Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[CptBork]

Three civilians injured, apparently.

Haven't seen such a tragic slaughter since Warsaw. Down with democracy!

 

[Schmelzer]

Ok, up to now was a repetition of the last years' attack. Many more targets, many more rockets, but even less damage. The following numbers are given by the Russian MoD:

Against four airports (Duvali, Dumeir, Bley, Shairat) all rockets have been destroyed, against an unused one 5 out of 9, and against one in Homs 13 out of 16, no serious damage.
Against some unused buildings in Barsa and Jeramani - 7 out of 30. Three civilians injured.

The MoD said that all this was done by the Syrians, using mainly old Soviet time air defenses, the Russian air defense did not even participate, given that their region was not attacked.

 

[exchemist]

Haven't seen such a tragic slaughter since Warsaw. Down with democracy!

I confess I am a bit baffled by the apparent inability of many commentators to distinguish a reprisal strike, to deter further use of taboo weapons, from the opening of an open-ended military campaign.

I can see, of course, that a badly designed reprisal strike might inadvertently cause an escalation. But it seems to me that the use of these horrible weapons has to attract a penalty, if the taboo is not to become weakened. As we in Britain are painfully aware, Putin likes to push his luck with these weapons, treating with cynical contempt as he does the international rules of conduct built up since the 2nd World War.

A well-targeted strike, that does not give Russia enough of a humiliation, or other pretext, to take things further, seems to me a good way of doing this, if it can be done. And now it has been attempted. We shall see what the outcome is.

 

[CptBork]

Ok, up to now was a repetition of the last years' attack. Many more targets, many more rockets, but even less damage. The following numbers are given by the Russian MoD:

Against four airports (Duvali, Dumeir, Bley, Shairat) all rockets have been destroyed, against an unused one 5 out of 9, and against one in Homs 13 out of 16, no serious damage.
Against some unused buildings in Barsa and Jeramani - 7 out of 30. Three civilians injured.

The MoD said that all this was done by the Syrians, using mainly old Soviet time air defenses, the Russian air defense did not even participate, given that their region was not attacked.

Thanks for lying on America's behalf, this will help prevent Russians from getting pissed off and seeking retaliation against superior forces. We give you a good smack, and you tell everyone that nothing happened and it's all cool- I like that, you must have been fun to beat on and give wedgies to back in high school. Now go tell all your drunk friends and cousins back home that they'll be getting super rich under Putin next year, so I can laugh at their disappointment when they find out it's the same old shit or worse.

 

[CptBork]

I confess I am a bit baffled by the apparent inability of many commentators to distinguish a reprisal strike, to deter further use of taboo weapons, from the opening of an open-ended military campaign.

I can see, of course, that a badly designed reprisal strike might inadvertently cause an escalation. But it seems to me that the use of these horrible weapons has to attract a penalty, if the taboo is not to become weakened. As we in Britain are painfully aware, Putin likes to push his luck with these weapons, treating with cynical contempt as he does the international rules of conduct built up since the 2nd World War.

A well-targeted strike, that does not give Russia enough of a humiliation, or other pretext, to take things further, seems to me a good way of doing this, if it can be done. And now it has been attempted. We shall see what the outcome is.

I think we're at the point where we need to show Russia that we don't give a crap how they feel about it, chemical weapons will not be tolerated with or without the threat of nukes to back it up. Russia could gas Paris, and fifth column traitors would still be making the same excuses for letting Putin have his way.

I do however think that cutting off Russian trade and anyone (including China) who continues to trade with them, will have a much more lasting impact, and if further combined with a military option, they won't have the cash to replenish whatever they lose or even maintain their existing equipment in working condition. Hit them in their wallets where it hurts the most, not just the oligarchs- most ordinary Russians have forgotten their rightful place in the world as a mediocre regional shithole, they think they're entitled to an empire.

 

[Schmelzer]

We shall see what the outcome is.

