Why am I supposed to care about Chemical Weapons in Syria?

[Contumacious]

Yo dingle berry , how did you conclude that it was Assad?

Syria chemical weapons attack toll rises to 70 as Russian narrative is dismissed
4/5/2017

Weapons expert says Russian claim that airstrike hit ‘terrorist warehouse’ in Idlib province is fanciful

At least 70 people have been killed in northern Syria after being exposed to a toxic gas that survivors said was dropped from warplanes, an attack that sparked comparisons to the most infamous act of the country’s six-year war.

At least another 100 people were being treated in hospitals in Idlib province where the strike took place at dawn on Tuesday. Several dozen others were transferred to Turkey, some in critical condition.

Condemnation mounted throughout Tuesday as the US, Britain and EU blamed the Syrian government for the carnage, hours before the start of a donor conference on Syria in Brussels.

Syria chemical weapons attack toll rises to 70 as Russian narrative is dismissed

WHO dismissed the Russian narrative and WHY?


Who oppose Assad?


1- CIA
2- Israel
3- Saudi Arabia
4- Qatar
5- Turkey
5- Al Nusrah
6- ISIS
7-Al Qeda

All of them have SARIN GAS


.

 

[Contumacious]

Assad recently provided the UN documents showing that AL NUSRAH recently received another shipment of Sarin Gas.


.



.

 

[Contumacious]

HILLARY CLINTON SUPPLIED SARIN GAS TO THE "SYRIAN RESISTANCE"



a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.

.

If that is the case are you saying this Islamist also works for Turkey, Saudi Arabs and Qatar? He evidently knew on March 26 and March 24, 2017 that there would be a chemical attack. He's begging for money. No actual dr. license as the UK pulled that when he and others were kidnapping journalist for extorting money.


dr.shajulislam - Twitter Search

HUH?


.

The Islamist were asking for money on March 24 and 26 so they could protect themselves from gas attacks. They even made a video claiming they were under gas attack prior to anything happening on April 3rd or 4th. Who do you think this dude works for?

Do you have a link?

.

Read through the tweets. dr.shajulislam - Twitter Search

The scumbag is affiliated with Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda or ISIS.

 

[RodISHI]

Assad recently provided the UN documents showing that AL NUSRAH recently received another shipment of Sarin Gas.


.



.

You may find this interesting.
What is happening in Istambul? By İnsanlik Hali

 

[ChrisL]

I am so SICK of the Middle East. I am sick and tired of those people, their problems, their issues, blah, blah, blah. I wish we would leave them alone and they would leave us alone. We can stay here, let them stay over there.

 

[RodISHI]

If that is the case are you saying this Islamist also works for Turkey, Saudi Arabs and Qatar? He evidently knew on March 26 and March 24, 2017 that there would be a chemical attack. He's begging for money. No actual dr. license as the UK pulled that when he and others were kidnapping journalist for extorting money.


dr.shajulislam - Twitter Search

HUH?


.

The Islamist were asking for money on March 24 and 26 so they could protect themselves from gas attacks. They even made a video claiming they were under gas attack prior to anything happening on April 3rd or 4th. Who do you think this dude works for?

Do you have a link?

.

Read through the tweets. dr.shajulislam - Twitter Search

The scumbag is affiliated with Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Al Nusrah split from Al Qaeda. You may wanna look at Indonesia Al Nusrah.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Well, we should all care in the humanitarian sense, but what puzzles me is why is this America's responsibility?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

**** that.

To keep us neck deep in wars that many corporations that donate good money to Neocon Chickenhawks to keep getting us into.

 

[ChrisL]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Well, we should all care in the humanitarian sense, but what puzzles me is why is this America's responsibility?

There is just too much CRAP going on there all the time. I've decided that it's a waste of time to worry about what is happening overseas. I've decided to concern myself with what is happening here in my own country and FTW. Lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is just too much CRAP going on there all the time. I've decided that it's a waste of time to worry about what is happening overseas. I've decided to concern myself with what is happening here in my own country and FTW. Lol.

I agree.

I am sick to death of American young adults being sent to die for some other countries problems.

**** the world; let it burn to the ground and let us take care of our own.

 

[SavannahMann]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

You need to go back and view some history from WW-I.

What you are saying above is almost word for word what was said about Poland in the Fall of 1939. How did that workout?

You don't want to get into history with me. I can assure you I am aware of it.

But let's get a little more recent. There is one naval base for the Russians in the entire Mediterranean Sea. It is in Syria. Imagine how we would react if our base at Rota Spain was threatened. We would do exactly what the Russians are. We would pull out all the stops to protect our base.

So we have a side in the conflict that can't afford to lose. But hey we are pulling out the WW I and II examples. Fine with me. This mess is actually closer to the Spanish Civil war than Poland which is an asinine example. Poland was the cause of the war. The example you are thinking of is Czech and the Sudaten Land.

Syria isn't trying to take over anything. They aren't fighting against patriots who hope to have a democratic form of government. They want themselves in charge. New dictator with the same old rules.

The Spanish civil war was a test of new weapons and tactics. The theories on air power and bombing were tested there on live victims. The techniques developed would serve the Germans well through about 1942.

The Russians can't back down. If they do they lose their only Naval base in the Med. they are not going to give up. So if we escalate where does it go next? You use the World War I example. Was the death of tens of millions a fair price to pay for the death of Arch Duke Ferdinand?

Make no mistake. An escalation in Syria leads to World War III. How do we win that? How do we survive it?

Using your Second World War analogy is sort of apt. We are the ones demanding Poland. We are the invaders starting the war. We are the people holding a gun to the head of the Yugoslavian Prime Minister demanding he surrender the nation. We are the baddies.

