Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Politics Technology

Possible Chemical Weapons Use In Syria 164

Posted by Soulskill
from the one-of-the-not-OK-ways-to-murder-people dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Mike Hoffman reports that Syria's Assad regime has accused the rebels of launching a chemical weapons attack in Aleppo that killed 25 people — an accusation the rebel fighters have strongly rebuked. A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack. The Russian foreign ministry says it has enough information to confirm the rebels launched a chemical attack while U.S. government leaders say they have not found any evidence of a chemical attack. White House spokesman Jay Carney says the accusations made by Assad could be an attempt to cover up his own potential attacks. 'We've seen reports from the Assad regime alleging that the opposition has been responsible for use. Let me just say that we have no reason to believe these allegations represent anything more than the regime's continued attempts to discredit the legitimate opposition and distract from its own atrocities committed against the Syrian people,' said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. 'We don't have any evidence to substantiate the regime's charge that the opposition even has CW (chemical weapons) capability.' President Obama has said the 'red line' to which the U.S. would send forces to Syria would be the use of chemical weapons. However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Possible Chemical Weapons Use In Syria

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Possible? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by etash (1907284) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:21AM (#43222491)
    slashdot has always posted significant political news stories. Now, i'm not sure this is important, but could be if it was used as an excuse for a military intervention in syria by the west.
  • Re:Coincidence? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:39AM (#43222629)

    See, you had me right up until I saw the infowars link. There's left and right bias in the media, and then there's the drug addled bat shit fucking crazy morons that run conspiracy web sites like infowars.

  • Zero credibility (Score:2, Insightful)

    by allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:48AM (#43222703)

    >However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."

    Come on... at this point, Assad's regime has zero credibility. Just like Putin's oligarchy. Both of these regimes are just dictators clinching to their power. Who gives a damn about their opinion.

  • Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:49AM (#43222707)

    I know right? We got so much oil from Iraq and Afghanistan that gas is now back below $2 / gal and the world is a better place. Mission accomplished. Oh wait, you mean we didn't go for the oil?

  • Syrian maskirovka (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @09:34AM (#43223045)
    In all likelihood, this is a maskirovka on the part of al-Assad's regime. There is clearly both a domestic and international motivation behind this: first of all, regime supporters will believe without question that it was undertaken by the rebels, which would in turn only harden even further their support-perhaps this was even an attempt to stem the flow of desertions, as supposedly within the past 2 weeksa brigadier general and several soldiers have defected to the opposition-while discrediting and demonizing the rebels. Internationally, this claim gives them percieved legitimacy for more open use of chemical weapons in a "retaliatory" response. They were probavbly also well aware that Russia would support them, and counter any claim made by the US, UK, and other pro-opposition states. Ultimately, they may be hoping to force unilateral action by the US: as long as al-Assad has Russia in his camp, he has de facto veto power in the UN Security Council. I think this is al-Assad's trump card: he is hoping the US is afraid to get embroiled in another Middle East war, and is bettig that he can keep himself from turning into another Gaddhafi.
  • by c (8461) <beauregardcp@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @09:44AM (#43223139)

    Come on... at this point, Assad's regime has zero credibility. Just like Putin's oligarchy.

    I find it convenient to just assume that both sides are lying sacks of shit. This is true whether it be international politics or a bunfight at the local schoolboard level.

    I'm rarely wrong, or disappointed, although sometimes I'll admit to being surprised about the kinds of things people are able to say with a straight face.

  • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Looker_Device (2857489) * on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:40AM (#43223753)

    Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels?

    Because it's become clear that the rebels in Syria (as in most of the Arab Spring) are no more trustworthy than the Assad government, and just as willing to engage in atrocities. When you can't trust either side, you basically end up just ignoring both. It's pretty much impossible to tell the truth from the bullshit in Syria.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...