I've not seen anything supporting that conclusion, but would be interested in reading more.
Trump blasts Syria.
- Thread starter Krgrecw
- Start date
I've not seen anything supporting that conclusion, but would be interested in reading more.
sturg33
I
Just did a quick look up
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
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.
57Brave
Well-known member
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
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
57Brave
Well-known member
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
Wash. Post writer praising action in Syria is a lobbyist for contractor that makes Tomahawk missiles used in strike: http://mm4a.org/2ooRRbY
Interesting. Apparently the 'independent commission' ultimately concluded that there wasn't enough information to definitively assign blame.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n/news-story/e165e4fae5fb90c6a17a6670ed7c0a75
sturg33
I
Don't you think this is a problem?
Considering nobody can prove it.
It truly makes no logical sense that Assad would have done it.
Then we just say he did it, and then justify another war.
that makes me very uncomfortable
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Or you know, that one sane person who got like 3% of the vote.
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.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Here's the trial balloon.
sturg33
I
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.
sturg33
I
I'm not saying it doesn't or never happened. I'm saying, absent of proof, I'm not comfortable starting another illegal war.
The point is valid but I still don't believe any proof of something like this could ever be furnished.
sturg33
I
I believe it was Obama and Kerry who assured us all that Syria has no chemical weapons
It was said by Obama.
Assad is a piece of ****. I'm glad he didn't get out when he could have and hopefully his final minutes will be in a ditch like saddam and gadaffhi
sturg33
I
So the US said he didn't have them. He said he didn't have them.
I believe that obama put the Russians in charge of taking the weapons away. The us didn't remove and chemical weapons.
Do you think Putin and Assad are trustworthy?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
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.
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.