Syrian civil war

[BruceVC]

Anyone willing to bet that this will change something?

 

I don't think this will change anything, the West and almost all independent observers have been saying that Assad is responsible since the beginning. So the Russian plan for all Chemical weapons to be disarmed will continue. There will only be a different course of action if Assad tries to stall or prevent the dismantling of the Chemical arsenal

[Walsingham]

I DO NOT know what technical and operational similarities there are between this M-14 rocket and the BM-21 rocket systems, but they look extremely similar.

 

BM-21 rockets are practically routine terrorist fodder from the Gaza strip to Ghazni.

 

I do not find it at all credible that 'experts' are stating they could not have been fired by the rebels. Although I do accept that it can't be homebrew.

[kgambit]

I DO NOT know what technical and operational similarities there are between this M-14 rocket and the BM-21 rocket systems, but they look extremely similar.

 

BM-21 rockets are practically routine terrorist fodder from the Gaza strip to Ghazni.

 

I do not find it at all credible that 'experts' are stating they could not have been fired by the rebels. Although I do accept that it can't be homebrew.

 

Wals, reread the experts quotes again, particularly the 2nd and 3rd ones I listed.  They did not say that the rockets could not have been fired by the rebels.  *I* am the one that claims that almost all the evidence points against it.  

 

The delivery systems do look similar (multiple launch tubes) but the rockets themselves are different, particularly the tail end assembly.  On the other hand, there have been no credible reports that the rebels have used either the M14 (140mm rockets) or the 330 mm systems.  Yes I'll concede that the 122mm systems are common terrorist fodder particularly in gaza,  but not the others and the experts are fairly firm that these are M14 140 mm rockets and the large 330mm rockets but not the  122mm versions.  And there has never been one solitary piece of evidence that the rebels possess anything even remotely similar to the Falaq-2 330 mm rocket system.  Without that, I would probably concede that the delivery system doesn't likely prove much.  The 330 mm rockets change that.

 

The issue of the quality of the Sarin gas is key as well.  Again it points to something other than a quick and dirty in-the-field brew up or even a cottage industry manufacture.   Something that is likely to be beyond the scope of the rebels.

 

I think you might find the following links interesting: 

 

http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-detailed-summary-of-evidence-on.html

 

http://rogueadventurer.com/2013/08/29/alleged-cw-munitions-in-syria-fired-from-iranian-falaq-2-type-launchers/

 

Of particular note is that the larger 330mm munition is typically fired from an Iranian Falaq-2 launcher - which the Syrian government is known to have purchased.    The Falaq-2 is a relatively recent design compared to the BM21 / BM14 systems.  Again, the rebels are not known to possess anything like it. 

 

In the second link above, there is a video showing a launch of a falaq-2 330mm rocket likely being supervised by elements of the Syrian Republican Guard and the 155^th Brigade, 4^th Armoured Division, which is closely aligned with the Republican Guard. Both units are commanded by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brother, Maher al-Assad. The 155^th Brigade’s base is close to Mezzeh airport.  Which is at the approximate range and bearing of the southern most attack sites.  Again a full analysis of trajectory data will help pinpoint the launching sites, but the range and direction are about right.

 

 

Say what you will, I have maintained from the beginning that this was done by Assad and every new piece of evidence points reinforces that.  The quality of the Sarin samples is the latest bit of the puzzle.    The Assad apologists have not provided a single scrap of credible evidence to prove it was the rebels.     

 

 

@ Morgoth,     Wow thanks.  That's the first time I've ever seen a picture of 3 Horses a$$es at the same time - especially with 2 on the back of a 3rd.

 

 

@Bruce      You're right,  It won't change anything unless Assad uses them again or he stalls on destroying them. 

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[pmp10]

In the second link above, there is a video showing a launch a falaq-2 rocket likely being supervised by elements of the Syrian Republican Guard and the 155^th Brigade, 4^th Armoured Division, which is closely aligned with the Republican Guard. Both units are commanded by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brother, Maher al-Assad. The 155^th Brigade’s base is believed to be close to Mezzeh airport.  Which is at the approximate range and bearing of the southern most attack sites.  Again a full analysis of trajectory data will help pinpoint this.

