How do we KNOW it couldn't have been the "rebels" launching the gas?

[Ken Burch]

From what we've seen thus far, the anti-Assad groups aren't exactly Gandhian.

Any reason we should assume it would HAVE to have been the regime?

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. because they were dropped from planes and the rebels do not have planes???/

[HooptieWagon]

3. Then why are reports it from rockets?

And another possibility is that a govt attack intentionally or unintentionally hit a rebel chemical weapon cache.

Other than gas apparrently killed a lot of civilians, we can't be sure of the who or what at this point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. can you show me that?

yeah they know alot more than they are telling you right now...

[Tx4obama]

11. Actually...

There were two different kinds of attacks.

The saran type gas missiles were launched from the ground.

The napalm type missiles were launched from military jets from the sky.

[Xithras]

24. They were NOT dropped from planes.

This has already been corrected a number of times, but people are still confusing two different events.

The schoolyard bombing involved jets. But while that bombing was tragic, it involved neither chemical weapons or war crimes.

The chemical weapons attacks occurred during an artillery and rocket attack. Both the Mossad leak and the official U.S. government report have confirmed that there were no large missiles or aircraft in the air at the time. Our own government says that the gasses weren't dropped from jets, and there is clearly no reason for them to lie for Assad.

[mia]

2. How do we know that it was neither the rebels nor the regime? n/t

[BainsBane]

4. The rebels who released the video have been killed, for starters

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/29/youtube_syria

Also who else do you think maintains a force of fighter jets in Syria? Witnesses reported chemicals being released from fighter jets.

[BlueStreak]

12. Your post seems misleading to me.

You make it sound like they were executed somehow. But unless I missed something, I didn't see where the article ever said what caused their deaths. It said they "paid with their lives" but offered no further information on that.

Unless you know that they are indeed dead and how they died, I'd suggest editing that post to make it less misleading.

[BainsBane]

17. No, it is not misleading

They didn't die from old age. They were killed.

"The chemical attacks, on the first day of the massacre, claimed the lives of many media activists in Zamalka coordination because they inhaled the chemical toxic gases," Murad Abu Bilal, the sole survivor, told Zaitouneh in an interview uploaded to -- what else -- YouTube. "[T]hey went out to shoot and collect information about the chemical attack, but none of them came back."

I understand you don't support war, but that does't require defending a brutal dictator or denying reality. There is nothing wrong with my OP.

[BlueStreak]

23. "Killed" usually means somebody took an action to kill them

In the context of your post, the implication is that they were executed BECAUSE they distributed the video.

Far from that, they apparently died because they chose to go into the area that had chemical agents.

It is heroic. I'm not disputing that. But I believe your post is misleading, and hearing your defense of it, I guess that was intentional.

[BainsBane]

33. by chemical weapons

I read your blatant distortion of the NPR piece. It's obvious that the truth means nothing to you.

[BlueStreak]

35. What did I say that distorted the NPR article?

[BlueStreak]

5. If the NPR article is correct, then it most likely WAS the rebels

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023567346

NPR said that the latest incident was in an area controlled by the rebels. They wrote "the alleged chemical attack happened in the Ghouta region of Damascus. It is controlled by the rebels, and civilians in the area sympathize with the rebels."

SO the question becomes where exactly were the victims? Were they in a location that would likely have been the target of a government rocket or were they in a position that more likely could have come from a store under control of the rebels?

This seems like exactly the sort of question we would expect the US team to answer. So why is Obama forcing the UN team to pack up 2 days early and rush out of there before they can complete a competent evaluation? Isn't it worth taking a couple of days to get closer to the truth?

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. say what????

it was seen dropped from aircraft....what part of that do you not understand?

[BlueStreak]

13. What is your evidence for that claim?

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. Here's one...a map of where the chemicals were ...

[BlueStreak]

25. What is the evidence of your claim that the chemicals were dropped from planes?

Don't change the subject. You made a strong claim stated as if it were fact. Please provide evidence or else acknowledge that your opinion on that matter is speculation.

[HooptieWagon]

14. Surviving witnessess: Rockets, 5am.

http://news.sky.com/story/1134443/syria-gas-attack-my-eyes-were-on-fire

I don't know where you get idea people saw gas being dropped from jets at 5am, unless pulled from your nether region.

