Why Doesnt "Me Too" Apply to Democrats?

[webfact]

U.S. says Syria may be developing new types of chemical weapons

By Matt Spetalnick

 

FILE PHOTO: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as seen in Damascus, Syria November 14, 2017. SANA/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons, and U.S. President Donald Trump is prepared to again order military action against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's forces if necessary to deter chemical attacks, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday.

 

Assad's government is believed to have kept part of its chemical weapons stockpile despite a U.S.-Russian deal under which Damascus was supposed to have handed over all those weapons for destruction in 2014, the officials said.

 

Assad's forces have continued occasional use of chemical weapons in smaller amounts since a deadly attack last April that drew a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian air base, the officials told reporters in a briefing.

 

Characteristics of some of those recent attacks suggest that Syria may be developing new weapons and methods for delivering poison chemicals, possibly to make it harder to trace their origin, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. But they declined to provide specifics.

 

A deadly sarin attack on a rebel-held area in April prompted Trump to order a missile strike last year on the Shayrat air base, from which the Syrian operation is said to have been launched.

 

"We reserve the right to use military force to prevent or deter the use of chemical weapons," one official said, while declining to specify how serious a chemical attack would have to be to draw a fresh U.S. military response.

 

If the international community does not act quickly to step up pressure on Assad, Syria's chemical weapons could spread beyond Syria and possibly even "to U.S. shores," a second official said.

 

"It will spread if we don't do something," the official warned.

 

The officials reiterated U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's recent accusation that Russia, Assad's ally in Syria's multi-sided civil war, bears some responsibility for failing to enforce the chemical weapons ban.

 

Russia has denied any complicity, and the Syrian government has said it has not carried out any of the attacks.

 

Most recently, Western officials have cast suspicion on the Syrian government for a chlorine gas attack on a rebel-held enclave east of Damascus last week that sickened at least 13 people.

 

The U.S. officials also said Islamic State militants have used chemical weapons such as sulphur mustard and chlorine and have employed improvised explosive devices to deliver the chemicals.

 

(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-02

[wonder6281]

More BS

[milwaukeeboy]

And the U.S. has more proven chemical weapons than any other country and continues to militarize anything you can dream of. So what?

[zyphodb]

And they really think that the world believes their BS excuses so that they can continue their war?

[Nurseynutcase]

Hmmm, anyone remember Saddam Husseins WMD?  Chemical weapons included!!!

[Morch]

7 hours ago, wonder6281 said:

More BS

 

Do tell.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, milwaukeeboy said:

And the U.S. has more proven chemical weapons than any other country and continues to militarize anything you can dream of. So what?

 

Quote

The U.S. met the first three of the treaty's four deadlines, destroying 45% of its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2007. By January 2012, the final treaty deadline, the United States had destroyed 89.75% of the original stockpile. Complete destruction was not expected until 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Decommissioning_and_destruction

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, zyphodb said:

And they really think that the world believes their BS excuses so that they can continue their war?

 

And you really think that Assad's regime does not posses nor use chemical weapons?

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Nurseynutcase said:

Hmmm, anyone remember Saddam Husseins WMD?  Chemical weapons included!!!

 

Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons....and the same holds for Assad's regime. What's you're point?

[khunken]

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And you really think that Assad's regime does not posses nor use chemical weapons?

 

I don't know whether they possess them or not but I do know that the alleged chemical weapons attack that Trump responded to was a complete lie.

Seymour Hersch - a far more honest & credible investigative journalist than the US 'intelligence' finger pointers - posted this which was too 'hot' for most of the MSM:
 

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19413:Hersh%3A-Trump-Ignored-Intel-Before-Bombing-Syria

 

What we have here is just more finger-pointing ('may be developing') which is not news but propaganda.

Edited February 2, 2018 by khunken

[Morch]

 

@khunken

 

No, you do not "know". You believe Hersch's report. And Hersch's report is not verified. As for the "too hot for most of the MSM" bit - even the clip linked refers to the original report by Hersch, which wasn't published in some "alternative" news outlet. If not all media and news outlets are keen citing and publishing Hersch, that could have something to do with his variable level of credibility and almost notorious use of anonymous sources.

 

Assad's forces used chemicals weapons during the Syrian Civil War. Assad's regime was in possession of chemical weapons, which it was supposed to destroy (verifying compliance could be a problem). However, the know-how cannot be undone.

 

I'm not saying that I fully embrace the OP claims - but discounting them in the manner offered by other posters is not acceptable either. That the US is supposedly "bad" doesn't make Assad's regime "good", nor does it mean that any claim by the US is false.

