American missiles fired at Syria

[CarnalK]

@Okrahoma

AFAIU, there is evidence of use of sarin gas (not chlorine) against Syrian government soldiers - see Jobar, Khan Al Asal and Ashrafiah Sahnaya incidents.

Were any of those attacks attributed to rebels through evidence or admission? The deaths of government soldiers isn’t evidence enough as one of the big problems with these weapons is what goes wrong when the wind changes. FOR example the wiki entry on Khan-Al-Assal:

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”. In neither incident, however, was the commission’s “evidentiary threshold” met in regard to identifying the perpetrators of the chemical attacks.

[Bill_Door]

Frankly, if he’d been serious about shutting the airfield down, Trump would have bought it and run it as a business. There would be nothing but crickets in six months.

[Ravenman]

@Okrahoma

Who insisted that?

Indeed, you are Just Asking Questions.

[Okrahoma]

@Ravenman

Indeed, you are Just Asking Questions.

I said I am not fully convinced it was Assad regime responsible for chemical weapons use. Do you think that is the same as thinking there is “clear evidence that it was the rebel groups”?

[Ravenman]

I didn’t say that you said that ISIL did it. I’m acknowledging that you are giving full and careful consideration of this event to make sure that people unknown to us are not perpetrating a false flag attack.

I mean, does anyone really know where the Pope was at the time the bombs were dropped? I’m not saying the Pope carried out the attack, mind you. Heavens no!

[Nema98]

@Okrahoma

If there is one, I’d suggest ISIS. They are definitely ruthless enough for it. Question is, the type of weapon used - is it something that it was possible for ISIS to obtain? Are there chemical markers that some inspectors can use to trace its origins?

ISIS is losing territory, the U.S attacking Assad’s air force is not going to help them. So it would not make sense and they have not been known to use it before.

[elucidator]

Probably scared of it. As well they ought.

[Velocity]

@Nema98

ISIS is losing territory, the U.S attacking Assad’s air force is not going to help them. So it would not make sense and they have not been known to use it before.

But ISIS is in a Hail Mary situation. They have little to lose by *not *using sarin if they have it. They could announce that they have placed sarin in many places in ar-Raqqa and that they will unleash it on the city’s own civilians if coalition forces try to take the city. Such an approach would have been logical in Mosul as well.

[Latro]

@Ravenman

I didn’t say that you said that ISIL did it.

Do you guys even know who is fighting in Idlib??

[Johnny_Ace]

@Velocity

But ISIS is in a Hail Mary situation. They have little to lose by *not *using sarin if they have it. They could announce that they have placed sarin in many places in ar-Raqqa and that they will unleash it on the city’s own civilians if coalition forces try to take the city. Such an approach would have been logical in Mosul as well.

The question is, why would they have it? There are chemical agents that are far easier to manufacture and have a much longer shelf life.

[Ravenman]

@Latro

Do you guys even know who is fighting in Idlib??

You should quote Okrahoma. He’s the source of these non-allegation allegations that ISIS conducted a false flag attack.

[Latro]

@Ravenman

You should quote Okrahoma. He’s the source of these non-allegation allegations that ISIS conducted a false flag attack.

All right then, fair enough…

@Okrahoma

If there is one, I’d suggest ISIS. They are definitely ruthless enough for it. Question is, the type of weapon used - is it something that it was possible for ISIS to obtain? Are there chemical markers that some inspectors can use to trace its origins?

So, it’s Al Qaeda ( or whatever current nick they are using to fool you).
And yes they could obtain sarin. This isn’t some ragtag group living in the desert.

[HurricaneDitka]

BTW, there’s a statement out by SecDef Mattis yesterday:

The U.S. military strike against Shayrat airfield on April 6 was a measured response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons.

The president directed this action to deter future use of chemical weapons and to show the United States will not passively stand by while Assad murders innocent people with chemical weapons, which are prohibited by international law and which were declared destroyed.

The assessment of the Department of Defense is that the strike resulted in the damage or destruction of fuel and ammunition sites, air defense capabilities, and 20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft. The Syrian government has lost the ability to refuel or rearm aircraft at Shayrat airfield and at this point, use of the runway is of idle military interest.

The Syrian government would be ill-advised ever again to use chemical weapons.

[elucidator]

Wow, “20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft” destroyed! Clearly, I should rethink my suspicion about this splendid victory! So, one fifth of Syria’s air force was located on that one air base, and all of them were destroyed. If it were just Trump talking, well, maybe we might have some concerns, but this is his totally straight-shooter Marine guy.

So, fifty nine missiles were fired, and every single one of them hit a Syrian Air Force plane, wiping out one fifth of the Syrian Air Force, which previously amounted to…multiply by five, carry the one…give me a moment, I’m a bit of a mathtard…Syria’s Air Force amounted to three thousand air planes, and we wiped out 600 hundred of them. No, wait, that’s a bit off.

Hurr, you’re clearly on top of this, run down those numbers for us, we are eager to cheer for The Leader.

[Okrahoma]

@HurricaneDitka

BTW, there’s a statement out by SecDef Mattis yesterday:

Very good. The current WH spokesman should be much more measured in his statements, though. Extending the “red line” to conventional weapons is stupid and I am pretty sure not the policy, no matter what Spicer blurted out.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

So, fifty nine missiles were fired, and every single one of them hit a Syrian Air Force plane…

Where are you getting that factoid from? Since the press release clearly said “fuel and ammunition sites, air defense capabilities” were hit, that would seem like an odd assumption to make.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Okrahoma

Very good. The current WH spokesman should be much more measured in his statements, though. Extending the “red line” to conventional weapons is stupid and I am pretty sure not the policy, no matter what Spicer blurted out.

Agreed. I’m not sure Spicer understood the difference between conventional barrel bombs and the chemical weapons in Assad’s arsenal

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

Where are you getting that factoid from? Since the press release clearly said “fuel and ammunition sites, air defense capabilities” were hit, that would seem like an odd assumption to make.

Yes.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Yes.

So why are you making that assumption, then?

[CarnalK]

Who told you the Syrians have 3000 aircraft? The claim is that 20 planes were destroyed so 20% seems rather high since they definitely seem to have more than 100 combat planes and that doesn’t even count helicopters. But 3000 planes is ridiculously overestimating probably by a factor of 10.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/airforce-equipment.htm