"Assad linked to Syrian chemical attacks for first time" Topic

"International investigators have said for the first time that they suspect President Bashar al-Assad and his brother are responsible for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict, according to a document seen by Reuters.

A joint inquiry for the United Nations and global watchdog the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had previously identified only military units and did not name any commanders or officials.

Now a list has been produced of individuals whom the investigators have linked to a series of chlorine bomb attacks in 2014-15 – including Assad, his younger brother Maher and other high-ranking figures – indicating the decision to use toxic weapons came from the very top, according to a source familiar with the inquiry…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The list, which has been seen by Reuters but has not been made public, was based on a combination of evidence compiled by the U.N.-OPCW team in Syria and information from Western and regional intelligence agencies, according to the source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.

What evidence do they have to compile this list? Email traffic from Assad to his brother saying "hey, break out the gas, just for sh_ts and giggles" ?

I'm shocked !!!! Is the UN going to send a harshly worded email to Assad ? That will do the trick … that will fix him !

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

It's kind of been the assumption all along though.

Syrian army fights a war that for a while they were losing, Syrian army has stockpiles of chemical weapons, Syrian army isn't too fussed over civilian losses.

Occam's razor and all that.

again a criminal attempt..(criminal because is targeted vs the one , Assad, who fight terrorist in our place) to sully Assad reputation while is winning….same criminal disinformation tactic used against Putin in Chechenia ecc…why those "international investigators" always side against European interest..that 's to say their own people…?

Because the use of chemical weapons is a freaking War Crime, in addition to a general Crime Against Humanity! You know, the kind of behavior that resulted in most of the Nazi German leadership getting executed or imprisoned for life at Nuremburg.

Some things are too horrible to use, even when you're losing and employing scorched-earth tactics.

After 4 years and 1 "red line" the US has imposed sanctions on Syrian leadership for its chemical weapons use.

link

Yeah, I can't believe the lack of leadership that was shown after that "Red Line" declaration and subsequent violation.

Personally, I want that entire chain of command brought before The Hague to stand trial for war crimes. From the trooper who loaded the launcher all the way up to Assad.

I'm not surprised at all, since I seriously doubt some low, or mid-level flunkie would make that decision without authorization.

I suspect the UN is too focused on Israel to care, or do anything about this, since 80%+ of their time seems to be focused on that one nation, while completely ignoring other issues around the globe, based upon the number of resolutions brought up in 2016.

"suspect the UN is too focused on Israel to care, or do anything about this, since 80%+ of their time seems to be focused on that one nation"
in which way are they focused in Israel?..for what i perceived they are only focused on supporting ennemies of Israel…even recognising and allowing to participate a nation that does'nt exist as Palestine…ONU is totally lobbied by angry insignificant countries which representatives are paid by US and other important nations..

One would assume that Assad would use whatever weapons he has to stay in power. What is the point of having a weapon if you can't use it?

Was it a "war crime" for Truman to drop two atomic bombs on civilian population centers? How about the fire bombing of Dresden near the end of the war?

the point is that the criminals that use every thing included chemical weapons are Assad ennemies…that some one still pretend to differentiate from terrorists

I dunno. Other investigations have pointed to a false flag attack by certain rebel groups seeking to provoke US retaliation. After all this time, did someone finally manage to cook up some "evidence" pointing the other way? Seems very convenient. Based on so many conflicting claims, and given that impressive "evidence" proclaimed about Saddam Hussein's fabulous WMDs by similarly motivated investigators, I wouldn't be too quick to rush to judgement.

From the trooper who loaded the launcher all the way up to Assad.

I'd rather see them … terminated, in combat/on the battlefield. But I very much doubt anyone from the Mid East and Africa where some locales appear to be a set for "Mad Max Thunderdome", will ever make it to the Hague.

If they start charging many in those regions with war crimes and crime against humanity. It would take a very long time and many of them will die from natural causes. Before they go to trial, etc. I'm more of the thought that they will/should die in combat. Much "cleaner" in the long run …

Was it a "war crime" for Truman to drop two atomic bombs on civilian population centers? How about the fire bombing of Dresden near the end of the war?

While I might grant Dresden, due to a lack of focus on the actual military targets aside from the rail yard (the bombers hit the city center, not the factories around the outskirts); Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were major military production facilities with tens of thousands of small distributed workshops and few major factories.

Or are you saying that if a nation shelters it's military production amongst civilians (who may or may not be working at said military production), that makes attacking said military targets a war crime?

Bad news if you think that, the Geneva Conventions are pretty clear that sheltering military targets behind civilians and other protected classes (hospitals and schools) is a War Crime

What I'm saying is war is ugly. And it is the victors who decide who the war criminals were. I'm all for peace, but if you find yourself on the losing side, you will do whatever it takes, use any weapon to not lose the war and lose your country.

It intrigues me a bit that bombing civilians (a war crime) is perfectly believable but gassing them (a war crime) is completely unbelievable.

"Based on so many conflicting claims, and given that impressive "evidence" proclaimed about Saddam Hussein's fabulous WMDs by similarly motivated investigators, I wouldn't be too quick to rush to judgement".

Old history and misinformation.

Many, many WMD stockpiles were found, and destroyed in Iraq by US forces. A lot of our troops were sickened by exposure to them, and are still suffering ill effects from that to this day.

