Mattis Admits No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas

Yes, it is called propaganda which is perfectly legal now to use on americans, ever since obama trashed the 1947 law which make it illegal to propagandize americans. A fact. That few even know about. MSM didn't cover it, so of course the fake libs are clueless on this reality.

 

The american people have been fed propaganda for years, but now it is of course legal to do that. Thanks to Obama. He signed away the 1947 law which made it illegal.

 

Whether Mattis realizes it or not, his admission applies to ALL the allegations made against Assad since they ALL hinge on unverified "reports" from the TERRORIST rebels who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

 

Logical fallacy.

 

Can you explain why anyone should care? What difference does it make if Assad kills his enemies with chemicals or with conventional explosives? More importantly, why do you have sympathy for Assad's enemies, who are nothing more than the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria? You rooting for the terrorists to win or something?

 

If "reports" are not proof NOW, then they cannot be proof THEN.

If you want to take the word of TERRORISTS, then be my guest. But I will reserve judgement until I see hard FACTS demonstrating the inflammatory allegations against Assad.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Assad's forces did use chemical weaponry. So what? If Assad wants to kill TERRORISTS with chemicals, then more power to him.

 

Well, not more than 3 times, right?

But we need to keep the bombs dropping; that's the main thing - gas or no gas.

 

Isn’t that funny? You just made the same argument Mattis did.

 

Assad represents a plurality of Syrians who want their country to remain secular. His enemies, the so-called "rebels", are mostly foreign mercenaries and Jihadists.

 

If only Mattis would apply that argument consistently instead of selectively, then we'd really have something.

 

All those pictures of children being hosed down (even just a couple of nights ago) as they scream in agony was fake, you could tell..

 

Bellingcat, an amateurish blogger who does nothing but push war propaganda and lies. Nice source.

Anyway, by admitting that we have no proof NOW, Mattis, whether he realizes it or not, is effectively admitting we had no proof THEN, since the quality of the evidence NOW is of the same quality of evidence THEN, e.g., unverified "reports" from the same rebel TERRORISTS who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

And you know what is so ironic about your cries of "fake news"? Is that all the biggest fake news outlets - The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN - have all been pushing the exact same anti-Assad narrative that your little blogger is pushing. I bet you could not tell the difference between the typical Bellingcat post about Syria and a New York Times article about Syria.

Even more ironic is the fact that TRUMP said during his campaign that the "rebels" are TERRORISTS and that we shouldn't be getting involved in Syria. So what changed? Was Trump lying then? Or is he lying now?

 

My opinion is supported by logic, unlike yours.

 

Are they dead?
Do you cry when you see Palestinian children that are being tear gased? Vastly more painful.
I bet you don't.

Nah. It's just an argument of convenience. You want this guy dead and his country destroyed but you don't want to be seen as a bad guy because you do.

Righto. I get it. His bombs on civilians are bad but your bombs on civilians are heavenly. Of course! My bad.

 

Why did the failed Newsweek operators chose to edit Mattis comments?

Why did they leave our salient facts?

Why are you basing your claims on such poor and politically motivated "reporting"?

 

Obama wants to unilaterally put a no-fly zone in Syria to protect Al Qaeda Islamists http://thebea.st/143tmfM Syria is NOT our problem.
--Donald Trump

 

I am basing my claims on facts and logic.

It is a fact that Mattis claims we have no proof of chemical attacks NOW, yet the evidence used to support past allegations against Assad are of the exact same qualify, i.e., "reports" from TERRORISTS who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

So the question becomes: Why do you find Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to be a credible source? More importantly, why do you have a problem with Assad dropping chemicals or any other weapon on terrorists?

Another question: When you're the one pushing the exact same narrative at the New York Times, WAPO, and CNN, who is really pushing "fake news" here?

Yea, that would be you and your pals over at CNN.

 

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.
--Donald Trump

 

Remember, all these ‘freedom fighters’ in Syria want to fly planes into our buildings.
--Donald Trump

 

What happened to the old Donald Trump? I kind of liked him.

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-killing-each-other-with-diy-weapons-in-syria

Everybody Is Using DIY Weapons of Syria​

"Government forces have become increasingly reliant of helicopter dropped improvised 'barrel bombs' in place of conventional bombs," Higgins told me in an email.

"[They] have developed incredibly powerful short range rocket system known as the Volcano, seemingly based on IRAMs (Improvised Rocket Assisted Mortars) used by Iranian backed militias in Iraq and Hezbollah," he said.

The bombs are essentially barrels filled with explosives and makeshift shrapnel, dropped from the back of Assad’s transport helicopters. The regime also developed a "Volcano" rocket that he says is "a devastating weapon in urban combat", with the largest type carrying "a warhead comparable to a SCUD missile."

For opposition forces, Higgins says DIY mortars are most popular. They're manufactured in huge quantities in makeshift weapons workshops.

Higgins says the rise of DIY weapons in the Syrian conflict is a reflection of the war itself. "For the opposition it's a case of making the most of what's available, but for the government I think it's adapting to the conflict they are fighting," Higgins said.

​

 

Mattis makes it quite clear he is using facts and logic when his complete comment is reviewed, rather than the out of context version the failures at Newsweek tried to peddle.

 

The thing is if we had kept out nose out of Syria's business, if we hadn't targeted Assad for removal he might have made a quick end to the rebel uprising and thus the great refugee problem from Syria might not have happened. ISIS might not have had their quick meteoric rise in Syria either.

I don't think many recognize that by opposing Assad we were actually helping ISIS. Assad might not have been a nice guy, but he was the legitimate ruler of Syria. Assad wasn't an exporter of terrorism to the west either like ISIS is/was. Just my opinion.

 

In opposing Assad you would have been helping ISIS except for the fact that you were bombing the crap out of them which still counts.

Now that ISIS is done, it's just plain old war with Syria.

 

And?