Skip to main content

I'll start with Putin's and Assad's initial proposed compromise. That compromise dealt with Assad getting rid of his chemical weapons. But considering both Putin and Assad have stated, it's more likely the rebels used them to draw their Patron the U.S. in, Why didn't they include in their proposed compromise, a condition that the rebels give up their chemical weapons too? The only reason i see, Putin and Assad know the rebels don't have chemical weapons.

Another reason i say Assad used chemical weapons on his people. In Assad's interview he stated, "it has not been determined YET, that he used them". Was he being sarcastic? If he wasn't, wouldn't you expect him to say, they want find any evidence, because we didn't use them?

This is not about whether i want the U.S. to attack or not, i am simply raising a point of view who i think is lying and why. We now have a chance to get rid of Assad's chemical weapons through negotiations which is good, but i do think Assad used them and to avoid a U.S attack, weighed the advantages and disadvantages of using them again, and concluded it's best to get rid of the chemical weapons. After all, there is no proof rebels used them and there is no proposed compromise that include taking chemical weapons from the rebels. Why not? Wouldn't taking chemical weapons from the rebels be the first consideration, considering all the talk about them being Al Qaeda and they could end up, or is already in the hands of so called terrorist and actually threaten any country, including us? Conclusion due the the actions and words of both Assad and Russia, they know the rebels didn't do it, because they didn't have any.

Originally posted to OrganizedCrime on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Occupying with Laser.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm convinced. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duckmg, CharlesII

    As long as you feel it, I believe it.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:05:11 PM PDT

  •  Excellent point (8+ / 0-)
    Why didn't they include in their proposed compromise, a condition that the rebels give up their chemical weapons too?
    •  a thing that makes you go "hmmm..." (5+ / 0-)

      Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

      by Murphoney on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:19:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a very weak point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      petral, Alhambra, unfangus

      It assumes the rebels have chemical weapons manufacturing capability and stockpiles.

      A much more likely scenario is that the rebels obtain their supply by force or corruption from Assad's stockpiles, when they have a use in mind, and quickly use them. I seriously doubt that they would simply manufacture and hold these weapons, or even steal and hold them.

      There is no particular reason for Putin to suggest the rebels give up 'their' chemical weapons. If Assad's stockpiles are destroyed the rebels will lose access to them as well.

       

      "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

      by Orinoco on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:49:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not as weak (0+ / 0-)

        while the Syrian government was pretending not to have any chemical weapons.  Hard to steal something if they don't exist.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:06:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand (0+ / 0-)

          how Putin's not insisting the rebels give up their chemical weapons is connected to Assad's pretending not to have them himself.

          I am sure the rebels don't concern themselves with whatever propaganda their enemies might tell diplomatic circles or the larger world when they are planning their military operations.

          While it may be hard to steal something that doesn't exist in reality, it is not quite as hard to steal something kept in a secure bunker guarded by soldiers you have bribed to look the other way while you take what some politician claims is not there.

          "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

          by Orinoco on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:47:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think Assad is pretending not to have (0+ / 0-)

            chemical weapons himself, just pretending that he did not use them. I do believe that he admits he has them.

            And the evidence is quite strong that the Syrian military used them. Since Assad is Commander in Chief of the Syrian military, he is responsible.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:51:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Up until a week ago (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sewaneepat

              the Assad government was pretending it had no chemical weapons.

              "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

              by newfie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:27:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                newfie

                I was just thinking in terms of this deal in which they have, of course, admitted having them.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:33:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I always favor the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sewaneepat

                  simpler explanations.  It is a simpler explanation that Assad's forces used the weapons.  He may or may not have approved the use.  That doesn't change what happened.  It is far more difficult to actually steal chemical weapons without anyone knowing and then use them. It is a far more difficult argument to say that one body stole chemical weapons and then used them on their own people-a seemingly favorite CT in the ME.  It isn't that it is impossible but it is highly improbable - particularly because they are not great weapons - they do kill but they tend to be very indiscriminate so the closer you use them to your position the higher the chance you are affected - unless you control the wind.  Also, because you are then burdened by dealing with victims - taking up valuable resources, and dealing with the effects on morale -some will be bent on vengeance others will be too distraught. And a host of other things.  

