U.N. Report: Chemical Weapons Use In Syria Confirmed, Details Point To Assad

[ProSense]

U.N. Report: Chemical Weapons Use In Syria Confirmed, Details Point To Assad

By Hayes Brown

The United Nations released its official report on chemical weapons use last month in Syria, determining that sarin gas was used against the civilian population, but stopping short of directly blaming the Syrian government for the incident.

The U.N. team who collected the samples in the days after the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that killed — according to U.S. estimates — approximately 1,400 civilians had been present in Syria originally to collect evidence of previous claims of chemical weapons usage. After an acrimonious debate with the Syrian government, the inspectors were finally allowed access to the sites to collect soil samples, biological samples, and interview witnesses.

According to the final report, U.N. weapons inspector Ake Sellstrom and his team determined that “chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic” against civilians “on a relatively large scale.” The report leaves out estimates of those killed, but clearly documented the effect that the attack had on the sleeping Syrian populace. The early morning hours of the attack and the weather itself conspired to make the attack especially deadly, as the dropping temperature allowed for the heavy gases to “stay close to the ground and penetrate into lower levels of buildings and constructions where many people were seeking shelter.”

Most damning towards the Assad regime are the details of how the weapons were utilized. “Impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets, capable to carry a chemical payload, were found to carry Sarin,” according to the report. One such rocket showed evidence that “the rocket warhead appeared to function prior to impacting on the roof (of the building where it was found), releasing its contents and depositing the discovered fragments before travelling through the structure to its terminal location.” The Syrian rebels are not currently believed to possess rockets capable of mounting chemical agents onto before firing, adding to the circumstantial evidence that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government is to blame.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/16/2626601/syria-chemical-weapons-report/

United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic
http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Monday a UN report

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Monday a UN report that proves poison gas killed hundreds in an attack last month in Syria left "no doubt" President Bashar al-Assad's regime was guilty.

"The content of the report is damning and confirms massive use of sarin gas on August 21," Fabius said on RTL radio.

"When you look precisely at the data, the amount of toxic gas used, the complexity of the blends... It all leaves no doubt on the origin of the attack" and "reinforces the position of those who said the regime was guilty."

The report, announced in New York earlier Monday, said evidence collected by inspectors who went to Syria showed sarin was used in an attack on Ghouta near Damascus on August 21.

- more -

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/un-report-leaves-no-doubt-damascus-behind-gas-161019711.html#co0zbBs

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon statement on UN report of chemical weapons use in Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023677703

[msongs]

1. any news on the other child killer? nt

[ProSense]

5. Who? n/t

[msanthrope]

24. Who are you writing about? nt

[geek tragedy]

37. We all know, but don't expect a candid answer. nt

[msanthrope]

38. You know, I tend to stand by things I write. nt

[The Magistrate]

2. Indeed, They Do, Ma'am

The two sites where definitive calculations of trajectory could be made literally point back to government controlled areas, which are within range of the munitions involved.

This ought to put an end to 'rebels did it ---false flag' chatter, and ought certainly to demonstrate those who continue it not only have no evidence for it, but no interest in evidence at all, merely preconceptions, and a world view they will insist on making events fit, no matter how tortured the effort.

[Daniel537]

3. +1

Couldn't have said it any better. The excuses people have been making for this murderous regime have been nothing short of reprehensible.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. So, let loose the bombs?

[The Magistrate]

6. You Will Have A Hard Time, Sir, Finding Any Post By Me Calling For U.S. Bombing Of Syria

That is a separate question from whether forces of the Syrian government gassed several neighborhoods of metropolitan Damascus. It is now pretty well settled that they did. Continued claims of 'rebels did it -- false flag' can only demonstrate the poor judgement and obsessive delusion of those continuing to make them.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I am having a hard time finding anything in your reply that opposes unilateral war on Syria.

[ProSense]

10. Did the UN report make you sad?

I mean, your response appears to be to come out of nowhere to accuse people of wanting "bombs" to "fly."

[Warren Stupidity]

19. No. See how easy it is to answer a question directly?

[ProSense]

22. Evidently, it's as "easy" as posing strawman questions. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

41. It is a "strawman argument" - not a "strawman question".

Questions can be answered by the person questioned. Strawman arguments are in lieu of actual dialog. But you know that.

