Suspected Syria gas attack kills dozens

[turboether]

Tfw you back monsters to win a war against a monster and your mercenary monsters end up worse than what they're fighting. Better luck next time I guess, USA. Who's next again? Iran?

[Minikin]

Once Syria is not under threat anymore, I'll be more than happy to discuss the alternatives to Assad.

You will be waiting a long time sir, unfortunately. But I hope I am wrong and soon there is something better.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Well, it's simple... should you stop tyrants from murdering innocent people? If you think sovereignty is more important than personal and human freedoms, then I truly pity you.

I'm not sure if you cannot or are simply refusing to read my comment, or if you have never paid any attention to world affairs before, but Western intervention usually leads to more casualties. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is responsible for killing *literally* hundreds of thousands of civilians by accident.

[Machismo]

I'm not sure if you cannot or are simply refusing to read my comment, or if you have never paid any attention to world affairs before, but Western intervention usually leads to more casualties. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is responsible for killing *literally* hundreds of thousands of civilians by accident.

I do not support the standard form of interventionism, nor do I support the tyrants they are attempting to stop.

As for the "hundreds of thousands" comment, i would like to see evidence that the U.S. killed that many.

[PACOX]

I keep seeing arguments that Assad wouldn't use chemicals because he is winning. I can't say that it was Assad or not but that argument ignores the nature of the war and Asad.

Assad is "winning" a civil war with where the goal is to remove him or bust. Assad is "winning" if this was a traditional war between two states where one yields after a strategic beating, it's everything but that. To say Asad is winning is like saying the US unilaterally won in Iraq and Vietnam. The US kicked the shit out of their opponents military forces but it could not stop the insurgency.

Asad might have halted the advances of his opponents but they haven't stopped and not have shown a real effort to stop across the board. Assad knows that even if the war officially ended tomorrow on paper that the bullets will not stop flying for years to come. Asad is fighting against a kind of civil unrest that pops up when a population has absolutely had it with a regime and does not stopped until that regime is no more or the rebellion is completely stamped out.

How are these rebellions put down? Mass and indiscriminate executions of combatants and noncombatants until the will to fight has been broken. Showing them impossible odds isn't enough, you have to suck every ounce of hope out of them because they're already willing to die many times over to see your ass go. As long as they have hope, Assad can't win. More will always spring up in the place of the people he kills, he will not be recognized as a legitimate ruler if the fighting stops.

This is where stuff like chemical weapons come in because bombs become a way of life but try to dodge a chemical cloud over your head. More effectively, it's a very visual and agonizing way to go. Those who fought in WW1 never wanted to go down that route again. You want to reduce the moral of a population to 0, hit them with a weapon they can't fight against. Not the military, modern militaries and even militia are virtually immune to chemical attacks after having it used against them a couple of times. Civilians are always vulnerable, highly. Make the rebel question what they are fighting if their sons and daughters are being gassed like insects. Assad isn't one to give a shit about taking out some civilians, either. Look at his country.

There's a very strong case for Asad to use chemical weapons. The argument shouldn't be "well Asad doesn't need to do it" it's who actually did it.

[Deleted]

There's a very strong case for Asad to use chemical weapons. The argument shouldn't be "well Asad doesn't need to do it" it's who actually did it.

There's actually a very strong case for Assad not to use chemical weapons. If you know what happened in 2013/2014. Assad gets called out for having ''WMDs'' (sounds familiar??) and for using them against his people. He invites UN inspectors who find no trace of an attack and agrees to relinquish all chemical weapons Syria has. 3 years later he will do exactly this? A perfect excuse for US intervention? The same exact scenario which failed 3 years ago? Why didn't he already use chemicals in Aleppo? Why not use conventional warfare in this case?

