Question About Poison Gas in Syria

[jwoodie]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no benefit. Most reports show that this isn't even the case. What this is really about it a natural gas pipeline sought by Qatar and Saudi Arabia through Syria. Assad refused the proposition. So, Saudi and Qatar want to topple assad and install a puppet who will gladly hand them their pipeline.

If the US was interested in stopping chemical wepaons use, we would have gotten involed back in May when the UN determined that it was the rebels who used chem weapons in April. But that doesn't fit the desired theater being constructed around the truth of the matter. So, we ignore that part and move on with the official narrative that We want to get involved because Assad used chemical weapons. Which is all hype with no merit.

It's about energy dominance....again.

 

[martybegan]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

The first thing you have to do when trying to figure out the rationale of doing something like this is try to remember that the person making the decsion may not be as rational or as moral as you are.

There are two scenarios where this was a deliberate act by the syrian government to get rid of some pesky areas of resistance.

In the first case its from the top, an Assad decided to end the problem, figuring that he's been blasting his own people with conventional weapons for almost a year now, and the world response has been tepid. He probably expected what we are getting now, some half assed attempt at protest and possible action, but looking less likely.

The 2nd case is some local high level commander got uppity and decided to fix the problem with whatever he had availible, and he happened to have a few sarin shells lying around. In this case one would expect said local commander to be either praised or killed, depending on how the Assads see what happened.

 

[eflatminor]

What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

None.

His Al Qaeda enemy on the other hand, would benefit greatly from outside help to take out their foe. But of course, that would mean they killed their own people with chemical weapons. Now why would those nice people we're going to help do that?

 

[jwoodie]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

The first thing you have to do when trying to figure out the rationale of doing something like this is try to remember that the person making the decsion may not be as rational or as moral as you are.

There are two scenarios where this was a deliberate act by the syrian government to get rid of some pesky areas of resistance.

In the first case its from the top, an Assad decided to end the problem, figuring that he's been blasting his own people with conventional weapons for almost a year now, and the world response has been tepid. He probably expected what we are getting now, some half assed attempt at protest and possible action, but looking less likely.

The 2nd case is some local high level commander got uppity and decided to fix the problem with whatever he had availible, and he happened to have a few sarin shells lying around. In this case one would expect said local commander to be either praised or killed, depending on how the Assads see what happened.

The first case seems a bit of a stretch: Was the area affected a key rebel strong point? Why were there so many children?

The 2nd case is slightly more plausible, but why would local units be given poison gas to be used at their discretion?

Wouldn't a more "rational" motive be be for the rebels to use this attack as a means to enlist international support for toppling the Assad regime?

 

[martybegan]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

The first thing you have to do when trying to figure out the rationale of doing something like this is try to remember that the person making the decsion may not be as rational or as moral as you are.

There are two scenarios where this was a deliberate act by the syrian government to get rid of some pesky areas of resistance.

In the first case its from the top, an Assad decided to end the problem, figuring that he's been blasting his own people with conventional weapons for almost a year now, and the world response has been tepid. He probably expected what we are getting now, some half assed attempt at protest and possible action, but looking less likely.

The 2nd case is some local high level commander got uppity and decided to fix the problem with whatever he had availible, and he happened to have a few sarin shells lying around. In this case one would expect said local commander to be either praised or killed, depending on how the Assads see what happened.

The first case seems a bit of a stretch: Was the area affected a key rebel strong point? Why were there so many children?

The 2nd case is slightly more plausible, but why would local units be given poison gas to be used at their discretion?

Wouldn't a more "rational" motive be be for the rebels to use this attack as a means to enlist international support for toppling the Assad regime?

For the rebels, where would they get the SARIN from? (if you say Iran, then Iran should be basically blockaded for providing it, and the rebels using it).

Second, how would they disperse it? Sarin isnt like chlorine gas, its more of an aerosol/liquid. There has to be a dispersal method, with artillery shells being the most likely. Do the rebels even have this equipment?

One COULD drive around the streets with this stuff spraying around willy nilly, be we have no reports on that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wouldn't a more "rational" motive be be for the rebels to use this attack as a means to enlist international support for toppling the Assad regime?

Exactly. Only by "rebels", we're really talking about Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

But that still leaves the open end of the April gas attack that the UN pinned on the rebels. We did nothing then, why the cry to hold Assad responsible now? Even still, the White House and their Inc. news outlets haven't even touched this fact. Because it doesn't fit the desired narrative to drag the country into being involved.

