Who used poison gas in Syria?

The rebels, or the govt.? Note that the UN is investigating IF gas was used, but not who used it.

This is from Tariq Ali …

“The Obama administration and its camp followers would like us to believe that Assad permitted UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and then marked their arrival by launching a chemical weapon assault against women and children, about fifteen kilometres away from the hotel where the inspectors were lodged. It simply does not make sense. Who carried out this atrocity? -”

See more at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/08/28/tariq-ali/on-intervening-in-syria/comment-page-1/#comment-6952

I’m inclined to agree, it is preposterous that Syria would invite in the UN investigators and then launch a gas attack 15 km away. But still, who knows…

There is also … http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

XCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

That would seem to be the big question for the week. Obama’s doing all his saber-rattling based on information he claims to have from an unnamed source other than the UN team, and the UN team hasn’t released its findings yet.

Is the idea that the rebels would launch gas attacks against themselves somehow less preposterous?

I think it’s more likely that Assad figured he’d be able to get away with it - that international pressure and domestic opposition would prevent Obama from being able to back up his threat of force.

Even if he thought Obama wouldn’t do anything- why use nerve gas? Tanks and bombs kill just as effectively, no?

Why do you assume it was Assad personally? And why assume he acted rationally? I think it was probably some local commander on the regime side who thought it sounded like a good idea at the time.

Not really. Chemical weapons can have devastating effects against targets that aren’t expecting such an attack.

Plus, it leaves the infrastructure intact.

When you consider many of the “rebels” are from outside of Syria, they wouldn’t actually be using it against themselves, they’d be using it against Syrian civilians.

Just saying.

Well, there’s a shock…the UN is still trying to decide even if there was a chemical attack. We will probably get a definitive report from them on this sometime no later than, oh, say 2015. Well, maybe 2016. :stuck_out_tongue:

What inclines you to think that? Why does it make more sense that Syrian rebels would use gas (where did they get it from?) against themselves? If they are AQ operatives coming in from outside it leads one to wonder…why haven’t they used it before in Iraq or Afghanistan? For that matter, considering how AQ feels about the US and US involvement in internal Middle Eastern affairs it seems ludicrous to me that they would WANT to bring the US into this fight. They have always been about keeping us out of anything going on over there, to the point where they were pissed off at Saudi for allowing the US to stage troops and logistics during the first Gulf War because they felt we were treading on their turf. And finally, whether it was AQ or home grown rebels doing this as some sort of convoluted false flag operations to try and bring in the US, it begs the question…where did they get the weaponized gas from??

Yeah, 'cause if you can’t trust ‘Syrians In Ghouta’ who can you trust, amIright??

FWIW, the French seem to think that they know who did it. I mean, if you want to completely disregard US intelligence and all, and as a counter point to ‘Syrians In Ghouta’.

Checking articles on the globalresearch website, I see that there are numerous reports from DEBKA linking the rebels to chemical weapons, and from wiki we have …

DEBKAfile is an Israeli military intelligence website based in Jerusalem, providing commentary and analyses on terrorism, intelligence, national security, military and international relations, with a particular focus on the Middle East.


so, that is not computing for me. I remember a few years ago I was watching debka and couldn’t figure out its angle at all. Certainly it is not authoritative, and it seems to publish info directly counter to Israeli interests, as in the case above, so … what is with DEBKA ?

If Assad intends to win, he is going to have to maintain power and suppress future rebellions, which means keeping a lot of people in terror for years. Chemical weapons are good at that.

The calculation that western powers wouldn’t do much about it seems to have been a pretty good one to make I think it’s pretty funny how people are saying “obviously he would have know. He’d never get away with it,” when it seems like that is exactly what is going to happen.

Where would the rebels have gotten the gas?

Captured from government stores? Unearthed from those “hidden caches” of weapons smuggled across the border from Iraq in 2003-2004? Supplied by the CIA (from Libya) or Mossad to foment exactly the kind of crisis we find ourselves in now?

Of those three, IF it were the “rebels” who launched the attacks, I only think one is possible, but you won’t have to look long or hard to see the other two mentioned in certain quarters.

That’s a good question to ask. The Russians are asking for more details from Turkey regarding Syrian rebels caught crossing the border with Saringas.

And the Americans says it is a big secret.

US Evidence on Syrian Chemical Attack Inconclusive – Lavrov

  • trust us, we can’t tell you what we know because we don’t trust you, but trust us on this one because we have such a good track record.

And the Russians have a better track record?

I mean, criticize the U.S. all you want, but what kind of fool looks to the Russian government for moral authority?

Well they’ve been cutting back on the invading nations schtick since the end of the Cold War. Could be a budget thing.

Largely.

Personally, I wouldn’t believe a Russian apparatchik if he told me snow was cold.

Which it is.
The Russian is telling you the truth, but you don’t want to believe him.
You’d rather eat the yellow snow, sold by the U.S.

Doubt it. But I wouldn’t trust the Russians either if they came and claimed they had proof of something important but that the proof was secret.

The Russians aren’t trying to sell the Americans anything. Apparently the USA, Britain and France tried to convince Russia that the Assad regime had used poisonous gas, but said they could not shared their most compelling evidence which sounds rather amateurish. I don’t know, perhaps they have an informer in the top Syrian regime who has divulged sensitive information, perhaps they’re just trying to strengthen a weak case with some secretive nothing. Whatever, I’m not going to take their word for it. And the USA is naïve if it thinks the Russians would or should.

Is it a moral bombing campaign the USA is arguing for? Is it to hoist American moral authority?