Speaking to reporters Friday at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary James Mattis admitted that the US has no evidence Syria has used sarin gas in the course of the Syrian War, though he threatened a harsh US reaction if Syria did so.
Mattis said the US was aware of allegations of sarin use, but that they had never come up with any such evidence that would corroborate it. He insisted this didn’t mean the US didn’t believe the allegations, however, or was contesting them in any way.
This has been a recurring issue with the US, which has regularly accused Syria of using chemical weapons throughout the war, and most recently attacked a Syrian airbase in April based on such allegations. Those allegations related to more primitive chlorine gas use, which is distinct from the use of the more advanced sarin gas.
Early in the Syrian War, Syria agreed to dismantle its chemical arsenal, one of the world’s largest at the time. Though total verification was never possible because of intense fighting around some sites, all signs point to Syria having disarmed all of its substantial armaments. Chlorine-based weapons, far more primitive than what would’ve been in Syria’s arsenal, were not believed to be in Syria earlier in the war, and accidental chlorine releases in the course of conventional attacks have not been ruled out.
Rebels sought to push the chemical claims as a way of vilifying Syria and justifying more international pushes for regime change, and the US has eagerly lapped that up. Mattis’ comments suggest the US is still likely to do so, even in the absence of any real evidence, and claims of any sarin use are unlikely to be dependent on such claims being either true or verifiable.
Yet, it’s not stopping the galactic empire from accusing them of using it.
The U.S. today is more like the lame First Order
The Galactic Empire wuz kool.
This isn’t about then versus now and none of the Disney’s Star Wars movies are worthy of an allegory.
No, but as far as allegories go there were probably eye injuries from facepalming too hard when the word ‘resistance’ popped up twice during the opening scrawl of “The Last Jedi”.
The first time in CAPITAL letters lest we fail to subconsciously associate Princess Leia with Hiliarity.
Its surprising the producers didn’t insist on purple text.
In the meantime, how about some US war logic..
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Richard
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8059df1b531b361f5a263aa3fe3cb1b998c04dd97bdac0861ba786e4a6a08a3.jpg
“Chlorine-based weapons, far more primitive than what would’ve been in Syria’s arsenal,”
Syria’s arsenal was for quite a while near depleted and they might easily have converted to more primitive contraptions. There’s sufficient evidence for this out there, with little reason to doubt it. Plus it also makes sense, since to have any “advanced” chemical weapon manifacturing would leave way more traces and cause direct international reaction. So a desperate military (before the open Russian interference) had known means, motive and known lack of morality (in places) to indeed use these chlorine-based weapons.
So lets not kid ourselves about any capacity or willingness to use chemical weapons on Syrian side, no matter if condoned by Damascus or not. Surely it’s not viable strategically but by then the war decended into something fueled by cycles of revenge, cruely and immorality on all sides. Only restoration of some order, some structure and some actualy possibility of a future will resolve this mentality. It’s not likely the Russian interference changed everything right away.
War is a hungry beast. Civil war double so. Civil wars with various foreign interventions and mercenaries: the gates of pure hell.
1. The Chemical weapons were used when the Syrian Government was achieving tactical and strategic victories. There was no rational reason for them to utilize such weapons, unless they wanted to give the Western powers an excuse to get involved. If you believe they acted irrationally, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
2. It is NOT a civil war. Most of the i̶n̶s̶u̶r̶g̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ mercenaries are non-Syrian. You’re either ignorant or willfully trying to mislead.
1. Warfare is not just some rational chess game. Especially not this conflict. Many fronts, interests and motivators. You are judging from some position where you perhaps like to rationalize and understand everything and I can understand. But life is often not like that and definitely this conflict ain’t.
2. It is not that simple. In any case I did mention the interventions and mercenaries having moved the conflict towards a different beast altogether. Name it like you want but it becomes a semantic game and I’m not playing.
“… a … game … I’m not playing.”
That sort of illuminates your whole paradigm. You think the discourse is a ‘game’. I don’t consider war to be a game, nor the discussion about it. What you and I write here matters in a way that I do not think that you understand. Hiding behind the ‘complexity’ of the conflict or the ‘moral equivalency’ of the different sides is also an irresponsible position to be taking on your part.
Again, to repeat: I am not going to play semantic games with you. Are you really trying to take my own point and turn it around as if you make it? You are not addressing my point yet: the weak assumption of some required rational strategic reason to deploy chemical weapons. As if war is a rational thing! And even if it often starts rational, it rarely remains it.
“Are you really trying to take my own point and turn it around as if you make it?”
I can’t given that you don’t really have one, other than, ‘Assad might be crazy’. This renders the rest of any analysis you might offer as pointless, because you can always throw up your arms and claim, ‘the Syrian state might be culpable because … irrationality’. That is an old, tired and intellectually bankrupt trope, except for those who would promote unjustified wars. Tell me that doesn’t describe you, please, lest I lose more faith in humanity.
Oh, and do you have any evidence that the Syrian government deployed chemical weapons in the conflict that I am not aware of?
Well, no, his argument is not that Assad might be crazy.
His argument is that “X would be irrational” is itself NOT an argument because an assumption of rationality on the part of wartime belligerents is unwarranted.
That’s not an argument that Assad used chemical weapons. It’s just a note that “using chemical weapons would be irrational” doesn’t have a thing on Earth to do with whether or not he did.