                  And on the flip side, Assad could not maintain his denial of ownership and claim the rebels stole the chem weapons.  Nor could he declare that chem weapons were used without his authority - he couldn't do this even if he admitted having them - his position is way to tenuous.

                  "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

                  by newfie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:00:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Not weak at all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        petral, duhban
        It assumes the rebels have chemical weapons manufacturing capability and stockpiles.
        They may have been able to abscond with government produced stockpiles.
        •  Yes, they may have done (0+ / 0-)

          but you must ask yourself why they would bother to abscond with government chemical weapons, with all the danger and expense, only to put them into another stockpile, which, given the fluid nature of war, they may not have for very long.

          Abscond with to use for some purpose, sure. Abscond with and just shrug and say, well, put them over there for the time being... not credible.

          Did you read beyond my first sentence?

          "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

          by Orinoco on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:41:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Because there's 1200 rebel groups and (6+ / 0-)

      who knows which one? http://www.dailykos.com/...

      Literally 1200 groups, according to the Pentagon.

      Moreover, the US didn't say that we'd bomb Syria because rebels used sarin. Even though the UN's lead investigator said on May 6 that it was highly likely rebels were behind the Aleppo sarin attacks.

      Russia's interest is that Assad's position not be radically degraded. The US's interest is regime change. Certainly not a deep concern about CW, as shown by complete silence on the rebel's use.

      That UN investigators arrived in Syria 3 days before the Damascus attack to finish their investigation of Aleppo, which was put on hold until just this week.

      Haaretz May 6 2013
      UN has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas

      United Nations human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin; no evidence yet of government use of chemical weapons.


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:56:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  german intel (7+ / 0-)

    has undermined the idea that assad ordered the attacks. no one has refuted their conclusion. it seems certain that assad's troops used the chemical weapons against his orders.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:15:46 PM PDT

    •  Unsafe storage, means lack of concern. (0+ / 0-)
      •  it's not about storage (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Demi Moaned, jbou, Jim P, tmay

        it's about commanders spending months being turned down when they request permission to use the weapons, then one or some deciding to use them anyway. it may be about a breakdown in assad's command. something he certainly doesn't want the world- or his enemies- to understand.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:21:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reagan maintained plausible deniability in his day (0+ / 0-)

      Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

      by Murphoney on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:21:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Strong Circumstantial Case" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OrganizedCrime, MRA NY

      From Foreign Policy magazine: U.N. Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack

      U.N. inspectors have collected a "wealth" of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.

      The inspection team, which is expected on Monday to present U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon with a highly anticipated report on a suspected Aug. 21 nerve agent attack in the suburbs of Damascus, will not directly accuse the Syrian regime of gassing its own people, according to three U.N.-based diplomats familiar with the investigation. But it will provide a strong circumstantial case -- based on an examination of spent rocket casings, ammunition, and laboratory tests of soil, blood, and urine samples -- that points strongly in the direction of Syrian government culpability.

      "I know they have gotten very rich samples -- biomedical and environmental -- and they have interviewed victims, doctors and nurses," said the Western official. "It seems they are very happy with the wealth of evidence they got." The official, who declined to speak on the record because of the secrecy surrounding the U.N. investigation, could not identify the specific agents detected by the inspector team, but said, "You can conclude from the type of evidence the [identity of the] author."

      •  questionable reporting (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, Orinoco, Duckmg, chuckvw

        just as the hrw conclusions have been shoddily reported. it's clear that assad's troops used the cw, but victims, doctors and nurses can't tell us anything about assad's role. the only evidence we have is the german intercepts.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:31:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Command Responsibility Doctrine (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OrganizedCrime

          Even if you somehow buy that Assad didn't give the order directly, that doesn't absolve him of responsibility. Especially if there were multiple chemical attacks carried out by his troops

          Article 28 of the Rome Statute:

          A superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes... committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:

          • (i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;
          • (ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and
          • (iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

          From Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions:

          The fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from … responsibility … if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.
        •  It's really a moot point. (0+ / 0-)

          It's possible that Assad did not order the CW attacks.
          That doesn't mean they weren't done by some kind of prior strategic understanding that put a "trigger" in place so that Bashar wouldn't be implicated.