You really don't need anything fancy.

But good news is that there are already videos online showing that rebels are responsible.

Apparently they were miraculously discovered just as the report was being announced.

[kgambit]

 

 

 

But good news is that there are already videos online showing that rebels are responsible.

 

 

It is impossible to gauge the accuracy of those claims with no links provided.   

 

Yeah funny how those appeared miraculously.   LOL

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

But good news is that there are already videos online showing that rebels are responsible.

 

 

It is impossible to gauge the accuracy of those claims with no links provided.   

 

Yeah funny how those appeared miraculously.   LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But good news is that there are already videos online showing that rebels are responsible.

 

 

It is impossible to gauge the accuracy of those claims with no links provided.   

 

Yeah funny how those appeared miraculously.   LOL

 

 

What was even funnier is that just after the Chemical attack Assad claimed his forces were in fact victims, so you had all these "videos" of Syrian soldiers in hospital showing how they were effected by Chemical weapons. But it was actually embarrassing  when you realize what an obvious charade it was with the soldiers acting and pretending to be very sick

[Rostere]

What is really stupefying to me is why either side chose to use chemical weapons.

 

I'd say either the rebels used chemical weapons in order to make it look like Assad was the culprit, or Assad used chemical weapons to fake being under chemical attack by rebels.

[Walsingham]

On consideration I believe that the real dichotomy does not rest upon who used the chemical weapons.

 

The real dichotomy is with regard to the role of the international community. To intervene in internal matters or not, when it is quite obvious that other nations are already intervening.

[kgambit]

 

What was even funnier is that just after the Chemical attack Assad claimed his forces were in fact victims, so you had all these "videos" of Syrian soldiers in hospital showing how they were effected by Chemical weapons. But it was actually embarrassing  when you realize what an obvious charade it was with the soldiers acting and pretending to be very sick

 

 

Yeah like that was going to fool anyone.  Oh wait ......

 

 

 

What is really stupefying to me is why either side chose to use chemical weapons.

 

I'd say either the rebels used chemical weapons in order to make it look like Assad was the culprit, or Assad used chemical weapons to fake being under chemical attack by rebels.

 

There are simply some situations that defy logic.    I think a third possibility is that Assad's offensive is not going nearly as well as people think it is.  He supposedly has total air superiority with fixed wing and helos, ground support from Hezbollah, and Iranian and Russian logistical assets.  It's entirely plausible that he resorted to chemical weapons to try to gain a dominant upper hand that he has been unable to achieve prior to this. Plus he gets the added benefit of killing the opposition civilian support base.  It's a win-win.

 

I don't know Rostere, but I just find the level of resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame by people who are clearly very bright totally stupefying.

Edit:   My apologies - that last bit was over the top. 

 

 

On consideration I believe that the real dichotomy does not rest upon who used the chemical weapons.

 

The real dichotomy is with regard to the role of the international community. To intervene in internal matters or not, when it is quite obvious that other nations are already intervening.

 

If chemical weapons had not been outlawed by almost the entire world, I would probably agree with your first point. it would be significantly harder to make a case against a country for chem weapon use when you or your neighbors still possess them and aren't already actively engaged in destroying them.  But when a rogue state is an outlier in that community it does become a pertinent question imo.  Even more so when the country in question has shown a proclivity for the use of those weapons.

 

Your second point is well taken.    I find it laughable that Assad objects to other nations supplying the rebels or in proposing intervention when he has accepted, ne solicited tacit support from Lebanon, Iran and Russia. 

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[Walsingham]

Well, perhaps a more pertinent irony is that Assad has permitted the supply of Hezbollah in Lebanon for many years. how else do you think it has been possible to integrated the Quds into his order of battle so easily?

 

I would respectfully take issue with your point about rogue states. What _is_ a rogue state when the question of intervention in foreign states is still undecided? It is merely someone we say is a rotter. It does no harm to them, and makes us look weak.

[Malcador]

I don't know Rostere, but I just find the level of resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame by people who are clearly very bright totally stupefying.

Edtt:   My apologies - that last bit was over the top.

