So, who exactly, were the reporters? And where are their reports? The lack of details reduces the credibility of this article.
LeMonde reporters say they saw Syria chemical attacks on rebels
They didnât see anything. They saw symptoms and are only using conjecture it was the Syrian government and canât seem to fathom that the rebels would ever release their own supplies of sarin gas.
On the scene during chemical weapons attacks, they bear witness to the use of toxic arms by the government of Bashar al-Assad.
They didnât bear witness to anything but symptoms. There was zero confirmation it was from Assadâs forces.
Evidence Indicates that Syrian Government Did Not Launch a Chemical Weapon Attack Against Its People
Michael Rivero asks:
-
Why would Syriaâs Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day they arrive, just miles from where they are staying?
-
If Assad were going to use chemical weapons, wouldnât he use them against the hired mercenary army trying to oust him? What does he gain attacking women and children? Nothing! The gain is all on the side of the US Government desperate to get the war agenda going again.
If youâre going to make rhetorical arguments regarding Assadâs motivations, you need to have inside knowledge of whatâs goign on in his circle, and in his chain of command. I notice Rivero obviously has not learned a thing about Basharâs brother Maher, and his rather trigger happy ways.
And once youâre done speculating abotu whatâ;s going on in Basharâ;s head, and Maherâs head, youâre still stuck trying to explain whatâs going on in the copious amounts of video footage of the gas attacks. And explain away the eyewitness footage, some of which coming from reporters from establishments like Le Monde, which is a respectable publication, unlike Global Research, which boasts 9/11 kooks among its contributors.
Le Monde, which is a respectable publication, unlike Global Research, which boasts 9/11 kooks among its contributors.
Fair enough, but that still doesnât discount the valid points that Rivero brought up. Especially his point number one which is factual and uses valid critical thinking.
Le Monde has partial state ownership for crapâs sake. They are far from being an unbiased source and the article itself is sketchy as @shawnhcorey has mentioned.
If youâre going to make rhetorical arguments regarding Assadâs motivations, you need to have inside knowledge of whatâs goign on in his circle, and in his chain of command.
That certainly hasnât stopped the Obama Administration from blowing rhetoric around without proper backup and that also leads us to the crux of the situationâŚ
Once weâre done bombing Assad (and, inevitably, civilians) do we then attack the rebels (and, inevitably, civilians) who have recruited child soldiers, eaten the hearts out of soldiers, carried out beheadings and are also strongly suspected of already carrying out chemical attacks themselves as well?
⌠or is this all just about gas pipeline territory and money?
One guy, who is not quite right in the head, speculating about another guy, who at this point may not be quite right in the head, and ignoring the issue of the guyâs brother, who is known not to be quite right in the head, to assemble arguments for a pre-decided thesis. Riveroâs arguments are actually quite discounted.
Now, this is not to say that Syria isnât a hopeless basket case where only one party offers anything other than its own special brand of hate (Syrian Kurds, natch). Or that the rebels are angels. But there was a Sarin attack on the Damascus suburb, 1300 dead, and plenty of evidence to show it was the regime. People who advocate staying out should nonetheless be able to admit this and advocate for staying out. If you have to misrepresent or obfuscate Jobar, then, well, there is something wrong with your standpoint.
One guy, who is not quite right in the head, speculating about another guy, who at this point may not be quite right in the head, and ignoring the issue of the guyâs brother, who is known not to be quite right in the head, to assemble arguments for a pre-decided thesis.
Itâs funny how in the other threads and here you donât seem to focus on the fact that the rebels arenât right in their heads (to say the least). Why is that?
Without a doubt, Assad has a horrible human rights track record and I would never put it past him to use chemical weapons (if he thought he could get away with it), but to discount how batshit crazy the rebels are shows your lack of taking into account all factors in this foolhardy build-up for war.
Riveroâs arguments are actually quite discounted.
By whom? You?
