Syria forces keep bombing area of alleged chemical weapons attack

[pampango]

Source: CBS

President Bashar Assad's forces pressed on with a military offensive in eastern Damascus on Thursday, bombing rebel-held suburbs where the opposition said a chemical weapons attack the day before killed between 100 and 1,300 people.

The government has denied allegations it used chemical weapons in artillery barrages on the area known as eastern Ghouta on Wednesday as "absolutely baseless." The United States, Britain and France have demanded that a team of U.N. experts already in Syria be granted immediate access to investigate the site.

Assad's government acknowledged on Wednesday the ongoing military offensive in Ghouta, but denied any chemical weapons were being used.

Regardless of the myriad calls for the U.N. inspection team to examine evidence in Ghouta, the inspectors need permission from Damascus to enter the area first. With the military publicly carrying out an offensive against what it says are "jihadists" based in the area -- a term frequently used by the regime to describe all rebel forces in the country -- the government could deny the UN team access on security grounds.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57599654/syria-forces-keep-bombing-area-of-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack/

---

1. The Syrian government was engaged in an "ongoing military offensive in Ghouta" at the time of the chemical weapons attack.

So either the government included chemical weapons in with conventional shells and bombs as a part of their military offensive. Or the rebels had pre-positioned chemical weapons in a neighborhood which they control, but did not use them until the government launched an attack of its own.

2. "... Assad's forces pressed on with a military offensive in eastern Damascus on Thursday, bombing rebel-held suburbs" where the chemical attack occurred.

If the rebels are the guilty party in this chemical weapons attack, they should send a thank-you note to the Syrian military for the continued aerial bombing and artillery shelling of the site. Not only does this potentially destroy evidence, but it delays or prevents the UN inspectors from implicating the rebels and significantly damaging their hope of ever getting any help from the West.

The opposition has made it clear that the UN team is welcome in any areas which they control, but "the inspectors need permission from Damascus to enter the area first." If Assad's government gives this permission, the rebels either have to live up to their word and grant access with the risk, if they are indeed guilty, that their revolution will be tremendously damaged by the UN's findings. Or they go back on their word, deny access and essentially acknowledge their guilt by doing so.

Of course, the same principle applies to the Syrian government. If it is the guilty party then the continued bombing and shelling of the area serves their purpose for the same reasons that it helps the rebels if they are guilty.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Continued shelling does make it more likely it was the government

If they held back, and the inspectors got in there and found evidence it was the rebels, it would be priceless for the government. That they don't want to do that does look suspicious.

[SkyDaddy7]

4. I think we all know it was Assad's thugs...

However, even if it is prove that Assad's forces used chemical weapons the Assad fan base here on DU would NEVER EVER accept the findings. Just like they refuse to admit what actually lead to the start of all this carnage. SAD!!!

[Ghost Dog]

6. ¿?

http://www.zerohedge.com/

[atreides1]

29. How do "we" know that?

I'm just curious...considering I don't have a dog in this fight!

[karynnj]

9. Good point

[Harmony Blue]

2. The UN inspectors

are less than 3km away so the continued military operation by the Syrian regime is foolish.

[DetlefK]

3. That's easy: It was the regime because they blew the chance to implicate the rebels.

If it was the rebels, then the Assad-regime could have said "There! You see it! Quick, get in and secure some evidence. We can't guarantee for your safety though."
Win: The UN-inspectors go in, find evidence. The regime is not taking advantage of the situation, which could mean that the chemical attack wasn't part of their plan.
Win: If the UN-inspectors had gone in and been killed or taken hostage by the rebels, even better.


Instead, the Assad-regime is keeping the inspectors away, not taking advantage of them.

[Ghost Dog]

8. Syrian government is ready for “maximum” cooperation with UN experts

The Syrian government is ready for “maximum” cooperation with UN experts working to clarify the alleged use of chemical weapon in attacks, Russia’s Foreign Ministry says. Syria will provide all materials related to the investigation.

Speaking on Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said Moscow hopes that UN experts will conduct “objective investigation of all possible cases of use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory.”

...

Reports by “biased regional media” about alleged chemical weapons use near Damascus might be “a provocation planned in advance,” Lukashevich said on Wednesday. He added that there were previous reports by local media about chemical attacks that proved to be false.

/... http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-attack-cooperation-841/

(Presumably, 'diplomats' have to debate every possible move before taking any action? Who knows who's putting the brakes on here? )

[Arctic Dave]

11. That logic works both ways.

If it was the rebels then they would keep fighting as they cover up their deed.