Saying Assad used chemical weapons means you are trying to argue the entire Syrian administration is composed of 50 IQ idiots who do the exact same thing they barely prevented 3 years ago (hurr durr dumb muslimz amirite?). Or saying Assad is working with the USA and is deliberately providing an excuse for an intervention. Neither of which make any lick of sense.

http://imgur.com/f9aZ2O7

[Xires]

This is what I came up with (caution advised watching this vid)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqcsdXFs00c

Assad is killing his people like you kill cockroaches but no one will care...

There are more important things to handle like Israel building in their own capital/land.

They have been killing each other for 1,400 years, they will be killing each other a year from now...10 years from now...100...and so on and so forth. It sucks that it is happening and it is hard to watch- especially with the kids. But that is their problem..not ours. It would be like Iraq all over again...first they would see us as liberators from assaad...then they'd start shooting at us too. Fuck that. No more western blood for the middle east.

- - - Updated - - -

Tfw you back monsters to win a war against a monster and your mercenary monsters end up worse than what they're fighting. Better luck next time I guess, USA. Who's next again? Iran?

dude, stfu....we're the only western forces in the world with the balls or capability to do anything about ISIS. Without us the Iraqi army would of rolled over by now.
"monsters"...damn, you're ignorant, arrogant, and foolish all in one package....you must be a "progressive".

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it's simple... should you stop tyrants from murdering innocent people? If you think sovereignty is more important than personal and human freedoms, then I truly pity you.

So...what? They will just replace him with another tyrant...or have you not been paying attention to the middle east over the last few centuries?

- - - Updated - - -

USA is late because Russia is already there. And just before a 'Murican patriot comes here with a "how many carriers Russia has, hurr durr", it doesn't matter. Russian presence alone is enough to prevent a 'Murican invasion, simply because of how the effect of mere potential of escalation of the conflict would have on global economy. It just wouldn't be worth it. That is unless Trump has a distant goal in mind that he can accomplish by triggering a financial crisis, but I doubt that.

So before you see Assad removed, you'll first see signs of Russia pulling out of Syria, which isn't happening. Trying to frame Assad for chemical attacks might be a way to pressure Russia into pulling its support from him, but it's just an initial step, if even that.

Hate to break it to you, cupcake...but the US has had special forces and Marines in syria for some time as well. You may of missed that when your 1 30+ year old Russian carrier broke down and had to get towed back to port. "huur duuur" Stupid.

[Machismo]

They have been killing each other for 1,400 years, they will be killing each other a year from now...10 years from now...100...and so on and so forth. It sucks that it is happening and it is hard to watch- especially with the kids. But that is their problem..not ours. It would be like Iraq all over again...first they would see us as liberators from assaad...then they'd start shooting at us too. Fuck that. No more western blood for the middle east.

- - - Updated - - -



dude, stfu....we're the only western forces in the world with the balls or capability to do anything about ISIS. Without us the Iraqi army would of rolled over by now.
"monsters"...damn, you're ignorant, arrogant, and foolish all in one package....you must be a "progressive".

- - - Updated - - -



So...what? They will just replace him with another tyrant...or have you not been paying attention to the middle east over the last few centuries?

- - - Updated - - -



Hate to break it to you, cupcake...but the US has had special forces and Marines in syria for some time as well. You may of missed that when your 1 30+ year old Russian carrier broke down and had to get towed back to port. "huur duuur" Stupid.

That does not mean you tolerate a tyrant killing innocent people.

[PACOX]

There's actually a very strong case for Assad not to use chemical weapons. If you know what happened in 2013/2014. Assad gets called out for having ''WMDs'' (sounds familiar??) and for using them against his people. He invites UN inspectors who find no trace of an attack and agrees to relinquish all chemical weapons Syria has. 3 years later he will do exactly this? A perfect excuse for US intervention? The same exact scenario which failed 3 years ago? Why didn't he already use chemicals in Aleppo? Why not use conventional warfare in this case?

