France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86

France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86
France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86

This asshole should finish his investigation before making claims

show it please. Its important for people to see it.

There is an investigation underway... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Jean-Marc Ayrault told LCP television on Wednesday.

This will be an interesting weekend, then.

the investigation is under way, thats it. clickbait title, disappointing content. 1/10 would not recommend.

"We have proof!"

"Show us the proof."

"We are investigating still."


I'm almost positive this won't lead to proof. I'm sure they have strong evidence. The guy making the claims is convinced. But he doesn't have proof.

he's hyping the media up now so he can make a vague claim later and it'll seem like a more solid claim because people were expecting it.

I predict one of these will happen:

proof is shown: undated, redacted, voice recording that can be interpreted 1000 ways.

we have irrefutable proof but we can't show it. but trust me, if you could see this proof, you'd be convinced 100% assad did it

nothing else happens

I read the title and went here we go again. Just like the Trump and Russian connection. "THIS TIME WITHOUT A DOUBT WE HAVE PROOF".

Reads article

"...But at this point it's only speculation, but we hope to find something solid soon."

Reddit has always been like this. While most people focus on proving or disproving things in order to further their agenda, Reddit has always been obsessed with disproving anyone or anything, regardless of agenda. That is the agenda here; proving everyone wrong.

That's why no one reads the article first. Redditors have become accustomed to checking the comments first, because we're so used to seeing the top comment being a total rebuke of the article. I think it's great that Redditors care first and foremost about being right, being contrarians, and proving everyone wrong. But it's certainly not mainstream.

Saying you have something, and actually having something are two separate things.

I'm so glad that people are becoming immune to state propaganda. Not such a good sign that we've been inoculated over and over again to become this way.

It's the Independent. Expect nothing less.

Remarkably exactly the same as the WMDs in Iran.

I'm not a big fan of Assad but the West is fabricating a reason to continue imperialism in the middle east. - again -

Standard operating procedure for the last two years.

And yet, it's /sub/worldnews 's go to controversy generator.

then show it to us

"We have undeniable proof that Iraq Syria is hiding weapons of mass destruction"

Keep in mind plenty of wrong comments get upvoted too. It is less about being right and more about sounding like you know what you are talking about.

Seriously. Can we get those posts banned or something? The titles are always false

Imma get downvoted for this but where is the proof? I read and read that there is proof Assad did it but yet I see no evidence, Plus Isn't Assad winning the war? Why use Chemical weapons while winning a war? (getting more and more territory) It just doesn't make sense, can someone with more insight, show me? Like Im genuinely curious.

Regardless of how people feel about Syria, France, Assad, or chemical weapons that title is lie.

Evidence is not proof. An ongoing investigation is not a conclusion.

This is becoming standard behaviour for the Independent and as such they should be avoided as a source unless, of course, you're pushing an agenda.

The important thing is that millions of people just read a headline that said France proved Assad gassed (these particular) civilians. It is now fact in their minds and they will act accordingly.

Says they have proof.

Doesn't release it.


Let me take a guess, "Rebel forces gave us all the proof we need"

Ugh, I generally like Maddow but that whole tax return thing really put me off.

I think most people there agree Assad isn't perfect, they just think he is better than the terrorists who want to take over Syria.

Iraq WMDs, Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident, USS Maine, shall I go on? War has always been waged on the foundation of lies.

I had no real opinion on Maddow and now I really don't like her

Two years? This has pretty much been the norm for a long time.

A recent study posted somewhere on here showed that the comments with the most upvotes weren't the most "right" or "wrong" but were the earliest posts in the thread. People literally just upvoted the first thing they saw. I'll try to find a link to the study.

edit: The "recent" study was actually a plagiarism of a previously done one. Here's a link to the original study

3 isn't mutually exclusive with any actual result.

I'd be willing to bet real money that if they were banned from reddit overall, they'd go under. Maybe even just from this sub.

Am I the only one who thinks that they have a bot network to boost their posts? Everyone on reddit knows it's trash and bordering literal fake news, yet it's consistently the highest upvoted article.

Don't forget Turkey, who definitely did autopsies on some of the victims and verifiably decided that sarin was involved but did everything in secret and inexplicably failed to provide any kind of proof or evidence trail thereafter.

Let's not forget that France was the country who called that lie out before the Iraq war.

There is as much proof that Assad used chemical weapons as there is that Saddam had WMDs.

I mean I hate to be contrarian, but thats pretty accurate

What makes a man turn neutral?

People should stop upvoting articles that have no evidence.

