http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/04/522570250/58-die-in-attack-on-syrian-town-where-toxic-gas-and-shelling-were-reported

A thread for discussing the costs of intervention and non-intervention in syria, minus the grisly pictures

All of those "refugees" are just coming to Europe because they want to steal our jobs.

no proof and the timing isnt convenient at all....

Not all.. only about 70%. Cant blame them for taking advantage of the situation.




Reminds me of Saddam. The means (chemicals) are horrific for this small attack.
The attack of today was off the chart imo, it wasn't chemical, tactics of bombing a hospital treating chemical attack victims..



This post was edited by Knaapie on Apr 5 2017 06:00am

I'd say theres a pretty good chance its false flag
ISIS and rebels are holding civilians as human shields, gunning down those who try to flee with snipers and machine guns. But russian & assad don't care and are moving in anyway to crush the remnants
Assad has little reason to use chemical weapons with the backing of the russians now that he's winning.
Seeing as they're already relying on civilian casualties and global publicity to survive and wasn't swaying anyone, resorting to gas attacks and blaming assad seems logical

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 5 2017 05:59am

That was my initial thought.

Yet, ISIS jets being able to bomb in the west seems near impossible.

i really disagree with allowing these people coming to Europe, human rights ok but there's certain things that are better left alone and allow them take the natural progress.

Like some truths are better untold.

does it have to be air-dropped? Rebels could have gotten their hands on chemical weapons. I'd say it would be more likely if this was in the east in ISIS-held Raqqa then the rebel areas, since they'd have more access to chemical munitions during their retreat. But in terms of motive, it doesn't make much sense for Assad after clearing out Aleppo and having nothing but fractured resistance in the sparse north-west and outlying regions of the cities like homs and damascus. Chemical weapons made more sense in an urban context anyway

no fear of being toppled, no need to demoralize an opposition that already knows its lost the war and has lost every major city in the west
maybe a commander decided to do it of his own initiative, or a mistake in ordnance, but intentionally using chemical weapons and provoking the west makes no sense

Yep, I agree with the argument made that it's not likely to be done by Russia or Assad and if it was, it could have been an accident by blowing up a weapon storage containing the gas as well.
Or indeed a land based attack, by a desperate rebel, or ISIS, carried out during an air strike.

Imo the strangest part of this story is that sources (Agence France-Presse & Syrian Observatory) point out airstrikes in the region, yet no-one knows who is carrying them out.

This post was edited by Knaapie on Apr 5 2017 07:29am

I agree. The western media narrative just doesn't make much sense to me right now. Why would Assad risk massive blow back just to kill a few civilians? Any war strategist would say that him doing so is going full retard. I remember when they first tried this trick and it failed because of Russian intervention and then afterwards you heard of many cases of ISIS using chemical weapons all over the board.

There's also the fact that many ignore, which is that many of the people we classify as "moderate rebels" have collaborated with ISIS and even gave them armaments that we supplied them. This reeks of false flag by people that know their only chance is to get outside help.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 5 2017 07:40am