Our involvement is in favor of Qatar and Suadi Arabia. Only we're hesitent, as is Israel, that the rebels wont be able to be controlled if Assad is toppled. The attacks against Assad are designed ot put pressure on him to take the proposition put forth by Qatar for their natural gas pipeline. This is where Russia gets involved. They have dominance on natural gas in the region.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

For the rebels, where would they get the SARIN from? (if you say Iran, then Iran should be basically blockaded for providing it, and the rebels using it).

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and potentially through UK channels.

Second, how would they disperse it? Sarin isnt like chlorine gas, its more of an aerosol/liquid. There has to be a dispersal method, with artillery shells being the most likely. Do the rebels even have this equipment?

yes. they used this equipment in April.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

The first thing you have to do when trying to figure out the rationale of doing something like this is try to remember that the person making the decsion may not be as rational or as moral as you are.

There are two scenarios where this was a deliberate act by the syrian government to get rid of some pesky areas of resistance.

In the first case its from the top, an Assad decided to end the problem, figuring that he's been blasting his own people with conventional weapons for almost a year now, and the world response has been tepid. He probably expected what we are getting now, some half assed attempt at protest and possible action, but looking less likely.

The 2nd case is some local high level commander got uppity and decided to fix the problem with whatever he had availible, and he happened to have a few sarin shells lying around. In this case one would expect said local commander to be either praised or killed, depending on how the Assads see what happened.

Option 3. The rebels used chemical weapons then vastly inflated the claimed number of dead in order to involve the United States against Assad and turn the tide in their favor.

 

[Asclepias]

When in doubt always consider money and or legacy in that order. Who gains to profit and who gains to increase or save their legacy? Its quite possible that this is a ruse by the rebels. Its also quite possible someone somewher stands to profit. Lastly its likely Assad would rather kill everyone before he gives up power and legacy.

 

[martybegan]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

The first thing you have to do when trying to figure out the rationale of doing something like this is try to remember that the person making the decsion may not be as rational or as moral as you are.

There are two scenarios where this was a deliberate act by the syrian government to get rid of some pesky areas of resistance.

In the first case its from the top, an Assad decided to end the problem, figuring that he's been blasting his own people with conventional weapons for almost a year now, and the world response has been tepid. He probably expected what we are getting now, some half assed attempt at protest and possible action, but looking less likely.

The 2nd case is some local high level commander got uppity and decided to fix the problem with whatever he had availible, and he happened to have a few sarin shells lying around. In this case one would expect said local commander to be either praised or killed, depending on how the Assads see what happened.

Option 3. The rebels used chemical weapons then vastly inflated the claimed number of dead in order to involve the United States against Assad and turn the tide in their favor.

At this point it is a possibility, as the overall amount of presented evidence is quite limited.

 

[oldfart]

I am always suspicious of claims that some "enemy" has engaged in "outrageous" acts with no apparent rational justification. Can anyone explain a motive for Assad to authorize a single limited poison gas attack on a specific location that included hundreds of children? What benefit could he possibly accrue from this action, which would invite military retaliation from the US?

I would begin by assuming that provocative acts were intended to be provocative. Then the question becomes "Who would want to provoke the international community and the United States specifically?" and I see a couple of possibilities.

Assad could have wanted a low level provocation to test the response. He probably (correctly) reasoned that the United States would be committed to a "proportionate" response instead of regime change, and he could sit out the counterstrike an resume civil war with impunity, promising that it was an underlings fault and will not happen again. This explains why the gas attack was not sufficient to materially alter the course of the civil war. Of course, if this is true, there must be a larger attack which WOULD determine the outcome of the war in Assad's mind being planned. If there is no response or a sufficiently weak response, we can expect either a massive attack for a quick win or an escalating series of gas attacks, again calibrated to test the response.

Alternatively, the rebels could have initiated the attack in an attempt to involve the United States against Assad. They would clearly have a motive to use the least amount of loss of live consistent with a credible attack. The major feature if this is true is that they would want to conceal the source of the attack. Since the opposition is not unitary, this also raises the question of which group would carry out such an attack. Would they gas "their own people" or would they target another group? Sounds like a real parlor game.

Finally, I would not dismiss a foreign flag operation. Someone outside Syria wanting regime change (Saudis? Israeli's? Shi'ites?) might take a shot. In this case, practically anyone could be a suspect and conspiracy theorists can go apeshit. Word of advice: don't count out the North Koreans, they actually are crazy enough to try it!

 

[Snookie]

It's been explained that it is not the number killed but how they are killed. For example those killed by a surgical strike or a drone is quite proper while chemical killings are taboo.