Mattis Admits No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas

It is responsible for choosing to report one opinion over another.

 

Ah, I figured you never heard of it.

We enacted a law in 1947 which made it illegal to use propaganda on the american people, as we were using overseas. Well, this law was trashed when obama signed one of these national security acts, during his term, where that law was included, in order to get rid of it. So, you can now be fed propaganda legally where in the past it was illegal. So, we just turned into another authoritarian state like the old USSR was, and even what some claim russia is today, along with china and NK. Good company we have put ourselves in!! Lie to your own people, treat em like mushrooms by keeping them in the dark and feeding them bulls**t. And some of us are lapping up that BS for partisan driven reasons. A perfect set up!

 

are you calling the UN and Mattis, liars?

 

`
Of course you are able to offer proof of this law, right?
`

 

Yes, sure, but it would take me several minutes to source it, post the link, but I have found that this is generally a waste of time here on this forum. And I stopped indulging people who didn't do their work on being informed, or those who are informed but play stupid. lol It is a fact, what I stated. MSM refused to cover it, so not to inform you of what was done. Treat the people like mushrooms, by keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullcrap. Which they think is the truth, while the truth must be found by due diligence, given the free press no longer exists in MSM. Which is why you were kept in the dark on this very important issue. Hey, did you know that Schumer stated in MSM that the CIA can get a president 6 ways from Sunday? Telling you where the real power lies in DC? From non elected professional liars....the CIA? But since if you missed schumer's confession, you might would not know he said that, since the free press is dead and no longer speaks truth to power. Schumer told the horrible, treasonous truth, and msm could not give a rat's arse. Your source of info?

 

Absolutely. You obviously understand the history. Anyone who is interested in getting more info on the problem and how it was created should consider reading Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World

https://www.amazon.com/Paris-1919-Months-Changed-World/dp/0375760520/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518368293&sr=8-1&keywords=paris+1919​

 

I'm sure the took it all into account the best of their abilities.
But things change. It's not 1919 anymore.

 

The incident in 2017 doesn't make sense because Trump wanted to work with Russia to rid Syria of terrorists. Putin and Assad wouldn't jeapardize that potential partnership with the U.S. by using Sarin gas.

 

`
None. I just offered an opinion. My point, if you boil it down; it's all bs.
`

 

sure they would, as they wanted to punish the rebels and their civilian supporters.

 

Sometimes when something is boiled down, you are left with nothing. Boil down what I said and you end up with a thick residue of truth on the bottom of the pot. And if some people were to actually taste it, it tastes like a bitter pill. To others, it is the greatest taste one can taste... in times when it is so hard to discern, given our media no longer finds truth acceptable. And with what they peddle, this helps to form opinions. An opinion without some foundation of truth is what many will peddle for partisan motives. It seems prolific today.

 

With one small bomb, one time, versus the US air power? Which one would remove more obstacles? Putin and Assad aren't so stupid as to turn a powerful potential ally into an adversary or someone who would support Assad's overthrow and aid his enemies, rebels and all. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Assad/Putin used Sarin gas on Khan Sheikhoun, Syria in 2017.

 

Mattis acknowledges Assad used poison gas at least twice.

 

So he lied the first time? So what is it? He clearly said no, and now he says yes? Link? The devil is generally in the details.

Assad using poison gas was always nonsensical, given he knew this would be an excuse for more US involvement. I guess he is crazy too, like we are told Kim is mental hospital crazy?

Chlorine gas can be made by anyone. With two household cleaning chemicals. Sarin? Forget about it. Much more involved and you need the ingredients which are not easy to get.

The way the gas was used was not in a military manner. It was used for publicity, an attempt to blame it on assad. That no non biased experts were allowed in to determine the truth is highly suspect. Just a little bit...no quite a bit suspect. These are not damned coincidences. Unless one is the local village idiot. Or an outright, certified fool. And the timing of these gas attacks is also highly suspect. Remember the red line? You think assad wanted the US to get even more involved in taking him down and destroying syria, and so he used gas? Everything else he has done has been logical, rational, and yet he stopped being that? It is just nonsense, which a rational brain can discern with no problem.

