The international community sat aghast on Tuesday as images emerged of Syrian children choking to death after a suspected chemical attack killed dozens of people in the rebel-controlled northern province of Idlib.
Here we go again with the false accusations against Assad. Both the UN and MIT scientists concluded that Assad did not gas his people in 2014. And since then, Syria got rid of its chemical weapons, verified by the UN and the US. This latest accusation is just the latest attempt to divert attention from the humanitarian disaster the US is creating in Mosul.
RT. That is not an accurate statement of either the MIT or UN conclusions. It is the Assad/Putin account. The attack was on a community where anti Assad forces were in control, targeting civilians. It was carried out with surface to surface rockets and used sarin gas from Syrian Army stocks. Who collected the admitted stocks of sarin after the attacks? Putin. Why would you rely on a source like RT? This case was an air attack using sarin gas. How did the US pull that off? How did the rebels pull off an air attack....on their community? You putinists are shameless.
One can always go to the MIT report itself. Or to Sy Hersh's article "The Red Line and the Rat Line" published in the London Review of Books in April 2014 in which he reports that it was very likely a false flag by "rebels" (supported by Turkey) in order to mousetrap Obama into bombing Syria. Unless, of course, you think Sy Hersh is a Putin/Assad stooge also.
What MIT and the UN concluded is that the attack could not be tied to a specific Assad order. Hersh doesn't have to be an Assad or Putin stooge to be simply wrong. False flag claims are pretty routine these days on the far left and the far right. More often things are as they appear to be and serve those they appear to serve. In this case hundreds of Assad opponents die horribly. As they have in the past, including Aleppo. It is no more likely that Assads opponents gassed themselves and bombed their own hospitals than Jews decided to kill themselves in Poland or Tutsis committed suicide in Rwanda.
You never heard of a false flag attack to get support for escalating a war? While RT has their own biases at times their version is the truth given what we know about the lies from our own MSM which makes Pravda and Baghdad Bob blush. It makes no sense for Syria to resort to such tactics knowing its going to be exploited against them. Who benefits? Answer that and you are halfway there to knowing who did it.
Meanwhile our drones and bombs are killing many civilians but almost no reporting or outrage.
This article supports your position.
Of course there is no conclusive evidence who is responsible but to dismiss Assad as a culprit outright like the contrarians here have done is asinine.
When Amesty International reports on Mosul no one questions their reporting. However, if they dare point fingers at Assad or the Russians they suddenly are attacked as not being impartial.
I believe the US operations in Mosul caused the deaths recently of many civilians. I believe the operations of Assad and Putin resulted resulted recently in the deaths of many civilians in Syria. Why do some believe that to accept one is to refute the other?
BWilliamson, fooled yet again. Who benefits from an attack like this? US backed rebels. Do you still believe that Saddam jerked babies out of incubators?
So we have a rather strained, contorted article from consortiumnews (Reese Erlich?) suggesting a defense of Assad, while every investigation maintains the same conclusion: The forces under Assads control have repeatedly gassed Syrian civilians. This defense becomes fanaticism at some point.
What in hell are you talking about? The rebel communities benefit by their own gassing? Maybe you could go to a site where they will prove to you that the Holocaust serves that purpose for Jews. The gassing of his enemies, again and again, has clearly benefited Assad, who by that means has retained power.
Gassing civilians is keeping Assad in power? That is beyond absurd.
Please give citations, the article was about the New York Times reversing their earlier position, it just happened to be on the best site for dispassionate coverage of the hysteria of present day foreign policy Consortium News.
Edit: The article on Consortium links to the New York Times piece it is analyzing, so just check it out.
Amnesty and most other NGOs, MSF included have a very bad record on Syria. Amnesty recently published a very silly 'report' claiming that thousands of prsoners were executed by the Syrian government. Like the Ghoutta sarin repot it was shot full of holes but that won'r stop the Clintonites, morally respoonsible for every death in Syria and Libya, from rolling out falsehoods and using their corrupt connections to amplify their unfounded accusations/excuses for aggression in the media.
People need to wean themselves off the addiction of invading other countries for the hell of it. To begin with they must stop swallowing propaganda from the government and its media. If proper caution had been exercised over the Gulf of Tonkin lies a lot of Americans and millions of Indo Chinese would be entering their golden years instead of rotting in the graves that propagandists prepared for them when they were just beginning their lives.
This is a damned lie which includes a statistic. No investigation has ever shown that Assad or Syrian regular forces ever used gas, whle, as a matter of notorious fact, all chemical and biological warfare weapons and agents were destroyed under UN supervision several years ago. It was this that helped stall the Ghoutta false flag gas incident from becoming a casus belli. Something for which the Democrats have never forgiven Russia.
The terrorists [THAT WE SUPPORT] are manufacturing chemical weapons in warehouses. The 1 trick pony, regime changers just got outed!
It doesn't take long, in the present era, for stories that purport to tell what actually happened, just don't seem to add up upon reflection, leaving questions crying for answers.
Chemicals and radioactive uranium plague civilian bombings in Syria and Iraq.
Any civilian bombing reminds me of Nixon's Christmas Bombings of Hanoi, December 18 - 29, 1972, the largest heavy bombing strikes launched by the US Air Force since the end of WW 2.
"In God's name, Stop the bombing." was the enraged response that Bishop Charles Buswell, Colorado, sent to Pres Nixon. That brief message always convinces me.
Yes, and where are those voices today? They are probably here, but not heard.