The outcome is a demonstration that

1.) The West no longer cares at all about any justifications for such attacks, and completely ignores international law. Thus, international law does not help. Everybody can become a victim if the US does not like him for whatever reason.
2.) The West has carefully followed the prescriptions for this attack which have been given by Russia. Thus, Russian support helps against the US.

To see (1), think about the following: a) The attack has been started one day after the Russian MoD presented evidence, in form of interviews with two witnesses presented in the video which "proved" the gas attack, that there was no gas attack but simply some guys crying "there was a gas attack" creating chaos and filming it. One may, of course, think that these witnesses lie or so. But whatever one thinks, one would at least stop, wait for the OPCW inspection also speaking with these witnesses or so, to clarify if this video is really fake or not. If one would care about the facts.

b) Same for the very fact that this attack was done one day before the OPCW inspection of the cite of the attack was scheduled. No time to wait even a single day?

c) Then, there is no evidence at all presented, beyond the videos. Together with the worthless claims about their top-secret proofs, what everybody except sheep translates as "we have no proofs at all".

All this together means that one demonstratively does not care about any evidence, about what really happened.

d) Another aspect: Macron claims that this attack has destroyed chemical some weapon storage. If true, this would mean he has intentionally bombed some facilities containing chemical weapons. That means he has done this despite the danger that this leads to a contamination of the area with deadly chemical weapons. This would be a quite serious war crime, comparable with using chemical weapons himself. So, either he is a war criminal or he has known that there was nothing dangerous there, that means, he is a liar. Of course, in this case, the answer is easy - he is a liar. But he does not even care.

To see (2), let's see what has been openly admitted. Namely, that Russia has been informed about the attacks. There has been a little more information, namely that the US has asked Russia about where the Russian forces are located. And Russia has refused to answer. So, Russian soldiers could have been anywhere, also on the attacked sites. But this was what Russia has said: If Russians are endangered, we will retaliate. But, in fact, Russian soldiers have not been endangered, and the US has known this. How is this possible? Very simple. The Russians have been informed about the targets and a sufficiently long time before the attacks so that they had enough time to evacuate all Russian soldiers from these targets. Of course, the consequence is that the Syrians have also known about the targets. Russia has never promised not to give this information to the Syrians. The predictable result: Not a single Syrian soldier wounded or dead.

This reduced the attack to an exercise for the Syrian air defense. Given that the important targets (the airfields in use) were defended completely,

BTW, I see that the two "main targets" hit by the attack according to the US and supported by satellite pictures (here and here) are both quite close to the "Old Military airport (defunct)", so that there is not really a contradiction between the Russian and the US information about the targets which have been hit. The Russian claim was that what was hit with the remaining 3 out of 16 rocket did not hit the Homs airport itself, but something nearby.

 

[CptBork]

b) Same for the very fact that this attack was done one day before the OPCW inspection of the cite of the attack was scheduled. No time to wait even a single day?

Why didn't Russia and Assad allow inspectors to visit the site on the day the allegations first emerged? Or the day after that, or the day after the day... When you act like you have something to hide, we assume that you're hiding something. Putin and Assad don't need the OPCW to tell them what they've done, nor do western intelligence agencies.

c) Then, there is no evidence at all presented, beyond the videos. Together with the worthless claims about their top-secret proofs, what everybody except sheep translates as "we have no proofs at all".

Russia never produces evidence for anything other than amateur quality videos, seems to be more than good enough for you.

d) Another aspect: Macron claims that this attack has destroyed chemical some weapon storage. If true, this would mean he has intentionally bombed some facilities containing chemical weapons. That means he has done this despite the danger that this leads to a contamination of the area with deadly chemical weapons. This would be a quite serious war crime, comparable with using chemical weapons himself. So, either he is a war criminal or he has known that there was nothing dangerous there, that means, he is a liar. Of course, in this case, the answer is easy - he is a liar. But he does not even care.

