Russia Complicit in the gassing of Syrians?
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
You identified secrecy of source as a feature of Assad's ownerhsip, but not of terrorist ownership. Since the source is secret (that is, denied), that points to Assad.
This one only worked because the source is secret (which as you say points to Assad). If the source were known to be terrorist stockpiles, this false flag would not have worked.
It has to look like Assad, which means the source has to be secret.
This one looks exactly like Assad. They even made the source look like a stockpile handy to one Assad's airports, and the delivery method look like airplanes. So good job jihadists!
This is all from you. You are the one claiming Assad has to keep it secret rather than merely deniable, and the terrorists are free to risk discovery since the Western press does not care if they have the stuff.
Last edited:
After the recent suicide bombing of the bus convoy in Syria leaving 80+ dead and looking back overall the other similar counter intuitive instances, my bet goes with ISIL being involved doing what it does best.. soft targets generating intense fear and confusion.
Bus loaded with civies, suicide bomber = ISIL IMO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-15/syrian-bus-convoy-hit-by-blast/8446202
ISIL may have been involved in the chem gas frame up. mainly to maintain a stormy relationship between USA and Russia
Bus loaded with civies, suicide bomber = ISIL IMO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-15/syrian-bus-convoy-hit-by-blast/8446202
ISIL may have been involved in the chem gas frame up. mainly to maintain a stormy relationship between USA and Russia
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No, that's low quality. I wanted a very rough overview, googled a little bit, that's all. The result is not more than a short impression. Nothing serious.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Nitpicking? Of course, the terrorists hide them too, but they can car a little bit less, because the Western media support then anyway. But they have to hide chemical weapons as all other weapons, else they may be damaged by nasty jets. And, of course for a false flag, one has to hide.
You have low quality criteria here. For me, what I have seen looks like the usual White Helmets fake.
Exactly my point - "but then the false flag doesn't work", above. Total secrecy, and very reliable secrecy known in advance, would have been necessary for the false flag.
Assad, meanwhile, just needs formal deniability - he even benefits from it being an "open secret", something everybody knows but nobody formally admits to knowing.
So far, the major presented evidence pointing to a "usual fake" is the claim that it would be stupid of Assad to have done it. And that claim seems completely unsupported.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, unable to follow here. As if the Western press would not use any attack, obvious fake or not, for creating horrible anti-Assad hysteria. Of course, the Western media have lost a lot of their credibility and therefore their political power, but this does not mean that they have no power left. Such a media campaign is certainly harmful for Syria, with or without bombing.
This is simply because I do not even start to discuss any of the other "evidence". Not worth the time. Anyway, those who would argue on the other side would be only propagandists, for reasonable people my argument is completely sufficient. (Despite your attempts to discredit it, which do not really make sense for me.)
Yeah, what the hell do you care about fact and reason? Obviously you don't. Whatever Mother Putina says you believe unquestioningly.
The terrorists have to keep the source of their recently acquired sarin secret, in order to launch a credible false flag attack - True or False? Choose one.
Is all of the other evidence as obviously bullshit as that?
Once again you don't seem to understand that this place is intended to be an intellectual discussion forum, not your personal space to post unchallenged fascist Kremlin propaganda. If you keep making a point and someone else rebuts it, you must either attempt to explain why your sources are more reliable than theirs, or admit that you have no valid argument to make. It's not acceptable to come here, quote straight from fascist Russian-allied sources and then summarily dismiss opposing viewpoints as propaganda with little to no supporting logic. Knock it off with your blatant Kremlin trolling, or I'm reporting you again and I'm sure there will be a reponse just like last time.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
True. And they do it.
I have not evaluated it, so that I cannot tell. Evaluate these White Helmet video fakes yourself if you have nothing better to do. If you find some evidence which is worth to be posted, do it. Note that "the CIA knows this but has to keep its sources secret" does not count, only evidence we can see and check counts.