[khunken]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@khunken

 

No, you do not "know". You believe Hersch's report. And Hersch's report is not verified. As for the "too hot for most of the MSM" bit - even the clip linked refers to the original report by Hersch, which wasn't published in some "alternative" news outlet. If not all media and news outlets are keen citing and publishing Hersch, that could have something to do with his variable level of credibility and almost notorious use of anonymous sources.

 

Assad's forces used chemicals weapons during the Syrian Civil War. Assad's regime was in possession of chemical weapons, which it was supposed to destroy (verifying compliance could be a problem). However, the know-how cannot be undone.

 

I'm not saying that I fully embrace the OP claims - but discounting them in the manner offered by other posters is not acceptable either. That the US is supposedly "bad" doesn't make Assad's regime "good", nor does it mean that any claim by the US is false.

Nor do you know whether Syria currently has or used chemical weapons in the Hersch article. Yes, I tend to believe Hersch because of his credibility (as I said). Unsurprising that you attempt to blacken his name which is your usual personal attack methodology when you dislike what others say or report..

 

I know Assad used chemical weapons before the verification process - and some opposition groups did too. However, discounting completely unverified propaganda is quite easy for normal sceptical people.

 

BTW no one claimed that the Assad regime is good (straw man) or that the US is bad (straw man No 2) but seems some remain very doubtful of the veracity of the anonymous claim. Whether it is true or false we don't know but it is certainly propaganda.

[Morch]

 

@khunken

 

I'm not the one making strong claims, you are - therefore, the "nor do you know" bit is pointless spin. Refer to the the last paragraph of my post if the above is too complicated. You can believe this or that reporter, that's fine. What isn't, is going on an uncalled for personal attack while whining about an imaginary personal attack: negative comments on his credibility (and other issues) are nothing new, whether you like to acknowledge them or not  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism).

 

That you term something is "certainly propaganda" does not necessarily make it so, especially since your own position is far from unbiased when it comes to the US.  As for the comment regarding straw men - refer to the posts above, and bear in mind that this is not the first topic such issues are discussed and that posters' positions are not unknown.

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, Nurseynutcase said:

Hmmm, anyone remember Saddam Husseins WMD?  Chemical weapons included!!!

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons....and the same holds for Assad's regime. What's you're point?

I think it's clear in this context that what was being referred to was the claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein still had a chemical weapons arsenal that posed a serious threat to the world and justified invading Iraq.  In retrospect we know how much pressure was applied and how much questionable intelligence, such as Curveball, was represented as being solid to support said invasion. And by the same token, we now have intelligence agencies reporting alarming information about Assad's regime not long after the Trump administration announced its intention to stay in Syria in support of forcing Assad out of office and keeping Iran in check.. Maybe the intelligence agencies are being honest. But, given what's happened in the past, and the foolishness coming out of the Dept. of Defense, it makes a lot of sense to be very skeptical of any such claims.

 

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think it's clear in this context that what was being referred to was the claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein still had a chemical weapons arsenal that posed a serious threat to the world and justified invading Iraq.  In retrospect we know how much pressure was applied and how much questionable intelligence, such as Curveball, was represented as being solid to support said invasion. And by the same token, we now have intelligence agencies reporting alarming information about Assad's regime not long after the Trump administration announced its intention to stay in Syria in support of forcing Assad out of office and keeping Iran in check.. Maybe the intelligence agencies are being honest. But, given what's happened in the past, and the foolishness coming out of the Dept. of Defense, it makes a lot of sense to be very skeptical of any such claims.

 

 

 

And you got all that from a one liner, which actually indicates otherwise (or at least, being a less discerning comment). IMO, most such comments as feature in the opening of the "discussion" are more indicative of knee-jerk reactions not necessarily attached to much skeptical cerebral efforts. The implied standing underlying claim is that any and all mention of related issues is to be disparaged. Not much of an argument there.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

And you got all that from a one liner, which actually indicates otherwise (or at least, being a less discerning comment). IMO, most such comments as feature in the opening of the "discussion" are more indicative of knee-jerk reactions not necessarily attached to much skeptical cerebral efforts. The implied standing underlying claim is that any and all mention of related issues is to be disparaged. Not much of an argument there.

Context is nothing and mind-reading is everything.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Context is nothing and mind-reading is everything.

 

It was you who alleged "context" by applying "mind reading" to a one-liner post.

[Ron19]

Troll posts removed.

[ilostmypassword]

On 2/3/2018 at 10:45 AM, Morch said:

 

It was you who alleged "context" by applying "mind reading" to a one-liner post.

