assad. They saved his ass. Nobody else will be loyal to them as he is.
This guy is responsible for deaths and turture of hundreds of thousands people, civilians, soldiers and rebels. Why to insist giving him a chance to stay in power?

There are two reasons for this; Russia joined the fray and started helping Assad. This was huge because now instead of the US coalition of dingbats who were bombing the SAA and arming the terror groups, Russia started providing protection for them and pushing back.
That is what started the turn of the tide. But the USA kept on arming the terror groups, because they want Assad gone by any means necessary, including by proxy (through arming these groups) committing crimes against humanity that make Assad's chemical weapons drops look like kindergarten material.
The real end for ISIS et al has come when Trump saw photos of what was happening to the children under ISIS (Trump has a soft spot for children apparently) He was quite rightly very moved and demanded a stop to the arming of these groups. So as their weapons stash is depleted, so is their power. Throwing rocks and sticks at the Russians and SAA is not going to ve very effective after all.

Well Russia bombed not only ISIS but any opposition to Assad, and a lot of civilians as well.
Regarding USA funding the Syrian opposition (some of which are terrorists), it was also done by Jordan, Qatar, UK, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I don't believe that everything bad in this world is the US's fault. Assad could have easily prevented this war by stepping (or holding a democratic election) down when the uprising against him started.

a reply to: MaxMech

Why do you buy that Assad used chemical weapons???

I'm not saying Assad is good to his people, or a good leader, exc..

But I found the chemical weapons narrative very flawed..

Assad has the advantage in fire power.. a few dozen conventional missles would do the same job as chemical weapons, but without the international push back..

With all these conspiracy theories and propaganda narratives, I ask myself " who does this benefit the most??"

And it doesn't benefit Assad.. it benefits those who want the western powers to intervene.

Now I'm not claiming to know he didn't do it either.. but you have all the world say..

" if you don't use nukes, we won't act against you!"

So then what is assads reaction???


To unnecessarily use chemical weapons?!?

I need to see a benefit to Assad, that conventional weapons couldn't provide..

Some reason for him to risk it all to use chems....

Maybe they were in a cave structure and conventional weapons wouldn't work...

It was a surprise attack and the only thing those being attacked had on hand were chemical weapons ..

A rogue subordinate..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Why do you buy that Assad used chemical weapons???

Why do you buy into anything? The UN presented some evidence, so I choose to believe it.

I found the chemical weapons narrative very flawed.. Assad has the advantage in fire power.. a few dozen conventional missles would do the same job as chemical weapons, but without the international push back..

If that was true how did Assad lost control of more than 80% of the country? Assad was loosing territory from the start, and during the years of the war the opposition and the terrorists gained more and more ground. If he really had the advantage in fire power, why did Russia and Iran stepped in? I guess that some of the chemical attacks were an act of desperation and others were supposed to inflict fear on his enemies.

With all these conspiracy theories and propaganda narratives, I ask myself " who does this benefit the most??" And it doesn't benefit Assad..

Well, there were several points in time where he almost lost the war. When you have nothing to loose, using the last resort weapon is not such a bad idea, as it is the 'last resort'.

it benefits those who want the western powers to intervene.

How did it benefit the "western powers"? Russia and Iran are the shot callers in Syria now. How is this good for the west? If anyone gained something it's Russia and Iran. So by your logic, the chemical attacks were carried out by them.

" if you don't use nukes, we won't act against you!" So then what is assads reaction??? To unnecessarily use chemical weapons?!?

As mentioned before, it was hardly unnecessarily. There were multiple points in this war where everybody assumed Assad is going to die in the following month. And without his allies, he would.

All gas attacks have been orchestrated by the EU including recent attempts at surrounding russian Military police in the vicinity of Idlib.