Is it possible to take the supposed "evidence" for a Syrian regime chemical attack at face value?
Asked by
rojo (
24179
)
August 29th, 2013
We have not seen any actual evidence and, as Tariq Ali pointed out, on Democracy Now:
“Virtually no one who knows the region believes that these attacks were carried out by the Syrian government, or on its orders,” he says. “It’s crazy, if you think about it. They let the inspectors in, and then in a hotel barely 10 miles from—in a location barely 10 miles from where the inspectors are staying, there’s a chemical attack. And what good does it do the Syrian government to actually open fire on these inspectors? They want them there. So, I think it’s slightly incredible. And given that citizens in the United States and Europe were lied to in the run-up to the Iraq War—simple, straightforward lies—it’s very difficult to take the West seriously when it cries wolf again. So, till the evidence is there, it’s impossible to take this at face value.”
Can we believe our own government? Had the Iraq war made it impossible to ever do so without having doubts ever again?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
6 Answers
Are you saying that the rebels now have chemical weapons? I find that nearly impossible to believe. What country on earth would have been able to sneak chemical weapons into Syria? Right now Syria is one of the most closely watched countries in the world.
even so, why would the rebels attack each other?
Since there is testimony coming from Doctors Without Borders, it is pretty clear that Assad used the CW on his own people. Not to comment on the Iraq war (which I did not support) but Hussein did it in Iraq in the 80 s and 90s, and Assad is another Sadam Hussein.
This was the episode in Syrian Fawlty Towers, The Chemical Weapons Inspectors.
Bashir Fawlti was absolutely livid.
@Mr_Paradox
Is it not also plausible that Iran and Hezbolla have the capabilities to manufacture chemical weapons and impetus to provide both the chemicals and method of delivery to the rebels? Is this any less believable than the Syrian Gov. did it?
Given that the government has seen the most success on the battlefield for the past few month I do not think you can discount the possiblility of rebel deception.
@zenvelo my understanding is that MSF has verified that chemical weapons have been used, not who did the using. And let us not forget that Hussein used the weapons with the tacit approval of the US gov. They even provided the intel as to where it would be the most neccessary if not effective.
I am not siding with the Syrian Gov. even though it might seem that way. I just think that it is plausible to believe that the government is manipulating the media and the available information.
I am addressing the possibility that our own government might be “gasp” lying to us for their own nefarious purposes once again.
Remember it is to ask for forgiveness than permission most of the time.
I feel like I’ve lived this nightmare before. Then it was Bush and Rumsfeld telling us about “weapons of mass destruction”. Now, even Rumsfeld says that there is no reason to go into Syria. Less than 9% of the American public support military action. I frankly don’t care enough about Syria to risk a broken fingernail.
My suggestion is the same I had for the destruction of Iraq and the further destruction of Afghanistan…keep out. If those people want to live in the 19th century, let them. We no longer need their resources and we certainly don’t need their belligerant religious and political systems.
I’d like to sanction the entire middle east and only allow travel and contact when the governments become civilized.
It doesn’t matter. There’s no law that says a government can’t use chemical weapons against its own people.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
