The New Truthers: Americans Who Deny Syria Used Chemical Weapons

[wyldwolf]

Eager to forestall a U.S. intervention, Bashar al-Assad has agreed to relinquish his stockpile of chemical weapons—a stockpile that, until this week, he denied even possessing. But Syria's president continues to deny—as he did in a recent interview with Charlie Rose—that he used such weapons on civilians in an Aug. 21 attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. That's less surprising than the people who believe him, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary: countless Americans, including public figures from across the political spectrum who—out of opposition to war in general, or to President Barack Obama specifically—eagerly believe and spread misinformation. Call them chemical-weapons truthers.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114676/syrias-chemical-weapons-assad-not-blame-say-truthers

[KamaAina]

1. I believe that chemical weapons were used.

By Syrian government forces, as well as by the rebels.

But that doesn't mean Assad ordered them used. In fact, all reports I've read here indicate that he rejected requests to use them, and that the incident in Ghouta was the work of a rogue unit commander. Hardly a compelling reason to start WWIII.

[karynnj]

17. The claim of a rogue commander would have been more compelling

if Assad publicly condemned him and had him arrested -- and then sent all the help he could muster to hlp the people in that neighborhood to deal with the aftermath. That is pretty different than reacting by intensively shelling the area for 4 days!

[NuclearDem]

28. These days, better to appear guilty than incompetent.

[geek tragedy]

22. Which means he's lost control of those munitions. nt

[KamaAina]

31. All the more reason not to start World War III

in order to "punish" him.

[bvar22]

37. X1000 ^^^^

Rational Human Beings agree.

[geek tragedy]

38. But making it urgent to get then back under control. nt

[ocpagu]

88. Yeah, sure, bombs and missiles are known to be able to do that. n/t

[pnwmom]

58. Assad is the head of the country and HE'S not claiming that anyone else gave the order.

But if it was another government official, Assad is still responsible.

However, no one is suggesting that we start WW3.

[KamaAina]

62. So if we do strike, there's no chance anyone will retaliate?

Against Israel, perhaps? Then what?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. War is cheap, easy and expedient. All right-thinking people know this. n/t

[KamaAina]

80. Making such a claim would make him look weak.

It's much harder for a dictator to put himself in that position than it is (or should be) for an elected leader like Obama.

[The Magistrate]

2. A Lot Of People Here Have Disgraced Themselves, Sir, Promoting This 'false flag' Swill

It is a sorry shame.

[bvar22]

87. Many more have disgraced themselves by supporting a Military Strike...

...based on questionable evidence that indicates that Assad probably is behind the Chem attacks.
That is not NEAR enough for me to sign the Death Warrants of MORE Syrians, including innocent women & children, and am shocked the anyone here would so callously do so.
PROOF beyond the Shadow of a Doubt is the necessary requirement,
and our government has come nowhere CLOSE to meeting that criteria.

Many DUerss have "Disgraced Themselves"?
INDEED!

[The Magistrate]

102. You Cannot Slide Off The Point Like That, Sir: 'False Flag' Claims On This Are Purile Swill

Persons who press them disgrace the forum and themselves, and demonstrate they are incapable of rational judgement, and ought not to be paid attention to on any matter of consequence.

There is no reasonable doubt that the gas was launched by Syrian government forces.

The question of whether Syrian government forces carried out the attack, and the question of whether U.S. military action against Syrian government forces is wise, are two separate matters, and it is certainly possible to answer yes to one and no to the other.

[Deny and Shred]

106. Many Congresspeople who have attended the classified briefings

are unconvinced that it was Assad. You know, the briefings where they get all the evidence. I haven't heard of one of them referring to 'purile swill', but it would be just as easy for them to do so. And they are now far more well-informed on this than you or I. Your sweeping generalization is pre-mature.

