There has not been ONE reason given for Assad to have used these weapons

[Vinnie From Indy]

beyond "he is a crazy mofo".

I have yet to read any speculation in the media as to why Assad would have used these weapons. It simply makes no sense considering that he made no strategic or tactical gain from their use. This is an existential fight for the Assad regime and it simply makes no sense to commit the very act that he was warned would cause western intervention on the side of the rebels.

It is telling that not a single major media outlet has speculated on WHY Assad would have used these weapons.

[Junkdrawer]

1. The French are floating a "desperate attempt to stop 300 Supermen" theory.....

You can't make this shit up.

[blazeKing]

2. The media is always pro-war

And they'll lie for the administration too if it means more war and better ratings.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. I'm opposed to war with Syria

But this isn't the MSM.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. War sells a lot of beer and Cheetos when those dazzling cruise missles blow up stuff.

[JI7]

3. Assad supports what the military in Egypt is doing to the brotherhood

and others .

if he was the one to have used the chemical weapons last time around he maybe have thought he could do it and get away with it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. To what end?

Why would he calculate that these weapons would be more effective than his conventional weapons? In fact, reality and experience conclusively show these weapons are not as effective as traditional munitions.

[JI7]

9. it's psychological also , i just don't find it hard to believe he would use it

of course we need to wait for what the inspectors will say.

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. So, you are offering that Assad

used these weapons as psychological warfare knowing he would face a western response that will greatly benefit the enemies. The very enemies he has recently made significant gains against using conventional weapons?

That makes no sense at all.

[JI7]

16. the west has not responded , and if he was behind the use of these weapons the last time around

he saw or felt he could get away with it .

[wild bird]

11. Terror?

Buy using them, he creates terror among the civilians.
I don't know who used those heinous weapons, and neither does anyone else here, right now, it's all speculation.

That's one of the many reasons I'm vehemently opposed to military action in Syria.

[Puzzledtraveller]

4. I thought this right away.

I seem to recall that recent reports had rebel forces heavily decimated and retreating in many places. So if Assad, acting somewhat rationally on any given day consent to the use of or order chemical weapons be deployed knowing full well what he would be inviting?

[Adrahil]

7. Why did Saddam use them?

The reason is clear: He wants to terrify the opposition and believes his Russian friends can intimidate the West into not doing anything.

I admit: I am war-weary. We fought one justified war (poorly, for 7 years) and one completely unjustified war. I'm sick of war. And even if justified, a strike won't really accomplish much. OTOH, Assad IS a sonovabitch, and if he isn't slapped down, he will will escalate use of those weapons.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. In my opinion, it was a combination of desparation and terrorism.

After the heavy use of conventional weapons, support by Russia, Hamas, and the Iranian military he has not stopped the rebels, only spread the rebellion.

A number of high ranking Syrian military men and officials have defected showing his government is in disarray.

There have been several other reports of Chemical weapons use:

September 2012 - Shells in the Desert: Syria Tested Chemical Weapons Systems, Witnesses Say

France warned that Syria used Chemical Weapons in September 2012

December 24 Here's What The 'Agent-15' Chemical Doctors Say Was Used In Syria Does To People

January 14 Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria

There are more. It could be that after using Chemical weapons in limited ways as a test for almost a year to test what the international community would do, and no one doing anything about it, he decided that he could do so with impunity.

[Vinnie From Indy]

17. Nonsense!

Assad had been making significant military gains against the rebels recently and to suddenly use weapons that would invite western intervention makes no sense.

"Second, why would the Assad regime do something so stupid? It must know that by using chemical weapons it would isolate itself from any international support and invite a Western military response. More importantly, Assad was already winning the war – so why bother to use WMDs during the last lap to victory? Indeed, the only people who have anything to gain by Assad using chemicals are the rebels, because that would internationalise the conflict in a way that they have long lobbied for."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100232698/syria-why-would-assad-invite-a-western-intervention-by-using-wmds-in-a-war-he-was-winning/

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Well, the first is hubris.

Second, the Russians support him and he knows we don't want a fight with the bear.
Third, Iran supports him and just today made threats to attack Israel and spread the war.

And I've seen no evidence of a last lap to victory.

Assad has motive, means, and opportunity.

The rebels don't meet that test.

[KittyWampus]

22. I also posted yesterday news from Al Jazeera that rebels have taken north/coastal syrian town

an Assad stronghold.

