General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJuan Cole: Assad regime responsible for gas attacks
Cole is an excellent source. He does not support U.S. military intervention. His analysis is widely respected.
<snip>
Some have asked why the regime would risk using poison gas when it has been making gains against the rebels. But the regime’s advances are minor and tenuous. It only took the small town of Qusayr with Hizbullah help! And ‘advances’ in Homs were just scorched earth destruction of neighborhoods. They were offset by loss of a major air base near Aleppo, key for resupply of troops up there because roads north are insecure. The regime can only advance here or there, but doesn’t have manpower to take back substantial territory.
My guess is that rebels in Rif Dimashq in outskirts of the capital were making inroads toward Damascus itself. Defensive troops are off tied down in Homs. Since the capital is the real prize and end game, the regime decided to let them know it wouldn’t be allowed. It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry. Although there was a risk in using the gas, the regime may have felt threatened enough to take the risk, confident that it could muddy the waters afterwards with charges that it was actually the rebels who were behind it.
I don’t find the ‘false flag’ narrative about the gas attack put forward by the Russians plausible. Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret. How could they have been sure no one among them would get cold feet and blow the whistle? Killing hundreds of women and children from your own clans would be objectionable to at least some in any group of fighters. The fighters in Rif Dimashq are not the hardened Jabhat al-Nusra types. Besides, capturing and deploying rocket systems tipped with poison gas is not so easy; even just operating them takes training.
<snip.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html
More:
<snip>
US intelligence agencies released an intercept on Wednesday showing that after the attack, a ministry of defense official made outraged inquiries from a local commander as to what in the world he had done.
The intercept would be consistent with local Baath chem warfare units routinely mixing a little deadly sarin gas into crowd control gas, killing small numbers of rebels with each deployment, but in this case making an error and getting the mix wrong. Thus, around a thousand were killed instead of dozens. British intelligence seems to have come to a similar conclusion
Apparently there are new, Jordanian-trained, guerrilla forces in Rif Dimashq near the capital that account for the local commanders’ panic and desire to forcefully push them back.
The intercept does not prove that Bashar al-Assad knew about or ordered the chemical weapons attack. It does not, however, disprove that the Baath regime has a systematic policy of low level use of chemical weapons.
It does put paid to the crackpot conspiracy theory, advanced by the regime and the Russians, that the rebels gassed themselves.
<snip>
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/western-strike-stall.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
atreides1
(16,066 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)from checking out Juan Cole's opinion. His track record is impressive.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Nothing beats empirical evidence, if you can get it.
Cole plays a usual remote observer's game of imagining a limited idea of woulds and shoulds and judging on the basis of whether he thinks his own imaginary constructs are plausible or implausible.
Example:
Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret. How could they have been sure no one among them would get cold feet and blow the whistle?
As with much well-done sophistry, the assumptions are kept implicit as in explicit terms they would be too obviously full of holes. The assumptions here being that "rebel forces," per se, would commit this act as a coalition with multiple factions aware of the operation, thus rendering it ridiculous to think they'd have the discipline, etc. It would, of course, be equally ridiculous to think that if the Syrian military committed the attack, the entirety of Assad's government would be clued in.
But somebody committed this attack! And they either did it for the Syrian army's military advantage or as a false-flag to draw a Western intervention.
The most important element in a false-flag attack would have been access to the weapons for a group willing to carry it out. We have to assume a group that has the right ally.
Otherwise, it doesn't have to be (and obviously would not be) a group that's actually sheltered in East and West Ghouta. Another red herring from Cole.
In fact, the "lack of discipline" of the rebels suddenly appears as an advantage to such a plot. It means there are no "rebels" as such, they are various factions, in part at odds with each other (there have even been assassinations among them).
So one of these groups - let's say one of the ones called "al-Qaeda," which would make the most sense, since they'll tend to be fanatic international mercenaries with good connections to spooks and arms merchants abroad - would go ahead and spring the attack on the territory of another group. Obviously without informing any other rebel groups! Let another faction's people die, and then they too will honestly serve the cause by blaming Assad, right?
Not that I know that's what happened. I merely illustrate that Cole intentionally obscures the plausible scenarios and uses the least likely scenario for a false flag, because he already has his "Assad did it" conclusion in mind.
This same Cole of course already supported the US military campaign in Libya, and he may find reason to support the latest aggression in Syria, if it happens.
