So another "chemical" attack in Syria?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Victims from an attack in northern Syria seems to indicate that chemical weapons were involved. Unlike some other attacks, patients treated in Turkey provide evidence that Sarin gas was used.

CNN article

Our resident Russian apologists will have a hard time supporting Russian claims, because Russians are saying that the bombing hit a terrorist chemical weapons shed, which dispersed the sarin gas. This is problematic on a couple fronts. One, if the shed was the target, then they knew that this could happen or they bombed a civilian area for the hell of it and this was an unintended consequence and they luckily for a WMD shed or ... would sarin gas burn up in an explosion verses spread out?

Even the Trump Admin is having a hard time condoning this.

The good news is that the local hospital in the city was later struck in another attack. Presumably in an air raid by Qatari Intelligence.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Victims from an attack in northern Syria seems to indicate that chemical weapons were involved. Unlike some other attacks, patients treated in Turkey provide evidence that Sarin gas was used.

CNN article

Our resident Russian apologists will have a hard time supporting Russian claims, because Russians are saying that the bombing hit a terrorist chemical weapons shed, which dispersed the sarin gas. This is problematic on a couple fronts. One, if the shed was the target, then they knew that this could happen or they bombed a civilian area for the hell of it and this was an unintended consequence and they luckily for a WMD shed or ... would sarin gas burn up in an explosion verses spread out?

Even the Trump Admin is having a hard time condoning this.y

The good news is that the local hospital in the city was later struck in another attack. Presumably in an air raid by Qatari Intelligence.

That
First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials. That does mean the Syrian government forces didn't use this. Why would any US administration condone this?

It makes more sense if ISIS or even some radical rebels used this and let everyone think it was someone else.

 

[barbos]

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

 

[laughing dog]

First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials.

It makes sense if the winning side is brutal dictatorship with a long history of bloodthirsty reprisals and who wishes to make an example.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

 

[barbos]

Victims from an attack in northern Syria seems to indicate that chemical weapons were involved. Unlike some other attacks, patients treated in Turkey provide evidence that Sarin gas was used.

CNN article

Our resident Russian apologists will have a hard time supporting Russian claims, because Russians are saying that the bombing hit a terrorist chemical weapons shed, which dispersed the sarin gas. This is problematic on a couple fronts. One, if the shed was the target, then they knew that this could happen or they bombed a civilian area for the hell of it and this was an unintended consequence and they luckily for a WMD shed or ... would sarin gas burn up in an explosion verses spread out?

Even the Trump Admin is having a hard time condoning this.y

The good news is that the local hospital in the city was later struck in another attack. Presumably in an air raid by Qatari Intelligence.

That
First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials. That does mean the Syrian government forces didn't use this. Why would any US administration condone this?

It makes more sense if ISIS or even some radical rebels used this and let everyone think it was someone else.

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 - - -

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

Not necessarily.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That
First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials. That does mean the Syrian government forces didn't use this. Why would any US administration condone this?

It makes more sense if ISIS or even some radical rebels used this and let everyone think it was someone else.

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.

No, it wouldn't make sense. But it doesn't actually have to make sense.

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

Not necessarily.

Well, as soon as the Russians figure out how, I'm sure you'll forward us how it happened.

You know the one odd thing is how the "terrorists" have all of these WMDs, but aren't using them against Assad forces.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Russians asked for sanction relief in exchange for destroying Assad chemical weapons. I guess that worked out well.

 

[Elixir]

You know the one odd thing is how the "terrorists" have all of these WMDs, but aren't using them against Assad forces.

Right. Our Russian troll is reaching again.
Obviously Assad decided to quell a little uprising with his usual tactic, and co-ordinated with the Russians to make sure that as few as possible victims of his war crime received treatment.
But Barbosovich and WP will invent ANY scenario, no matter how far-fetched, to try to paint their murderous uncle as an innocent kitten.

 

[ZiprHead]

Какая философия

 

[repoman]

I make no assertion either way about what happened. But with this administration lying about things I didn't think were possible to lie about (inauguration crowd size) it would be funny if this was a fake against Assad and no one believes the Trump admin if they have real proof.

That is why you are supposed to try to be honest. This is a story of the Manchild who lied wolf.

Please don't let entirely justified disgust of Trump color your analysis of this dicey situation.

 

[barbos]

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.

No, it wouldn't make sense. But it doesn't actually have to make sense.

That's pretty convenient.

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

Not necessarily.

Well, as soon as the Russians figure out how, I'm sure you'll forward us how it happened.

