The Syria story just keeps getting weirder and weirder. So who knew that back in May, 2013 Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, stated that she believed the rebels had been engaged in chemical weapons attacks. Specifically, she told Swiss-Italian television:
I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated…This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.
Interesting indeed. So earlier this year there emerged evidence that the rebels used chemicals weapons, but for some reason I don’t recall President Obama yelling about red lines and cruise missile strikes back then. Do you? No, of course not, because it doesn’t fit into the U.S. agenda, which is regime change in Syria.
So let’s look at this from all angles. First, let’s assume the rebels did use chemical weapons earlier this year. If that is that case, and then Assad used them months later, we have absolutely no reason to become involved as both sides are guilty. We should do nothing, at least nothing militarily.
Second, lets assume the rebels did not use chemical weapons earlier this year. Why would Assad use them knowing the U.S. would then get involved (which is clearly our desire), particularly since he is not in a desperate situation at the moment by any means. It makes no sense. If we take a step back and examine this logically, the most logical conclusion is that someone who wanted the U.S. to get involved used the weapons. That could be a lot of different parties, least likely of which is Assad.
Finally, why would we believe the current claims any more than the prior claims, especially since there appears to be no evidence that Assad was behind the latest attacks? The truth is we really can’t know what happened, which is precisely why we should stay out.
From the UK Telegraph (May, 2013):
I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,”
A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.
Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.
“Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.
“This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added.
Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.
The UN commission, which is investigating human rights abuses in Syria since the start of the civil war, later released a statement distancing itself from the allegations. It said that investigators had “not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict”.
The White House said it was “highly skeptical” of suggestions that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons. “We find it highly likely that chemical weapons, if they were in fact used in Syria – and there is certainly evidence that they were – that the Assad regime was responsible,” spokesman Jay Carney said.
The Syrian civil war, which began with anti-government protests in March 2011, has now claimed an estimated 70,000 lives and forced 1.2 million Syrian refugees to flee.
Full article here.
In Liberty,
Mike
Follow me on Twitter!
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
We are governed by scoundrels on both sides of the Atlantic. In my near 70 years I have never known politicians of all hues so firmly held in contempt by decent folk.
War has clearly been the objective for a long time; the conspiracy nuts look like lthe only sane people now.
Well said. And either Obama got played by the rebels on his “red line” statement, in which case he’s a fool and incompetent.
Or he made it knowing that it would play out this way, or that they could conjure up some evidence and therefore “justify” the intervention; because they wanted to do it all along, serving their MIC masters and/or his megalomaniacal motivations, in which case he’s just evil.