Trump's war on Syria

[Zombie]

This is just fucking crazy.

After US missile strike on Syria, here is Donald Trump's speech in full

I was a huge supporter of Donald Trump, mostly because he promised to keep the fuck out of the Middle Eastern anarchy, not throw another wrench among the gears of combating ISIS. Now I'm disappointed as hell.

Then we have this: Russia condemns Syria missile strike ordered by Trump - CNN.com

As expected, Russia is not exactly happy about the strike either. How much further do you think this thing will escalate?

 

[Linaze]

Ya I was of the opinion that Trump would be bad for domestic policy but good for foreign policy.
This attack definitely made me lean more towards him being more of a bad president in both areas.

A shame there wasn't really a viable anti-war candidate.

 

[Naze]

I'm no fan of wars either, but I'm not amazed by him. I'm amazed with the speed of his decision and the apparent lack of discussion and planning (at least from what we know as population, maybe there was).

Shouldn't such military acts be approved by congress first (like Obama in 2013)? Makes me wonder if it is only a formality or if it is actually unconstitutional.

 

[Mechanical Man]

He was grabbed by the pussy.

Sorry, I had to say that.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Trump is an idiot and those who voted for him are idiots as well

he actually unintentionally did something very smart in his campaign. he played both sides of the argument even when his statements contradicted each other.

he said I hate black people, Mexicans, women and all no Americans (sounding very Nazi)

then

he said, I love black people etcetera. there is no one who loves black people as much as me.

meaning in the eyes of the generally ignorant public he has their vote because he supports their values even when he doesn't. this is because the common public doesn't bother to research any further or even search for any thing offensive against their favourite elect.

during his campaign he said both that his not going to attack the east and that he is.

he accused Hilary of being an idiot for announcing she's going to attack the east. he said, I'm going to attack the east too but I'm not going to tell anyone about it.

really Mr trump your not going to tell anyone... except the media and most of the world?

 

[Zombie]

Ya I was of the opinion that Trump would be bad for domestic policy but good for foreign policy.
This attack definitely made me lean more towards him being more of a bad president in both areas.

A shame there wasn't really a viable anti-war candidate.

What do you mean? I thought quite the contrary; deporting illegals, banning muslims until a viable immigration policy can be introduced, breaking up big banks, creating jobs, tax cuts, healthcare and infrastructural reforms - they all sounded like something the USA (and actually much of the Western world) desperately needs. But so far, none of this is happening either and even if it is, it's a dumbed down version of what was initially promised.

Foreign policy was bound to be a disaster due to Trump's bully negotiation tactics, but I thought it was going to be China and / or the DPRK that he'd get entangled with, not the same fucking Middle East that killed the career of most of his predecessors and caused the refugee crisis which he campaigned to resolve. Now he's escalating the refugee crisis and terrorism, not fucking tackling the issue.

All this is literally the same fucking thing Hillary would have done, although in a slightly different coating. It is as if after election, he suddenly became afraid of the MSM, Soros and the "swamp" he was so desperately campaigning against.

He should have made America great again, not fucking played World Police, as his predecessors did.

 

[Linaze]

What I mean is exactly what I said, but allow me to elaborate:
Donald Trump did not come off to me was a warmongerer and in comparison to other candidates he did come off as the slightly less pro-war candidate. Because of this I had a glimmer of hope that with Trump as president the US would be less involved in the affairs of sovereign states in the middle east and elsewhere.

As for domestic policy: if you are anti-trade, anti-free markets and want another authoritarian guy as president then I presume Trump is your man. For the rest of Trump just comes of as a buffoon.

 

[Zombie]

He's not anti-trade and anti-free market tho, he just wants to renegotiate multilateral trading pacts that have put the USA at a disadvantage and establish more bilateral agreements based on mutual gains.

Then again, even that is probably not going to happen, instead, we'll get another four years of Obama. I guess orange really is the new black.

 

[The_Silent]

When will you guys learn. Politicians will say whatever they need to get votes. Ultimately politicians is just salesmen, and their product is their party.

Trump seems worse than most, because on top of everything, he seems erratic and overly spontanious, and has some strange views on women's rights, science, foriegn affairs and minorities.

It is hilarious people voted on him because they were tired of politicians...

 

[Naze]

breaking up big banks,

That's a blatant false promise, he's just saying what you want to hear. Also any politician who says so.