[bvar22]

108. Thank You.

You are far more diplomatic than I would have been,
so I will just add:
[font size=3]What He Said! ^[/font]

[The Magistrate]

109. No Senator Or Representative Has Stated, Sir, It Was A 'False Flag' Operation By Rebels

That is a flat fact, and you only make yourself look foolish pretending there is serious question whether the gas was fired by Syrian government forces.

There is some question whether the attack was ordered by Assad, or approved of by him in advance, but that is a separate question, and not one I have attempted to address, or one which particularly interests me. It is a question whose answer cannot be good for the state of things, either way: if Assad did not order it, then he has no control over core elements of his armed forces, and in neither case is it safe to leave the gas stocks in their present condition. Nor does the answer to it affect the fact that the gas attack was launched by Syrian government forces, nor alter the fact that claims the attack really was a 'false flag' operation by rebels are puerile swill, and reveal the persons who make them to be seriously lacking in capacity for rational engagement with the world of facts and evidence.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Ah...so the classified proof has been made public....

missed that

[Comrade Grumpy]

98. I didn't see that either.

[Junkdrawer]

103. Strange. Neither did Alan Grayson....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023658673

[leftstreet]

4. Oh bullshit

Show us the fucking proof

Unless Americans are shown evidence Assad used the weapons, the people claiming he did BECAUSE WE SAID SO THAT'S WHY sound like the 'truthers'

[2naSalit]

32. +1

[JackRiddler]

75. Correct. A pathetic strategy...

that works only for the true believers. They call out "conspiracy theory" or "truthers" and think that they have thus proven a case about who deployed poison gas in Syria. They would have talked the same way in 1988, if you had told them the truth that the U.S. was providing vital assistance to Saddam Hussein's poison-gas offensives against Iran.

[zeemike]

76. I think the whole purpose of this OP is to establish the label of truther.

And once that label is established then anyone who questions the official story can be dismissed...and even have their post hidden as a "truther"

It is a method of control.

[leftstreet]

78. Yep. They're really got their talking points in a bunch

LOL throwing out 'truther!!' is usually a last resort

[truth2power]

91. Exactly, zeemike. Ridicule is a disinformation tactic....

There has been no evidence shown that Assad perpetrated the CW attack. If you ask "who benefits?", it's certainly not Assad.

Just more name-calling on the part of the sycophants.

[JackRiddler]

99. Correct: this is a method of control.

It's meant to establish a new rule for censorship on DU.

[HooptieWagon]

104. Meh...it won't stick any more than the other name-calling...

racists, libertarians, commies, Paul supporters. They got nothing but name-calling, and a desparate need to stifle discussion...similar to the tea-baggers.

[truth2power]

90. +1000.

[Autumn]

5. Someone there used chemical weapons. I have not seen the evidence of which

side used them yet. Have you? If so please post the link to the report from the inspectors.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I think that's deliberate misrepresentation.

As far as I can tell, the line of "reasoning" you're hinting at is

1) A report from the inspectors would be evidence.
2) There is not a report from the inspectors
3) Therefore there is no evidence.

The truth, of course, is that there is plenty of *other* evidence - for example, an intercepted call asking one of Assad's commanders why he used the chemical weapons.

[Autumn]

19. I'll wait for the report. If I insist after that is shown Assad

didn't use chemical weapons, I would guess that would then make me a chemical-weapons truther. But for now I would just as soon see the proof before I say he did. WMD's, yellow cake!! fool me once.......can't get fooled again.

There will be a verified report, sooner or later.

[frylock]

39. provided to us by israeli intelligence, who certainly has some interest in this affair..

missing in that intercept is the reply.

[Bobbie Jo]

107. Agreed

Not to mention the shocking revelation that Assad would consider relinquishing the chemical weapons that he "didn't have" two weeks ago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Except that people are NOT denying they were not used

I see this as more poo flinging, now from the New Republic

[The Magistrate]

9. Not Denying They Were Not Used Is Denying They Were Used, Ma'am

You see how complicated and difficult this gets?

It is a flat fact that a number of people, including some here, affect to believe, and may even be so idiotic and delusional as to actually believe, that the attack was really carried out by mysterious anti-Assad elements to frame him for attack by the United States.

