Thread: Syria attack: US 'deliberately avoided bombing sarin stockpile at Assad airbase' duri

Originally Posted by Judy

No, very different than Bush in Iraq. We're not invading Syria. McCain and Graham can get all giddy about that possibility, but that will never happen. Trump isn't going to spend a cent more on Syria. He only did the airstrike to send a broad message about chemical weapons and other types of weapons.

All I can say to that is ....... don't ever say never.

Well, like I said, "we'll see."

The lies were the lies of chemical weapons in Iraq and their being an imminent threat to the US and their nuclear designs and our 'not waiting for the mushroom shaped cloud'.

It started that way - than we heard what a brutal dictator he was - although he had been our very own junkyard dog for many years. Then it sorta just devolved into 'he was a bad man'.

Yes, I believe it was hype and I believe it has proven to be hype.

Again, if any evidence of dangerous chemical weapons had been found, Pres. Bush and his group would have been over there getting their picture taken and shouting it from the rooftops.

So true, never say never. It looks as if it could escalate into an open war.

I believe we already have 'troops' over there mercenaries - some paid foreigners. Not sure which side, but this government is funding one side or both - not Assad. So we ARE in Syria. Although we'll never know, but I believe we orchestrated and fomented the entire 'revolt' or 'civil war' or whatever name they have for it.

So, no, I will not be surprised if they do send troops. These things have a way of happening in small steps.

But again, is a baby less dead because of some chemical or a bomb, missile, or uranium depleted weaponry?

I don't believe Assad did this - or I certainly can't understand his rationale for turning the world against him and giving the US government - with all it's war mongering and war profiteers in places of power - an excuse to really get involved. He has to know that is exactly what this group has wanted for a long time. Why give it to them? I don't think he would.

It wasn't the babies. It's not even about Syria. It's about "look over here, while I'm over there." That's my hunch.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

The lies were the lies of chemical weapons in Iraq and their being an imminent threat to the US and their nuclear designs and our 'not waiting for the mushroom shaped cloud'.

It started that way - than we heard what a brutal dictator he was - although he had been our very own junkyard dog for many years. Then it sorta just devolved into 'he was a bad man'.

Yes, I believe it was hype and I believe it has proven to be hype.

Again, if any evidence of dangerous chemical weapons had been found, Pres. Bush and his group would have been over there getting their picture taken and shouting it from the rooftops.

So true, never say never. It looks as if it could escalate into an open war.

I believe we already have 'troops' over there mercenaries - some paid foreigners. Not sure which side, but this government is funding one side or both - not Assad. So we ARE in Syria. Although we'll never know, but I believe we orchestrated and fomented the entire 'revolt' or 'civil war' or whatever name they have for it.

So, no, I will not be surprised if they do send troops. These things have a way of happening in small steps.

But again, is a baby less dead because of some chemical or a bomb, missile, or uranium depleted weaponry?

I don't believe Assad did this - or I certainly can't understand his rationale for turning the world against him and giving the US government - with all it's war mongering and war profiteers in places of power - an excuse to really get involved. He has to know that is exactly what this group has wanted for a long time. Why give it to them? I don't think he would.

I would disagree with most of your points. There were chemical weapons in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator just like Assad and gassed 5,000 Kurds. Furthermore, there are chemical weapons in Syria and Assad did gas his own people. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. The intelligence on these things if pretty much undeniable.

Originally Posted by MW

I would disagree with most of your points. There were chemical weapons in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator just like Assad and gassed 5,000 Kurds. Furthermore, there are chemical weapons in Syria and Assad did gas his own people. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. The intelligence on these things if pretty much undeniable.

Then don't worry about it and be "pretty much" resolute on what you think. There are always going to be major differences of opinion on military action by the US. And no one knows who was right and who was wrong for many years, if ever. I mean, tThey still argue about the US Civil War. Mexicans still argue about the Mexican-American War. The native Americans still argue about the Indian Wars. I guess the only one no one argues much about is the Revolutionary War. Heck they still argue about WWII, paid reparations to Japanese Americans and debate whether we were right or wrong to drop the bombs on Japan, while black Americans never got their mule and 40 acres for slavery after the Civil War.

