Assad is not the enemy or monster we are led to believe but...

[Archer0915]

If you saw a couple of guys fighting, one pulled a knife and you had the ability to remove the knife from the fight without getting hurt, would you?

[Tahuyaman]

How does that support the thread title?

[donttread]

If you saw a couple of guys fighting, one pulled a knife and you had the ability to remove the knife from the fight without getting hurt, would you?

Need more info. I don't much believe in adults, at least sober ones, just fighting. So if the guy without the knife tried to bring harm to the other guy , I'd let him keep his knife.
As fof Asssad. Nobody's really quite as bad as our propaganda portrays them to be to justify our ongoing and up coming unjustifyable actions. Nor do we care until they cross us. Case in point our history with Saddam

[Archer0915]

How does that support the thread title?
The propaganda has made Assad out to be an evil murderous monster that supports terrorism. He is not! At one point he was considered a progressive and women had some rights in Syria.

Now, how the post relates to the title.

I do not believe Assad is the bad guy here but I do believe that there was a chemical attack. I believe we are trying to take the knife away but we really do not know who has it, we were wrong last time when Obama drew a line in the sand.

[Tahuyaman]

The propaganda has made Assad out to be an evil murderous monster that supports terrorism. He is not! At one point he was considered a progressive and women had some rights in Syria.

Now, how the post relates to the title.

I do not believe Assad is the bad guy here but I do believe that there was a chemical attack. I believe we are trying to take the knife away but we really do not know who has it, we were wrong last time when Obama drew a line in the sand.

It's not propoganda. Assad is a bad guy, but he's their bad guy and its not up to us to remove him and have him replaced with another bad guy.

[Archer0915]

It's not propoganda. Assad is a bad guy, but he's their bad guy and its not up to us to remove him and have him replaced with another bad guy.

Define their bad guy.

Women did not have to live like animals under Assad! Understand that Assad is the good guy to any of us that actually look at him and compare it to what is trying to take over.

But I agree not up to us.

[Tahuyaman]

Define their bad guy.

Women did not have to live like animals under Assad! Understand that Assad is the good guy to any of us that actually look at him and compare it to what is trying to take over.

But I agree not up to us.


Syria has not been a beacon of women's rights under Assad. However, he the Syrian people's problem, not ours.

[Archer0915]

Syria has not been a beacon of women's rights under Assad. However, he the Syrian people's problem, not ours.

Beacon? No but it was moving in the right direction until the Islamist started making trouble.

[birddog]

Didn't I see on the news that Assad's planes were leaving their base at the proper time to drop the gas?

[Archer0915]

Didn't I see on the news that Assad's planes were leaving their base at the proper time to drop the gas?
Planes left the base but... Assad is no idiot! I really looked at the maps and the location that was gassed. Well I do not believe Assad had anything to do with it! The area that was hit was not vital to anything. I can not see where it offered and tactical or strategic advantage.

Assad is smart (for real he has a brain) and this attack offered him no advantage. My theory is setup! Someone wanted it to look like Assad gassed people or they did hit a stockpile of nerve agent. I mean it was proven that he did not do the last gas attack.

[Tahuyaman]

I've never seen anything which proves he wasn't responsible for the last chemical attack.

[Archer0915]

I've never seen anything which proves he wasn't responsible for the last chemical attack.
Did you read the final report from the investigation?

[Archer0915]

Did you read the final report from the investigation?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

If you want, try and find the full report.

[Tahuyaman]

I trust the UN.

[Archer0915]

I trust the UN.
I don't but the evidence is laid out and it comes back to... WHY? Why would Assad do it?

[Tahuyaman]

I don't but the evidence is laid out and it comes back to... WHY? Why would Assad do it?
Why do bad people do bad things? Because they are bad.

[Common Sense]

I don't but the evidence is laid out and it comes back to... WHY? Why would Assad do it?

Why would he do it? Why would he have dropped the thousands of other barrel bombs on them?

[Ethereal]

Syria has not been a beacon of women's rights under Assad.

Wherever Assad holds sway, women have their basic rights protected. Damascus is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the Middle East. Women are allowed to dress how they want, to get educated, to hold jobs, to vote, to hold office, etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbM4trP42NY

[Ethereal]

I've never seen anything which proves he wasn't responsible for the last chemical attack.
Guilty until proven innocent, is it?

[Ethereal]

I trust the UN.

Except the UN hasn't even conducted an investigation, let alone arrived at a conclusion.


Putin: Russia wants U.N. to investigate Syrian chemical attack (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/russia-syria-rex-tillerson-237097)

[Ethereal]

Why would he do it?

Do you have an answer?


Why would he have dropped the thousands of other barrel bombs on them?

A bomb is a bomb. What difference does it make if it's shaped like a barrel?

[Private Pickle]

The propaganda has made Assad out to be an evil murderous monster that supports terrorism.

Active support for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.



He is not! At one point he was considered a progressive and women had some rights in Syria.