So according to you, targeting illegal chemical weapons for destruction = war crime. Pulling your tongue out of Putin's ass = war crime. According to the experts on the subject, destroying chemical weapons with explosives and fire will not produce the kind of effects seen when Assad drops them from the air in controlled detonations, which is one reason why your excuses were not tolerated last year at Khan Sheikhoun.

 

[Schmelzer]

Why didn't Russia and Assad allow inspectors to visit the site on the day the allegations first emerged? Or the day after that, or the day after the day...

They had, at that time, no control over this territory, thus, they were unable to guarantee security.

Russia never produces evidence for anything other than amateur quality videos, seems to be more than good enough for you.

You are funny. They presented a video showing the statements of two witnesses. They have participated in the amateur quality video which the West uses to prove that there was a chemical attack. What matters is the content of their claims, I do not even care about the video quality.

According to the experts on the subject, destroying chemical weapons with explosives and fire will not produce the kind of effects seen when Assad drops them from the air in controlled detonations, which is one reason why your excuses were not tolerated last year at Khan Sheikhoun.

Feel free to justify the idea that bombing a chemical weapon storage is harmless. Your choice.

 

[CptBork]

What matters is the content of their claims, I do not even care about the video quality.

Russian media already openly lied about Russian casualties caused by US forces in Syria and changed their story multiple times, as they do with every controversial incident. Why do you trust people who keep changing their story, more than collections of media who can generally tell stories which stand the test of time?

They had, at that time, no control over this territory, thus, they were unable to guarantee security.

They weren't asked to guarantee security inside the territory, they were asked to get out of the way and let inspectors through. Why didn't they comply?

Feel free to justify the idea that bombing a chemical weapon storage is harmless. Your choice.

Which would be the bigger war crime- having illegal chemical weapons and storing them in populated areas, or destroying those weapons before they can be deployed?

 

[Schmelzer]

Russian media already openly lied about Russian casualties caused by US forces in Syria and changed their story multiple times, as they do with every controversial incident.

Of course, the media in Russia are free to speculate and they speculate a lot. The official information was only about Russian soldiers (none involved). Those that are claimed to be involved were not soldiers but mercenaries, and there was no official information about them.

Why do you trust people who keep changing their story, more than collections of media who can generally tell stories which stand the test of time?

I don't trust any media at all. And certainly not the Western NATO propaganda sources, which lie all the time.

They weren't asked to guarantee security inside the territory, they were asked to get out of the way and let inspectors through.

Link to source, please.

Which would be the bigger war crime- having illegal chemical weapons and storing them in populated areas, or destroying those weapons before they can be deployed?

The second one. Because it could actually kill people. Simply storing it does not kill. BTW, America is actually storing chemical weapons, in violation of their promises to destroy them. Instead, Syria has stored such weapons in the past, but actually, it does not. And, because of the West knowing this very well, there was also no serious war crime bombing a few empty buildings. The only problem was the minor one that it is an obvious lie.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't trust any media at all.

How convenient. It allows you to believe anything you want.

 

[CptBork]

Based on the reports coming in, it sounds like more civilians were killed by Syria's blind air defense shots than were killed by the incoming missiles they failed to destroy.

 

[Schmelzer]

How convenient. It allows you to believe anything you want.

Do you have somebody who tells you what to believe?

 

[CptBork]

Of course, the media in Russia are free to speculate and they speculate a lot. The official information was only about Russian soldiers (none involved). Those that are claimed to be involved were not soldiers but mercenaries, and there was no official information about them.

While Wagner's own mercenaries were screaming all over Russian news and internet for recognition of the massive beating they took at America's hands, Putin's administration was saying there were only something like 4 Russian casualties, later expanded to 84 (which is still just a small fraction of the Russians who actually died). The Kremlin didn't initially say "we don't know what happened", they denied the whole incident outright. So why do you consistently believe people who repeatedly deny setbacks and then partially acknowledge them many days later?

I don't trust any media at all. And certainly not the Western NATO propaganda sources, which lie all the time.