          At any rate, Assad has been butchering his own people by conventional means.
          And you're defending him.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:14:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i know this is hard (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, DeadHead, unfangus

            but trying to get to the facts, particularly when they are considered the casus belli for a possible war, isn't defending. and if his years of conventional butchery weren't considered heinous enough to warrant intervention, don't blame me.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:45:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Known facts: (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis, tmay, Lepanto, Duckmg, Alhambra

        1. Saddam tried to purchase Yellowcake uranium from Africa

        2. Saddam has aluminum tubes that can only be used for nuclear centrifuges

        3. Saddam has mobile chemical weapons labs that were captured on satellite photo

        Oh, wait. All of those things were lies, too.

    •  How could Germany know for sure, on Assad or (0+ / 0-)

      soldiers word?

    •  Apparently his brother is a "loose cannon". (0+ / 0-)

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:10:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no german intel has not (0+ / 0-)

      your twisting of the reports by german intel has.

      •  what part of (5+ / 0-)
        the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21
        do you not understand?

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:17:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  source that please (0+ / 0-)

          as the last time you provided a link there was a lot of context you skipped over

          •  i know this is hard (4+ / 0-)

            here's the context:

            The newspaper’s article said that on numerous occasions in recent months, the German intelligence ship named Oker, which is off the Syrian coast, has intercepted communications indicating that field officers have contacted the Syrian presidential palace seeking permission to use chemical weapons and have been turned down.

            The article added that German intelligence does not believe Assad sanctioned the alleged attack on August 21.

            http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:20:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the only thing hard (0+ / 0-)

              is making sure your sources say what you think they say.

              Case in point, from the same source

              Last week, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, also citing a briefing for German legislators, said that the Oker had intercepted a phone call between a commander from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and an official at an unidentified Iranian embassy saying that Assad had ordered the Aug. 21 chemical attack out of anger. The Hezbollah commander called the attack a “huge mistake,” Der Spiegel said. It was not clear if the two news accounts were based on the same or different briefings
              Now I am not sure how both of these things can be true and this certainly suggests things are not as 'certain' as you have claimed.
              •  gosh (3+ / 0-)

                you figured that out all by yourself. german intel had hearsay evidence between a hezbollah commander and an unknown iranian official. and they had months of direct intercepts between commanders and the palace. and they were smart enough to figure out which was credible. what did the paper say german intel concluded? what did the paper say the head of german intel concluded? it's right there in the article.

                i know this is hard.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:22:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  being arrogant and condescending  doesn't make you anything other then a bit of a jerk you know.

                  Months of intercepts only prove that to that date Assad controlled himself and actually that makes it more likely that Assad did this in a fit of anger and rage then not.

                  But please keep on beating that drum of yours as if the past means he didn't do it now. Did you even watch his interview? It was classic smug dictator 'I did it and you can't prove it so up yours'.

                  And yet you keep carrying water for the guy and why? Because it embarrasses Obama?

                  I really don't get you, you're obviously very smart and a hell of a writer. Much better then me for sure and yet you persist in letting your bias dominate your thinking.

        •  Is there any evidence that Assad has sacked (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney

          the commander responsible (his brother) or had any other reaction within the regime command communication system that he disapproved of the attack, etc.?
          It's possible that he tacitly approved of the attack even if he didn't explicitly communicate that.

          I'm not attacking people here for being opposed to the strikes or being "against war" (I am too.) however, I think it's embarrassing the degree to which people on the left are out to make a victim of Bashar Assad.

          Despicable also, is the maneuvering of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who are looking to use "the anti-war left" as a cudgel to smack Obama around. Anybody who thinks this new "non-interventionism" exists for any reason other than to "say no to Obama" are fools.
          They of course are mounting a "pro-Putin/Assad" campaign targeting the religious right, touting Assad's protection of Christians, as well. Not only that, but if you haven't looked at the mainstream media lately, they're falling all over themselves in the mindless effort to "not repeat the drumbeat to war" CNN and the Morning Joe/Chuck Todd axis of MSNBC are entirely blaming everything on the Pres. and, of course, gop malfeasance and obstruction doesn't exist.

