Archives: [f] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [news / qst] [trash] Boards: [meta]
/b/stats 2.0: beta edition
since 27 Jan 2013
Please send questions/comments/spam/death threats/love letters to webmaster (at) b-stats.org
All times EST/EDT
Active development is on GitHub



Thread #244662
View on 4chan

Replies 49 (49)
Image Replies 0 (0)
Lifetime 1d 14h 37m 33s
Deleted Posts 0
Plane_bombing.gif (2 MB, 450x321, 1523375395237.gifiqdb google reposts full
>Experts say it is impossible to know whether a person has been exposed to a chemical agent from looking at a video or photo. The only way to confirm contamination is to take samples and analyse them in a laboratory. However, international humanitarian organisations have not been allowed to enter Douma since early March because of the government's siege.

>The Syria Civil Defence and SAMS believe those who died suffocated as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals, most likely an organophosphate - a compound grouping associated with pesticides and nerve agents.

>The UOSSM also concluded that the symptoms of the casualties were consistent with exposure to a nerve agent, possibly one mixed with chlorine. Dr Raphal Pitti of UOSSM France said he thought "chlorine was used to conceal the use of [the nerve agent] Sarin".

>The United States, which supports the opposition to Mr Assad, said the victims' symptoms appeared to be "consistent with an asphyxiation agent and of a nerve agent of some type".

In case you thought Monsanto was just "feeding the world"...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084
>>
>>244662
F A L S E F L A G !
>>
>>244662
The US really needs to stop gassing syrians and blaming it on Assad its getting pretty fucking old
>>
>>244869
>>244883
Traitors, or just useful idiots?
>>
>>244884
Seems like you're the useful idiot here. Americans need to haul their ass back to their own continent.
>>
Trump was wanting to pull out of Syria so something is not right. They need to let the inspectors in and get real facts first. If it is true then so be it. But you can't take the bombs back if your wrong.
>>
>>244887
>They need to let the inspectors in and get real facts first

because that helped with Iraq...
>>
>>244886
So Europe,Africa, and Asia?
>>
>>244886
we are trying but a lot of us are taking the definitions of GLOBALISM even further than anyone would have thought possible.
>>
>>244886
You can believe that without having to edit the truth.
>>
>>244887
>implying real facts exists anymore in 2018
>>
>>244884
yes, I wonder who the useful idiot is here
It makes absolutely no tactical sense from Assad's point of view, were these allegations true
>Trump says hes ready to leave
>announces hes going to start pulling back troops
>Asssad decides to drop chemical weapons just in time to keep the Americans in his country
heres some other possibilites:
>rebeles make/have source of chemical weapons
>first attack as as Syria stated: an attack vs a rebel munitions depot, and after the attack chemical weapons were released
>rebels get worried that Americans are ready to withdraw
>release more chemical weapons
You tell me which one makes more sense?
because the whole Assad gassing his own people just doesn't pass the smell test, it makes zero sense from a tactical, practical, or logical viewpoint
>>
>>244926
pretty much this.
no official investigation will turn up truth anymore. they will turn up whatever truth they are directed to turn up
>>
>>244883
Only if Russia stops first.
>>
>>244979
lol, right, just as donald trump announces that hes going to withdraw troops russia gasses syria just in time to keep america there.
makes perfect sense
>>
>>244979
>implying Russia is gassing syrians and blaming it on Assad
do you honestly believe this or are you just bad at the english language?
>>
>People actually think Assad is a good boy who dindu nothing
>>
>>244999
>good boy who dindu nothing
No
>used WMDs on his own people, instigating/justifying an international military response to remove him from power
Also no.
>>
>>244975
What did Assad get the last (ten) times he dropped chemical weapons? An immediate battlefield advantage, a massive terror advantage, minimal consequences. The very first time that he was accused of using sarin, back in 2013, I thought the same thing you did: "There's something wrong here: he has everything to lose and nothing to gain by using sarin."

