Mattis Admits No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas

Assad's forces have been in thousands of engagements since the civil war started. Only a tiny percentage of those engagements are alleged to have involved chemical weaponry. So no matter how you look at it, Assad is winning the war with conventional weaponry, just like the Allies did in WWII or like Lincoln did during the US civil war.

 

Erm the allies famously won WW2 with Atomic weapons.

Yes it is possible that he is winning with conventional weapons. In my eyes probable. But I have no idea of the scale of use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Nor any reason to believe that just because someone has conventional weapons that they won't be willing to use chemical ones.

I'll give hypothetical scenario.
I am a commander in the field. I am besieged out of supply and about to be over run. Lose my life and the life of all the good men in my charge. I am not supposed to use the handful of chem gas weapons I have left over in my arsenal but I don't want to die.

 

No they didn't. Atomic weapons were not used at all in the European theater. And the atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not have the effect that most people ascribe to them. The firebombing of Japanese cities was every bit as deadly and destructive as the atomic bombs.

That scenario does not bear any resemblance to the reality in Syria. Most of the Syrian victories are the result of air superiority.

 

sorry but I trust the UN investigators over an anonymous internet poster

 

It was a world war not a european war. It ended with the use of atomic weapons and not before. Fire bombing of Japanese cities did not provoke a surrender. Atomic bombing of them did.

Syrians didn't have so many victories for the first half of this war. They lost most of their country.



There are times when Assad holds less than 20% of Syria.
Multiple occasions when his forces were surrounded cut off from supply and over run.


American retaliation? He had an enemy army in his capital city FFS.
Who gives a **** about Obama's redlines when bullets are hitting your house.

So, we have established motive.
Assad had motive. We have established access. He had them.
We have established evidence they have been used.

Is it clear he didn't use them? Not at all.

 

So the media does its research before regurgitating the talking points of the MIC?
You just told me it wasn't possible. Which is it?

 

Your deranged client could have treated Syrians better.

 

Yes, he could have let them butcher him and his family like dogs in the street.
And behead each other on the internets..

He could have surrendered his country to a tiny minority of foreign agitated, foreign armed rebels.

But you wouldn't have liked him whatever he did. So why bother trying to please or impress those who wish you dead?

 

You misreported what Mattis said.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mattis-admits-no-evidence-assad-used-poison-gas.525891/#post-1068667320​

Like I said ... "you're another one of these chatacters who can't admit error."

 

You just don't like me showing you perpetrate frauds on the forum. Too bad.

 

It has nothing to do with trust.

There is no proof that Assad is guilty.

If you feel differently, then post the proof for everyone to examine. Just give me one actual FACT that PROVES Assad is guilty.

And in case you are wondering, the say-so of the TERRORISTS trying to overthrow the Syrian government does not equate to a fact.

 

It's a deliberate error... the troll machine at work

 

You're just babbling.

 

Everything I've said in this thread is accurate. You cannot prove otherwise, so you nitpick my presentation.

 

Claiming that you've demonstrated fraud when you haven't demonstrated fraud is a form of fraud.

Posting gibberish is trolling.

If you need any other lessons, feel free to ask.

 

There is no error, so how can it be deliberate?

Troll machine... ironic coming from you.

 

Seems so.

 

No surprise you're trolling for that animal.

 

You were caught. Too bad.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/10/war-media-propaganda-iraq-lies

I can see where this is going to go, so this will be my last reply to you.

 

But haven't you heard? We now live in an age where proof isn't needed any more, and 'facts' are neither here nor there! . Dumb down a population to believe without question what you want it to believe, and Bob's yer uncle - that does away with the need to provide any facts. And it works like a charm on some individuals - not on others though, like you and me?

 

And this is the most important thing of all. Chemical weapons are ridiculously inefficient.

During times of WW I the frontline was too stabile and generals from both sides were dreaming of anything which could break the frontline. Germans used this weapon first time in history but couldn't capitalize on that. They didn't realize the actual result, but the british generals did understand the threat and... they started a huge campaign against an inhuman type of weapons. It was a less rational and more emotional time, before that the world was enjoying celebration of Christmas in the frontline which united soldiers of fighting armies. So the newspapers started a huge campaign which prevented the usage of this weapon before the gasmasks were made in a sufficient quantities. After that the use didn't have any use. But the information campaign against chemical weapons remained. And is still used by politicians much more than on the battlefields. Later the myth was enriched by a different practice of gas rooms for mass destruction of prisoners in times of WWII. This was a different thing. If hitlerites spent bullets the crime wouldn't get any better.

If I was a soldier, I personally would prefer to be attacked by a gas rather than getting a bullet inside the body or being stabbed. If the poisoning is lethal than I will have some sufferings and die. If the poisoning takes me out of order and my life is spared it is even better. Knowing easy procedures a soldier can do something to protect himself from chemicals. So basically chemical weapon as WMD is mostly a PR, a 'red line' which is viewed as casus belli for the US to attack this or another 'dictator'.

 

My feelings exactly.
It's an excuse to go to a war that you are looking for an excuse to go to.

If chem weapons wasn't the excuse something else would be.
"Barrel bombs" "beheadings". "democracy".

Whatever.

 

The US involvement in Syria is making everything so much worse. We're picking sides with terrorists and starting another cold war with Russia. This was a huge mistake.