In February 2016, head of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, Paulo Pinheiro, told reporters: "The mass scale of deaths of detainees suggests that the government of Syria is responsible for acts that amount to extermination as a crime against humanity." The UN Commission reported finding "unimaginable abuses", including women and children as young as seven perishing while being held by Syrian authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Human_rights


Now, how the post relates to the title.

I do not believe Assad is the bad guy here but I do believe that there was a chemical attack. I believe we are trying to take the knife away but we really do not know who has it, we were wrong last time when Obama drew a line in the sand.

Assad is the bad guy here, there and just about everywhere....

[Ethereal]

Active support for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.

It always comes back to Israel, doesn't it?

If Israel wants Assad gone so badly, then let them do it themselves.

[Private Pickle]

Why would he do it? Why would he have dropped the thousands of other barrel bombs on them?

Precedence. He has done it before without repercussion. This type of weapon sends a message that conventional weapons don't.

[Ethereal]

After the utter failure of regime change in Iraq and Libya, how can any reasonable person support it in Syria? Do they actually believe things will turn out differently?

[Private Pickle]

It always comes back to Israel, doesn't it?

If Israel wants Assad gone so badly, then let them do it themselves.

Actually terrorism is bad no matter who it is against...

[Peter1469]

Syria and Israel had sort of an understanding under Assad.


Syria under the Jihadists will be much worse for Israel.

[Private Pickle]

After the utter failure of regime change in Iraq and Libya, how can any reasonable person support it in Syria? Do they actually believe things will turn out differently?

You keep confusing regime change to topic which is the use of chemical weapons.

[Private Pickle]

Syria and Israel had sort of an understanding under Assad.


Syria under the Jihadists will be much worse for Israel.

Who says we need regime change in Syria?

[Peter1469]

Who says we need regime change in Syria?

Not me.

[MisterVeritis]

It always comes back to Israel, doesn't it?

If Israel wants Assad gone so badly, then let them do it themselves.
It always comes back to Israel for the anti-Semites. Jew hating is acceptable once again. For Cigar everything was about race. For others, every subject comes back to Jews and Israel. Just watch the usual two or three posters here who see everything through their thin veil of hatred for Israel.

[Private Pickle]

Not me.
Nor me.

[Private Pickle]

It always comes back to Israel for the anti-Semites. Jew hating is acceptable once again. For Cigar everything was about race. For others, every subject comes back to Jews and Israel. Just watch the usual two or three posters here who see everything through their thin veil of hatred for Israel.
It's a moot point anyways... Terrorism is terrorism regardless of who it is against.

[Tahuyaman]

Except the UN hasn't even conducted an investigation, let alone arrived at a conclusion.


I never said said that they have. Someone else made that claim.

[Ethereal]

He has done it before without repercussion.

That's debatable.



Whose sarin? (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin)

Seymour M. Hersh

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

In his nationally televised speech about Syria on 10 September, Obama laid the blame for the nerve gas attack on the rebel-held suburb of Eastern Ghouta firmly on Assad’s government, and made it clear he was prepared to back up his earlier public warnings that any use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line’: ‘Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,’ he said. ‘We know the Assad regime was responsible … And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.’ Obama was going to war to back up a public threat, but he was doing so without knowing for sure who did what in the early morning of 21 August.

He cited a list of what appeared to be hard-won evidence of Assad’s culpability: ‘In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighbourhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.’ Obama’s certainty was echoed at the time by Denis McDonough, his chief of staff, who told the New York Times: ‘No one with whom I’ve spoken doubts the intelligence’ directly linking Assad and his regime to the sarin attacks.

[...]


The Red Line and the Rat Line (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)

Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels

In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the ‘red line’ he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons.​ Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.

Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria’s infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.

For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria’s neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. ‘We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.’

The joint chiefs also knew that the Obama administration’s public claims that only the Syrian army had access to sarin were wrong. The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons. On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’. (According to a Defense Department consultant, US intelligence has long known that al-Qaida experimented with chemical weapons, and has a video of one of its gas experiments with dogs.) The DIA paper went on: ‘Previous IC [intelligence community] focus had been almost entirely on Syrian CW [chemical weapons] stockpiles; now we see ANF attempting to make its own CW … Al-Nusrah Front’s relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group’s CW aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future.’ The paper drew on classified intelligence from numerous agencies: ‘Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators,’ it said, ‘were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.’ (Asked about the DIA paper, a spokesperson for the director of national intelligence said: ‘No such paper was ever requested or produced by intelligence community analysts.’)

[...]


This type of weapon sends a message that conventional weapons don't.

And what message would that be? Because far more people have been killed by conventional weaponry.

[Tahuyaman]

Guilty until proven innocent, is it?

I'm not a prosecutor or sitting on a jury. I don't need to abide by that right here and now.

[Ethereal]

Actually terrorism is bad no matter who it is against...

Assad is fighting the biggest war against terrorism of anyone in the world.

