Mattis Admits No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas

Yeah, they're always truthful

 

Mattis says Syria did use chemical weapons:

"SEC. MATTIS: That’s — we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when — in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn’t, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used."

 

The only problem is that the previous allegations against Assad are based on the exact same quality of evidence that current allegations are based on, i.e., "reports" from Assad's enemies, who are terrorists backed by countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. So if there is no proof now, how can there have been proof back then? You have some smoking gun that I'm not aware of? If so, please share it with everyone.

 

To kill their enemies. Same motivation anyone else has to use them.

 

Mattis admitted Syria used poison gas in the interview.

 

Don't know about chemical weapons, but nuclear weapons in Japan and bio weapons in Korea.

Chemical weapons were used by the US in WW1.
Did civilians get hurt... no idea.
But probably.

 

Well... thats rather dumb to think that.
I mean... you really expect the "media" to check it out in Syria who used chemical weapons or if those weapons were actually used, in such a way they wont be killed by either Assad, Israel, Iran, ISIS, Russia, the Kurds, Turkey, etc etc?

 

You cannot admit to something for which there is no proof.

 

The US used napalm bombs on civilian targets in Vietnam. A heck of a lot worse than Assad with a little barrel bomb. Not to mention fire bomb like 60 Japanese cities and nuclear bomb 2.

 

Oh yes, Agent Orange.

 

Mattis says Syria used chemical weapons during the Trump administration.

and used it during the Obama admin

 

So you're retracting? They really are the mouthpieces of the MIC?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

Inspectors from the United Nations Mission already in Syria to investigate an earlier alleged chemical weapons attack[18](p6)[19] requested access to sites in Ghouta the day after the attack[20][21][22][22][23][24] and called for a ceasefire to allow inspectors to visit the Ghouta sites.[20] The Syrian government granted the UN's request on 25 August,[25][26][27] and inspectors visited and investigated Moadamiyah in Western Ghouta the next day and Zamalka and Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta on 28 and 29 August.[18](p6)[28][29]

The UN investigation team confirmed "clear and convincing evidence" of the use of sarin delivered by surface-to-surface rockets,[18][30] and a 2014 report by the UN Human Rights Council found that "significant quantities of sarin were used in a well-planned indiscriminate attack targeting civilian-inhabited areas, causing mass casualties.

 

Which is what I said all along. There was no factual proof and ZERO motive for Assad to carry out the attack.

 

A February 2014 report from the UN Human Rights Council stated that the chemical agents used in the Khan-Al-Assal attack bore the "same unique hallmarks" as those used in the 2013 Ghouta attacks. The UN report also indicated that the perpetrators of the Al-Ghouta attack "likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military".

 

the UN investigated the attacks and determined that Assad committed them.

the motive was to punish civilians for opposing him and supporting rebels.

 

The UN inspectors did not gain access to the site until four days after the attack...anything could have been done to it by then.

They have no way to verify that it was Assad's forces that did it and not terrorist forces who used captured chemical weapons (raided from Syrian stockpiles early in the war) in a false flag attack to get America more involved in the war...which they were losing at that point. And it worked.

Assad had no motive whatsoever. He was then winning (thanks to Russia), had little to gain in the attack on a small village and everything to lose (by risking American direct attacks). Yet the terrorists had everything to gain in a false flag attack.

A crime has to have motive....Assad had none and the terrorists had a big one.

I say now as I said then...it was a desperate, false flag attack to goad America to strike. And it worked.

 

so you're saying the UN are liars, and Assad is a honest & decent man.

ok.


LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

to punish the civilians for daring to question his authority and supporting rebels.

this is what dictators do.

 

I said no such thing. I said the UN did not have access to the site for four days and could not verify who fired the shell/missile. And I said Assad had no motive...and he didn't.

And since you insist on putting words in my mouth...this discussion is over.

Good day.

 

do you have any evidence the site was tampered with?

Assad had a standard dictator motive, to punish civilians.

its what they do.

 

Ok, how did a group of rebels get access to chemical warfare?

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...t-syrian-rebels-do-have-chemical-weapons.html

 

so why did the UN lie about who was responsible?

 

That is not a legitimate source. It is linked to the dubious world net daily and another one called dissent radio. I would believe wikileaks.