I know you don't trust Russian state media, you'd be too stupid to spell your own name if you did. Nonetheless, your internet persona here always pretends to trust such sources to the letter, much more so than the multiple streams of media coming in from elsewhere. So it's not really a question of who you trust, but rather why you want to keep coming here and trolling as if you work at the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg.

Link to source, please.

If I give you quotes from the World Health Organization demanding immediate access, will that be sufficient? Or do you consider them to be another American front conspiring to prevent Russia from achieving fame and glory?

The second one. Because it could actually kill people. Simply storing it does not kill.

So if bombing an illegal stash of chemical weapons is a more serious war crime than actually possessing them and hiding them in populated areas, how are such illegal weapons to be eliminated when their owners refuse to even acknowledge that they exist? Remember, you and I are assuming here for argument's sake that such a hypothetical stash actually exists and is not in doubt, and you're saying it would still be a war crime to bomb that.

 

[Schmelzer]

I know you don't trust Russian state media, you'd be too stupid to spell your own name if you did. Nonetheless, your internet persona here always pretends to trust such sources to the letter, much more so than the multiple streams of media coming in from elsewhere. So it's not really a question of who you trust, but rather why you want to keep coming here and trolling as if you work at the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg.

LOL, you don't get it. I don't trust particular sources. I would never say that I think this is true because it is source XYZ which made this claim. Of course, I make differences between different sources. There are reliable sources, and there are unreliable sources. But what is the difference? First of all, the probability that I will read it. Sources which I consider as unreliable I simply do not use for regular reading. The economy of time, that's all. It does not change the point that the main source of evaluation is the particular content of the particular article. The reliability of the author is nothing but one particular criterion for evaluating this.

By the way, Iceaura likes to attack me as "being played" by some right-wing American propaganda, that means, of some even more anti-Russian sources than Democratic ones. The error is the same. Say, I posted a link to some Fox guy (name forgotten) who is "liked" a lot by Iceaura and others. I found interesting what he said. The link I followed gave that guy a quite negative reputation (sort of "horrible time if even that guy becomes a reasonable source in comparison with everything else), and my personal psychological criteria for reliability (would you trust a guy who looks like him and talks like he talks) added -100 points to this already negative starting point. But so what? He made an interesting point. This point fulfilled some basic reliability tests (if this is a lie, can his enemies easily prove that this is a lie, and use this against him?). So, the evaluation of the content can completely overrule the negative personal reputation. Iceaura works differently, and completely relies on reputation. If someone has a negative reputation, it does not matter at all what he says, if you take this seriously, you will be played. This is a reasonable strategy for those who can be easily played. Small children trust their parents - a very reasonable survival strategy. But I trust myself. So, reliability is secondary, the content matters.

I have never hidden that the sources I trust most are some Russian internet sources. This means they are my daily reading for news. There are others. Like this forum. Or the German NATO propaganda source Zeit (which has a comment forum without pre-publication censorship, which became an exception in Germany).

If I give you quotes from the World Health Organization demanding immediate access, will that be sufficient? Or do you consider them to be another American front conspiring to prevent Russia from achieving fame and glory?

Let's see. Remember, you have claimed, "They weren't asked to guarantee security inside the territory, they were asked to get out of the way and let inspectors through". BTW the context was OPCW, not WHO. So, not sure that what you quote will be sufficient, and I doubt. Remember, in Khan Sheikhun they have never even tried to reach that place, even it was accessible via Turkey without any ability of Assad to prevent it. It was held by the same "moderate rebels" (ok, slightly different gangs, but also paid by the US and friends).

But in this context, it does not matter at all if I consider as OPCW as WHO as another American front or not. What matters is what they asked about, and what were the reasons given for refusal of the request.

So if bombing an illegal stash of chemical weapons is a more serious war crime than actually possessing them and hiding them in populated areas, how are such illegal weapons to be eliminated when their owners refuse to even acknowledge that they exist?

In this case, there is no such way.

