This is highly inaccurate. I assume you're referring to this that you linked earlier?

Which says:
so, no, the accusation that Syria used chemical weapons was not 'flat out wrong'. Let me quote the key part of the accusation:
so the findings so far are consistent with the use of chlorine (albeit no final conclusion has yet been reached), but it does not appear that sarin was used (note that the US was explicitly less confident on the use of sarin than the use of chlorine)

Also note from the link you shared:
So, what was found by the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism referred to there?

Why don't we read what the UN says?
so your claim that the UN found that "the accusation was flat out wrong" is utterly incorrect

You realize why you quoted there at the end was from November 2017, right? And after testing at the actual site as well as the actual people who were exposed, they found no traces of Sarin

I'm like 95% sure that you're talking about two separate attacks? The quote I pulled talks about Khan Shaykhun, and those findings haven't been rebutted AFAIK. It was Douma where they found no traces of Sarin.

Yeah douma is what I mentioned in my post to Mets

Why exactly did trump hold his meeting with putin? What was the point?

So it's unequivocally true that the UN found that the Syrian government was responsible for using chemical weapons (including sarin) on its own civilians at Khan Shaykhun.

For Douma, no trace of sarin has been found, but it appears that evidence for chlorine has been found (but the UN hasn't concluded either way). And the US justification for intervening was that chemical weapons were used, it didn't hinge on the fact that it was exactly sarin.

So, again, claiming that the UN found that "the accusation was flat out wrong" is just not correct in the slightest.

also:
except the UN explicitly found that this DID happen in the case of Khan Shaykhun

so saying 'this didn't happen' and pointing to one case where the UN hasn't yet concluded whether it happened or not, while ignoring the other one where the UN clearly concluded that it DID happen, is highly disingenuous

I don’t actually have the energy to litigate this because it turns into a never ending circle of cross posting articles that contradict each other’s.

Mets said himself he was not sure what has been proven.

such a weaselly move

find me one official source that says that the UN did not find that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on their own people at Khan Shaykhun

there isn't one, because they did find that

you can disagree with the UN if you want, but don't misrepresent their findings

lol I’m the Weasley one?

We were discussing trumps decision to bomb Syria which was done because we said Assad used sarin gas on his people in Douma. I said that we had no such proof, which was confirmed by the secretary of defense in front of congress. Moreover...

“OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties.”

Your counter to that is to talk about a completely different thing that we weren’t talking about and demand I engage with it? I wasn’t taking about Kahn Shaykun so yeah I don’t have the energy to play that game. Furthermore your characterization of basically saying that lack of proof just means “it’s uncertain” is silly. You can’t find proof of a negative. The US said it did no have proof even weeks after the attack and now the official investigation has found none. Yet you are sitting here demanding I offer proof to counter wild accusations made by the US IC.

It seems your argument, Bloo, is that the US was clearly wrong about sarin being used in Douma, and that even though that was the justification for bombing Syria, it’s ok because there was another time where Assad may have used sarin?

again, wrong. The US justification was that chemical weapons were used. The US accusations, which I specifically linked earlier, said clearly that they were less sure about whether sarin was used than chlorine.

So unless you've got some proof that it was specifically the use of sarin that led to the action (I've googled and can't find anything on this), everything I've read just says 'chemical weapons', including the actual text of the US accusations, which quite clearly has not been disproven.

once again you're twisting facts to suit your narrative
The US also bombed Syria in response to Kahn Shakun. So, again, saying 'this didn't happen' when mets said 'we bombed Syria because they gassed their people' and pointing to one case where the UN hasn't yet concluded whether it happened or not, while ignoring the other one where the UN clearly concluded that it DID happen, is highly disingenuous

1. It was not the justification. The justification was the use of chemical weapons in general, not specifically that sarin was used.
2. See above. Mets claimed that US bombing Syria was in response to Assad gassing his own people. You tried to refute it by pointing to the Douma case (where no sarin may have been used, but it does appear that people were attacked with some kind of chemical agent), ignoring the other case where Assad has explicitly been found to have used sarin, which led to the US bombing Syria.

lol “hasn’t concluded” I can’t deal with this

If you can't trust UN agencies BM, then who can you trust?

As I've said multiple times, the UN has explicitly not concluded on whether chemical weapons were used at Douma. They have found that sarin was not used. That does not in any way rule out the use of other chemical weapons, and it appears that some of the evidence they've found indicates that there's at least some support for the claim that chlorine was used (although this is not yet proven so I'm not relying on it).

facts are inconvenient, aren't they?

see, this is at least a coherent objection

although BM is relying on UN agency findings that no traces of sarin were found at Douma, so if he wants to come up with an argument as to why this finding is trustable but the findings that don't agree with his narrative aren't, it could be tricky

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sy...biased/5617363

This article gets into the attack in question

so that's arguing that the UN's report is untrustworthy, which is a line of argument you can go down if you want. But it's one I have little interest in (for various reasons, but mainly because it's going to go nowhere remotely productive), and certainly not the one Birdman was making.

as I said:

Here is what I said:

There was no Sarin in Douma, per the UN investigation.

So what about the UNs findings to you believe I have misrepresented, Bloo?

You're getting the attack wrong is boo's issue. Douma was during Obama administration 2015 I think. The attack in question is the 2017 one.

Bloo is a villager

Not a peek

1. As I've said on multiple occasions, and you continue to ignore, that was NOT "the actual justification for bombing Syria" on that occasion. The actual justification was that chemical weapons were used, not specifically sarin.
2. There was a separate occasion where Syria was bombed based on accusations of chemical weapon use (mets' post very much appears to be talking about intervention in Syria in general, not the specific case of Douma). The UN found that sarin was used by the Syrian government on their own civilians. By ignoring this, you appear to be deliberately trying to give the impression that Syria was never found to have used sarin on its own civilians. When it was.

I've already said all this:

I'm vaguely amused by the implication that Assad sarin-gassing his own people would be a valid reason for intervention but Assad chlorine-gassing his own people wouldn't.