As has been said, let's at least wait for the UN inspectors!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)opinions found regarding Damascus are rightwing sites. I have been searching for like 2 days for any credible voices saying this was a false flag attack.
Only places like World Net Daily are saying this.
Damascus was a large scale attack. Different than the previous alleged incidents which might have been rebels.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)chemicals.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I believe Cole has a link.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Israel may have intercepted Syrian discussions about chemical attack
Israel may have intercepted Syrian discussions about chemical attack
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-israel-intelligence-chemical-attack-20130827,0,1940412.story
By Ken Dilanian
August 27, 2013, 2:25 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- An elite Israeli intelligence unit intercepted conversations among high ranking Syrian government officials discussing last week’s apparent chemical attack outside Damascus as it unfolded, a German news magazine has reported.
Citing an anonymous Israeli ex-intelligence official, Germany’s Focus magazine said Saturday that Israel’s secretive signals intelligence agency, Unit 8200, eavesdropped on a conversation between senior Syrian officials about use of chemical agents.
On Friday, Israel’s Channel 2 reported that rockets containing chemical agents were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, a division under the command of the Syrian president’s brother, Maher Assad.
The shells were reportedly fired from a military base in a mountain range west of Damascus, the news channel said, without disclosing its sources.
snip
CNN cited U.S. officials Tuesday as saying that intercepted conversations would be included in a U.S. intelligence assessment that the White House will release to the public.
U.S. intelligence agencies long have relied on Israel to help provide intelligence about Syria. Israel’s spy services have many more Arabic-speakers than do the CIA and National Security Agency, and Israel is believed to have a network of spies within Syria.
Still, a former CIA officer with long Middle East experience advised skepticism of purported leaked intercepts. Israel would be reluctant to disclose that it could listen in on senior Syrian figures, he said.
“Because once you do that, it goes away,” he said, asking not to be quoted by name speaking about sensitive intelligence matters.
However, he acknowledged that Israel has superior intelligence coverage of Syria.
“They only do a few things, and they do them very well,” he said. “They collect mainly on the countries that border them, and because they focus only on those targets, they are very effective. Their technical ability is on par with much larger nations.”
blazeKing
(329 posts)The al Qaeda rebels had been caught 3 times before using chemical weapons in Syria. Oops.
cali
(114,904 posts)of that. there is no documentation. There are reports of the Assad regime using them as well, again no documentation.
There have been multiple unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, possibly 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate which is generally non-fatal.[35][36] However in response to these reports U.S. National Security Council spokesman stated "The reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program".[30] In 2013, a YouTube video was posted from the town of Otaibeh indicating that the Syrian army had used chemical weapons. The video shows a flock of dead birds on the ground as evidence substantiating the claim.[37]
In December 2012, Syrian forces, following the advice of Russian military advisers, concentrated their stockpiles of chemical weapons into two to four main storage areas for reasons of security and safety.[38][39]
On 19 March 2013, new unconfirmed reports surfaced that SCUD missiles armed with chemical agents may have been fired into the Khan al-Asal district in Aleppo and the Al Atebeh suburbs of Damascus, with both sides accusing each other of carrying out the attack.[40] According to a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, the attack occurred in rebel territory,[41] though Reuters photographs showed images of Syrian government soldiers injured in the attack.[42] An unnamed Reuters photographer described the gas as having a "chlorine-like smell" and claimed to have witnessed victims suffocating.[43] Officials from within the United States government disputed this claim and stated that there had been no substantive evidence of chemical warfare in Syria,[42] although President Obama reiterated the American stance that such a move coming from either side would be a "game changer" and might prompt international intervention in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation.[44] Meanwhile, the Russian government sided with the Syrian government and blamed the rebels for the attack.[42] Within weeks, the Assad government accused the UN of attempting to extend an investigation in Khan al-Asal to the rest of the country and declared that it would not tolerate such a move.[45]
Zahir al-Sakit, a former Syrian army general from the chemical weapons branch, said he was instructed to use chemical weapons during a battle with the FSA in the southwestern area of Hauran. But instead, Sakit disobeyed the orders and swapped the chemicals with disinfectant water he called "Javel water".[46]
On 13 April, The Times reported that British military scientists have found forensic evidence of chemical weapons being used in the conflict, after examining a soil sample smuggled out of Syria.[47] The perpetrators of the probable gas attacks remain unknown.[48]
