[quote]Don't listen to this narrative. Syria bombed a weapons depot containing chemical weapons. There is absolutely no reason Assad would use chemical weapons. It brings no benefit at all.[/quote] Im starting to think you are one of those trolls paid by the SVR.

Kekekek >Paying attention to facts >Suddenly a russian agent

[quote]Kekekek >Paying attention to facts >Suddenly a russian agent[/quote] How is this "paying attention to facts"? Ive noticed you always push a pro russian agenda even when its as laughable as this, in fact i don't think ive ever seen you say anything negative about putin or the Russian government. Also I never said you were a russian agent, i said that based on your history of actions im [b]starting[/b] to think you are one of those trolls the SVR pays to promote the russian agenda online.

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-chemical-attack-idlib-province[/url] I'll just leave this here. [quote]Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hamish de Bretton Gordon, director of Doctors Under Fire and former commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said this claim was “completely untrue”. “No I think this [claim] is pretty fanciful, no doubt the Russians trying to protect their allies,” he said. “Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it.” “It’s very clear it’s a sarin attack,” he added. “The view that it’s an al-Qaida or rebel stockpile of sarin that’s been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue.”[/quote]

[quote]Don't listen to this narrative. Syria bombed a weapons depot containing chemical weapons. There is absolutely no reason Assad would use chemical weapons. It brings no benefit at all.[/quote]Why would Syria bomb its own chemical weapon depot?

[quote]Why would Syria bomb its own chemical weapon depot?[/quote] In a civil war, you end up bombing your own stuff. The official statement from the Assad regime is that it was a rebel group chemical depot that spread the gas after being bombed. It's not impossible for the rebels to have their own depots of chemical weapons, but I highly doubt the story that an errant bomb blew up the stores and unintentionally released the gas. Both sides in the conflict have used gas attacks before. The easy part is determining whether or not chemical attacks occurred, the hard part is figuring out who used it.

[quote][quote]Why would Syria bomb its own chemical weapon depot?[/quote] In a civil war, you end up bombing your own stuff. The official statement from the Assad regime is that it was a rebel group chemical depot that spread the gas after being bombed. It's not impossible for the rebels to have their own depots of chemical weapons, but I highly doubt the story that an errant bomb blew up the stores and unintentionally released the gas. Both sides in the conflict have used gas attacks before. The easy part is determining whether or not chemical attacks occurred, the hard part is figuring out who used it.[/quote]I'm confused - why would Syria allow a rebel group to have a chemical weapons depot, though? It's not like those just pop up overnight and the government is none the wiser..

[quote]I'm confused - why would Syria allow a rebel group to have a chemical weapons depot, though? It's not like those just pop up overnight and the government is none the wiser..[/quote] I get the fact that you are completely unfamiliar with how war is fought, but you aren't that stupid Max. [quote]Moscow's representative repeated the Kremlin's earlier claim that the gas was released when a conventional airstrike hit a warehouse where rebels were secretly storing their own chemical weapons. [/quote] Rebel groups don't advertise where they are keeping their secret weapons, because they are outnumbered an would get their shit pushed in by a conventional attack. They are guerrilla fighters. Does that mean the story is true, no. But it is not impossible and these rebels are dangerous and have committed war crimes of their own, including use of chemical weapons.

[quote][quote]I'm confused - why would Syria allow a rebel group to have a chemical weapons depot, though? It's not like those just pop up overnight and the government is none the wiser..[/quote] I get the fact that you are completely unfamiliar with how war is fought, but you aren't that stupid Max. [quote]Moscow's representative repeated the Kremlin's earlier claim that the gas was released when a conventional airstrike hit a warehouse where rebels were secretly storing their own chemical weapons. [/quote] Rebel groups don't advertise where they are keeping their secret weapons, because they are outnumbered an would get their shit pushed in by a conventional attack. They are guerrilla fighters. Does that mean the story is true, no. But it is not impossible and these rebels are dangerous and have committed war crimes of their own, including use of chemical weapons.[/quote] That explaiation doesn't seem to fit with this: [quote]“No I think this [claim] is pretty fanciful, no doubt the Russians trying to protect their allies,” he said. “Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it.” “It’s very clear it’s a sarin attack,” he added. “The view that it’s an al-Qaida or rebel stockpile of sarin that’s been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue.” Hours after the attack, a hospital treating the injured was also hit. Images taken inside the clinic appeared to depict the blast as it happened. Photographs and videos taken at the scene and in evacuation areas nearby showed rows of small, lifeless children, some with foam visible near their mouths.[/quote]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-chemical-attack-idlib-province

I'm not claiming the story is true. How any times did I say that? I'm saying that there is potential validity to the story in the first place. Syria unintentionally bombing a chemical weapon stockpile is easily plausible during a civil war. It's an official statement from Assad's people, of course they'll lie. On the same token, of course rebels will claim that it was an outright chemical attack on them. I want to see a UN investigation to actually figure out what happened.

[quote]Syria unintentionally bombing a chemical weapon stockpile is easily plausible during a civil war. [/quote]I think you might have missed my point of my previous post. Bombing a sarin gas supply doesn't disperse the sarin gas, it destroys it.

Your initial question to which I was responding was: [quote]Why would Syria bomb its own chemical weapon depot?[/quote] To which I replied because it's a civil war and things get blown up. [quote]Bombing a sarin gas supply doesn't disperse the sarin gas, it destroys it.[/quote] If bomb hits container, sure. If bomb hits facility and shrapnel pierces containers, not necessarily. Would that equate dispersal, no. But that's not what I'm arguing about here, and has't been since the beginning. As I've said since the start[u] I highly doubt the story that an errant bomb blew up the stores and unintentionally released the gas.[/u]

[quote] I highly doubt the story that an errant bomb blew up the stores and unintentionally released the gas. [/quote]...which means it would have needed to be released intentionally, which is what my point is. Why would Syrian rebels do that to civilians? It's more plausible that Syria or Russia gassed these civilians.

It wasn't their weapons depot.

[quote]It wasn't their weapons depot.[/quote] .... Whose was it, then?