I agree with everythinf be said and also with what you said.

Why did he say it was from a regular bomb hitting chemical weapons last week, and this week saying it's nothing to do with him at all?

Reasonable doubt. No story, from any player, has been backed up with evidence. Trump shouldn't have wagged his dick around for show, of course. But yeah, it's all speculation thus far.

I think in this context he meant attacking his own people (non-combatants) with chemical weapons. He has never denied his planes dropped the bombs.

This man is trying to rebuild his country and foreign relations. It is beyond absurd that he would then attack his own people. How many times can the CIA/Mossad pull of these "False Flags" and the moronic public never notices anything.

Break them up

Splinter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds

I don't like any politicians, but I feel bad for Assad. I think he is being treated very poorly.

Honest question, where does this sub place groups such as Human Rights Watch, that are not drawing conclusions on this attack but have worked to establish evidence with other groups on the other attacks in the overall conspiracy picture?

NGO's are often compromised because they make great vehicles for money laundering, human trafficking, stock fixing, black ops, pay to play vehicles, propaganda mouthpeices. Without speaking to the authenticity of human rights watch at all of course. I know nothing of them, but i'm always skeptical of 3rd party NGO's that get involved with state-state conflicts, especially if they are commonly pushed in the MSM.

...having had a chance to look at them they seem alright. Most likely they have reservations about criticising human rights in countries they get funding from. But that's the kind of bias to be expected.

Thank you for a thoughtful response. They seem to hold all parties accountable when it comes to this stuff, meaning they have criticized the Obama administration as much as they are or will criticize the Trump administration.

This sub definitely raises some valid points with some of this stuff, for example, countries that are being invaded that do not have central banks. However, the "false flag" idea in this scenario seems off.

Lastly, not to stir the pot and create the proverbial shit storm, but this sub has definitely been compromised therefore, making a "false flag" scenario in regards to the use of chemical weapons seem that much more suspect. At least when presented in this context. The Assad's have several decades of history suggesting they would have no qualms gassing their own people.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178

I believe the chemical weapons attack was a false flag executed by the rebels or the US. As with most everyone, I think it doesn't make sense for Assad use chemical weapons when he was winning.

HOWEVER, I can think of one reason Assad might use chemical weapons when winning so handily:

• Saddam gave up his chemical weapons, and was attacked soon after.

• Gaddafi gave up his chemical weapons and was attacked soon after.

• Disarming a country of chemical weapons looks like it may be the first stage of a planned US invasion.

• It's possible that Assad used chemical weapons exactly because he was winning. Could be he was worried the US would invade, either in response to his winning or because he had evidence of a planned invasion.

• Letting the US know he still had chemical weapons would probably keep the US out of Syria.

Except Russia wasn't openly supporting those 2.

Can you present a plausible scenario for how this could be a false flag? I do not believe the US would be able to do this, it would require too many people to outright lie. We're talking radar technicians, intelligence analysts, special forces on the ground. Plus, this wasn't some covert operation with no witnesses, like Tonkin. Many witnesses on the ground reported seeing Russian made Jets on the attack. And they were traced from that airfield. And we picked up communications regarding the chemical usage at around the time of their use. And we have the British now too examining the evidence. I just find it almost impossible to believe this could be faked.

Now, the only evidence I've seen for it being faked is a lack of motive. And I think many people who are saying that lack an expertise in military statescraft or international politics. To me it is far more likely that Russia okayed the operation specifically so the US could respond, which they knew we would, to artificially sour Us/Russian relations, which takes heat off the administration, and gives them more flexibility in negotiating with the Russians. We also know that in the days leading up to the gas attack the administration basically stated that regime change was not a priority and that Assad would have a role in rebuilding the country. Simplicity says this could embolden Assad to carry out the attack, thinking the US stance has changed. A grave miscalculation obviously, but a not so unreasonable one.

Old missiles of CIA origin stored in a warehouse maintained by "rebels" connected to/handle by the CIA struck by a Russian warplane.

Totally plausible, and again... cui bono? Who benefits?

So in this scenario the CIA is working with both the rebels (to store the weapons) and the ru/syrian contingent (to strike the weapons). And so I have to ask if the joint chiefs and exec office are also in on it. And if they are, they wouldn't have to bother with the charade. And if they weren't, it would signal a level of incompetence unseen, perhaps even surpassing 9/11. You would need more than the CIA, you need to heads of military intelligence, the air-force, the navy, and the army. It wouldn't work and the CIA wouldn't do it.