I personally don't believe Assad was responsible, it just doesn't seem like it would benefit him to gas the rebels while hes winning the war against them. It benefited the rebels and terrorists far more than it did Assad. But if the French have evidence that he did it, I'm willing to change my mind on this, because like I said, I don't think Assad is perfect. There are plenty of things Assad did/does wrong, all I believe is that he is preferable to the alternative.

Wow I cant wait to never see this proof and just be told to trust it

Produced by the same Italian firm that produced the forged doc citing yellowcake from Niger.

In french, evidence translates to preuve. Proof translates to preuve. It is literally a synonym.

Which is strange. Why do we have so many crazy-invasive programs used by our intelligence community if we are unable to provide proof of ANYTHING? It's 2017, where is the payoff for any of this mess?

She claimed to have copies of Donald Trumps tax returns and made a huge event out of revealing them and hyped it up on twitter. All she really had was a page of his 2005 return stating that he did, in fact, pay $38 million in taxes.

I had no opinion at all about Maddow, and now I still don't.

syria is already extremely destabilized, not sure this argument holds up in this case.

"unnamed sources".

Because it's not about finding proof of wrong doing, it's about finding information to coerce compliance from political enemies.

People should stop upvoting The Independent. They're gaming Reddit at this point, it's the only source that ever hits front page anymore despite a constant stream of these no-evidence fluff pieces.

The same type of proof that Trump collaborated with Russians to win the election?

Oh no, then where would we get sensationalist headlines?

Anytime a an oil producing country might become strong enough to stand on its own or might accept a current as something other than the USD, America has to destabilize it and push for their supporters. Otherwise we risk losing value in the USD which would severely hurt our economy and thus our global strength. It's almost like the cold war never truly ended.

I have all the proofs in this enveloppe, and I will only open it when it's the right time.

Just, you know, not now.

If anything this just makes me doubt they have evidence. Otherwise they would have just released it to the public. Seems like posturing and more spin.

Why wouldn't they just come right out and present this proof? Why would they sit on proof of such a crime?

So that /sub/syriancivilwar can say it's fake

Well I can only speak for myself, but I was simply born with a heart full of neutrality.

Pretty much any other media source tbh

There is literally no amount of proof that would convince some people on here. Assad is a perfect snowflake who can do no wrong.

The other hundreds of thousands of deaths he's responsible for were a total fluke.

Right, but if Russia props them up and is able to build/control an oil pipeline through Syria then they can compete with Saudi Arabia and bring their oil to market while only accepting the rubel, which should prop up their currency and devalue ours.

Because now, creating the illusion of proof is considered the same as having proof, apparently.

If you beat a drum long enough, people will just assume it's storming.

then tell them to shut up until they have it

Those types are small percentage. The rest of us just want proof - real fucking proof! That what the USA, CIA, etc said happened, actually happened.

Except for the autopsies showing sarin, the infrared and radar showing the plane's route and heat signature of the bombs, the fllight path, information showing that Russia's drone was surveilling the hospital where chemical attack victims were being brought, information showing that they shut off the camera on the drone right before the hospital was bombed and intercepted communications between Syrian military and chemical weapons experts planning the attack. Now France will be providing even more in the coming days. Better ready your excuses.

edit: removed mention of video of bombing because can't find source for it.

I'm sure they have strong evidence.

sounds familiar... somebody said the same about WMD in iraq a while ago.

What's really shocking, is that our last few major wars were all initiated by false-flag attacks, and intentionally falsified intelligence.

You don't suppose we'd try that sort of thing again, do you?

Wait, are you talking about Saddam's WMDs or Khaddafi's genocide or...?

Oh. Never mind.

Of course he may be capable of war crimes, no one denies that. The question is, is he stupid enough to launch a chemical attack in his position at that time. Such an attack doesn't make any sense, does it? Fuck I hate it when people making the general conclusions, if you think/say X you also think/say Y, W and Z. It's like Bushs "If you are not with us you are against us". What kind of fucked up logic is that? Don't they teach you logic in school? Hint: It's not always black OR white.

Assad is by no means perfect. However, we have proof of two other countries, Iraq and Libya, where previous regimes were eliminated with hopes of establishing more democratic governments and we have seen where that ended up.

There is an ongoing investigation underway but we're going to predetermine that he did it. Brilliant.

Were you on the sub after the chemical attack and Trump's response? A large number of people were claiming that Assad's too smart to launch a chemical weapon attack and that its more likely the rebels blew themselves up.

They couldn't see that someone who secretly imprisons and murders citizens is also capable of war crimes.

Edit: There's no shortage of Russian/Syrian propaganda in this thread. Ghouta 2013 was NOT proven to be originated by rebels.

people have a hard time grasping that concept.

we've come to the point where proof doesn't really matter. if your headline sticks in the minds of people, proof be damned

No, you're not the only one.