[wild bird]

28. Here's the thing.

You keep saying that it doesn't make sense that Assad would use Sarin because he's winning, but you're assuming that he thinks like a western leader would, which is the farthest from the truth.

For a despot like Assad, it doesn't matter if he's winning, and that is in doubt at this point, but how to so terrorize the population so that if he does put down this insurgency, they won't dare rise up again, and what better way than to demonstrate that he will use these WMD's.

[rdharma]

13. WHY Assad would have used these weapons for tactical reasons.

There is nothing more costly in terms of resources and casualties than taking a built up area (MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain) from a serious defender.

Armor advantage? Negated.

Numbers advantage? Greatly in favor of the defender.

Local populace sympathies? Certainly not with Assad.

Assad is not crazy...... he's just evil and made the gamble to save his ass.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. He was winning the war.

There were no tactical or strategic advantages to use these weapons.

[Gravitycollapse]

23. You just might win faster if you use chemical weapons.

It's terrorism or a war of attrition. Or both. The point is to make the enemy so terrified of you that they have no other choice but to surrender.

[rdharma]

25. No. Assad wasn't "winning the war".

When you have a strong rebel presence in Damascus and rebels gaining ground every day, how can you claim that nonsense?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Gosh on CNN had a nice Freudian slip

Kept referring to Assad as Sadam

This was telling

[eissa]

15. Who would benefit from the use of chemical weapons?

The rebels only. They have been desperate to get western intervention (and will just as eagerly turn on them once they gain power.) It makes ZERO sense for the Assad regime to not only use chemical weapons, but in areas where there is a heavy pro-regime population, including many of their own forces. Why would they resort to such tactics knowing the US is itching to get involved, and this would provide the excuse they needed? It's all bullshit.

[KittyWampus]

24. Not true, I posted an interview below from an al jazeera analyst. But at this point, DU is an echo

chamber

[eissa]

26. Yes, saw that

It's not 1988, Assad is not Saddam, and if consensus now means echo chamber, then so be it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. Yes. This is almost too good to be true for the rebels. It smells.

On the day after UN chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Damascus, no less.

Maybe I'm wrong. I have yet to see any convincing evidence, though.

[KittyWampus]

21. I posted an Al Jazeera interview yesterday. So there are potential reasons, you just ignore them

Marwan Bishara discusses the implications for the international community of potential chemical weapons use in Syria.
Last Modified: 23 Aug 2013 17:55
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013823155635125544.html


On the other hand, such an attack could be part of a strategy - chemical or otherwise - to tip the balance decidedly on Assad's side.

After all, poison gas is both a potent military and psychological weapon; it's an "efficient" means that kills and terrorises the masses - the perfect combination for a regime that couldn't care less about international indignation.

A chemical weapon is not only used out of desperation; it can also used rather bombastically, as in 1988 when used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja.

Assad's main concern is to be seen as a strongman, and if the road to victory goes through infamy, so be it.

In other words, the use of chemical weapons could result from missing the basic ingredients of political and human decency. Point being, the regime attempts to overwhelm the opposition use of retail violence - excuse the expression - through wholesale killings.

His regime diplomatically protected by Russia, could be sending the unequivocal message that nothing can protect its detractors from its wrath, and that the end justifies the means.

While such a step raises the stakes, it also maximises the regime's short-term military gains.

Arguably, it's also used as a way to send a message to Israel and the West that Syria has the means to retaliate against future bombardments.

[kelliekat44]

27. It makes no sense to kill your own people to send a message to Israel. this is BS

[KittyWampus]

29. Assad doesn't consider the rebels "his people". And if you read the interview, he goes into why

it may NOT have been Assad using chemical weapons.

[eissa]

30. He'd be right

considering most of them are not actually Syrian.

[wild bird]

31. The fallacy here is that people think that Assad is thinking like a Western leader

and would act logically, like a Western leader, which is farthest from the truth.

[KittyWampus]

34. yes, and it's good to find different perspectives. It does help.

[HooptieWagon]

33. Curveball...is that you?

[Cicada]

32. If America attacks Syria it helps Assad

If Russia attacked us we would rally behind Obama. Syria surely wants the US to attack it to help its domestic support.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Juan Cole on why it might have been Assad's forces

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.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html

Note that he is sceptical about American intervention; but he does think it's more likely to have been the government forces than rebels.