So in this scenario the CIA is working with both the rebels (to store the weapons) and the ru/syrian contingent (to strike the weapons). And so I have to ask if the joint chiefs and exec office are also in on it. And if they are, they wouldn't have to bother with the charade. And if they weren't, it would signal a level of incompetence unseen, perhaps even surpassing 9/11. You would need more than the CIA, you need to heads of military intelligence, the air-force, the navy, and the army. It wouldn't work and the CIA wouldn't do it.

No, the scenario is, the warehouse was bombed because it was known to be a rebel held asset. This does not imply previous knowledge of chemical weapons being stored there. The CIA bought old chem missiles from an unknown Iraqi source during O.I.F. in 2006. The U.S. currently needs an excuse to go and invade Syria, as their backed "rebels" aren't succeeding in the war against the Syrian Army. It's totally plausible that they've placed these missiles in prime rebel targets across Syria as to create the whole "Assad is gassing his people" scenario.

I do not believe the US would be able to do this, it would require too many people to outright lie. We're talking radar technicians, intelligence analysts, special forces on the ground.

I agree. Gentiles are too limited to pull it off. That is why we need Mossad.

Why would it have to be some big complicated conspiracy? Why not just posit that the US is materially supporting groups that are linked to al-Nusra or ISIS and they conducted the attack?

That seems less of a leap than all the stuff you're positing, such as that the US/Russia tension is contrived. Which seems to me significantly less likely given the history of the cold war.

I do not believe the US would be able to do this, it would require too many people to outright lie. We're talking radar technicians, intelligence analysts, special forces on the ground.

It takes two people. One laying on the ground, the other holding a video camera.

I like your assessment of a possible alternative. Im still with you that i too believe it was a false flag, but its nice to see some logical conjecture.

And if we invade and they have chemical weapons down we have defense for that, and war look better cause we are taking out the dude that gassed his own people, and war is justified

Why would chemical weapons keep the US out of Syria?

The US can't defend against chemical weapons. Losing a significant number of soldiers would erode public support for any war, it'd kill morale, and it'd probably necessitate a draft.

The US will not invade until the chemical weapons have been eliminated. SyrianGirl makes that case well, imho: https://youtu.be/3LxHvShIkMw?t=1m2s

Gaddafi had completely disarmed. Wikileaks has Hillary emails saying exactly that. They also indicate that Gaddafi is willing to do most anything else demanded of him. Hillary instructed her staff to ignore him and his overtures.

The US doesn't actually care about people being gassed to death. Remember, they helped Saddam use chemical weapons on over 300,000 Iranian soldiers. They only care when the weapons might be used on them.

Not saying that I believe the narrative about the chemical attack, but I don't understand why Assad's denial should carry any real weight with us. He'd be saying the exact same thing if he was responsible. In what situation would a dictator ever admit to wrongdoing?

I agree with you, but just to play devils advocate, governments attack their own people all the time. It's what they do. In this case though, I don't think Assad did it.

Then why did he order them built? He's never been in a situation where external enemies were the greatest threat to him.

I ask quite a bit, but haven't really been given a response. Anyone have examples of why he is called a dictator and there is so much derision about his leadership? Preferably with ok sources (not even gonna be crazy particular about sources, but better than the "sources say" stuff that indicates CIA told us to say for me)?

He held an "election" where he was literally the only candidate allowed to run. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

Whether he's truly as brutal as the media claims or if the Syrian people actually like him or not is much less clear, but he definitely is a dictator.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 55691}

Right on, thanks. That's more info than I usually get.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

It might be worth looking at the Wikipedia on the 2014 election for additional context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 55772}

Of course I can't back it up but I heard a claim that there were three candidates.

Syria ain't the US or Europe.

Syria has the problem of "diversity" - there are multiple groups in Syria and they do not get along. Racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity is terrible and ALWAYS leads to conflicts.

Assad may be a dictator by Western standards, but he's the only thing that is keeping the Syrian minorities like the Alawites and the Christians from being slaughtered by the Muslim majorities.

If you brought democracy to Syria, you would get a President that would likely start mass genocides - and probably would then set himself up as a dictator anyway.