[Junkdrawer]

14. So anyone who believes that it's hard to swallow....

that Assad gassed his own people the DAY UN inspectors arrived is "idiotic and delusional"?

And that, given the US track record on this, concrete proof is needed BEFORE a military attack?

Do you think the Iraq WMD thing was just an innocent mistake?

[The Magistrate]

18. You Were Here, Sir: You Know Perfectly Well I Opposed Invading Iraq

The gas was launched by government forces; that is a flat fact.

[Junkdrawer]

20. And you know that how?

[The Magistrate]

24. To Borrow The Wisdom Of Representative Frank, Sir

I am not going to engage in debate with a dining room table.

It is one thing to keep an open mind, quite another to keep it so open one's brains fall out.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Got nothing, just trust. n/t

[The Magistrate]

29. You Have Less Than Nothing, Sir

Go argue with the Human Rights Watch people, learn something about the weapons systems involved, examine the maps showing relations between the areas struck and government positions. All you have is a reflexive belief everything you are told is a lie, except of course the things you are told that feed your belief everything else you are told is a lie.

"The last illusion is believing one has seen through all illusions."

[Junkdrawer]

34. I've been following this closely. I resent the insults....

and I've watched the nuanced backtracking from day one.

Why won't they at least show Rep. Grayson the classified info? He has clearance.

The more "solid" evidence is shown to be "could be" evidence, the more we're subjected to insults for standing our ground and insisting on EVIDENCE.

We get it. It's like the 9/11 thing. "You'll be marginalized if you don't AT LEAST agree on this." May work on others, won't work on me.

[The Magistrate]

40. Rep. Grayson, Sir, Has Said He Is Convinced Syrian Government Forces Launched The Gas

You will need to hunt a bit harder for some authoritative buttress.

The question of whether government forces launched the gas, and the question of whether U.S. military action against the Syrian government at present is wise, are separate things. It is quite possible to answer yes to the first and no to the second.

I do not consider U.S. military action against the Syrian government at present to be wise. I can see circumstances in which it might be necessary, and think there might have been a time, some while ago, when it would have been a course worth pursuing. At this point, the only real U.S. interest in the situation is seeing to it that whichever side emerges victorious, it does not then possess significant quantities of nerve gas, unless the victor is an outright client state of the U.S.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Alan Grayson: ‘They have no smoking gun that the attack was ordered by Assad’

....

AG: The administration has said there’s no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. I know what that circumstantial evidence is, and I’m not impressed. The whole discourse is, ‘how do we change his incentives?’ But they may not be relevant here. If there were direct evidence that Assad ordered it, it would be quite meaningful to say Assad ordered it and how do we change his
incentives in the future. But if we assume he’s a rational, calculating person, why would he have ordered the attack in the first place?

...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/07/alan-grayson-they-have-no-smoking-gun-that-the-attack-was-ordered-by-assad/

[The Magistrate]

47. Out-dated, Sir

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023655921#post1

"Congressman Alan Grayson told me on my show that the classified info he was given proved to him that

the army units were the ones who used the Sarin. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/09/01/syria-with-alan-grayson

That doesn't mean Assad gave the order. But if Rep. Grayson who is definitely a skeptic believes the evidence he was given, that is enough for me."

[Junkdrawer]

50. I just listened to what Grayson said.....

and it doesn't contradict AT ALL the Wash. Post statement.

But given Lesser's track record here, I can believe he would represent that it did.

[The Magistrate]

54. Ah, Well, Then For You, Sir, It Is A Question Of Personalities

Not a serious thing at all....

[Junkdrawer]

56. So you're going to hitch your wagon to a guy who promised....

to break the Snowden thing wide open and then did a secondhand interview with the ballerina.

I can't match THAT gravitas.