Really ? It's just a lack of trust. Recall the last time there was a 'bad guy' with scary weapons in that part of the world That and they're no friend to Syria and have seemed pretty eager.

[kgambit]

Well, perhaps a more pertinent irony is that Assad has permitted the supply of Hezbollah in Lebanon for many years. how else do you think it has been possible to integrated the Quds into his order of battle so easily?

 

I would respectfully take issue with your point about rogue states. What _is_ a rogue state when the question of intervention in foreign states is still undecided? It is merely someone we say is a rotter. It does no harm to them, and makes us look weak.

 

Point about the Quds conceded. 

 

I think calling a country a "rogue state" and an outlier might be viewed as redundant so I would have reworded that if the edit function was still available.  If I remove the term "rogue state" does that significantly alter the argument around how we should view the use of chemical weapons?   I don't think so since the fundamental issue is whether the weapons are actually used not how you label a country for that use.  YMMV.   (I used the term because I intended it to be pejorative and to emphasize that Syria is acting outside international norms, imo.)

 

I think what you are saying is that actions and circumstances dictate when or if intervention is justified, not labels. If so, I agree.    I think the issue of intervention by the west has to be linked not only to the regime's use of chemical weapons but also to the outside intervention on behalf of Assad.  It's not a one off decision and I respectfully disagree with the notion that knowing who was responsible for chemical weapon use does not change the equation.  

[kgambit]

 

I don't know Rostere, but I just find the level of resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame by people who are clearly very bright totally stupefying.

Edtt:   My apologies - that last bit was over the top.

Really ? It's just a lack of trust. Recall the last time there was a 'bad guy' with scary weapons in that part of the world That and they're no friend to Syria and have seemed pretty eager.

 

 

True except the last bad guy had invaded two of his neighbors, had used chemical weapons against one country and against parts of indigenous population and despite being under economic sanctions after the second invasion attempt was still making attempts to circumvent UN inspections and improve his WMD programs.  I don't want to restart the entire Iraq discussion again. 

 

In spite of all that, surprisingly I do actually understand how people might be skeptical based on events as they played out in Iraq. 

 

So a certain amount of skepticism is healthy and probably called for.   But skepticism is a far cry from a steadfast refusal to consider any other possible options.  To be blunt about it, I think it goes way past a lack of trust and I see a number of people who are using it as a convenient excuse to block out any possible debate.  

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[Malcador]

Even so, people see the lead up to that as laden with lies (incidentally, where is Chalabi these days, I wonder, hm). There's not been any real objective proof for people disagreeing to put their fingers in their ears and ignore, in the face of so much BS and the parties involved coming out of this I'd think caution to act is a decent default option.

[Walsingham]

I wonder if the entire way the game is played is not based on rational interest, but sub-rational excuse making.

 

Each possible line of action is considered, and rejected if a possible excuse can be made. The last action option not possessed of an excuse NOT to do it is taken.

 

If I may borrow from Prosper, I believe this observation qualifies me as a genius.

[kgambit]

Even so, people see the lead up to that as laden with lies (incidentally, where is Chalabi these days, I wonder, hm). There's not been any real objective proof for people disagreeing to put their fingers in their ears and ignore, in the face of so much BS and the parties involved coming out of this I'd think caution to act is a decent default option.

 

Chalabi has been found guilty of the Petra banking scandal in Jordan and is under investigation by several US agencies atm.      Again, that's 2003 ..... 

 

At the risk of repeating myself, I understand the skepticism.  But if you immediately reject any evidence that is offered without critical examination solely because of past circumstances, that is not skepticism at all.   Sticking your fingers in your ears to block out dissenting opinion is not skepticism.  Under those constraints there will never be any evidence that you will accept from sources that oppose your already etched in stone point of view.  I think I'm starting to beat a dead horse here .....  lol

 

I'm not arguing against using caution when determining a course of action.   Even if the evidence was seen by everyone as totally without taint and indisputable I would argue for the use of caution.   That's not the issue. 

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[Drowsy Emperor]

The US dumped every new thing straight out of the lab onto Vietnam and no one ever faced criminal charges because of it.

 

Yet a few instances of chemical weapon use that can't be reliably proven to one of the sides are enough cause for war?

