Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?
NPR ^ | August 27, 2013 | EYDER PERALTA

Posted on 08/30/2013 12:13:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway

As it lays the groundwork for a potential military strike against Syria, the Obama administration says it is all but certain that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people last week.

Secretary of State John Kerry made the case Monday. "We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses." On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated the point, saying that "anyone who approaches this logically" would conclude that Assad is responsible.

As you might expect, Russia, which has been an unyielding Assad ally and holds veto power on the U.N. Security Council, rejected those conclusions, and the Assad regime blamed the rebels.

So, is it possible the United States and its allies are wrong? Is it possible that it was the rebels, or another group within Syria, that launched the attack near Damascus that reportedly left hundreds dead and thousands more injured?

"I have been asking myself the same question ever since it happened, because it was difficult to find a rationale [for an Assad-led attack]," says Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of CBRNe World, a magazine that covers biological and chemical weapons for the industry.

"[A rebel attack] is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield.

What Winfield means is that this seems like a lose-lose situation for Assad. A chemical attack by the regime would seem to bolster the opposition, because it could mean an international intervention. As for the rebels, there are huge questions about whether they could have pulled off such an attack.

Back in 2002, research conducted by George Lopez, a professor of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, cast doubt on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In this situation, Lopez rejects the notion that it was the Syrian rebels who used chemical weapons.

Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons.

"This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario just doesn't make sense.

For one thing, 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.

"The smart thing [for the rebels] would be for you to aim for barracks and maime/kill a significant few hundred soldiers as the best chance for reverberations that played to your advantage," said Lopez. "This was not done."

It seems clear, Lopez says,"that some armed unit foot soldiers were sent in by Assad some time after the attack in limited numbers. That achieved the desired effect of making the case that since Assad soldiers were hit, the weapons came from the 'terrorists;' but these were exemplars, too few to make a strategic difference for the rebels."

In making the case against Assad, the U.S. has said it is his forces who have the capabilities to launch such an attack and that the rebels do not.

An August 20 report by the Congressional Research Service (pdf) says that Syria has had a vast stockpile of chemical weapons since the early 1980s and perhaps as far back as 1973. Not only that, but the military was trained by the Soviets and possesses the delivery methods — scud missiles and batteries of rocket launchers — that could be used to "rapidly achieve lethal doses of non-persistent agents in a concentrated area."

The report goes on to explain that U.S. officials "have unanimously stated that the weapons stockpiles are secure."

Winfield maintains that the Free Syrian Army has the experience and perhaps even the launching systems to perpetrate such an attack. But that would mean that U.S. officials, and Assad himself, were wrong when they said the chemical stockpiles were secure.

"If [the rebels] have overrun an arms dump which had some of the agent, if a defector brought a limited amount with him, then it would explain why some of the signs and symptoms showed less toxicity than we expected," Winfield said. "That is a lot of 'ifs,' though."

Lopez concurs: "Western intelligence has been standing on its head to monitor all intel about those groups hostile to the West and what they have in their weapons access and supply. The amount of gas agents seemingly used was way beyond what a clandestine group could mix and develop without detection. And it is unclear they would have the expertise to mix the agents.

"Is it possible that a rebel group overran a storage facility of the government and captured some shells that were ready to be activated and then did so?" Lopez says. "Yes, but it would have had to have been a very large seizure preceded by a big battle between Assad top teams and rebels. It could not have happened without inside/outside knowledge."

All of that said, note that the U.S. has qualified every statement it has made about the situation. Kerry said it is "undeniable" that chemical weapons had been used in Syria and he set out a case against Assad without directly blaming the regime for the attack.

During his daily press briefing Tuesday, Carney said: "There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on August 21st outside of Damascus."

Jean Pascal Zanders, who worked for the European Union Institute for Security Studies from 2008 to 2013 and concentrated on the non-proliferation of chemical weapons says until the U.N. investigative team presents its report, "we need to keep our minds open that the events of last Wednesday could in whole or partially have alternative explanations."

"In fact, we – the public – know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage," Zanders added. "For the West's credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; carladelponte; iran; israel; lebanon; maheralassad; potassiumfluoride; randsconcerntrolls; redline; russia; sarin; sodiumfluoride; syria; thebrotherdidit; unitedkingdom; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 08/30/2013 12:13:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Is it possible that German Nazis dressed up as Polish troops and invaded Germany?


2 posted on 08/30/2013 12:14:57 PM PDT by null and void (Bush: Cowboy Diplomacy. Obama: Rodeo Clown Diplomacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Were any Al Queida harmed or killed by the gas attack?
3 posted on 08/30/2013 12:15:41 PM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?


