Author Topic: Syria chemical attack  (Read 3675 times)

عوني

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1306
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Syria chemical attack
« on: April 06, 2017, 05:36:59 PM »
I read this article today and was very sad to read.. What happened in Khan Sheikhun recently was completely barbaric and outrageous and that certain countries are still allowed to own chemical weapons when they should have been banned everywhere completely after WW2 shows how little countries care about preventing these kind of attacks and the fact that they are being used on civilians shows how cowardly some people (i.e. the criminals behind the attack) can be.. Who do you believe was behind the recent chemical attack? In the article there's a video of were Trump is giving a speech of where he pretends to care about the victims in Syria even though he has banned Syrian refugees from entering the US completely while he improves ties with the regime that's known for its war crimes and Russia

"The Syrian foreign minister has set out conditions for any UN investigation into the deaths of dozens of people from a chemical agent on Tuesday.

Walid Muallem told the BBC it would have to be non-political, involve "many countries" and "start from Damascus" before his government could accept.

He denied Syria had dropped chemical weapons from the air, despite facing widespread scepticism.

The UN children's fund has confirmed that at least 27 children were killed.

Russia, one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's few allies, was challenged by the US and UK at the UN Security Council on Wednesday when it sought to argue the mass poisoning had been caused by the rebels' own chemical weapons.

Washington has hinted it might change its policy towards Syria in response to the deaths.

What do we know about the deaths?

Warplanes attacked Khan Sheikhoun, about 50km (30 miles) south of the city of Idlib, early on Tuesday, when many people were asleep, witnesses and activists say.


Two US military officials told NBC News that Syrian fixed-wing aircraft had been seen on US radar dropping bombs on a hospital in an area of Idlib "where al-Nusra Front operates".

Al-Nusra, which formerly had ties to al-Qaeda, changed its name to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham before merging with other groups this year to become Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

The opposition-run health directorate in Idlib province says at least 84 people, including 27 children and 19 women, were killed. Another 546 people were injured, many of whom remain in a serious condition.

Evidence has mounted that the victims were killed with a nerve agent such as Sarin.

Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said its staff had treated eight patients brought to a hospital on the Turkish border whose symptoms were consistent with such exposure.

Turkish Foreign Minister Bekir Bozdag said on Thursday that autopsies had confirmed that chemical weapons were used.


What is the Assad government's position?

Foreign Minister Muallem told BBC Arabic that the Syrian government would, together with Russia, consider accepting an investigation mandated by the UN Security Council, if its conditions were met.

Speaking separately at a news conference, he accused jihadist groups not party to a ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey of storing "chemical weapons in urban and residential areas".

The Russian military confirmed on Wednesday that the Syrian air force had launched air strikes in the Khan Sheikhoun area but said they had hit a rebel depot full of chemical munitions.

How plausible is the Russian version of events?

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Regiment, told the BBC it was "pretty fanciful".
"Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he said.

"It's very clear it's a Sarin attack. The view that it's an al-Qaeda or rebel stockpile of Sarin that's been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue."
Hasan Haj Ali, commander of the Free Idlib Army rebel group, told Reuters news agency: "Everyone saw the plane while it was bombing with gas."

Will America intervene?

Mr Trump said on Wednesday: "My attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much... You're now talking about a whole different level."
However, he gave no details.

On Thursday Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said so-called Islamic State (IS) had to be defeated before Mr Assad left power.

"The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort both to first defeat Isis [an old acronym for IS] within Syria, to stabilise the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war and then to work collectively with our partners around the world for a political process that would lead to Assad leaving," he said.

Asked if he and President Trump would organise an international coalition to "remove Assad", he replied, "Those steps are under way."

The statements came only days after the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said the US no longer prioritised the removal of President Assad - a shift in US policy from the Obama era.

Mr Trump has been promising a new strategy for Syria and Iraq and there have been some increases in troop numbers but this latest development will increase the pressure for more decisive action, the BBC's Gary O'Donoghue reports from Washington.

Has Assad used chemical weapons before?

The Syrian government was accused by Western powers of firing rockets filled with Sarin at Ghouta, Damascus, killing hundreds of people in August 2013.

President Assad denied the charge, blaming rebel fighters, but he did subsequently agree to destroy Syria's chemical arsenal.

Despite that, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has continued to document the use of toxic chemicals in attacks in Syria.

What are the chances of peace?

More than 250,000 people have been killed in Syria's civil war and, after more than six years, no political solution to the fighting is in sight.

A nationwide cessation of hostilities brokered by Russia and Turkey at the end of last year does not apply to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and IS, or US-backed Kurdish fighters.

The UN humanitarian adviser on Syria, Jan Egeland, has called for a 77-hour ceasefire in order to deliver aid to besieged areas.

"A war where children suffocate to death because of toxic chemicals is a very, very dirty war," he said."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39517960


HP_TECH

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2017, 07:24:17 PM »
Uhmm no offense but your source is BBC
إِنَّنِي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِي

My Lord I repent to you for anything I uttered concerning You for which I have no knowledge of. Indeed You are the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

savage_carrot

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6683
  • Karma +16/-2
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2017, 09:09:46 PM »
Which source would you prefer? RT?
God has a plan, Gaius. He has a plan for everything and everyone.

A Submitter

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2017, 04:26:44 AM »
Politics is dirty.
It's very clear that the opposition planted the chemical weapons to be struck by regime so the US can get an excuse to do something.
3 key notes:
1. Regime is "winning" the war, using chemical weapons makes absolutely no sense.
2. The US doesn't want the opposition to lose (it's more of a proxy war, resembling Iran-Iraq war where US backed both sides to weaken them).
3. The regime knows very well the consequences of chemical weapons.