They would also kill the inspectors to cover up their deed.

So, armchairing this is pointless.

[pampango]

13. "Win: If the UN-inspectors had gone in and been killed or taken hostage by the rebels, even better."

They would also kill the inspectors to cover up their deed.

As the poster stated, if the inspectors are killed by the rebels that is a huge win for Assad. The rebels have promised safe passage to the UN inspectors in all areas which they control. If they go back on their word and kill the inspectors, they will be admitting their guilt in the use of the chemical weapons which will help Assad immensely.

If Assad knows that the rebels are guilty, he would be smart to quickly and unilaterally grant the inspectors access to the site. Get the evidence as soon as possible. If the rebels refuse access to the inspectors, they look very guilty which is a win for Assad. If the rebels allow the inspectors in, then kill or kidnap them they look guilty and brutal - an even bigger win for Assad.

[Arctic Dave]

14. Maybe that is why they are still fighting.

If they keep fighting the inspectors can't get in.

Is Assad going to let them keep killing his guys so the UN can go in and get killed? And if they are killed then he will be blamed for not keeping them safe.

[pampango]

18. The context is "Assad's forces pressed on with a military offensive..." against a rebel-held area.

Not the other way around. I think Assad's pilots and artillery men will be safe if he suspends the offensive. On the ground the rebels are on the defensive in this instance. They will likely stop fighting when the army stops attacking.

If the rebels keep fighting, thus preventing the inspectors from doing their jobs, Assad will have every right to say, "I did all I could. I suspended the offensive and gave the UN permission to enter the site of the alleged chemical attack, but the rebels would not do their part. Who looks guilty now?"

"And if they are killed then he will be blamed for not keeping them safe."

There may be some who blame him, but many more will blame the people who killed them after promising them safe passage. Most will understand that he cannot protect UN inspectors who enter an area that is controlled by rebels.

[Arctic Dave]

19. Again, it is a he said / they said thing.

Just like now.

[DetlefK]

15. That argument doesn't make sense. The regime has taken the initiative in that region.

The Assad-regime is shelling the exactly same suburb where the chemical-attack happened with artillery. It's not like the rebels had a choice whether or not this region is fought over right now.

And actually, this supports my argument from above: The Assad-regime could have warned the UN-inspectors that they won't guarantee for their safety and let them go wherever they want.
If the rebels kill the inspectors, this would in turn kill the international support for the rebels. (A russia-negotiated peace-treaty would follow one day, everything would be covered up and Assad would stay in power.)

The Assad-regime could have used the UN-inspectors as tools to lay the blame on the rebels.
Why aren't they doing it?

[Arctic Dave]

16. How would you verify who killed them?

If they are killed then it just goes to another he said / they said.

You do realize the "rebels" have offensive capabilities right? It's not like they are using slingshots with rocks.

If the UN inspectors are their and can see the area they are shelling, which is likely since they are only three kilometers away, then they can see both sides are firing at each other.

[DetlefK]

20. A "he-said-they-said"-situation buys time for Assad.

Both sides aren't equal in weaponry and both sides aren't equal in access to chemical weapons.

The UN-inspectors could have taken blood- and skin-samples to identify the chemical weapon (they already narrowed it down via the symptoms to phosphor-esters).
If the regime had stopped shelling the area, maybe the UN-inspectors also could have found some evidence how the chemical weapon was delivered.

And the argument about seeing both sides fighting is laughable.
3 kilometers.
In urban terrain.
All the UN-inspectors can witness from the fighting is the sound of artillery-shells exploding from time to time and gun-fire.

Please look out of your window and tell me: What's the traffic-situation 3 kilometers from you?

[Arctic Dave]

21. It buys time for both of them.

Why do you think they both do it.

Why can't they do that at a later date. It will still be in the tissue of the deceased.


As for seeing the fighting, you can see and hear a fire fight from three kilometers away.

As for traffic where I am, I can see the horizon in pretty much all directions, it is very flat here.

[DetlefK]

23. But they are in an urban area. They don't have line of sight to the events.

The sound of the gun-shots gets refracted over and over again at the walls. Even if they have binoculars, they won't be able to connect the sound to the sight. (And sound just moves at 3 seconds per kilometer.)

And if the fighting is inside buildings or in streets which aren't perfectly aligned with their hotel-windows, the won't see much anyway.