-
Syriaâs Assad invited United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria. TRUE
-
The chemical weapons attack against women and children then happened on the very day they arrived, just miles from where they were staying. TRUE
-
Assad had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons on women and children. TRUE
Or that the rebels are angels.
No angels? Understatement of the year. Theyâve recruited child soldiers, eaten the hearts out of soldiers, carried out beheadings and are also strongly suspected of already carrying out chemical attacks themselves (and have even admitted their intentions to use them). Then add a dash of extremist, religious zealotry that puts their God above the rest of humanity and youâve got the total, angelic package.
But there was a Sarin attack on the Damascus suburb, 1300 dead, and plenty of evidence to show it was the regime.
Sure, If you take a very Western, America-centric media point of view. Thereâs others that show plenty of evidence (including video) that shows rebels using chemical weapons.
Itâs a complicated mess, but one thing is for sure, the Obama administration needs to back the fuck down (like most everyone else is) until thereâs hard evidence made available to better determine whatâs really going on. And, even then, there need to be A PLAN for after all the bombings are over with. The administration hasnât shown any evidence that an airstrike (thatâs also bound to hit civilians like many others in the past have done) will accomplish anything.
If the Obama administration is truly itching to partake in a truly humanitarian mission, thereâs the Congo staring at them right in the face. Why Syria? Itâs about the gas money and Iâm not talking about small change.
Related:
Syria-US war: When are we going to learn?
Because what I concentrate on is the video evidence and yes, the physical evidence presented at the scene, while others prefer to speculate on the inner processes of people they are lucky enough never to have to meet in person.
And once again you are forgetting that Assad has a chain of command made up of people, including loose cannons like his brother. And that he and his family were encircled on the day of the attacks. And that Jobar puts his own sorry carcass in the line of fire for mortars and rockets.
And thereâs still the Rebel-sympathy scenario, which while distressing to think about is tragically not exactly unprecedented.
So basically, we have no business adding soldiers or weapons to the mix, and should just be offering to get the civilians out of there, right?
Let them set up and eco-village somewhere and make their own laws, whatever, hire them to join our military and make them into part of a Peace Corps (still way cheaper than our average military intervention).
Why not shoot for an option that actually doesnât suck?
Câept it a direct link to lemonde.fr and youâre clearly not understanding the concept of âclandestineâ. If al-Asshole knew they were there they wouldnât be alive for long. Heâs already shown heâs more than happy to kill journos who are reporting against him.
You need reading skills.
At first, there is only a little sound, a metallic ping, almost a click. And in the confusion of daily combat in Jobarâs Bahra 1 sector, this sound didnât catch the attention of the fighters of the Tahrir al-Sham (âLiberation of Syriaâ) Brigade. 'We thought it was a mortar that didnât explode
Then they got sick. But thatâs gotta be correlation not causation or your invented fantasy wonât be true.
Furthermore, Rivero is an idiot on par with you. I gave answers that addresses the first part in our previous argument:
Why would they invite them? Because theyâre there to ID if chems have been used, not who used them. The real question that I posed and you conveniently ignored is: If al-Asshole has nothing to hide then why did he stall for 5 days (days during which he bombed the SHIT out of the area with conventional bombs to destroy evidence) before agreeing to let them in? If heâs got nothing to hide then why wouldnât he provide immediate access to the area which would vindicate him?
Why would he use them on women and children? Collateral damage in his desperate attempt to stay in power. Dmascus is al-Assholeâs last area of control and the FSA are making in-roads there day by day. The LeMonde article pretty clearly clarifies this in the first paragraph:
And thatâs the aim: by the time the rebel fighters of the Free Syrian Army who have penetrated furthest into Damascus understand that theyâve been exposed to chemical products by government forces, itâs too late.
against the hired mercenary army
Cute. Back off to RT for you⌠cause the country thatâs already directly profiting from al-Assadâs large scale use of the weapons they sold him would never lie about the situation to continue business as usual. Why do you hate the American industrial military complex but youâre all for the Russian equivalent? Donât bother answering that, your answerâs gonna be absolute tripe anyway.