The USA has no problem with dictators - our Second Best Ally Saudi Arabia is nothing but a dictatorship.

But Israel wants Syrian destroyed, so therefore Assad is a Bad Guy.

His dads been the leader of the country since 1970 and he bequeathed leadership to his son when he died in 2000

Would a dictator call for an impartial investigation to determine who did it? I only see Assad asking for it while the neocons and military industrial complex arent. Instead they resorted to bombing Syria. Who is acting like a dictator in this case?

America doesn't "bomb" it's own people, it bombs other countries so that's okay. Maybe if Assad started other countries it would pacify the US. Saudi Arabia doesn't bomb it's own people (they behead them). Saudi bomb Yemen, so that's okay. Ukraine kills it's own people. That's okay.

It really is amazing that the US is still selling billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia so they bomb Yemen in a genocide. And they claim they are invading Syrya for humanitarian reasons 'to save the children', lmao. Worst is that people are buying that scam.

This is like trusting what Ayatollah Khameini, or Hosseini (leader of the IRGC) has to say at face value. TBH, a lot of this is simply Russian, anti-western propaganda. I bought into it not too long ago.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Assad: If I were to bomb my own people, I would push them onto the side of the terrorists

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Assad is good guy.

Just curious, why doesn't he just come out and say America did this? Or something. I know it's not that simple but you would think he would be more vocal about another country trying to overthrow him.

Oh sorry lol idk I'd be on tv everyday yelling that shit and to be sure I'm my assassinated while alone using the Toilet or some shit.

I think he's been saying it since the attacks started on his country in 2011. Syrian ambassador to the UN, al-Ja'afari talks about it at the UN all the time. Syria documents it all and turns over that ton of information to the UN.

Smh i genuinely feel bad for syria.

Good interview of al-Ja'afari, talks about the privatization of the UN. There's videos on YouTube of him talking also. al-Ja'afari is a good man

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/23258

It's sad.

At the bar, soon deleted comment... Earth terror is only temporary.

He may mean just the empire that isthe West now. Europe included, deep state etc. He may nkt want to directly imply America because there is some understanding that Trump is the enemy of his enemy.

So many CNN staff from Georgetown... CIA rejects/moles.

Why on this thread are we more inclined to believe madmen like Assad rather than the legitimate governments and institutions of the world? What has Assad done for Syria other than bleed it dry? Why are we believing him now? Was he ever known to be a very credible and honest man?

I know we don't want to get dragged into another war - and we must resist this as much as we can - but it's painful to see so many people justify the murdered and butcher of children. There are millions of Syrian refugees in turkey and across Europe right now, they're real and you can all go see/talk to them right now. They all have stories of torture and war crimes even though they don't all coordinate stories (how could a man in Paris who ever met the refugee in southern turkey have a similar story of war crimes even though they weren't even in the same city in Syria?), they can't all be "terrorists" because so many of them are Christian/children/elderly/women. They were just innocents caught between the forces of civil war, Isis was created by Assad when he opened the prisons and let the known jihadists free in the north so they could fight assads free Syrian army rebels.

Assad is a tyrant, an enemy to all of us who hate oppressive government. If any of you were stuck in assads prisons and tortured to death simply for being a male aged 11 to 70, you'd realize he was lying right before you died. Can we please stop justifying his war crimes? Yes the CIA does fucked up things but no, not every tyrant is a false flag attack. Some dictators are just evil - that's what Assad is, that's what Hitler was, same with Stalin and Mao.

Its wrong to assume Assad did it as the western lame stream media is claiming but its also wrong to claim that he didn't do it, just because he claims that he didn't.

The only way to find out who did it , is through an independent investigation who is not be biased pro or anti anything and ONLY THEN anyone can claim to KNOW who did it. Until then everyone needs to be honest and say it as it is = WE DON'T KNOW. Period.

There are motivations enough for a number of countries to do it, but this should not be based on speculations. So everyone needs to STOP speculating and start investigating.

What we are witnessing on the media is only propaganda, whether its PRO or ANTI Assad and both are just as bad. Thise people have been killed in an awful way JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PROPAGANDA so lets stop provoking it.

He designates anyone who opposes him a terrorist and them bombs them.

...but if I were to bomb my own people and pretend the terrorists did it, then I'd discourage the terrorists and rally my people as well as gain some allies in defeating the terrorists.