Report: U.S. had intel on Syria's chemical attack before it happened




bwahahahaha! These guys just can't pull off war-crime capers like they used to in the good ol' days.


do we really have to ask?


The US would like to extend its sincere thanks to all the suckers whose gruesome deaths we could have prevented. We really couldn't have built as strong a case for going in and blowing some stuff up without your help.


Kerry said "1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children" - though doctors without borders cites the number of dead at only 355... hmmm


Military-industrial complex :
We knew they were going to use chemical weapons on the rebels.

General public : Then why didn't you warn the rebels and save lives?

Military-industrial complex :
We didn't know they were going to use chemical weapons on the rebels.

Any further questions?


And now this - the story the AP won't run today...


Your article states:

Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

That's ridiculous. Let's not muddy the waters here. This is all "black and white" and simple. The Syrian government is solely at fault and the only answer is dropping profitable bombs all over the place.

Now, get back in line and quit distracting us with shades of grey, you paranoid leftist.


Really? Alright.


The USA is claiming that Assad's troops were braced for gas attacks three days prior to August 21st - do we believe what the USA is saying?

The USA knew that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran's military in the early 80's and gave that usage blessing by actively providing Saddam with targeting data, and turning a blind eye to the results. When Saddam then gassed civilians in Halabja in 1988 the CIA spread disinformation suggesting that Iranians were responsible for the atrocity, rather than be forced to contend with the cognitive dissonance of their erstwhile ally being a mass murderer.

So, the USA has form, on record, revealed by it's own archives published after 30 years, for deliberately lying about the perpetrators of chemical attacks, and it has form for tolerating chemical weapons when their usage by third parties is aligned with the US national interests, early 80's Iran being a greater evil than early 80's Iraq.

Suppose it's true Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons attack on the 21st August. Why is bombing the right response? Why only respond to chemical weapons attacks? Today, we see the disgusting results of Napalm being dropped on a Syrian school by the Assad forces, with children described by doctors as 'the walking dead', arriving with >50% burns to field hospitals, to shiver in agony while they wait to die of inevitable infection and fluid loss. Chemical weapons are nothing special when it comes to causing horrible death.

A half-cocked approach is not the answer. The world needs to come together and impose peace here, not some unilateral action. George Bush was a blundering ape, so war is his mode of operation. Obama is a statesman, so then he should step up to the plate of convincing the Russians to come on board with an authentic peace plan. He needs to make an accord with Iran and provide a way to reach peace in Syria.


Wonderful response but this particular line strikes me as gallingly naive. Sure, this is all he needs to do.


Why don't we send cruise missiles into Cairo? Does it matter the method used to kill a thousand innocents in your own cities?

You believe Assad called for gas attacks on people the day that UN inspectors arrived? Well, as they say "pull the other one, it has bells."

Now, intelligence agencies have been faulted for not "connecting the dots". Let's see if the bright kids here on BoingBoing can do any better, or they believe YouTube tears, and staged NPR "interviews" with "activists".

What do the following 3 links tell you?

  1. January 26, 1998 letter to Clinton.
  2. September 20, 2001 letter to Bush.
  3. "Neocons Push Obama to Go Beyond a Punitive Strike in Syria"


Lemme help you with that then:


Facts I've learned from these comments:

  • Assad killed people
  • It's the US's fault
  • It's always the US's fault
  • It wasn't Assad
  • These facts are obvious

Any other useful facts I missed?


Really? Alright.

It would be helpful if you'd also include the problems you have with the specific article and the facts it presents. Otherwise, your blind naysaying based upon a domain name rings rather hollow.


Any other useful facts I missed?

The useful fact that a false dichotomy is a fallacious argument.

Looks like you're trying to oversimplify a complex issue and other people's points of view as well. Isn't that the kind of over-simplistic thinking that got us into the Iraq War based upon lies and half-truths before?

What's the goal of your post? To dismiss others with a sarcastic list like that? It didn't work.


Let's see if the bright kids here on BoingBoing can do any better, or they believe YouTube tears, and staged NPR "interviews" with "activists".


Pres. Obama should prove his Nobel Peace Prize has real meaning and significance.


You forgot that we've always been at war with Eurasia.


Unless of course the purpose of the list was to point out that the "facts" we have available to us go all over the place, depending on which source of "facts" you choose to look at.