[The Magistrate]

61. Everyone Tries To Sell Themselves A Bit, Sir: That's What America Is All About, Always Has Been

He has not mis-characterized his guest's statements. I agree myself that there is not, or has not been disclosed, anyway, evidence sufficient to convict Assad of ordering this particular attack, but it is beyond reasonable doubt that Syrian government forces launched the gas.

[Junkdrawer]

63. Who are the good rebels again?

Wait, aren't they Syrian government forces who defected?

[The Magistrate]

65. You Do Understand, Sir, You Are Just Demonstrating You Have No Point?

Or do you imagine there is some hereditary taint, perhaps something conveyed by the touch of the uniform, that renders defecting opponents of the regime permanently evil?

Or do you imagine they have not really defected, but under covert control stand ready as moles to perform 'false flag' operations for the Assad regime?

[Junkdrawer]

67. Money talks. n/t

[The Magistrate]

69. And Bullshit Walks, Sir; What Of It?

[leftstreet]

15. Okay, that's weird

I'd have to wonder if that line of reasoning is some good, old-fashioned trolling

If sincere, perhaps a new DSM classification for 'Iraq War lies and trauma resulting from such' syndrome

[The Magistrate]

21. You Are Calling Me a Troll? Seriously, That Is Your Response?

The gas was launched by government forces; that is a flat fact.

[disidoro01]

30. You certainly behave like one

This isn't the first nor, no doubt, the last time to use this " I am smarter than you" nonsense. Show the proof. It's pretty simple. How can google earth show my roof with clarity but our defense satellites can't pick this up. Drones? Why are we truthers if we want to see a smoking gun after our government continues to mislead or misstep with our ME policy.
I don't expect a thoughtful answer, you can just tell me how i could never understand and that will do.

[The Magistrate]

35. Once, Long Ago, Sir, The Sage Wrote

"Every King has his executioner, but you are not that man. If you try and be him, it would be like trying to cut wood like a master carpenter. If you try and cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand."

[disidoro01]

36. Thank you

I appreciate your quote. It is true, you are out of your league. Facts don't matter, you have a deep seated belief and that's ok. At least you recognize you are 2nd string. We can argue emotions but you purport to have an intellect and I did expect that given your intelligence you could prove your point with facts.
Now, go warm up your Hot Pocket, have something to fill your stomach before you come back to the big kid table.

[The Magistrate]

43. Always Nice To Get An Unexpected Laugh, Sir

[disidoro01]

46. No problemo

[HooptieWagon]

48. The "fact" has NOT been established.

Reports are that a chemical weapon was used...that is likely true. There is no clearcut evidence which side used them. Both sides have a history. All the reason not to rush a strike (which will kill additional civilians)....because killing civilians to avenge killing civilians is a Neo-Con tactic.

[The Magistrate]

51. Your Line, Sir, Sounds More And More Like Someone Arguing For Creationism Versus Evolution

An article of faith, the dogma that a body hostile to the U.S. cannot be too bad, is challenged by the fact of a particularly atrocious act by a body hostile to the U.S.

I sympathize with the amount of mental gymnastics, the degree of effort, required to try to square that circle, and recognize that sober judgement and regard for facts is sure to suffer first from the strain.

As I said above, the question of whether Syrian government forces launched the gas, and the question of whether U.S. military action against the Syrian government is wise, are separate matters, and it is quite possible to answer yes to one and no to the other.

[HooptieWagon]

64. OK, using your analogy....

Accepting without question the story told by authorities = creationism.
Demanding evidence supporting the story told by authorities = evolution.

The war-mongers are simply accepting without question the story being told by the person they worship.
Rational people are saying "show us the proof", before committing the US to yet another ME quagmire. And yes, it will be a quagmire. The stated objectives, eliminate CWs and topple Assad, simply cannot be achieved without 75,000+ boots on the ground. And then we'll be there for a decade in another failed nation-building excercise.

[The Magistrate]

68. It Does Not Hold, Sir

Your ascription of hero-worship and blind faith and desire to see evil done to your opponents is precisely the reaction of a dogmatic devotee of a cult under challenge, not the customary mean of a reasonable fellow in search of some fragment of certainty in a chaotic world. What really seems to bother you is that there is no basis in fact to support the view that the gas was not launched by Syrian government forces, and all you can do is appeal to dogmas in the face of that.

