Syria: The Rebels were behind the chemical attacks!

Everyone now knows of the controversy that might get the US (and possibly allies) involved in Syria.  Everyone was quick to blame the regime for the chemical attack that killed over a thousand people, but I think this is false.  I think everyone has been looking at this situation very one-dimensionally.   

First, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons when they know the eye of the UN (especially the US) is upon them?  They knew that the US would get involved if they cross this "red line".  Also it would be pure folly if they tried to call our bluff, since they know our intervention is sure to bring about the swift destruction of the regime.  Basically, they are terrified of making foriegn enemies, and they wouldn't do something so stupid as to blatantly spit in the US face an use chemical weapons.  They have nothing to gain, except a few dead rebels.

On the other hand, the rebels have everything to gain from this.  If they can get the US involved, they have a powerful ally, and their victory is secured.  Plus, the only plant in Syria that can make chlorine gas was captured by rebels sometime around December of 2012.  But the rebels are the good guys, right?  They wouldn't throw innocents under the bus to get the pity of the US, right?  I think they would.  I know they would.  For some reason, the common person thinks "good guy" everytime they hear the word rebels.  This is not true.  These rebels are as heartless as the government and have members of hezbollah, al qaeda, and other questionable goups within their ranks.  They don't even have to be terrorists to be so calloused.  There are no "good guys".   Don't be fooled.  The rebels want power just as bad as the government doesn't want to give it up.  Power lust is known to be an evil thing, as history shows.  

I think people need to stop assuming the regime is the only evil here, because we have no idea of the situation over there.  We need to look at this more thoughtfully, and think laterally.  It would be foolish to launch an attack with so little evidence.  

What do you think? 

I agree that both sides are questionable, and it varies. I'm more keen to follow evidence on who did the attack though, motive alone is meaningless. Its completely possible that the rebels did it however the more plausible explanation is that some part of the Assad regime carried out the attack. I'm willing to bet that the UN report will say the same. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I agree that both sides are questionable, and it varies. I'm more keen to follow evidence on who did the attack though, motive alone is meaningless. Its completely possible that the rebels did it however the more plausible explanation is that some part of the Assad regime carried out the attack. I'm willing to bet that the UN report will say the same. chaplainDMK

This all Syrian Issue looks a great confusion as almost everithing in the middle east.There aren´t bad and good guys just pons in global strategy agenda that goes many light years ahead of Syrians

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I agree that both sides are questionable, and it varies. I'm more keen to follow evidence on who did the attack though, motive alone is meaningless. Its completely possible that the rebels did it however the more plausible explanation is that some part of the Assad regime carried out the attack. I'm willing to bet that the UN report will say the same. chaplainDMK

And the country that did that would be equally foolish.

This all Syrian Issue looks a great confusion as almost everithing in the middle east.There aren´t bad and good guys just pons in global strategy agenda that goes many light years ahead of Syrians

delol

It's actually not that confusing, but people take everything at face-value, so it would be confusing for them.

I agree that both sides are questionable, and it varies. I'm more keen to follow evidence on who did the attack though, motive alone is meaningless. Its completely possible that the rebels did it however the more plausible explanation is that some part of the Assad regime carried out the attack. I'm willing to bet that the UN report will say the same. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="delol"]

This all Syrian Issue looks a great confusion as almost everithing in the middle east.There aren´t bad and good guys just pons in global strategy agenda that goes many light years ahead of Syrians

GOGOGOGURT

It's actually not that confusing, but people take everything at face-value, so it would be confusing for them.

[/QUOTE Maybe you are right the fact is that the world is less naive than it was once in Iraq

i don't think it really matters whether the rebels or the regime were behind the chemical attacks. they are still equally horrible.

Ok. Can we still please just stay out of it?

The regime can gain from their use....the rebels are in Damascus and the army is having an extremely hard time taking control, using Sarin is good at intimidating the rebels. Chlorine gas plant doesn't matter, the govt has stock piles of weapons. Assad is more worried about the rebels then the international community, look at our response absolutely nothing so far. All the actual evidence points to the govt using the weapons.Person0

What evidence?  Russia demanded evidence, and we had none to give them.  We are assuming.  How do we even know Assad is still alive?  By now he's probably exiled or even dead, since he wasn't dictator material in the first place.  I'm just saying we don't know all the facts, myself included.

Ok. Can we still please just stay out of it?

The_Lipscomb

Now that congress is mulling it over we probably will.  Thank goodness.