 

[CptBork]

LOL, you don't get it. I don't trust particular sources. I would never say that I think this is true because it is source XYZ which made this claim. Of course, I make differences between different sources. There are reliable sources, and there are unreliable sources. But what is the difference? First of all, the probability that I will read it. Sources which I consider as unreliable I simply do not use for regular reading. The economy of time, that's all. It does not change the point that the main source of evaluation is the particular content of the particular article. The reliability of the author is nothing but one particular criterion for evaluating this.

By the way, Iceaura likes to attack me as "being played" by some right-wing American propaganda, that means, of some even more anti-Russian sources than Democratic ones. The error is the same. Say, I posted a link to some Fox guy (name forgotten) who is "liked" a lot by Iceaura and others. I found interesting what he said. The link I followed gave that guy a quite negative reputation (sort of "horrible time if even that guy becomes a reasonable source in comparison with everything else), and my personal psychological criteria for reliability (would you trust a guy who looks like him and talks like he talks) added -100 points to this already negative starting point. But so what? He made an interesting point. This point fulfilled some basic reliability tests (if this is a lie, can his enemies easily prove that this is a lie, and use this against him?). So, the evaluation of the content can completely overrule the negative personal reputation. Iceaura works differently, and completely relies on reputation. If someone has a negative reputation, it does not matter at all what he says, if you take this seriously, you will be played. This is a reasonable strategy for those who can be easily played. Small children trust their parents - a very reasonable survival strategy. But I trust myself. So, reliability is secondary, the content matters.

You claim that you base your evaluations on logical considerations rather than reliability of the source, yet in most cases you dismiss contrary logic on the grounds that it comes from enemy "propaganda". I don't think you can give me a single example of you ever saying or disagreeing with something printed on rt.com, so unless you can demonstrate the independence of your opinions, it's clear that you consider rt.com to be a reliable source of information even when it changes the original story to match newly undisputed facts; a news site that contradicts itself by changing its own storyline cannot be said to be logically self-consistent.

Let's see. Remember, you have claimed, "They weren't asked to guarantee security inside the territory, they were asked to get out of the way and let inspectors through". BTW the context was OPCW, not WHO. So, not sure that what you quote will be sufficient, and I doubt. Remember, in Khan Sheikhun they have never even tried to reach that place, even it was accessible via Turkey without any ability of Assad to prevent it. It was held by the same "moderate rebels" (ok, slightly different gangs, but also paid by the US and friends).

I asked why Russia and Assad weren't permitting inspectors to reach the site. I mentioned OPCW in my next sentence, given that they're supposed to be investigating it at this very moment, but my comment wasn't restricted to them. So let's address a specific issue and ask why the WHO wasn't allowed by Assad authorities and allies to access the site of the alleged attack, and if you want a quote proving their demands for access, I'll provide one.

But in this context, it does not matter at all if I consider as OPCW as WHO as another American front or not. What matters is what they asked about, and what were the reasons given for refusal of the request.

If I provide proof that the WHO demanded immediate access and was rejected, will you provide an explanation for the rejection?

In this case, there is no such way.

So you're saying that even if a dictator possessed prohibited chemical weapons and was using them on his own people while storing them in populated areas, it would still be a bigger war crime to destroy the munitions as opposed to doing nothing and letting thousands of people get gassed? How come it's ok then for Assad and Russia to bomb areas where they claim rebels are storing chemical weapons of their own?

 

[Schmelzer]

Given that the attack of the aggressor countries US, GB and FR in support of the terrorists appeared to be suffiently harmless, the Syrian army was able to continue liberating Syrian territory from various terrorist gangs. Today, the Syrian army has taken some villages in the Eastern part of the Rastan pocket:

The armed gangs in this pocket are a complex mix, a lot of local militias, but there are also sufficiently strong Al Qaida forces, which have often tried to attack Salmya and the roads around, especially in coordination with other attacks by Al Qaida elsewhere (in particular in the Northern part of Hama). So, there are a lot of local negotiations, and there are chances for some success. As far as I know, the big M5 road from Homs to Hama is even open to civil travel.