I will note, also, that you do not engage at all the statement that two separate questions are at hand, namely who launched the attack, and whether U.s. military action is wise, and the possibility these might be answered differently....

[HooptieWagon]

72. Your argument is false.

Lack of proof for A does not prove B. You cannot prove a negative. At this point, there is no conclusive proof of either side being responsible for the 8-21 CW attack. There is only the "assurances" of the WH (whom were already supporting the al Qaeda rebels before 8/21), which the true believers accept as an article of faith. People of rational thought want more than that...especially since the govt has previous instances of lying.

Your second question I already answered. A limited strike will not achieve the stated goals. For which the question then must be: So why do it?...especially since it will cause additional civilian casualties, which is allegedly what we're "punishing" Assad for.

[leftstreet]

55. LOL no!

Read that again

I haven't seen people making that convoluted leap in thinking. I wondered if they're trolling

[The Magistrate]

59. My Apologies, Sir: I Did Mistake Your Meaning

My fighting blood was up, and I did not read clearly.

I have seen just that line pressed here, though, and your suggestion of "a new DSM classification for 'Iraq War lies and trauma resulting from such' syndrome" might indeed be useful. A long time ago, even before the internet was too much, I saw some guest on C-Span opine that political discussion had become the province of shut-ins and the mentally disturbed....

[leftstreet]

60. Indeed

Although 'shut-ins and the mentally disturbed' likely find DU too chaotic these days

[frylock]

42. iraqis are amassing tanks along the saudi border..

throwing babies from incubators, and they're responsible for 9/11. is it really that difficult to understand why people want definitive proof before we start lobbing missiles?

[JackRiddler]

100. "Mysterious" anti-Assad elements?

You mean, like, the real-world foreign jihadis that the whole world is aware have set up shop in Syria and are already committing atrocities? You mean the ones being armed by the super-rich oil kingdoms?

What's mysterious about them, Magistrate?

We're talking about the ones who were already accused of using chemical weapons last spring by Carla Del Ponte and the Russian report, right?

Given how obvious their presence is, and how inconvenient they are to the "not irrefutable" but "common sense" WMD narrative being put out by the White House (to justify yet another US military attack in the Middle East), what does this latest turn to mystification signify?

There was a chemical attack in Syria that appears to have crossed Obama's "red line." I submit the sudden attempt to label one hypothesis about the authorship as "conspiratorial" comes because of the absence of evidence in either direction.

So rather than, "here's the evidence showing Assad ordered this attack" it's suddenly "common sense" vs. "conspiracy theory." Ban the conspiracy theory!

How dumb are we? How much do we fear these labels?

[The Magistrate]

105. Indeed, Sir, 'Mysterious Anti-Assad Elements'

Since no one claiming the attack was a 'false flag' attack can point to a named body or leader which or whom they can present convincing evidence is responsible for the thing.

I am well aware a good portion of the rebellion's fighting forces are jihadis, many of extremely fanatical character. That hardly suffices to prove these persons carried out the gas attack, it does not even provide grounds for reasonable suspicion they did so.

[ljm2002]

93. I believe you meant to say...

..."people are NOT denying they were used", rather than the double negative "people are NOT denying they were not used".

[joeybee12]

7. Truthists, racists, haters...at least you're using got a new slur...nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. don't forget paulist and libertarians

and commies, in this case commies has to come in.

[Jesus Malverde]

81. peace purists....nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

11. It will get harder for them on Monday.

According to the news, that's when the UN report will be released.

[eissa]

12. They flung this crap at us during the Iraq War as well

We were labeled "unpatriotic" for not doing the obligatory chest-pounding while shouting "USA! USA! USA!" And we were right back then -- there were no WMDs. This time, no one is denying that there are WMDs and that they have been used. There's no doubt about that. But who actually used them? I'm not certain right now, and I'm very skeptical of the "proof" that has been provided. We've seen this song and dance before.

