US saying they have proof Assad will use chemical weapons; same old lie

The Wall Street Journal has just published a bombshell on Sunday evening as Russian and Syrian warplanes continue bombing raids over al-Qaeda held Idlib, citing unnamed US officials who claim "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country’s last major rebel stronghold."

And perhaps more alarming is that the report details that Trump is undecided over whether new retaliatory strikes could entail expanding the attack to hit Assad allies Russia and Iran this time around.

www.zerohedge.com...

When will people wake up to these lies? Its the exact same story over and over.

2017, Assad supposedly gasses his own people, and the US strikes limited targets in Syria.

Mattis come out in February of 2018, and admits that even after those strikes, the US still has no proof Assad is responsible.

The U.S. has no evidence to confirm reports from aid groups and others that the Syrian government has used the deadly chemical sarin on its citizens, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday.

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”

www.pbs.org...

Then comes April 2018. Same story, supposedly again, despite almost having completely beaten the rebels in syria, assad again supposedly does the only thing that could cause him to lose, and gasses his own people.

Trump again orders strikes in syria, before any international investigation happens, and reveals no evidence to the public to prove assad launched this attack.

Highly respected journalists robert fisk spends days on the ground in syria, and concludes there was no chemical attack

www.independent.co.uk...

Now we are at a point where the syrian war is all but over.

The rebels (terrorists) have basically one stronghold left in Idlib. Assad will no doubt win this conflict very shortly.

Now the claims are being made even before a chemical attack that assad is going to throw all of his success away by gassing his people for no reason. All the public can see is that US officials claim they have proof of this.

Now never mind that US officials authorized strikes on syria without proof two times before. Never mind that it makes no sense whatsoever for Assad to do this. Never mind that we know that the rebels (terrorists) have been shown to have access to chlorine gas, and would have every reason to use this gas seeing as how they know its the only chance the governments of the world will come in to save them.

Nope, Trump is again announcing he may attack. Except this time, it may not be limited to just syria, it may include Iran and russia.

It could literally be the start of ww3.

And notice, regime change for syria has been on the table long before Trump was elected. Just like Iraq and libya, both wars we were lied about, syria is on the list of places to overthrow.

I always say that when you turn on fox news and cnn, and they agree on something, that should worry you. We have seen that the only thing they seem to agree on lately is needing to attack syria.

Isnt it funny the only time left leaning outlets praised trump was when he was bombing syria? They are suppose to be the party of peace, and yet they are frothing at the mouth to start a conflict with syria and russia.

And so it seems they may get what they wish. Apparently many people havent learned there lesson, being lied into war after war.

a reply to: Grambler

Isn't it kind of a tricky situation though? We don't have any proof that he didn't in the past.

He is a brutal dictator, there is no denying that. So looking for a logical reason on why is a bit counter productive.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it was another bad actor in the region. I just feel like since there is no evidence one way or the other, speaking in absolutes is a bit overly confident.

The west must stop the humanitarian crisis which will happen when all the paid for terrorist mercenaries in Idlib are killed... We need them to live so we can later send them to Iran or where ever...

The whole Syrian conflict has been based on nothing but lies just like Libya... youtu.be...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I dont agree, Kim Jong Un is a brutal dictator as was his father...we only attacked them with bluster. Theres a half dozen in Africa...nothing, how about Venezuela?

No, Syria has different reasons for being actively attacked, Im pretty sure you know that.

Assad prefers using barrel bombs loaded with nails and other stuff. Chemical weapons are a last resort.

As long as you can call his targets "terrorists" no one cares. It's ok, even bombing hospitals so there's no place for the injured to go is ok.

War is hell, does it really matter what methods are used anymore?

Meh

Virginia State Senator Richard Black has claimed UK intelligence was planning a chemical attack in Syria, which they would then blame on the Syrian government. Black made the claim after a meeting with President Bashar Assad.

www.rt.com...

Interesting, I'm also still trying to figure out the purpose of those 2 F-15s dropping phosphorus on Syria yesterday, other than starting fires in the vicinity, I think there's an ulterior motive

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Isn't it kind of a tricky situation though? We don't have any proof that he didn't in the past.

