barbos
Contributor
Chemical weapons are not rocket science, chlorine gas is readily available, some fancier poisons could be provided by US allies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar)As I've noted before, it is incredible how the rebels or ISIS aren't using chemical weapons, yet seem to have access to them.Yes, Assad is winning and just a day ago or so US administration said they no longer want him out. It makes no sense for him to use that shit, and it makes perfect sense for SA and other Sunni actors to frame him again.
- - - Updated - - -
Not necessarily.The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?
I concur with your first point.
On CNN this morning, it is being reported that Asad claims they did not use chemical weapons, but instead attacked an ISIS weapons factory that had chemical weapons in it.
Once again, poison gases don't burn, even if they did you would have to set it on fire, which implies direct hit, and even then you have no guarantee that everything will get burned.Typically a chemical weapon is designed, not brute forced by bombing a large canister of it. And seriously, are we supposed to believe that ISIS has so much of this material that it can be wafted out and not using it?It is ridiculous to claim that poison gas would necessarily "burn up" when exposed to a blast.. how do you suppose it is designed to be deployed, via water balloon?
And we have no data of what was released in the first place. It could be anything including something which is not normally used as poison.