 

Bitch, please.

 

 

PS: I don't see that anyone bothered to reply to Zoraptor's observation on Israel and white phosphorus.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Malcador]

That's all ? Shame, was hoping they'd have killed him Who is immediately rejecting evidence though ? So far we're still at the "could be either" stage, no ? And you don't take past experiences into account when someone claims something ?

 

I think the US not acting like they wanted to see the UN report first probably made them seem overeager with the usual outrage.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Malcador

[kgambit]

That's all ? Shame, was hoping they'd have killed him Who is immediately rejecting evidence though ? So far we're still at the "could be either" stage, no ? And you don't take past experiences into account when someone claims something ?

 

I think the US not acting like they wanted to see the UN report first probably made them seem overeager with the usual outrage.

 

I'll send you a pm, but the examples aren't that hard to find.     I simply said some people, not all.  I think there is a middle ground that is skeptical and yet remains open minded.  I don't think it applies to everyone in this thread.

 

If there was a Chalabi or Curveball source heck yes I would be skeptical - really skeptical.  I don't see the bulk of the evidence coming from that type of source.  And it looks like multiple intelligence sources are saying the same things in some cases. 

 

Fair comment about the UN Report but ultimately the US did submit the question to congress.  Whether they would have held off pending the UN Report was made moot by the pending negotiations. 

[Malcador]

Hm, fair enough. I guess it is just a shame there's no independent agency to investigate it, CIA claiming anything doesn't really fill me with confidence, likewise claims by Russian agencies.

[Zoraptor]

There are simply some situations that defy logic.    I think a third possibility is that Assad's offensive is not going nearly as well as people think it is.  He supposedly has total air superiority with fixed wing and helos, ground support from Hezbollah, and Iranian and Russian logistical assets.  It's entirely plausible that he resorted to chemical weapons to try to gain a dominant upper hand that he has been unable to achieve prior to this. Plus he gets the added benefit of killing the opposition civilian support base.  It's a win-win.

It really isn't a win win though, since he'd know he was courting intervention. In isolation it would be true but intervention would make losing near inevitable.

 

It isn't so much that there isn't the possibility of people doing illogical things, it's that it isn't logical in any respect except to provoke a response. In isolation (again) logic would dictate that it is very likely- though not certain- that it was the government since they're the only ones who definitely have the capability, but it isn't in isolation and even if we accept that Assad may not be winning (or winning as quickly as he needs to) the surrounding circumstances are very odd, and consistently so.

 

You want maximum plausible deniability, maximum stall factor, maximum effect with minimum direct evidence but

1) It happens on the day the inspectors arrive

2) It happens somewhere notable, but not really important, a Damascus suburb the rebels had already held for a year.

3) That suburb is convenient to where the inspectors are.

4) So just about anywhere and anywhen else would make more sense, it isn't important enough.

5) It's a large usage, but not as large as it could be and not a militarily significant deployment, specifically

5a) There's no proper follow up to the use. Prepare your troops, saturate the area, seize the ground in the chaos should be the process, but wasn't.

5b) If you seize the ground you also have a chance to clean up after yourself, if you're worried about repercussions.

 

If the information from the alleged german intercepts is correct then Assad did not order any attack and turned down requests to use them previously as well, which would leave the possibility of a 'rogue' Syrian deployment as perhaps the most likely scenario since it explains the rather ad hoc nature of the use, though that would require rather looser control of the stockpiles than has been implied. It isn't conclusive either way no matter what France/ USA/UK, or Russia say. The rebels have captured a lot of stuff, and it's easy to believe that for example in a chaotic situation even supposedly highly protected gear could be lost, and that the most effective use of a moderate amount of captured CW would be to provoke intervention.

[kgambit]

 

It really isn't a win win though, since he'd know he was courting intervention. In isolation it would be true but intervention would make losing near inevitable.

 

 

It isn't so much that there isn't the possibility of people doing illogical things, it's that it isn't logical in any respect except to provoke a response. In isolation (again) logic would dictate that it is very likely- though not certain- that it was the government since they're the only ones who definitely have the capability, but it isn't in isolation and even if we accept that Assad may not be winning (or winning as quickly as he needs to) the surrounding circumstances are very odd, and consistently so.