[Ethereal]

You keep confusing regime change to topic which is the use of chemical weapons.

Chemical weaponry is being used as a pretext for regime change, so they are related.

[Ethereal]

Who says we need regime change in Syria?
Virtually the entire western political establishment.

[Ethereal]

It always comes back to Israel for the anti-Semites. Jew hating is acceptable once again. For Cigar everything was about race. For others, every subject comes back to Jews and Israel. Just watch the usual two or three posters here who see everything through their thin veil of hatred for Israel.
To an Israeli boot-licker, everyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before Israel is antisemitic.

[Private Pickle]

That's debatable.





And what message would that be? Because far more people have been killed by conventional weaponry.

If Al-Nusra or ISIS had any stock of Sarin it would be being used a lot more than it is...

[Ethereal]

Nor me.

Still, you are breathing life into the regime change pretext being offered up by the likes of McCain and company.

[Private Pickle]

Virtually the entire western political establishment.

Like that matters to you. Virtually the entire western political establishment applauded the retaliatory attack on Syria and you wrote them off as "a bunch of politicians"...

[NapRover]

Assad has only himself to blame. He has some unrest back in the arab spring days, he crushes the demonstrators-tortures some, kills others. The population was so outraged, they started a rebellion. Isis told the rebels they'd help them. Now we can't tell who we're helping.

[Ethereal]

If Al-Nusra or ISIS had any stock of Sarin it would be being used a lot more than it is...
Perhaps you should try reading the articles before jumping to conclusions.

https://goo.gl/Z3U1xA

[Ethereal]

Like that matters to you. Virtually the entire western political establishment applauded the retaliatory attack on Syria and you wrote them off as "a bunch of politicians"...
You asked a question and I gave you an answer. Not sure what the issue is.

[Common Sense]

Assad is fighting the biggest war against terrorism of anyone in the world.
Not really. The majority of Assad's wrath has been against moderates and civilians. His fight against ISIS has been mild compared to his fight against the FSA and Nusra.

[Ethereal]

Assad has only himself to blame. He has some unrest back in the arab spring days, he crushes the demonstrators-tortures some, kills others. The population was so outraged, they started a rebellion. Isis told the rebels they'd help them. Now we can't tell who we're helping.
Much of that unrest was promoted by the west and its allies as early as 2006. Regime change in Syria has been on the agenda for a long time now. Saudi Arabia, the largest terrorist factory on the planet, has been fomenting Jihadism and insurrection in Syria for years. Assad is simply doing what any government would do when faced with a violent insurrection fueled by external forces.

[Ethereal]

Not really. The majority of Assad's wrath has been against moderates and civilians. His fight against ISIS has been mild compared to his fight against the FSA and Nusra.

Are you actually implying that Nusra are moderates? I certainly hope not. As for the FSA, they stopped being a factor years ago. Many of the FSA's factions disbanded. Others even defected to ISIS and other Islamist groups. I've provided proof of this MANY times, yet people keep repeating the same debunked talking points over and over again.

[Private Pickle]

Still, you are breathing life into the regime change pretext being offered up by the likes of McCain and company.

Not really. I think there is a pretext for retaliatory attacks on any nation that uses chemical weapons either foreign or domestic.

[Private Pickle]

Assad is fighting the biggest war against terrorism of anyone in the world.

That's what he would like us all to think but Russia isn't in Syria to fight ISIS... Sure they may drop a few bombs on them from time to time but the Free Syrian Army gets the brunt of Russia's air power.

[Private Pickle]

Chemical weaponry is being used as a pretext for regime change, so they are related.

There are plenty of pretext for regime change...chemical weapons is just one of them because he continues to use them... He probably should stop pouring gasoline on the fire...

[Ethereal]

Not really. I think there is a pretext for retaliatory attacks on any nation that uses chemical weapons either foreign or domestic.
Again, it can only be "retaliatory" if we were the ones who were attacked. And if this really is a matter of "international law", as you repeatedly claim, then why didn't the US government conduct this strike under the aegis of an international body like the UN? There has been no independent investigation and no international sanction. The US government acted unilaterally which is a violation of the UN Charter.

[Common Sense]

Are you actually implying that Nusra are moderates? I certainly hope not. As for the FSA, they stopped being a factor years ago. Many of the FSA's factions disbanded. Others even defected to ISIS and other Islamist groups. I've provided proof of this MANY times, yet people keep repeating the same debunked talking points over and over again.

Nusra aren't moderates. I didn't say they were.

[Private Pickle]

Perhaps you should try reading the articles before jumping to conclusions.

https://goo.gl/Z3U1xA
Chlorine is off the shelf... Sarin...not so much... Have they been used in Iraq?

