Evidence That Assad Was Behind Recent Chemical Attacks?

Buddy, you are WAY, WAY off. Stop being so defensive. You're not abusing anybody, you're coming off as extremely arrogant whilst having no support behind your position. I have no agenda or strategy and thus, I'm using no tactics.

I'm simply asking a question. Once which has no good answer, it's beginning to seem.
No, I'm not. I have my source in my pocket. You've haven't offered any indication to contradict what has been postulated by the global community, not just Americans.

If you want to know what the evidence is, ask Google. If you have a problem with the evidence supplied, then explain why (as I am to SouthPaw who is at least trying).
 
Once again, world leaders are more than happy to let America gets its hands dirty.

Britain:
British Prime Minister Theresa May said the action was an “appropriate response” to the “barbaric” chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime.

UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon noted that the strike was a United States operation, “but let me emphasize again we fully support it.”

“This strike was very limited to one airfield, it was entirely appropriate, it’s designed to deter the regime from carrying out further chemical weapons attacks,” he said.

Germany:
“President Assad bears sole responsibility for this development,” declared German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande in a joint statement Friday. “His repeated use of chemical weapons and his crimes against his own population had to be sanctioned.”

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called the attack “understandable” after the failure of the Security Council to come together in chastising Syria.

Italy:
“The action Trump ordered tonight was a response to a war crime,” said Italian Prime Minister, Paolo Gentiloni, “a war crime under the responsibility of Bashar Al Assad.”

“Italy understands the reasons for U.S. military action proportionate in time and manner,” said Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano, “in response to an unacceptable sense of impunity and as a deterrent signal to the threat of further uses of chemical weapons by Assad, following those already established by the UN.”

Israel:
Elsewhere, Trump received support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who Friday said the strike sent a “strong and clear” message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

“Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere,” Netanyahu said.

Australia:
Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull said his government fully supported the strike, called the move a “swift and just response.”

“This was a proportionate response by the United States. It is not designed to overthrow the Assad regime,” he said.

JAPAN:
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offered his full support for the U.S. strike, and noted that Japan “highly appreciates” the Trump administration’s commitment to maintaining global order and working with its allies at a time when “the threat from weapons of mass destruction is also growing more serious in East Asia.”

Saudi Arabia:
Courageous

European Council:
US strikes show needed resolve against barbaric chemical attacks. EU will work with the US to end brutality in Syria.

NATO Secretary General:
said the Assad regime “bears the full responsibility for this development.” He said he was informed by General James Mattis, the U.S. defense secretary, of the impending strike.
 
I don't think this qualifies as a crazy question. Its actually quite reasonable.
It's a crazy question because of the explicit premise that there is no evidence Assad is behind the gas attack. There is evidence; he's just ignoring it because he doesn't believe it. You can dispute whether the evidence is convincing, but denying the existence is lunacy.

As a brief summary:
1.) The people attacked were a mix of isil/rebels and civilians
2.) The attack happened coterminously with bombing by government planes
3.) None of the actors involved deny that a chemical attack occurred.
4.) The Assad government has previously used and manufactured chemical weapons
5.) The rebels don't have the tech base to manufacture sophisticated chemical weapons.
 
Last edited:
Remember the 1st Gulf War baby incubator story? The young girl providing "evidence" in the form of super convincing tears turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S.



Now today with CNN using the expert testimony of a 7 year old girl reading off a teleprompter begging moral Americans to please come remove the boogyman Al-Assad.



People's hamster brain memories sicken me, they use the same god damn propaganda decade after decade and folks are too ignorant to know or remember. Just show dead kids or some frantic woman like "Nikki Haley" (Nimrata Randhawa) crying and all the emotional white knights rush in to carpet bomb countries while telling themselves they're the moral vanguard of humanity.
 
Welcome the real world of politics. Every nations works in what should be its best interest. If not, then that nation will not last or simply become a vassal of a stronger nation to protect them. I know it's been in vogue for some time to point the finger of shame at the US for all of our "horrible" policies and foreign actions. Simply put, you can go fuck yourself with that and if that's what you want this conversation to turn into once again, go fuck yourself. I have no problem admitting that the US has made plenty of questionable foreign policies. But given that I enjoy the benefits of a US citizen, which in part is the result of those policies, it would be rather hypocritical to shit all over my nation.