You claim that you base your evaluations on logical considerations rather than reliability of the source, yet in most cases you dismiss contrary logic on the grounds that it comes from enemy "propaganda".

This is in most cases a simplification of the reasoning behind this.

What is behind this depends on the context. For example, the maps. I have some sources for reliable maps. Among them are sources from enemies. Say, in particular, SOHR information about frontlines is quite accurate. But there are also unreliable sources, in particular, jihadist sources. They are known to overexaggerate small or non-existing advantages. If I reject them, I would not start to justify it a lot, but simply reject it as enemy propaganda.

Usually behind a rejection as "enemy propaganda" there are several points: 1.) The information, if true, would be in favor of the source, 2.) It is quite hard to obtain objective information, so that if it is a lie, it is very hard to prove, and 3.) low reputation of the source.

I don't think you can give me a single example of you ever saying or disagreeing with something printed on rt.com, so unless you can demonstrate the independence of your opinions, it's clear that you consider rt.com to be a reliable source of information even when it changes the original story to match newly undisputed facts; a news site that contradicts itself by changing its own storyline cannot be said to be logically self-consistent.

RT is nothing I regularly read. But I don't understand your point. If a news source gets new information, so that the old information appears incorrect, I would expect that it changes the information it presents. (Highly reasonable sources would do this in form of a correction, explicitly taking back information which they have given before, but I don't remember to have seen mass media doing this if not forced by law.)

Note also that I don't plan to "demonstrate the independence" of my opinions. I do not depend on what you think about me.

I asked why Russia and Assad weren't permitting inspectors to reach the site. I mentioned OPCW in my next sentence, given that they're supposed to be investigating it at this very moment, but my comment wasn't restricted to them. So let's address a specific issue and ask why the WHO wasn't allowed by Assad authorities and allies to access the site of the alleged attack, and if you want a quote proving their demands for access, I'll provide one.
If I provide proof that the WHO demanded immediate access and was rejected, will you provide an explanation for the rejection?

Fine, feel free to provide. I know that the Russian/Syrian offer included the offer of security, and this offer was possible only after the region was controlled by the Syrian side.

So you're saying that even if a dictator possessed prohibited chemical weapons and was using them on his own people while storing them in populated areas, it would still be a bigger war crime to destroy the munitions as opposed to doing nothing and letting thousands of people get gassed?

First, that's a different question, you have added here a "was using them". Such a use could, in principle, be used to justify what would be, else, a clear war crime. But, anyway, doing nothing is certainly not a crime. Bombing it may be possibly excused, but this is only a possibility, and the circumstances should be very special to see this as an appropriate way of defense.

(Just to remember: In the actual case, the "was using them" excuse is not applicable, because it is obvious that the politicians have not even cared about the evidence and known this was faked. But, given they have also known that there were no chemical weapons, so there was also no war crime, simply a lie, and of course the crime of attacking another country.)

How come it's ok then for Assad and Russia to bomb areas where they claim rebels are storing chemical weapons of their own?

The crime is intentionally bombing a place where one knows that chemical weapons are stored.

 

[CptBork]

First, that's a different question, you have added here a "was using them". Such a use could, in principle, be used to justify what would be, else, a clear war crime. But, anyway, doing nothing is certainly not a crime. Bombing it may be possibly excused, but this is only a possibility, and the circumstances should be very special to see this as an appropriate way of defense.

(Just to remember: In the actual case, the "was using them" excuse is not applicable, because it is obvious that the politicians have not even cared about the evidence and known this was faked. But, given they have also known that there were no chemical weapons, so there was also no war crime, simply a lie, and of course the crime of attacking another country.)

You were trying to create a logical argument that the US, Britain and France are guilty of war crimes under any hypothetical scenario, including one in which a dictator such as Assad actually possesses the prohibited weapons they're accused of possessing. So do you accept that, if it were known that such weapons were being stored, and such weapons were being used, it would then be acceptable for foreign nations to forcefully destroy those weapons?