[Ethereal]

That's what he would like us all to think but Russia isn't in Syria to fight ISIS... Sure they may drop a few bombs on them from time to time but the Free Syrian Army gets the brunt of Russia's air power.
The FSA hasn't been a significant factor for years. They either disbanded or defected to the Islamists. The only rebel factions of any note are ISIS and AQ. The latter group simply changes their name every few months to keep people confused. But whether you call them "Nusra" or "Ahrah al Sham" or "Army of Conquest", they are all the same terrorist scum, and that is who Assad's forces have been fighting for the better part of this civil war. The idea that the rebels are "moderate" in any meaningful sense of the word has been debunked years ago. The only reason why it isn't common knowledge at this point is because the government and the media continue to lie about it.

[Common Sense]

Assad's main fight is with Saudi backed elements, not ISIS.

The FSA, the Islamic Front, the Southern Front...these are the groups that threaten Assad's leadership. ISIS isn't a real threat to the Assad regime.

Many of these groups are indeed radical Islamists, but they aren't ISIS, nor are the planning or inspiring attacks on the west.

[Private Pickle]

You asked a question and I gave you an answer. Not sure what the issue is.

Your inconsistency with regards to Western countries and their viewpoints.

[Ethereal]

There are plenty of pretext for regime change...

Indeed. The neocon regime change addicts will try to find any excuse they can. But as it stands, chemical weapons are their most potent pretext.


...chemical weapons is just one of them because he continues to use them... He probably should stop pouring gasoline on the fire...

Except there is no proof that Assad's forces were responsible.

[Ethereal]

Nusra aren't moderates. I didn't say they were.
That seemed to be what you were implying. But I accept your clarification. But if you admit that Assad's been focusing mostly on the FSA and Nusra, then you must also admit that he has been focusing on terrorists, since Nusra is the AQ affiliate in Syria. As for the FSA, their status as "moderates" is dubious at best, as is their military significance within the rebel forces. I think it's time for you and others to consider the very real possibility that western governments are, once again, materially misrepresenting the situation in order to promote another imperialist "regime change" agenda, just like they did in Iraq.

[Common Sense]

The FSA hasn't been a significant factor for years. They either disbanded or defected to the Islamists. The only rebel factions of any note are ISIS and AQ. The latter group simply changes their name every few months to keep people confused. But whether you call them "Nusra" or "Ahrah al Sham" or "Army of Conquest", they are all the same terrorist scum, and that is who Assad's forces have been fighting for the better part of this civil war. The idea that the rebels are "moderate" in any meaningful sense of the word has been debunked years ago. The only reason why it isn't common knowledge at this point is because the government and the media continue to lie about it.
That's not entirely accurate.

Just look at the Daraa Offensive in 2016 by the Southern Front and the recent clashes between ISIS forces and the Rebels.

[Ethereal]

Chlorine is off the shelf... Sarin...not so much... Have they been used in Iraq?
Why won't you just read the articles? Seymour Hersh is one of the most credentialed and well respected journalists in American history. You could not find a more credible journalist.

[Ethereal]

Assad's main fight is with Saudi backed elements, not ISIS.

There are no meaningful ideological differences between those "Saudi-backed elements" and ISIS. Their disputes are over theological minutia that have no significance from the perspective of a westerner. Usually, it boils down to a disagreement between who is an "apostate" and who is not. Very heady stuff.


The FSA, the Islamic Front, the Southern Front...these are the groups that threaten Assad's leadership. ISIS isn't a real threat to the Assad regime.

The FSA is a non-factor at this point. They aren't really threatening anyone. When a general was asked by the congress how many "moderate" rebels they managed to train with $500 million of our tax dollars, the answer was "four or five" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/us-military-syrian-isis-fighters). That's because all the real "moderates" in Syria fight FOR Assad, not against him. This is so blatantly obvious if you bother to read between the lines and to approach the official narrative with rational skepticism.


Many of these groups are indeed radical Islamists, but they aren't ISIS, nor are the planning or inspiring attacks on the west.

I'm quite certain that AQ is planning and inspiring attacks on the west, and many of the Islamist groups fighting against Assad's forces are AQ affiliates and allies.

[Private Pickle]

Again, it can only be "retaliatory" if we were the ones who were attacked. And if this really is a matter of "international law", as you repeatedly claim, then why didn't the US government conduct this strike under the aegis of an international body like the UN? There has been no independent investigation and no international sanction. The US government acted unilaterally which is a violation of the UN Charter.

First let's get this out of the way.. You don't have to be directly attacked to retaliate or react to something...
The US Government probably didn't act unilaterally. Something tells me the leaders of the Western World were notified and gave their blessing.

The UN is a body made up of those leaders...the Western World contains the most power by far within the UN.

There was international sanction the last time this happened. Syria agreed in 2013 to remove their chemical weapons. They not only ignored that but used them. Should we get them to destroy their stockpiles again?

[Ethereal]

Your inconsistency with regards to Western countries and their viewpoints.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Private Pickle]

The FSA hasn't been a significant factor for years. They either disbanded or defected to the Islamists. The only rebel factions of any note are ISIS and AQ. The latter group simply changes their name every few months to keep people confused. But whether you call them "Nusra" or "Ahrah al Sham" or "Army of Conquest", they are all the same terrorist scum, and that is who Assad's forces have been fighting for the better part of this civil war. The idea that the rebels are "moderate" in any meaningful sense of the word has been debunked years ago. The only reason why it isn't common knowledge at this point is because the government and the media continue to lie about it.