An 23 April 2013 the New York Times reported that the British and French governments had sent a confidential letter to the United Nations Secretary General, claiming that there was evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in Aleppo, Homs, and perhaps Damascus. The United States did not acknowledge this claim at this time, which the New York Times article speculated was because President Obama had promised to intervene militarily if chemical weapon use was proven, and the United States would prefer not to be forced to enter the war right now. Israel also claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 19 March near Aleppo and Damascus.[49] By 25 April the U.S intelligence assessment was that the Assad regime had likely used chemical weapons – specifically sarin gas.[50] However, the White House announced that "much more" work had to be done to verify the intelligence assessments.[51] Syria has refused an investigation team from the UN from entering Syria, though Jeffrey Feltman, UN under-secretary for political affairs, said on Wednesday that a refusal would not prevent an inquiry from being carried out.[52]
On 29 April, another chemical attack was reported, this time in Saraqib, in which 2 died and 13 were injured. The injured were taken to Turkey. On 5 May, Turkish doctors confirmed that no traces of sarin had been found in the blood samples of victims.[53] The same day, members of the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria said it had 'gathered testimony – indicating' rebels had used the nerve agent sarin in attacks. Commission member Carla del Ponte said that there were 'strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas', from the way the victims were treated". Del Ponte gave no details as to when or where sarin may have been used.[54] The Commission later clarified that it had no conclusive findings that any party has used chemical weapons.[55] A senior United States White House official, Jay Carney, cast doubt on the idea that rebels could use chemicals weapons, or even possess them. Carney also noted that Del Ponte does not work on the UN team leading the investigation. Carney went on to say "We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime. And that remains our position".[56]
It is believed the military research center, which Israel struck on 5 May, held chemical weapons.[57]
After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians.[58][59]
A U.N. report stated that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that limited amounts of chemical weapons have been used in at least four attacks in the civil war, but more evidence is needed to determine the exact chemical agents used or who was responsible. Stating that it has not been possible "to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator."[60]
<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
FSogol
(45,445 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)(like anything else from this region) this is highly speculative,
which he admits by prefacing so many paragraphs by qualifiers such as "My guess is".
His guess may weigh more than mine,
but I disagree in one critical area.
Juan Cole claims that:
"Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret."
A handful of members of the Apocalyptic Group Aum Shinrikyo used Sarin Gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995.
Unlike Juan Cole, I DO believe that a Sarin Chem Attack could have easily been pulled off by a small group with a number of different objectives,
but primarily to provoke the USA into this fight to do their dirty work.
People with the knowledge, equipment, and personnel to do this have been attracted to that part of the World for over over 30 years. I don't think it would be difficult to find them.... especially if you have enough US Dollars.
cali
(114,904 posts)<snip>
On Monday March 20, 1995, five members of Aum Shinrikyo launched a chemical attack on the Tokyo subway, one of the world's busiest commuter transport systems, at the peak of the morning rush hour. The chemical agent used, liquid sarin, was contained in plastic bags which each team then wrapped in newspaper. Each perpetrator carried two packets totaling approximately 900 millilitres of sarin, except Yasuo Hayashi, who carried three bags. Aum originally planned to spread the sarin as an aerosol but did not follow through with it. A single drop of sarin the size of a pinhead can kill an adult.
Carrying their packets of sarin and umbrellas with sharpened tips, the perpetrators boarded their appointed trains. At prearranged stations, the sarin packets were dropped and punctured several times with the sharpened tip of the umbrella. Each perpetrator then got off the train and exited the station to meet his accomplice with a car. By leaving the punctured packets on the floor, the sarin was allowed to leak out into the train car and stations. This sarin affected passengers, subway workers, and those who came into contact with them. Sarin is the most volatile of the nerve agents,[citation needed] which means that it can quickly and easily evaporate from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment. People can be exposed to the vapor even if they do not come in contact with the liquid form of sarin. Because it evaporates so quickly, sarin presents an immediate but short-lived threat.[12]
<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
In Ghouta the evidence is that rockets were used as a delivery system and it was a far more extensive attack. Reportedly 46 rebel fighters died. There are no reports of Syrian military or police deaths.
Cole's explanation of why he believes that it was Assad forces is more than just the belief that rebel forces lacked the capability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack_claims
I agree that his speculation has more weight than yours or mine simply because it's far more informed.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)than other previous alleged attacks in Syria.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I need to see some numbers before "large scale" means anything.