Always nice to wake up to USA! USA! swinging its dick.

[Pat Vegas]

There is no evidence that Govt forces in Syria launched a chemical attack, other than the claims of the Islamists. Why would they? They are winning the civil war and have no need to resort to weapons of desperation. The Islamists have a long record of hoaxes to try and get the US to provoke US intervention on their behalf.

You don't need evidence to start attacks or wars.
:WMD:

[Burney]

It's a strange message, to be honest. "You can have your little civil war and kill as many people as you like, but if you use a weapon we don't like, we'll bomb you. Despite the fact that your enemies are our enemies."

Mind you, I bet Donald is still sitting there with his chin on his chest. "It really happened? Just because I said 'go', all those missiles actually got launched?"

I think it's mostly about showing that a/ Obama was a massive pussy and b/ that he isn't Obama

[Burney]

There is no evidence that Govt forces in Syria launched a chemical attack, other than the claims of the Islamists. Why would they? They are winning the civil war and have no need to resort to weapons of desperation. The Islamists have a long record of hoaxes to try and get the US to provoke US intervention on their behalf.

Do you think it might be because they're cvnts and, after Obama's pusilanimity last time, thought they'd get away with it.

[Ash]

I'm deeply suspicious of 'false flag' operations, a. We're just a whisker away from shouting, "Wake up sheeple!"

One would imagine that the Yanqui boffins with the satellites and the radar and all that would know where the original attack was launched from. One doesn't know for sure, of course.

Phil Giraldi, a former intelligence official, believes that it was a conventional attack on a warehouse which stored some sort of chemical weapons.

I ask again - why would the Syrian Government need to resort to weapons of desperation? They are winning and will win unless the US stops them.

Trump is caving in to the McCains to take the pressure off himself from the howling media and establishment.

[Ash]

Do you think it might be because they're cvnts and, after Obama's pusilanimity last time, thought they'd get away with it.

Nope. I don't believe the notion that they kill people for fun. THey are not fighting a civil war because they want to. They are fighting a civil war to stop the country being run by ISIS/AQ.

[Sir C]

Phil Giraldi, a former intelligence official, believes that it was a conventional attack on a warehouse which stored some sort of chemical weapons.

I ask again - why would the Syrian Government need to resort to weapons of desperation? They are winning and will win unless the US stops them.

Trump is caving in to the McCains to take the pressure off himself from the howling media and establishment.

For every Phil Giraldi you'll be able to find a different opinion.

As for your question, who knows what local operational developments might have prompted such an attack by the regime?

The only thing we know is that we don't know very much. Fog of war, innit? What we might suspect is that there are chaps sitting in the Pentagon peering at great big screens who know much more than we do.

[Rich]

For every Phil Giraldi you'll be able to find a different opinion.

As for your question, who knows what local operational developments might have prompted such an attack by the regime?

The only thing we know is that we don't know very much. Fog of war, innit? What we might suspect is that there are chaps sitting in the Pentagon peering at great big screens who know much more than we do.

In this day and age it's not a huge ask for them to see that X number of Mig-29s took off from the exact airbase that was neutralised last night in the moments before the chemical attack that took place. I would suggest that it would be a remarkable coincidence that those Migs followed a flight-path very close to the locations where chemical weapons were used at the exact time that they were used. The US have all of that airspace covered with very advanced radar systems considering their on-going operations in the area.

[Burney]

For every Phil Giraldi you'll be able to find a different opinion.

As for your question, who knows what local operational developments might have prompted such an attack by the regime?

The only thing we know is that we don't know very much. Fog of war, innit? What we might suspect is that there are chaps sitting in the Pentagon peering at great big screens who know much more than we do.

Also, in these situations, it's always too easy to assume that using these weapons was a decision taken at the highest level as opposed to some cock-up where a local commander exceeded his brief or just plain fvcked up.

[Sir C]

Also, in these situations, it's always too easy to assume that using these weapons was a decision taken at the highest level as opposed to some cock-up where a local commander exceeded his brief or just plain fvcked up.

Good point.

One wonders about the extent of US satellite/radar coverage - you'd imagine that it would be pretty well constant in that area, so surely they'd have a record of aircraft launching and heading to the site of the attack?

[Sir C]

In this day and age it's not a huge ask for them to see that X number of Mig-29s took off from the exact airbase that was neutralised last night in the moments before the chemical attack that took place. I would suggest that it would be a remarkable coincidence that those Migs followed a flight-path very close to the locations where chemical weapons were used at the exact time that they were used. The US have all of that airspace covered with very advanced radar systems considering their on-going operations in the area.

Ah, I see you've Noahed me there.