Well, in 2013, I was wrong: he gained a lot and lost nothing. In fact, he didn't just lose nothing, the crisis gave Russia the opportunity to position itself as "peacebroker" in Syria which eventually morphed into massive military support. Chemical weapons are still effective munitions, and Syria is shielded from UN action by their effective Security Council veto. A missile strike or four is not an insane price to pay for him. I doubt "kill-their-families" Trump even actually cares on a personal level as opposed to just using the crisis to play the decisive commander-in-chief.

>first attack as as Syria stated: an attack vs a rebel munitions depot
This works both ways: knowing you're attacking a munitions depot allows you to add chemical payloads and then came they came out of the depot. The rebels are helpless tards. Everything halfway decent in their arsenal we gave them.

>>244978
>anymore
I'd like to know precisely what year it was that you think that international institutions changed from being capable of telling the truth to being incapable of telling the truth.

>>245008
There will be no "international military response." Russia has ensured that. The only thing there will be is random missile strikes from America.
>>
>>245011
>What did Assad get the last (ten) times he dropped chemical weapons?
When was it ever conclusively proven that Assad used chemical weapons? They couldn't in 2013, 2017, or now.

The civil was in Syria is all but over, ISIS and the "moderate rebels who are totally not ISIS" fell apart and the government has to just pretty much wait on what few pockets of resistance are left and then mop up.

>The only thing there will be is random missile strikes from America.
That remains to be seen, thankfully.
>>
I guess you guys LOVE al-Qaeda/Moderate Rebels.
Feeling bad that the Jaish al-Isam lost to Assad?
Poor you.
>>
>>245011
Assad already won the war. It's over. You don't use chemicals when the war is already won. It's the last resort weapons, maybe he did back then. But right now ? Nobody believes this bullshit.
Iraq all over again.
American economy needs war. And it will pick on any easy target they can. You can't just have such a large army staying home and doing nothing.
>>
>Trump appoints John Bolton as national security advisor
>just a few days after he takes office suddenly we're on the brink of WW3 due to a blatant false-flag
Oh joy
The thing about this that really pisses me off that the west gives absolutely zero fucks about actual war crimes, none of them bat an eyelash when the Saudis drop barrel bombs on Yemeni villages or when Israel uses white phosphorus on Palestinian civilians. Hell, recently declassified documents from the Korean War revealed that the Burgers even weaponized the black death. This shit is just so politicians' donors and lobbyists can profit from war, just like the nonsense about Iraq having WMDs
>>
>>245011
Bullshit.
This is Iraq part two: electric boogaloo
>>
>>245036
>Assad already won the war. It's over.
People were saying this in 2013. According to Russia, he was already mopping up the rebels even at that time, so why would he use sarin? We've heard this song and dance before.

>>245032
The UN put out a report in 2013 that definitively declared that surface-to-surface rockets containing sarin were fired on the afflicted areas. The Syrian state claimed that they hit a chemical weapons depot run by the rebels, claims that were shown to be utterly non-credible.

On one side, you have a regime that 1. possesses sarin, 2. has the incentive to use sarin, 3. witness reports of chemical rockets, 4. a UN report that the regime's claims are garbage, and on the other you have a claim of a supposed "chemical weapons depot" supported by literally zero evidence. Even if you think every witness was paid off by the Americans to some nefarious end, you'd think that Assad and Russia could have collectively paid off even a single fake witness to say there was a depot there. But they couldn't even do that.

>That remains to be seen, thankfully.
I wouldn't put it past Trump to send a round of rockets at the Presidential Palace.
>>
>>245039
I thought iraq was Iraq part 2: Unfinished business

Where does Libya feature?
Is this Iraq 5: Techno Annihilation?
>>
>>245037
Reminder:
John Bolton dodged the Vietnam draft cos he said he didn't want to die in a Paddy Field

The hypocrisy of the Western superpower

Also bonus; annoyed at social media but actively used it to destablisise other countries elections
>>
>>245040
>We've heard this song and dance before.
Not buying into neocon propaganda to bomb another middle eastern country for their own profit is not "song and dance".

