Syria: It Doesn’t Matter Who Used The Chemical Weapons

theconservativetreehouse.com ^ | April 8, 2017

[Helicondelta]

Focusing on who used chemical weapons is a moot point in the larger issue of the Syrian conflict. It doesn’t matter whether ISIS “rebels” deployed them or whether Bashir Assad used them against the “rebels” when contemplating President Trump’s response to stop using them. The victims are Syrians. The regional alliance members don’t care who used them. The message is to stop.

By actions and deeds the international community, and the regional community, have essentially told Assad he must step down from power as soon as he eliminates ISIS. Do you see any grand motivation for Assad to remove ISIS in that equation? This is the basis for the quagmire. Syria is FUBAR.

President Trump launched a missile strike to send a message to all Syrians that use of chemical weapons will not be permitted.

In the aftermath, Assad promised to fight ISIS harder.

[Helicondelta]

Pictures taken from the Shayrat air base appear to show chemical weapons containers..

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3286709/is-this-the-proof-syrian-butcher-bashar-al-assad-ordered-chemical-weapons-attack-on-syrian-women-and-children/

[Grimmy]

President Trump launched a missile strike to send a message to all Syrians that use of chemical weapons will not be permitted.
___________________________________________________________

One problem with that is that the “rebels” aren’t Syrian for the most part. It’s the same jihadiscum swarm from every muslim nation as well as every non-muslim country that has muslims, including western nations, the US not exempt.

These are true human garbage that swarmed to ISIS and it’s derivatives expressly for the torture, rape, sex slavery and murder games.

They don’t give a squat for Syria or Syrians.

And no, that doesn’t mean I support Assad. I’m fine with them all killing each other in the most expeditious and efficient manner possible. But, then again, I’m not butt chapped over the missile barrage either. If nothing else, it was a good training opportunity for the ships crews.

[fruser1]

One of the “responsibilities” of having chemical weapons (and nukes) is to be able to provide the security such that they are not stolen, and to provide controls, such that deployment is only through authorized channels.

Not having that infrastructure in place is what makes the holding government accountable, even if there is unauthorized use.

[InterceptPoint]

President Trump launched a missile strike to send a message to all Syrians that use of chemical weapons will not be permitted.
++++
Assume for the moment that it was ISIS that was actually responsible for the attack. Will they quiver in fear from Trump’s message or praise Allah for helping them succeed in their mission. And won’t that success motivate them to plan another similar mission?

I’m thinking yes, it would. The question of WHO launched that attack does matter and should not be trivialized.

[PGalt]

Very interesting perspective. Thanks for posting.

[SubMareener]

The article is well worth reading. Thanks for posting.

[xzins]

Disagree.

It is vital to prove that wmds were actually used.

We should not be led by lies.

[DannyTN]

It does make a difference who launched the attack.

The attack puts the world on notice that the U.S. will respond very forcibly if anyone uses Chemical weapons. And if Syria used them, they just got lesson in how quickly we can degrade their military assets.

But if Jihadists used them, then they got the response they hoped for a major attack on a Syrian base. And it assures them they can prod the US into attacking others. The evidence points to Syria though.

• We know Syrian planes flew and attacked this area in two waves. No one seems to be disputing this.
• If Jihadists did it, then they gassed an area Syria identified as an enemy and had just attacked. Ie, Jihadists gassed themselves. (Not likely).
• One possibility is that the gas was in the arms depot that Syria attacked and that the gas was set off unintentionally by Syria.
• In the past, we have often had communications intelligence. I'm guessing we did this time too. I.e US gets benefit of the doubt.
• The pictures above purport to show Syria with chemical weapons. If current, the burden of proof shifts to Syria.
• Another freeper posted that Syria had been using gas weapons frequently, but most attacks had been ineffective. Don't know their source but if there is a pattern, makes it less likely that Jihadists did it.
• The western nations have lined us behind the US on this. Seems they agree the attack was justified.

[Alberta's Child]

In war, the first casualty is truth.

Always remember this, and never trust anything you hear from anyone -- especially in media outlets that function as de facto propaganda arms of the U.S. government.

[Alberta's Child]

In the past, we have often had communications intelligence. I'm guessing we did this time too. I.e US gets benefit of the doubt.

After everything we've seen from the U.S. intelligence community over the last couple of months, I don't know if it's sad or comical (or both) to see so many Freepers willing to accept their findings on ANYTHING at face value.

[McGavin999]

We need to get safe zones set up for the Syrian people and then let the bad guys fight it out. I really think the regional powers are the only ones who can sort this out

I think Hisballah is a huge problem in that area and my big fear is them rushing into any vacuum

[Ditter]

I remember reading on FR that Iraq shipped their chemical weapons to Syria before the Iraq war started. We saw pictures of 18 wheelers crossing the border. The MSM never reported that. All they could say was GW Bush lied about chemical weapons.

[DannyTN]

The faith isn’t in the intelligence agencies as much as it is in Trump and his leadership choices.

It’s one thing for intelligence to “make a finding”. It’s another for them to have hard evidence. I suspect there is hard evidence.

[Lorianne]

It doesn’t matter who used them because IT’S NOT OUR BUSINESS.

Oh, and there was no “international community” doing the airstrike. It was us, as usual, doing Muslim’s bidding for them.

Nobody can ‘take out’ ISIS because it is an ideology deeply imbedded within Islam which itself is spread over a vast area of the planet. Even people who are so-called ‘moderates’ could be quickly and easily aroused into jihadism. You see this over and over throughout history (P.S. READ HISTORY)

There have been multitudes of ISIS-like groups all throughout Muslim history for over 1000 years. It’s not going away

[KSCITYBOY]

btt

[GailA]

[Lorianne]

It only matters in so far as it can provoke us to get entangled in their religious civil wars.

Every side is angling for ways to get us to do their bidding.

And we are stupid enough to fall for it ... every damn time.

[Dr.Deth]

Is that Podesta’s basement?

[iontheball]

I would like to add a postscript question to Sec. Tillerson’s remarks. Just what sort of Syria do you realistically expect will evolve out of all of our “investments” in this Islamist rathole?