General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere has not been ONE reason given for Assad to have used these weapons
beyond "he is a crazy mofo".
I have yet to read any speculation in the media as to why Assad would have used these weapons. It simply makes no sense considering that he made no strategic or tactical gain from their use. This is an existential fight for the Assad regime and it simply makes no sense to commit the very act that he was warned would cause western intervention on the side of the rebels.
It is telling that not a single major media outlet has speculated on WHY Assad would have used these weapons.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)You can't make this shit up.
blazeKing
(329 posts)And they'll lie for the administration too if it means more war and better ratings.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But this isn't the MSM.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JI7
(89,289 posts)and others .
if he was the one to have used the chemical weapons last time around he maybe have thought he could do it and get away with it.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Why would he calculate that these weapons would be more effective than his conventional weapons? In fact, reality and experience conclusively show these weapons are not as effective as traditional munitions.
JI7
(89,289 posts)of course we need to wait for what the inspectors will say.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)used these weapons as psychological warfare knowing he would face a western response that will greatly benefit the enemies. The very enemies he has recently made significant gains against using conventional weapons?
That makes no sense at all.
JI7
(89,289 posts)he saw or felt he could get away with it .
wild bird
(421 posts)Buy using them, he creates terror among the civilians.
I don't know who used those heinous weapons, and neither does anyone else here, right now, it's all speculation.
That's one of the many reasons I'm vehemently opposed to military action in Syria.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I seem to recall that recent reports had rebel forces heavily decimated and retreating in many places. So if Assad, acting somewhat rationally on any given day consent to the use of or order chemical weapons be deployed knowing full well what he would be inviting?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The reason is clear: He wants to terrify the opposition and believes his Russian friends can intimidate the West into not doing anything.
I admit: I am war-weary. We fought one justified war (poorly, for 7 years) and one completely unjustified war. I'm sick of war. And even if justified, a strike won't really accomplish much. OTOH, Assad IS a sonovabitch, and if he isn't slapped down, he will will escalate use of those weapons.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)After the heavy use of conventional weapons, support by Russia, Hamas, and the Iranian military he has not stopped the rebels, only spread the rebellion.
A number of high ranking Syrian military men and officials have defected showing his government is in disarray.
There have been several other reports of Chemical weapons use:
September 2012 - Shells in the Desert: Syria Tested Chemical Weapons Systems, Witnesses Say
France warned that Syria used Chemical Weapons in September 2012
December 24 Here's What The 'Agent-15' Chemical Doctors Say Was Used In Syria Does To People
January 14 Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria
There are more. It could be that after using Chemical weapons in limited ways as a test for almost a year to test what the international community would do, and no one doing anything about it, he decided that he could do so with impunity.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Assad had been making significant military gains against the rebels recently and to suddenly use weapons that would invite western intervention makes no sense.
"Second, why would the Assad regime do something so stupid? It must know that by using chemical weapons it would isolate itself from any international support and invite a Western military response. More importantly, Assad was already winning the war so why bother to use WMDs during the last lap to victory? Indeed, the only people who have anything to gain by Assad using chemicals are the rebels, because that would internationalise the conflict in a way that they have long lobbied for."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100232698/syria-why-would-assad-invite-a-western-intervention-by-using-wmds-in-a-war-he-was-winning/
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Second, the Russians support him and he knows we don't want a fight with the bear.
Third, Iran supports him and just today made threats to attack Israel and spread the war.
And I've seen no evidence of a last lap to victory.
Assad has motive, means, and opportunity.
The rebels don't meet that test.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)an Assad stronghold.
wild bird
(421 posts)You keep saying that it doesn't make sense that Assad would use Sarin because he's winning, but you're assuming that he thinks like a western leader would, which is the farthest from the truth.
For a despot like Assad, it doesn't matter if he's winning, and that is in doubt at this point, but how to so terrorize the population so that if he does put down this insurgency, they won't dare rise up again, and what better way than to demonstrate that he will use these WMD's.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)There is nothing more costly in terms of resources and casualties than taking a built up area (MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain) from a serious defender.
Armor advantage? Negated.
Numbers advantage? Greatly in favor of the defender.
Local populace sympathies? Certainly not with Assad.
Assad is not crazy...... he's just evil and made the gamble to save his ass.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)There were no tactical or strategic advantages to use these weapons.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It's terrorism or a war of attrition. Or both. The point is to make the enemy so terrified of you that they have no other choice but to surrender.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)When you have a strong rebel presence in Damascus and rebels gaining ground every day, how can you claim that nonsense?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Kept referring to Assad as Sadam
This was telling
eissa
(4,238 posts)The rebels only. They have been desperate to get western intervention (and will just as eagerly turn on them once they gain power.) It makes ZERO sense for the Assad regime to not only use chemical weapons, but in areas where there is a heavy pro-regime population, including many of their own forces. Why would they resort to such tactics knowing the US is itching to get involved, and this would provide the excuse they needed? It's all bullshit.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)chamber
eissa
(4,238 posts)It's not 1988, Assad is not Saddam, and if consensus now means echo chamber, then so be it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)On the day after UN chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Damascus, no less.
Maybe I'm wrong. I have yet to see any convincing evidence, though.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Marwan Bishara discusses the implications for the international community of potential chemical weapons use in Syria.
Last Modified: 23 Aug 2013 17:55
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013823155635125544.html
On the other hand, such an attack could be part of a strategy - chemical or otherwise - to tip the balance decidedly on Assad's side.
After all, poison gas is both a potent military and psychological weapon; it's an "efficient" means that kills and terrorises the masses - the perfect combination for a regime that couldn't care less about international indignation.
A chemical weapon is not only used out of desperation; it can also used rather bombastically, as in 1988 when used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja.
Assad's main concern is to be seen as a strongman, and if the road to victory goes through infamy, so be it.
In other words, the use of chemical weapons could result from missing the basic ingredients of political and human decency. Point being, the regime attempts to overwhelm the opposition use of retail violence - excuse the expression - through wholesale killings.
His regime diplomatically protected by Russia, could be sending the unequivocal message that nothing can protect its detractors from its wrath, and that the end justifies the means.
While such a step raises the stakes, it also maximises the regime's short-term military gains.
Arguably, it's also used as a way to send a message to Israel and the West that Syria has the means to retaliate against future bombardments.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)it may NOT have been Assad using chemical weapons.
eissa
(4,238 posts)considering most of them are not actually Syrian.
wild bird
(421 posts)and would act logically, like a Western leader, which is farthest from the truth.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Cicada
(4,533 posts)If Russia attacked us we would rally behind Obama. Syria surely wants the US to attack it to help its domestic support.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,414 posts)My guess is that rebels in Rif Dimashq in outskirts of the capital were making inroads toward Damascus itself. Defensive troops are off tied down in Homs. Since the capital is the real prize and end game, the regime decided to let them know it wouldnt be allowed. It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry. Although there was a risk in using the gas, the regime may have felt threatened enough to take the risk, confident that it could muddy the waters afterwards with charges that it was actually the rebels who were behind it.
I dont find the false flag narrative about the gas attack put forward by the Russians plausible. Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret. How could they have been sure no one among them would get cold feet and blow the whistle? Killing hundreds of women and children from your own clans would be objectionable to at least some in any group of fighters. The fighters in Rif Dimashq are not the hardened Jabhat al-Nusra types. Besides, capturing and deploying rocket systems tipped with poison gas is not so easy; even just operating them takes training.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html
Note that he is sceptical about American intervention; but he does think it's more likely to have been the government forces than rebels.