Syrian Chemical Attack Video: The Ugly Evidence

by Categorized: Barack Obama, Washington Date:

Here are the videos of Syrian chemical weapons shown to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 5.

Watch here.

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence states on its website:

Each of these 13 videos explicitly claim to show victims of a chemical or poison gas attack. At the request of Chairman Feinstein, these videos were selected by the Open Source Center to depict a representative range of YouTube content posted regarding the reported 21 August chemical weapons (CW) attacks in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

15 thoughts on “Syrian Chemical Attack Video: The Ugly Evidence

  1. Billy Boggs

    A real possibility exists for Congress to vote to not attack. This will ultimately signal to Assad that use of chemical weapons are a viable option. Then, what will the response of the world community be? Maybe we all need to be shocked after another 100,000 are killed?

    I insist that this strong anti war position is the result of W Bush’s folly and the lies he manufactured to enter Iraq. The British voted down the move toward war and I am sure that had in mind the mistake they made during Iraq to be the “lap dog of Bush.”

    During the Serbian national war to expand territory, many lives had to be sacrificed before NATO could resolve to attack. Although I lean toward supporting the moderate opposition and attacking to degrade the Assad’s air capacity, I won’t loose too much sleep if Congress does not approve.

    1. Billy Boggs


      I guess your brains are so large that you need not back up your position. One day, your brains may be displayed at the Smithsonian in a jar of urine for science, of course.

  2. Richard

    Not proof that Assad did it. If they have proof we won’t see it as it would compromise intelligence. Then the slippery slope begins anew as the administration pulls out the WMD card and curve fits publically available info to justify a response.

    1. Billy Boggs

      I don’t believe that your statement is valid. All the proof is not being made to the public and this lack of full declosure may be Obama’s Achilles heel.

  3. Connecticut is circling the drain

    100,000 killed= no response. 1,000=response. It makes no sense to me. What does the US have to gain by this action? Seriously.

    1. Mr Bill

      What happened to the idea of the rescue of humanity instead of what is in it for me mentality? You could apply your question to mid 20th century Europe and ask, “What’s in it for us? Those gas chambers have nothing to do with America.”

      1. Connecticut is circling the drain

        That’s a false comparison Billy. Assad, while a brutal dictator, is not Hitler. Neither was Saddam Hussein. I am much more concerned about the likes of Iran and North Korea who have nukes and who seem ready to take out other countries even if they destroy themselves in the process.

        We can’t fight the world’s battles. Lets be smart about this one.

        1. Mr Bill

          You have made some inaccurate statements of your own in the past so mine doesn’t exactly rank as a fully false one by comparison. One could reasonably argue that gassing people, whether it is 8 million or 1,000, is still use of WMD. although I recognize that the 1,000 recently gassed pales in comparison to the wanton killing of 100,000 people is a was theater.

          I realize that it is not or should not be our position to be the world’s police. As I have expressed a near neutral position on this Syrian issue, I would feel stronger on bombing if the Arab states materially and financially joined. They need to resolve to kill their own fellow Muslims and not depend on the West to do their dirty work.

          Capici, Kim?

        2. Mr Bill

          BTW Kim:

          Yes, we are a war-wary nation. And we are because of W Bush. here is why; There was no reason to enter Iraq. Over 4,000 American military and a trillan dollars and for this we handed Iraq over to the Iranians. We need to take out bin Ladin and we had him cornered in Tora Bora but Bush once again, had additional mind on Iraq and did not sen needed support to finish him off when we had the chance thereby leading to an historic 10 year war. this could have been over quickly.

          History shows that all action is interconnected. today, being war wary, we cannot muster enough support to easily take out the air and communications of Assad in order for the Free Syrian army to be victorious. It is too late. We don’t want another war as much as this one could effect reducing Iran’s power in the region.

          So, as I mentioned previously, you may have my vote. Go and tell ‘em that I too am against this foolish resolution allowing for a tiny ineffectual assault.

      2. enness

        Last I checked, we did not enter that war until after being attacked on our soil at Pearl Harbor. Not the best example no matter what action you support.

  4. Greg

    White House: Evidence against Assad not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but passes ‘common-sense test’

    “The White House says it has no “irrefutable” evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the August gas attack in a Damascus suburb, but that a “strong common-sense test irrespective of the intelligence” suggests the government is responsible”

    That’s a great standard to hold…”irrespective of the intelligence”. Great sell, Mr. President. That said, GWB trotting out then Sec Powell in front of the UN with satellite photos and maps for WMD that didn’t exist did it’s fair share to destroy our credibility. The Brits are smart enough to stay away. What’s funny, however, with the NSA spying on everyone and their grandmother–quite literally–Obama can’t seem to find evidence Assad gave the order, or if it was the Syrian government at all, but it’s “suspected”. Guess he’s more concerned with US citizen’s phone records, emails, and facebook accounts making sure we simpletons are in line than dedicating intelligence bandwidth to where it should be.

    Oh, and that whole “Al Qaeda-linked” groups gig fighting with the rebels, I’m sure they’d like some American air support to further their cause. I wonder how the Christians in Maaloula would feel about the US aiding the rebels as ancient churches are shelled and destroyed by these freedom fighters we’re arming with assault weapons that we ‘Mericans shouldn’t be allowed to have.

    1. Mr Bill


      Good points. When Powell along with his CIA water boy went trotting over to the UN, I felt that they didn’t believe a word they were saying. I believe that they simply sold out their country in order to keep their jobs a little longer. If they really believed the 3rd rate hearsey evidence, then we had inferior personal at CIA. This is why I am so cynical. This can be found on both sides of the political divide. Then, little Condi Rice kept bringing out new reasons to invade as if she was throwing spegitti at the ceiling to see which one would stick.

      Of course, for these reasons, i am so divided. i guess I would go along with not invading. It will weaken us but we are already financially weakened anyhow.

      They all sold our country out and they all continue to do so.

      It is a God dam mess.

    2. Kim

      Greg: The White House hasn’t exhibited much in the way of ‘common sense’ since Obama took office, so it shouldn’t be used as a criterion for attacking Syrian.

  5. Scott

    If the Qataris want a pipeline let them work it out for themselves. This has nothing to do with us. All this talk of gas attacks is a smoke screen.

Comments are closed.