After July 2016 the group regained prominence – Turkish intervention in Syria has revived FSA fortunes in Northern Syria, with on-ground support of an organised military backed by Turkish airpower,[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#cite_note-11) and with some analysts saying the group is closely aligned with Turkish troops in Syria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

[Common Sense]

For those who don't understand who all the players are in the conflict, the CFR gives an accurate breakdown.

http://www.cfr.org/syria/s-syrias-civil-war/p38607

[Private Pickle]

Indeed. The neocon regime change addicts will try to find any excuse they can. But as it stands, chemical weapons are their most potent pretext. Except there is no proof that Assad's forces were responsible.

Incorrect:


1. The plane the bomb was on. The attack was conducted by a Su-22 “fixed-wing aircraft” that took off from Shayrat Airfield, which is held by the regime, administration officials said. The Russian-made aircraft is used by the Syrian government. (This is the airfield that the US bombed last week (https://qz.com/952655/donald-trump-invited-chinas-leader-xi-jinping-to-his-home-then-bombed-syria-a-chinese-ally/), in retaliation for the attacks.)
2. The people who were at the airfield earlier. People who were “historically associated” with Syria’s chemical-weapons program were at the airfield in late March, preparing for another attack on northern Syria, and on the day of the sarin gas attack.
3. The victims’ symptoms. Reports from the World Health Organization and social media show victims frothing at the mouth and twitching, which is consistent with sarin attacks. Early responders also had symptoms consistent with nerve gas, and tissue samples from the victims tested positive for sarin.
4. What ISIS possesses. Russian and Syrian officials say the gas came from stockpiles held by rebel forces. There is no known pattern of terrorists in the area using or having sarin gas, an official said, “but we know the Syrian regime has sarin.” ISIS does, however, possess mustard gas.

5. Assad’s struggling military operation in the region. The attack was an “operational calculus” by Assad as his forces moved east from Aleppo, one senior US administration official said. Assad calculated that chemical weapons were necessary to make up for “manpower deficiencies,” and aimed them at civilian areas that he may have thought housed ISIS fighters.
The hospital where the victims were taken was bombed by a conventional bomb at about 1pm, intelligence officials said, citing news reports and social accounts. The area around the hospital showed impact craters on April 6, the officials said, which were consistent with a traditional bomb.
“It is clear the Russians are trying to cover up” the Syrian attack, one White House official said. It is worth asking the Russians how it is possible that their forces have worked with the Syrian forces for years and “didn’t have foreknowledge” of the gas attack, the official said.

US president Donald Trump has expressed skepticism about the quality of the US’s own intelligence, particularly when it comes to chemical weapons. The officials in the briefing were career civil servants and included some holdovers from the previous administration. But they have Trump’s full confidence, a national security official appointed by Trump told Quartz.

The officials distributed a four-page report afterward that concluded “The United States calls on the world community in the strongest possible terms to stand with us in making an unambiguous statement that this behavior will not be tolerated,” and denounced Russia for vetoing UN Security Council measures that could have helped to “rectify the situation.”


https://qz.com/955788/five-reasons-why-us-intelligence-believes-assad-used-chemical-weapons-on-his-own-people/

[MisterVeritis]

To an Israeli boot-licker, everyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before Israel is antisemitic.
To the anti-Semite, every issue is seen through an anti-Jewish lens.

[Ethereal]

Just look at the Daraa Offensive in 2016 by the Southern Front...

You mean the one were agents of Nusra were in command positions (http://syrianobserver.com/EN/News/30745/Nusra_Front_Military_Emir_Killed_Daraa_Countryside ) within the southern front?


...and the recent clashes between ISIS forces and the Rebels.

Religious zealots fighting with other religious zealots over abstruse theological disputes. Not exactly a notable occurrence in that part of the world.

[Private Pickle]

Why won't you just read the articles? Seymour Hersh is one of the most credentialed and well respected journalists in American history. You could not find a more credible journalist.

I did. I disagree.

[Private Pickle]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You shrugged off their support of the retaliation but are not shrugging off your idea of their pretext for regime change. It's inconsistent.

[Tahuyaman]

Why won't you just read the articles? Seymour Hersh is one of the most credentialed and well respected journalists in American history. You could not find a more credible journalist.

I'd agree that he's one of the most respected and credible journalists today, but not in American history.

He has written about Assad's use of sarin in the past.

[Ethereal]

First let's get this out of the way.. You don't have to be directly attacked to retaliate or react to something...


Retaliate (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retaliate): (1) to repay in kind, (2) to return like for like.

If we were not attacked, then how can attacking Syria be repaying them "in kind"?


The US Government probably didn't act unilaterally. Something tells me the leaders of the Western World were notified and gave their blessing.