[ProSense]

44. Well, thanks for clarifying that.

Now, are you done hijacking the thread with your "strawman argument"?

I mean, your "strawman argument" has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

[The Magistrate]

12. So Any Post That Observes Established Facts Supports Unilateral War, Sir?

Refusing to believe Syrian government forces gassed several neighborhoods of metropolitan Damascus is required of those who do not think U.S. military action in Syria wise, to such a degree that observing the established fact Syrian government forced gassed several neighborhoods of metropolitan Damascus means one is arguing for U.S. military action in Syria?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. No, it was a question. A question you still have not clearly answered.

Here, I'll go first: I oppose unilateral military action against Syria or any other nation. See how simple that is?

Your turn.

[The Magistrate]

25. I Judge These Matters on A Case By Case Basis, Sir

And have on several occasions recently here stated my view regarding the wisdom or otherwise of U.S. military action in Syria at present. I see no reason to repeat myself at your demand, particularly since your demand seems prompted by my comment that it is now established fact that Syrian government forces carried out the gas attack, and that chatter of the 'rebels did it --- false flag' variety is swill that ought to be dropped, and which tells heavily against the judgement and sense of persons who may continue to engage in it. You have not really engaged the point at issue between us just now, which is that you appear to regard stating the fact that Syrian government forces did gas several neighborhoods in metropolitan Damascus indicates support for a U.S. attack on Syria, which leads at least to its being a reasonable inference that you regard it as necessary for persons who oppose U.S. military action action Syria to refuse to believe that Syrian government forces carried out the recent mass gas attack in metropolitan Damascus.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. I simply asked if, given the UN report, you support unilateral military action against Syria.

I made no other statement. The inferences are all in your mind. I note again that you still refuse to answer a very simple question.

[The Magistrate]

30. Push That Far Enough, Sir, And You Are Just A Figment Of My Imagination....

It was quite obvious what you were doing; the comments it elicited all showed understanding of what you communicated.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. again no answer.

[The Magistrate]

35. Just Because You Do Not Like It, Sir, Does Not Change That It Is an Answer

Not that I blame you for trying to crawfish back from maintaining that people opposing U.S. military action against Syria are required to believe it was not Syrian government forces that gassed several neighborhoods in metropolitan Damascus, and that stating as a fact Syrian government forces gassed several neighborhoods in metropolitan Damascus, as pretty well established in the U.N. report, is tantamount to calling for U.S. military action against Syria.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Now that would be a strawman argument.

"maintaining that people opposing U.S. military action against Syria are required to believe it was not Syrian government forces"

Never stated or implied. Nor is it a position I hold. But feel free to provide evidence I do.

Meanwhile do you oppose unilateral military action against Syria?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. So the closest you come to actually opposing unilateralism is this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3598844
And it is a very tentative "I tend to agree".

If you have other posts that actually state your position feel free to cite them.
The rest of your posts, as far as I can tell, really don't clearly stake out any position at all. If you wish to be clear about where you stand on an issue, I suggest being clear.

[The Magistrate]

45. I Know What I Have Written, Sir

Your failure to find, or perhaps to understand, some of it, does not trouble me.

Your own staking out the view that refusing to believe Syrian government forces gassed several neighborhoods of metropolitan Damascus is required of those who do not think U.S. military action in Syria wise, to such a degree that observing the established fact Syrian government forced gassed several neighborhoods of metropolitan Damascus means one is arguing for U.S. military action in Syria, is certainly clear enough here, and about all which interests me in this exchange, because it is now obvious that 'rebels did it --- false flag' cries are simply evidence of obsession and delusion on the part of those making them.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. Well I have to agree with what you said up thread:

You Will Have A Hard Time, Sir, Finding Any Post By Me Calling For U.S. Bombing Of Syria.

Amended to odd, "or opposing the U.S. bombing of Syria. "

Your other point, that I am somehow denying that the Assad regime did use chemical weapons, is one you have invented for me. I don't know who ordered the attack. It is certain that the Assad regime possesses chemical weapons and that chemical weapons were used. But the UN report does not specifically address the issue of who ordered the attack and our own government has refused to provide direct evidence. I accept that it likely was the Assad regime, although motivation remains a mystery. It is also reported that the "rebel" forces posses or have attempted to acquire chemical weapons. What I am sure of is that unilateral war on other nations is a war crime at least as serious as using chemical weapons.

