Just did a quick look up
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sy...94409Z20130505
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.
Jon LovettVerified account @jonlovett 2h2 hours ago
Let's bring this full circle. Many Jewish refugees were murdered with chemical weapons by Hitler because we turned them away.
Ivanka wept.
What troubles me about this story is she was rightfully outraged by the pictures.videos she saw.
But the refugees -- Won't our bombing and perhaps regime change cause more hardships?
What is our policy at this point ?
Let me add, not so sure HRC would have acted differently. No, not not so sure, pretty sure would not ....
A whole lot of bad options from where I sit.
That was why I was disappointed at voters not willing to pick the lesser of two evils.
At the level these people are playing it is all lesser of two evils
Last edited by 57Brave; 04-11-2017 at 03:28 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Media MattersVerified account @mmfa
Wash. Post writer praising action in Syria is a lobbyist for contractor that makes Tomahawk missiles used in strike: http://mm4a.org/2ooRRbY
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Interesting. Apparently the 'independent commission' ultimately concluded that there wasn't enough information to definitively assign blame.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...7a6670ed7c0a75
Steve Herman
@W7VOA
"It's 100 percent fabrication," says Assad, also asking "were they really dead?" of the child victims seen in videos. #Syria
I think it would be a problem if it weren't for the pieces of evidence produced by the Germans, French, and British. Evidence which appears more legitimate than a vague comment from the UN about 'strong, concrete, but not incontrovertible' evidence. What is that evidence, and why hasn't it ever been publicized/expounded upon?
Why doesn't it make sense for Assad to have done it? He was/is trying to quell a rebellion.
Here's the trial balloon.
But the Germans, French, and British are our allies.
If it makes sense to use chemical weapons (thus assuredly getting a hateful response from the rest of the world and fate that will likely end up like Hussein or Gadaffi), then he's a stupid and suicidal person. However, if what you say is true, then why wouldn't Assad just admit to doing it in an effort to win the war? It's not like we are trying to hide the fact that we're dropping bombs on ISIS to win the war.
Sturg, why did Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against the Kurds?
Assad just claimed that he couldn't had done it because Syria doesn't have any chemical weapons
I think that's a reasonable position. I just don't get the insistence that "it doesn't make sense" for Assad to use chemical weapons.
I'm really perplexed as to why you don't seem to see it. He's already on the wrong side of international norms. He doesn't fear western disapproval. He has the implicit or explicit support of several big players. He's desperate to hold onto what he has, because it might be the difference between dying of old age in Damascus (or at least Moscow) and ending up like Mussolini or Ceaucescu or Saddam.
Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he certainly never claimed responsibility for gassing Kurdish civilians at Halabja. In fact, he blamed Iran for it.
Of course, at the time he had a will to remain in power and the implicit support of several big players on the world stage (in this case, the US). So he did it, in order to stay in power and intimidate the opposition, he disclaimed responsibility for it, and promoted confusion and misdirection about responsibility for it.
So, nothing new here.