Then quit pretending the US are doing anyone else a favour by playing Sheriff. It has nothing to do with being 'vogue', more about not being disingenuous with regards to foreign policy.
 
It's a crazy question because of the implicit claim that there is no evidence Assad is behind the gas attack. There is evidence; he's just ignoring it because he doesn't believe it. You can dispute whether the evidence is convincing, but denying the existence is lunacy.

As a brief summary:
1.) The people attacked were a mix of isil/rebels and civilians
2.) The attack happened coterminously with bombing by government planes
3.) None of the actors involved deny that a chemical attack occurred.
4.) The Assad government has previously used and manufactured chemical weapons
5.) The rebels don't have the tech base to manufacture sophisticated chemical weapons.
giphy.gif

Then quit pretending the US are doing anyone else a favour by playing Sheriff. It has nothing to do with being 'vogue', more about not being disingenuous with regards to foreign policy.
Whether or not the US is doing anyone a favor is irrelevant to the truth that Assad did this.
 
Well, either Assad did it, or it was a neo-con false flag (McCain did just visit the "moderates" a few weeks back).

Either way, once those images and videos of dying kids emerged, I don't think you have many options as a President. If you sit back and wait for more information, media will spin it as you being weak, indecisive and a stooge for Assad/Putin who condones genocide on his watch. If you act swiftly and engage the situation, you're deemed a neo-con warmonger.

This is a lose/lose scenario for Trump, and one that was put in place by foreign policies of previous administrations.
 
No, I'm not. I have my source in my pocket. You've haven't offered any indication to contradict what has been postulated by the global community, not just Americans.

If you want to know what the evidence is, ask Google. If you have a problem with the evidence supplied, then explain why (as I am to SouthPaw who is at least trying).
I spent last night and this morning searching and this morning I began asking this question on multiple mediums. This is not the only website and you are not the only person ive posed this question to.

I've yet to find a single piece of convincing evidence that Assad carried out ANY alchemical at all, let alone the one from a few days ago. Having access to these weapons means he could have used them, it's not evidence that he did use them.

When something is being 'postulated' with ZERO hard evidence, it is not on the skeptics to disprove it. It's similar to the reason I don't believe a god exists, despite the fact that religious people seem very sure that he does. What you said is the equivalent of a religious person asking me 'prove it's not true!'

Well, there's not any evidence that it is true, and that's all I'm asking for. I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm saying there's no evidence that he did do it
 
Once again, world leaders are more than happy to let America gets its hands dirty.

Britain:
British Prime Minister Theresa May said the action was an “appropriate response” to the “barbaric” chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime.

UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon noted that the strike was a United States operation, “but let me emphasize again we fully support it.”

“This strike was very limited to one airfield, it was entirely appropriate, it’s designed to deter the regime from carrying out further chemical weapons attacks,” he said.

Germany:
“President Assad bears sole responsibility for this development,” declared German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande in a joint statement Friday. “His repeated use of chemical weapons and his crimes against his own population had to be sanctioned.”

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called the attack “understandable” after the failure of the Security Council to come together in chastising Syria.

Italy:
“The action Trump ordered tonight was a response to a war crime,” said Italian Prime Minister, Paolo Gentiloni, “a war crime under the responsibility of Bashar Al Assad.”

“Italy understands the reasons for U.S. military action proportionate in time and manner,” said Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano, “in response to an unacceptable sense of impunity and as a deterrent signal to the threat of further uses of chemical weapons by Assad, following those already established by the UN.”

Israel:
Elsewhere, Trump received support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who Friday said the strike sent a “strong and clear” message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

“Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere,” Netanyahu said.

Australia:
Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull said his government fully supported the strike, called the move a “swift and just response.”

“This was a proportionate response by the United States. It is not designed to overthrow the Assad regime,” he said.

JAPAN:
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offered his full support for the U.S. strike, and noted that Japan “highly appreciates” the Trump administration’s commitment to maintaining global order and working with its allies at a time when “the threat from weapons of mass destruction is also growing more serious in East Asia.”