[QUOTE="Person0"]The regime can gain from their use....the rebels are in Damascus and the army is having an extremely hard time taking control, using Sarin is good at intimidating the rebels. Chlorine gas plant doesn't matter, the govt has stock piles of weapons. Assad is more worried about the rebels then the international community, look at our response absolutely nothing so far. All the actual evidence points to the govt using the weapons.GOGOGOGURT

What evidence?  Russia demanded evidence, and we had none to give them.  We are assuming.  How do we even know Assad is still alive?  By now he's probably exiled or even dead, since he wasn't dictator material in the first place.  I'm just saying we don't know all the facts, myself included.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="Person0"]The regime can gain from their use....the rebels are in Damascus and the army is having an extremely hard time taking control, using Sarin is good at intimidating the rebels. Chlorine gas plant doesn't matter, the govt has stock piles of weapons. Assad is more worried about the rebels then the international community, look at our response absolutely nothing so far. All the actual evidence points to the govt using the weapons.Person0

What evidence?  Russia demanded evidence, and we had none to give them.  We are assuming.  How do we even know Assad is still alive?  By now he's probably exiled or even dead, since he wasn't dictator material in the first place.  I'm just saying we don't know all the facts, myself included.

Actually, syria has had a stockpile of chemical weapons from the 80's.  So all your other points are moot.  And Russia didn't ask for the information, we shared it with them, and they said there wasn't enough evidence to prove the regime did it.  They asked for more information but we refused to give it to them. 

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

What evidence?  Russia demanded evidence, and we had none to give them.  We are assuming.  How do we even know Assad is still alive?  By now he's probably exiled or even dead, since he wasn't dictator material in the first place.  I'm just saying we don't know all the facts, myself included.

GOGOGOGURT

Actually, syria has had a stockpile of chemical weapons from the 80's. What? Everyone knows Syria has had chem weapons for a while how the hell does that make all of the evidence moot?  So all your other points are moot.  And Russia didn't ask for the information, we shared it with them, and they said there wasn't enough evidence to prove the regime did it. Because they don't care about the truth they want to sell their arms and hopefully keep their naval base  They asked for more information but we refused to give it to them. There is no point in it because they will always say its not enough

Thinking is one thing, and knowing with certainty is another. The Germans intercepted a phone call prooving assad used chemical weapons.

Besides which, the timely arrival of UN weapon inspectors is the perfect prelude for launching an attack.

I could ask you, why did they stall the UN team, who were trying to get to the site, for four days? Then the foreign minister Walled Moualam said that they have nothing to hide. Why stall for four days?

Obama is an idiot. Too quick to jump to conclusions. I agree with Russia 100% on this.Legend500

Intercepted communications, telling govt soldiers to prepare for chemical exposure (the govt attacking the gassed areas right after they were gassed).
This isn't evidence. Regardless of who fired them, military forces will prepare for chemical exposure.
We now the rockets used to deliver the chemicals have only been seen used by the govt forces.
The United States has stated that they don't know, and I know you're not a skeptic.
We know the rockets came from the direction of several govt bases We know the rockets hit rebel controlled areas 
We know that government bases have been overrun by the rebels as well.
We knew 3 days before it happened the govt was preparing for a chemical attack
Link stating that they were preparing to launch chemical weapons (not be affected by them) at the rebels?
We know the govt has large stock piles of chemical weapons (while the rebels don't)
First part is true although not "large"; no proof of the second claim.
We know the govt delayed UN inspectors by shelling the area with conventional weapons. Not even relevant. This is as bad or even worse than the idea that the weapons came from Libya (it IS confirmed that Libya's chemical weapon stockpiles went missing and were found in the hands of Al-Qaeda and Northern African militant factions - but it is not known that they went to Syria, even though Al-Qaeda has been aiding rebels).

Person0

Sh!t, a chemical attack probably never happened. Obama just wants to take Asaad out to stick a Mulsom Brotherhood leader in there.

Sh!t, a chemical attack probably never happened. Obama just wants to take Asaad out to stick a Mulsom Brotherhood leader in there.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="Person0"]
Intercepted communications, telling govt soldiers to prepare for chemical exposure (the govt attacking the gassed areas right after they were gassed).
This isn't evidence. Regardless of who fired them, military forces will prepare for chemical exposure. It is evidence when they are told before the chemical attack occured... 