The evidence I see - that Assad has nothing to win but a lot to loose if he uses chemical weapons - is not bullshit at all, but strong enough to place a heavy burden of proof on the other side. Your questioning it was not more than the claim that for some other evil dictator in very different circumstances it could make sense to use chemical weapons.
LOL. What has been discussed here was a simple common sense argument - namely that Assad has nothing to win but a lot to loose if he uses chemical weapons. There is no need of sources to judge about this, and so no sources played a role here - except iceaura pointing to wiki and me, in the answer, quoting from the same wiki. So, no "fascist Russian-allied sources" have been used here at all. So, feel free to report me, but don't forget to find an evil "fascist Russian-allied source" which I quoted.
So stick with the face obvious: (Drop the paranoid cynicism for a moment)
It was not in USA interests to use chem weapons.
It was not in Syria's interests to use chem weapons.
It was not in Russia's interests to use chem weapons.
let's assume it was not in the rebels interests to kill their own families using chem weapons...
so who done it?
Not Syria, not Russia, Not rebels...not any USA or any government...
Most likely the same group responsible for the bus bombing of evacuees...ugh...baiting hungry kids with potato chips..eh?
Who?
Who is most likely?
Motive?
Capacity?
Ethics?
Trade mark suicide bomber in a vehicle...
who?
It was not in USA interests to use chem weapons.
It was not in Syria's interests to use chem weapons.
It was not in Russia's interests to use chem weapons.
let's assume it was not in the rebels interests to kill their own families using chem weapons...
so who done it?
Not Syria, not Russia, Not rebels...not any USA or any government...
Most likely the same group responsible for the bus bombing of evacuees...ugh...baiting hungry kids with potato chips..eh?
Who?
Who is most likely?
Motive?
Capacity?
Ethics?
Trade mark suicide bomber in a vehicle...
who?
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
As if there would be any unity among the "rebels". They have killed each other before that Northern Hama offensive. And they all have no hesitations to kill Alewites and Christians, inclusive women and children - and there are a lot of them in that region, one of the main Christian towns has been under heavy attack. Look at the recent attack against the refugees from Fua and Kafrya - they have tried hard to kill a lot of children. They are not at all their own families, but families of the enemies.
Note also that a false flag attack is a lie from the start, so there is a large probability that the claimed victims are also fake. In videos, they may be simply artists, if killed, the claim that these are "our own family members" may be faked, and so on.
If one can blame Assad, it was clearly in the interest of the rebels to use chemical weapons. The actual result was one they liked a lot, and it was clear that this result was one of the most probable outcomes.
Last edited:
far from clear...you may be happy with your assessment but frankly I am far from happy with any of the current assessments...
Assad has plenty to gain by using chemical weapons; namely, it allows him to fight and win his own battles without depending on Russian folks like yourself for support. Russia and Iran aren't in the charity business, they don't do favours for other countries without getting something back in return beyond mere gratitude. There was no reason for Assad to expect a response from Trump, given the latter's recent past statements, and therefore no reason to think that Assad would fear or oppose his own army's WMD usage. Even Putin has stopped lying about the sarin being kept in a rebel depot, because it's not a technically feasible explanation for what happened. Assad and his allies are the ones with the credibility problem after lying and then subsequently changing the official story, not the doctors you label as terrorists.
Pointing to Wikipedia is a somewhat lazy means of arguing instead of going directly to the original sources, but at least Wikipedia requires and publishes references to those sources. You on the other hand quote from reports that can't be verified beyond spokesmen for the governments of Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, so if Wikipedia is summarily dismissable propaganda, then so is everything you post from your own sources.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, it's not about who you do or don't label a terrorist or your personal political views. It's about your choice of sources when labelling all dedicated Assad opponents as terrorists and denying serious war crimes on Putin's side, and how you readily dismiss contrary sources as propaganda with zero evidence for doing so. I already debunked (with very little effort) your "Last Hospital" treason website trash, so don't go pulling that nonsense yet again on us either.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Nonsense. Chemical weapons give no military advantages. (Else nobody would have cared to forbid them.)