Saudi Arabia:
Courageous

European Council:
US strikes show needed resolve against barbaric chemical attacks. EU will work with the US to end brutality in Syria.

NATO Secretary General:
said the Assad regime “bears the full responsibility for this development.” He said he was informed by General James Mattis, the U.S. defense secretary, of the impending strike.
That kind of solves the question of international consensus. Problem is that it happened to work out this way after the fact.
 
Then quit pretending the US are doing anyone else a favour by playing Sheriff. It has nothing to do with being 'vogue', more about not being disingenuous with regards to foreign policy.
Like most things in life you jackass it's a bit more complicated than simple black and white. We do what is our interest to do, but we also do plenty of shit that isn't. This action in Syria is one in my opinion that offers us no real benefit, but we did because none of these other shitters around the world apparently are going to stick their necks out 1st and smack that fucker in the nose.
 
Was Susan Rice lying again?

This time about Obama administration verifying that they got them to get rid of Chemical weapons?
 
I spent last night and this morning searching and this morning I began asking this question on multiple mediums. This is not the only website and you are not the only person ive posed this question to.

I've yet to find a single piece of convincing evidence that Assad carried out ANY alchemical at all, let alone the one from a few days ago. Having access to these weapons means he could have used them, it's not evidence that he did use them.

When something is being 'postulated' with ZERO hard evidence, it is not on the skeptics to disprove it. It's similar to the reason I don't believe a god exists, despite the fact that religious people seem very sure that he does. What you said is the equivalent of a religious person asking me 'prove it's not true!'

Well, there's not any evidence that it is true, and that's all I'm asking for. I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm saying there's no evidence that he did do it
Gotcha.

You have now admitted that you have perused evidence. You have acknowledged what I have forced you to concede. So, knowing this, now show us as many examples of "evidence" that you have reviewed, but reject because it isn't "convincing".
 
Trump has gone full Dubbya Bush here. He should have stuck to his ways and to Bannon.

Unfortunately Trump has decided to reverse his position and join with Bush-ites.
Terrible, terrible news.
How do you think Obama would've handled it?
 
It's a crazy question because of the explicit premise that there is no evidence Assad is behind the gas attack. There is evidence; he's just ignoring it because he doesn't believe it. You can dispute whether the evidence is convincing, but denying the existence is lunacy.

As a brief summary:
1.) The people attacked were a mix of isil/rebels and civilians
2.) The attack happened coterminously with bombing by government planes
3.) None of the actors involved deny that a chemical attack occurred.
4.) The Assad government has previously used and manufactured chemical weapons
5.) The rebels don't have the tech base to manufacture sophisticated chemical weapons.
None of this is evidence that Assad used chemical weaponry. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills?!?

So now our standard of evidence to bomb foreign nations is lower than that of which it takes to imprison Americans for crimes within America?????
 
That kind of solves the question of international consensus. Problem is that it happened to work out this way after the fact.
All of 'em were more than happy that the US stepped up yet again. Maybe, just maybe, some other national leader will grow a spine the next time something like this occurs before we have to sigh and strap on the gloves again and enter the ring.
 
The chemical weapons attacks in Libia that were blamed on Gadaffi was actually the responsibility of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The chemical weapons attacks in Syria in 2013 that almost sent us to war, was The responsibility of ISIS, yet Assad still gets the blame in our media.




Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war!
 
Suddenly U.S. cares about kids dying in Syria lol. Like it just happened while ignoring previous weekly basis deaths.
Assad wasn't the only one with chemical weapons. Rebels have them and used them before.
 
Gotcha.

You have now admitted that you have perused evidence. You have acknowledged what I have forced you to concede. So, knowing this, now show us as many examples of "evidence" that you reviewed which you reject because it isn't "convincing".
???

Having chemical weapons doesn't make you any more guilty for a chemical attack than having a gun makes you guilty of a shooting.

M
 
How do you think Obama would've handled it?

hello Drenalin,

we know how Mr. Obama would have handled it.

he would have threatened military action against the Syrian government for the use of chemical weaponry.

Assad, then, would have backed down and refrained from further usage of such weaponry after the Russians provided him with a face saving intervention.

- IGIT
 
Back
Top