Syria gives Russia 'new evidence' on chemical attack

[Bosonic]

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: AFP

MOSCOW — Russia Wednesday said the Syrian regime had handed over new evidence implicating rebels in a chemical attack outside Damascus, as divisions reemerged between Moscow and the West after a landmark deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons.

Despite a weekend agreement between the United States and Russia aimed at dismantling Syria's chemical arsenal by mid-2014, the two sides remained at loggerheads in their assessment of the August 21 gas attack which left hundreds dead.

US President Barack Obama said it was "inconceivable" that anyone other than the Syrian regime could have carried out the attack but Russia defiantly kept to its past suspicions that the rebels could be to blame.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Wednesday after the first of two days of talks in Damascus the Syrian regime has handed Russia new materials implicating rebels in the chemical attack.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gZzZYay3xfNiGAgRu6BWQCpL-1mA?docId=CNG.f377f0c11b8e0d65e772ec27f82c8da6.2b1

[joshcryer]

1. I hope they explain where the rebels got hundreds of liters of sarin...

[Turborama]

3. Also...

Why it took nearly a month to fabricate provide the "evidence".

[another_liberal]

9. It would appear they did try to offer the evidence before:

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, states that:

We are disappointed, to put it mildly, with the approach which the UN Secretariat and UN Inspectors in Syria have taken. They have reported selectively and without full information or fully taking into account circumstances we have noted many times, and without looking at three other incidents which the Syrian side had strongly urged them to do, and which we had also urged them to do.

Russia has started analysing this information. For now it is too early to draw any conclusions, but given that we previously came to the same conclusions over the 19 March incident, we are inclined to take material from the Syrian authorities about the involvement of rebels in the 21 August attack seriously… We think this will help strengthen the evidence and proof that the rebels are involved in the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/syria-crisis-russia-dismisses-un-chemical-weapons-findings-as-biased

[Turborama]

12. Not this evidence, which I was referring to: "Syria gives Russia 'new evidence'"

That excerpt doesn't say Syria has tried to offer Russia evidence before about the August 21 mass-murder-by-gas, either.

[another_liberal]

18. I still think the only responsible course of action . . .

There is one way to find out for certain. I still think the only responsible course of action is to see what exactly they claim to have in the way of evidence, old or new.

We must have conclusive, incontrovertible proof if we are to get a UNSC vote for action against Assad's regime; otherwise, we can not legally act, and we must not.

[another_liberal]

6. They boasted about having seized sarin from Assad's stockpiles.

There are many scattered around Syria, and some have been on military bases seized by the rebels:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159391#.UjmOkX8piSZ

[karynnj]

11. Then ALL THE MORE REASON to get them out and destroyed

The reason for this is to reset the international opinion before Geneva 2. If Assad is seen as having done the bombing, it is easier to argue that he - or anyone in the chain of command on that decision should not be in the government and should be on the way to the Hague.

I know that you have great skepticism of anything the US government says - and I understand that it comes from Iraq, but you seem to apply NONE of that skepticism of Russia - headed by a former member of the KGB.

Everything Russia is saying now is for positioning on writing this resolution and for any subsequent negotiations on Syria.

[arewenotdemo]

19. At least for me, this isn't about just Iraq.

I believe the skepticism many of us have stems from many more examples of American interventionism than just Iraq.

[joshcryer]

21. "concrete suspicions"

LOL, I find it amusing as fuck how easily the rebels get accused of something that's "suspected" but when there's overwhelming evidence to implicate the Syrian government it's "not enough."

It's fucking fucked up.

[arewenotdemo]

27. You mean when they are "suspected" of executing captured Syrian soldiers?

And the only evidence we have to rely on is....the video that the rebels actually provide?

BTW, why do you think Obama has never threatened to bomb the rebels for any of the atrocities they have committed?

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/09/17/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-so-he-can-aid-syrian-rebels/

[joshcryer]

28. Like how HRW said the Syrian government executed civilians?

I'm talking with relation to sarin but if you want to deflect we can discuss the Syrian government executions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014593756

[arewenotdemo]

34. Not deflecting at all. I don't believe Obama's case for Assad's complicity.

Especially when he's been waging a covert war against Syria for over two years....largely CREATING the environment where such abuses are almost certain to occur.

I would place the blood of the 100,000+ killed largely on HIS hands.

I note HRW's mission statement:

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

Where has HRW condemned Obama for his covert war?

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/09/17/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-so-he-can-aid-syrian-rebels/

[joshcryer]

36. Obama isn't selling Assad weapons.

And has only recently armed the rebels. Which means for the past two years Russia is the one truly responsible for the 100k dead.