I'll make his words my words:

When will you guys learn. Politicians will say whatever they need to get votes. Ultimately politicians is just salesmen, and their product is their party.

 

[Zombie]

That's a blatant false promise, he's just saying what you want to hear. Also any politician who says so.

Most of what he said seems to have been so, though I agree, this was probably the most obvious element. It's clear that he just wanted to gain some of Bernie's supporters, after the DNC dropped him.

 

[Nowow]

I generally thought he's an idiot, and a bigger idiot after this dumb show off attack he ordered without going to Congress with it. The airport was functioning and sending more jets the morning after the attack. So much for escalating...

The only problem with what he did is that it's too little too late. The regime has been bombing the population with chemical weapons for at least 4 years, along other war crimes. The US had to do very little in order to help the rebels tremendously - destroy the regime's aerial superiority, without supplying the rebels with AA weapons (for obvious fears of fundamentalists getting their hands on it). They could've done that in Obama's administration in 2013 before Russia deepened it's involvement in the crisis. But alas, Republican majority does it again.

 

[Mechanical Man]

The attack effectiveness was minimal, so it may be that he ordered the attack to get some more republican support, also is worth noting that Trump has some shares with tomahawk producing companies, so firing some tomahawks he earned money, regardless of the effectiveness.

 

[Linaze]

I generally thought he's an idiot, and a bigger idiot after this dumb show off attack he ordered without going to Congress with it. The airport was functioning and sending more jets the morning after the attack. So much for escalating...

The only problem with what he did is that it's too little too late. The regime has been bombing the population with chemical weapons for at least 4 years, along other war crimes. The US had to do very little in order to help the rebels tremendously - destroy the regime's aerial superiority, without supplying the rebels with AA weapons (for obvious fears of fundamentalists getting their hands on it). They could've done that in Obama's administration in 2013 before Russia deepened it's involvement in the crisis. But alas, Republican majority does it again.

And of course you have evidence of this that the rest of us haven't been presented with.

 

[Nowow]

And of course you have evidence of this that the rest of us haven't been presented with.

Evidence galore, as much as you like:

BBC report: Syria chemical attack: What we know - BBC News
Wikipedia article: Ghouta chemical attack - Wikipedia
Washington Port article: More than 1,400 killed in Syrian chemical weapons attack, U.S. says

If press is not enough:

UN resolution from September 2013 - regarding use of chemical weapons in 21st August 2013: Security Council Requires Scheduled Destruction of Syria’s Chemical Weapons, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2118 (2013) | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
UN resolution from the last attack: Chemical-Weapons Attack in Syria Was Largest Such Event Since 2013, Disarmament Affairs Chief Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
Note the title: "
Chemical-Weapons Attack in Syria Was Largest Such Event Since 2013, Disarmament Affairs Chief Tells Security Council
"

 

[MatiS]

But UN did not state who was responsible for 2013 attack. It's disputable, 'cause only an idiot would use chemical weapons on such scale right after USA said they would join the fight if anyone does so. So it's quite possible it was false flag, same with the recent attack (both sides have chemical weapons). That's why in my opinion Trump should not have ordered anything before official UN investigation is over. Especially when the war is coming to an end and any USA action would only prolong it.

 

[Roland]

Meh, it's like here in the Philippines.. Asian trump going bonkers over china and Russia.

 

[Nowow]

both sides have chemical weapons

Right... one side has had a research center specialized for that since the early seventies, and the other is a group of relatively under-equipped militias who barely have armored vehicles, let alone real tanks or aerial presence.
Also, mind you the attack was done in one of the largest opposition controlled towns, which makes you wonder why they would bomb there. Seems to me even dumber to bomb your own people, not once but twice (you say both attacks are false flags) in order to do what? Garner international support and outrage? It didn't work then why try now?

'cause only an idiot would use chemical weapons on such scale right after USA said they would join the fight if anyone does so.

Then you have the current regime, which is probably betting (correctly by the way) that America and the west will not involve themselves in Syria, and for the last attack that their Russian - Iranian cover will keep them safe from the repercussions.