Saying Assad used chemical weapons means you are trying to argue the entire Syrian administration is composed of 50 IQ idiots who do the exact same thing they barely prevented 3 years ago (hurr durr dumb muslimz amirite?). Or saying Assad is working with the USA and is deliberately providing an excuse for an intervention. Neither of which make any lick of sense.

http://imgur.com/f9aZ2O7

Your argument is that because he hasn't done it yet that he'll never do it?

Why did the US drop the bomb in WW2 even though they were winning and would've won? Because they needed a swift and decisive win before the Japanese dug in a prolonged campaign defense of Japan, before the Soviets got involved.

Assad needs the war to be over 2 years ago. Chemicals is that ace and his is willing to bet that as long as Russia is with him that the West will stay out of the conflict. If he actually cared what the international community had to say then the war would have never reached this point in the first place, we wouldn't have an international refuge crisis.

As far as Asad handing over all him chem weapons? That's like saying Israel doesn't have nukes. No one says that he handed over everything with a straight face.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive...170616455.html


Could have rebels, could have been Asad, could have been due to collateral damage. Saying that Asad surely did not before the dust even settles do it is nonsense.

[Deleted]

Your argument is that because he hasn't done it yet that he'll never do it?

No that's not what I said at all. My argument is that in the current situation and the situation Syria has been in the last few years only a degenerate 20 IQ subhuman would possibly make such a move.

If you believe Assad gassed his own people you should probably stop posting on anything related to geopolitics because there is a high chance you are wrong.

[Ulmita]

Your argument is that because he hasn't done it yet that he'll never do it?

Why did the US drop the bomb in WW2 even though they were winning and would've won? Because they needed a swift and decisive win before the Japanese dug in a prolonged campaign defense of Japan, before the Soviets got involved.

Assad needs the war to be over 2 years ago. Chemicals is that ace and his is willing to bet that as long as Russia is with him that the West will stay out of the conflict. If he actually cared what the international community had to say then the war would have never reached this point in the first place, we wouldn't have an international refuge crisis.

As far as Asad handing over all him chem weapons? That's like saying Israel doesn't have nukes. No one says that he handed over everything with a straight face.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive...170616455.html


Could have rebels, could have been Asad, could have been due to collateral damage. Saying that Asad surely did not before the dust even settles do it is nonsense.

Assad doesn't need to use chem weapons BECAUSE HE IS WINNING ON ALL FRONTS.
Its as if he would go fully retard, shoot himself in the foot.

This is a false flag, a pretext to spread some freedom&democracy.

[I Push Buttons]

I don't normally buy into conspiracy bullshit, but there is legitimately no reason Assad would use chemical weapons for this particular attack at this particular time. It would accomplish quite literally absolutely nothing other hurting him.

While it is possible, even probable, his military may have conducted the attack. I highly doubt Assad ordered it.

[Ausr]

3 months in and we're going back to war. Sooner than I expected.

[Holas]

So many people posting here "Assad couldn't do it - he is winning".

My question is to those people : How the fuck do you know he is winning?
Have you been there? have you fought there? no ? then you don't know (I don't either btw). All you know is what you saw/heard on your preferred media.

Someone posted this map:
http://syria.liveuamap.com/

Which seemed quite accurate.
Does all those green rebel areas looks like Assad is winning? Recently I saw vids of rebels bombing Assad palace surroundings (they claim they are 5 km away from it).

If true, would you consider "winning" when the enemy controls a part of your CAPITOL and bombing around where you stay? In such way that you need to raze parts of your own capitol in order to fight them?

My point is we don't really know whats going on. Whether its on who is "winning" or who/if used chemical weapons.

Writing here like you are some big expert on the subject and anyone that disagrees with you is a retard makes you look stupid.

[Puupi]

So Rex Tillerson said Assad must be removed from power and that he has no place in the Syrian government. I wonder what Russia thinks of that.

[I Push Buttons]

So many people posting here "Assad couldn't do it - he is winning".