The crime is intentionally bombing a place where one knows that chemical weapons are stored.

You, along with the mainstream Russian media, have repeatedly accused Syria's rebels of possessing chemical weapons and using them to stage false flag attacks, and Russian forces alongside Assad and Iran have repeatedly attacked the rebel forces and locations accused of housing such weapons. So either you guys are flat-out lying when you make these accusations, or your side is deliberately bombing and shelling areas known to have chemical weapons, and your boys are therefore war criminals by your own standards. Am I missing something here?

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army continues its advance in the Rastan pocket. Today they have taken the village Hamrat (left of the big red arrow in the map above).

You were trying to create a logical argument that the US, Britain and France are guilty of war crimes under any hypothetical scenario, including one in which a dictator such as Assad actually possesses the prohibited weapons they're accused of possessing. So do you accept that, if it were known that such weapons were being stored, and such weapons were being used, it would then be acceptable for foreign nations to forcefully destroy those weapons?

No. One can imagine additional special circumstances which could, in principle, make such a thing acceptable. But in the general case, this would remain a war crime. And, no, it was not my intention to present some sort of logical argument that holds in any circumstances. Here is a picture of the site which has been bombed (and according to the US, hit by 76 tomahawks, lol):

So, a lot of living quarters nearby. This would certainly make it a war crime, in any circumstances (except they have had no reason at all to suspect that at this place are some chemical weapons - which is, fortunately, the case).

You, along with the mainstream Russian media, have repeatedly accused Syria's rebels of possessing chemical weapons and using them to stage false flag attacks, and Russian forces alongside Assad and Iran have repeatedly attacked the rebel forces and locations accused of housing such weapons. So either you guys are flat-out lying when you make these accusations, or your side is deliberately bombing and shelling areas known to have chemical weapons, and your boys are therefore war criminals by your own standards. Am I missing something here?

Of course. You miss the "deliberately" bombing a particular site which is "known" to contain chemical weapons. The targets of the Syrians and Russians are typically positions near the frontline, which hardly contain any chemical weapons or sites behind the frontline where it is known that they contain terrorist targets. Yes, this includes also weapon depots. But I'm not aware of a case where they have intentionally targeted a terrorist weapon depot known to contain chemical weapons.

It is imaginable that this may happen. But this would be a case of collateral damage. In fact, this was one of the versions considered by the Russians about Khan Sheikhun: On the same day, the Syrian army has attacked a weapon depot on the border of Khan Sheikhun. So, it would be imaginable that there were chemical weapons inside the attacked depot. (This variant appeared to be impossible because the Syrian attack on the depot was later than the claimed time of the chemical attack, and at that time there were no Syrians bombing Khan Sheikhun.)

Additionally, claims that the terrorists possess chemical weapons are one thing. This says nothing about how many and of which type. Most of what the terrorists have seems to be based on chlorine because it is easily available (you need the main ingredient for disinfection), and the result is not that deadly so that even the harm caused by an accidental hit of such a depot would not be horrible. The really serious things (Sarin or so) which are necessary for the fake attacks they do not own themselves, these are jobs done by Western special forces.

Compare with the Western claims about that site they have bombed. This was not claimed to be a site to create simple chlorine-based chemical weapons, but a research facility where serious chemical weapons have been produced.

Of course, in reality, there was nothing, and they were sure that there is nothing:

In accordance with paragraph 11 of Council decision EC-83/DEC.5, the second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities of the SSRC was concluded on 22 November 2017. The results of the inspections were reported as an addendum (EC-87/DG.15/Add.1, dated 28 February 2018) to the report entitled “Status of Implementation of Executive Council Decision EC-83/DEC.5 (dated 11 November 2016)” (EC-87/DG.15, dated 23 February 2018). The analysis of samples taken during the inspections did not indicate the presence of scheduled chemicals in the samples, and the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention during the second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities.

 

[sculptor]

It seems that the missiles hit nothing of tactical nor strategic value.
Accurate?