Did Assad use chemical weapons?
Nope. Just another Israeli lie.
Why does using chemical weapons seem like a big deal since conventional weapons do the same thing?
On a fundamental level, you are correct. conventional weapons have the same results as chemical weapons when it comes to killing. Conventional weapons have come a long way since the days of carpet bombing in WW2 where millions of tons of bombs were dropped on cities and towns just to destroy 1 or 2 factories many bombs would miss and land on houses and public areas. Today we can launch 60 tomahawk missiles from 100 or more miles away and have most if not every single one hit its intended target. This means that the damage is limited to the area that is meant to be hit, this does not necessarily stop civilian casualties and other collateral damage but it does limit them for the most part.Chemical weapons are different, when Sarin is released it dissipates into the air and will affect anyone who breathes the contaminated air be they combatant, civilian, black, white, muslim, christian, young, old, you get the idea. The way it kills is by no means pleasant either, you don’t just simply pass out and never wake up. The point is that a chemical weapon does not discriminate, it just kills. With conventional weapons there is at least a modicum of control as to when it lands, where it lands and more importantly, on whom it lands.For the reasons above, the UN have outlawed the use of chemical weapons in warfare, Syria being a member of the UN should be following the UN laws on use of chemical weapons this is where the “Big Deal” is, granted it still would be a big deal if Syria was not a UN member. Other issues making it such a big deal are the civilian death count, also there is the uncertainty of if it was a deliberate attack or an accidental release due to a bombing.Finally there are the politicians and media who will ultimately be trying to use these events for their own gains
What gives the US the authority to attack Syria for using chemical weapons when the US has used chemical weapons in the past?
Absolutely nothing at all. The US and its cronies violated international law and the charter of the United Nations it signed on.The US and its stooges have no ground on attacking any other country, especially in the matter of WMDs, as they’re proven liars before, or for humanitarian issues, as they’re proven liars before… In Yemen they’re trying to install a puppet regime based in Saudi not in Yemen under the guise of ‘restoring the legitimate government’, in Syria they’re trying to remove the legitimate government claiming it lost its legitimacy and to install a puppet regime which is based on terrorists factions…!The US and its stooges think power gives them approvals to break all international laws and norms, maybe that was the case a decade ago when they were the only dominating power. This is also the case of them not understanding how a country they, all 80 of their countries, combined to destroy and is still resisting and even winning back. They are not accepting defeat that’s why they have to resort to all these false-flags and unprecedented coordinated orchestrated corporation media propaganda campaigns in all their state-owned and controlled media outlets like the BBC, CNN, Times, New York Times, WP… you name it.Syria stopped a domino effect of the New World Order they were building and they achieved a lot in that course including destroying Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen.. and turning many states to failed states by dividing them like in Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, Lebanon, Egypt… Their biggest fear is now Syria has not only stopped their domino effect, it’s reversing it effectively.
What does Syria have that the west wants? Oil? Gas? Chocolate?
It does have a bit of oil not much as high quality Libyan oil But What US wants is what Israel wants All US allies want is what US wants What Israel wants is the civil war in Syria does not give the Chemical weapons possessed by Syria not to fall to suicidal guerrillas and also to make Syria as weak as possible So destroying the Syrian Govt stockpiles makes sense no matter what the causalities are So US has come with a good enough excuse to do this and the rebels just gave them that If the rebels are really for the Syrian people would they support a bombing of their own country and killing Syrian civilians to achieve its aims(Their aim is not known and without a occupation force like Afghanistan they can never rule Syria even if the Syrian Govt is destroyed)
Why does the U.S want to get involved with Syria?
Is it the location? Could it be a pipeline? Can contracts be fulfilled? Are we planning an attack on Russia? Do we really care about the children? Or Americans too distracted with sports and Pop culture again? How can the United States justify its involvement in Syria when we can't show if President Assad approved the use of Chemical attacks on its people? Feel free to post anything you want-- theories, statistics, money trails, historical facts, geographical information, American demographics, etc. so long as you can prove your point, now is an excellent time for you to get involved what may be America's next involvement! Thank you and Gob bless you and your family!
Why does the USA want to attack Syria?
As far as I understand, Anthony says that the reason is that the USA wants to save Syria and other countries from the crazy behaviour of Assad (using chemical weapons for no apparent reason), whereas Michael says the reason is to provoke Iran to keep dollars as their currency for selling oil. So there are 2 reasons of the USA's wish to attack Syria, right? Explain me this.. :l And if that's the case, what makes the wish vain, as alienmiss said? In the Anthony's case, the U.S. simply want to be nice to other contries and help them, and, in the Michael's case, the USA wants to save themselves from going bankrupt and ruining all the country, which is very reasonable and not vain at all. Explain me this too.. @Michael So if Iran changes its currency for selling oil from dollars to gold, then the U.S. won't really be able to get petroleum from Iran? Thanks everyone for all the answers, they're very helpful :D I'll choose the best answer later.
How can we stop Assad’s army from killing Syrian people?
Well, the Syrian Arab Army, generally does not kill their own people on purpose, also if you are a rebel, you are not really the government’s people anymore are you? You cannot expect protection from the people whom you are fighting if you are hanging out on the frontlines in a war. Khan Shaykhun, which is where the chemical attack allegedly took place, is only 9 kilomters from the frontline, and is used as the main base of operations of the rebel offensive in the area.Also I’d like to point out that the OPCW said they will investigate the instance not that the SAA was behind it. Syria joined the no chemical weapons treaty and had its chemical weapons destroyed in 2012, this was monitored by US inspectors as well.So if the US watched all the Syrian chemical weapons which was on the hands of Assad be destroyed, with what chemical weapons does he make his attacks? I suppose it’s possible in theory that they have made new weapons, but why would they? The Syrian army has Russian thermobaric weapons at their disposal, which furfills the same tactical role on the battlefield as small gas attacks do, so they have no tactical reason to do it in the first place.If I recall correctly, the last alleged gas attack done by the Assad government came about exactly as the rebel offensive failed around Damascus, and so does this one. It is possible that the fanatical Islamists are killing Syrian people in order to make the international community react to Assad as they are losing the battle.According to the Russian ministry of defence, what happened was that a chemical weapons factory was bombed which released toxic gas. I’ll remind you that rebels have used gas against civilians and Assad forces in Aleppo and that the same gas has been used against Kurds both in northern Syria and Iraq.The OPCW has not said Assad did it either.