 

[MatiS]

First of all, I said it COULD have been false flag, not that it was. Second, of course attacks were benefitial for rebels (and every country that benefits from the war, like Turkey). Before 2013 Assad was winning the war, but then US started backing up the rebels more and he started losing. Now attack happened right after Trump said that he sees the future for Syria with current government. It's weird, isn't it? I'm not saying that the rebels are responsible, it could have been any country in region, or russian version can (and most likely is) true.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Russia reports that only 50% of the missiles dropped by America, hit their targets. meaning not only are Americans stupid for plain out attacking Syria not the terrorists (which America can't seem to tell the difference on) but they are bad at it.

 

[Nowow]

First of all, I said it COULD have been false flag, not that it was. Second, of course attacks were benefitial for rebels (and every country that benefits from the war, like Turkey). Before 2013 Assad was winning the war, but then US started backing up the rebels more and he started losing. Now attack happened right after Trump said that he sees the future for Syria with current government. It's weird, isn't it? I'm not saying that the rebels are responsible, it could have been any country in region, or russian version can (and most likely is) true.

I don't even know where to start... Saying that the attacks COULD have been false flag is just as good as saying it COULD have been done by penguins.

Chemical attacks in opposition controlled towns is not beneficial to the rebels, not now and not in 2013. And for the record, the regime was losing the war until the influx of Shiite militia organizations from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, and of course until Russia stepped in to "fight terrorism". Happened at the end of 2015 IIRC.

About Turkey, what do they gain from the war? a massive influx of possible ISIS affiliate refugees? The collapse of its southern border? The rise in power and political ambition of their Kurdish friends? How about pissing off Russia? turkey gained nothing from the entire conflict.

Now, Trump might've said that he sees a future with the current Syrian regime, while his UN ambassador says the regime must go, and his secretary of state says he doesn't know. Putting enough weight in his half-baked words to BOMB YOUR OWN SUPPORTING POPULATION WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS, is more then "weird" - it's downright stupid.

I myself don't trust the Russian version. Just so you know, the last 3-6 months there have been ceasefire negotiations which Russia continuosly filibustered and outright ignored because apparently everywhere the opposition controls there are suddenly massive amounts of "Islamist fundamentalists". They lie with impunity, and generally do what ever they want in the entire middle east.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Chemical attacks in opposition controlled towns is not beneficial to the rebels, not now and not in 2013. And for the record, the regime was losing the war until the influx of Shiite militia organizations from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, and of course until Russia stepped in to "fight terrorism". Happened at the end of 2015 IIRC.

The main game changer was Russia. Having one of the most powerful militaries in the world that was to be expected. Although they have less resources than the USA, Russia is also less conservative with the resources it has which makes it equally effective.

About Turkey, what do they gain from the war?

Removal of the Kurds, which they are racially oppressing and discriminating against. Or at least that is what the plan is.

a massive influx of possible ISIS affiliate refugees?

Not really a problem for Turkey. They have been supporting ISIL for a long time. Even their terrorist attacks in Turkey are helping consolidate the power of Erdoğan, the want to be dictator. Most recruits from Europe entered the war via Turkey and many have returned back to Europe via Turkey.

The collapse of its southern border?

It will not collapse. It is differentially open as always.

The rise in power and political ambition of their Kurdish friends?

Which is one of the reasons they are, or at least were supporting ISIL.

How about pissing off Russia?

They got angry at Russia for interfering with their Kurd elimination policy. The factions they were using to fight the Kurds had to devote resources to try and stop Assad and Russia from advancing, meaning the Kurds gained ground as well.

turkey gained nothing from the entire conflict.

Erdoğan is nearly a dictator with absolute power, and you are saying they gained nothing?

I myself don't trust the Russian version. Just so you know, the last 3-6 months there have been ceasefire negotiations which Russia continuosly filibustered and outright ignored because apparently everywhere the opposition controls there are suddenly massive amounts of "Islamist fundamentalists". They lie with impunity, and generally do what ever they want in the entire middle east.

Russia is solving the war slowly but surely. Whether it is the right way or the most moral way to solve the war is a subject of debate, but still they are solving it.

If Assad reclaims Syria and eliminates all rebel populations then peace will be restored to the area. Sure it will be an oppressive peace, but people can rebuild.

Look at another country like Libya where around the same time the ruling government was allowed to fall. It is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, in a constant state of civil war between hundreds of waring factions and ISIL's latest and untakable headquarters. The people's average security is way worse after the fall of the oppressive government than before.