>People were saying this in 2013.
Which people?
Is the current strategic situation similar to what it was in 2013 for Assad and 'ISIS and the "moderate rebels who are totally not ISIS"'?

>The UN put out a report in 2013 that definitively declared that surface-to-surface rockets containing sarin were fired on the afflicted areas.
Yet the inspection team was unable to determine who actually fielded and deployed the sarin. They deliberately took steps to not blame either side.
>The Syrian state claimed that they hit a chemical weapons depot run by the rebels, claims that were shown to be utterly non-credible.
Gotta need a source on this.

>On one side, you have a regime that 1. possesses sarin
Until 2013 where they agreed to allow their stockpiles of Sarin to be destroyed as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

>2. has the incentive to use sarin
What incentive? Definitive proof of the usage of sarin by Assad, especially in 2013, would have guaranteed a military response.
No such evidence ever manifested.

>3. witness reports of chemical rockets
That had a limited range, whose trajectories were not conclusively tied to government held areas.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf

There's as much, if not more evidence that suggests the attack was not ordered by Assad, and that sarin used was supplied by Turkey and used by 'ISIS and the "moderate rebels who are totally not ISIS"'.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
>>
>>245040
YEah. In 2013 according to Russia. Now it's 2018 and according to everyone. This war is over.
If it is (or was) so clear that Assad used chemicals, the whole fucking world would be there right now fighting them. But it isn't the case is it ? And why now ? If, like you say, they used chemicals back then why didnt they get in and clear the mess. What is different this time ? If any of this is true of course.
In order to invade or attack a country, you need clear affirmations and proofs. It was not the case in 2013 and now it is ?
It smells like shit, looks like shit and tastes like shit. This whole fucking story is Iraq all over again and no leader will follow or even accept this attack by America. The whole world is tired of US bullshit. It doesn't work anymore.
>>
>>245049
>Not buying into neocon propaganda to bomb another middle eastern country for their own profit is not "song and dance".
For all the failures of the US intelligence community it still retains more credibility than Russia's. Before Iraq, every US ally except the cucks in Britain (correctly) found our intelligence to be non-credible. That's not the case here.

>Which people?
Syria and Russia both, at the time. Lavrov: "The government, as the opposition is saying openly, is enjoying military success on the ground." [rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-chemical-weapons-753]. It is true that the situation is a bit different now that Russia's dropped a million tons of bombs on it. But even then, they're still trying to wipe out the rebels near their very own capital even now.

>Yet the inspection team was unable to determine who actually fielded and deployed the sarin.
One side's claims match up with the report. One side's claims don't. Guess which is which. Maybe the truth is that rebels fired their OWN chemical rockets into Ghouta, and Syria and Russia totally failed to notice any of them. An explanation of the highest plausibility.

(cont.)
>>
>>245063
>For all the failures of the US intelligence community it still retains more credibility than Russia's
That's not saying a whole lot, and doesn't not make it propaganda.

>Before Iraq, every US ally except the cucks in Britain (correctly) found our intelligence to be non-credible
>Before Iraq
You absolute meme.
>>
>>245049
>Gotta need a source on this.
The non-credibility, or the regime claims that they hit a chemical weapons depot, which was the source of the sarin?

>No such evidence ever manifested.
Only according to Russia and the Syrian state.

>That had a limited range
Ballistic analysis in in the UN report suggests that it came from the direction of government lines, and there are sources saying that government forces reached much farther into opposition territory than was shown in the map.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allegation-false-turkey-chemical-attack-syria

>There's as much, if not more
The sources indicate that Syria had a thousand tons of sarin, mustard and VX include Syria's very own chemical weapons declarations. The sources indicate that Turkey had sarin are a bunch of unsubstantiated interviews. Turkey has its own terrorist problems. If Assad's tactical use of sarin would be "illogical," Turkey handing over half a ton of nerve agent to ANY group in a civil war containing forces that occasionally bomb Turkey itself would be completely insane.