People who advocate staying out should nonetheless be able to admit this and advocate for staying out.
*fistbump*
Tip oâ the hat to you sir.
I donât believe the rebel-sympathy story is likely for a number of reasons. The scale of the attack was larger than anything the FSA could have feasibly orchestrated. There is signals intelligence intercepted by the Israelis that correlate with Syrian Army movements of weapons to the area. The rebels do not posses and cannot launch the missiles which were used to deliver the agent.
No one is talking about adding soldiers to the mix. Obama has been very clear that theyâre talking about using cruise missiles and potentially imposing a no-fly zone. Western powers are already sending weapons. Turkey is doing the most in getting civilians out but youâre seriously underestimating the dangers there. How do you propose we get civilians out if the ones that are leaving are already being shot at by regime forces as they make a break for the border with Turkey?
Also: give me more info on your suggestion that itâs not unprecedented. I donât know of a precedent in Syria, do you? Are you conflating this and the reports that rebels used chemical weapons too?
PS: if you want to help your best bet is to throw some money at the Red Crescent in Turkey:
http://www.kizilay.org.tr/english/sayfa.php?t=-Donate
Thankee tips hat in salute
No disagreement, though as I said, itâs MESSY over there, and even more so than I was aware of (with the . . ahem. . family issues), and definitely more so than most of the politicians who are making said decisions.
Historically we. . . well, we havenât done all that well in making these judgement calls, have we? Other than WWII thereâs not one âpolice actionâ weâve engaged in that we can say confidently worked out peachy, most of them work out horribly.
Adding foreigners to the mix is. . DANGEROUS. Because it adds a new sort of emotional bonfire that can create a new type of disgruntled, angry person. We have all kinds of movies here about us getting in
Cruise missiles. . . yeah, you know what Iâm thinking there, right? I mean, I geek out over military tech, but that doesnât mean that collateral damage isnât a very real and tragic thing.
Now, I agree . . . if weâre talking âpeople under fire trying to get outâ, then that very specific scenario is one I support, but Iâve yet to see our government behave in such an even-handed way, and that includes the current administration. . . sure, you and I can find that one benefit, but what are the odds thatâs a primary focus when push comes to shove? It hasnât really happened yet, and weâve done this a few dozen times now over the past couple of decades.
Yes, I have trust issues, and they are well founded. I know each situation must be taken in itâs own right, but Iâm not seeing any actual . . .wisdom, at least not on the side of our administration. Iâm sorry, but I fully expect things to go horribly.
Meanwhile, we have all these movies here that illustrate very well how easy it is to dehumanize a foreign power, especially one thatâs technologically superior, and our heroes engage in tactics that are frequently terrorist-like and we cheer them on. . and thatâs a nice, clean MOVIE, yâknow? The real world is messier. Itâs a function of our humanity, not nationality or creed.
Actually, not âunprecedentedâ in this very specific scenario. . . but yes, itâs not unprecedented for a political power to fake or create an attack on their own people that looks like the other side, either to create justification for war or to peel allies away from the other side. Itâs nasty, but it happens. We had the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we canât forget the modern classic, right?
I, personally, lean towards it being someone under Assadâs regime, though how direct it is I canât say (not that Iâd say heâs above such things, but I suspect he wouldnât consider it politically viable, and he IS a politician, right?. I donât suspect the rebels, but weâve been lied to in this country and it didnât end well when we trusted, did it?
I have always donated primarily to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, quite a lot actually. Though now all I have the resources to do is to try to do something more important than just throwing money at a problem. I do think theyâre an excellent charity though and one of the few Iâve generally trusted (Doctors Without Borders is another). Glad youâve got similar tastes there 
This is an awful situation, and I do see multiple sides, Iâve just changed over the years and learned a few painful lessons about the before-and-after of our military interventions. I can be part of that one specific scenario (and in fact Iâd rather just send tanks then, theyâre quite good at getting in the way of things, and Iâll drive a tank myself and happily get in the way even if itâs a sacrificial act that saves a dozen civilians. Iâd just rather be sure that weâre spending more resources on taking care of the refugees than fighting in a foreign land.