And if they see people moving around, they still would have to tell them apart from that distance.



You are right that buying time is no good argument. It's hard to say who would profit more: The regime has more amassed guns and ammunition, plus their air-force, but the stash of the rebels is growing with war-material provided by Saudi-Arabia.

[Arctic Dave]

27. You can observe a firefight at a distance.

I'm not saying you are going to see every individual but gun fire, rockets, shells are observable.

[Daniel537]

5. No no, its the rebels doing the bombing.

At least that's what the Assad fan club will start claiming. According to them, he's a symbol of freedom and human rights.

[leftynyc]

7. Actually most people

here are of the opinion that both sides suck and we shouldn't get involved. Nobody here EVER called assad a symbol of freedom. Why lie about that?

[John2]

10. That is not

my opinion. I think the U.S., Israel, Britain, France, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar was already involved, just like everywhere else with their scheme on regime change in the Middle East. I also think some of these organizations were set up by them such as these fake Human Rights organizations. In other words, I don't believe these lying scoundrels one bit.

As far as these rebels, with all these foreign mercenaries going into Syria to allegedly liberate the people of Syria. I think that is also a lie. I wouldn't put it past these people to incite unrest in Syria just like they have done everywhereelse. These groups are Al Nusra,the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Chechen insurgents. Many are from Bosnia also.

What is even more damming is the Taliban setting up headquarters right next to a U.S. Base in Qatar and the Afghanistan President accusing the CIA of working with the Taliban. It all fits together to me. The CIA has done this before, yet people are gullable enough to continue to believe these lies, and view our Government as Saints. I'm calling them out when it smells period. If they want to critcize me so be it. Thisis the same old game, demonize the target as a monsterous dictator and accuse him of murdering his people. It works everytime. Why would anyone believe those people presenting the lies? This guy or whatever he calls himself love to cite these prompted up Human Rights organizations on here. Especially those from Britain. There are serious issues with everyone of them concerning Bias and conflicts of interest.

There are a lot of people calling out these reports. The Syrian Army don't need to use chemical gases to defeat these rebels. The same rebels crying for a No Fly Zone over Syria and more weapons. They can't hold any territory in Syria against the Syrian Army and they continue to lie about who is fighting in Syria. It is not the military of Hezebullah or Iranian revolutionary Guard. Think about the contradictions of these liars. On one hand they claim Hezbullah and Iran now controls Syria and now they claim Assad controls Syria and they need authorization from him. They are tripping all over themselves with petty lies.

They are the ones killing innocent Syrians. The only regime change needed in the Middle East are in Saudi Arabia, Oatar, Kuwait and Jordan. The military in Egypt did the right thing also. The problem dividing the Middle east are religious fantics who are really phonies. They enslave people and outsiders are taking advantage of that division. The best thing to do is seperate religion from Government and fight for a common interest, which would be security for all their peoples, regardless of religion. I think the Assad Government does represent that. I think the monarchs and religious fanatics see that as a threat. Monarchs went out a long time ago. The British doesn't even give their monarch power. It is only a symbol, but they have no problem sustaining it in Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Jordan. They had no problem establishing the Shah of Iran either. They were more interested in controling the resources than Himan rights. The same country that has all these Human Rights organizations based in their country and controled by their Government.

[leftynyc]

12. So you support Assad

that's fine as long as you're up front about it. I think both sides suck. Assad is a brutal dictator who does provide a modicum of protection for minorities and the other side are religious freaks who I detest to the depths of my soul. I maintain we can only hurt the situation.

[DetlefK]

17. Not all rebels are religious extremists.

The original ones weren't, but the civil-war attracted foreign jihadists, just like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

There is infighting between the rebels, because the jihadists use their ressources to consolidate their control over syrian areas, while the secular rebels want to use the ressources to keep fighting.

[leftynyc]

22. If we can't determine whether

or not our weapons are winding up with the freaks, we need to stay out of it. And there is no way to be sure.

[John2]

25. Why don't

you just put names and faces to these original rebels? How much is General Idriss being payed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, to dessert his post? Just what are they fighting for? Who are their supporters, U.S. A., Britain, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey huh. All sworn enemies before this alleged civil war huh?

Who are their allies now? Russia, Iran, Hezbullah, abnd certain other states. The same states that were sworn enemies of Syria are still the same states.

[John2]

24. It seems like every

Middle East Leader, whom the West disagrees with is a brutal Dictator. There are dissidents in every country. No person with authority will please everyone. Name one that has?