[The Magistrate]

93. your reaction, sir, to Statement Of Fact, Made The Matter Obvious

The U.N. report, in its analysis of trajectories where these can be traced, makes quite clear where the rockets came from. Your reaction to stating this fact, and stating that it made hash of the 'rebels did it --- false flag' swill that has been far too prominent here, was to accuse people who stated these facts of demanding Syria be bombed by the U.S. military. That you take accepting the fact that Syrian government forces gassed several neighborhoods equates to a demand Syria be bombed by the U.S. indicates that you consider denying Syrian government forces gassed several neighborhoods is required of people who oppose U.S. military action against Syria. The difficulty you have in facing this when called on it is not my problem.

[geek tragedy]

14. How is embracing reality a pro- war statement? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Do you support unilateral military action against Syria?

[geek tragedy]

23. No, and I never have.

But, I didn't allow my opposition to US participation in hostilities to influence how I viewed the chemical attack itself.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. So when President Obama was proposing unilateral military action against Syria

you stated your opposition to that proposal here?

[geek tragedy]

33. Yes. If this surprises you, it's because you

made erroneous assumptions.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. No that's fine. I'm glad you are against neocon unilateralism. We all should be.

[Whisp]

36. keep trying...

very trying.

The disappointment must be difficult to bear. I'm not sure who you thought made those chemical attacks when the story broke, but it seems by what you say here, that you didn't think it could be Assad. That maybe someone in the administration was lying that it could be Assad and were themselves responsible for the attacks, like CIA dirty works or something. Just so Obama could scratch that itch he has always has about dropping bombs, on anyone.

I dunno. You seem to have a problem with it being Assad that did that terrible thing... just odd.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. What disappointment? I'm glad we are not in another war.

[NCTraveler]

11. It's sad...

It's sad that being based in reality gets you labeled as a war monger in some circles. This report further confirms my previously held beliefs. It does not make me thirst for Syrian blood. How someone cannot get that is beyond me. (not speaking for your thoughts on force in any way)

[karynnj]

13. I think you slept through last week

[zappaman]

7. "This ought to put an end to 'rebels did it ---false flag' chatter"

Dream on.
Those that have embraced that bullshit aren't going to suddenly change their minds when confronted with facts.

[The Magistrate]

8. While It Ought To, Sir, I Share Your Doubts It Actually Will

It certainly ought, however, to demonstrate to anyone that those who continue 'rebels did it ---false flag' chatter not only have no evidence for it, but no interest in evidence at all, merely preconceptions, and a world view they will insist on making events fit, no matter how tortured the effort.

[Junkdrawer]

46. Let's put it this way: The idea it was a dime-store false flag attack....

has been laid to rest.

[The Magistrate]

48. Syrian Government Weapons, Sir, Fired From Syrian Government Territory

Pressing the 'false flag' line further, Sir, reveals it as an article of faith, a religious dogma, and nothing more.

[Junkdrawer]

50. With a $20 billion+ / year Black Ops budget, I'd be SHOCKED if this were unraveled quickly.

Especially as this had to pass muster on the World's stage.

Prolly a lot of feints, misinformation, red herrings, etc. etc.

Sure did get the Russians to put their faith in "faked non-attack". I'll bet someone somewhere gets a promotion for THAT one.

[The Magistrate]

51. That Is A Declaration Of Faith, Sir, Not a Conclusion From Evidence

[Junkdrawer]

53. This isn't my first dance. Anyone who thought they KNEW what happened 9/11/2001 on 9/30/2001....

was either a fool, a self-deluded fantasist or Dick Cheney.

[The Magistrate]

56. It Is Always The Same Dance, Sir: Same Old Story, Same Old Song And Dance....

[The Magistrate]

15. Here, Ma'am, Is A Good Copy Of The Whole Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/168606795/U-N-Report-on-Chemical-Attack-in-Syria

[rustydog]

16. In lieu of photographic evidence, they have an artist's rending of Assad carrying Sarin

and handing them to the latest "Evildoers".

Do you want your "proof" to be a mushroom cloud over....wait for it....NEW YORK!!!!