 

Except the same evidence that was used back then (reports from terrorists trying to overthrow the Syrian government) is of the same qualify of evidence being used now, so if there is no proof now, then there was no proof back then. This is the logical implication of Mattis' admission whether he realizes it or not. There is absolutely no proof that Assad used chemicals weapons NOW or THEN. NONE.

 

Can't answer the questions?

 

I didn't "report" anything, I just posted an article and commented on it.

And my comments are backed by evidence and logic. Feel free to address them at any time.

 

You've yet to identify my error. I am not responsible for how Newsweek does its reporting. I am only responsible for the comments I make. And every comment I've made in this thread can be defended with logic and evidence. But instead of addressing the logic and evidence I use to support my commentary, you want to split hairs over my style of presentation.

 

You spend too much time trolling internet forums.

 

The "rebels" are Jihadists and mercenaries, ISIS and Al Qaeda. And if Assad wants to punish them, he can just use conventional weaponry. He has absolutely no tactical or strategic need for chemical weaponry. Using chemical weapons when he has no need for them runs completely contrary to his best interests. The "Assad did it" theory is asinine and sophomoric.

 

Unless he is trying to flush them out of cities and towns. In which case chem weapons are very useful.
Urban warfare is very costly. It takes away much of the advantage gained by heavy weapons and superior numbers. Tanks, planes, artillery armies etc.

You flush em out and them you shoot em dead.

I think it might be a mistake to judge Assad's actions entirely from the perspective of manipulating American involvement. He had other worries too.
Stalingrad brought the mighty German army to it's knees. Grozny did the same to Russia. You can lose an army in an enemy city.

Then we have questions of how much control he exerted over his government and his generals. He may not have given the orders. Someone may have taken it on themselves to make those decisions.
It's really impossible to second guess Assad's decisions.

Did he do it? I have no idea. Could have been anyone.
Certainly his forces are very high on the list of probables.

Nor am I able to get any sense of scale of the incidents. Any sense of proportion. Were 10 people gassed or 10,000? Was it a small one off event or a widespread tactic.
With all the propaganda involved, I really couldn't judge.

 

You know what else is useful for flushing people out of cities and towns? Conventional bombs. Just as one example, when the Allies faced some residual Nazi resistance in the aftermath of WWII, they would just shell the town until it was a reduced to rubble. Problem solved.

I'm not judging his actions based entirely on the potential of US involvement. I'm merely pointing out the major importance of US involvement in Assad's calculus.

A simple cost-benefit analysis demonstrates he had virtually no incentive to use chemical weaponry. The benefits are scant at best while the costs are potentially catastrophic.

 

No it does not.
If his recapture of his country or the defeat of an encroaching army was an immediate priority, the risk of punitive bombing by the US is side show compared to that.
What loses could he expect from a Fallujah compared to having an airport bombed.
What loses could he expect from having his capital city over run.

Conventional bombs, are not all that effective against a dug in enemy. Cf WW1. A trench or bunker system negates it.
Didn't work in Stalingrad. Didn't work in the Battle of the Bulge. Towns reduced to rubble make excellent arenas for defenders.
Plus as we can see by his use of barrel bombs, he doesn't have many conventional bombs.

 

Assad's forces have managed to recapture gigantic amounts of territory using nothing more than conventional weaponry.

 

Assuming he didn't use poison gas.

Which is a prejudiced assumption you have made.

We might also add that he had considerable help with the recapture.

Now, there was a point in this war where enemy forces had a foothold in his capital. They almost beat him.
It got that close. So would he be willing to take extreme measures in that scenario?
Quite possibly.

Did he, didn't he. I really don't know. Your absolute certainty however, is not something I am able to share.