>>245053
>the whole fucking world would be there right now fighting them.
Why would they? Nobody disputes that Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, did the "whole world" drop what they were doing and invade Iraq? Maybe they should have, would have saved us a lot of trouble down the line, but nobody did. People sat and watched because Iraq was, like Syria is now, a sovereign state that most states tend to leave alone no matter what they're doing.
>>
>>245065
>You absolute meme.
I meant immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, as in, when we presented the intelligence indicating that Iraq had WMDs to our allies, "every US ally except the cucks in Britain (correctly) found our intelligence to be non-credible."

I didn't mean prior to Iraq, as in, 5000 BC or whatever you think I mean.
>>
>>245066
>Ballistic analysis in in the UN report suggests that it came from the direction of government lines
I'm gonna go with MIT over the UN, no offense. The rockets didn't have the range.

>Only according to Russia and the Syrian state.
And Mattis. And German intelligence, who stated that based on evidence they had, Assad did not order any chemical attacks.
There's also the fact US intelligence got caught trying to pass off recordings of Syrian officials months before the attack as evidence of communications ordering the strike directly before it occured.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

>and there are sources saying that government forces reached much farther into opposition territory than was shown in the map
Again, I'm gonna go with MIT over the guardian.

>The sources indicate that Turkey had sarin are a bunch of unsubstantiated interviews
Presented in an argument by Seymour Hersh, who's also famous exposing the Mai Lai massacre and subsequent government coverup.

>Turkey handing over half a ton of nerve agent to ANY group in a civil war containing forces that occasionally bomb Turkey itself would be completely insane.
Assad is a puppet of Russia, who Turkey is not fond of. Certainly not as fond as they are of 'ISIS and the "moderate rebels who are totally not ISIS"', given they've supplying them with arms while shooting down Russian aircraft.
>>
>>245067
>I meant immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, as in, when we presented the intelligence indicating that Iraq had WMDs to our allies
I know exactly what you mean you dullard. US intelligence hasn't been stellar since then either.

>I didn't mean prior to Iraq, as in, 5000 BC or whatever you think I mean.
I think you mean you're an absolute propaganda-swilling-husk-meme of a person.
>>
>>245068
>I'm gonna go with MIT over the UN, no offense. The rockets didn't have the range.
It's not an MIT report. It's a report made by one professor at MIT, and for that matter, he's a professor emeritus (ie, not a real professor.)

>Again, I'm gonna go with MIT over the guardian.
Postol argued that the range of the rockets was 2km. He relied on an external map to determine the location of government forces without conducting his own analysis there; that claim is only as good as the map he cited, and does not get to enjoy the benefit of the analytical prowess of MIT on that count given that that claim is simply copied in.

>Mattis
Mattis was talking specifically about post-Trump usages of sarin. "That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it." It indicates that Mattis believes that Syria was caught using sarin under Obama, did not carry out the full destruction of their chemical weapons of program they said they would, and that he is looking for evidence of it. At most he's admitting that the US does not have proof that sarin was used at Khan Shaykhun in 2017.

>And German intelligence, who stated that based on evidence they had, Assad did not order any chemical attacks.
German intelligence also stated, based on evidence that they had, that Assad's forces used chemical attacks whether or not he ordered them.
>>
>>245068
(cont)
>Presented in an argument by Seymour Hersh, who's also famous exposing the Mai Lai massacre and subsequent government coverup.
And in My Lai, he had evidence, named names, and there were interviews and subpoenas and congressional hearings and people came forwards and the whole thing was shaken out in front of the press.

