[mikema63]

Who dunnit?

[anasawad]

moi

[skinster]

No it was me!

[Heisenberg]

Other: It is possible that rogue elements in the Syrian armed forces used chemical weapons, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that Assad himself would order a chemical strike. The attack in question came less than a week after Nikki Haley addressed the UN to say the US no longer considered removing him from office to be a priority. I don't believe he is suicidally stupid, so I don't see why he would decide to goad the US into air strikes when he is slowly winning the war.

I also think the idea that chemical weapons, or "barrel bombs", are uniquely awful, is something that needs to be questioned a bit more. The USAF just helped to bomb Mosul back to the stone age with conventional weapons, killing untold numbers of civilians in the process, many of whom will have died in agony. This, for some reason, is not seen as being particularly bad. Why?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

It was Ms. @skinster with the sarin gas canister in the study room!!

[skinster]

Well you know those terrorists I was arming and funding in Libya, to destroy the Libyan state, wellLLLL...after Gaddafi fell I got my people to get a hold of all the country's gold and weapons, including chemical weapons, and some of those weapons were shipped to Syria along with many of the terrorists that brought the downfall of Libya, and well....WHO ELSE COULD IT HAVE BEEN?

[mikema63]

Amazing! We didn't even make it to page two!

[Beren]

Other: it must have been Ter farting in the general direction of Syria.

[skinster]

It was me who did the thing mike is pretending to care about godamnit!

[mikema63]

So do I not care because I disagree with you or do I not care because I rarely post on the topic? Real question, what makes you say I don't care about the topic?

[anasawad]

Aaaah. Shit. I thought the who's dunnit question was about who voted above. As in write your answer below.


I voted probably someone else but could be Assad.
There are multiple sides in the conflict, all have access to one form or another of chemical weapons. Specially since a large part of the government's weapons and forces split from it and formed the various groups of rebels taking with them lots of equipment and guns (i.e this is how the war started, a military coup turned civil war).
There are reports that Assad used it, then others that it was the rebels, then even more sources putting the Islamists in the mix. And all of those reports came from traditionally credible sources, and all have tons of evidence backing it; In so I would say its most probable that all sides have used chemical weapons at some point or another.

Though to add a side note, I don't exactly remember the location, but the last chemical attack which Trump used as an excuse to bomb Syria was clearly either a hoax or the Islamists. Since in one hand there are barely any evidence that an attack even took place; And if one did, that would be the dumbest decision the Assad government could make which makes me think that if an attack took place it's probably Islamists or rebels due to the political context in which it took place.

[Politiks]

Other: It is possible that rogue elements in the Syrian armed forces used chemical weapons, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that Assad himself would order a chemical strike. The attack in question came less than a week after Nikki Haley addressed the UN to say the US no longer considered removing him from office to be a priority. I don't believe he is suicidally stupid, so I don't see why he would decide to goad the US into air strikes when he is slowly winning the war.

I also think the idea that chemical weapons, or "barrel bombs", are uniquely awful, is something that needs to be questioned a bit more. The USAF just helped to bomb Mosul back to the stone age with conventional weapons, killing untold numbers of civilians in the process, many of whom will have died in agony. This, for some reason, is not seen as being particularly bad. Why?

Valid points. I think the horror or not depends on the interest of USA's and UK's shadow Government. For example, Assad is a "evil dictator" the basic what is regurgitated by US/NATO mainstream media. Have you seen any sort of outrage from the same people who highly discriminate Assad against Saudi Arabia's inclusion on UN's board of Human Rights? Honestly, if a martian landed here he very likely think that's a joke.

I wouldn't put pass UN supporting Saudi Arabia or Iran for the head of Human Rights. If Mauritania had as much oil, we would have chances of seeing Mauritania (where slavery is legal) at the head of civil rights.

US created ONU and UN and they operate as what they are: US company. We still have a country that sent 2 nuclear bombs to Japan and doesn't even have direct elections for Senate and President call themselves "The head of the free world". In another words, UN and ONU are 2 of the most corrupted institutions in the world.

I agree with everything you said, and to answer your question: isn't consider as bad because bombing a city/country to the stone age makes tons of money in different fronts while orange gas makes little to no profit in comparison. There for one is a hideous crime and the other just another day.

[Rich]

because bombing a city/country to the stone age makes tons of money in different fronts

No it doesn't. First off no city country has been bombed back to the Bronze age let alone the Stone age. Muslim shit holes don't produce much wealth in the first place, they produce nothing when they've been destroyed. Our interventons in Iraq, Syria are driven by big ideological, political and geo political motives.

Western countries have become rich by industrialising and then moving onto high tech manufacture and services. Primary resource extraction has only been a road to richs for countries with relatively small populations and huge amounts of primary resources. Germany, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland all became rich with out control of major primary resources. Libya had huge, huge wealth per capita but its Muslim inhabitants still managed to turn it into a shit hole. For 1400 years now Muslim terrorist parasites have been conquering advanced civilised societies and turned them into shit holes.

Asia Minor, the Levant, Iraq, North Africa, these were all great advanced places before the Muslims took over.

[Oxymandias]

@Rich

The ignorance in this post is astounding.

One word bud, "Abbasid Golden Age". I don't even need to say anything other than that to contradict most of your very bad history. Or are you one of those people who believe that the Abbasid Golden Age is a myth for no goddamn logical reason despite the evidence that proves otherwise.

Also let's all forget the 17th century Ottoman Empire, Dubai, Lebanon, Oman, and Qatar shall we since if Muslim countries are shitholes that don't produce much wealth than why the fuck does these places exist. It's a paradox!

Give me good evidence that shows that Libya had a huge wealth per capita than it did before Islam reached it because such a thing is impossible. By the 900s, what was modern Libya didn't even have any cities or trading ports. To Carthage and Phoenicia, Libya was their empire's biggest source of farmland, it didn't need cities in the first place. Such a claim is impossible to prove and that's assuming you even find out the GDP of a place during the 900s.

[skinster]

Though to add a side note, I don't exactly remember the location, but the last chemical attack which Trump used as an excuse to bomb Syria was clearly either a hoax or the Islamists.

That's the one this thread is about.

[Ter]

Definitely not Assad.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Hillary did it all... and @mikema63 hid the evidence!! It's all on Mike's computer, so why isn't Mike sharing with us the contents of his hard drive? What is he hiding?!

I'm just asking questions!

[Godstud]

Definitely not Assad.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I voted "not Assad" as well. I'm just not dumb enough to be influenced by Western propaganda making it seem like he's a cartoon villain who uses chemical weapons due to being an insane comic book tinpot villain guy, while we tolerate other dictators in the ME currently waging war against their neighbors and slaughtering both their own people and neighboring populations. I think the word for the day there is "hypocritical" but who knows!

[skinster]

Only a complete fucking idiot would believe it was the Syrian army that gassed its own people. The same complete fucking idiot believed in WMDs in Iraq.