He is a brutal dictator, there is no denying that. So looking for a logical reason on why is a bit counter productive.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it was another bad actor in the region. I just feel like since there is no evidence one way or the other, speaking in absolutes is a bit overly confident.

My stance is that we should always have deifnitive proof before dropping bombs.

That seems to be even more neccessary considering the background of gthis story.

- We know the intel agencies have lied to get us involved in places like Iraq and Libya

- We know that trump has twiced dropped bombs on Syria before he had proof

- We know this could lead to WW3 with Russia

Given that, we should be absolutely positive before launching an attack.

And I also think that just because someone is a dictator doesnt mean they will act so irrationally to wipe out a guaranteed victory for no reaso whatsoever by gassing his own people.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

A brutal dictator? The only people spinning that crap are the politicians and media. Assad's own people liked him and most still do. Syria was very westernised, and Syrians had a good standard of living. This whole scenario only came about when the Saudis wanted to run their oil/gas through Syria into Europe but Russia beat them to it.

Does no-one wonder why all the most Westernised ME countries are slowly being destroyed and their regimes changed to quite extreme Muslim leaders?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I dont agree, Kim Jong Un is a brutal dictator as was his father...we only attacked them with bluster. Theres a half dozen in Africa...nothing, how about Venezuela?

No, Syria has different reasons for being actively attacked, Im pretty sure you know that.

Comparing dictators to other dictators to find logic isn't the best equation IMO.

If I did the same I could say Myanmar is being accused of genocide, which is just as egregious but just short of using chem/bio weapons. It's not like just because it's 2018 dictators are playing by some new rule book.

I said nothing would surprise me either way, sure other bad actors may be the perpetrators in Syria, but we don't know. It's speculation.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

A brutal dictator? The only people spinning that crap are the politicians and media. Assad's own people liked him and most still do. Syria was very westernised, and Syrians had a good standard of living. This whole scenario only came about when the Saudis wanted to run their oil/gas through Syria into Europe but Russia beat them to it.

I'll give you that things weren't the same pre-civil war, but he has shown the willingness to bomb his own civilians.

How is that not brutal?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Isn't it kind of a tricky situation though? We don't have any proof that he didn't in the past.

He is a brutal dictator, there is no denying that. So looking for a logical reason on why is a bit counter productive.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it was another bad actor in the region. I just feel like since there is no evidence one way or the other, speaking in absolutes is a bit overly confident.

My stance is that we should always have deifnitive proof before dropping bombs.

That seems to be even more neccessary considering the background of gthis story.

- We know the intel agencies have lied to get us involved in places like Iraq and Libya

- We know that trump has twiced dropped bombs on Syria before he had proof

- We know this could lead to WW3 with Russia

Given that, we should be absolutely positive before launching an attack.

And I also think that just because someone is a dictator doesnt mean they will act so irrationally to wipe out a guaranteed victory for no reaso whatsoever by gassing his own people.

The only victory would be for the corporations of the West and that's why they're so desperate to take over Syria, and as you said, it's all been done before through covert operations, lies and propaganda.

If anything good has come from this, then hopefully all those millions who were fooled with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, may finally understand the evil tactics of the US in their quest for global domination.

Additionally, there is no proof that Assad bombed his own people

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Isn't it kind of a tricky situation though? We don't have any proof that he didn't in the past.

He is a brutal dictator, there is no denying that. So looking for a logical reason on why is a bit counter productive.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it was another bad actor in the region. I just feel like since there is no evidence one way or the other, speaking in absolutes is a bit overly confident.

My stance is that we should always have deifnitive proof before dropping bombs.

That seems to be even more neccessary considering the background of gthis story.

- We know the intel agencies have lied to get us involved in places like Iraq and Libya

- We know that trump has twiced dropped bombs on Syria before he had proof

- We know this could lead to WW3 with Russia

Given that, we should be absolutely positive before launching an attack.