The UN is a body made up of those leaders...the Western World contains the most power by far within the UN.

There was international sanction the last time this happened. Syria agreed in 2013 to remove their chemical weapons. They not only ignored that but used them. Should we get them to destroy their stockpiles again?

The UN Charter says that non-defensive military actions must be authorized by the Security Council. That did not happen. Ergo, it was not consistent with international law. Moreover, there was no international investigation conducted into this incident. We're merely going off the say-so of dubious rebel sources and government officials hellbent on regime change.

[Ethereal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army
Working with Turkey to attack the Kurds. How inspirational.

[Private Pickle]

If we were not attacked, then how can attacking Syria be repaying them "in kind"?

It doesn't say anything about who was attacked and who retaliates. There are countless examples of us retaliating against things not directly aimed at the U.S.

The UN Charter says that non-defensive military actions must be authorized by the Security Council. That did not happen. Ergo, it was not consistent with international law. Moreover, there was no international investigation conducted into this incident. We're merely going off the say-so of dubious rebel sources and government officials hellbent on regime change.

But it was defensive and a deterrent for future attacks.

[Private Pickle]

Working with Turkey to attack the Kurds. How inspirational.
Create any narrative you'd like... It's your right... Fact is the FSA is still alive and kicking and not obsolete as you would have liked us to believe...

[Ethereal]

Incorrect:
Your article doesn't provide any actual proof. Just the say-so of government officials and their "belief" that Assad's forces were responsible. If they really do have proof, then let them bring it before an international body where an independent investigation can examine the evidence and arrive at a firm conclusion.

[Ethereal]

To the anti-Semite, every issue is seen through an anti-Jewish lens.
Just because I don't want America to be Israel's servant does not mean I'm antisemitic. In fact, many Jews agree with me on that score.

[Ethereal]

I did. I disagree.
I posted the articles at 3:26 and you responded to them by 3:31. You must be an awfully fast reader.

In any case, what, specifically, did you disagree with?

[Ethereal]

You shrugged off their support of the retaliation but are not shrugging off your idea of their pretext for regime change. It's inconsistent.
I honestly don't know what this is supposed to mean. And you should know that people who challenge my consistency don't typically fare well. Might want to quit while you're ahead.

[Private Pickle]

Your article doesn't provide any actual proof. Just the say-so of government officials and their "belief" that Assad's forces were responsible. If they really do have proof, then let them bring it before an international body where an independent investigation can examine the evidence and arrive at a firm conclusion.

I'm sure one will follow and I'm sure the conclusions will match the U.S. Intelligence Community's and the NGO's findings:


The officials presented information April 11 that they said was based on declassified intelligence, NGO observations, laboratory samples from victims, and social media reports. They said they believe the information proves both Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and the Russian government are lying about the April 4 attack that killed dozens (https://qz.com/951920/this-one-photo-perfectly-sums-up-the-syrian-nightmare-but-its-not-going-to-change-anything/).

[Private Pickle]

I honestly don't know what this is supposed to mean. And you should know, that people who challenge my consistency don't usually prove their case. Might want to quit while you're ahead.

Perhaps I'm confused. The Western World leaders support the attack and agree that Assad launched the attack. You said, and I'm paraphrasing, "who cares". But then you point to their supposed pretext for regime change and say "you should care". So which is it? Selective caring?

[Ethereal]

I'd agree that he's one of the most respected and credible journalists today, but not in American history.

Why not?


He has written about Assad's use of sarin in the past.
He's written about the lack of evidence implicating Assad.

[Ethereal]

It doesn't say anything about who was attacked and who retaliates. There are countless examples of us retaliating against things not directly aimed at the U.S.

It is necessarily implied by the phrases "in kind" and "like for like".

Attacking someone who did not attack you is not repaying them "in kind" or "like for like".


But it was defensive and a deterrent for future attacks.

America was not attacked, so how can it be defensive?

[Ethereal]

Create any narrative you'd like... It's your right... Fact is the FSA is still alive and kicking and not obsolete as you would have liked us to believe...
I'm not creating a narrative. The articles that Wikipedia cited in support of that claim expressly state that the FSA's renewal in northern Syria was initiated by Turkey and resulted in attacks on the Kurds.

[Private Pickle]

I posted the articles at 3:26 and you responded to them by 3:31. You must be an awfully fast reader.

In any case, what, specifically, did you disagree with?

That Al Nusra and or ISIS have been able to create stockpiles of Sarin. In addition that Sarin could have been given to either of those groups by Turkey.

[Ethereal]

I'm sure one will follow and I'm sure the conclusions will match the U.S. Intelligence Community's and the NGO's findings:

Traditionally, an investigation should precede a punishment, not come after the fact.

And what if the investigation that hasn't happened yet finds no proof that Assad was responsible? What will you and everyone else say then? Oops?

[Common Sense]

Hersh is a great investigative journalist, but he has been frequently wrong.