 

You want maximum plausible deniability, maximum stall factor, maximum effect with minimum direct evidence but

1) It happens on the day the inspectors arrive

2) It happens somewhere notable, but not really important, a Damascus suburb the rebels had already held for a year.

3) That suburb is convenient to where the inspectors are.

4) So just about anywhere and anywhen else would make more sense, it isn't important enough.

5) It's a large usage, but not as large as it could be and not a militarily significant deployment, specifically

5a) There's no proper follow up to the use. Prepare your troops, saturate the area, seize the ground in the chaos should be the process, but wasn't.

5b) If you seize the ground you also have a chance to clean up after yourself, if you're worried about repercussions.

 

If the information from the alleged german intercepts is correct then Assad did not order any attack and turned down requests to use them previously as well, which would leave the possibility of a 'rogue' Syrian deployment as perhaps the most likely scenario since it explains the rather ad hoc nature of the use, though that would require rather looser control of the stockpiles than has been implied. It isn't conclusive either way no matter what France/ USA/UK, or Russia say. The rebels have captured a lot of stuff, and it's easy to believe that for example in a chaotic situation even supposedly highly protected gear could be lost, and that the most effective use of a moderate amount of captured CW would be to provoke intervention.

 

 

Win win in the sense of hitting both the opposition and their support.  Risking Intervention is the downside - agreed.

 

We've talked about the possibility that the ground war may or may not be going his way in a couple of exchanges.  I'm not an expert on military tactics but I do notice that Assad has been hitting the same opposition held areas repeatedly for quite some time.  Maybe he is at a standstill despite all of his advantages?  I don't know and I don't think either of us are capable of profiling Assad or his commanders with any degree of certainty.

 

Almost all of the numbered points involve a lot of speculation, some of it is incorrect and other parts portend to a knowledge of the situation that, respectfully, I do not think either of us possess.  That being said, here's my views on those 5+ bullet points:     (You can skip down to 5a and then go on from there.  The others just offer possible issues that are minor to some degree.  #5a is substantive I think)

 

#1 - Incorrect -   They arrived 3 days prior to the attack.   "The 20-member UN inspection team has been in Syria since 18 August to look into three earlier suspected chemical attacks."   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900  

 

#2 - it was important as a base for rebels operations with a civilian populace that supported the opposition I don't pretend to know how important but I don't think you can dismiss it either

 

#3 - the inspectors were based in central Damascus (see the bbc link) so the proximity to the attack locations does not matter.  The fact that the attack locations were all opposition held and might present access difficulties is far more pertinent and yet the inspectors got into all of the attack zones.

 

#4 - the impact areas were all opposition held - important only as targets for Assad - if it was the rebels I would have aimed for 155/4th HQ, a nearby airport or other targets - something a few km away from positions of my own troops.  Errant friendly fire doesn't make sense in this scenario - the weather conditions dispel the notion of a drifting gas cloud

 

#5 - Respectfully you're making judgments that I don't think you are qualified to make.   I doubt that you have eyes on the ground to know what level of support the opposition gets from that area or what military targets might have been there.   I know I don't. 

 

#5a - There was a follow-on HE artillery barrage that may have been intended to maximize casualties and severely damage medical response capability. (kill the first responders scenario)  That's conjecture but so is the presumption that a tactical ground follow up was either intended or desired.  A follow-up into the area would have required chemical weapon units with specially designed vehicles and protective gear unless you intended to sacrifice them.  Nothing would scream WE DID IT more than sending in those troops.  One video showing Syrian Chem weapon troops or a dead Syrian Soldier in protective hazmat gear would have been the smoking gun the rebels craved.  It would have been positive proof that the regime knew about the chemical attacks and was prepared to exploit them.  For maximum deniabilit, you want as little solid evidence tracking things back to you.  No special troops, no special gear   ...   Look into the Russia use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan in 1979, they went in with fully geared chem units and used them after chem attacks.