          My nephew, a gun-obsessed tea party whack job was just last week touting some 4th rate movie about the North Koreans being invited to the White House and taking hostages and taking over our gov. and how "we need our guns"Etc.
          Then Wed he's over here with the "It's good Putin's going to make Assad give up the CW. I'm so tired of war..." Bullshit. They all got the "say no to Obama" memo.

          Putin/Assad are looking to leverage the combined tea party "no to Obama on everything" and the left opposition into a victory for Assad.

          In this environment, I think people who want lasting peace should think twice about defending Assad. Furthermore, I think there will be more info coming out from multiple sources. I don't think we should be mounting a "save Assad" propaganda campaign just yet.

          Everybody knows there are "no good options" in Syria. Everyone knows that the presence of al Qaeda radically complicated efforts to mount a program to remove Assad from power. Everyone knows there are multiple groups and "everybody's fighting everyone else" . On top of this, you have the traitorous gop complicating our efforts to resolve this. Assad may not have specifically ordered the CW attacks. However he is the one in a position right now, (if anyone is) of securing the CW and seeing to its disposal. Pressure has to be brought on him</em>.

          I appreciate your effort to illuminate the facts so far, but the prevailing opinion of German intel doesn't constitute ironclad proof of anything.
          At any rate, it's good that the credible threat of action by the President convinced Putin to make this move, if it proves to be substantive. Something tells me he's just Stalin. (sorry, couldn't help it).

          Somehow, those of us on "the left" are going to have to find a somewhat unified path going forward. That doesn't mean we'll all agree. But these parsing, nitpicking, bickering threads here probably weaken us.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:18:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Assad is Commander-in-chief of his military. (0+ / 0-)

      The German intel was quite sure that the Syrian military used the chemical weapons but could not connect Assad to giving the order. Perhaps it was his brother or another General who actually ordered it. Perhaps like Henry II, Assad merely said "who will rid me of these troublesome civilians?"

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:57:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually (0+ / 0-)

        the german intel shows assad repeatedly turning down requests for permission to use.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:24:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed, they had intel that Assad had repeatedly (0+ / 0-)

          turned down requests in the past 4 months, however, they -as far as I can tell - do not have any particular intel concerning this particular attack other than the Hezbollah official who said that Assad had ordered this particular attack because he was "losing his nerve."

          http://www.abc.net.au/...

          http://america.aljazeera.com/...

          You will note that al Jazeera says that "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."

          Just because he had said no in the past does not necessarily mean he said no to this particular one. In any event, as I said he is the CIC and it does not make a flap-doodle as to whether he personally ordered the attack or his generals went behind his back. We have never proposed to attack Assad personally, just his military capability that was responsible for the attack, whether he is incapable of controlling his generals or not.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:35:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

            there was talk of regime change. there also wasn't any explanation of how bombing would diminish cw capabilities. and mcclatchy has a little more:

            The report in Bild am Sonntag, which is a widely read and influential national Sunday newspaper, reported that the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in Damascus’ eastern suburbs.
            convinced.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:48:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here is what Bild am Sonntag says: (0+ / 0-)
              Laut den Erkenntnissen der Abhör-Spezialisten wurden die von den Kommandeuren verlangten Giftgas-Angriffe stets abgelehnt und der Einsatz vom 21. August wahrscheinlich nicht von Assad persönlich genehmigt.
              I don't speech or read German but here is how it was translated for me
              According to the findings of the monitoring specialists requested by the commanders were poison gas attacks and always rejected the use of 21 August probably not personally approved by Assad.
              Looking up the word wahrscheinlich - it means probably. If one wanted to say "certainly," "very likely," "in all probability," or even "quite likely," the phrase would be sehr wahrscheinlich. So I will stick with German intelligence doesn't think he personally ordered it but they do not know that for a fact.