Wow, CptBork as a Trump supporter, who presents Trump as being absolutely predictable based on some vague statements.
There was no lying, there was information that was available to the Russians, namely that at a certain time at this day there was an attack by the Syrian airforce against a weapon and ammunition depot near Khan Sheikhun. The possibility that this attack may have hit a chemical weapon storage and caused what was observed is certainly a possibility worth to be considered. It looks like this possibility can be excluded now. The claims about the gas attack have been earlier. That means, at that time where were no Syrian airforce attacks at all against Khan Sheikhun. This is the normal way of investigations - one collects various hypotheses and then excludes some.
Who cares what you dismiss as propaganda? Feel free to dismiss everything I write as propaganda. I couldn't care less. I rely on sources I have found to be reliable, you rely on other sources, your choice.
You have tried to debunk it, but you were not really successful. Of course, of the 20 references some may refer to the same day, but there remain enough different days. Ok, some damage may be not that horrible, so that the last hospital was not destroyed, only damaged - but, sorry, if they tell me "destroyed" instead of "damaged", that is a propaganda lie too. And, anyway, after the liberation it appeared that there were several working hospitals in the Eastern part, so there was never any "last hospital" destroyed, not even damaged. This information is, of course, from evil sources, but I consider them as reliable, live with it. So, I continue to these 20 last hospitals destroyed are a sufficiently obvious case of Western propaganda lies.
What a weird thing to write?
care to explain?
But that is - by the evidence - a false claim. By the evidence, Assad has nothing to lose and all of the benefits of State terrorism to gain from whatever such actions he can manage.
But "military advantage" is not what Saddam needed from them, or Assad - and certainly not the point of such gas attacks as Assad has been accused of.
Depends on how you define "military advantage".
Genocide by Chem. weapons certainly offers a military advantage as does the fear generated by the threat of " fumigation".
A city such as Aleppo can be rid of rebels yet the building structures can remain intact with minimal casualties for Assads forces.
Genocide by Chem. weapons certainly offers a military advantage as does the fear generated by the threat of " fumigation".
A city such as Aleppo can be rid of rebels yet the building structures can remain intact with minimal casualties for Assads forces.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
If they would have been an effective weapon, why do you think anybody would have tried to forbid them? Death by gas is not more or less inhuman than other deaths on the battlefield.
They were inefficient as weapons - the wind endangers own soldiers, soldiers with gas masks were safe, but civilians killed, and at that time this was considered something bad.
Assad has already had a serious loss. The counteroffensive was stopped for several days. And the reason for this - Trump's unpredictability - was well-known before, you have explained me a lot that he can start wars in an unpredictable way. Moreover, the loss on the front of information warfare was certain and sure. You have not presented any evidence, beyond a link to Saddam, who was in quite different circumstances when he used it, in particular he was backed by the US.
Saddam has mainly used gas in the war with Iran, and afaik he has at least hoped for getting military advantages. At least in http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/cia_helped_saddam_gas_iran_in_88/ suggests that some military needs - to prevent some Iranian attack on weak points of the Iraq troops - was at least relevant:
What Assad has been accused of is clearly propaganda nonsense, thus, not relevant. That would be circular reasoning - to try to prove that the propaganda is correct by reference to that propaganda. The point of such gas attacks was to accuse Assad of having done them. That they made no sense militarily was in all cases obvious, so not even the accusers could seriously claim it.
No, because the wind endangers neighbor regions, and the major neighbor of East Aleppo was government-held West Aleppo, with a lot of pro-Assad civilians. So, gassing East Aleppo would make sense only in horrible propaganda fantasies about evil Assad, which is, of course, the picture presented by the Western media.
Anyway, Assad was not even claimed to have used such amounts of gas that this could have been a point. Note also that to take advantage of gassing, one would have to take the structures immediately after this, thus, one needs troops nearby, but these troops would be endangered.