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

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Agit8dChop

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.

I wouldn't call innocent civilians who happen to live in a besieged area as "siding with the enemy". But slaughter them too I suppose.

I'm curious, how many people do you think the allies slaughtered in Carentan, Caen and Saint Lo before and during the Normandy campaign? Or how many people did the Americans and British slaughter in Baghdad, Fallujah or Najaf? Better yet, how many people did the Americans slaughter in Vietnam?

oh thats right, its not considered slaughter - its collateral damage in the great campaign.

However, anyone defending his own country, that the west doesn't like, is a brutal slaughtering dictator when innocents die as he tries to defeat militant groups hiding in cities..

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

As if that makes it right.
And I'll be the first to admit we're probably doing more harm than good, as seen with most of our recent foreign interventions.

If Assad was a brutal dictator, he wouldnt be on the verge of victory.
If Assad was a brutal dictator, the US Wouldn't need to defend militant factions in Idlib threatening to bomb Syrian, Iranian and Russian units involved in the offensive against Idlib.

Assad has done some horrible things and many people have suffered, he didnt start this war, he didnt set out to do the killing.. he's defending Syria at all costs

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: tommyjo

No, the story came from the Russian military, so if they are making it up, then looks like they're using some US tactics and throwing back at them

Nothing unusual about the Russian military making things up and especially in relation to Syria. I feel sorry for those commanders that are rolled out to deliver the presentations to the media.

Yeah, I mean so Nikki Haley in style

Looking forward to hearing her or some warmonger general presenting later

Footage, meant to serve as proof that the Syrian government has conducted a chemical weapons attack in Idlib, Syria, is to be handed to global news outlets by the end of Tuesday, the Russian military claims.

www.rt.com...

Or maybe the evil plan will be delayed now?

And when you think about it, all the people who have died on this planet due to the actions of the US, and it must be in the millions, I just can't help myself thinking how when a US general, president or politician talks about humanitarian issues, out with the delusional notion that bombing more will help the issue, I am always reminded of a sewage factory every time their mouth moves

When faced with spotty and filtered evidence, I defer to what is logically possible. If “The Great Civil War” that many think could one day happen in the US: Would the US force hesitate to go beyond small arms engagement (bombs, predator drones, etc) with small forces (20-30 combatants) in populated areas? No, the govt would hit them when and where with lowest casualties. Would the rebel factions use chemical warfare to better even the fight against vastly superior forces? Absolutely, but probably simple things like homemade mustard gas.

So could Assad use chemical weapons? Yes. Did he? I don’t know, so maybe?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

All that is smoke and mirrors generated by the Russians because they know that they can't control Assad and his forces from using even Chlorine. Assad and his commanders know that they can get away with using Chlorine. Russia will not even admit to Assad using Chlorine which is not on the list of chemical weapons.

This is even after the Russians agreed that the use of Chlorine would be unacceptable.

Security Council Resolution 2235 (2015) The Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015) on 7 August 2015, condemning any use of any toxic chemical, such as chlorine, as a weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR). It expressed its determination to identify those responsible for such acts, and reiterated that they must be held accountable.

Mandate

The resolution established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (Mechanism) with the mandate “to identify to the greatest extent feasible individuals, entities, groups, or governments who were perpetrators, organisers, sponsors or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals as weapons, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, in the Syrian Arab Republic where the OPCW Fact Finding Mission (FFM) determines or has determined that a specific incident in the SAR involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as weapons.”

From

Link

Russia voted for this resolution and accepted that chlorine use was unacceptable. The question is why Russia will never admit to Syria using Chlorine as a weapon? The reason is why is that they can never admit to Assad or his commanders using Chlorine. It is a mindset for the Russian that even with Assad forces commanders going rogue and using Chlorine they will never admit it and do everything to muddy the waters. This is why you see the claims of rebels preparing to fake such attacks. When the ground offensive begins and Syrian forces are trying to overwhelm pockets of stubborn resistance some Syrian commanders could resort to the use of Chlorine. The Russians have simply got a get out clause and they are working the propaganda like mad.

a reply to: tommyjo

Keep ignoring the big picture mate, I'm sure you're nice and cozy in your world of ignorance

a reply to: Grambler

Following that train of thought, we already have evidence that America will use Nuclear weapons.

Now last time i looked Nukes trump Chemical weaponry any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.