What is the truth about the Syrian nerve gas massacre

[anatta]

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.

OK, my bad, and this is what i was referencing.

I have followed the Syrian civil war fairly closely ( with a detour for the Egyptian coup), and was just made aware of this the other day.

I had THOUGHT the evidence was "conclusive" having not read thru it.

Nerve gas is awful, but so is the whole war -not something I would decide to take military intervention on, not with al_Nusra, and such eating enemies hearts out.



what I'm saying is there is plenty of gruesome murderous intents, that have killed over 100k, and no signs of stopping -nerve gas or not.

 

[Liberty]

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.

I agree. It doesn't look like there was anything for Assad to gain. He's not that stupid. This being the case, all this looks very suspicious concerning Obama, and our government.

 

[anatta]

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.

there isn't any evidencs they posses it, there n't any evidence they couldn't get it (proving a negative)

delivery systems are more problematic. this is also bothersome:

Assad told the Russian newspaper Izvestia that accusations his troops used chemicals were "politically motivated."

"This is nonsense," Assad was quoted as saying. "First they level the accusations, and only then they start collecting evidence."

Assad said attacking such an area with chemical weapons would not make sense for the government, because there was no clear front line between regime and rebel forces.

"How can the government use chemical weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its troops are situated?" he asked.

and don't forget the bigger picture:

It also would bring the U.S. closer to a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people since Assad cracked down on Arab Spring-inspired protesters in March 2011.

Syria's civil war has been increasingly defined by sectarian killings between the Sunni-led rebellion and Assad's regime, dominated by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

It would essentially pit the U.S. and regional allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar in a proxy war against Iran, which is providing weapons to the Syrian government's counterinsurgency, along with Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese group that also has aided Assad's forces militarily.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-chemical-weapons_n_3820586.html

there was talk of the rebels finding stockpiles in a cave? who really knows anything, bottom line stay out of it