[Private Pickle]

It is necessarily implied by the phrases "in kind" and "like for like".

Attacking someone who did not attack you is not repaying them "in kind" or "like for like".



America was not attacked, so how can it be defensive?
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree that a chemical weapons attack is an attack on the international community as a whole...

[Ethereal]

Perhaps I'm confused. The Western World leaders support the attack and agree that Assad launched the attack. You said, and I'm paraphrasing, "who cares". But then you point to their supposed pretext for regime change and say "you should care". So which is it? Selective caring?
I didn't say "you should care". You asked a question (who supports regime change?) and I gave you a correct answer (western political establishment).

[Private Pickle]

I'm not creating a narrative. The articles that Wikipedia cited in support of that claim expressly state that the FSA's renewal in northern Syria was initiated by Turkey and resulted in attacks on the Kurds.

It also resulted in air support against the Syrian Army from the Turks which has allowed them to be anything but obsolete.

[Ethereal]

That Al Nusra and or ISIS have been able to create stockpiles of Sarin. In addition that Sarin could have been given to either of those groups by Turkey.

So Hersh is lying? His sources are lying?

[Tahuyaman]

Why not?


He's written about the lack of evidence implicating Assad.


Because the art or profession of journalism had degraded itself over the decades to the point that what was once average is now considered greatness. I'd say he's one of the better journalists of his era.

I wish I could find the article, but I just read something from him fairly recently commenting on Assad's past use of chemical weapons. He may very well have commented about a lack of evidence concerning some accusations wich were dubious.

[Ethereal]

Hersh is a great investigative journalist, but he has been frequently wrong.

"Frequently" wrong? How's that?

[Private Pickle]

Traditionally, an investigation should precede a punishment, not come after the fact.

And what if the investigation that hasn't happened yet finds no proof that Assad was responsible? What will you and everyone else say then? Oops?
Sure. I'll admit that I was wrong. I can't speak to everyone else though...

[MisterVeritis]

Just because I don't want America to be Israel's servant does not mean I'm antisemitic. In fact, many Jews agree with me on that score.
I was not referring to you.

[Ethereal]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree that a chemical weapons attack is an attack on the international community as a whole...
Let's assume that it is an attack on the international community as a whole, then shouldn't the appropriate response be an international one and not a unilateral one initiated by the US without the authorization of the Security Council?

[Common Sense]

So Hersh is lying? His sources are lying?

Hersh has fallen for hoaxes in the past.

[Private Pickle]

I didn't say "you should care". You asked a question (who supports regime change?) and I gave you a correct answer (western political establishment).

Fair enough... It's a good thing that they don't matter....

[Ethereal]

It also resulted in air support against the Syrian Army from the Turks which has allowed them to be anything but obsolete.
You know full well that the Turks have been supporting AQ/ISIS and that their primary concern in Syria is crushing the Kurds' bid for autonomy.

[Private Pickle]

So Hersh is lying? His sources are lying?

He is writing a story and giving his opinion with evidence that is every bit as credible as the evidence the U.S. is with regards to the attack. I suppose it depends on who you believe.

[Ethereal]

I was not referring to you.
You were speaking to me directly when you were throwing around terms like "antisemite" and "Jew hater", so you can understand my confusion.

[Ethereal]

Hersh has fallen for hoaxes in the past.
Such as?

[Private Pickle]

Let's assume that it is an attack on the international community as a whole, then shouldn't the appropriate response be an international one and not a unilateral one initiated by the US without the authorization of the Security Council?

Like I said I don't think it was unilateral but we will find out if the UN files a grievance... Something we both know isn't going to happen...

[Ethereal]

Fair enough... It's a good thing that they don't matter....
I never said they don't matter. All I said was that they do not represent the entirety of the "western world".

[Private Pickle]

You know full well that the Turks have been supporting AQ/ISIS and that their primary concern in Syria is crushing the Kurds' bid for autonomy.

Sure. I also know the FSA isn't obsolete.

[Ethereal]

He is writing a story and giving his opinion with evidence that is every bit as credible as the evidence the U.S. is with regards to the attack. I suppose it depends on who you believe.
Hersh is far more trustworthy than western politicians.

[Private Pickle]

I never said they don't matter. All I said was that they do not represent the entirety of the "western world".
OK. Although the leaders of those countries actually do represent the people of their nations. But it's an offshoot argument...

[Common Sense]

"Frequently" wrong? How's that?
He has been wrong in the past. From allegations against Kennedy, to his allegations that there was no real Iranian Nuclear program. Hersh has written retractions in the past and has been wrong before.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/09/sy-hershs-chemical-misfire/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-deceits-of-seymour-hersh/

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/index1.html

I wouldn't put all my eggs in Hersh's basket and his assessment of the chemical attacks. It may not be very accurate.

[Ethereal]

Like I said I don't think it was unilateral but we will find out if the UN files a grievance... Something we both know isn't going to happen...
The US government conducted the strike by themselves and with no authorization from the Security. If that is not a unilateral strike, then what is?