[truebluegreen]

82. And even though they were used, in what way does that obligate us to respond?

Are we under attack? Are we in imminent danger of attack? Given that neither of those things are true, why should we pound our chests and shout USA! USA! USA!

That's the song and dance cycle I'd really like to break.

[geek tragedy]

13. Lots of people blamed Iran for Halabja

thinking that helped the antiwar cause. Foolishness is a kind term.

[HooptieWagon]

49. It was the US govt that blamed Iran.

Knowing full well it was Iraq, because we sold him the chemicals and told him how to use them. All the reason not to trust our govt when they're beating the war drums.

[geek tragedy]

52. People at DU blamed Iran. In 2003-2005

Because they needed to refudiate every single fact cited by the Neocons, even the ones that were true.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+pelletiere+site:democraticunderground.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

[HooptieWagon]

57. US govt blamed Iran over a decade before DU existed.

Goes to show how easily a lie gets accepted. Which is why the govt shouldn't be trusted when they've already established a track record of lying. In this most recent instance, they're not even telling new lies...they're recycling the old Iraq lies.

[The Magistrate]

71. True, Sir, I Can Remember Arguing With A Few Of Them

Pointing out they were simply re-purposing Reagan-ite swill no one ever credited as true who had the slightest awareness of the situation at the time.

[geek tragedy]

73. Never underestimate the power of telling people

what they want to hear.

[The Magistrate]

16. A Bit More From The Article, Sir....

VIPS insists its detailed account of the attack came from “a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East.” These have confirmed, they say, that the “chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters." Based on “some reports,” they allege, “canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened." They forcefully reject the notion that “a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area."

I asked three of the signatories about their sources. They proved curiously evasive. But one VIPS member, Philip Giraldi, has since published an article in The American Conservative—and the reason for their hesitation has become obvious. The sources for VIPS' most sensational claims, it turns out, are Canadian eccentric Michel Chossudovsky’s conspiracy site Global Research and far-right shock-jock Alex Jones’s Infowars. The specific article that Giraldi references carries the intriguing headline “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?” (The answer, in case you wondered, is yes.) The author is one Yossef Bodansky—an Israeli-American supporter of Assad’s uncle Rifaat, who led the 1982 massacre in Hama. Bodansky’s theory was widely circulated after an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh. A whole paragraph from Bodansky’s article makes it into the VIPS letter intact, with only a flourish added at the end.

Giraldi references two more articles to substantiate his claim: one from Infowars and another from DailyKos. But both reference the same source, an obscure website called Mint Press which published an article claiming that Syrian rebels had accidentally set off a canister of Sarin supplied to them by the Saudis. The idea that an accident in one place would cause over a thousand deaths in 12 separate locations—with none affected in areas in between—somehow did not strike this intelligence veteran as implausible. But to its credit, Mint Press has since added a disclaimer: “Some information in this article could not be independently verified."

What of VIPS’s “numerous sources in the Middle East,” then? It turns out they're the same as Bodansky’s “numerous sources in the Middle East”—the sentence is plagiarized.

[Turborama]

85. ^THIS ^ is a must read!

Thank you for adding it here. Too many folks are focusing on their wounds from being called truthers and not actually reading the article. Anyone who believed what that group of 12 said on face value are being hypocritical when they accuse those who didn't of doing the same.

[ladyVet]

23. I've never denied they were used.

There seems to be proof enough of the actual act. And yes, it's sickening. Horrifying. Inhumane.

But there's lots of people running countries who do the same things, or worse. Are we going to bomb every one of them?

The fact that we can't seem to stop interfering with any nation is appalling. Do we never learn? Support one side, bomb the other. Play switch-a-roo when it suits us.

Remember that bin Laden guy? He used to be one of ours.

What I'm upset about was this country's eagerness to just jump in and start bombing another sovereign nation, based upon supposition, feelings and the desire to be the world' policeman -- again.