Something is very fishy about the entire chemical attack which sparked the US strike. If one is going to use chemical weapons, you do not just use 1, you use hundreds as a war strategy. Seeing how the Syrian government knew of the international repercussions, it makes no sense for them to use a gas attack when a big conventional bomb would be equally effective at eliminating targets and the international community would not have cared much about civilian casualties as a result. It looks more like it was an accident rather than a deliberate use of gas from a government level. That said such accident should not have occurred seeing how they allegedly destroyed all their gas, but still it does not justify the violation of the constitution of the USA as well as of international law.

 

[MatiS]

I don't even know where to start... Saying that the attacks COULD have been false flag is just as good as saying it COULD have been done by penguins.

Now I don't even know where to start. Maybe now you'll understand: THERE IS HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE ATTACK WAS A FALSE FLAG, because it makes ZERO sense for Assad to use chemical weapons. It cannot be clearer than that.

About Turkey, what do they gain from the war? a massive influx of possible ISIS affiliate refugees? The collapse of its southern border? The rise in power and political ambition of their Kurdish friends? How about pissing off Russia? turkey gained nothing from the entire conflict.

Dr Super Good explained it nicely, although he forgot to mention that Turkey also benefits from immigration crisis caused by the war. It gives them extra leverage while negotiating with EU.

Chemical attacks in opposition controlled towns is not beneficial to the rebels, not now and not in 2013. And for the record, the regime was losing the war until the influx of Shiite militia organizations from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, and of course until Russia stepped in to "fight terrorism". Happened at the end of 2015 IIRC.

Before 2013 regime was winning the war, then US started backing up the rebels and Assad was made the big bad. He started winning again when Russia sent him help.

Now, Trump might've said that he sees a future with the current Syrian regime, while his UN ambassador says the regime must go, and his secretary of state says he doesn't know. Putting enough weight in his half-baked words to BOMB YOUR OWN SUPPORTING POPULATION WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS, is more then "weird" - it's downright stupid.

This war cannot be won by tanks or bombs, it can only be won by getting good opinion of western civilisation (governments of Western countries need population's support to sanction military intervention). Assad was getting better and better opinions in EU (I don't know about US) and has good reputation in Syria (as he represents pre-war order). European societies did not support their governments backing up the rebels, because the longer this war takes, more problems EU will have. So it makes pretty much a lot of sense to everyone interested in prolonging the war (Turkey, maybe Saudi Arabs 'cause some of them were backing ISIS and this) and everyone interestes in overthrowing Assad to use chemical weapons, which instantly bash his reputation and make people support military intervention. Because what's better way to make people mad than to show them pictures of dead children?

 

[Nowow]

Removal of the Kurds, which they are racially oppressing and discriminating against. Or at least that is what the plan is.

DSG no Kurds are getting removed from southern Turkey. On the contrary, the Kurds are supported by the international coalition because of their aid fighting ISIS. So much so that they are close to autonomous in certain northern districts of Iraq.

Which is one of the reasons they are, or at least were supporting ISIL.

They are most certainly not supporting ISIS. If anything, they tried to make the presence of Kurds in northern Syria/south Turkey obsolete by this military operation.

Erdoğan is nearly a dictator with absolute power, and you are saying they gained nothing?

And this has what to do with the conflict? He was very near this state before the civil war started. If anything, the coup attempt against him in 2016 shows that not anything is so grand there.

Russia is solving the war slowly but surely. Whether it is the right way or the most moral way to solve the war is a subject of debate, but still they are solving it.

If Assad reclaims Syria and eliminates all rebel populations then peace will be restored to the area. Sure it will be an oppressive peace, but people can rebuild.

This is the most European depressive opinion I've ever heard: "Assad might be torturing his people and bombing them with chemical weapons. But once he's done with that, we can all have some peace and quiet". It's like saying Hitler was solving the Gypsy crime problems of Europe "slowly but surely".

If you think there will be peace afterwards, then you're not familiar with Syrian literature. A tiger will forever remain a tiger.

Seeing how the Syrian government knew of the international repercussions

What happened to the Syrian regime since 2013, the first chemical attack, which the UN accredited to the regime? Nothing. On the other hand this particular town has displayed remarkable resilience to regime attacks these past few years. Perhaps they thought a little incentive will make them broke for peace, like other individual towns did.

because it makes ZERO sense for Assad to use chemical weapons.

