SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-trump.html
American officials have seen chemical weapons activity at a Syrian air base that was used in the spring nerve gas attack on rebel-held territory, the Defense Department said on Tuesday, scrambling to explain what prompted a White House statement a day earlier that Syria would "pay a heavy price" if it carried out another one.
Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that what looked like active preparations for a chemical attack were seen at Al Shayrat airfield, which was struck in April by American cruise missiles two days after the Syrian government dropped bombs loaded with toxic chemicals in northern Syria. Another Defense Department official said that an aircraft shelter at Al Shayrat that had been hit by an American Tomahawk missile was being used for the preparation.
Syrian and Russian officials rejected the accusation, calling the White House statement a provocation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 30 2017, @09:18AM (4 children)
Is this like the WMD in Iraq? Fake intelligence yet again, to justify what the US wants to do anyway? Sorry, guys, your government's credibility is zero, if not negative. No one believes anything coming out of D.C. anymore...
This is coming too soon after the US shot down a Syrian plane that was attacking ISIS. Of course, we know that the US is supporting anyone (including ISIS) who will help bring down the Syrian government. Why the US is trying to bring down Syria, after seeing the disasters created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Who knows?
The previous US claim of chemical weapons, used to justify the attack on a Syrian airbase, was also nonsense. The US claimed Sarin had been used, which is a contact poison. Yet we saw footage of the emergency workers, apparently immediately after the attack, handling patients and objects while completely unprotected. So...no contact poison after all. The script writers really need to do better research.
So this latest is presumably yet more propaganda, being prepared to justify whatever idiocy is about to happen next.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 30 2017, @01:19PM
So what? The US isn't the only source of information here.
There's a few things to observe here. First, you haven't observed anything inconsistent with a sarin attack. You didn't determine when the footage was taken or even determine whether said emergency workers were exposed to sarin and observed afterward. You just saw some YouTube video and came to the conclusion you wanted to come to. Second, what of those victims? That's consistent with some sort of poisoning.
Second, a UN group [wsls.com] that did bother to go through the trouble of doing actual testing of patients, corpses, and soil samples from the site found presence of sarin. Eyewitness accounts indicate further that the chemical weapon in question was delivered by air. Only one party has that capability.
And let us note that chemical weapons have been used before in this war with the Assad government being the only party known to have them and the means to deploy them.
Here's my view. The Assad government has chemical weapons such as sarin and the ability to deploy them, but these weapons are very unreliable at present. These continued chemical weapon attacks seem to me to have two purposes: first to sow fear and uncertainty in enemy tactics and strategy. Even though they are rarely used at present, they could be used to hit a concentration of enemy forces or soft targets such as command centers. That potential use is enough to hamper enemy activity.
Second, these attacks are probably tests of the weapon and its deployment. Once the weapon gets effective enough and enough of them are constructed, it can be used in a massive strike to kill large numbers of enemies. One shell apparently was enough to kill 89 people, what would 10,000 such shells do? Even if they choose not to attack in this way, they still have a bargaining chip in any peace negotiation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:00PM
I appreciate your skepticism. But unlike Sadman, Assad had Chemical Weapons with 100% certainty, even he would admit. Whether or not he disposed of them as was demanded is another story.
(Score: 2) by jdccdevel on Friday June 30 2017, @03:51PM (1 child)
This is nothing like the WMD in Iraq.
In Iraq they said: "Trust us, the Weapons are there.... Somewhere. We swear it!"
Saddam was screwed from the get go. As soon as 9-11 happened, Bush JR wanted to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was clear to anyone paying attention that the government of the time would do anything to justify deposing him. I'm sure if the weapons were there, Saddam destroyed them long before the invasion, before it became obvious that there was no concession he could make that would appease Bush Jr. and Co.
This time, there's specifics. "This particular air base is being used for chemical weapons attacks, Here's the evidence of a previous attack carried out from that base, and they're making the same preparations again."
Anyone with decent satellite surveillance of the area can verify these most recent claims independently. Heck, it's probably possible to buy the relevant information commercially at this point.
Many governments have the capability to verify this, and some would just LOVE to call out the USA for lying if it's spouting BS. It wouldn't take much of a leak for someone to make the USA look like fools with these sorts of specifics if they're lying. Given that they haven't done that, instead responding with a generic press release, tells me that they can't.
Russia knows what's going on here. This denial is just them doing their normal misinformation campaign in support their Syrian allies. I honestly don't believe the Russian government (i.e. Putin) cares about chemical weapons being used. They're taking the "pragmatic" (for them) approach that the Syrian Government (i.e. Assad) is a friend powerful enough to bring stability to the area, and they really don't care how it's done.
You're probably right about it being used as justification for something. Likely it will be the escalation of attacks against the Syrian government directly, which is exactly what the USA is implying will happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @06:00PM
Let's split the sentence.
Yes, In the past, four years ago. And with another gas.
Yes, they are in war and the use the base for air attacks. What's the evidence they used chemical weapons, now, in that attack?
Yes, they are in war and the use the base for air attacks. What's the evidence they are going to carry chemical weapons NOW?
In fact, it is stupid from Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons and raising anger from western countries, now that is not the underdog. Beside this, chemical weapons are cheap, even Daesh has it. It is easy to think that USA just wants a causus belli [wikipedia.org] to topple Bashar al-Assad.
To make an opinion I need a second source (not UK).
When a government lies, gets credibility problems. WMD was a lie, a big lie. Dear USA, next time, don't lie.