Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[zoomy]

Following todays events in Damascus - As far as I can see there are three possible culprits -

1. Syrian rebels to provoke the west into funding them more and to bring them into the war against the government.
2. Syrian government, who launched the attack but I cannot see why they would do this.
3. the Isrealis, desperate to avoid the government winning the war and strengthening the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah alliance.

[Resurrection Man]

Following todays events in Damascus - As far as I can see there are three possible culprits -

1. Syrian rebels to provoke the west into funding them more and to bring them into the war against the government. Agreed it is possible but while Russia and China continue to block in the UN I see little hope of any resolution.
2. Syrian government, who launched the attack but I cannot see why they would do this. How about genocide ?
3. the Isrealis, desperate to avoid the government winning the war and strengthening the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah alliance. Possible I guess...depends on whether you are pro-Israeli or anti

4. Iran stirring the pot.

[eighthobstruction]

Resurrection Man ....stirring the pot....

[zoomy]

Syrian government would surely not use chemical weapons in damascus ? Aleppo or the north possibly. Who would trust UN inspectikn s rember hans blix ?

i cannot see what motives the iranians would have in trying to implicate the syrian governmenr in this attack.

[Resurrection Man]

Resurrection Man ....stirring the pot....

Really? He asked for comments or is there now an embargo on any comments that do not attribute towards your own particular world view?

[Resurrection Man]

Syrian government would surely not use chemical weapons in damascus ?

Why not? Stranger things have happened.

Who would trust UN inspectikn s rember hans blix ?

Why do you say this?

i cannot see what motives the iranians would have in trying to implicate the syrian governmenr in this attack.

Power. Destabilisation. Vested interests. Increasing their sphere of influence. Any number of reasons.

[ahinton]

Resurrection Man ....stirring the pot....

No, 8O - I don't think that he did it. To be serious, though, I don't think that, on this occasion, RM shows a closed mind to this terrifying crisis in terms of who might have been responsible for this incident and he does at least appear to be prepared to accept not only that the answer to this is far from clear but also that there is a number of credible possibilities.

[amateur51]

Really? He asked for comments or is there now an embargo on any comments that do not attribute towards your own particular world view?

Not at all, you can always be relied on to appear as if by malign magic, stirring the pot as eighth has observed

[ahinton]

Not at all, you can always be relied on to appear as if by malign magic, stirring the pot as eighth has observed

As I stated, I don't think that this seems fair in the present instance, as it seems far from obvious who, out of a number of possibilities, committed this appalling and inhuman act.

[amateur51]

As I stated, I don't think that this seems fair in the present instance, as it seems far from obvious who, out of a number of possibilities, committed this appalling and inhuman act.

Syria is often regarded as Iran's closest strategic ally. Iran wants Assad to hang on to power. Perhaps Resurrection Man can tell us why he believes that it is credible that Iran might have been responsible for this appalling act?

Anyone can just blurt out 'Iran' but that's clearly just 'stirring the pot'

[ahinton]

Syria is often regarded as Iran's closest strategic ally. Iran wants Assad to hang on to power. Perhaps Resurrection Man can tell us why he believes that it is credible that Iran might have been responsible for this appalling act?

Anyone can just blurt out 'Iran' but that's clearly just 'stirring the pot'

While we wait for that, I think that RM's view of Iran as a possibility does not seem unreasonable given that it does indeed appear to regard Syria as its closest ally and the Syrian government is itself being put forward as one of the possible culprits; it's too early to be certain, I think and much will presumably depend on whether and how soon UN inspectors can go in to try to determine who was responsible and to what extent if any they might be hampered in their efforts to do so.

[amateur51]

While we wait for that, I think that RM's view of Iran as a possibility does not seem unreasonable given that it does indeed appear to regard Syria as its closest ally and the Syrian government is itself being put forward as one of the possible culprits; it's too early to be certain, I think and much will presumably depend on whether and how soon UN inspectors can go in to try to determine who was responsible and to what extent if any they might be hampered in their efforts to do so.

I repeat that I am looking for RM's 'workings' behind his apparent stirring.

Otherwise it remains a blurt.

[ahinton]

I repeat that I am looking for RM's 'workings' behind his apparent stirring.

Otherwise it remains a blurt.

OK, fair enough; the only problem with this in principle is that anyone - not just RM - who tries to answer that, in his/her view, x, y or z is the culprit can do no more than offer a personal opinion since no one here can know for certain the identity of the guilty party/ies and, as I wrote, until and unless there's a successful outcome of a detailed UN inspection that's not yet even been agreed to be carried out, that situation is unlikely to change until or unless the actual culprit admits to having been responsible, which seems rather less than likely, I fear. In any case, I read RM's post as a personal view that Iran might be that guilty party, not that it obviously was so and, unless he states specifically that he believe that Iran was responsible (and why and on what grounds), I see no real issue in accepting it as being as valid as anyone else's answers.

[amateur51]

OK, fair enough; the only problem with this in principle is that anyone - not just RM - who tries to answer that, in his/her view, x, y or z is the culprit can do no more than offer a personal opinion since no one here can know for certain the identity of the guilty party/ies and, as I wrote, until and unless there's a successful outcome of a detailed UN inspection that's not yet even been agreed to be carried out, that situation is unlikely to change until or unless the actual culprit admits to having been responsible, which seems rather less than likely, I fear. In any case, I read RM's post as a personal view that Iran might be that guilty party, not that it obviously was so and, unless he states specifically that he believe that Iran was responsible (and why and on what grounds), I see no real issue in accepting it as being as valid as anyone else's answers.

But don't you find that RM often hints at 'intimate knowledge', 'dark secrets' and just being better informed and 'in the know' than the rest of us mere mortals?

[ahinton]

But don't you find that RM often hints at 'intimate knowledge', 'dark secrets' and just being better informed and 'in the know' than the rest of us mere mortals?

On occasion what he writes may arguably appear to be phrased as though the reader might indeed be intended to construe such, but that does not obligate the reader to accept and co-operate with this; in any case, he doesn't seem to be hinting at any such thing here and at least he's not trying to claim that he believes that a particular country or organisation is directly responsible for this atrocity, which is jkust as well, since neither you nor I nor he nor anyone else other than the perpetrators and perhaps some of the surviving victims can be certain.