As opposed to (and I cap it again so you'll understand the absurdity) BOMBING YOUR OWN SUPPORTING POPULATION WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS, risking the findings of UN inquiry because Trump said that there is a future for Syria with Assad, while half his administration says something else.

Dr Super Good explained it nicely, although he forgot to mention that Turkey also benefits from immigration crisis caused by the war. It gives them extra leverage while negotiating with EU.

"We keep the economic burden of hundred thousands refugees, some of them possible ISIS affiliates, and you'll be our friends" - something like that? Well it has done them so much good. That's why Turkish officials can't enter the Netherlands and Germany now.

Before 2013 regime was winning the war, then US started backing up the rebels and Assad was made the big bad. He started winning again when Russia sent him help.

Not true. Since ceasefire talks exploded mid-late 2012, the opposition made significant advances: capturing most of Aleppo and Dir alZor, including several airbases, and even alRaqqa (which they lost to ISIS some time afterwards). Assad was most certainly not winning the war in 2013.

This war cannot be won by tanks or bombs, it can only be won by getting good opinion of western civilisation (governments of Western countries need population's support to sanction military intervention).

The entire Arab spring shows no blatant military intervention is needed to overthrow a dictator. Not in lybia, Tunisia or Egypt. The entire Western Civilization was very much pro the rebels who represent a hope for a democratic future in Syria, that is until they got tired of the whole thing in 2015-2016 like DSG (that is including the first chemical attack in 2013). That didn't help. The west did it's specialty: denouncing the regime doing very little. Russia, on the other hand, stops every UN resolution about it, and aids with aerial attacks.

 

[Fruit Forest]

The problem is if chemical attacks belonged to Assad then UN guys using their satellites and resources to show the whole world all these evidences. But now all we have is UN guys look like clowns saying: we have proofs, but they are from anonymous/secret documents/facebook/one old woman said/we wouldn't show you. In these cases I'm remembering Colin Powell where he uses a tube with scouring powder.

 

[Nowow]

The problem is if chemical attacks belonged to Assad then UN guys using their satellites and resources to show the whole world all these evidences

How can a satellite provide evidence of who performed a chemical attack?

 

[Fruit Forest]

How can a satellite provide evidence of who performed a chemical attack?

If I need to blame someone. i would enable all resource to monitor conflict sides. Monitoring information may include video/photo materials. However, nobody provides the world any convincing evidence.

 

[Nowow]

I'm sure they have resources to monitor both sides, but here is the thing: both sides want to be monitored as little as possible. It's only natural in a conflict, you don't want anyone gathering intelligence on you.

Video/photo evidence are meaningless, as I assume chemical armament looks no different than normal armament, and the jets which drop them are definitely not different than other jets.

This leaves interception of communication, either verbal between Syrian regime/military officials or interception of messages/reports. Either way, whatever source the UN reveals, it will not be available afterwards - they will fix their security leak.

This is one of the main reasons for not showing evidence of foul play in armed conflicts: usually blowing the cover of an intelligence source for momentary gain is not the smart thing to do.

 

[Fruit Forest]

This is one of the main reasons for not showing evidence of foul play in armed conflicts: usually blowing the cover of an intelligence source for momentary gain is not the smart thing to do.

But in this case you can say anything you want.

 

[Nowow]

But in this case you can say anything you want.

As a private person, sure. But as an international organization involving just about every government in the world it's a bit more tricky then that. Furthermore, there are several key facts which make the Russian assertion of "hitting a chemical nerve gas warehouse belonging to terrorists" highly implausible.

 

[Fruit Forest]

As a private person, sure. But as an international organization involving just about every government in the world it's a bit more tricky then that. Furthermore, there are several key facts which make the Russian assertion of "hitting a chemical nerve gas warehouse belonging to terrorists" highly implausible.

This media told you own version, other medias told you another one. We never get the truth, pal.
EDIT: in this article there are no survivor's interviews. only text.

 

[Nowow]

This media told you own version, other medias told you another one. We never get the truth, pal.

No? you can use your better judgement and brain to discern fact from fiction. Here is my line of thought, feel free to correct me:

The Russian version: Syrian army airstrike attacked a terrorist warehouse which contained "toxic substances" unbeknownst to them, with the explosion causing it to spread.
The UN/West version: Syrian army airstrike spread sarin nerve gas/a mix of toxic substances over the population.