Then they got sick. But thatâs gotta be correlation not causation or your invented fantasy wonât be true.
Youâre the one inventing fantasy. They basically âreportedâ (and who are these âjournalistsâ anyway?) that they think it was from Assadâs forces.
Meanwhile, the paper reporting this conjecture is Le Monde who has partial state ownership.
How about an impartial source of information from a paper that isnât owned by government and isnât spewing conjecture and hearsay instead of providing hard evidence? Sounds like a better prerequisite for those who arenât trying to support a preconceived conclusion.
You need reading skills.
Thatâs ironic you say that, considering what you say nextâŚ
The real question that I posed and you conveniently ignored is: If al-Asshole has nothing to hide then why did he stall for 5 days
You need reading skills. I answered that question in detail. If youâre too lazy to click a link, here it is again:
Unlike you, I can think of various explanations because itâs, indeed, a complex situation. You state absolutes with black and white thinking and thatâs exactly what got us into the Iraq War as well.
Thereâs a couple of possibilities, but if you only consume Western mainstream media and take it as gospel, you may not be able to critically think about different possibilities.
One possibility is the Syrian government had something to hide and wanted to destroy evidence before inspections because they used chemical weapons. This seems to be the only possibility you can manage to subscribe to via your black and white thinking.
Another possibility is it was still an active war zone and the last thing the Syrian government wanted to do is shell the area against rebels and end up killing or injuring U.N. inspectors. If that happened, thatâd be a pretext for Western powers for war against Syria.
Another possibility is the Syrian government wanted to inspect the area to see if rebels left any faux âevidenceâ to set them up. Something the rebels have been guilty of doing in the past, by the way.
Thereâs many other possibilities as well. The people who are eager to go to war want to simplify a complex situation. Iâm not eager for the United States to go to war with Syria, are you?
Why would they invite them? Because theyâre there to ID if chems have been used, not who used them.
What an utter failure at logic. The United States has been jumping to conclusions that any chemical weapons used must be from the Syrian government while ignoring the possibility that the rebels used them (very much like your own inane framing of the situation).
What good would it do to launch chemical weapons on the same day the U.N. inspectors arrive and relatively close by knowing full well the USA will blame them for it? It makes zero sense, and youâre doing backflips to rationalize it in your desperate plea to be ârightâ instead of being rational.
Why would he use them on women and children? Collateral damage in his desperate attempt to stay in power.
You fail at logic 101. How does stirring up the ire of the world and provoking attacks from the United States help him stay in power? It doesnât.
At least ocschwar has a slightly better cockamamie theory that Assad and/or his brother are completely insane and are purposfully provoking the USA to destroy themselves. Thatâs at least more feasible.
Why do you hate the American industrial military complex but youâre all for the Russian equivalent?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle
Question: Why do you resort to a fallacious argument with a false dichotomy?
Answer: Because youâre locked into âblack and whiteâ thinking and youâre embarrassed from a previous thread in which I used facts, sources and critical thinking to dismiss your inane assertions.
an idiot on par with you
If you have the facts, pound on the facts.
If you have the law, pound on the law.
If you donât have either, pound on the table.
You were condescending and rude to me from the start in the other thread and then became shocked (shocked!) when I responded and you couldnât handle what you dished out. And, you obviously still canât take what you dish out and now resort to being infantile in this thread as well.
Unless you want many of your inane posts deleted from this thread just like in the last thread, I suggest you stop calling me an idiot and let your laughable lack of logic speak for itself instead.
Are you angry with me? No one cares. What people really care about is whatâs going to happen when the Obama Administration (now unilaterally) bombs the shit out of Syria causing even more death and destruction while solving nothing.