[Private Pickle]

Hersh is far more trustworthy than western politicians.

I suppose that depends on whether he is writing the article for the good of the people or to sell his articles. Again it simply depends on who you believe.

[Private Pickle]

The US government conducted the strike by themselves and with no authorization from the Security. If that is not a unilateral strike, then what is?

I'm sure he talked to 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. That's unilateral when it comes to the UN.

[Ethereal]

He has been wrong in the past. From allegations against Kennedy, to his allegations that there was no real Iranian Nuclear program. Hersh has written retractions in the past and has been wrong before.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/09/sy-hershs-chemical-misfire/

That article was written by Elliot Higgins. An MIT professor addresses his concerns at the bottom of Hersh's article (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin):


Allinson is correct that the improvised rockets he calls Volcanoes each contained about fifty litres of sarin, but wrong in his claim that they were fired from a regime-held area ‘to the north’. These claims are not original, but repeat those of Eliot Higgins, a blogger who, although he has been widely quoted as an expert in the American mainstream media, has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack. In addition, the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-deceits-of-seymour-hersh/

His "allegations" that there was no weaponized Iranian nuclear program have never been refuted and have been corroborated by American (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html) and Israeli (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad) intelligence.

As for the mistakes he's made throughout his career, keep in mind that he's been writing for fifty-eight years. Some mistakes are unavoidable, and he's always owned up to them. But none of that should detract from the majority of his work which was accurate and groundbreaking.


http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/index1.html

Oh c'mon. He's talking about lying to get a story, not lying in an article. Surely you can see the difference.


I wouldn't put all my eggs in Hersh's basket and his assessment of the chemical attacks. It may not be very accurate.

I could say the same to you. The US government isn't exactly the most trustworthy institution.

And it isn't just Hersh who questions these things. Robert Parry and Glenn Greenwald (among others) have also questioned the official narrative.

[Ethereal]

I suppose that depends on whether he is writing the article for the good of the people or to sell his articles. Again it simply depends on who you believe.
Hersh has always been fiercely independent. His record pretty much speaks for itself.

[Ethereal]

I'm sure he talked to 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. That's unilateral when it comes to the UN.
I can't seem to find the clause in the UN Charter that says you can attack another country if you "talk" to "three out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council".

[Ethereal]

At any rate, I'm glad that we've been able to disagree without being disrespectful towards one another.

[Common Sense]

That article was written by Elliot Higgins. An MIT professor addresses his concerns at the bottom of Hersh's article (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin):





His "allegations" that there was no weaponized Iranian nuclear program have never been refuted and have been corroborated by American (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html) and Israeli (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad) intelligence.

As for the mistakes he's made throughout his career, keep in mind that he's been writing for fifty-eight years. Some mistakes are unavoidable, and he's always owned up to them. But none of that should detract from the majority of his work which was accurate and groundbreaking.



Oh c'mon. He's talking about lying to get a story, not lying in an article. Surely you can see the difference.



I could say the same to you. The US government isn't exactly the most trustworthy institution.

And it isn't just Hersh who questions these things. Robert Parry and Glenn Greenwald (among others) have also questioned the official narrative.
The US government aren't the only ones accusing the Assad regime of using chemical weapons. Really the only nations that are denying it are Syria and Russia.

[Ethereal]

The US government aren't the only ones accusing the Assad regime of using chemical weapons. Really the only nations that are denying it are Syria and Russia.
Accusations aren't evidence.

[MisterVeritis]

You were speaking to me directly when you were throwing around terms like "antisemite" and "Jew hater", so you can understand my confusion.
I used your post, not to accuse you but to identify there are people on this board who see everything through an anti-Jewish lens. Your post was convenient. You were responding to another who sees the Jews at the bottom of everything that occurs in the world.

[Private Pickle]

Hersh has always been fiercely independent. His record pretty much speaks for itself.
He is a Western Journalist...they all have an agenda...

[Private Pickle]

I can't seem to find the clause in the UN Charter that says you can attack another country if you "talk" to "three out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council".
Well that's cause it doesn't exist. Like I said we will find out if the UN decides to file a grievance. What do you think the chances of that are?

[Ethereal]

He is a Western Journalist...they all have an agenda...
So do western politicians.

[Private Pickle]

So do western politicians.
And we agree! I knew we would get there somehow.

By the way I know you're consistent. I was just talking about one example not you in general.

[Tahuyaman]

Assad is a poor choice as an example of a virtuous world leader. Defending him is inexplicable.

That being said, it's not our place to seek regime change in Syria.

This idealistic view that democracy can be forced upon everyone in every corner of the world is unrealistic. It's especially unrealistic with the dominant culture in the Middle East.

[Tahuyaman]

I can't seem to find the clause in the UN Charter that says you can attack another country if you "talk" to "three out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council".

The UN is useless. It's only purpose is to give third world elites access to the excesses of NYC which aren't available in the shit hole they come from.