Syria Conflict: 'chemical Attack' In Idlib Kills 58

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39488539

Its seems that this was yet another chemical attack, which is supposed to be illegal.

And why are the Russians and Syrians deliberately attacking local clinics treating victims of the chemical attack ?

[youngmafbog]

So what do you want to do - topple him and have yet another pig awful state with a power vacuum on ours hands?

Are they deliberately attacking? Do you have direct access to their comms?

[ichkeria]

They do it Mikey because those tactics have proved to work for them.

Personally though I have never really seen why we fixate on chemical weapons: in a way it suits Assad and co, because while we complain about that it takes the emphasis away from the barrel bombing etc.

[mikey4444]

ymb...are you defending the use of chemical weapons and attacks on civilian hospitals ?

[ichkeria]

The question, if I read it correctly, was not "let's overthrow Assad"
It's why does the Syrian regime consistently deliberately target civilians in its "war on terrorists".
And the answer, as I said before, is: because, quite simply, it works.
If it was counter-productive then they wouldn't do it. Assad has one objective: stay in power. Russia similarly has one objective, namely keep Assad in power. And how do you stay in power? Kill anyone who questions you. Simples.

[youngmafbog]

Yeah, put words in my mouth eh Mickey?

Personally I dont have the full facts. Clearly you do so you are at an advantage to me.

Do I condone chemical attacks, no I dont.

Do I condone attacks on children, no I dont.

But war is terrible, mistakes and 'atrocities' will always take place.

And it is no good just whining, you didn't answer my question on how you think we should deal with it?

[ichkeria]

" you didn't answer my question on how you think we should deal with it? "

Allow me to have a go at that, since your original question sounded rather rhetorical: it is long past the stage where we are in a position to "do anything about it" It doesn't negate the value tho of asking why do these war crimes take place.

[Samjenko]

Every source quoted in that report is a pro-Islamist organisation.
Seems you and the BBC have learned nothing from Aleppo.
Last week, in Mosul, the BBC blamed the Islamists for civilian casualties because they were being used as human shields.
What a difference a week makes.

[-Talbot-]

It's a pity Obama isn't president. Using chemical weapons is crossing a red line.

[mikey4444]

I see that this post has descended into the normal mixture of doubting the reports because they come from the BBC, and damning the poster for asking the question in the first place.

Twas ever thus.

[Samjenko]

Do you expect everyone to agree with you and hand Syria to the Islamists?

[naomi24]

Samjenko, I'm not sure Mikey realises the implications of what he says.

[mikey4444]

Even Trump blames Assad :::::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39493854

[ichkeria]

Welcome to the real world President Trump

[-Talbot-]

Unfortunately in this 'real world' Trump (like Obama) will do nothing about this.
What are his options, any suggestions?

[ichkeria]

That question was asked already and answered by me at 13.21
Maybe one day Assad with stand trial but I would not hold my breath. He may end up as a neighbour of Yanujovych in a ranch near Rostov or a tenant's cottage on 'don't call him Dimon' Medvedev's luxury estate, feeding his ducks :-)

[ichkeria]

Extraordinarily, the White House press spokesman has blamed the 'weakness and irresolution' of the Obama administration for 'emboldening' Assad.
No kind of 'emboldening' then from the current administration's recent announcement that the US would stop insisting in the bringing of Assad to an international war crimes court, and basically just let him carry on, obviously ...

[ichkeria]

Russia now says this was an attack on a rebel munitions store containing sarin for use in Iraq.
That would appear to be a cynical lie. Photos of the scene show holes in the road, added to which there is no sign of a fire at the scene which a bomb attack on a munitions store would surely cause.
Added to which, surely such an attack would actually destroy said nerve agent. And if it wouldn't, surely it would be a reckless thing to do anyway.

[sevenOP]

hook, line and sucker
https://youtu.be/sIvDaAnbeXg?t=16m53s