>Assad is a puppet of Russia, who Turkey is not fond of. Certainly not as fond as they are of 'ISIS and the "moderate rebels who are totally not ISIS"'
The enemy of your enemy may be your friend, but if that "friend" is an Islamic terrorist group, you're not going to give them nerve agents. We armed the Taliban against the Soviet Union with small arms and missile launchers. We didn't give them VX. It steps beyond the realm of "unwise" or "tactically unsound" and into the realm of treasonously incompetent.

>>245070
I think you're a delusional conspiracy theorist with his head so far up his ass he can see out the other side, but it turns out that these kinds of assertion don't add much to the conversation.
>>
>>245073
You conveniently forgot to address:
>US intelligence got caught trying to pass off recordings of Syrian officials months before the attack as evidence of communications ordering the strike directly before it occurred

>German intelligence also stated, based on evidence that they had, that Assad's forces used chemical attacks whether or not he ordered them.
[citation needed]

>>245075
>the whole thing was shaken out in front of the press
Back then the press wasn't shilling wholesale for war and bombing foreign countries based on unverified evidence. Then again it also wasn't full of spineless sycophants.

>I think you're a delusional conspiracy theorist
I'm not the one who believes the Syrian government did the one thing that would ensure their destruction via international response in an otherwise winding down conflict they've clearly won based on neocon propaganda, not once but several times. Let me know if you find that conclusive evidence up your ass, since you're claiming reigning expertise on that that matter.

Spreading propaganda on 4chan for free. Absolute meme.
>>
>>245075
>The enemy of your enemy may be your friend, but if that "friend" is an Islamic terrorist group, you're not going to give them nerve agents.
They've already given them regular munitions.

>We armed the Taliban against the Soviet Union with small arms and missile launchers. We didn't give them VX.
We're not Turkey, we weren't led at the time by Ergodan.

>It steps beyond the realm of "unwise" or "tactically unsound" and into the realm of treasonously incompetent.
You're absolutely correct. Oh, remember how you mentioned Iraq using chemical weapons against the Kurds?
The US helped Iraq acquire said chemical weapons to originally use against Iran.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

The US also sold Iraq materials to develop biological weapons.
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html
>>
>>245077
>US intelligence got caught trying to pass off recordings of Syrian officials months before the attack as evidence of communications ordering the strike directly before it occurred
Do you have a source for it?

>[citation needed]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html

This is Gerhard Schindler talking, the same one who gave the briefing that was later reported in Bild am Sonntag that Assad may not have personally ordered the attacks. The position of the BND has been consistent. For all that they report that there is no smoking gun, the opposition account is consistent with the evidence the BND does have and the regime account is not.

>I'm not the one who believes the Syrian government did the one thing that would ensure their destruction
Their destruction is not "assured" unless Donald Trump actually attempts to assassinate Assad. Whatever the US does to Syria, Russia can cover. Atrocities executed by leaders against their people lead to foreign military adventure just about never. You exaggerate the risks and downplay the advantages that Assad faces in using chemical weapons.

>Let me know if you find that conclusive evidence up your ass.
The UN found conclusive evidence that chemical rockets were used in 2013. There is not even the wildest conspiracy theory advanced by Syria OR Russia that the real source of the chemical weapons were rebel chemical rockets. Your choice to ignore conclusive evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

>Spreading propaganda on 4chan for free.
I'm sure you're aware of the irony.
>>
>>245079
>They've already given them regular munitions.
Well, yes. The world generally recognizes a difference between regular munitions and nerve agents, not the least of which is that the damage a terrorist with a gun is severely limited and the damage a terrorist with access to a supply of nerve agents can do is the unstoppable death of thousands of Americans (or Turks, or whoever else have you).

>We're not Turkey, we weren't led at the time by Ergodan.
Ergodan is a brutal leader and a state sponsor of terrorism, but it's not yet clear that he's, say, completely retarded.

>The US helped Iraq acquire said chemical weapons to originally use against Iran.
Your FP link does not support this claim. It claims that we gave Saddam military assistance and that Saddam used chemical weapons, but it does not say that the military assistance we gave him came in the form of helping him get chemical weapons.