Assad is not a weak leader for sure, if that is what you mean. I would do the same with the Muslim Brotherhood if I was in Power. I agree with his judgement, religious fanatics must be dealt with an iron fist. And if I had the military power, I certainly would teach the monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan a lesson regardless of their foreign benefactors. They are the ones intefering in a sovereign country. I believe they are the ones betraying their own people for their own selfish material wealth.

I have no problem with people praticing their own religious beliefs, but when it comes to intefering in the rights of others, that is dangerous to the state as a whole. It allows your enemies to divide you up and the people against each other. That is what Assad is dealing with as a ruler. He must look out for the General welfare of all his people. I'm not even an Arab, but I can see the problem. Many that seek to play on the divisions of the Arab people are none other than racists. I know them very well in my own country and throughout history.

They keep talking about Israel, but that country's very existance is based on race, and the premise, Jews are superior to other races. I don't believe in racial superiority and reject that notion of God's promised people. I want place any ordinary mortal man above myself, no matter their claims about superiority. They can kiss my ass.

[leftynyc]

26. Who is the "they"

that think Israel's existence is due to race (it's not - Jewish is not a race) and nobody is claiming Jews are superior so that strawman is totally ridiculous. I can see that you're okay with someone who is harsh with religious fanatics (except for Israel apparently) and that's your right.

[closeupready]

28. The world watches ... and does nothing.

[KamaAina]

30. What would you suggest that we do?

Armed intervention by the West stands a decent chance of starting World War III.

Arm the rebels? Perhaps -- but some of them are radical Islamists. Would we be indirectly supplying arms to al-Qaida?

If you ask me, the key to the whole thing is Russia. Without Putin propping him up, Assad dries up and blows away. But Obama doesn't want to meet with Pooty-Poot 'cause Snowden's there.

[closeupready]

32. It's a difficult situation, I'll concede.

[Sunlei]

31. could be concentrated tear gas suffocates people?, or even pesticides? it was tear gas that killed

people in that police van.

crazy!! Assad is allowed to fire the missiles at his own people, his own country. They probably toss tear gas at anything that moves after they bomb.

Don't we have satellites with enough detail to read a license plate number? surely we can see Assad's troops move in and what they're doing.

[Scout]

33. whichever side is using chemical weapons, do we know where they got them?

facebook "friends" are blaming Dems/Liberals, saying these are the weapons that Saddam had all along, but moved them to Syria... and that's why there were no WMDs found in Iraq.

do we know? how would someone find out where they came from?

[dipsydoodle]

36. Excluding sarin

a few industrial grade chemicals could be used to produce chlorine gas.

Some of Sadam's gear was supplied by the US for us against Iran.

[Posteritatis]

37. A lot of countries in the region have had chemical weapons stockpiles for decades

Syria in particular's made a point of never signing chemical weapons treaties. If they used them, I'd assume they were locally-produced and that the armed forces had them for some time.

[CindySessoms]

34. What do you think about this video...

Pretty interesting, isn't it?

[joshcryer]

40. That Egypt video was satire.

One of the protesters in the video even has a shirt indicating as much. It was meant to make fun of those who do employ these tactics.

The news wire photos (AP, Reuters, etc) of the dead in Syria would presumably have photographers on the ground who could verify whether the photos were of dead or were staged.

I find this video to not be very persuasive. All it says is "some people stage things and this could be staged." It does not provide evidence to those ends nor does it indicate why the news wire would report dead people in their photos when none were dead.

[CindySessoms]

41. Really?

[dipsydoodle]

35. Maybe, on the basis the UN team couldn't go in unless the bombing stopped,

its a tactical ploy by the insurgents to give them the chance to regroup. I remain unconvinced that it is actually sarin and also that the Syrian government used whatever it was.

[pampango]

38. Suspending the offensive would certainly give the rebels a chance to regroup. But if they are guilty

of a chemical attack on their own neighborhood, the UN inspectors verifying this would be a huge strategic victory for the regime, worth much more than retaking a single neighborhood.

[David__77]

39. The UN inspectors cannot verify who did what. Only if weapons were used.

Not only do they not have the ability to make a determination, doing so would be out of their authorized scope.

[AverageJoe90]

42. If they're supposedly innocent.....why do all this, still?

If this really was a rebel attack.....then Assad just made one of the most boneheaded moves possible. Period.

But if the gov't really *was* responsible, then this is one more indicator of just that.