We now the rockets used to deliver the chemicals have only been seen used by the govt forces.
The United States has stated that they don't know, and I know you're not a skeptic.  That just talks about how the U.S isnt sure Assad personally ordered it and we arent sure where all his chemical weapons are. It has nothing to do with the weapons linked to the attack which have only been seen used by the regime forces
We know the rockets came from the direction of several govt bases We know the rockets hit rebel controlled areas 
We know that government bases have been overrun by the rebels as well. Yeah some bases have been overun its a war, the bases in the direction of the rocket attack were still under govt control.
We knew 3 days before it happened the govt was preparing for a chemical attack
Link stating that they were preparing to launch chemical weapons (not be affected by them) at the rebels? Link
We know the govt has large stock piles of chemical weapons (while the rebels don't)
First part is true although not "large"; no proof of the second claim. According to everyone the rebels don't.
We know the govt delayed UN inspectors by shelling the area with conventional weapons. Not even relevant. This is as bad or even worse than the idea that the weapons came from Libya (it IS confirmed that Libya's chemical weapon stockpiles went missing and were found in the hands of Al-Qaeda and Northern African militant factions - but it is not known that they went to Syria, even though Al-Qaeda has been aiding rebels). What? The government stalled the inspectors while they continued shelling the area to try and destroy evidence.

Saturos3091

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Sh!t, a chemical attack probably never happened. Obama just wants to take Asaad out to stick a Mulsom Brotherhood leader in there.

outworld222

If we "punish" the regime, it might ignite full out war with 2 huge super powers.

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Sh!t, a chemical attack probably never happened. Obama just wants to take Asaad out to stick a Mulsom Brotherhood leader in there.

ristactionjakso

If we "punish" the regime, it might ignite full out war with 2 huge super powers.

Intercepted communications, telling govt soldiers to prepare for chemical exposure (the govt attacking the gassed areas right after they were gassed).
This isn't evidence. Regardless of who fired them, military forces will prepare for chemical exposure. It is evidence when they are told before the chemical attack occured... 

We now the rockets used to deliver the chemicals have only been seen used by the govt forces.
The United States has stated that they don't know, and I know you're not a skeptic.  That just talks about how the U.S isnt sure Assad personally ordered it and we arent sure where all his chemical weapons are. It has nothing to do with the weapons linked to the attack which have only been seen used by the regime forces
We know the rockets came from the direction of several govt bases We know the rockets hit rebel controlled areas 
We know that government bases have been overrun by the rebels as well. Yeah some bases have been overun its a war, the bases in the direction of the rocket attack were still under govt control.
We knew 3 days before it happened the govt was preparing for a chemical attack
Link stating that they were preparing to launch chemical weapons (not be affected by them) at the rebels? Link
We know the govt has large stock piles of chemical weapons (while the rebels don't)
First part is true although not "large"; no proof of the second claim. According to everyone the rebels don't.
We know the govt delayed UN inspectors by shelling the area with conventional weapons. Not even relevant. This is as bad or even worse than the idea that the weapons came from Libya (it IS confirmed that Libya's chemical weapon stockpiles went missing and were found in the hands of Al-Qaeda and Northern African militant factions - but it is not known that they went to Syria, even though Al-Qaeda has been aiding rebels). What? The government stalled the inspectors while they continued shelling the area to try and destroy evidence.

Person0

And the last point is conjecture - as you confirmed yourself. No better than all the conspiracy theories.

Oh look, a second thread about this. At least there isn't a blurry video linked in it.

 

[QUOTE="Person0"]
Intercepted communications, telling govt soldiers to prepare for chemical exposure (the govt attacking the gassed areas right after they were gassed).
This isn't evidence. Regardless of who fired them, military forces will prepare for chemical exposure. It is evidence when they are told before the chemical attack occured... 

We now the rockets used to deliver the chemicals have only been seen used by the govt forces.
The United States has stated that they don't know, and I know you're not a skeptic.  That just talks about how the U.S isnt sure Assad personally ordered it and we arent sure where all his chemical weapons are. It has nothing to do with the weapons linked to the attack which have only been seen used by the regime forces
We know the rockets came from the direction of several govt bases We know the rockets hit rebel controlled areas 
We know that government bases have been overrun by the rebels as well. Yeah some bases have been overun its a war, the bases in the direction of the rocket attack were still under govt control.
We knew 3 days before it happened the govt was preparing for a chemical attack
Link stating that they were preparing to launch chemical weapons (not be affected by them) at the rebels? Link
We know the govt has large stock piles of chemical weapons (while the rebels don't)
First part is true although not "large"; no proof of the second claim. According to everyone the rebels don't.
We know the govt delayed UN inspectors by shelling the area with conventional weapons. Not even relevant. This is as bad or even worse than the idea that the weapons came from Libya (it IS confirmed that Libya's chemical weapon stockpiles went missing and were found in the hands of Al-Qaeda and Northern African militant factions - but it is not known that they went to Syria, even though Al-Qaeda has been aiding rebels). What? The government stalled the inspectors while they continued shelling the area to try and destroy evidence.