It is delusional to blame Obama for what has happened in Syria over the past 2 years. There has been very little material support and what support there was has come in the form of food and medical aid, yaknow, stuff that refugees from the war desperately need.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Also the rockets that UN found delivered Sarin + infrastructure to handle and activate the system.nt

[Uncle Joe]

20. Even the U.N. report states that evidence had been moved or tampered with. Aside from that

there were some odd contradictions in the Sarin samples with newer taken samples being more potent than older ones, it should be the other way around.

The U.N. Report also didn't assign blame.

I have no doubt if any of the 10,000 (estimated by Janes) Al Qaida fighters with the rebels obtained chemical weapons, they would use them if for no other purpose than to draw two of its' arch-enemies, the U.S. and Russia into a wider conflict over Syria.

Assad would have little to no motivation in using chemical weapons especially after already having invited the U.N. inspectors in to Syria over prior attacks which he blamed on the rebels.

The last thing Assad would need is for the U.S. to start bombing his resources while he's fighting a civil war and Obama had already drawn his line in the sand as to what would provoke a U.S. response.

[joshcryer]

22. They did not say that the munitions in question were moved.

God, the sarin attack deniers remind me so much of climate change deniers or climatologists. Picking, picking, picking, fomenting doubt, acting as if the full picture isn't known thus we can't make any kind of assessment one way or another.

Where does this mindset come from?

[Uncle Joe]

24. Here is a link to the U.N. Report scroll down to page #18 under the heading "Limitations"

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

[Limitations}

The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well traveled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

I'm not denying that there was an attack, but logic dictates Al Qaida elements within the rebel forces would have much greater motivation than Assad.

I'm also not saying it's an absolute that Assad didn't do it, I am stating that there is a strong probability that Al Qaida was behind the attack in an attempt to cast blame on Assad and draw the U.S. and Russia in to a wider conflict.

There are battles that have been going on within the past few days between the more moderate factions of the rebel army and some of the estimated 10,000 Al Qaida fighters in Syria or on the border with Iraq.

Al Qaida would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if they obtained them and there are several reports that the rebels do have chemical weapons.

[joshcryer]

25. fragments

[Uncle Joe]

30. Precisely and depending the size and amount of fragments removed, not to mention other evidence

that could make a difference in analytical determination.

[joshcryer]

32. They didn't say the munition chunks themselves were moved.

Why are you so focused on such a small detail?

What kind of doubt is it supposed to put into the UN report?

What kind of conclusion can you draw from it when the UN report completely contradicts anything but what is in the report?

[Uncle Joe]

33. Fragments can also be munitions chunks, that's where the term fragmentation grenade comes from,

after it explodes you get fragments.

Now a rocket will have bigger chunks than a grenade, but "fragments" could certainly include chunks.

Small details can make all the difference in forensic analysis.

Again nowhere in the U.N. report does it assign blame.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question, you might try rephrasing it.

[joshcryer]

35. That's why they INCLUDED those details.

Because they wanted to be thorough.

Yet those details, people, yaknow, picking up fragments of a larger mostly intact munition, people bringing pieces of munitions to the UN inspectors to look at, that's all fucking common sense. Unless you have policing that's what's going to happen. Just look at Dunn and his car accident and how people were auctioning off pieces of his car. This is normal anywhere.

The point is they pointed it out. But they didn't suggest or imply or anything like that that the munitions they took samples from were tampered with. They were consistent with munitions fired and discharging the gas. Which, btw, is what distinguishes these munitions from typical explosive munitions. They are mostly intact, the sarin was distributed by the munition on impact, in a spray-like fashion.

The UN report doesn't assign blame yet you use a tiny piece of the UN report to suggest that blame should go against the rebels. The UN report instead shows that the trajectory was from a Syrian base, that the amount of sarin used was massive in quantity, and that the chemical was indeed sarin.

[Uncle Joe]

37. The U.N. doesn't assign blame but signs of evidence tampering go beyond just "picked up pieces

of fragments that are brought to the U.N. Inspectors."

Furthermore this moving and tampering of evidence took place prior to the U.N. team even arriving.

Beyond that the Sarin Tests themselves plus a relatively crude rocket delivering the bulk of the Sarin if not all of it, suggest the attack was more limited in scope than previously touted and reported, increasing the chance that it was a rebel launched attack, possibly by Al Qaida elements.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/17/murky-clues-from-uns-syria-report/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023686690

Though the UN report concludes that Sarin was present in Moadamiyah – despite the failure to identify actual chemical-warfare agents – the report does not explain why the Aug. 26 samples in Moadamiyah would test so negatively when the Aug. 28-29 samples in Zamalka/Ein Tarma would test much more positively.

(snip)

If the Aug. 21 attack centered on Zamalka/Ein Tarma as the UN results suggest, that could indicate a much less expansive use of chemical weapons than a U.S. government white paper claimed. The alleged breadth of the attack served as a primary argument for blaming the Syrian government given its greater military capabilities than the rebels.