[KamaAina]

17. Correction: Details Point to Government

Assad is actually said to have rejected requests to use the CW.

[msanthrope]

26. What you suggest bolsters the case for strikes. If Assad is no longer in control of

these weapons then he cannot guarantee handover and containment. He cannot make deals. It's better that we take direct measures to interdict the movement and use of said weapons...since we cannot ascertain that Assad is in control.

Is that really what you are suggesting?

[Junkdrawer]

31. It is what it is....

Why not let Rep. Grayson hear the SIGINT?

[KamaAina]

49. Of course not.

I'm suggesting that it would be monumental folly to "punish" Assad with strikes for something he didn't do, possibly starting World War III in the process.

One rogue unit commander disobeying orders hardly implies that he has "lost control".

[ProSense]

52. You're

"I'm suggesting that it would be monumental folly to "punish" Assad with strikes for something he didn't do, possibly starting World War III in the process. "

...suggesting that Assad has lost control of his forces even though he had discussions with his commanders about the use of chemical weapons.

Assad continued to deny having a chemical arsenal up the day he accepted the proposal, and basically blamed the rebels. Essentially, Assad has been covering up a massive chemical attack that, as you state, was launched by his own forces.

The Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attack, and as the report indicates, it was massive, well-planned attack designed to ensure maximum casualties.

Assad admitted to bombing area after chemical attack took place.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023637203

[msanthrope]

54. The point isn't to 'punish' Assad, but to ensure that chemical weapons aren't used by the

Syrian regime again. If Assad cannot control these weapons, that makes the case for interdiction. I am troubled by the meme though--that this was not done by Assad, but by some "rogue commander." Where did you hear that????

[KamaAina]

60. Right here at DU. Where else?

Based on intel from Germany.

[msanthrope]

62. Can you cite that? nt

[KamaAina]

91. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014588959

[msanthrope]

94. An unconfirmed report from a German newspaper citing unnamed sources?

Do you have anything of substance?

[ProSense]

95. But this part of the report is ignored:

Syrian forces may have used gas without Assad's permission: paper

(Reuters) - Syrian government forces may have carried out a chemical weapons attack close to Damascus without the personal permission of President Bashar al-Assad, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper reported on Sunday, citing German intelligence.

Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied...This could mean Assad may not have personally approved the attack close to Damascus on August 21 in which more than 1,400 are estimated to have been killed, intelligence officers suggested.

<...>

Members of the foreign affairs committee present at the briefing told Reuters Schindler had said that although the BND did not have absolute proof Assad's government was responsible, it had much evidence to suggest it was.

This included a phone call German spies intercepted between a Hezbollah official and the Iranian Embassy in Damascus in which the official said Assad had ordered the attack.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/08/us-syria-crisis-germany-idUSBRE98707B20130908

The scenario suggest that Assad disscussed the attack with his military commanders, and there is evidence that pro-Assad Hezbollah stated that he "ordered the attack." Assad bears responsibility for his military, and this makes the situation even more precarious.

Regardless of the attempts to absolve him of personal responsiblity, his forces, at the highest level, are responsible for a massive, well-planned chemical attack designed to ensure maximum casualties.

Assad also continued to deny having a chemical arsenal up the day he accepted the proposal, and basically blamed the rebels, attempting to cover up an attack launched by his own forces.

[msanthrope]

96. The absolving of Bashir Assad is a disgusting turn in this whole mess....I don't know

what's behind that.

[Scurrilous]

18. Thanks ProSense.

K & R

[Benton D Struckcheon]

27. Brown Moses,

Eliot Higgins in real life, had it right within weeks. Every munition id'd in that UN report was id'd by him in his blog, and he pointed out that those same munitions had been used in earlier attacks where chemical weapons were suspected.

His latest: http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/who-was-responsible-for-august-21st.html

Pretty much buries any idea it was anyone but the Syrian gov't.

[SidDithers]

34. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Cha]

47. I hope the Assad Protectors really get a good

look at this.

Thanks ProSense

[Jefferson23]

55. U.N. Team Confirms Syria Chemical Attack but Not Culpability

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 16 2013 (IPS) -

After an intense investigation of the military attack on civilians in Syria last month, a U.N. team of arms inspectors has reached a predictable conclusion: the deadly attack had all the trappings of the widespread use of chemical weapons.