You know the one odd thing is how the "terrorists" have all of these WMDs, but aren't using them against Assad forces.

They are not really terrorists, they are Saudis and Qatari intelligence and they are using them against Assad effectively.
- - - Updated - - -

You know the one odd thing is how the "terrorists" have all of these WMDs, but aren't using them against Assad forces.

Right. Our Russian troll is reaching again.
Obviously Assad decided to quell a little uprising with his usual tactic, and co-ordinated with the Russians to make sure that as few as possible victims of his war crime received treatment.
But Barbosovich and WP will invent ANY scenario, no matter how far-fetched, to try to paint their murderous uncle as an innocent kitten.

What a load of horseshit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials.

It makes sense if the winning side is brutal dictatorship with a long history of bloodthirsty reprisals and who wishes to make an example.

Like I said it makes no sense for the Syrian government to do this, for the world reaction would be to blame Assad and co.

 

[braces_for_impact]

First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials.

It makes sense if the winning side is brutal dictatorship with a long history of bloodthirsty reprisals and who wishes to make an example.

Especially considering Rex Tillerson basically said we were now hands off in Syria, when he said

The “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

Words have consequences. Even if the slovenly American people cannot be induced to give a shit, others are listening.

 

[barbos]

It makes sense if the winning side is brutal dictatorship with a long history of bloodthirsty reprisals and who wishes to make an example.

Especially considering Rex Tillerson basically said we were now hands off in Syria, when he said

The “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

And now the same Rex is saying the opposite. Makes you wonder....

Words have consequences. Even if the slovenly American people cannot be induced to give a shit, others are listening.

Yes, previous Secretary of State mentioned Red Line and Assad immediately crossed it, makes you wonder too.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That
First of all we don't know who did it and in the second instance it would make no sense for a winning side to use such materials. That does mean the Syrian government forces didn't use this. Why would any US administration condone this?

It makes more sense if ISIS or even some radical rebels used this and let everyone think it was someone else.

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 - - -

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

Not necessarily.

I concur with your first point.

 

[laughing dog]

It makes sense if the winning side is brutal dictatorship with a long history of bloodthirsty reprisals and who wishes to make an example.

Like I said it makes no sense for the Syrian government to do this, for the world reaction would be to blame Assad and co.

In order for your response to make sense, you would have to demonstrate that Assad responds to world reactions.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Like I said it makes no sense for the Syrian government to do this, for the world reaction would be to blame Assad and co.

In order for your response to make sense, you would have to demonstrate that Assad responds to world reactions.

While that's a good point, I don't see Assad having a really pressing strategic need to use chemical weapons in that context. Using them in a limited "one off" way implies he's being judicious about when and where they are deployed, which means he must have some REASON for using them in this particular situation. I cannot see what advantage that would have here, since strategically it doesn't accomplish anything except a lot of dead civilians and a lot of pissed off rebels. Even as an intimidation tactic, it doesn't really work since he didn't go out of his way to OWN the attack and threaten further attacks if his enemies fail to surrender.

Basically: the very NATURE of weapons of mass destruction means just that, the intention to cause massive destruction on a huge and indiscriminate scale. The need to cause mass destruction precludes any consideration for discretion in the first place, so people who deploy WMDs generally have no reason to be coy about whether or not they actually did it. A comparison to mass shootings is appropriate IMO: it's very rare (unprecedented maybe?) for mass shooters to try and hide their identities during or after the attack. If you were trying to kill people and GET AWAY WITH IT, you wouldn't have killed them all at once with an assault rifle, you'd probably take them out one at a time when no one else is watching. The whole point of doing it IN MASS is to make sure you cause as much damage possible in the shortest amount of time. Same deal with terrorism: terrorists ALWAYS claim responsibility for their own attacks, and many of them (annoyingly) claim responsibility for shit they had nothing to do with just because it makes them look better. Even the lone-wolf terrorists will usually attribute their actions to the cell/cause of their choice because that's the whole point of terrorism: cause damage and draw attention.

WMDs aren't weapons that anyone would try to use discretely. There are all kinds of ways to discretely murder lots of people and even Assad is capable of doing that.

 

[Malintent]

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 - - -

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

Not necessarily.

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.

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? I am certain the chemical is stabilized against a rapid expansion or explosion. Otherwise, it would not be very well "weaponized".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 - - -

How about they bombed terrorists who happened to have few canisters with gas?

The gas would burn in said explosion, not waft off.

Not necessarily.

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.

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.

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?

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?