"There’s no need to invoke mind reading to explain my comment. Given the context of article, namely that the US is invoking the chemical weapons threat, the more natural reading is to assume that the earlier reference by nurserynutcaseHmmm, “anyone remember Saddam Husseins WMD?” is   Chemical weapons included!!!  Is to  false claims by the USA that Iraq still possessed nuclear weapons on the eve of the 2^nd Iraq war and not an assertion that Iraq never had chemical weapons... It seems that the USA is desperately flailing to find some reason to justify its continued presence in Syria. Knowledgeable observers have long questioned what how US would justify its stay in Syria once the threat from ISIS was suppressed.  Given the virulent opposition of Turkey and Iran to any kind of Kurdish entity, not to mention Assad’s and Russia’s opposition, to a continued US presence, it was to be expected that the US would make such a claim whether or not it turns out to be true."

[nausea]

Cui Bono is this news, either Assad is an idiot or somebody is trying to foment trouble.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 6:23 AM, webfact said:

The Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Assad's government is believed to have kept part of its chemical weapons stockpile

"believed to" and "may be" being the operative words.

I think we've heard all that before when they were trying to justify attacking Iraq.

I'm sure some country is using the conflict to develop and test chemical weapons, but I need to be convinced that it's Assad's Syria. 

[Andaman Al]

I find it quite amazing that a nation that has been bombed back to the stone age has the time, resources and money to hang around developing new chemical weapons, when in fact nations such as these only ever had chemical weapons because they were bought off the shelf from UK, USA, Russia and China - oh isn't that all but one of the permanent members of the UN Security council? It's a frakking joke and a disgrace and further evidence that in general most of mankind are as dumb as rocks when they accept this BS.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Andaman Al

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

I find it quite amazing that a nation that has been bombed back to the stone age has the time, resources and money to hang around developing new chemical weapons, when in fact nations such as these only ever had chemical weapons because they were bought off the shelf from UK, USA, Russia and China - oh isn't that all but one of the permanent members of the UN Security council? It's a frakking joke and a disgrace and further evidence that in general most of mankind are as dumb as rocks when they accept this BS.

 

The core areas under Assad's regime were not "bombed back to the stone age". Russian and Coalition attacks mostly targeted forces opposed to Assad's regime. Chemical weapons production, once the know-how is present, does not necessarily involve huge financial investment (especially if facilities remained intact), many of the components are either dual use, not too hard to get or can be produced locally. The hurdles are getting the know-how, setting up facilities and a cadre of personnel able to carry on.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, nausea said:

Cui Bono is this news, either Assad is an idiot or somebody is trying to foment trouble.

 

There's no real contradiction there.

[mikebike]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:57 PM, Morch said:

 

And you really think that Assad's regime does not posses nor use chemical weapons?

 

I really do not care - let his regional neighbours deal with it. For me the fundamental question is, "Why is the USA in the Middle East at all?"

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I really do not care - let his regional neighbours deal with it. For me the fundamental question is, "Why is the USA in the Middle East at all?"

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

I really do not care - let his regional neighbours deal with it. For me the fundamental question is, "Why is the USA in the Middle East at all?"

Easy answer. They need to have the oil because they wasted all their own on cars with truck engines and having heating too high.

Having prevented France and Britain taking back the Suez, they then found that they had to suck up to the Egyptians to keep the canal open to get the oil through- bit unfortunate that!

Why they are in Syria- I have absolutely no idea and I'm not sure the Americans know either.

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The core areas under Assad's regime were not "bombed back to the stone age". Russian and Coalition attacks mostly targeted forces opposed to Assad's regime. Chemical weapons production, once the know-how is present, does not necessarily involve huge financial investment (especially if facilities remained intact), many of the components are either dual use, not too hard to get or can be produced locally. The hurdles are getting the know-how, setting up facilities and a cadre of personnel able to carry on.

Bombed back to the stone age - Fill your boots.

 

https://petapixel.com/2016/08/02/26-photos-show-war-changed-syria/

 

 

[Air Smiles]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

 For me the fundamental question is, "Why is the USA in the Middle East at all?"

It can be confusing why the USA(and their lackeys) keep banging on about Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc, until you look at a map showing the oil fields:

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Air Smiles

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Bombed back to the stone age - Fill your boots.

 

https://petapixel.com/2016/08/02/26-photos-show-war-changed-syria/

 

 

 

Try reading the my post again. The areas which were under Assad's control were not "bombed back into the stone age". That other parts of Syria is less relevant to the question of whether the Assad regime got the capability and means to develop and produce such weapons.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Morch