But the team left an equally important question unanswered: who was responsible for that attack?

According to a mandate given by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. team, led by Professor Ake Sellstrom of Sweden, did not have the authority to investigate culpability.

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the rebel groups blame each other for the attack.

“The results are overwhelming and indisputable. The facts speak for themselves,” Ban told the Security Council Monday, immediately following the release of the team’s detailed report.

There must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons, he asserted. “Any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, is a crime.”

Ban told delegates the team has concluded that “chemical weapons were used on a relatively large scale” in the Ghouta area of Damascus in the context of the ongoing conflict in Syria.

Dr. Ian Anthony, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Programme at the Stockolm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS the next logical step would seem to be for the Security Council to evaluate the information as an urgent matter and come to a conclusion on the issue of who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/09/u-n-team-confirms-syria-chemical-attack-but-not-culpability/

[ProSense]

59. The report

includes a lot of details (trajectories, weapons systems, etc.) that implicate the Assad regime.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon is scheduled to address reporters shortly. Here's a summary of where things stand:

• Ban said UN investigators had found "overwhelming and indisputable" evidence that the nerve agent sarin was used in the east Ghouta attacks of 21 August. "The facts speak for themselves," Ban said in a statement.

• Eighty-five per cent of the blood samples tested positive for sarin, the UN report found, according to Ban. "A majority of the rockets or rocket fragments recovered were found to be carrying sarin."

• In its report on the chemical attack, the UN identified the surface-to-surface rockets used, their launching systems and their trajectories. Ban did not mention the Assad regime by name but the findings implicated forces linked to Assad.

• The Geneva deal between the US and Russia on dismantling Assad's chemical weapons program provides for "measures under Chapter VII of the UN charter" in the event of noncompliance, according to text of the agreement quoted by Ban. Chapter VII provides for "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/16/un-inspectors-submit-syria-chemical-weapons-report-live#block-52373476e4b0a1b6b45de1a1

New York, 16 September 2013 - Secretary-General's remarks to the Security Council on the report of the United Nations Missions to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons on the incident that occurred on 21 August 2013 in the Ghouta area of Damascus

<...>

The United Nations Mission has now confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.

This is a war crime and a grave violation of the 1925 Protocol and other rules of customary international law. I trust all can join me in condemning this despicable crime. The international community has a responsibility to hold the perpetrators accountable and to ensure that chemical weapons never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.

The accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention and Syria’s belated acknowledgement that it possesses chemical weapons are welcome developments that come with strict obligations.

The Russian Federation and the United States, led by Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Kerry, held intensive consultations in Geneva last week, along with their experts. I welcome the understanding they reached regarding the safeguarding and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. I hope the Security Council and the Executive Council of the OPCW can move quickly to consider and implement this plan. I stand ready to support this plan in every way possible, while also fully realizing the complexities of such an undertaking in the midst of a civil war.

The unity of the Security Council will be crucial. Given the gravity of the situation, I urge the Council to consider ways to ensure enforcement of, and compliance with, the plan through a clear resolution. In that regard, I draw your attention to a significant element in the agreement reached in Geneva, and I quote:

"The United States and the Russian Federation concur that this UN Security Council resolution should provide for review on a regular basis the implementation in Syria of the decision of the Executive Council of the OPCW, and in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorized transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter."

- more -

http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7083

[Jefferson23]

61. How does this change what should take place next, which was layed out in the OP I posted? n/t

[ProSense]

63. The US, Russia and international community are working on what will "take place next."

I addressed the point related to the report on "culpability."

[Jefferson23]

66. No, culpability was not part of the mandate, remember? What should take place next is just that:

Dr. Ian Anthony, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Programme at the Stockolm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS the next logical step would seem to be for the Security Council to evaluate the information as an urgent matter and come to a conclusion on the issue of who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

[ProSense]

69. The UN presents evidence.

It doesn't draw conclusions. You can pretend the evidence doesn't mean anything, but it's there for all to see.

The evidence implicates the Assad regime. People around the world are weighing in.

