http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/04/eu...sia-explosion/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ru...-blast-n741961
http://fox61.com/2017/04/03/explosio...ssia-kills-10/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-0...russia/8412634
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...shchad-station
You are not even trying.
The underlying assumption is that there is only Assad and Islamist extremists in Syria. There are still non-extremist rebels and civilians left that could create a more moderate government, but they have have two more heavily armed and more ruthless factions opposing them, while the West watches them being bombed and killed. There are more options, but they can no longer be achieved by Syrians, especially while Assad has Russian backing. Rationalizations like 'if Assad is gone, the IS will take over' are convenient excuses by this point.
Note that I am not a fan of interventionism and would have liked for everyone to stay out of this from the beginning. But the thing is, they did not and escalated stuff. In my opinion, that creates a responsibility to clean up this mess, but I guess that is no longer the currency of politics these days.
Your article states the usage of chlorine and mustard gas, Sarin is a whole different league, the ingredients necessary for it need special means to deliver and store them safely and a top notch lab environment with highly skilled chemists to synthesize, not something ISIS picks up and loads up in their Toyota pickup truck and abdul cooks up in the basement.
To be honest reading about some of the events that occurred in Syria following the attack, it seems like the Russians were kept in the dark regarding the planned usage and they are pretty damned pissed about it to the point of "mistakenly" dropping the hammer on Iranian back militias and Hezbollah bases in Syria.
Yes there are non extremist groups but as it has been shown in the past 5 years they are unable to hold their ground against extremists. That is unless we decide to actively support them. As in sending people over.
The potential scenarios are Assad stays in power, or extremists (not Isis, more like al nusra which controls idlib by the way) replace him. Fsa is not a viable option unless we send our people over. And that's not gonna happen.
You also cannot handle sarin victims with unprotected hands as seen in videos of attack aftermath without suffering yourself, it can still linger on clothes and skin...
Also, those guys being given gas masks just a day before attack and saying they are going for media offensive on regime gas use next day? ...how much more blatant can it get, really?
It is exactly how some chemicals function. The chemical in question only needs to be volatile enough, toxic enough, and stable enough in air for this to happen once its container fails. Something akin to hydrogen cyanide, for example.
Some scenarios, here, in order of decreasing plausibility are:
(1) A broken container of a toxic, volatile substance which was stored in the rebel/terrorist controlled area.
(2) An attempt by the rebels/terrorists to frame Assad, so that the western powers would take military action against him.
(3) An attempt by the US shadow government, lead by Obama and Hillary, to frame Assad as an excuse to start military action against him.
...
(4) Assad deploying chemical weapons at some random location to randomly kill some civilians just for funsies, risking the attack from the US/EU and the removal of support from Russia.
(No, I don't think scenario (3) is very likely, either, but at least in that case there'd be clear motive unlike in scenario (4).)
Well, Turkey could also arrange that, among others - there were claims that they used chemical weapons against Kurds, and they are the ones performing autopsies (though so far results of those autopsies are not yet released and the only thing we have is their minister of justice claim they say it was chemical weapons).
Last edited by Shalcker; 2017-04-06 at 09:46 AM.
Chemicals were already tried as a ''WMD'' excuse years ago. It didn't work because Assad played their game and invited UN inspectors. Here is Kerry in 2014: https://archive.is/BJLRt
Using chemicals would be immensely stupid. It would serve as an immediate excuse for new US aggression and it would make no sense considering what went down in 2014. But they are muslims, they r dumb right?
If you think Assad used chemicals on his own people you are dumber than a rock.
http://imgur.com/a/CbA3P
- - - Updated - - -
Holy shit you are dumb. The fact you had to bring the Israel/Palestine conflict into this when it is completely irrelevant here just shows you are dumber than the lowest life form.
Trump 2013:
In 2013, when Assad gassed 1000 people, Trump demanded Obama do nothing.June 15, 2013: We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO
August 29, 2013: @walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.
August 29, 2013: What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
September 1, 2013: President Obama's weakness and indecision may have saved us from doing a horrible and very costly (in more ways than money) attack on Syria!
September 2, 2013: If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.
September 3, 2013: What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
September 5, 2013: The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.
September 5, 2013: AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
September 7, 2013: President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
September 9, 2013: Don't attack Syria - an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!
Obama did not listen to Trump, instead he acted by destroying almost all of Syria's chemical weapons
In 2017, Trump gives the green light for Assad to gas his people by declaring that Assad can stay. Then when Assad gassed 100 people, flip-flopper Trump says that his views have suddenly changed and that Assad has "crossed a lot of lines", it "crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line, many many lines", and blames it on Obama's inaction. What a hypocrite.
1000 deaths mean nothing. 100 suddenly changes everything.
And now Trump is flailing for a response. He has no plan. He has no clue. He doesn't know what to do. What a moron.
Syria gasses it's own people.
North Korea fires missles at Japan and threatens to nuke the western world.
United States and UN do nothing... except talk big and call for action that won't come.
But hey, maybe some sanctions will show those pesky human rights violators who is boss right?
Right?
Look at all the warmongers in this thread. Of course the right thing is to do nothing.
This is child's play to the carnage that will happen if Assad is out of power especially to Syria's minorities.
Why would Assad use gas at this point of the war, especially when he's winning? By all accounts he seems like a smart and educated man, most likely fully aware of the ramifications of such a blatant (and unnecessary) act.