U.S. denies hitting Islamic State poison gas depot with air strike

[webfact]

U.S. denies hitting Islamic State poison gas depot with air strike

REUTERS

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State on Thursday denied a Syrian army report it had carried out an air strike that had hit poison gas supplies belonging to IS and caused the deaths of hundreds of people.

 

A statement by the Syrian army, circulated by state media, said the alleged incident late on Wednesday in the eastern Deir al-Zor province proved that Islamic State and al Qaeda-linked militants "possess chemical weapons".

 

Syria and its ally Russia have both asserted that insurgents fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad have stocks of banned poison gas, seeking to pin the blame on the rebels for a chemical weapons attack that killed scores of people in northwest Syria on April 4.

 

Washington and its allies say there is no doubt that the Syrian military carried out that attack, which prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to order cruise missile strikes on a Syrian air base last week.

 

Responding to Thursday's Syrian army claim, U.S. Air Force Colonel John Dorrian, a spokesman for the coalition, said it had carried out no air strikes in the area of Deir al-Zor at the time.

 

"The Syrian claim is incorrect and likely intentional misinformation," Dorrian said in an email to Reuters.

 

The Russian defence ministry said it had no information about people killed in an attack by international coalition forces in Deir al-Zor, according to RIA news agency. A ministry spokesman said Russian forces had sent drones to check the area.

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told news agency AFP in an interview published on Thursday that the alleged April 4 poison gas attack in Idlib province was a "100 percent fabrication".

 

The British delegation at the world's chemical weapons watchdog said samples taken from the alleged attack site tested positive for the nerve agent sarin.

 

"We believe it is highly likely that the attack was carried out by the Assad regime," British Prime Minister Theresa May said in a televised statement. "Apart from anything else, we believe it's only the regime that has the capability to make such an attack."

 

The retaliatory U.S. strike on the Syrian air base was the first time Washington has deliberately and directly targeted the Syrian government. The United States is separately waging an air campaign against Islamic State in eastern Syria.

 

(Reporting by John Davison in Beirut, additional reporting by Andrey Ostroukh in Moscow; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-14

[Ramen087]

A tardy and very poor response by the Assad regime to deny the obvious continued use

of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict. SOP, really.

 

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

A tardy and very poor response by the Assad regime to deny the obvious continued use

of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict. SOP, really.

 

One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply. 

[Nick ZepTepi]

Until independent empirical evidence is shown both sides are pointing fingers in a deadly playground.


Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Nick ZepTepi said:

Until independent empirical evidence is shown both sides are pointing fingers in a deadly playground.


Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk
 

Thought I read somewhere the UK has stated sarin gas was used...

[Nick ZepTepi]

Thought I read somewhere the UK has stated sarin gas was used...

But they didn't state the source, which is the crux of the matter

Sent from my S7 using Tapatalk

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Nick ZepTepi said:

Until independent empirical evidence is shown both sides are pointing fingers in a deadly playground.


Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk
 

Communications have been intercepted with Syrians talking about a chemical attack.  Satellite images are there showing the Syrian warplane dropping the bomb, along with images showing the explosion.  Images are available showing where the bomb landed.  Labs have now shown it is sarin or some type of sarin gas.  What more's needed?

 

Syria is hardly a credible source.  They've been lying for years.

[MarkusAUST]

I wouldn't believe anything that comes from Assad. The man is a ruthless murderer of his own people and has shown he will stoop to disgusting levels to keep his grip on power.

[boomerangutang]

Putin and Assad have dismal reputations for truthfulness.  Trump is even worse.  Indeed, Trump is a one-man lie machine - perpetuating a lie (Obama tapped his phones) that not one other person (Except maybe Melania and Ivanka) will verify.   That's just one in a long list of lies eminating from Trump's little fingertips on his Twitter account.  It's like being pegged as a pedophile.  Once people get the idea in their brains, it's very difficult to banish the reputation.

[transam]

6 minutes ago, Nick ZepTepi said:

But they didn't state the source, which is the crux of the matter

Sent from my S7 using Tapatalk
 

Why should they quote a source, UK does have a secret service, plus don't think the UK would make such a statement without first hand knowledge..

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Putin and Assad have dismal reputations for truthfulness.  Trump is even worse.  Indeed, Trump is a one-man lie machine - perpetuating a lie (Obama tapped his phones) that not one other person (Except maybe Melania and Ivanka) will verify.   That's just one in a long list of lies eminating from Trump's little fingertips on his Twitter account.  It's like being pegged as a pedophile.  Once people get the idea in their brains, it's very difficult to banish the reputation.

Luckily, this info isn't coming from Trump.  It's coming from the intelligence agencies.  Trump has nothing to do with this information.  Luckily.