(snip)

While at the suspected attack sites, the inspectors also detected signs that evidence had apparently been “moved” and “possibly manipulated.” Regarding the Moadamiyah area, the UN reported noted, “Fragments [of rockets] and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigative team.”

In the Zamalka/Ein Tarma neighborhood, where a crudely made missile apparently delivered the poison gas, the inspectors stated that “the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. … During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.”

(snip)

And, where does the U.S. intelligence community stand on these allegations? It’s curious that the Aug. 30 white paper was issued by the White House press office as a “Government Assessment,” when such a report would normally come from the Director of National Intelligence and be labeled an assessment of the U.S. intelligence agencies. A traditional assessment would also include footnotes indicating where there were differences of opinion about the data.

Read Parry's entire analysis re: The U.N Report, motivations of the antagonists and coverage by the corporate media.

[pampango]

2. Wait for the UN. Wait for the UN. Wait ... I don't like these results. ... Here comes the bus!

"... we cannot describe the character of the conclusions as anything other than politicised, biased and one-sided,"

[joshcryer]

29. Yep, I predicted this.

It's just like with climate change deniers. If there's one temperature station that is off then the entire record is thrown into question.

[CRH]

4. History will leak the truth eventually, ...

With Russia, nothing is ever as it seems.
With the US and CIA, nothing is ever as it seems.
With the foreign policy provocations of the both, nothing is ever as it seems.
The 'political truth', is never as it seems.

The only thing I am sure of now, is nothing can be trusted from either, to be what it seems.

[azurnoir]

13. ^^^^^this^^^^^

abso-freakin-lutely

[another_liberal]

5. This will not be welcome news . . .

It will not be welcome news, that is, to those who don't care about who is actually guilty but only want to use the chemical attacks in Syria as an excuse to take us into yet another unnecessary war.

[pampango]

7. Mr. Assad is, was and always will be welcome to present evidence to the UN inspectors.

One question would be why he turned this "new evidence" over to Russia rather than to the UN inspectors or, even better, to the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria which is tasked with determining the guilty party in all war crimes in the country. (Of course, if Assad had not banned the Commission for entering Syria, he could have just handed the "new evidence" to them.)

[another_liberal]

8. If the investigation is now allowed to go forward, without having to dodge cruise missiles . . .

Perhaps we will find out why?

[pampango]

10. Agreed. Heck, even if one is convinced that Assad's forces are guilty, cruise missiles will not help

and will make things even worse. By all means, let the investigation go forward and let the chips fall where they may.

[karynnj]

16. Why not continue to work to remove the chemical weapons?

In the talks, Kerry and Lavrov - both spoke of removing ANY chemical weapons held by Assad or the rebels, if they had any.

No matter who did this - there is good reason to remove the chemical weapons.

I suspect that this is Russia - essentially throwing sand in the air to make it harder to see that the UN report comes very close to putting the blame on Assad - even as it does not assign blame.

It is best to consider these two things as two pieces that can go in parallel - if the CW piece goes forward, the strike never happens. The reason to keep the threat IF CW are used or Syria does not comply, is to keep the force that may them agree - and made Russia push them to agree - there. It is very clear that to Obama and Kerry - the removal happening is the far better solution - making the region safer.

[pampango]

31. Nice post. I agree. Somehow missed this until now. n/t

[karynnj]

15. The Obama position was never to take us "into" the civil war

in fact, it seems that Obama has been LESS eager to be covertly involved than Petraeous, Clinton, Gates and Dempsey were 2 years ago.

He (and Kerry) worked with Russia to reopen the Geneva 2 talks that had been abandoned. In fact, had they not done that, it is very likely that they would not have had the foundation to engage with Russia that culminated in the agreement.

This is said - knowing that the US has provided assistance - recently including arms - to the rebels. I wish this were NOT the case, but this has been the case for 2 years, You might note that Lavrov and Kerry were speaking of the Geneva 2 talks - that would attempt to end the civil war.

[another_liberal]

17. Did I say it was?

I don't think so.

[cthulu2016]

23. He freaking authorized it

I have no doubt that Clinton, Petreaus, Dempsey, etc. were more in favor of covert involvement in the civil war, but that doesn't mean Obama was against it unless he is signing off on things he is secretly against.

The CIA was training and arming rebels before the 8/21 gas attack.

[arewenotdemo]

26. Obama made a determination very early on, probably in 2011

that he was going to overthrow Assad. That would jibe with Zbigniew Bzrezinski's account:

Brzezinski: I can't engage either in psychoanalysis or any kind of historical revisionism. He obviously has a difficult problem on his hands, and there is a mysterious aspect to all of this. Just consider the timing. In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go, without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown?

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

I would give no weight to the possibility that Qatar acted without American authorization, considering that it is the base of the U.S. Central Command Forward Headquarters and Combined Air Operations Center.