My question is to those people : How the fuck do you know he is winning?
Have you been there? have you fought there? no ? then you don't know (I don't either btw). All you know is what you saw/heard on your preferred media.

Someone posted this map:
http://syria.liveuamap.com/

Which seemed quite accurate.
Does all those green rebel areas looks like Assad is winning? Recently I saw vids of rebels bombing Assad palace surroundings (they claim they are 5 km away from it).

If true, would you consider "winning" when the enemy controls a part of your CAPITOL and bombing around where you stay? In such way that you need to raze parts of your own capitol in order to fight them?

My point is we don't really know whats going on. Whether its on who is "winning" or who/if used chemical weapons.

Writing here like you are some big expert on the subject and anyone that disagrees with you is a retard makes you look stupid.

That map has as much meaning as maps that show Republican/Democrat control in the US and then arguing Republicans have 90% control of the US since they control vast swaths of empty land in counties where no one lives.

- - - Updated - - -

So Rex Tillerson said Assad must be removed from power and that he has no place in the Syrian government. I wonder what Russia thinks of that.

Good thing we didn't elect a warmonger like Hillary to start WW3 in Syria.

[Deleted]

https://archive.fo/jzqKZ

ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says"

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State has used chemical weapons, including chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since it swept to power in 2014, according to a new independent analysis.

More than one-third of those chemical attacks have come in and around Mosul, the Islamic State stronghold in northern Iraq, according to the assessment by the IHS Conflict Monitor, a London-based intelligence collection and analysis service.
The IHS conclusions, which are based on local news reports, social media and Islamic State propaganda, mark the broadest compilation of chemical attacks in the conflict. American and Iraqi military officials have expressed growing alarm over the prospect of additional chemical attacks as the allies press to regain both Mosul and Raqqa, the Islamic State capital in Syria.

“The coalition is concerned about ISIL’s use of chemical weapons,” Col. John Dorrian, a military spokesman in Iraq, said in an email on Monday, using another name for the Islamic State. “ISIL has used them in Iraq and Syria in the past, and we expect them to continue employing these types of weapons.”
Colonel Dorrian said that the Islamic State’s ability to use chemical weapons is “rudimentary,” and that American, Iraqi and other allied troops are equipped to deal with the impact of these chemical attacks — typically rockets, mortar shells or artillery shells filled with chemical agents. The effects of these chemical munitions thus far have been limited to the immediate area where they land.

The IHS assessment is to be made public on Tuesday. The New York Times obtained an advance copy of the assessment and the location of the 52 reported chemical attacks. The analysis did not break down the cases by type of chemical attack.
In an effort to blunt the Islamic State’s ability to make the weapons, the American-led air campaign has bombed militants associated with overseeing their production and the facilities where chemical ordnance is manufactured. In September, for instance, allied warplanes attacked a converted pharmaceutical factory in northern Iraq thought to have been a chemical weapons production facility.

As Iraqi forces now advance into Mosul, analysts warned that the Islamic State could unleash more chemical attacks as they cede control. Iraqi forces have reclaimed about one-third of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city.
“As the Islamic State loses ground around Mosul, there is a high risk of the group using chemical weapons to slow down and demoralize advancing enemy forces.” said Columb Strack, a senior analyst and the head of the IHS Conflict Monitor. “And to potentially make an example of — and take revenge on — civilian dissidents within the city.”
At least 19 of the 52 chemical attacks have taken place in and around Mosul, according to the IHS data, but the assessment noted a decline in attacks before the Iraqi-led offensive against the city.

“Mosul was at the center of the Islamic State’s chemical weapons production,” Mr. Strack said. “But most of the equipment and experts were probably evacuated to Syria in the weeks and months leading up to the Mosul offensive, along with convoys of other senior members and their families.”
The Islamic State is not the only actor in Syria to carry out chemical weapons’ strikes: The Syrian government has conducted many more such attacks.
Syrian military helicopters dropped bombs containing chlorine on civilians in at least two attacks over the past two years, a special joint investigation of the United Nations and an international chemical weapons monitor said in August.

