Do you really think Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people despite knowing that there was a pending U.N. investigation due to rumors of chemical weapons? And why would he use chemical weapons on his own people when he is clearly winning the war against the rebels? Also, the rebels themselves said that they would fight as much as they needed in order to gain international attention and intervention. What better way to attract international attention than to gas your own people and frame Assad? Especially when you're clearly losing the war, by a large margin, and you're on the brink of depletion of forces. I've been an Obama supporter since his first election, but he speaks with the utmost assurance that it was undoubtedly Assad who used the chemical weapons, despite the fact that there hasn't been a single, concrete piece of evidence that suggests Assad used weapons on his own people. WHY and HOW can he be so sure it was Assad with no proof whatsoever? Which leaves us to our intuition. I'm not taking sides with Assad in any way, I quite honestly think the guy is a prick and needs to go, but Putin made a point. If we did go into Syria, (supposed clean and sweep deal, search and destroy style mission) wouldn't it just be a repeat of the invasion of Iraq, and the hunt for the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" which we were so sure they had in the first place? I know Obama came in today and cleared up his intentions, especially after the scrutinizing criticism that he's been slapped with by both sides, but I think we all know what it would inevitably turn into, especially with multiple powerhouses backing up both sides. Yes, what happened to the people of Damascus was horrifying and justice should be served (unfortunately it won't), but we don't have any evidence it was Assad, as much as I wish we did, and despite the media making us think otherwise.
Oh, and if Obama and his allies were so sure that it was Assad who did it, which is what they truly believe, then why hasn't he been charged by the international committee yet? Better yet, why hasn't he been charged for anything at all?
I guess, but in politics, especially in war, reason and logic often disappear. It's also been proposed that it could have been a Syrian military official acting outside of Assad's orders. I could see this happening. But certainly the rebels would have had a stronger motive.
That Syrian military official must be suicidal. Or he must not really like being Assads military official. It sounds dumb but I wont deny its possibility. It just doesn't seem likely.
I don't know, things can get chaotic in war. Maybe Assad never explicitely mentioned not to use them and some officer thought that's what he needed to win a certain battle or discourage a certain population. Not saying it's likely either, just one of many possibilities that make it so hard to determine who did what.
.....really? So... Assad forgets to tell his military officer, whom isnt aware of the repercussions of using CHEMICAL WEAPONS, and in order to win a losing battle he kills innocent civilians, whom are not apart of the battle he was apparently... losing? I'm all open for possibilities but this one is just LOL
I don't believe it either, just playing devil's advocate. More to illustrate that we really don't know what happened. I also find this unlikely, I'd heard the theory and I just can't rule it out. People do fucked up things in war, like that US soldier who went out at night and shot lots of Afghan civilians. The US also has the upper hand in that conflict, only innocent civilians were murdered and there were repercussions. If it can happen in well organized military like the American one, it can happen in a chaotic conflict like the Syrian civil war.
I just don't see a government that's clearly winning the war going to the extreme like that especially when the losing team has much to gain from it.
So seeing that we agree on the likelihoods, can't we conclude that up to this point, Obama and his pals have been strictly talking out of their asses? Coming from a leftie btw.
I'm talking about the evidence they've presented. If that's all the evidence they have, then like PublicEnemy said, they're talking out their asses about being so sure Assad did it.
I figured that, it was just worded weird lol. If they have more evidence then showing it to the american public, the people funding their job, would be required. Its insane how they can simply claim to have evidence and not want to show it. That's so fucking absurd.
I don't think they have it. They must have gotten it in some really fucked up ways if they have such an easy way of convincing the world and just choose to ask us to believe them instead.. Or maybe their evidence intristically incriminates them as well for some other stuff.