4 posted on 08/30/2013 12:18:11 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler#World_War_II

When Hitler and his army chiefs asked for a pretext for the invasion of Poland in 1939, Himmler, Heydrich, and Heinrich Müller masterminded and carried out a false flag project code-named Operation Himmler. German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms undertook border skirmishes that deceptively suggested Polish aggression against Germany. The incidents were then used in Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland, the opening event of World War II.[87]

5 posted on 08/30/2013 12:18:21 PM PDT by CMB_polarization
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The rebels are al quaeda terrorists. Is it possible that these terrorists used weapons of terror? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I guess it’s possible.


6 posted on 08/30/2013 12:18:46 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

7 posted on 08/30/2013 12:19:38 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?

Probably not but in the end what difference does it make who did it? Assad or the rebels, why is it our moral responsibility to do something about it?

8 posted on 08/30/2013 12:22:06 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
If they can do this with children, then can justify any sacrifice.


9 posted on 08/30/2013 12:22:24 PM PDT by CMB_polarization
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Yes, it’s possible. In fact, it’s the most probable
answer. Assad gains nothing by the use of CW weapons.
I can’t help but feel that all this is somehow connected
to the fiasco in Benghazi. A year later and we still
know nothing about what was involved there.
Yet a week after the supposed use of a chemical agent,
we know for a certainty who used it, who launched it?
Enought to bring our war technology to bear on one side
or the other???


10 posted on 08/30/2013 12:25:50 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I love it, liberals trying to logic themselves out of the obvious. ‘Why, they would have naturally attacked troops rather than defenseless civilians...’

Like, oh, I donno, flying planes into the twin towers? Obviously a military target.

But they targeted their own people.. Right, defenseless civilians who aren’t fighting with them and are extra mouths to feed. Trade that for a military bombing campaign that can devastate the government? Heck, most of the civilians probably would have volunteered if given the option.


11 posted on 08/30/2013 12:26:53 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"The smart thing [for the rebels] would be for you to aim for barracks and maime/kill a significant few hundred soldiers as the best chance for reverberations that played to your advantage," said Lopez. "This was not done."

Sure, if you just wanted to kill a few hundred soldiers. If, on the other hand, you wanted to fool a superpower into serving as your air force and overthrowing the government then you could martyr a thousand of your own people.

It looks like NPR is using checkers thinking in a three dimensional chess world.

12 posted on 08/30/2013 12:27:50 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
U.S. Congress goes into recess on August 03, 2013

Chemical weapons attack in Syria occurs AFTER U.S. Congress goes into recess, giving 0bama unilateral powers to attack Assad, geeeee wow what a coincidence!!!

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

13 posted on 08/30/2013 12:28:56 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Possible?

Ask yourself one question: assuming reasonably intelligent players, who would most benefit from launching a WMD attack? Answer that and then you’ve probably got your answer as to who did what.


14 posted on 08/30/2013 12:33:38 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Power disintegrates when people withdraw their obedience and support)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Which chemical weapons are we talking about? Maybe the ones that were being held in Benghazi that were given to the MB in Syria by the US? That’s what this desperation to blame Assad is all about. Maybe a preemptive strike against what will be revealed?


15 posted on 08/30/2013 12:34:26 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It is not only possible, but most likely Rebels are responsible.


16 posted on 08/30/2013 12:37:13 PM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This is one scenario where Hillary’s scream “at this point what difference does it make” could have actually won her some votes.

Centuries of clan wars will not be solved by the Prophet Obunghole no matter what he does short of total annihilation. Leave any alive and they will still fight.

And short of total annihilation, no matter what he does we will be hated.

Therefore if he just joins the rest of the unwilling and lets the circular firing squads continue he will be doing the world a favor eliminating a few more terrorists or terrorists in the making. A win, win IMO.


17 posted on 08/30/2013 12:37:58 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Wow even NPR now?


18 posted on 08/30/2013 12:38:35 PM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Yuh think?

Assad is damned sure what the demarcation is for the international community to obtain imprimatur for acting.

He and his Generals did not do this.

The Moslem Bruthuh-hood did thisl


19 posted on 08/30/2013 12:40:53 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Sure it is possible. Anything is. But it changes nothing. America has no National Security interest in bombing anyone in Syria. Both sides are Terrorists. Both hate America and would willing kill us.
Stay out if you do not intend to destroy the country and start over.


20 posted on 08/30/2013 12:45:10 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I go to sign for the American Revolution 2013 and the Crusades 2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson