Syria: the case for action

[davidbfpo]

David, I have heard three co-workers speaking about snippets they picked up via open source.

I will try to answer your questions, bit by bit as I locate sources. Answer is probably too grand, it will far more appropriately counter-points.

The first told me the UN inspectors were saying the opposition employed the chemical weapons. He went on to opine that it was done to invoke a US reaction to tip the scales.

I have heard several references to the UN diplomat and prosecutor, Carla de Ponte, expressing a view that the latest attack might have been by the rebels - only to be told to stay quiet. The BBC shows several historical reports that she has said similar before, in May 2013 such as:

Carla del Ponte, who serves on the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said testimony from victims strongly suggested that opposition fighters had used sarin, an extremely potent chemical nerve agent - although there was "no incontrovertible proof".

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22484115

I have noted the official Syrian stance, "It was the rebels". Which has been supported by the "usual suspects". Yes the rebels have in the past acquired CW and are reported to have used CW in attacks IIRC on military targets. If the rebels thought such an atrocity would "tip the scales" so the USA attacked, they were mistaken; after all 99% of all deaths are caused by other weapons.

This is a early assessment of the attack:http://eaworldview.com/2013/08/syria...t-happens-now/

The second (a linguist) said she read it on a Arab language website that some chief of staff for the Syrian Army had defected, and was claiming to have controlled ~600 chem warheads and other munitions that were buried under civilian areas.

I have not heard of such a senior regime defector. The logic of burying CW and other munitions eludes me. Punishing those who side with the rebels or live where the rebels are is a clear regime tactic. There are persistent reports of unusual munitions being used, e.g. barrels of explosives and yesterday a napalm-like bomb:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The third said we should have attacked the chemical weapons stocks two years ago when they were likely more centralized.

I read last week an Israeli new report on Syria's weapons, including CW and missiles. This referred to the CW stockpiles being moved from the east to more loyal areas, presumably a move that watchers spotted:

Assad has moved his chemical weapons stockpiles form the desert in eastern Syria to more protected areas on Syria's coast that are ruled by his Alawite sect. These stockpiles, among the largest in the world (some 1,000 tons of chemical warfare agents) are under the complete control of Assad's regime.

Link:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...421668,00.html

Attacking CW stocks, presumably in some form of bunkers, has I guess its own problems, let alone whether a hit destroys CW. An aspect covered within:http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...cruise_missile

The New Scientist has an editorial, which covers this aspect:[QUOTE]A high-energy blast still won't incinerate all the chemicals but it will lift any intact agents high up where they can spread hundreds of kilometres. Both types of strike are likely to kill people in the vicinity.

A study published last December shows that the bombing of Iraq's extensive chemical weapons plants early in the Gulf War in 1991 released sarin over military encampments 600 kilometres away, at doses Robert Haley of the University of Texas in Dallas says caused characteristic Gulf War illnesses and brain damage. Soldiers who were exposed were four times as likely to have symptoms as those who weren't.[QUOTE]

Returning to who was responsible, a passage that I have not seen elsewhere, which is telling IMHO:

...the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs.

Link:http://www.newscientist.com/article/...al-puzzle.html