It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Assad may be responsible for chemical attack

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Some years ago I recall debating the issue of Syria using chlorine weapons and I thought it would be interesting to go back and read that discussion. I've always argued that the rebels are the likely culprits behind most of the chemical attacks in Syria, particularly the sarin gas attacks, because not only did Assad let the UN destroy his chemical weapon stockpiles, but we also have records of rebel forces manufacturing and storing sarin gas, and several investigations concluding the rebels have used sarin gas. Also, the rebels know it's a good way to stir up support from the western world which gives them a lot of motive, whereas Assad has very little motive to use banned chemical weapons.

Now we are being told once again Assad has used a chemical weapon against his own population, apparently a chlorine weapon. As tsurfer2000h points out there is a reasonable amount of evidence suggesting the Assad regime and/or Russia has used chlorine weapons:

Syria Got Rid of Its Chemical Weapons — But Reports of Attacks Continue (2015)

Syria: the children killed by Assad's chlorine gas bombs (2014)

In Syria, Chlorine Attacks Continue To Take A Toll (2015)

31 chlorine attacks between March and June in Syria (2015)

Obviously I was still skeptical of these claims without any solid evidence, of which those articles did not provide any. Likewise, we still need to be skeptical of these recent claims until we see solid proof, that's really what it comes down to. However, we must also be skeptical of claims made by Assad and based on the evidence it's likely his regime has used chlorine weapons. It seems a few years ago there was "some uncertainty about chlorine's status" and Syria was not yet a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It's interesting to note chlorine weapons are not very effective for killing, as several of the above articles point out:


“Chlorine itself is not so effective as a weapon of death,” Sparrow told FRONTLINE, pointing out that other chemical weapons are far more deadly. “It’s incredibly effective as a weapon of fear and terror.”


Chlorine is not a very effective tool. It normally disperses swiftly in open areas, making it of scant use on the battlefield, but it can be fatal if inhaled heavily after exploding in an enclosed space, as appears to have happened in some recent incidents.


He added that although chlorine wasn’t itself considered to be a particularly toxic chemical of war, its psychological impact was devastating.


“Chlorine gas is not especially toxic as a substance but it is lethal as people have no way of protecting themselves against [high concentrations of] it. They are good at stopping rebel advances as there is nowhere to hide from it. It is not dissipated by buildings as artillery shells are.”


This last quote is particularly relevant because it points out why Assad forces might have some motive to use chlorine against rebels despite arguing that regular artillery fire is more effective for them. Assuming Assad is responsible for the attacks, what we need to keep in mind is that Assad doesn't do this for fun, he doesn't specifically target children and women as the MSM might lead you to believe, he targets heavily controlled rebel zones because he is fighting a war against them. Furthermore, just because an image of a child with some chlorine in their eyes looks shocking, doesn't mean a missile strike is any less shocking. Far more civilians have died in the crossfire of guns and missiles compared to chemical weapons, here's what I said in that old discussion:


originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

But let us for a moment assume the Assad regime is responsible for these chlorine attacks, I'm not exactly sure I would be against such attacks because they actually aren't very deadly and aren't banned under the chemical weapons treaty, certainly dropping a bomb would do much more damage, but that would be a-ok in the handbook of moral warfare.


Of course I don't condone the killing of children, whether it's with chlorine gas or missiles, but given the choice I know which I'd rather be up against. So before whipping ourselves into a frenzy because we hear the words "chemical weapon", just realize there is no nice way to fight a war. I feel extremely bad for the civilians stuck inside the war zones and I know the rebels are aware of their utility as humans shields, but after coming this far and getting this close it would be crazy to stop now. I'm not saying I believe one way or another who was behind these recent attacks, I never believe anything without solid proof these days, and people deserve to see that proof if they claim to have it, words are not enough.
edit on 14/4/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

It's just a matter of time until Trump and Bolton get their proper war. Syria was just practice!



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I do not know if Assad is using them or not. It seems that things are rushed, and they bombed Syria before the UN team could do a thorough inspection. That rushing to bomb them before they got results back pointing directly at Syria from the team is what bothers me. There is no way in hell that that investigating team will come back with results now that show that three member countries bombed Syria without proper cause.