 

#5b - See #5a - A clean-up only follows if you choose to enter the area.  Even with one, the sarin samples would still be retrievable from ground soil samples and human blood testing unless you plan to use a scorched earth and level the area and frankly the continued fighting around those areas indicates that a quick mop-up was not likely.  

 

you mentioned maximum effect:

Big leap on that.  Given the relatively small effects from the previous attacks, this did represent a significant increase in usage.  Maximum use?  Probably note, but perhaps the target density didn't justify it.  Again, speculation on the desired effect doesn't change things.

 

 

you mentioned maximum stall factor:

#6 -  the delay in accessing the area is meaningless without a total cleanup, and interviews with survivors and doctors would still be possible and blood samples could still be taken, clean up of soil would be a huge undertaking and likely not feasible so the only evidence that would be at risk would be the rocket delivery systems  - again that requires a substantial incursion into the area

 

 

you mentioned maximum deniability:

At the simplest level, I agree that Assad's claim that "he" never ordered the use chemical weapons might strictly be true.  It might have been his brother the commander of the 155th/4th who actually ordered the CW use to give Assad plausible deniability.   Those German (and Israeli and US) intercepts all detailed conversations that did not involve Assad but do point to regime unit chatter than confirms CW usage.    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/german-intel-assad-did-not-order-syria-gas-attack/

 

The report claims that  intercepted messages among Syrian officials  indicate Mr. Assad’s commanders went behind his back in launching the chemical weapons.  That's STILL regime usage.  It does beg the question of who bears the ultimate responsibility.  Even if you argue that Assad didn't push the button himself, he still bears the responsibility for those under his command that did.  The buck stops here, remember?  .   Further, had a rogue commander done this, Assad could have made huge hay with a public execution for "a traitorous murderers who violated his commands".  Think of how that would have played in the west.  CNN would have a media orgasm over that. 

 

But I'll concede the point that one would need to re-examine the situation in that light.  Especially since that puts the entire issue of how secure those CWs are.  (Holy ****e - did we actually agree on something?  lol ) 

 

Other details:

a) Attack trajectories clearly show that the rockets were launched from areas held by regime forces in close proximity to existing military bases. 

b) The composition of the Sarin gas is definitely not a "shake and bake" brew up implying advanced lab equipment and good quality precursors. 

c) The 330mm rockets used in some of the attacks have never been documented as being used by the rebels (captured or otherwise)

 

all of those point to regime use

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

We've talked about the possibility that the ground war may or may not be going his way in a couple of exchanges.  I'm not an expert on military tactics but I do notice that Assad has been hitting the same opposition held areas repeatedly for quite some time.

The alternative is a variation on the 'kettling' tactic, as the British police would call it. His big advantage is his set piece weapons, letting the rebels come into established kill zones is good tactics. He has retaken most of the strategically important places he's gone for in the past couple of months, though that is obviously somewhat self selecting.

 

Almost all of the numbered points involve a lot of speculation, some of it is incorrect and other parts portend to a knowledge of the situation that, respectfully, I do not think either of us possess.

yep, it's all speculation, but so is the rebuttal for the most part. We cannot pretend to know the situation on the ground in any detail, but we have to presume that Assad would know CW use would be a red line as Obama said it explicitly- so any authorised use should be of enough significance to offset that. An attack on the Presidential Palace, the International Airport, cutting a vital supply line or encircling the enemy, something like that. And for the offensive uses the main advantage can only be gained by following up, hard.

 

#1 - Incorrect -   They arrived 3 days prior to the attack.

True, but the point is more that the inspectors were there and immediately available, not what day they arrived on. In either case, usage a day prior to or especially a day after them being there makes far more sense.

 

#2 - it was important as a base for rebels operations with a civilian populace that supported the opposition I don't pretend to know how important but I don't think you can dismiss it either

My reasons for thinking it is relatively unimportant are mainly based on it being in rebel hands for a year. Under those circumstances I feel a case must be made for why it was important to use CW there, 'now', as opposed to when the inspectors were gone.

 

#4 - the impact areas were all opposition held - important only as targets for Assad - if it was the rebels I would have aimed for 155/4th HQ, a nearby airport or other targets

That's the militarily logical way of doing things, in isolation, but not all the rebels are militarily logical. And from a PR POV it would destroy the rebels internationally if they made that scale of CW attack. I also make the judgement that the thing the rebels want more than anything, militarily, is direct intervention to level the playing field. Even well run militaries are not always as respectful of civilians as they could be, when there's an advantage at stake.

