3 ms·
This was known in the immediate aftermath of the "attack" actually. There were UN people on the ground who did not find any traces of sarin in the environment.
by m0zg 7y ago
This was known in the immediate aftermath of the "attack" actually. There were UN people on the ground who did not find any traces of sarin in the environment. Normally, trace amounts of sarin would be present for months.
This was completely and extremely cynically suppressed by the US media because it went against the narrative the media was pushing. You could find the OPCW report, but it was never reported on, and you'd need to know what is it you're looking for.
Last time I pointed this out publicly I was downvoted to hell. Think about it, what possible reason would Assad have to use the weapon which completely closes _all_ possible avenues to resolve the conflict?
- zby 7y agoNo traces of sarin only eliminates one possibility - the reports mostly talk about chlorine.
- BorRagnarok 7y agoChlorine is available in every super market, and chemically impossible to distinguish from the type of chlorine used in attacks. Same chemical. Although it is hardly ever used as a weapon, since there are far more effective chemical weapons than Chlorine. Basically, you need a lot of chlorine to kill people.
- m0zg 7y agoAnd moreover, when people are poisoned with chlorine they don't just drop dead where they were standing (which is what was reported), they run towards the doors and windows
- rdiddly 7y agoThis was, moreover, mere days after the US had dropped its previous stance of wanting Assad out at all costs, and had announced they were willing to let him stay in power. Either Assad is so stupid that he chooses that moment to do the one thing guaranteed to bring US wrath down upon himself (not to mention the wrath of Putin who's been supporting him), or perchance the gas attack story isn't quite the truth.