The running theory on Assad's actions of using chemical weapons on his on people is that it was a false flag...

The running theory on Assad's actions of using chemical weapons on his on people is that it was a false flag. I'm not sure I buy that. Are there any other logical reasons for his actions?

Muslims deserve to die horrible deaths?

False flag is logical.

Do you have an original idea on the issue or are you just another Sup Forums hive mind?

You are not wrong. However, I'd really like to see other ideas of what went on.

I'm not sure I am convinced it was a false flag either but I am wondering what Assad would have to gain from that or why he would do such a thing now.

You silly goy, of course Assad gassed his own people.
Stop believing these crazy conspiracies.

That's what I'm getting at. No one had anything to gain.. expcet the rebels. I have a feeling the second gas attack was done to provoke a bigger happening by a third party.

The only thing I could think of was that after the Trump administration said they were not interested in regime change Assad thought he had a free hand to use chemical weapons. They may not provide a lethal advantage over conventional weapons but might have a psychological effect on the opposition. And if the international community ignored it (assuming this and the previous chemical weapons attacks were not false flags) they would probably be massively demoralized.

The most logical theory I've hard is that Assad bombed a Rebel bomb/ammo/supply depot that had chemical weapons in it.

There's more options than just Assad did it or its a false flag. All of the factions in Syria right now probably have access to chemical weapons. The Syrian government is saying that they bombed a rebel warehouse which contained chemical gas. American neoconservatives are saying Assad released chemical gas. Since neoconservatives have everything to gain if Assad really did use chemical weapons, and since Assad has everything to lose if he really did use chemical weapons, I believe that Assad did not intentionally cause the chemical attack.

If Assad falls, how many anti isis leaders would be left? Is he the last one?

This is exactly it. Just before the gas attack the official word from the White House was that the US would not try to oust Assad. They used chemical weapons because they thought no one would care.

Could ISIS have been involved hoping for an attack against the Assad regime?

What's happening in Syria is total war. Assad may have been close to winning, but there is no way he could risk having rebels or opposition propping up after he wins.

The solution was pretty simple, just gas the last remnants of the opposition, which would ensure that his rule would go unopposed when he wins the war.

He may have even thought Trump wouldn't do anything because Russia and Trump were on good terms. I genuinely believe Assad gassed his own citizens.

...

But in a more thought out sense that doesn't seem logical, they just figure I guess we can because we can so sure lets do it..

The problem is that the Trump Administration forswearing regime change also gives an incentive to the rebels to stage a chemical weapons attack. But then, the alternate story from the Russians and Assad is that their airstrikes caused an accidental release of the gas.

True that's the only theory that makes sense, but in light off all the very similar situations in which our government lied to get us into war, I'm still reluctant to believe that narrative.

I agree and certainly don't want a war in the ME. But I am thinking a third party was maybe involved here like ISIS. I think of course Assad and Russia would claim no fault of their own.

>dismiss the most logical theory because muh feels
>ask for logical theory
hmmmm really made me think

>mad because I dont accept the hive mind theory on a fucking board dedicated to discussing political shit.

Kys faggot.

Here's the deal. Let's lay out the possibilities.

Assad uses chemical weapons against isis members and gets civilian's too. Trump shoots missiles at the air strip the planes came from.
>Trump is justified

Assad drops bombs on isis chemical warehouse which then kills civilians.
Trump then shoots missiles at the air strip in a warning to Assad to be more careful next time.
>Trump less justified but still seen as a good move albiet making Russia irritable.

Then there's the false flag. The white helmets are known for using actors and making bulshit news stories. You don't handle sarin gas victims with your bare hands. You will die within 24 hours unless treated yourself. Trump being the president should have access to info on wether its real or not unless hes being led astray by (((others))). Trump shoots missiles at the air strip. Giving into the false flag and allowing isis to make moves in the area.
>Not justified but he's being tricked.

In the end I don't want Russia and US to fight. Assad isn't perfect but he's fighting isis and seems to like Christian's. I want better relations with Russia and Assad to stay put. We don't need to topple empires.

I'd really like reason 2 to be true. Ww3 will have no winners. No one wants ww3 unless they have a serious mental illness.

This question and the answer to it is yes. That is Insurgency 101. An established state such as the USA or Syria's Assad is like an empire to ISIS. So how does a small group take out something so large? Do a chemical attack and put the blame on Assad. Like a bully at school playing the victim when his victim finally stands up to him. ISIS isn't that stupid. They know what is going on in the MSM and are well funded thanks to the west.

What did jew mean by this?

The argument for "Why Assad did it if he did it" is that it was a test to see whether Trump would respond. If Trump didn't respond, he'd know he could continue to do it with impunity.

The message from the regime is this: I will bomb and gas the fuck out of you until you give up and nobody can do anything about it. Either give up or your men, women and children will die screaming.

That doesn't make say sense. There's no benefit to him doing it. Surely, even if Trump let Assad do it once, he knew the liberals and globalist kikes in the media wouldn't ignore it.

Because they tried this shit 4 years ago and failed. Now they trot it back out even though it completely flies in the fact of the realities in Syria that indicate Assad would have absolutely nothing to gain from this move. It is lazy and arrogant just like the pedo bullshit. (((They))) are completely dismissive of the public as drooling hypnotized mongrels that will swallow putrid shit if you ask the right way that complies with their doglike pavlovian programming. And you know what? They're right.

But even this is illogical as the gas would have been destroyed or wouldn't have been in a toxic state as its in storage

>le hive mind
>how dare you all come to the correct conclusion! I can't believe it if other people do

what an edgy contrarian, piss off back to/ leddit you queer

The logical assessment is that it wasn't Assad and there is no reason to potentially (what is now eventually) risk international intervention for a war being easily won through conventional means.

Those who have a vested interest in destabilising Syria, the rebels, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. would not have been happy with Trump's announcement that he was willing to work with Assad and keep him in power. Thus it is infinitely more likely that they were forced to act to change his opinion.

>Sup Forums Hive mind
>Accepting logic

>those who have a vested interest in destabilizing Syria

Don't forget to add the CIA into this list.

it made sense using rudimentary logic.

obamas been telling him for 5 yrs straight we would come in and bbbbbbtfo out of him if he gassed his people, but our people refused bc they knew it was AQ and ISIS etc doing all this

now it conveniently happens right when assad about to win the war? sounds fake to me