Syria Chemical Attack 2017

Hevach

Senior Member
Except that's not true. The victims were in that area, and there isn't just mention of them, but images and video of them.

This was a single gas based weapon deployed in open air, not enclosed environments like the subway attack in Japan or the immense chemical attacks of WWI involving many tons of chemicals. For some comparison, despite the volume of chemical weapons used in WWI, only 90,000 people were actually killed by them, while millions were exposed. The world didn't step up to end the use of chemical weapons because of the horrors a single one can cause, likewise they aren't classed as weapons of mass destruction because of the volume of destruction they cause, but by its indiscriminate nature.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67182.html

I think it is important to include other portions of the Washingtonsblog article:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67182.html

Even using Postol's own writing, I don't see how he can come to clear conclusions.


I also don’t see how the location of a dead goat is relevant as evidence.
Dead Goat.png
Postol even offers a caveat about the goat:

In other words, Postol is still speculating about the conditions of the attack.

One last thing. Postol also writes:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67182.html


I think it is important to point out that US officials will cite open sources when talking about any national security issue. They will not, however, discuss existing sources and methods for collecting intelligence information.

That is routine practice. We will likely never get a complete idea of American intelligence on this particular issue.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I also don’t see how the location of a dead goat is relevant as evidence.
well it is relevant as evidence but not in the way Postol wants it to be. I guess goats running when a missile flies in from the sky never crossed his mind.
 
I think it is important to point out that US officials will cite open sources when talking about any national security issue. They will not, however, discuss existing sources and methods for collecting intelligence information.

That is routine practice. We will likely never get a complete idea of American intelligence on this particular issue.
But that is irrelevant as the Trump administration could be lying. Otherwise we could use this argument all the time. Saying..."there coyld be other evidence that is being deliberately hidden."
 

MikeG

Senior Member
But that is irrelevant as the Trump administration could be lying. Otherwise we could use this argument all the time. Saying..."there coyld be other evidence that is being deliberately hidden."
I am not offering the statement about intelligence sources as an argument. It is offered as a fact regarding current practices.

In other words, we simply don't have all the relevant information that is available to policy makers.

The Trump administration could be lying. Or, it could be telling the truth.

I don't think it does much good to plug in a personal bias and speculation into the gap created by incomplete information.

That is essentially what Postol is doing, over and over again.

Skepticism is not evidence.
 

SR1419

Senior Member
This is an interesting video from the New York Times in which they point out several inconsistencies of both the Russian and Syrian government claims about where and when the attack occurred. It does not place blame but it does make a convincing case that both Syria and Russia have distorted facts. The video is 7 minutes long and worth a watch:


[Russian/Syrian claim 1 ( :30) : time of the attack
"the syrian attack in teh same area was around noon, between 11:30 to 12" Assad
"yesterday from 11:30 to 12:30 local time". Igor Konashenkov

(evidence- video, first responder 'tweets', hospital Doctor testimony and FB post timestamps, shows attack occurred hours earlier)


Claim 2: (2:38) What was hit
Igor Konashenkov "syrian aviation launched a strike in the eastern outskirts of Khen Sheikhoun town on a large terrorist ammunition depot."

(3:00) satellite match ups before and after attacks verify buildings that were hit. No large depots. small buildings, homes
4.JPG

(4:19) only large buildings (a grain silo and bakery) on 'eastern outskirts' were bombed in 2015
silo.JPG

Claim 3: (4:59) Syria has no chemical weapons
"no, no definitely, a few years ago in 2013 we gave up all our arsenal" Assad
But 'Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' contradicted that. Ahmet Uzumcu "clearly we cannot say that Syria doesnt process any chemical weapons anymore" ]

 
Last edited by a moderator:

HoaxEye

New Member
Here is a relevant article based on the declassified French intelligence report:

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread seems to have become necessarily speculative, and is no longer really appropriate for a current events discussion. Please continue via PM, or in a more focussed thread following the posting guidelines.
 
Top