| LadyJasmine said: I do laugh that people are so simplisic and narrow minded on such a issue. People are engaing in fake news as there is no evidence that this is a false flag aparting from you wanting it to be one. If this is a false flag then so must be the chemical attack from three years ago as well no? Then people complain the USA should not get involved and then complain the airstrike was not effective as they Syrian jets droping regular bombs...So do you suggest we drop more bombs or perhaps realize the purpose was to simply send a message to not use Chemical weapons or frankly you should be honest and say ' I dont care if chemical weapons are being used on Innocents' Then suggest a solution to this problem is take a few thousand refugees as we are good people as a solution.
There are no easy answers here ... |
Well, I don't say this was a false flag, but all reputable sources give no indication who was it actually. Our sources about this attack are reports from the rebels in this region and images on social media, which we can't be sure about are actually from this attack. The rebels in this region are Al-Kaida (Al-Nusra-Front or how they are called these days). We know that they own chemical weapons. That doesn't mean they are behind this, also not that this was IS who also owns chemical weapons. But we also don't know if it was Assad. Basically we know fucking nothing. The reports are even unsure which gas it was, chlorine, sulfur mustard and sarine were all named by different reports. So we have three possible actors that are military active and own chemical weapons, and probably some more big militias who may also own or have access to chemical weapons, but the US is so sure who was behind it they sent Cruise Missiles? This all sounds like Saddam Husseins Weapons of Mass destruction again. And we all know to what this lead, the IS is a result of that war. Not intended, but nevertheless a result. So, while declaring it a false flag is unfounded, so is declaring it being an attack by the syrian army.