It's odd that regime has been pounding civilians non-stop in Hama/Idlib, killing women and children too, and there was no or very little coverage on the media by the US or European countries. Suddenly, a chemical attack makes the Western media go hysterical.

Today we know why this chemical attack happened:
As a retaliation attack, the US navy fired 59 tomahawk missiles that struck Shayrat airbase (the main airbase from which the regime attacks Hama/Idlib). Now the airbase is out of use, for now.

So the only explanation is that the US wants to slow down or completely stop regime gains in northern Hama. Without proper air force, it will be hard for regime to move forward.


God-willing this war ends and the people realize they're being used by external powers  :nope:

Salam

HP_TECH

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2017, 06:42:57 AM »
Which source would you prefer? RT?
Oh please BBC is like the FOXNEWS of the UK
There are absolutely better options

I completely agree with Submitter
US actions have shown that it does not care about the welfare of Syrian civilians
1. When Trump denied refugees entrance in the US
2. By attacking Syria's government they are aiding the terrorists who use people as human shields, disguise as white helmets etc...
إِنَّنِي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِي

My Lord I repent to you for anything I uttered concerning You for which I have no knowledge of. Indeed You are the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

Cerberus

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 640
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2017, 07:34:04 AM »
people have to take the bait so that the next day they bombard a syrian base easy.

عوني

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1306
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2017, 09:35:07 AM »
Which source would you prefer? RT?

+1 This is a very good question and I'm curious to this too.

Oh please BBC is like the FOXNEWS of the UK
There are absolutely better options

I completely agree with Submitter
US actions have shown that it does not care about the welfare of Syrian civilians
1. When Trump denied refugees entrance in the US
2. By attacking Syria's government they are aiding the terrorists who use people as human shields, disguise as white helmets etc...

You didin't really answer her question. What exactly in this article do you disagree with? And what source would you prefer? Please don't tell me sources like RT which version I just read recently and it provides a more biased version for the regime and quotes European right-wing clowns like Le pen who hates Syrian refugees and Muslims just like Trump. Some while ago several pro-regime newschannels (including RT) was praising Trump during his elections. Yes I was pointing that out in my post that Trump doesn't care about the welfare of Syrian civilians with his ban on Syrian refugees as an example and some time ago he decided to improve relations with Assad. He's not really attacking Syria because he cares about the victims but rather because he wants to improve further relations with countries like Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Israel and even Turkey so he can get more funding from them. Trump is a warmongerer no doubt about it but doesn't mean that Assad is any better. IMO it's better to oppose all sides in Syria (including Trump and Assad, theyre both evil and are bombing civilians)

The article is talking about a chemical attack in Syria, you can find plenty of other articles that are talking about this too.



It's very clear that the opposition planted the chemical weapons to be struck by regime so the US can get an excuse to do something.
3 key notes:
1. Regime is "winning" the war, using chemical weapons makes absolutely no sense.
2. The US doesn't want the opposition to lose (it's more of a proxy war, resembling Iran-Iraq war where US backed both sides to weaken them).
3. The regime knows very well the consequences of chemical weapons.

Point 1 and 3 is wrong IMO so I disagree with those points, just because the regime is winning in some fronts doesn't mean that it wouldn't resort to using chemical weapons. Some time ago I used to think this too but one thing I've learned from the regime perspective is that they will want to end the war as quickly as possible (because delay means more causilities and use of resources for them, something they can't afford anymore hence their use of foreign mercenaries) and they only see winning as a solution and they will resort to using cowardly warcrimes like indiscriminate shelling (and most likely chemical weapons too) because it speeds up their 'winning' and the way they justify their killing of civilians is by labeling all of them as 'terrorist-supporters'. Also I wouldn't say the regime is winning or maybe they are but pretty slowly, having followed news in some cities the regime often recaptures a point but then quickly loses another one so most of the times they actually get brought back to square one again. In response to your point 3, just because the regime knows the consquences doesn't mean it cares especially now when Russia is protecting it. That's not the only reason but when Trump became president he actually did improve relations with dictator like Assad so Assad could have thought that now when the US is friendlier he can resort to these things and get away with it easier etc.. Point is you can't really draw any conclusions yet. If you want to know what I think, I think both sides have used chemical weapons in Syria. Some while ago Assad was saying to the world that he wasn't using barrel bombs and still there are videos of helicopters dropping barrel bombs on civilians so the regime is very good at propaganda.

HP_TECH

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2017, 07:30:55 AM »
Yeah about that first thing your curious about me and bunny food have this thing where she ignores what I say and I ignores what she says so...yeah carrots can't speak so anyway...

I think you have some very interesting points, however I am afraid your views might be a teeny more biased than you might think.

I doubt the recent chemical attack was intended by the president of Syria. Your reason for thinking the opposite is dubious yet you hold to it due to the bias from your sources
إِنَّنِي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِي

My Lord I repent to you for anything I uttered concerning You for which I have no knowledge of. Indeed You are the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

A Submitter

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2017, 08:56:17 AM »
-

hawk99

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2340
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Syria chemical attack
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2017, 09:21:37 AM »
Peace, the American Christian war machine makes excuses/propaganda to
sell or use weapons to further its agenda.

1. The Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam) accusation that the U.S. navy was attacked.   :nope:

2.  Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.   :nope:

3.  The U.S. attacked the country of Afghanistan and killed 25,000
     civilians because one person resided there.   :wow

4.  Assad's accusers are liars, back in 2013, to prevent from being
     attacked he turned over his chemical weapons, why on earth
    would he commit such a foolish act already knowing the
    consequences that were before him with a lunatic at the
    helm like Donald trump, Makes no sense!    :nope:

I could go on but I have to Go. 



                            :peace:
The secret to monotheism can be found in the garden