It is difficult to imagine rebel groups using them against themselves.

Also questionable whether hitting a storage site would result in the kind of dispersal which is necessary for a chemical weapon to be effective over any size of population. (which is what Russia/Assad have claimed happened).

Two stories are: Assad used chemical weapons against rebel civilian targets

and: Assad hit a target with conventional explosive missiles and they released chemical weapons stored at that site.

It is not logical for rebels to use chemical weapon against rebels...
Does it sound logical if you hear that Germany used German units to kill other German units in order to get casius belli against Poland? It does not sounds logical but it happened. Just like similar incidents happened many times in history.

Read about Gleiwitz incident? Attack you own troops. Blame it on others. Declare war to liberate the world against criminals. Perfect story.

@Dejan and anyone else wondering why Assad might have done it, the town hit by the chemical weapons attack is one of the first rebel-held towns on the way from Assad-controlled territory toward Aleppo. Such an attack WOULD have a psychological effect on the townspeople (even if other Syrians yawn). Assad would want as many people as possible to leave the town so that he could advance as easily as possible.

But Dejan, there was no way to know they would gain from that. There had been dozens of chemical weapons attacks before, with no US retaliation. And Trump was a very isolationist candidate. I agree that false flag operations have happened, but the rebels had no reason to expect a positive outcome from this.

*have happened (in history)

@Dejan, even in the (incredibly) unlikely event that it was a false flag attack, Assad has no one to blame but himself if people think that HE did it. I have no sympathy for someone who kills people and then complains about the bum rap when a copycat uses the same MO.

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. This is grounds for impeachment. Though, that's not going to happen. Obama got away with it in Libya.

Manwe, you're funny. Like emoluments (and everything else) wasn't enough grounds for impeachment already. Moreover, Commander-in-Chief powers are pretty fucking broad. It would be exceedingly dangerous to impeach a President over misuse of them, especially for such a non-existential "mis-judgment".

This is the first thing that has occurred to warrant bringing up the topic of impeachment. He has done a lot of things people do not like, but nothing unconstitutional until now.

As Yanik said, history repeats itself, with a likeness that is scarily on point.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-obamas-libya-offensive-constitutional/

Manwe, literally every president for the past several decades has done military actions like this against a sovereign Nation without Congressional permission. The Congressmen aren't too peeved about it, from what I hear. Was just listening to one of the members on the House Armed Forces committee on the radio.

*Democrat member

@Manwe, what is your understanding of the emoluments clause of the Constitution? Because unless you're Kellyanne Conway, there's not much wiggle room for Trump on that one.

1) who decides to impeach? Is it the Houses of Congress pretending to be a court?

2) Assad's reaction to the Arab spring protests in Syria was atrocious (the first of many atrocities since 2011).

3) the US support of rebel groups (sending them arms and money) was irresponsible; and Obama's decisions lead in part to a collapse into civil war.

4) Saudi Arabia's support for ISIS didn't help matters, and their rise was horrific - though they mostly killed other Muslims until they started recruiting international volunteers who would return home to commit acts of terror. They are also deplorable.

Last, regarding the power of your Command-in-Chief, previous Presidents ordered troops into Korea without declaring war, because it was deemed a 'police action' (ie no need for Congresses approval). Under UN rules Trump has committed illegal acts by bombing Syria (Russia has been bombing Syria with Assad's invitation, and the US has been bombing ISIS in Iraq with the Iraqi government's invitation. These attacks against Assad amount to war. Illegal under UN rules (without the a security council resolution).

And also likely questionable without Congress's approval... Not sure impeachment is going to happen, or any sanctions from the UN, given a US veto in the security council.

interestingly enough, it's a common terrorist practice to aim a targeted attack at civilians, and then unleash a second attack on the first responders. this is what happened in Syria, although it's the ONLY *evidence* to support that rebels were behind this, and even then that is at best on supposition.

furthermore, Russia and Syria said they bombed rebel chemical supplies, and the chemical releases were accidental. however the way the Sarin gas was distributed makes that exceedingly unlikely.

@James, huh? The civilians were in rebel-held territory (presumably friendly to the rebels) and the first responders were in rebel-held territory (presumably friendly to the rebels). So how is that even *evidence* that the rebels were behind it?

@Hauta

*face palms*

i never said anything about the residents whatsoever, i was merely suggesting that the tactics were similar. read what i said, i do not believe rebels were behind this.

@James, "a targeted attack at civilians". Civilians are residents! Then you say "this is what happened in Syria" and "*evidence* to support that rebels were behind this". How can I read this any other way than your suggestion that the rebels were behind this?

Context, Hauta. James says it's the ONLY evidence that the attack could be by the rebels, and notes that 'even that is supposition'. Then he adds a 'furthermore' in opposition to the false flag theory.

However, I think you are correct to say that even the singular piece of evidence James presents for the false flag theory is especially poor because the secondary targets are rebel friendlies. As hypothetical false-flag rebels, why follow a tactical pattern that both implicates yourself and kills more of your own people? If anything, it's yet more evidence *against* the false flag theory.

Precisely my point Leth! Thanks for making it more clearly than I did.

War Powers Resolution unconstitutional? Says who?

It has never been tested at the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be soon.

Anyway, CNBC reports that Assad has already begun using the airport again. Planes have been seen taking off from the undamaged runway. And of course, the reports that Trump tipped off Putin have been confirmed. The death toll from all of the bombing is believed to be 8 people at this point, so it looks like Putin tipped off Assad to evacuate.

"Tipped off putin" - you mean warned the Russians to avoid killing members of the Russian military who A) aren't the target, and B) have nuclear weapons.

I'm not entirely sure... Also even tipping Assad off to save lives while destroying military infrastructure makes sense.

@Ora, I agree. But last night I was accused of being too "conspiratorial" by suggesting that Trumpov and Putin coordinated the event (and response). Deconflicting the situation makes me feel "somewhat vindicated, yes". And so, many hours later, I feel even more strongly that Trumpov's chestbeating was just a display for domestic consumption.

I'd had a discussion with people privately where I suggested the same. He went from being unable to find critical words on Putin to suddenly attacking Putin's closest regional ally. That's a leap not quick or easy to jump.

It's very easy if you're mentally unstable, actually.

Trump has a past history of switching views on the spur of the moment. Some of them have been within business meetings where he changes his mind from what he said at the start and then within minutes goes the other way. Complaints are that he has a short attention span.

Trump was against Obama acting when the poison gas death toll was about a thousand.

Last I checked, ISIS have already been confirmed to be using chemical weapons, so it's not entirely true that the rebels haven't used them. In fact, IIRC, ISIS have actually used them more often than the Syrian Government has. That rebel territory is deep in Al-Nusra Front territory rather than ISIS, but when Al Qaeda are the 'moderates', it's unclear whether they'd be considering also using them or not. In all likelihood, it was a Syrian government attack, but I wouldn't have trouble believing Al Nusra would use them if they got them.

When Assad is the officially recognized government, those who believe in the nation-state model should really asking some questions.