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

[zoomy]

The discussion, with events, might move on. The UN has said: "It's the biggest displacement crisis of all time." Two million refugees have fled Syria, most to Lebanon, the smallest neighbour and least able to cope. This is surely where the international humanitarian community can - and will - step in.

I think the scale of the refugee crisis is being used to support genocide accusations against assad.

[Mr Pee]

I think the scale of the refugee crisis is being used to support genocide accusations against assad.

Erm...can you please run that one by me again? Are you suggesting that the figures have been somehow manipulated?

You are beginning to sound like quite an apologist for a war criminal. Please tell me I am mistaken.

[zoomy]

I am not exagerating the scale of the refugee crisis, it is big - but a un official has linked the refugee crisis to a policy of genocide by the assad regime.

[Mr Pee]

I am not exagerating the scale of the refugee crisis, it is big - but a un official has linked the refugee crisis to a policy of genocide by the assad regime.

So can you confirm that no such policy exists?

I would think that murdering some 1500 civilians by the use of poison gas is indeed an act of genocide.

[zoomy]

No-one has yet provided any evidence that Assad forces used poison gas.

John Kerry tried but only succeeded in proving that 'sarin gas used in Syria' 'in a very important recent development' but no evidence of who was responsible. Cameron has tried but resorted to asking people to 'make a judgement' in who might have been responsible. The UN is not mandated to investigate who carried out the attack but only to investigate if an attack was carried out - but no evidence.

[Resurrection Man]

No-one has yet provided any evidence that Assad forces used poison gas.

.....

Indeed. You categorically stated that it was NOT the Assad regime. So I ask you for the third time. Where is your evidence to support this?

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed. You categorically stated that it was NOT the Assad regime. So I ask you for the third time. Where is your evidence to support this?

Why don't we ask Blair? He's mustard at this sort of thing.

[zoomy]

Ho, ho, ho.

[ahinton]

Why don't we ask Blair? He's mustard at this sort of thing.

That's quite brilliant, I must say!

Seriously, though, we still seem to be in a position where, despite the principal suspicion being against the Assad régime, it remains less than clear who perpatrated this atrocity.

[Mr Pee]

No-one has yet provided any evidence that Assad forces used poison gas.

John Kerry tried but only succeeded in proving that 'sarin gas used in Syria' 'in a very important recent development' but no evidence of who was responsible. Cameron has tried but resorted to asking people to 'make a judgement' in who might have been responsible. The UN is not mandated to investigate who carried out the attack but only to investigate if an attack was carried out - but no evidence.

Both the French and US Governments have outlined quite clear intelligence which indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the attack was carried out by Assad Government Forces. All the attacks were launched from territory held by Assad's forces, for a start. Are you seriously suggesting that some rebel SAS types infiltrated enemy lines, seized Chemical weapons, and then launched them at their own supporters? And there is also evidence of the previous use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

At this stage of the game, with all the evidence that has been presented, suggesting that Assad was not responsible for this attack is right up there with the best of the loony tunes conspiracy theories. It seems extraordinary that some people will peddle such nonsense just to back up their appeasement agenda.

[zoomy]

I know, but the problem for the west are the facts on the ground - Assad (with Hezbollah and Iranian support) is winning this war and the rebels, with US and its allies' support are losing. If this carries on it means a strengthened Iran and a stronger Russia in the region.

So the US feels it must do something to redress the military balance in the rebels favour which is why they have jumped on this gas attack (whoever did it, does not matter) because if they say that Assad did it loudly enough, enough people might believe them and they can justify their attack.

However, this strategy began to unravel when the UK parliament failed to support the plan. So we now have Obama seeking to shore up his position with backing from congress and Ban Ki Moon has now intervened with a warning that a military strike "would be illegal without Security Council support or a sound case for self-defence".

[zoomy]

Both the French and US Governments have outlined quite clear intelligence which indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the attack was carried out by Assad Government Forces.

No they haven't. Read their reports and press releases.

[zoomy]

That's quite brilliant, I must say!

Seriously, though, we still seem to be in a position where, despite the principal suspicion being against the Assad régime, it remains less than clear who perpatrated this atrocity.

I know, but the problem for the west are the facts on the ground - Assad (with Hezbollah and Iranian support) is winning this war and the rebels, with US and its allies' support are losing. If this carries on it means a strengthened Iran and a stronger Russia in the region.

So the US feels it must do something to redress the military balance in the rebels favour which is why they have jumped on this gas attack (whoever did it, does not matter) because if they say that Assad did it loudly enough, enough people might believe them and they can justify their attack.

However, this strategy began to unravel when the UK parliament failed to support the plan. So we now have Obama seeking to shore up his position with backing from congress and Ban Ki Moon has now intervened with a warning that a military strike "would be illegal without Security Council support or a sound case for self-defence".

[Bryn]

Oh come on. Surely it's pretty much the case that Obama, like Cameron before him, is simply after passing the buck for inaction onto a broader set of elected representatives. That way he avoids the Chamberlain curse.

[zoomy]

I am not sure, it is true that Obama has struggled to control the rebels because of the complex mix of groups involved but he has had pressure for months from the Free Syria Army (FSA), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, UK (ironically) and France to do something to help the rebels and he has finally, publically resolved to act. And then, the UK lets him down, Ban Ki Moon goes native and he has to turn to congress to bolster his position.

BTW here is the 'evidence' that John Kerry released last week. Read it once in a booming voice and it sounds sort of convincing, then read it again and it rings very hollow indeed. Apologies in advance for the Fox News link, the things one has to do for research.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/us-government-assessment-syria-use-chemical-weapons/