On the 4 April 2017, there was an airstrike attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun in Syria, with over 70 civilians killed and many hundreds injured.

Responsibility is attributed to the Syrian government, although that is disputed by them.

There is also some dispute over whether chemical weapons - and in particular Sarin gas were:

  • dropped in munitions by aircraft,
  • accidentally spread after being hit by conventional munitions,
  • deliberately spread on the ground as a false flag operation.

For example, this Bulgarian article describes a number of apparent anomalies. The translated claims are:

  1. The chemical was not consistent with Sarin.

    • In the videos from the location the rescuers are telling stories about how the victims smelled like the gas, but sarin is tasteless and odorless.
    • The rescuers are touching the victims with bare hands. Sarin is so dangerous and toxic that in can absorb in the clothes/skin and if this was indeed a sarin attack the rescuers and the camera crew would die in a matter of minutes.
  2. Rescuers were not wearing protective clothing, despite a special training session three weeks earlier by Western instructors in the same location.

  3. A screenshot of a (now missing) 2013 Mail article about USA approving a plan to use chemical weapons in Syria and then blame it on Assad to justify an attack? Screenshot of article by The Mail

  4. One day before the event Orient TV, working and filming the same freedom fighters reported:

    Tomorrow we are starting TV reports for multiple air strikes in Haza province, including for the use of chemical weapons (chlorine) against civilians.

Was the Syrian Army responsible for deaths due to sarin gas in Khan Shaykun?

Screenshot of web page

  • 3
    Your arguments list read like a poorly edited conspiracy theory page and the question itself runs afoul of the "events currently under investigation" rule of skeptics.se. – Shadur Apr 12 '17 at 8:27
  • I've temporarily put this on hold, while we make it clearer. At the moment, it sounds like anomaly hunting. Rather than getting caught up in that, I think the real question here is "Was Sarin used in an attack in Syria in April 2017?" The rest is arguments against the claim - whether they are individually true or not is irrelevant once we establish the truth of the overall claim. Is that fair? (The next issue: has enough empirical evidence been collected to allow us to answer it, or do we need to wait?) – Oddthinking Apr 12 '17 at 9:13
  • 3
    Please note that point #3 and #4 contradict #1 and #2, #1 and #2 suggest that sarin gas was not used, and perhaps that the entire thing was staged. But #3 and #4 try to claim that it was a false flag operation. If it was a false flag operation, then it would probably use the real gas so protective gear would still be needed by the rescue and media personal. – SIMEL Apr 12 '17 at 9:16
  • @SIMEL, the claims do not contradict. Points #3 and #4 say chemical weapons will be used, not specifically sarin, while #1 and #2 say sarin was not used but make no claims as to whether or not a different chemical agent was used. – Cameron Apr 12 '17 at 17:52
  • 1
    That said: This is clearly still in dispute, and the investigators and journalists need more time to get to the bottom of it, so I have kept it On Hold until the answers can be more than speculations. – Oddthinking Apr 12 '17 at 21:53

Browse other questions tagged .