Foreign Minister Søvndal’s remarks after the publication of the UN Inspectors Report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria

<...>

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Villy Søvndal states:

”As expected, the report overwhelmingly confirms that chemical weapons have been used. Once again, I strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons. The report does not place the blame for their use. That was not part of the inspectors’ mandate. However, the sheer amount of proof that exists in addition to the report point in one direction; the regime.

The UN Secretary-General and the inspectors have undertaken a large and important task to independently determine the use of chemical weapons. I would like to acknowledge that work. We now have to follow it up.

It’s positive that the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov, last Saturday agreed on a framework agreement for international inspection and destruction of Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons. The agreement must be translated into concrete action without delay. It’s important that we keep the pressure on the Syrian regime. The international community cannot allow the regime to draw out this process.

The onus now rests on the UN Security Council. A strong signal must be sent regarding international action. This is also the case in the longer term, where we expect the Security Council to have an important role in securing the compliance of the agreement.

Use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Those responsible must be punished. There must be no impunity.”

http://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=A54ACFF6-3EBB-46CB-AE37-42C6046515EB

[Jefferson23]

70. Pretending what? You have no clue what you're doing here. I have presented to you

what the process looks like, UN report does not assign culpability, it was not their mandate.

Two, the process should/will be before the UN Security Council, that is how it works. THEY
decide unless the mandate changes and goes back to the UN.

[ProSense]

72. You're arguing a point

no one is debating: "UN report does not assign culpability, it was not their mandate."

No one disputes that. Still, the UN evidence does provide insight to allow others to determine "culpablity."

There are other sources of evidence. Countries are going to compare the UN findings to their own, and organizations will do the same.

Dispatches: Yes, it was Sarin, UN Report Says. Now What?

September 16, 2013

Peter Bouckaert

The UN experts’ report on the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria has few surprises for those of us who have been investigating that deadly attack.

The UN experts collected “clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used in Ein Tarma, Moadamiya, and Zamalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus.”

The experts’ mandate does not allow them to say who was responsible for the deadly barrage. But if you read between the lines, it isn’t difficult to figure it out.

The rocket systems identified by the UN as used in the attack – truck-launched 330mm rockets with around 50 to 60 liters of Sarin, as well as 140mm Soviet-produced rockets carrying a smaller Sarin-filled warhead – are both known to be in the arsenal of the Syrian armed forces. They have never been seen in rebel hands. The amount of Sarin used in the attack – hundreds of kilograms, according to Human Rights Watch’s calculations – also indicates government responsibility for the attack, as opposition forces have never been known to be in possession of such significant amounts of Sarin.

- more -

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/16/dispatches-yes-it-was-sarin-un-report-says-now-what

[Jefferson23]

74. I posted an OP making the process clear, period...you're arguing with yourself.

And your statements to me about my alleged pretending are out of line and without merit.

[ProSense]

75. What "process"?

The OP is about the report, and the title of your comment and the piece you posted is about the UN report.

It's not clear that you were posting about a "process."

I made the point several times that no one is disputing the UN mandate, and you dismiss the point about Assad being implicated by reiterating the UN mandate.

Several members of the UN Security Council have weighed in, and they agree that the report implicates Assad.

The process is being handled by the UN. In fact, France is preparing a UN resolution.

[Jefferson23]

78. Then you should read the OP I posted. It does not matter who has

weighed in from the UNSC, they have to vote and do so formally, period. The UN report did not assign responsibility
in their report.

I dismissed nothing. The process, and why you put it in quotes is odd, speaks to protocol.

Jimmy Carter: Syria Strike Illegal Without U.N. Support
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/jimmy-carter-syria_n_3844094.html

[ProSense]

79. "they have to vote and do so formally, period."

"Then you should read the OP I posted. It does not matter who has weighed in from the UNSC, they have to vote and do so formally, period. The UN report did not assign responsibility in their report."

I read the piece you posted, and again you cite the UN mandate to dismiss the point I made. I know what the UN wants to do next.