Saturos3091

And the last point is conjecture - as you confirmed yourself. No better than all the conspiracy theories. Delaying the UN inspectors for days and blowing the hell outta of the place hit by chemical weapons isnt a conspiracy....

Oh look, a second thread about this. At least there isn't a blurry video linked in it.

WhiteKnight77

I'll fix that.

In this blurry video, Obama's friends gas rabbits to death to show off the lethality of their home-made chemical weapons and then threaten to use the weapons against all Syrian Alawites.

"... and you shall see what we will do to you with chemical and biological weapons, Allah willing."

Actually Assad is equally benefitting from this. His actions are beyond rational, he had killed more than 100000 human and apparamtly this didn't stop the revolution. He is in desperation rightnow, using any kind of weapon avaliable is legitimte to him. His enemies are knocking on his door !!!!

Regarding US involvement, I am an arab and a muslim so I guess you can imagine how I view US, however assad has crossed all lines, launching an air strike against him to the right thing to do.

For the amount of posters here who seem to rally against mainstream media, you all sure seem to talk about it a lot.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Oh look, a second thread about this. At least there isn't a blurry video linked in it.

Stesilaus

I'll fix that.

In this blurry video, Obama's friends gas rabbits to death to show off the lethality of their home-made chemical weapons and then threaten to use the weapons against all Syrian Alawites.

"... and you shall see what we will do to you with chemical and biological weapons, Allah willing."

FSA are terrorists scumbags. Get your head out of your ass and wake up to common sense. ScottMescudi

FSA scumbags are supported by Sunnis and Al-Qaida. I hope you guys know thisAckad

It's 80s Afghanistan all over again.

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]FSA are terrorists scumbags. Get your head out of your ass and wake up to common sense. Person0

[QUOTE="Ackad"]FSA scumbags are supported by Sunnis and Al-Qaida. I hope you guys know thisone_plum

It's 80s Afghanistan all over again.

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]FSA are terrorists scumbags. Get your head out of your ass and wake up to common sense. Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]FSA are terrorists scumbags. Get your head out of your ass and wake up to common sense. SwagSurf

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]FSA are terrorists scumbags. Get your head out of your ass and wake up to common sense. omho88

Oh yeah it's all our fault.  You're pathetic.

[QUOTE="SwagSurf"][QUOTE="Person0"] Probably because we did nothing for 2 years while they got machine gunned and bombed and jihadists start coming in mass to fight.Person0

"We" intervened from the very beginning ...

The so-called pro-democracy protesters were backed by US money all along---half a billion US$ were dispensed by the State Department and supposedly non-governmental organizations like the "National Endowment for Democracy" and "Freedom House", which are basically fronts for the CIA.

Source: Syrian Revolution or CIA Coup?

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="SwagSurf"] America is not responsible for every single country you know. Besides, Sunnis and Shiites have been killing eachother for centuries.Stesilaus

"We" intervened from the very beginning ...

The so-called pro-democracy protesters were backed by US money all along---half a billion US$ were dispensed by the State Department and supposedly non-governmental organizations like the "National Endowment for Democracy" and "Freedom House", which are basically fronts for the CIA.

Source: Syrian Revolution or CIA Coup?

[QUOTE="SwagSurf"]America is not responsible for every single country you know. Besides, Sunnis and Shiites have been killing eachother for centuries.Person0

So this doesn't justify all the support (or non-criticism) the rebels have been getting. If you're going for the uber-noble superhero of the world route, you should probably declare war against the rebels as well.

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Everything that happens affects all of us. If we [had] intervened earlier we wouldn't have to choose between an insane dictator and a possible theocracy.Person0

"We" intervened from the very beginning ...

The so-called pro-democracy protesters were backed by US money all along---half a billion US$ were dispensed by the State Department and supposedly non-governmental organizations like the "National Endowment for Democracy" and "Freedom House", which are basically fronts for the CIA.

Source: Syrian Revolution or CIA Coup?

More like:

Lol CNN

Lol MSNBC

Lol BBC

Lol ABCNews

Lol CBSNews

Lol FoxNews

Lol Whitehouse Press Briefings

:|