Thatâs what most people care about along with wasting even more money that the United States doesnât have.
Speaking of âunilateralâ⌠In discussing the civil war in Syria on March 6, 2012, President Obama stated, âFor us to take military action unilaterally as some have suggested or to think that somehow there is some simple solution I think is a mistake.â
ONCE AGAIN
The Obama administration hasnât shown any evidence that an airstrike (thatâs also bound to hit civilians like so many others have done in the past) will accomplish anything.
Meanwhile, since the previous thread in which we discussed this, most of the rest of the world is pulling back and questioning what good an airstrike will do. Now Obama is by himself. Looks like your bloodthirsty, chickenhawk fantasies of a useless, collateral attack on Syria have dissipated for nowâŚ
Teapot, we missed you and ocschwar in this newer thread⌠why werenât you there?
What are you afraid of? Whatâs wrong? Cat got your tongue?
while others prefer to speculate on the inner processes of people they are lucky enough never to have to meet in person.
Um, then why is it ok for you to do it? Thatâs exactly what youâve been doing. You previously stated that Rivero is ânot quite right in the headâ along with others. Try to be a little less hypocritical and a lot more rational.
Oh, and the elephant in the room still stands⌠And, everyone is watching you and teapot desperately avoid it. And, itâs the crux of the entire issue.
ONCE AGAIN
The Obama administration hasnât shown any evidence that an airstrike (thatâs also bound to hit civilians like so many others have done in the past) will accomplish anything.
The debate is done. You can keep reading âbetween the linesâ or whatever you think it is youâre doing.
As I said, when those bad boys are raining down on Damascus thanks to your tax dollar, think of me.
As I said on the Guardian piece also relaunching this news: this is a piece pushed by French intelligence services. These are the same services that lied through their teeth for 30+ years on the Ustica tragedy, when one of their jets tried to take out a Libyan MIG fighter they thought was carrying Gaddafi, and the air-air missile hit an Italian DC-9 passenger plane instead, killing hundreds of civilians. A company backed by the French secret service recovered the wreckage and removed all the evidence they could find, and NATO very helpfully erased all their (otherwise very detailed) flight records for that night. To this day, after 30 years of painstaking investigations, the whole world knows what really happened, even US sources informally admitted it, and still French services refuse any responsibility. And theyâre not protecting anything or anyone: the pilot responsible for the mistake killed himself shortly afterwards, distraught with guilt. They just donât want to admit theyâre useless.
Given this precedent, I wouldnât trust French spooks to tell me what time it is, let alone analyse a scenario they donât even have access to, in a country theyâd love to take over. After all, if Syrians keep buying Russian jets and munitions, who are the poor Frenchies supposed to sell their wares to? Weâve seen so much false information being pushed by all sorts of actors in 2003, which turned out to be unreliable or fabricated shortly later. You canât go to war on the basis of a random piece of paper of dubious origin because âa line has been crossedâ or some other idiocy; you go to war with a long-term strategy and objectives. What are these objectives? Defending civilians? So why bomb Syria while doing nothing for DRCongo or wherever this silly humanity is perpetrating the massacre-du-jour on other civilians?
Letâs be honest here: itâs just another land grab for oil and the Great Game.
Conjecture and mistrust of authority from across the oceans is similar to two reporters whoâve spent months in Damascus, amirite?
I ask you: Would a reporter risk their own life merely for the benefit of producing warmongering propaganda for their countryâs leaders? Would you? If the reporters thought this was nothing but the West beating the drums of war would they even bother still being there?
Are you joking? Reporters risk their lives for shit and giggles, itâs their job, they are as insane as professional motorbike racers. Thereâs a big macho culture in news-reporting from hot zones.
Also, LeMonde has always been very close to Mr. Hollandeâs Socialist Party.
Oh, and from here to Syria there isnât a single ocean. Maybe thatâs why even us peons on Airstrip One decided to pass on this one.