Or will they come back with evidence to prove the US and the UK messed up? They are not too happy with us after Trump and Brexit. It could be a way of punishing us. France on the other hand will be just a casualty because they went along with the UK.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Because if you're Assad, you gas innocent people soon after the US announced withdrawal.

And if you're America and UK and 'france' you bomb right after Syria invites for inspection in the attacks.

And if you're guilty, you show no retribution after an attack in any way and now news crew on the grounds...



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Well Russia once again changed its story.... again.

We apparently moved from the UK being behind it to a video Russia released on Twitter of White Helmets explaining how they staged the chemical weapons attack.

Russia is starting to sound like Democrats... They push a flase narrative, get called out, cant support their claims and then randomly lashes out at everyone while whining like a bitch.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes they probably should have waited for some sort of solid evidence, but going on past events like this we never seem to get that satisfaction. I can understand why they may have felt there was no point waiting, Assad blocked the area off from everyone and I believe Russia even voted against an investigation. So I don't doubt the attack was carried out by the Syrian government, but my point is that even if they were responsible it's still a rather non-destructive way to defeat rebel forces without killing too many civilians in the crossfire, the area hit by the recent chlorine attack is now under government control. This story is being sensationalized and the images of suffering children are being used to evoke an emotional response from the masses, which I find very distasteful quite frankly.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




Now we are being told once again Assad has used a chemical weapon against his own population, apparently a chlorine weapon. As tsurfer2000h points out there is a reasonable amount of evidence suggesting the Assad regime and/or Russia has used chlorine weapons:
There is a distinction between a chemical weapon and a chemical used as a weapon . Busting a large dam can be used as a weapon and water is a chemical but is it a chemical weapon ? Finding traces of chlorine could be a part of someones laundry or residue left over from a cleaner . The first vid posted on YT got pulled because it showed a container with no damage sitting on a bed that was also not damaged and someone noticed that even the valve was in the closed position . So they made a second take and fixed the issues they over looked in the first . I don't buy that Assuad did it . just my opinion as always



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Time to go back to the basic data

Who benefits the most from perpetual conflict in the ME and especially the area known as "Syria" in today's "economy"?

There are 2 who most benefit

Hint: not Israel

Hint: both are Nations

Hint: not U.S.

😉😮🙂



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

All that get's blown out the water with the James Mattis statement that there is NO evidence.

www.newsweek.com...


If it doesn't please explain why.
edit on 14-4-2018 by Antipathy17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So your reasoning as to why Assad "may have" used chlorine gas is because it's not as lethal as commonly believed? Because all four of those quotes you listed can just as easily justify a false flag.

No offense, but your argument doesn't outweigh the lack of a motive for Assad.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

All that get's blown out the water with the James Mattis statement that there is NO evidence.

www.newsweek.com...


If it doesn't please explain why.

You missed the red rectangle in that article.
Newsweek has gotten wise in the "fake news" generation . To keep from getting the fake news label , they put the OPINION red flag there when the article is just that.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




Now we are being told once again Assad has used a chemical weapon against his own population, apparently a chlorine weapon. As tsurfer2000h points out there is a reasonable amount of evidence suggesting the Assad regime and/or Russia has used chlorine weapons:
There is a distinction between a chemical weapon and a chemical used as a weapon . Busting a large dam can be used as a weapon and water is a chemical but is it a chemical weapon ? Finding traces of chlorine could be a part of someones laundry or residue left over from a cleaner . The first vid posted on YT got pulled because it showed a container with no damage sitting on a bed that was also not damaged and someone noticed that even the valve was in the closed position . So they made a second take and fixed the issues they over looked in the first . I don't buy that Assuad did it . just my opinion as always

You have to enlighten me on some of that . Cause right now I am sitting here completely taken aback at the failed logic in all that..
"You do not have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your informed opinion. No one has the right to ignorance" - Harlan Ellison.