[KittyWampus]

28. Sky News? It's the equivalent of FOX. It's pathetic you'd offer that as a source.

[HooptieWagon]

29. They're quoting named witnesses.

Feel free to find another source.

[pnwmom]

20. NPR article said it MAY HAVE been the rebels. It was speculation.

Where do you read that Obama is forcing the UN team to leave early?

[BlueStreak]

27. That was also reported on NPR this afternoon -- broadcast

I don't have citation for that at my fingertips because I heard it on the radio. The inspectors were scheduled to complete their work and report to home base on Sunday. According to that report, Obama forced them to move that ahead 2 days -- leaving Friday. The implication was that Obama really couldn't start bombing when he was away at the G20 meetings next week so he needed the inspectors out of the way to start bombing this weekend.

Here is an NBC report on that.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20264423-un-weapons-inspectors-pull-out-of-syria-ahead-of-schedule?lite

[pnwmom]

38. Thanks. n/t

[BainsBane]

31. You falsely accuse me of misleading while you blatantly distort the NRR piece

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

This is the expert's assessment: "

(A rebel attack)is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield."

The rest of the piece is entirely hypothetical. NO WHERE does it say the rebels likely released the gas. It says the exact opposite of that.

You oppose the war, so you have tried to twist the evidence to support your predetermined view that intervention isn't necessary. You accused me of a misleading subject line, which wasn't the case even based on your misreading of the article. You are obviously creating a scenario that fits how you want to see the situation. The facts are not so simple. Evidence shows that the Syrian airforce very likely released those chemicals. Who else maintains a force of fighter jets? Why would rebels risk, and ultimately pay with, their lives collecting video evidence if they had just dropped weapons? This is not a Hollywood movie with clear good and bad guys. Assad is and always has been a ruthless dictator willing to do anything to hold on to power. He doesn't wear a white hat and ride off in the sunset with the pretty woman. This is an ugly situation all the way around. Civilians are being gassed and the ability of the US to stop that is meager at best. You can oppose the war, but that means you have to face the reality that children will continue to be killed. Of course, that would likely be the case with extended US intervention anyway. War, whether foreign intervention or civil war, is ugly, and particularly so in Syria.

[Renew Deal]

7. Do we know that they have access to chemical weapons?

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. no but we KNOW Assad does AND has an

airforce

[Scootaloo]

15. According to Turkish security forces, yes.

[Xithras]

37. There is no question that the rebels have them.

First off, the UN investigators confirmed as much earlier this year.

Secondly, the rebels themselves have released videos showing their chemical weapons tests on animals, and confirming that they have both the ability to deliver them and suicide bombers in place ready to use them.

Heck, here's a video they released showing a test firing of a rebel improvised chemical artillery system: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2af_1377436069

[mia]

10. Who manufactured and sold the chemicals? Who are the arms dealers? n/t

[HooptieWagon]

19. Everyone.

Relatively easy to make...even a Japanese Cult group did. And easily delivered by rocket, artillery, mortars, bombs, etc.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Because... Trust Us

Have we ever lied to you?

Well, have we ever lied to you today? How about this aftenoon. Yes, I mean so far.

[KittyWampus]

32. as usual, you have no real contribution to pertinent information.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. OK, if the answer is other than "trust us"...

Then what is it? Why are they thwarting the UN inspection mission?

[jsr]

36. The Ministry of Truth tells no lies.

[Barack_America]

18. Ability, access and coordination, for starters.

Then there's all of the Syrian army activity at their chemical weapons stores, if you're inclined to believe US intelligence.

[pnwmom]

21. We can't be 100% sure. But it is possible

that the UN team might be able to give some information about this after all -- at least according to this former weapons inspector:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023566794

[elleng]

26. Have heard, from administration, there's 'intel' about regime members planning,

and afterwards, discussing. Otherwise, no reason to assume it would HAVE to have been regime, imo.

[KittyWampus]

30. Because rebels don't have the amount of chemicals used to kill a THOUSAND civilians

Because Assad forces were shelling that area before and after the chemical attack