The unity of the Security Council will be crucial. Given the gravity of the situation, I urge the Council to consider ways to ensure enforcement of, and compliance with, the plan through a clear resolution. In that regard, I draw your attention to a significant element in the agreement reached in Geneva, and I quote:

"The United States and the Russian Federation concur that this UN Security Council resolution should provide for review on a regular basis the implementation in Syria of the decision of the Executive Council of the OPCW, and in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorized transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023677868#post59

[Jefferson23]

80. I dismissed nothing, you presumed I was dismissing the UN report. The protocol is important

regardless of statements made by the UK, US, France on culpability..the UN report does not do that, the
UNSC does it. I highlighted in my first response: Dr. Ian Anthony, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Programme at the Stockolm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS the next logical step would seem to be for the Security Council to evaluate the information as an urgent matter and come to a conclusion on the issue of who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

There was no reason I can see why you would imagine I dismissed the UN report.

[ProSense]

81. Are the UK, US and France members of the UN Security Council?

"I dismissed nothing, you presumed I was dismissing the UN report. The protocol is important regardless of statements made by the UK, US, France on culpability..the UN report does not do that, the UNSC does it."

Can you point to UNSC members, other than Russia, that don't believe Assad is responsible? In response to my point, are you stressing the "process" and "protocol" because you believe that a veto of the resolution means Assad isn't implicated?

One has nothing to do with the other. The UN resolution is to determine the course of action for holding Assad accountable. It's not a secret that members of the Council believe he is responsible. That doesn't mean that they will agree on the terms of the resolution.

As it stands, China and Iran are now on board with the US-Russia agreement.

[Jefferson23]

82. I will repeat, one last time. The point of the OP is a reminder

the UN report does not place culpability to Assad..it does not do that. It presents
their evidence, period. Then the UNSC will vote, period. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

I have no idea why you're now referencing the UN resolution. The evidence from the UN report is or should be given
to the UNSC regarding culpability. The point of the OP I posted stressed the protocol because it is an essential
element in order to ensure our country does not act outside of international law regarding any strikes they may wish
to utilize.

China and Iran agreeing with Russia and the US agreement is no surprise b/c it does not involve placing responsibility
on Assad.

[ProSense]

84. No, it's your point that's "irrelevant."

The UN report provided evidence that implicated the Assad regime. That's a fact regardless of what happens next.

[Jefferson23]

85. Inconvenient how the UNSC and international law can get in the way.

I've seen it happen many times before this situation...the US knows how to do it quite well.

[ProSense]

86. "UNSC and international law" isn't getting "in the way."

Assad has been implicated.

[Jefferson23]

87. And the UNSC has not voted on his reponsibility, yet. Let them all do their job, that is the point

of the OP.

[NoOneMan]

57. Nice! Now we can justify bombing the shit out of their civilians with conventional weapons

18 dimensional Mahjong man!

[ProSense]

58. Assad 2016!!!! n/t

[pampango]

64. We'll have to squeeze our missiles in between those Assad fires at civilians.

[davidpdx]

90. ...

[Eddie Haskell]

65. I don't believe the report.

[ProSense]

67. Understandable

The report is hard to accept for those who want to believe that Assad didn't do it. No amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

[Cha]

68. Pertinent Tweet..

eclecticbrotha @eclecticbrotha

Some will dispute UN CW report because it doesn't include pics of Assad pushing buttons launching rockets with "sarin gas" written on them. 12:52 PM - 16 Sep 2013

2 Retweets 3 favorites Reply

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/16/news-of-the-day-26/

[ProSense]

71. Wait for the UN

so we can throw them under a bus. I can't tell you how many times the Doctors Without Borders statement about waiting for the UN was cited.

The die-hard leave-Assad-alone group attacked Human Rights Watch, and predictably, they're attacking/dimissing the UN.

[Cha]

73. What they're really doing.. is exposing..

their inability to get a grasp on reality. Just as I suspected.

[pampango]

76. Wait for the UN, wait for the UN .... I don't believe the UN. Here comes the bus.

It was a good idea to wait for the UN report, not as a delaying tactic, but because it matters what they determine.

The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria is charged with determining responsibility for war crimes. They have not been allowed into the country by Assad. They will probably use the evidence discovered by the inspectors to arrive at a conclusion.

[Sand Wind]

77. Thanks Prosense, a great post !

[Rosa Luxemburg]

83. Some say it was the rebels

who knows?

[Barack_America]

88. Some say Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Same crowd. Same mentality.

[Sand Wind]

89. Some say US never go to the moon.

The New Truthers.

[Sand Wind]

97. Kick.