Assad was just trying to disinfect the people of Syria.Had plenty of chlorine laying in those barrels for "other" uses.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




We apparently moved from the UK being behind it to a video Russia released on Twitter of White Helmets explaining how they staged the chemical weapons attack.


Nah, the Russian have said that the White Helmets are doing the false flag under direction and pressure from the UK.



Russia is starting to sound like Democrats... They push a flase narrative, get called out, cant support their claims and then randomly lashes out at everyone while whining like a bitch.


Your that blinded by partisan politics that you blame democrats when republicans have done the same?



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




“Chlorine gas is not especially toxic as a substance but it is lethal as people have no way of protecting themselves against [high concentrations of] it. They are good at stopping rebel advances as there is nowhere to hide from it.


But the thing is that there are no rebel advances - the rebels have pretty much been on a constant retreat for a good while now.

Also, the best way to stop US backed rebels is to have the US pulling out - which were about to happen - while still having support from Russia. Which is what they have.


So no. I do not buy it.
Not from a strategic standpoint anyway.


edit on 14-4-2018 by DupontDeux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
From the evidence I've seen since the outset of this conflict I believe that every chemical weapons attack in Syria was executed by the opposition forces in an attempt to draw western intervention. I'm going to counter your sources with these which paint the reality of the situation.

Chemical weapons found on Islamic extremists attempting to cross the Turkish border:
www.reuters.com...

Syrian rebels seeking chemical weapons materials according to Turkish prosecutors:
www.latimes.com...

Syrian Government stating chemical weapons used came from Turkey:
www.timesofisrael.com...


U.N. accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons usage
www.telegraph.co.uk...

The last one is the most telling because even as the U.N. inspector believed the attack came from the rebels Israel launched an attack against Syria anyway. They don't care, and neither does the west. They want the secular government of Syria to fall so they can replace it with a radical, theocratic Islamic government where they can enjoy endless (controlled) wars while having their pipelines at the same time.

I can see the cognitive dissonance among the Trump supporters and anti-war left leaning people. Keep fighting to find the truth, do not stop until the unease in your gut is satiated. You all are being lied to and you do not know how to process it. It's hard to see the President on television lying to you so blatantly and you want to trust the mainstream media because it's comfortable. Unfortunately what's happening is the real monster/animal that is our foreign policy is being projected onto the weakened state of Syria because they have something that we want and they're not giving it up easily.


edit on 14-4-2018 by Tenbatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Tenbatsu

A plausible theory with one glaring flaw.

The opposition forces in Syria (against assad) dont have and have never had air assets. The chemical attack in question used helicopters dropping barrel bombs.



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Chemical weapons can be launched from an artillery or mortar round. This is incorrect.

Google "hell cannon". This is the mainstay artillery weapon for the opposition.
edit on 14-4-2018 by Tenbatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Tenbatsu

Russia did it.

That's why we have an "analysis" by them from mid-March.

They did All they could to draw "opinions" away from themselves.

Classic."Stage-setting".Propaganda.Tactic 😯

US training Syria militants for false flag chemical attack as basis for airstrikes – Russian MoD

Russia’s Defense Ministry says “US instructors” are training militants to stage false flag chemical attacks in south Syria. The incidents are said to be a pretext for airstrikes on Syrian government troops and infrastructure.




posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

If it isn't then I'm not sure what to say. Russia had been warning of a false flag chemical weapons attack for weeks prior to the supposed chemical attack in Douma. Either Syrian or Russian intelligence had gathered this information and it turned out to be correct.

If Assad's goal was to murder civilians he had the ability to do it until his heart was content with conventional munitions. There was, and still is, no reason for the Syrian Army to use chemical weapons.


edit on 14-4-2018 by Tenbatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tenbatsu
a reply to: Xcathdra

Chemical weapons can be launched from an artillery or mortar round. This is incorrect.

Google "hell cannon". This is the mainstay artillery weapon for the opposition.


No I know they can be delivered via different methods. However in this case, the latest chemical weapon attack in Syria, was dropped from helicopters. The opposition forces do not have helicopters.

That leaves Syria or Russia.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join