Beginning last year, American officials confirmed the first instances of the Islamic State using sulfur mustard, a chemical warfare agent, and the presence of the mustard gas on fragments of ordnance used in attacks by the group in Syria and Iraq. Laboratory tests, which were also performed on scraps of clothing from victims, showed the presence of a partly degraded form of distilled sulfur mustard, an internationally banned substance that burns a victim’s skin, breathing passages and eyes.
Chemical warfare agents, broadly condemned and banned by most nations under international convention, are indiscriminate. They are also difficult to defend against without specialized equipment, which many of the Islamic State’s foes in Iraq and Syria lack. The chemical agents are worrisome as potential terrorist weapons, even though chlorine and blister agents are typically less lethal than bullets, shrapnel or explosives.

It was unclear how the Islamic State had obtained sulfur mustard, a banned substance with a narrow chemical warfare application. Both the former Hussein government in Iraq and the current government in Syria at one point possessed chemical warfare programs.
Chlorine is commercially available as an industrial chemical and has been used occasionally by bomb makers from Sunni militant groups in Iraq for about a decade. But it is not known how the Islamic State would have obtained sulfur mustard, the officials said.
Abandoned and aging chemical munitions produced by Iraq during its war against Iran in the 1980s were used in roadside bombs against American forces during the occupation that followed the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. But American officials have said the types of ordnance that have been publicly disclosed so far have not matched known chemical ordnance in the former Iraqi inventory.

The attacks have been geographically scattered and have varied in their delivery systems, suggesting that the Islamic State had access to, and was experimenting with, different types of rockets and shells configured to carry chemical warfare agents or toxic industrial chemicals.
One theory is that the militants were manufacturing a crude mustard agent themselves, American officials say. Another theory is that the Islamic State acquired sulfur mustard from undeclared stocks in Syria, either through capture or by purchasing it from corrupt officials, although this theory is not widely held by American analysts

https://web.archive.org/web/20130129...ame-Assad.html

"U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime"

The dailymail article has been deleted. Posted archived versions for obvious reasons.

[Puupi]

Good thing we didn't elect a warmonger like Hillary to start WW3 in Syria.

Yeah....

Anyhow, nothing will happen most likely for a couple of days as long as Xi Jinping is visiting Trump in Florida. When that visitation is over, something will happen with Syria.

[PACOX]

So Rex Tillerson said Assad must be removed from power and that he has no place in the Syrian government. I wonder what Russia thinks of that.

Honestly do not think the Russians care as long whoever takes his place respects the Russian port in Syria.

[Deleted]

So many people posting here "Assad couldn't do it - he is winning".

My question is to those people : How the fuck do you know he is winning?
Have you been there? have you fought there? no ? then you don't know (I don't either btw). All you know is what you saw/heard on your preferred media.

Someone posted this map:
http://syria.liveuamap.com/

Which seemed quite accurate.
Does all those green rebel areas looks like Assad is winning? Recently I saw vids of rebels bombing Assad palace surroundings (they claim they are 5 km away from it).

If true, would you consider "winning" when the enemy controls a part of your CAPITOL and bombing around where you stay? In such way that you need to raze parts of your own capitol in order to fight them?

My point is we don't really know whats going on. Whether its on who is "winning" or who/if used chemical weapons.

Writing here like you are some big expert on the subject and anyone that disagrees with you is a retard makes you look stupid.

We know hes winning because hes the one launching successful offensives and re-capturing Syria. Look at the old map compared to the latest one. He broke Aleppo and as you can see by that map controls major population zones as well as executing an island strategy against the rebel groups.

We really do have a good idea what is going on. Its easy to get live updates of modern war because everyone has technology.

However we don't know if Assad used chemical weapons but it is looking likely that he did.

Despite losing 75k troops Assad is making serious gains.