The main concern isn't whether sarin gas was used, but whether or not Assad decided to use chemical weapons on a relatively unimportant target while winning the conflict, in full knowledge of the implications it had previously.

It makes no sense, and the US government suggesting it to be the case at this point should only be a cause for more concern.

Dude, over on /sub/politics they've actively been up voting Share Blue... I'm just thankful that I don't see that here lol

A large amount of stuff those agencies do figure out or could figure out probably never sees the light of day:

to be used as backroom leverage, within the US government or against other governments because it is incorporated into decision making but there's something about it that the government doesn't want the public to know (whether or not there is wrongdoing on the government's own part) to not jeopardize a valuable source if they can eventually provide something bigger/better or because it's simply outside the agency's scope and responsibilities (for example, I damn well guarantee the NSA could've found that Facebook shooter in a few hours tops, but their job is not to assist in a manhunt of a murderer and the use of a spy agency to find a domestic criminal would have jeopardized a criminal case against him if he hadn't killed himself)

I'm not endorsing our spy programs per say, just listing a number of possible reasons intelligence they gather doesn't become public.

Sure showed that Trump guy, eh?

Wow, sounds like the YEllow cake Uranium scam from the Bush build up to Ira war... BS BS BS

Still waiting on the proof of Russian hacking.

The Independent doesn't need proof just headlines.

HuffPo, WaPo, Daily Mail, Buzzfeed... The list goes on.

And they will show it right after this commercial break

Wait, are you talking about Saddam's WMDs

Funny you should say that. Back in 2003 Jacques Chirac the French president said that there actually wasn't any proof of Irak having WMDs... so this before the war.

A Maddow is seeming like you have great proof when, in reality, all you have is a 1040 from a year that's not surprising or insightful in any manner.

Rachael Maddow had Trump's 2005 1040 return from the IRS but played the show up beforehand like she had his tax records. It was a serious letdown and she lost face.

EDIT: " she had his [full] tax records." Just to clarify for those who have contested that a 1040 is a tax record.

they didnt say he was incapable. just that it wasnt a smart move at all

It was our foreign minister, De Villepin, at UN. Never forget.

the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace.

Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links

In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from an old continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.

Yeah, if they had any proof, they would be extremely forthright in showing it. But they don't.

Genuinely curious, which big picture?

/sub/politics too. Almost every time an Independent article is posted there, the top comment thread(s) roasts the headline for being sensationalist. Yet they get posted and upvoted instantly, because the headlines are what people want to read. And if it weren't the Independent, it'd be some other site. People upvote what they want to believe regardless of substance.

This isn't surprising, given that early comments also get more views. Additionally, early upvotes means a comment is on top, getting more upvotes. Similar studies have been done on what makes a Youtube video popular and it is largely just momentum - the one that starts being popular gets more traction because it is popular.

What would be interesting to see is if this "early bird" effect could be isolated out to understand what other things drives upvotes. It likely depends on the sub.

Tell my wife I said hello.

I'm pretty indifferent to her. I get that she's pretty left leaning, but the tax return thing was pretty sad. Why would you tarnish your reputation?

Syria doesn't have that much oil itself, but there is a planned pipeline to go through and then through Turkey into Europe, which would cut off European need for Russian natural gas. Assad does not want that pipeline.

Also, Assad is anti-Israel and allied with Iran&Hezbollah, so he's always going to be a target in some way.

Also the fake Nayirah testimony to start the first Gulf War.

Jesus just once can the public actually be told concrete reasons to attack another country. Is that too much to ask?

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me trice... you can't fool me!

But lets stop acting like the CIA and other intelligence committees tell the media and people everything. They could have proof on this easy and just don't want to tell the American people.

Doesnt surprise me coming from the independant. Same with all things trump, please, enough speculation articles, just tell me when the nail is in the coffin.

Yep, exactly. Most of the time they don't want a conclusion to these 'investigations', they simply want endless hype, speculation, and hysteria to move public opinion in a negative way against political opponents. The obvious cases are Hillary and Trump. The less obvious cases are political activists and dissidents that get crushed because they don't have the resources to fight back.

All these alphabet agencies aren't about 'keeping America safe from terrorists', it's about keeping the ruling establishment safe from political enemies in the United States.

I would really like to see definitive proof of whoever did it. I don't like not being able to form a concise opinion on anything.

That should tell you the true extent of their actual capabilities

Actually, that's exactly what they want to avoid.

If someone made a 1:1 replica statue of Glenn Beck, entirely out of shit, it would still not be as full of shit as Glenn Beck