              As to regime change, all I have heard the President say is that we are not seeking regime change. Maybe you can give me a link where he has said that military strikes in Syria would be for regime change.

              Again, Assad is the head of the military and government and the Syrian government is responsible for the actions the military takes. If he told them no, and they did it anyway, it does not make a rat's ass in whether or not to strike their missile capabilities. If the Joint Chiefs asked Obama to bomb Iran and he said no and this happened over and over, and yet the US military bombed Iran, would you say that Iran or their allies should not respond because the President of the US said not to do it?

              You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

              by sewaneepat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:54:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Of course, if Assad did not approve the strike, (0+ / 0-)

              The important question is who the fuck is in charge of the Surian military and government.

              You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

              by sewaneepat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:32:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Your first point is valid, IMO. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OrganizedCrime

    Your second point...?  This could just be a language issue. For example, in some languages, the word for "yet" is pretty much the same as "still." Sometimes there are no direct translations.

    Your first point though... I think you've got something there.

  •  while we're at it one could ask (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Kimbeaux, chuckvw

    why was President Obama's red line set solely for the Assad government and not the rebels?

    by your kind of very sloppy argument one could conclude that it was because President Obama was keen to have the rebels use gas so that it could be used as an excuse to bomb Assad

    I'm not arguing that, obviously.

    It's just that it shows that your reasoning is tendentious, for it tries in a similar manner to arrive to a conclusion from an insufficient premise.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:29:31 PM PDT

  •  Both lame (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Duckmg

    If he gets rid of them, and they are still used, then the opposition looks bad.

    As for 'Yet', in Arabic, the word would be lissa. It means until now, yet, haven't. And in context, he was saying they haven't even prove he'd done anything, and they are risking war.

    I love the over-analyzing that goes on here. It cracks me up. Especially by people that don't speak Arabic or routinely talk to Arabs speaking English.

  •  The Rebels (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice

    as early as 2012 were targeting Syrian CW facilities at the bequest and with the official on the ground help of Washington/Government contractors.

    The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

    The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

    It is very much possible that one of these 'securings' went wrong perhaps with fault on both sides, and many innocents paid with their lives.

    But thats just what I believe. And really when it comes down to it... thats what matters right?

    "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

    by LieparDestin on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:09:34 PM PDT

  •  Makes total sense. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OrganizedCrime, MRA NY

    It's pretty obvious the rebels didn't do it, so it had to have been the Syrian Army. Therefore it's Assad's responsibility.

    The people who refuse to acknowledge that are the very same ones who are quick to blame Obama for every bad thing that happens under his administration.

    Please pretend that I don't give a shit.

    by Jim Riggs on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:09:59 PM PDT

    •  Unbelievable. I've heard some of the same people (4+ / 0-)

      here accuse President Obama of torturing individuals who are supposedly held in prisons in far off places. Even accusing him of torturing individuals in GITMO, because they say if it happens on his watch he is responsible.  

      And yet....and yet....some of the very same people over the past few days have been asserting passionately and persistently that Assad had nothing to do with attacking his own people with chemical weapons, because the deed was done by members of his own military...NOT ASSAD...Assad is not to be blamed....

      I mean.... Words escape me.....

  •  well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duckmg, Alhambra
    Why didn't they include in their proposed compromise, a condition that the rebels give up their chemical weapons too?
    1) John Kerry's sarcastic, immediately-retracted offer of a deal was the only thing standing between Assad and drowning in his own blood under a pile of concrete by October. Are you going to demand a receipt from a mugger before you give him your wallet?

    2) Pretty much rule #1 of fighting a rebellion is you don't legitimize them by bringing them into a negotiation as your equal.

    3) Obviously the rebels have nothing to lose and would refuse to agree to anything no matter what it was. They "rejected" this deal when nobody asked them and they had nothing to do with it.

  •  You're forgetting something. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duckmg

    Several of the rebel groups have received weapons, including chemical weapons, from affiliated groups in Libya. Saudi Arabia is providing the funds to purchase the weapons and is transporting them to Syria.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site