 

What has Obama got to do with this?

[rockingrobin]

14 minutes ago, transam said:

Thought I read somewhere the UK has stated sarin gas was used...

Sarin contradicts the eye witness account

[ilostmypassword]

46 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply. 

By the logic, the US's quick and hasty assertion that Syria did it should be equally suspect. But not only did the US assert it, it also bombed Syria.  Double standard much?

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Sarin contradicts the eye witness account

Link?  Credible ones only.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947
 

Quote

 

Activists and witnesses say warplanes attacked Khan Sheikhoun, about 50km (30 miles) south of the city of Idlib, early on Tuesday, when many people were asleep.

 

Mariam Abu Khalil, a 14-year-old resident who was awake, told the New York Times that she had seen an aircraft drop a bomb on a one-storey building.

 

The explosion sent a yellow mushroom cloud into the air that stung her eyes. "It was like a winter fog," she said. She sheltered in her home, but recalled that when people started arriving to help the wounded, "they inhaled the gas and died".

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

By the logic, the US's quick and hasty assertion that Syria did it should be equally suspect. But not only did the US assert it, it also bombed Syria.  Double standard much?

The US initially just said a Syrian plane had dropped the bomb.  The said it might be sarin due to reports from the ground.  But didn't say it was sarin 100% for sure.  No double standards.

 

Too much evidence now to say it wasn't sarin and it wasn't Assad. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

The US initially just said a Syrian plane had dropped the bomb.  The said it might be sarin due to reports from the ground.  But didn't say it was sarin 100% for sure.  No double standards.

 

Too much evidence now to say it wasn't sarin and it wasn't Assad. 

Here's what you wrote:

"One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply." 

So the US attack wasn't quick and hasty but Russia's denial was?

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Here's what you wrote:

"One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply." 

So the US attack wasn't quick and hasty but Russia's denial was?

 

I think the US attack was uncalled for.  But that's not what we're talking about here.  The topic is the US said Syria did not bomb an ISIS gas depot.  The US has proof of that.  And many world leaders are in agreement.  They've got way better info than we do.

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I think the US attack was uncalled for.  But that's not what we're talking about here.  The topic is the US said Syria did not bomb an ISIS gas depot.  The US has proof of that.  And many world leaders are in agreement.  They've got way better info than we do.

The issue at hand is "hasty. If it was "hasty" for the Russians to deny it, why wasn't it "hasty" for the Americans not only to assert it, but to stage a missile attack?

[transam]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The issue at hand is "hasty. If it was "hasty" for the Russians to deny it, why wasn't it "hasty" for the Americans not only to assert it, but to stage a missile attack?

Perhaps secret service knowledge....?

[derator01]

Let's stick to the topic.  This isn't about Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Please.

[Kerryd]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply. 

 

But it's OK to accuse Syria before "all the evidence is in" ? Not "too quick" to send in the cruise missiles.

 

As for who to believe, that is difficult. Remember that one side fabricated reports of "WMDs" in order to justify invading Iraq around 13 years ago. Another side is desperate to have the West come in and bomb Assad into oblivion and is suspected of having done gas attacks themselves in the past. (More on that below.)

Don't get me wrong - Assad is no angel and I don't doubt he'd use whatever means he could to put down the "rebels" but he also has seen what happened to Saddam and Qaddafi and knows what would happen to him if the "West" gets drawn into the fight, which is exactly what the "rebels" want.

 

I've spent many hours over the last few days researching and writing up comments about this incident. Why ? Mainly because "all the evidence is not in". There are many, many factors at play here. Not surprising when you consider that there are what, 10 or so factions involved, most with their own agendas.

 

Go back to the beginning. The "rebels" wanted to overthrow Assad (it was a religious issue and part of the wider "Arab Spring"). Assad cracked down on them, just like many other Arab governments did. The world's reaction to those crackdowns apparently depended mainly on whether the government in charge was an "ally" of the West.

Uprisings in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain brutally put down - no problem at all !

Uprising in Libya brutally put down by someone not considered an "ally" ? Send in the bombers !! 

 

The UN mandate forbids "regime change" so the "West" got around that with a loophole that allowed them to attack to "defend innocent populations". The aftermath of their "intervention" in Libya was not what they hoped for (and maybe some of them realized they had been suckered into enabling a "regime change").

I'm sure that is why the "West" wasn't keen on jumping onto the "rebels" side in the Syrian conflict. Sure Assad is another "dictator" and not exactly friendly to the West but hey, that applies to half the countries in the Middle East, including some of their "allies" !