Americans are very opinionated and haven't really agreed on anything ever. Even during the Revolutionary War, we had the Tory Traitors.

Originally Posted by MW

I would disagree with most of your points. There were chemical weapons in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator just like Assad and gassed 5,000 Kurds. Furthermore, there are chemical weapons in Syria and Assad did gas his own people. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. The intelligence on these things if pretty much undeniable.

Really, I don't want to argue much about this, and I do respect that you have your opinion, but so far I haven't even heard any 'facts' concerning them except the assertions by Bush and company - who certainly have their own agenda.

One question, why was our government - meaning the Bush family - so sure Saddam had such weapons? Because the CIA said he did? Although inspectors didn't except they said they found some that were old and deteriorated. How did the Bush family 'know' he had them?

You see, 'intelligence' is a tricky thing. For me, I consider the CIA to be one of the most dangerous organizations on the planet - so their intelligence doesn't mean much to me. Also knowing the Bush family involvement in intelligence - I would think perhaps it would say what they wanted.

The CIA has been in the ME since the late 50's - blowing up buildings, stirring up problems and they continue to do so.

As for Saddam being a brutal dictator - I don't doubt that at all. It's just that he was an 'acceptable brutal dictator' to the US when they could use him to do what they wanted - so what happened.

What happened with Iraq that hadn't been going on for decades with the knowledge and acquiescence of the American government. As I said, he was our very own junkyard dog for many years.


To prevent an attack of chemical weapons or nuclear attack against the US is just not even beginning to be believable.

Does anyone, I mean anyone, really believe he was going to 'gas' this country? Really?

Or that he had the capability to produce that 'mushroom shaped cloud' of which Ms. Rice spoke ?

Again, I respect your opinion - truly I do.

Turkey: Autopsies show sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack

Bassem Mroue, Philip IssaAssociated Press

Turkey's health minister said Tuesday that test results confirm sarin gas was used in an attack on a northern Syrian town earlier this month and the Russian military said the Syrian government is willing to let international experts examine its military base for signs of chemical weapons.

Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoy of the Russian General Staff said in televised remarks that Russia will provide security for international inspectors seeking to examine Syrian bases, and that Damascus has agreed to allow the inspections. His comments came shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow will appeal to the United Nations to investigate the attack on Khan Sheikhoun.

The April 4 chemical weapons attack on the rebel-held town in Idlib province left nearly 90 people dead. The United States blamed President Bashar Assad's government and launched nearly 60 cruise missiles on Friday at the Shayrat air base in the central province of Homs, where it claims the attack originated.

Moscow, which is a strong backer of the Syrian government, has dismissed suggestions that the Damascus could be behind the attack. The Syrian government also denied the allegation, saying its air force bombed a rebel arsenal that had chemical weapons stored inside.

Putin told reporters on Tuesday that Russia would appeal to a U.N. agency in the Hague, urging it to launch an official probe. The Russian president also said Moscow has received intelligence about planned "provocations" using chemical weapons that would be used to pin the blame on the Syrian government.

The Russian statements came as U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrived in Moscow where he will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday.

In Turkey, a main backer of the Syrian opposition, Health Minister Recep Akdag said test results conducted on victims of the Khan Sheikhoun attack confirm that sarin gas was used. Akdag said that blood and urine samples taken from the victims confirmed that they were subjected to the nerve agent. His comments were reported by the state-run Anadolu news agency.

Turkey last week conducted autopsies on three victims of the gas attack who were brought from Syria. Officials from the World Health Organization and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons participated in the autopsies.

In Damascus, a Syrian official said Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem will visit Russia on Thursday where he will meet officials in Moscow.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, said Tuesday that there might be a three-way meeting later this week in Moscow between officials from Russia, Syria and Iran.

Syrian government forces battling insurgents in Daraa have dropped several barrel bombs on the southern city, opposition activists said Tuesday, a day after the White House suggested that the use of the crude explosive devices could bring a U.S. response.