And I also think that just because someone is a dictator doesnt mean they will act so irrationally to wipe out a guaranteed victory for no reaso whatsoever by gassing his own people.

I agree with you 100% that we shouldn't do any kind of attack before we have evidence.

I'll go one step further and say I don't think we should be there regardless, even if people think it's the "right thing to do", we've had a bad reputation for making things worse than they are when we get involved.

The international community needs to make a concerted effort. We continue to act as the worlds police while our taxpayers foot the bill for continued EF ups.

All that said, I'm just playing devils advocate on who is to blame for the gassing over there, and as stated before I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other if it was Assad or another foreign actor.

Well, to sum up. We have:

1. Russian propaganda banging on about the UK/US (or whoever) preparing to use chemical weapons around Idlib as the Syrian/Iranian/Russians start an offensive. This would be an amazing intelligence coup, or more likely an attempt to hide the fact that they (the Syrians et al) will use chemical weapons, as they have already done. In this way they (Russian propaganda) can say, "...well it was not us because we've already said someone else would do it". Sort of preparing in advance to blame someone else.

2. The US (as per OP) saying that it's likely the Syrians will use chemical weapons. They may have intelligence, or are running on the modus operandi of the Assad regime that has shown scant care for population reduction measures throughout this sad civil war.

Chemical weapons have undoubtedly been used in Syria, and probably by both sides. Timeline of chem weapons in Syria

a reply to: paraphi

or more likely an attempt to hide the fact that they (the Syrians et al) will use chemical weapons, as they have already done.

There's no proof and you have to remember that as has been used so successfully in the past, the West is trying to manufacture consent, or create reasons, to take over Syria, remember Iraq's fictional WMDs? They need it now more than ever, because I suspect, from the UK point of view, that support for military action in Syria is at an all time low.

this sad civil war.

It is not a civil war, it's another US ploy which is part of the overall plan of global hegemony.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Chemical attacks have happened in Syria. Some chemical attacks have come from munitions delivered by helicopters. Those helicopters have come from Syrian controlled airfields.

It's therefore plausible that the Syrians have undertaken chemical weapons attacks.

If you don't believe chemical weapons have been used in Syria, then visit the OPCW website and have a gander.

a reply to: paraphi

I never said I didn't believe chemical weapons weren't used in Syria, in fact they were used in Iraq also, supplied by the West unsurprisingly. If you're going to make stuff up then I will not waste my time even debating with you.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler
He is a brutal dictator,

i hate how people say that.

'' brutal dictator ''


If your country is in the fight for its life against a militant grouped being funded, armed and driven by external proxies... you fight to the death! You slaughter anyone who sides with the enemy.

The US, British, Australians would all do the same.

'' brutal dictator '' for crying out loud, the people love him! he walks the streets and is applauded. He can drive around cities in a car freely. His Generals, people and aides stuck by him when his defeat looked inevitable in 2016...

Syria was amazing before the war I have heard, a very liberal and balanced society!...

I think he's been restrained.. he hasn't lashed out.. I respect him!

In the end the USA and allies have only two choices.

We go all in, until we have destroyed Assad's ability to wage war, with an extreme risk of confrontation with Russia along the way.

Or we pull out, and let the Syrian conflict end without intervention, it might not end the way we want but ultimately it ends.

Neither choice is good, neither outcome is good.

It's time to # or get off the pot.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
I never said I didn't believe chemical weapons weren't used in Syria, in fact they were used in Iraq also, supplied by the West unsurprisingly. If you're going to make stuff up then I will not waste my time even debating with you.

If you have evidence that the West has been supplying chemical weapons into Iraq/Syria then please reveal, but don't get caught up in Russian propaganda and misinformation. It's recognised that the Syrian regime AND groups like ISIS have used chemical weapons of varying degrees of complexity and delivery. That's all in the public domain if you look. This includes helicopter-dropped chemicals.

Keep it civil.

Trump would be better off reading ats than twitter or listening to the war mongers.

Also it is possible that this is the admins answer to cohen not standing behind his non disclosure agreements.

Could entire countries be held hostage over the usa internal politics?