Not to mention that the main "fighting force" of those "rebels" was (mainly) made up of terrorists from the Al Qaeda and al_Nusra Front organizations. 

 

Instead the West decided to offer materiel support, mainly in the form of weapons and ammunition. It didn't take long though for the West to learn that half the weapons and ammo they gave the rebels was being given directly to the terrorists, and the other half was being sold on the black market ! (Many western countries stopped providing materiel support after that.) Not only that, but the US learned that brand new weapons it had sent to the Iraqi army were ending up in the hands of the terrorists as well (before they split off and became ISIS).

Those wonderful rebels even attacked UN Peacekeeping outposts on the Golan Heights a couple of times, and once even took peacekeepers hostage ! The UN actually agreed to their ransom demands ! (In another instance, a group of Filipino peacekeepers were under siege from the "rebels". The "rebels" were driven off by, get this, Syrian Army artillery and Israeli air strikes !)

 

Now remember that there were chemical weapons incidents almost since the beginning of the conflict. After one such incident, Obama drew his "line in the sand" and threatened to send in the jets. It didn't take long before another attack involving chemical weapons happened.

However, before Obama could give the order to send in the bombers, the Russians apparently showed evidence proving that Assad wasn't responsible for the attack ! (Hmmm, if it wasn't him, I wonder who it could have been ?) It must have been credible evidence because Obama never gave the order to attack.

 

As a result, instead of a bombing campaign, Obama, Russia and the UN worked out a Resolution that required Assad to hand over all his chemical weapons and have all his facilities inspected. Assad agreed and by the end of 2014 the OPCW (The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ) confirmed that he had complied and that they had inspected all of his facilities.

 

Well, almost all. You see, there were a couple facilities that were in rebel hands. You'd think that, oh, they're on our side so it shouldn't be a problem to go look at those sites, right ? Wrong !! The "rebels" REFUSED to let the inspectors check out the sites under their control !! They told them to simply "accept their word" that the sites were empty !!! What was in those sites ? Where did it go ? NO ONE knows (except the rebels) ! 

 

Here's a piece from an article I read this morning (the article was written last week, just after this latest incident:

""The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has also accused the Islamic State of using banned mustard gas in Iraq and Syria. The area around Khan Sheikhoun is not held by the Islamic State, but by other insurgents: Qaeda-linked militants and a variety of other rebel groups."

 

That is the same UN organization that wasn't allowed to check on the chemical sites that the rebels controlled. Gee, I wonder where those "insurgents" could have acquired those chemical weapons ? Maybe from the sites that they wouldn't let the OPCW inspect ?

 

I also found it interesting that according to one "witness" the "attack" was by a "gas rocket" and according to another "eye witness" - she saw a plane drop a bomb on a building a few dozen yards away from here and when people went there to help, they breathed in the gas and died. Uh huh.

Sounds more like a bomb hit a building containing chemicals, possibly stored by the "rebels" or their terrorist affiliates. Also note that the attack was witnessed by "activists" - whom I'm sure don't have an agenda in play. 

 

The rebels are even more desperate now than they were before Obama drew his "line". They know they can't win unless they can get someone else (i.e. the "West") to do the dirty work for them, just like in Libya. BTW - people are under the mistaken impression that the "rebels" are just freedom loving, democratically inclined, moderates. They are anything but. Some reports out of "rebel" held areas indicate that they are strict fundamentalists and more like Iran/Saudi Arabia than like Lebanon or Egypt.

 

With ISIS getting hammered, the rebels not only lose that support (remember - they used to be all one big, less than happy family at the beginning), but that means Assad can devote more attention to fighting the rebels instead of them and ISIS at the same time.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

Think about who stands to gain the most, and who stands to lose the most, from an attack like this. The rebels ? Everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose ! If this is what it takes to bring the West into the fight, I have no doubt at all they'd do it. 

Assad ? Everything to lose and very little to gain. Seriously, if he dropped a chemical bomb and killed a few dozen people, all it would do is turn world opinion against him (even more) and invite a (possibly) devastating reprisal (worse than what actually happened). Killing a few of his own people wouldn't change the course of the conflict (in his favour) but could result in his own demise. He is no doubt keenly aware of the consequences and I'm sure is also aware that Russia will only back him so far otherwise they'd face repercussions as well. (Then again, Saddam stopped gassing the Kurds after Gulf War 1 ended with the "no fly zone" being imposed and by all accounts, didn't manufacture any more chemical weapons , but that didn't help him in the end.)

 

Of course, it could be just that a plane dropped a bomb and it hit a building that was storing a quantity of chemicals, possibly looted from production/storage facilities years ago. (For that matter, it could have been an internal explosion from terrorists trying to do something and screwing it up. Wouldn't be the first time some "bombers" were blown up by their own handiwork.)