CAPABILITY
I believe it is much more plausible that the Syrian regime is capable to perform this attack. It has considerable technological superiority over the opposition, including a center for technological/chemical studies which is active since the early seventies - the SSRC. Synthesizing and storing nerve agents is a difficult and dangerous, and can't be done by just anyone - especially not relatively disorganized opposition groups which have no practical knowledge in chemical warfare. Compare that to the Syrian regime which has declared to have chemical weapons stockpiled.

Furthermore, as stated in my previous source, sarin is unstable and is synthesized only hours or days before it is used from two more stable components. This means that the Syrian regime either knew the opposition uses chemical weapons and did not report this for a lot of political gain, or just happened to attack at the right time at the right place - highly unlikely.

Also, even if the opposition is able to create it, they have no effective method of delivering it, as they have no long range missiles or planes. This is chemical weapon, you can't just put it on a mortar and shoot. This also means that if you happen to bomb canisters of it, most of the substance will stay in the building as long as the building has walls.

This leads me to conclude that the Syrian army is capable of attacking with sarin gas while the opposition is not.

REASON
According to some participants in this thread, this is actually a false flag operation. Note that this is not the Russian version, which is why I'll disregard it, as both official sides do not take this stand. In any case I will restate that I think it is a laughable idea to think the opposition bombed it's own supporters with chemical weapons for the slim possibilities of gaining some aid and sympathy from the west.

If we take the facts about sarin manufacturing, we come to the conclusion that the opposition was about to attack the regime with sarin in a matter of days, how would they get from where the attack was to the part of regime control Damascus is unknown, but again, this is not a substance that can be easily moved without extreme danger, especially across multiple warfields and danger zones. The other option is that the opposition for some reason decided to create the gas and store it in its unstable form, which is the equivalent of removing the safety from a grenade stored in your room then going to sleep.

The rebels, however, claim this is another attempt by the regime to bring east Ghouta (where the chemicals were released) to independent peace negotiations - removing the rebels and becoming part of the regime again for peace. This city has been a thorn at the side of Damascus since 2013, and they are trying very hard to make the population there abandon the opposition. I know bombing with chemical weapons to make the population turn against the opposition sounds wrong, but this sort of thing worked in Aleppo - the regime cracked down on the city killing thousands with non-chemical weapons until they gave up. The regime wants to break the fighting spirit of both the opposition and its supporting population.

REPERCUSSIONS
Some thread participants rightfully claimed that the regime would not attack with chemical weapons because of the repercussions. However, the last attack in 2013 had virtually zero repercussions on the regime. Assad vowed to destroy his chemical weapon stockpiles, and that's about it. With the UN paralyzed by Russian vetoes, Europe crippled by a wave of oncoming elections, and confused over ISIS and the refugee crisis, and the US with a president which is clearly not interested in foreign policy ("America first"), the possibility of worldwide repercussions is extremely slim.

I would like to read your line of reasoning as to how and why this attack was not done by the regime.

 

[Fruit Forest]

Still the spreading toxic over the population is kinda weird? Why you need more enemies?

it's own supporters with chemical weapons for the slim possibilities of gaining some aid and sympathy from the west.

Why not? It's a nice idea to divide on black and white in the eyes of the global society. There may be people who doesn't care about anything, they just follow the order to do something and then be evacuated somewhere far away from the conflict because the mission is done. Such people are called provocateurs
Like I said. this Reasons and repercussions are looks like version of the guardian journalists.

 

[Mechanical Man]

This leads me to conclude that the Syrian army is capable of attacking with sarin gas while the opposition is not.

If terrorists were able to attack with sarin in Tokyo subway, I don't see why this well supported opposition can't.

You don't need stealth bombers to deliver that

 

[Nowow]

Why not? It's a nice idea to divide on black and white in the eyes of the global society.

Again, this already happened in 2013 to little effect for the rebels. But if that makes you believe it is possible the attacks were done by the rebels, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If terrorists were able to attack with sarin in Tokyo subway, I don't see why this well supported opposition can't.

You don't need stealth bombers to deliver that

These are extremely different circumstances, the Tokyo attacks were done in a tight space where the gas can't dissipate, and it was packed with people. The amount of sarin needed for such an attack is very small. Making enough gas to bomb an area spanning several building is much larger, and much harder to transport.