We armed the terrorists. We have advisors working with the terrorists right now. The Nazi's sent people in to Poland to stir up trouble and give them the excuse to go in.

We are the baddies.

 

[Contumacious]

I am so SICK of the Middle East. I am sick and tired of those people, their problems, their issues, blah, blah, blah. I wish we would leave them alone and they would leave us alone. We can stay here, let them stay over there.

As am I.

In 1949 President Truman recognized Israel even though FDR warned him that the recognition was going to require A PERMANENT US MILITARY PRESENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST. But Truman was in a tight race against Dewy . He needed the $2M dollars that Ben Gurion was going to give him plus the Jewish vote.


Since 1949 the US has given Israel over $130B.


The US is determined to allow Syria to expand its territory into Syria. The gambit will more than like cause WW3.

And that's the reason Americans must closely monitor the ongoing events in the ME.


.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

You need to go back and view some history from WW-I.

What you are saying above is almost word for word what was said about Poland in the Fall of 1939. How did that workout?

You don't want to get into history with me. I can assure you I am aware of it.

But let's get a little more recent. There is one naval base for the Russians in the entire Mediterranean Sea. It is in Syria. Imagine how we would react if our base at Rota Spain was threatened. We would do exactly what the Russians are. We would pull out all the stops to protect our base.

So we have a side in the conflict that can't afford to lose. But hey we are pulling out the WW I and II examples. Fine with me. This mess is actually closer to the Spanish Civil war than Poland which is an asinine example. Poland was the cause of the war. The example you are thinking of is Czech and the Sudaten Land.

Syria isn't trying to take over anything. They aren't fighting against patriots who hope to have a democratic form of government. They want themselves in charge. New dictator with the same old rules.

The Spanish civil war was a test of new weapons and tactics. The theories on air power and bombing were tested there on live victims. The techniques developed would serve the Germans well through about 1942.

The Russians can't back down. If they do they lose their only Naval base in the Med. they are not going to give up. So if we escalate where does it go next? You use the World War I example. Was the death of tens of millions a fair price to pay for the death of Arch Duke Ferdinand?

Make no mistake. An escalation in Syria leads to World War III. How do we win that? How do we survive it?

Using your Second World War analogy is sort of apt. We are the ones demanding Poland. We are the invaders starting the war. We are the people holding a gun to the head of the Yugoslavian Prime Minister demanding he surrender the nation. We are the baddies.

We armed the terrorists. We have advisors working with the terrorists right now. The Nazi's sent people in to Poland to stir up trouble and give them the excuse to go in.

We are the baddies.

I very reluctantly agree with you.

Assad, as bad a son of ***** as he is, is our best option if you have any regard for the lives of the non-Sunni minorities in Syria.

 

[Contumacious]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Well, we should all care in the humanitarian sense, but what puzzles me is why is this America's responsibility?

In 1997 the US decided to expand Israel and destroy Iraq and Syria.


.


.

 

[basquebromance]

Toxic gas attack in Syria!? QUICK! We have to bomb, invade, and destabilize the entire region to make sure no Syrians are ever harmed again.

We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO

 

[Dschrute3]

Why are we in Syria? Most Americans can't answer that question. That's how awful our foreign policy is.

So in your desperate opinion, Progressive, low information voters, should direct our foreign policy. Cute.

It is good that you agree that our foreign policy is a disaster unequaled in modern history. All at the foot of petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama.

Why is he in Tahiti? Didn't he claim that he wanted to stay in Washington to be close to his daughter until she graduated?

Do we have an extradition treaty with Tahiti?

Obama continued the Permanent War policy. He bombed more countries than his predecessor did.

 

[Dschrute3]

Bottom line is, you don't support this Globalist Elite 'Permanent War' Agenda, you'll quickly be labelled an 'America-Hater.' We never had any business being in Syria. It was never a threat to the US. But here we are, getting set for full invasion. When will Americans demand an end to this Endless War?

We are? What do you know that apparently no one else seems to know?

It's coming. That's what this False Flag is about. They now have their 'Justification' for all-out war. This has been done before. Just a sad repeat of history. False Flags have been carried out many times by many nations all throughout history.

This one's going the way of 'Iraqi soldiers ripped Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Iraq is a threat to the US, Hussein is with Al Qaeda, Hussein has WMD.' All lies. But the Sheeple continue eating em up.

 

[Iceweasel]

**** the world; let it burn to the ground and let us take care of our own.

I understand the sentiment but the problem is things like ISIS and 9/11 happen.

 

[candycorn]

Europe (to where something like 70% of Americans at the time) is different than ME nations with a GDP that is not equal to some of our cities and states.

What does my reminding you that we have a world economy have to do with the barbaric use of chemical (believed to be the horrific gas Sarin) weapons against his own civilians.

Forgive me, it slipped my mind that things have to be explained in minute detail for Progressives. Either that or they feign ignorance.

Doing nothing with Syria and their use of Sarin gas encourages, no promotes the use of such gas by Iran, North Korea, ISIS, and any other bad guy to use the gas at will. We and the United Nations have told them we will whine, wring our hands and do nothing.

Yours reminds me of the simplistic argument about the domino theory. If we don’t oppose communism in Vietnam (we were told) it would quickly spread to Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Hawaii, Fresno… Never happened.

We should only spill American blood and Treasure where American blood or Treasure will be appreciated. Apparently you want to send someone else’s sons and daughters (it’s always someone else) to fight in a nation that we have banned their citizens from visiting ours!!!

Feel free to be the first to sign up. You’ll do as much good there as you do here; i.e. zero.

 

[OldLady]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

No man is an island entire of itself.....do not send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.