U.S. Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming

Russia's Defense Ministry meanwhile said two of its army officers were killed and a third seriously wounded in a mortar attack in Syria, without specifying when or where it took place. Russia has been waging an air campaign in support of Syrian forces since 2015.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the fighting in Daraa erupted Monday when rebels attacked a government-held area in the city center. It said 16 pro-government fighters, including an army colonel, have been killed.

Both the Observatory and Daraa-based activist Ahmad al-Masalmeh said warplanes carried out raids on Daraa while helicopter gunships dropped at least 14 barrels loaded with explosives.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday that the use of barrel bombs, which government forces have repeatedly employed throughout the six-year-old conflict, might prompt a U.S. retaliation.

A Syrian official, meanwhile, said residents will begin evacuating two besieged areas in northwestern Syria on Wednesday, in the latest population transfer arranged by the warring sides.

Hakim Baghdadi said authorities have prepared 100 buses to move 5,000 people out of the Shiite villages of Foua and Kfarya. Baghdadi, a member of the relief committee for the two villages, said they will be bused first to the nearby city of Aleppo, then on to other destinations.

The predominantly Shiite villages have remained loyal to the Syrian government while the rest of the surrounding Idlib Province has fallen under the rule of hard-line Sunni rebels.

The rebel commander in charge of two opposition-held towns in western Syria says evacuations will also begin from his districts tomorrow. The commander, who goes by the name Abu Adnan al-Zabadani, said residents and fighters electing to leave will be bused out of Madaya and Zabadani on Wednesday, before the towns are returned to government control.

An arrangement between the government and rebels has linked the fate of the four besieged towns since 2015. The U.N. has decried the arrangement, saying it has served to obstruct the provision of badly needed assistance.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...411-story.html

Originally Posted by MW

I would disagree with most of your points. There were chemical weapons in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator just like Assad and gassed 5,000 Kurds. Furthermore, there are chemical weapons in Syria and Assad did gas his own people. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. The intelligence on these things if pretty much undeniable.

There are a sea of lies about much of what is going in the Middle East all the way from Iran to Israel. I think we ought to be more skeptical about such claims.

But, even if the claims are true, we really have to consider exactly what we want to change in the Middle East. Removing Saddam Hussein was a huge mistake. If Saddam Hussein were still around, there would be no ISIS. If Lybia's Muammar Khadafi were still around, there would be no ISIS. Everything we have done in the Middle East in attempts to stabilize the region have had the opposite effect. Trump came in claiming the outrageous mandate of destroying "radical Islamic terrorism". Anyone with any sense was comforted by the stand he took. Where did that all go? Now all our focus is on this little guy Assad. What role does removing Assad have in destroying ISIS and wiping out radical Islamic terrorism? If Assad were using chemical weapons on ISIS, would anyone complain? If ISIS were dragging women and children to their chemical weapons site and threatening to use the weapons, what would we do?

Ten minutes ago people were accusing Trump of being connected to the Russians. Think of all the political and governmental machinery that is even now -- I guess -- poised to uncover the truth of all this. Remember Flynn and how he was whisked away for not being trustworthy in his dealings with the Russians? Many of us do not believe the claims against Trump or his administration have any credibility. The same lack of credibility taints the claims about Assad as well. It is the same political engine.

But why did Trump take the bait? Because of the babies. He dropped the whole mission to protect this country from radical Islamic terrorism and ISIS because of some dead babies. And ISIS and radical Islamic terrorists have plenty of dead babies and plenty more where they came from. The have no restraints when it comes to killing women and children. None. They slit the throats of anyone they feel like it and brag about it on film.

Time to get back on track, the Russians in Syria are already doing more than we are going to do to confront ISIS. Leave them alone, If Assad is using chemical weapons, let the Russians deal with it. Get some international observers in there, we have already had our own military in there to get rid of the bulk of the chem weapons we know he had. The Russians can take a role in cleaning up any more they might have, if they have them.

Moscow wants to protect a key naval facility which it leases at the Syrian port of Tartous, which serves as Russia's sole Mediterranean base for its Black Sea fleet ... BBC News