Thomas, I think that you’re half-right about what JanD is trying to say re: the assumption of rationality being unwarranted.
“So a desperate military … had known means, motive and known lack of morality* …”
It is unwarranted, according to JanD, if one is arguing that Assad (or his fragmented, ‘rogue?’ army) would be highly unlikely to be culpable of using Chlorine weapons. On the other hand, it IS warranted if one is arguing that B.A., or someone wearing his flag on their uniform, DID likely use Chlorine gas.
Sorry if I am guilty of misreading here, but I smell justification for western intervention, that’s all.
*would like to be clued in on what the known lack of morality consists of
I doubt that Assad is using chemical weapons, for the simple reason that he would expect that to be used as an excuse for the continued presence of US invasion troops and backing for their proxies, and perhaps even escalation.
On the other hand, chemical weapons have to uses: Area denial in a military situation, and the creation of terror in a political situation. Since the Assad regime, like all states, is a terrorist organization, I suppose it might have used them for that purpose. But I still wouldn’t try to justify the intervention of other terrorist groups, like the US, in the situation.
I suppose if Syria did not use gas than our side or the side we supported used the gas . Just like I thought we bombed Assad for using gas without any evidence he used gas . This might be what is called a false flag attack . Something the United States is getting famous for using .Trump acted fast because children had died . Madeline Albright said who else would have done it . As she refused to accept the same head choppers she supported would pull tricks like this . The head choppers will take over the world if they keep getting the USA to bomb for them on all these false flag attacks .
What’s amazing, and depressing, is that anyone even still asks that b***h Albright what she thinks about anything.
Well, she did help HC lose. Not that the guy in charge is anything to cheer about now that the ziocons are back in power.
The ziocons never left.
Mattie according to same report out of AP posted by WaPO ,claims that Syrian Gov has “weaponized and used chlorine gas in the Syrian civil war”.
Does the confusion help in case he wants to use it as a reason ? it possibly does. Processing of the informations regarding Russia, Iran,Syria,or Venezuela are as good as are the conclusions of some hired blind folks who are understanding an elephant by touching certain part of the body before giving their appraisals to an equally shortsighted disinterested audience . It works very well in a non -stop fast -moving repeating and intersecting unverified unchallenged news- cycle where only the impression of the ugliest meanest or largest or most violent act out of the script manages to stick to the mind and decays quickly to combine into sense of revulsion with urges to act against .
No evidence!? Oh, RREEeeeaaalllly?
Not that he’s reading, but here’s a personal response to Mattis.
I would not go along with attacking a country over possession or use of Poor Man’s Nukes if there is any reason at all to believe the US, Israel, or the Gulf States were previously interested in attacking them directly or by proxy. In that case, I’d only call it responsible of them to have such things just to defend themselves (or even as negotiating cards). Poor Iraq, Libya, Yemen, …. were thus irresponsible in failing to notice or anticipate that interest.
“Rebels sought to push the chemical claims as a way of vilifying Syria and justifying more international pushes for regime change, and the US has eagerly lapped that up. Mattis’ comments suggest the US is still likely to do so, even in the absence of any real evidence, and claims of any sarin use are unlikely to be dependent on such claims being either true or verifiable.” – This is the last paragraph of your article. I have looked at all the reports on the press briefing, can you tell me which comment from Gen. Mattis suggests he is pushing for a regime change in Syria. If there is a video recording of the press briefing at the Pentagon, even better. (in his earlier comments (prior to 1st Feb 2018) he may or may not have been for regime change. IDK) I am interested in the Feb 2nd 2018 briefing and the specific statement from which Antiwar inferred that he wants regime change. In the last line of the last paragraph antiwar also implies that regime change hinges on a Sarin gas attack as opposed to a general aversion to Bashar Assad. So, in summary, you inferred 3 situations, a) Gen. Mattis wants vanilla regime change, b) wants regime change in the event there is a verifiable Sarin gas attack and finally wants regime change in the event a (any) Sarin gas attack claim by the rebels is reported and is unverifiable. You could have just said ‘He wants regime change’ – If in fact it can be reasonably inferred that Gen. Mattis wants regime change from any statement you produce then so be it.
Some leeway for the tone of my email. Assume we are friends. Thanks.
FIRST OFF: just about any high school dropout can make anthrax, chlorine or sarin gass; of course judging quality of educational system here maybe a college OR dropout.
The US is world’s largest maker of chemical, biological/geneticly engineered and nuclear arms producer, more than rest of world combined.
Leadership positions, especially military, science and politics in US is held by psychotic personalities.
There is no moral basis that controls them, empathy is not in their mental makeup, their careers are what matter and careers are their egos.
To their minds what they would do is transferred to what everyone else is thinking of doing
Ends justify means, and contrived means can and do make their reality, Well if they didn’t have those weapons they should of and were trying to attain them.
TOo their minds history is not reality of what was but what they say should of been.
Chaos of failures cannot be due to their actions. It is and always be some others faults.
Our governing system does not make failures pay. It just shuttles those individuals into lesser public visability.
Yet it is a system of pathological lies and liners. And the psychotic nature runs through all lower levels as well.
Hence never a change in policies, even failed ones, what we get is changes in characters not in personality.
Nation run by such people’s mindset has to and is now turning upon the population; a population they deem dangerous, especially any who question that system.
American populace lost their natin living in a delisional trance.on 50-60-75 years ago and bee