 

[Dr Super Good]

How can a satellite provide evidence of who performed a chemical attack?

They tracked the plane which dropped munitions in an area around the time a chemical attack took place. Simply putting 1 and 1 together and you know the plane dropped the gas. You can probably even tell exactly when and where it was dropped since gas missiles/bombs do not explode.

The Russian version: Syrian army airstrike attacked a terrorist warehouse which contained "toxic substances" unbeknownst to them, with the explosion causing it to spread.

Sarin cannot be released like that because it is in a highly flammable solvent. It will burn practically harmlessly and quite well when exposed to any kind of conventional explosive. Hence everyone knows the Russians are lying.

This is why the most likely reason for the attack was either a deliberate, or accidental mistake. The Syrian government almost certainly did drop 1 gas missile/bomb at the affected area, however there is only evidence that 1 was deployed in the recent years and not a wide spread gassing campaign. Assad personally ordering it seems unlikely and it is more likely down to some kind of human error at the airbase. What Assad can be blamed for is lying that he disposed of all his chemical weapons, when clearly he has not.

 

[deepstrasz]

some other countries

2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia

 

[Death Adder]

false flag pretext to make more war and steal more resources and of course rebuilding the country $$$

 

[Mechanical Man]

These are extremely different circumstances, the Tokyo attacks were done in a tight space where the gas can't dissipate, and it was packed with people. The amount of sarin needed for such an attack is very small. Making enough gas to bomb an area spanning several building is much larger, and much harder to transport.

You can't compare smuggling such stuff in heavily organized and urbanized environment like a japanese capital with a lawlessness of syrian war zones. If ISIS and other groups can get so much support and acquire so many weapons, transporting this gas is still piece of cake compared to how lucky you must be to not get caught while carrying this in Tokyo.

 

[Nowow]

You can't compare smuggling such stuff in heavily organized and urbanized environment like a japanese capital with a lawlessness of syrian war zones. If ISIS and other groups can get so much support and acquire so many weapons, transporting this gas is still piece of cake compared to how lucky you must be to not get caught while carrying this in Tokyo.

Organized, urbanized and unsuspecting. Transporting small amounts of gas in an urban environment is easy - you're just carrying a weird can or a suitcase around and throw it at the right place. Getting a large quantity of this stuff into the air is difficult. This gas is heavier than air, mind you, and highly flammable as DSG said. So you can't spread it by normal explosion or just by dropping it on the ground somewhere, you need a distribution method like (totally random example) a plane. Good luck transporting a truck full of nerve gas with some magical distribution method past military checkpoints.

 

[Zenonoth]

This whole topic summed up.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Ok, but in Syria is easier to 'sneak' the whole truck than a suitcase in Japan.

 

[Nowow]

Ok, but in Syria is easier to 'sneak' the whole truck than a suitcase in Japan.

How? in Syria you would at least need to get past some security check point to get to regime populated area, one inspection if not several. The attacks were made in Japan in 1974-5, I don't even know if they had metal detectors/luggage inspections then.

but say it is easier, How would you spread it to regime supporting population without a plane?

 

[Zombie]

By the way, this is just in.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/trump-were-not-going-into-syria/

Bombing a sovereign country does not mean an attack?

 

[Rui]

I was of the opinion that Trump would be bad for domestic policy but good for foreign policy.

I was of the opinion he'd be bad for both. On foreign policy because of his bully negotiation tactics as @Zombie named them. On domestic policy because he thinks global warming is a virtual concept invented by the Chinese. Seemingly, one of the few things he's managed to rip apart besides the economical agreements without intervention from other democratic entities. Goes to show how much we really care about the environment.

In spite of this, I ended up vouching for him. The generations that never had to struggle to achieve anything were in need of a spook.

 

[NightStalker]

I saw the earlier comments and wanted to add my info on them, might be off topic from your current conversation.

Dr Super Good explained it nicely, although he forgot to mention that Turkey also benefits from immigration crisis caused by the war. It gives them extra leverage while negotiating with EU.

You are right and another plus side for him is extra votes, like millions of extra votes. They are now citizens of Turkey and their votes are counted as equal to any citizen. And yeah he(erdogan) gained power from dictatorship and terror as DSG said, before the referendum the terrorist attacks have stopped but there are police everywhere as a showoff.