>The US also sold Iraq materials to develop biological weapons.
There is no allegation here that the United States itself sold Iraq these materials. They purchased them from American corporations, who also did such things as sell Japan aviation fuel and metallurgical supplies right up until they were banned from doing so. Corporations do business with everyone and the only failure here is of the United States in not actively blocking these transactions.

Neither of these, though, have anything to do with whether Assad used chemical weapons against his people or not.
>>
>>245080
>Do you have a source for it?
Confirmed for not reading:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

>You exaggerate the risks and downplay the advantages that Assad faces in using chemical weapons.
You're completely daft if you're suggesting the strategic situation over Syria was consistently similar during the course of all of the gas attacks that have occurred since 2013.
You're also apparently completely ignorant of American foreign policy at the time. Obama was pressing for an attack on Syria with his "red line" speech and Hillary literally ran on a election platform of a no-fly zone that included shooting down Russian aircraft over Syria. Russia's presence over Syria was not as strong as it is now, back when US/Syrian aircraft used to buzz each other constantly.

>The UN found conclusive evidence that chemical rockets were used in 2013.
No one's arguing that you disingenuous dullard. You should try sticking to the point your opponent is making. There is, to this date, No. Conclusive. Evidence. that the Syrian Government launched the attack. You yourself have acquiesced to this, choosing instead to appeal to the authority of intelligence agencies.

>Your choice to ignore conclusive evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.
I guess I need to repeat myself.
There is, to this date, No. Conclusive. Evidence. that the Syrian Government launched the attacks.
This is a separate fact than "the attacks happened", which I have not at any point claimed.

>I'm sure you're aware of the irony.
Oh you Sony VPL-VW285ES wireless home projector you, you're such a rube.
>>
>>245082
>https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
"A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening." This is double secondhand knowledge corroborated by not a single person out of the dozens or hundreds of people who saw the timing or sequence of the information.

>You're completely daft if you're suggesting the strategic situation over Syria was consistently similar during the course of all of the gas attacks that have occurred since 2013.
It worked out for him, didn't it? If you win the hand, you made a good play. And if you buy into the theory of those nice German men, it was his field commanders whodunit.

>There is, to this date, No. Conclusive. Evidence. that the Syrian Government launched the attack. You yourself have acquiesced to this, choosing instead to appeal to the authority of intelligence agencies.
There. Is. No. Evidence. That. Anyone. Other. Than. The. Syrian. Government. Launched. Or. Had. The. Capability. To. Launch. Any. Rockets. Into. Eastern. Ghouta. Undetected. At. The. Time. Neither. Rebels. Nor. Israel. Nor. Turkey. Nor. America. Nor. Anyone. Else.

>This is a separate fact than "the attacks happened", which I have not at any point claimed.
So, if you don't buy the opposition and American theory, but the Syrian and Russian theories are contrary to the evidence, what DO you believe?
>>
>>245081
>state sponsor of terrorism
>not yet clear that he's, say, completely retarded
You definitely glow in the dark.

>Your FP link does not support this claim.
The Riegle Report in the second link does. So do these:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html
>The United States exported support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war over $500 million worth of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples of anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism to Iraq up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. A number of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development. For example, the Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive anthrax strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.
>“In the late 1980s, the British government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for Saddam Hussein's weapons program, while British Industry supplied Gerald Bull as he developed the Iraqi supergun. In March 1990, a case of nuclear triggers bound for Iraq were seized at Heathrow Airport. The Scott Report uncovered much of the secrecy that had surrounded the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known. The British government also financed a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/american-firms-supplying-iraqs-chemical-weapons-production.html
>Analysis by Jonathan Tucker detailing delivery of American-made precursors for Iraq’s sulfur mustard agent
>>
>>245081
>There is no allegation here that the United States itself sold Iraq these materials.
>"Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic, toxigenic, and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
RTFR

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/american-firms-supplying-iraqs-chemical-weapons-production.html
>Analysis by Jonathan Tucker, who researched Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs, detailing delivery of American-made precursors for Iraq’s sulfur mustard agent

>>245083
>This is double secondhand knowledge corroborated by not a single person out of the dozens or hundreds of people who saw the timing or sequence of the information.
Cool opinions bro.

