Probably CIA orchestrated AQ false flag operation to justify intervention with a plan for invasion and eventually regime change.
We've seen this play before.
If you can think up a good reason why Assad would perpetrate a chemical attack on an area that offers no strategic value, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I think the evidence of the randomness and absurdity of the attack are in favor of it being a ruse. There is nothing to gain by this attack. It makes no sense to anyone watching closely and with a bit of scrutiny.
So you think that the CIA is in league with AQ, I can see BAC buying that but I thought you were more sensible.
did you read thru your link? there is sufficient doubt to wait for the UN, the UN DID find the rebels used nerve gas before.
Barack Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be crossing a ‘red line’, and prompt US intervention. A week ago that line was crossed – but are we armed with all the facts about the atrocity in Ghouta? GUY ADAMS examines the evidence...
did you read thru your link? there is sufficient doubt to wait for the UN, the UN DID find the rebels used nerve gas before.
I'm just going to stop you right there. The UN found no such thing.
I'm just going to stop you right there. The UN found no such thing.
Let me stop you right there.
Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2dMme65Oj
It's Al Qaida.
Are you suggesting that Al Qaida has never used chemical weapons?
136. As the conflict escalates, the potential for the use of chemical weapons is of deepening concern. Chemical weapons include toxic chemicals, munitions, devices and related equipment as defined in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction. The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, which the Syrian Arab Republic has ratified, is also applicable. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited in all circumstances under customary international humanitarian law, and is a war crime under the Rome Statute.
137. The Government has in its possession a number of chemical weapons. The dangers extend beyond the use of the weapons by the Government itself to the control of such weapons in the event of either fractured command or of any of the affiliated forces gaining access.
138. Anti-government armed groups could gain access to and use chemical weapons. This includes nerve agents, though there is no compelling evidence that these groups possess such weapons or their requisite delivery systems.
139. Allegations were received concerning the use of chemical weapons by both parties. The majority concern their use by government forces. In four attacks – on Khan Al-Asal (Aleppo), on 19 March; Uteibah ( Damascus) on 19 March; Sheikh Maqsood neighbourhood (Aleppo) on 13 April; and Saraqib (Idlib), on 29 April – there are reasonable grounds to believe that limited quantities of toxic chemicals were used. It has not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator. Other incidents also remain under investigation.
140. Conclusive findings – particularly in the absence of a large-scale attack – may be reached only after samples taken directly from victims or the site of the alleged attack have been tested. It is therefore of utmost importance that the panel of experts, led by Professor Sellström and assembled under the mechanism established by the Secretary-General to investigate into the alleged use of chemical and biological or toxin weapons, be granted full access to the Syrian Arab Republic.
We already went through this yesterday, BAC. The above article is from May. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria released a report in June with the following findings regarding the use of chemical weapons:
So, the UN commission looked into the matter, concluded that the government has chemical weapons, that the rebels could possibly obtain and use chemical weapons and that the commission was unable to determine who used chemical weapons in the earlier attacks.
I'll make the same point again.
There is no proof that Assad used chemical weapons, not then, not now. There are credible suspicions, then and now, that it was the so-called Al Qaida rebels who used chemical weapons. You keep trying to put the onus on Assad.
I'll ask again .. It's Al Qaida.
Are you suggesting that Al Qaida has never used chemical weapons?
You can keep making the same incorrect point over and over again if you wish. The fact remains that there is "no compelling evidence" that the rebels possess chemical weapons in the first instance. If you have contrary evidence, please supply it and preferably to the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
You can keep making he same incorrect point over and over while you ignore my question.
Let me repeat .. There is no proof that Assad used chemical weapons, not then, not now.
If you have that proof, I'm sure the world would appreciate you sharing it.
There are a myriad of places that Al Qaida/rebels could have obtained chemical weapons .. including getting them from the US and/or Israel.
I haven't made the claim that Assad (or the Syrian regime) used chemical weapons so I'm not sure why the onus is on me to supply proof of anything. You, on the other hand, have asserted that the rebels are responsible for the attack, absent any compelling evidence that they even possess chemical weapons.
POST WHERE I SAID THE REBELS WERE RESPONSIBLE .. or did I say the rebels could very well be responsible, thus, why the rush to judgement..
Is there a difference?
Uh, that's how I read Post #11. Apologies if I read into it something you didn't mean.