ISIS is even apparently still using some chemical weapons shells in Iraq that they've found, and dug up, against forces in that country.

Many still seem to be "up in the air" about Saddam and WMDs. Albeit, it appears he only had Chem and maybe Bio ? But those will kill you too … and in most cases, pretty horribly …

I know, I know, some smart guy(s) here on TMP[and there is bunch of them ! Just ask them !], will post link after link saying how wrong that is. About Saddam and WMDs, etc., etc., … But as with most on the net. There are many conflicting "stories", etc. And as we know, depending on the news media to report actual facts is becoming more and more rare.

If we're talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the civilians in the area were tragic collateral damage. They'd have been just as dead if the US had rolled through with a firebombing raid like we'd hit pretty much every other Japanese city with, also in the pursuit of destroying the military capability of Japan.

If we're talking about Assad dropping barrel bombs onto areas that are actively shooting, that's also tragic collateral damage.

If we're talking about Assad dropping barrel bombs into unresisting civilian areas, then that's a war crime.

Did these "unresisting civilians" somehow support the "military capabilities" of those fighting the Assad regime? If the answer is yes, then by your own argument they were "tragic collateral damage". Or were they accidentally targeted, which often happens is war, resulting in tragic mistake. It's a slippery slope. What did Sherman say about war…

@USAFpilot: I prefer Lee's quote: "It is well that war is so horrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

I served on ballistic missile submarines. If *I* went to war, there probably wouldn't be a United States left. Or whatever nation my ship unloaded on, for that matter.

I'm sure that Assad will make the argument that the "unresisting civilians" were supporting the "military capabilities" of the rebels. I also hope that when he is in chains in front of The Hague, the judges reject that argument. Even though forcing less and less collateral damage is really in favor of the insurgent fighters and not in favor of the Standing Armies of the world.

This thread has me thinking about the idea of "collateral damage", so I'm going off on a tangent of academic discussion…

I think the phrase "Collateral damage" is a modern term of western thought and civilizations. Derived from the notion that our society is moral, just, and believes in the sanctity of human life. And that war, as an instrument of state, should be accomplished to its defined purpose with as little human suffering as possible. But from a purely military tactians view, "collateral damage" represents a limitation, an obstacle, to sound military planning and execution which strives to maximize your sides military gains and minimize your losses. Did the great Captains of history (Alexander, Napoleon, etc) ever give any heed to collateral damage? Who gets to decide how much collateral damage is acceptable, and what is the calculus? In Asymetric warfare between two belligerents, the weaker side sometimes tries to maximize collateral damage. I don't know all the answers and my contrarian nature makes me ask the questions.

It's politicized. We hear about atrocities and collateral damage by the "Assad regime" because we're against it.

Atrocities and collateral damage in the Yemeni civil war are swept under the rug and conveniently ignored because we're on the side of the Saudis and by extension their proxies.

USAF … I agree with your comments about CD. But as we see … in many cases in the Mid East in it just "academic" it seems.

It's politicized.

It seems everything is that way. Especially when it comes to the Mid East and Africa.

I suspect that this is a issue of enemy ISIS propaganda being picked up by the news. We KNOW that ISIS is using chemical weapons. The Syrian government has other options, and too much to lose for it to make tactical, operational or strategic sense to employ chemicals.

And yet, as best as we can tell, either a Syrian Army chemical weapons unit defected and fired on civilian areas hostile to Assad (which doesn't make much sense), or Assad's government ordered the firing of chemical weapons into an area hostile to Assad.

Some things are too horrible to use, even when you're losing and employing scorched-earth tactics

We have funny standards.

Gassing someone's not ok but using thermobaric weapons on them is ok.

Hacking someone with a machete Rwanda style is not ok, but leaving cluster bomblets for children to find and have their limbs blown off is fine (now known as submunitions).

We've also found dropping napalm on villages, carpet bombing and burying people alive (in 1991) to be perfectly acceptable.

It's politicized. We hear about atrocities and collateral damage by the "Assad regime" because we're against it.

Atrocities and collateral damage in the Yemeni civil war are swept under the rug and conveniently ignored because we're on the side of the Saudis and by extension their proxies.

Totally agree.

Western moral compass is completely out of synch these days.

It's another sign of our growing weakness.

We either need to be moral (so slam sanctions on Saudi et al) or we need to turn a blind eye to Syrian atrocities in exchange for them turning a blind eye to the atrocities of our allies (including those in Iraq who are ethnically cleansing Sunni areas).

And yet, as best as we can tell, either a Syrian Army chemical weapons unit defected and fired on civilian areas hostile to Assad (which doesn't make much sense), or Assad's government ordered the firing of chemical weapons into an area hostile to Assad.

Most likely it was the Syrian government.

However you do neglect the fact that Syrian civil war has many different parties who occasionally kill each other as well as fight the Assad regime.

So it's not out of the question for 1 militia to gas/bomb/attack civilians in another anti-Assad militia area.

And indeed, one militia group has been gassing any group that doesn't agree with it: DAESH.

But it's one thing to steal some chlorine gas from the local water-treatment facility and a whole different thing to get ahold of some Sarin (as was used in Ghouta on 21 August 2013).

Western moral compass is completely out of synch these days.

It's another sign of our growing weakness.

And Russia, China, Iran, Daesh, AQ, etc. know it …
They respect strength … not touchy, feely "we are the world", etc. type of rhetoric, etc., …