>And if you buy into the theory of those nice German men
Significant losses in my family tree preclude me from taking Germans at their word, especially German spies. You go ahead though.

>There. Is. No. Evidence. That. Anyone. Other. Than. The. Syrian. Government. Launched. Blah. Blah
There. Is. You. Just. Don't. Like. It.
Just. Like. Evidence. Of. US. Sales. To. Iraq.

>what DO you believe?
Always do the opposite of what neocons say and never trust them, especially when they present evidence of WMDs to justify a war.
>>
>>244975
> It makes absolutely no tactical sense from Assad's point of view, were these allegations true

Indeed, the only one who befits is Israel.

> heres some other possibilites:

Israel did it, seeing as they're the only one who befits.
>>
>>244662
historically speaking this reminds me of the people that were appeasing Hitler in World War II while he was taking over country after country and getting away with the Holocaust. The people that are against us striking the chemical weapons facilities are no better than the people who appeased and sided with Hitler you cannot side with evil another Holocaust is being carried out and we're just watching innocent civilians died will a brutal dictator like Bashar al-assad continues to use gas like the gas Chambers in the Holocaust. as a liberal I don't like Trump but I hope Trump will Liberate the Syrian people.
>>
>>245084
>You definitely glow in the dark.
The United States and the Soviet Union were also both state sponsors of terrorism. The Israelis do their terrorism in-house. Terror is simply a tactic like any other.

>The Riegle Report in the second link does.
It does not. It does say that the US approved the transactions, but they presumably approve every sale that isn't blocked by a policy. These were $60 transactions with the American Type Culture Collection, which is not a government institution. I am examining the full text of the Riegle Report and they do not allege that the CDC, which is a government institution, distributed any cultures. Your PBS link does not mention the CDC at all. The 50-page report by Tucker also appears to focus on American corporations rather than Amerian state action.

>>245085
I am making a distinction here between the government of the United States and corporations based in the United States.

>Cool opinions bro.
It's Hersch reporting something he heard from a former official - two levels of separation, double hearsay - because the former official can only have heard of the actual information through his contacts, and we have no way of verifying the former official or his contacts or any information or really anything that's been alleged at all.
>>
>>245085
(cont)
>Just. Like. Evidence. Of. US. Sales. To. Iraq.
The Government of the United States did not actively assist Iraq in obtaining chemical weapons. They may have tacitly assisted Iraq in obtaining chemical weapons by failing to establish an anti-export policy against Iraq, but that's at best "passive assistance." United States corporations did. There is no factual dispute here.

It's also completely irrelevant to the question of whether Assad did or did not do the dirty.

>There. Is. You. Just. Don't. Like. It.
You have provided, in this entire thread, zero evidence or allegations by ANY party that there was a third party executing (or which had the capability to execute) sarin rocket attacks in Ghouta. But maybe I've missed it. Link me your evidence that, say, Israel executed the sarin attacks in Ghouta. Or Turkey. Or America. Hell, forget evidence. Even contemporary allegations by any party, Syrian regime or otherwise, will do.

>Always do the opposite of what neocons say and never trust them
Donald Trump is about as much of a neocon as he is an evangelical. We're reaching fucking goofy levels of doublethink now, though. We have to believe the Germans and Mattis when they say something about Syria that agrees with what you think, but we can't trust them when they say something that doesn't. So really what you want to do is trust them only some of the time.
>>
>>244981
Russia really benefits from the US being locked in a proxy war. If he can goad trump into moving back into syria that would be a major victory for him.

page took 0.0069 seconds to execute