Find the snipers who fired upon the UN inspectors and we will know who used the chemical weapons...

[Gravitycollapse]

Yesterday, someone used a high power sniper rifle against a convoy of UN inspectors who were entering a Damascus suburb to inspect for evidence of chemical weapons.

The lead vehicle was disabled but no one was hurt.

Find the snipers who fired upon those vehicles, figure out who they are fighting for and we will know who used the chemical weapons.

[KittyWampus]

1. Find who kept shelling the area repeatedly for days and we will know… that was Assad.

Actually, I don't think that tells all. But it's using your logic.

[KansDem]

2. We collect a billion communications a day...

I think we know who the snipers were. And I think we know who authorized the use of gas, and who manufactured it and supplied it.

[cliffordu]

3. The sniper was a lousy shot.

That's all.


No correlation between one and the other.

[Kber]

4. Maybe. Maybe not.

Could just as easily have been a "local" whose family was attached, maybe even killed. Then you get a convoy of official looking vehicles and, without knowing really who they are or what they are doing, he decides to defend his region from further incursion.

Or it could be you are right, but I think the relationship between the two is not that strong. It's a war zone and sometimes people shoot in the wrong direction.

Which is the whole problem, isn't it? The entirely confused situation on the ground makes it very hard to tell friend from foe, even if you live there and know the local politics and players well. Even if you want to do the "right thing", whatever that might be, I think it would be just as easy to screw it up.

I just don't know how much good US intervention would really do. In fact, I think we would do more harm than good. But I suspect we largely agree on that point.