 

Like I said before, there are many different sides in this conflict and most of them are willing to go to great lengths to achieve their aims. Conducting a chemical attack, or lying about it, is barely the tip of the iceberg.  

 

 

[SOTIRIOS]

...pathetic ....mindless comments...

 

...which countries have caused most wars...and profited from arms sales...to both sides...???

 

..first.... The Native Americans...then.....The Japanese...The Russians...then.....a new enemy was 'created'.....

 

....'savages'...enemies'....'barbarians'....'terrorists'.......

 

...all pretexts to obliterate and conquer and control......

 

...wake up....!!!

 

[JulesMad]

4 hours ago, MarkusAUST said:

I wouldn't believe anything that comes from Assad. The man is a ruthless murderer of his own people and has shown he will stoop to disgusting levels to keep his grip on power.

Strange that he is not a close friend of the champion of liars, trumpy himself! They could swap lies among themselves...

 

[maximillian]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply. 

Syria is hardly a credible source.  They've been lying for years.

 

Maybe the Syrians and the Russians know for sure what's in their arsenals and what's not.

Too quick were the Trump missiles.

Lying ? So are the US. They are constantly lying to the world because they can afford it.

Their lies are meant to kill millions, to divide, to destabilize, to gain access to oil, gas, sell arms, create reasons to implement another military base. Another of how many ?

Suggest you start reading more critical news like  w... OpEdNews.c...

Luckily there are still smart and good Americans out there.

 

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, MarkusAUST said:

I wouldn't believe anything that comes from Assad. The man is a ruthless murderer of his own people and has shown he will stoop to disgusting levels to keep his grip on power.

Yes he is at the head of the class emphasis on the word class. 

[boomerangutang]

Maybe if Assad said good things about Trump, and burnished Trump's ego, Trump would like him, and not get aggressive with him.  It worked for Putin.  Trump said, during the campaign, when asked why he always says glowing things about Putin and is fine with everything the Russians do; Trump said, "He says nice things about me, so I say nice things about him." 

Boomer asks; are we discussing a grown man who cheated his way to the presidency?  Or are we talking about a bratty little kid who is always picking fights during recess?

 

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Communications have been intercepted with Syrians talking about a chemical attack.  Satellite images are there showing the Syrian warplane dropping the bomb, along with images showing the explosion.  Images are available showing where the bomb landed.  Labs have now shown it is sarin or some type of sarin gas.  What more's needed? Syria is hardly a credible source.  They've been lying for years.

             Again, Trump has zero credibility.  How hard would it be to cobble a story together which justifies Trump looking tough?   - and unleashing $100 million worth of bombs which accomplishes nearly nothing.    Then, a few days later, Trump authorizes dropping a $50 million bomb which none of his predecessors used.   It wouldn't be to burnish Trump's image as a tough guy, or (more importantly) TO DIVERT FOCUS AWAY FROM THE TRUMP/RUSSIA INVESTIGATIONS. .....would it?   Perish the thought.

[Ramen087]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

One indicator this was a gas attack by Assad was Russia's quick and hasty denial.  How can it be denied until all the evidence is in?  Too quick in many people's opinion.  Same with the Syrian reply. 

The russians and the syrians have different definitions of quick, I guess... 

[Thaidream]

The problem is that there are just too many liars aroud. Assad cannot be trusted because of his ultimate goal is to stay in power and he could have set off sarin gas. However, Trump is a serial liar who, in my opinion, has a personality disorder. He could well have bee convinced by his minions that indeed Assad dropped the gas and Trump responds with the bombing.  He knows it makes him look 'strong' and also diverts the attention away from the Trump-Russia investigation. I did wonder why General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense would go along with the charade but I have come to the conclusion he may not have seen the full evidence and was told the CIA had definite proof. He has to follow the President's orders and as a military man would have saluted and given the order to strike.

 

It really is sad when a citizen has to question the motives of his own Government and President but after the lies which led to massive intervention in Vietnam with almost 60K American dead and a million Vietnamese and then the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq- I have to have incontrovertible proof before I believe what Donald Trump says.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thaidream

[dunroaming]

Assad will lie at the drop of a hat, so will Putin and so will Trump.  To try to work out the truth is nigh on impossible when you are dealing with this crowd.  It a wonderland for all the conspiracy theorists because nothing is ever clear and aboveboard.  Best to just believe what you want to believe, who knows, you may sometimes be right.

[retarius]

We are all in fairy land here. One side says the US is godlike goodness personified and any deaths attributed to them are accidents caused by the fog of war….The other side say we want to win this war with guns and ammo intstead of Pentagon PR