 

#5 - Respectfully you're making judgments that I don't think you are qualified to make.   I doubt that you have eyes on the ground to know what level of support the opposition gets from that area or what military targets might have been there.   I know I don't.

It's a judgement call, yes, based upon the length the rebels have held it more than anything.

 

#5a - There was a follow-on HE artillery barrage that may have been intended to maximize casualties and severely damage medical response capability.

I'd again come back to the military significance point though. Why there, and why then? Was it really that important? As I said there are circumstances where it's eminently believable, achieving a critical breakthrough or defending a critical area. As for the hazmat, their response would clearly be "we came under CW attack from the rebels", and I'm not convinced they would need hazmat that much- if you have air superiority and artillery plus tanks you could prevent most reinforcement until the gas has cleared, and issuing atropine or similar would not be conclusive against them given they've accused the rebels prior of using gas.

 

#5b - See #5a - A clean-up only follows if you choose to enter the area.

But if you have control of the area you can remove incriminating evidence and plant obfuscating or framing evidence. That is allegedly what happened at several massacre sites, and this was a bit above a mere massacre both in scale and potential repercussions- and they would have known that.

 

Big leap on that.  Given the relatively small effects from the previous attacks, this did represent a significant increase in usage.  Maximum use?  Probably note, but perhaps the target density didn't justify it.  Again, speculation on the desired effect doesn't change things.

Again, that's mainly to do with the military advantage argument. You want something to offset the risks, if you're going to do something large and obvious which courts intervention it needs to have large rewards to balance it out- go the whole hog on something important, or just use the tips of the trotters so no one notices or gets too upset.

 

(Holy ****e - did we actually agree on something?  lol )

Oh, you'd be surprised. I think the only substantive difference is that while I do find it most likely that regime forces used them given the current evidence I don't think it's conclusive, and would like something which deals with motive a bit more than the cartoonish "Assad is a thug, lol" that is largely being portrayed. I'm basically treating it as I would a trial, you're prosecutor and I'm defender so it's my job to promote alternative scenarios.

[Rostere]

 

What is really stupefying to me is why either side chose to use chemical weapons.

 

I'd say either the rebels used chemical weapons in order to make it look like Assad was the culprit, or Assad used chemical weapons to fake being under chemical attack by rebels.

 

There are simply some situations that defy logic.    I think a third possibility is that Assad's offensive is not going nearly as well as people think it is.  He supposedly has total air superiority with fixed wing and helos, ground support from Hezbollah, and Iranian and Russian logistical assets.  It's entirely plausible that he resorted to chemical weapons to try to gain a dominant upper hand that he has been unable to achieve prior to this. Plus he gets the added benefit of killing the opposition civilian support base.  It's a win-win.

 

I don't know Rostere, but I just find the level of resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame by people who are clearly very bright totally stupefying.

Edit: My apologies - that last bit was over the top. 

 

I have to disagree, I do not think there are any situations which defy logic. That said, there are people who act irrationally (consciously against what would be their own interests), or people who are idealists instead of pragmatists, but I don't think Assad himself fits in that camp or that it's the most likely explanation.

 

If you are referring to me when you are talking about "resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame" remember firstly that I am in general for an intervention. Currently I think that it would be diplomatically impossible, however. Secondly, I made clear the possibility that either side had used chemical weaponry. I am however firm in my belief that I think the attack had the sole purpose to frame the other side (whichever side used it). Clearly Assad had feigned (or so it seems?) chemical attacks on his own troops earlier. I don't need to tell you why it would be in the rebels' interest to make a chemical attack on themselves. However currently the evidence which exists on this attack is insufficient to implicate either side without uncertainty.

[Guard Dog]

And in the news today Obama has used an Executive order to waive a law the prohibits the United States from giving arms to terrorist backed groups. So, he want to take my guns away from me and give guns to the Syrian rebels, terrorists and all. Is it 2016 yet?

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885