Yet it also implies that - as to present time - they might not own any chemical weapons. If they did, why would they be looking to buy some?
Hence how can Russia and Syria's claims be taken seriously?
Yes they do.
The team did identify two types or rockets it said were used to deliver the gas and their trajectories, and international observers have said those weapons are not known to be in the hands of rebels battling the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Because they already used the ones they had on a school. Typical Al Qaeda tactics.
The Syrian rebels are made of many organizations. Some are terror organizations, which are clearly the "bad guys". Some are not.
Overall one has to ask himself if Assad is the right man for the job, and putting the fact that Syria is a dictatorship aside, a leader who butchers his own citizens has no right to lead them and must be kicked out of office, regardless of who or what is opposing him.
No, they do not. The rebels do not have those two types of rockets.
'War crime': U.N. finds sarin used in Syria chemical weapons attack - CNN.com
I don't care about him. I just don't want us assisting terrorists. The next dictators will probably be even worse. This current dictator is secular. That's why a lot of them want to bring him down to bring Sharia law as the supreme law to Syria. This is a fight for control by all kinds of bad guys.
Just like I said, as you bolded above, NOT KNOWN to be. Does NOT mean they do not have them.
And while the two sides fight, in the meantime, civilians are paying the price. So should the world let this go on with more and more civilian casualties being added to the toll every day, or should it intervene? I do believe like you that the US(and any other country really) shouldn't throw its support for the rebels just like Russia shouldn't throw its own for al-Assad. Yet something must be done to stop the killing, it cannot simply be watched idly from the side.
1. Rebels are not known, according to international observers, to have those types of rockets.
2. The rebels are not known to have sarin.
3. The chems were withdrawn from an Assad facility, without resistance. The US claims photo evidence of this.
4. The rockets, ~10, were assembled and launched from inside Assad controlled territory within Damascus. It's impossible for rebels to have pulled that off.
The US also claims audio of high-ranking Assad officers communicating about the withdrawal, preparation and launching of the rockets.
Let's be real.
I am being real. Why would Assad target a school full of children who are of no threat to him when he is trying to fight off rebel invasion? Does that make any sense to you? No it doesn't make any sense. What does make sense is that terrorists would do that for propaganda purposes just as they do in Palestine and Israel.
1. Rebels do not have those rockets.
2. Rebels don't have sarin.
3. The chems were withdrawn from an Assad storage facility without resistance.
4. The rockets were assembled, prepared and launched from ~10 locations within Assad territory without resistance.
Let's be real.
Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.
Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.
Later, the commission stressed that it had "not reached conclusive findings" as to their use by any parties.
There are plenty of articles on credible site which say there are strong indications that the rebels have used sarin.
Nothing concrete of course, but there's really nothing concrete to say the regime is guilty of it either.
I don't know either way but to say the rebels don't have/haven't had sarin is disingenuous to say the least when it's been reported as widely as it has.
BBC News - UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'
Later, the commission stressed that it had "not reached conclusive findings" as to their use by any parties.
I am being real. Why would Assad target a school full of children who are of no threat to him when he is trying to fight off rebel invasion? Does that make any sense to you? No it doesn't make any sense. What does make sense is that terrorists would do that for propaganda purposes just as they do in Palestine and Israel.
Also, I was editing while you replied so you've probably missed the edit where I ask if you could provide links to points 3 and 4 of your previous post, would you mind?
The Syrian rebels are made of many organizations. Some are terror organizations, which are clearly the "bad guys". Some are not.
Overall one has to ask himself if Assad is the right man for the job, and putting the fact that Syria is a dictatorship aside, a leader who butchers his own citizens has no right to lead them and must be kicked out of office, regardless of who or what is opposing him.
It's certainly difficult to imagine a leader much worse than Assad, but then again, a lack of imagination has often been the cause of major Western foreign policy blunders in the past. It might be hard to imagine, but a new régime headed by AQ or other Salafist, Wahhabi or Hanafist movements might make Assad appear moderate.
There is no reason to believe that the minority percentage of terrorist rebels will gain control of the country.
Point 3 is a claim by Obama. He says that the US has photo evidence that the chems were withdrawn from a known Assad chem facility and then transported to the locations within Assad controlled territory in Damascus.
Point 4 is simple. We know that the rockets containing chem were launched from ~10 locations within Assad controlled territory in Damascus. Do you think rebels could infiltrate 10 locations in Assad's Damascus, assemble prepare and launch rockets, and not get caught doing so at all of the 10 locations? That's impossible.
Proof of point 4 kind of depends on the above.
Please post your source that convinces you that extremists are the minority amongst the rebels. I might well agree, but I'm not aware of that kind of data being available.
Let's not forget that a minority extremist movement has gained power in both Egypt and Tunisia in the aftermath of the Arab Spring
In other words, they just "pull that out of nowhere. A random guess."We have two sources for the number of terrorist rebels.
1. The US secretary of state claims that only 15-25% of the rebels are "Islamist extremists". He does not provide sources or evidence.
2. A private data handling company claims that 30% of the rebels are moderates. They do not provide sources or evidence.
If we average the two, for the sake of compromise, we find that over 50% of the rebels are not terrorists.
Where did I claim that? In fact, if you'd read my post, you'd see that I'm inclined to believe the opposite, although like you, I don't have any data source to back that belief.Where do you get numbers to claim that the rebels are mostly terrorist? Do you just pull that out of nowhere? A random guess?
The operative word to add to this comment is, 'yet'. The first three nations in your list are in varying states of incipient anarchy, the last is even further down that road. Somalia is a very, very bad example to cite however, as the extremists are in control of a far greater proportion of the country than is the Western-backed government in Mogadishu. If your suggestion is that with Western help Syria could aspire to the status of those four basket cases, I think most people, even Syrians, would vote against intervention.Where those things did occur (Afghan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia), the terrorist have not seized control of the government.
We obviously have very different notions of success.By using those examples, you are arguing for military intervention and UN support of a transition government. Where that has occurred, there is success, where it has not, there is a problem.
Perhaps terrorists did that.
That does not mean you can deny that Assad gassed Damascus.
We have two sources for the number of terrorist rebels.
1. The US secretary of state claims that only 15-25% of the rebels are "Islamist extremists". He does not provide sources or evidence.
2. A private data handling company claims that 30% of the rebels are moderates. They do not provide sources or evidence.
If we average the two, for the sake of compromise, we find that over 50% of the rebels are not terrorists.
Where do you get numbers to claim that the rebels are mostly terrorist? Do you just pull that out of nowhere? A random guess?
Let's not forget that those two countries did not experience Western military intervention nor resulting UN support of a transition government. Where those things did occur (Afghan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia), the terrorist have not seized control of the government.
By using those examples, you are arguing for military intervention and UN support of a transition government. Where that has occurred, there is success, where it has not, there is a problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?