[former9thward]

25. A better case for truthers is those who deny that the rebels have used chemical weapons.

Since the UN has said they did. But apparently it is ok when the al Queda controlled rebels do it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

[Hydra]

41. Oh, look!

More message control!

I'll wait for the reports. The actual facts often contradict what the official line is.

[bvar22]

45. Another Phony Bullshit Strawman post from the usual quarters.

#1) Please post links to DUers who "DENY" that Assad used Chemical Weapons.

2) Please post PROOF that Assad USED them.

"Maybe", Possibly" and "Common Sense" is NOT PROOF.
Even the USA Government has admitted that they have NO PROOF.

At NO time has the US Government stated that Assad is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

PROOF, beyond the Shadow of a Doubt is the necessary criteria before state sponsored executions,
and should be doubly so for starting New WARS,
or for Sending a Message by killing another country's childtren.

Here is a "credible analysis":

Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?
<snip>
All of that said, note that the U.S. has qualified every statement it has made about the situation. it is "undeniable" that chemical weapons had been used in Syria and he set out a case against Assad without directly blaming the regime for the attack.

During his daily press briefing Tuesday, : "There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on August 21st outside of Damascus."

Jean Pascal Zanders, who worked for the European Union Institute for Security Studies from 2008 to 2013 and concentrated on the non-proliferation of chemical weapons says until the U.N. investigative team presents its report, "we need to keep our minds open that the events of last Wednesday could in whole or partially have alternative explanations."

"In fact, we – the public – know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage," Zanders added. "For the West's credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation."

<more>
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons

Now THAT is a "Credible Analysis" and NOT the hyped stories YOU and YOURS have been flinging around DU.

The truth is, WE DON"T KNOW WHO used these weapons in Syria,
and until we do KNOW, it is wildly irresponsible to be fomenting new WARS and Sending Messages to The World.

If you guys were prevented from using Logical Fallacies
and just Making Stuff UP as you go,
post counts from the Conservative Pro-WAR Wing of DU would plummet.

[font size=3]PEACE,
not "Peas".[/font]



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Little Star]

66. I've believed all along that both sides may have used them. But we'll just....

stick our US noses in Syria's civil war to protect our interests. I do not buy the humanitarian excuse card.

We (the US) don't give a shit how many people we kill, why would we give a shit how many other people kill. We only give a shit about our so-called interests.

[LittleBlue]

53. What about those of us who want to follow intl law?

I think he did it, but that's no reason to launch an illegal unilateral war. Are we truthers?

Are we also truthers if we think the 100,000 killed by conventional weapons is 100x worse than the gas attack that killed 1,000?

[Thinkingabout]

70. I realize seeing four hundred children deceased is not enough proof for some

And I have not seen proof these same people who needs proof are actually functioning and thinking humans either. So as you can see the kind of proof you seek might be readily available. For all I know the post might be computer generated

[truth2power]

92. You are conflating the fact that it happened with WHO did it...

The same argument that Kerry made. He thought we were too stupid to notice.

[Thinkingabout]

95. So, who do you say did it

[Barack_America]

96. Anyone who seriously considers who COULD have done it will come to the same conclusion.

I welcome your detailed alternative theory. The theory that "the rebels could have done it" in the absence of understanding how it was done holds no more water than blaming aliens from outer space.

[truth2power]

110. There is no definitive evidence that Assad did it. Even Kerry, in his remarks a few weeks ago,

made emotional statements about the attack itself, but left it to Americans to ASSUME that it was perpetrated by Assad.

More propaganda to stampede Americans into war.

I don't have the time or the inclination to get into long arguments over this issue. There are numerous articles that make what I consider credible arguments that the so-called "rebels", supported by the US, have the most to gain from perpetrating CW attacks.

In addition, if one asks, Cui Bono?, it would certainly not be Assad.

Also, I am not persuaded by those who ridicule and label anyone who doesn't follow the party line of Obama and Kerry. Calling people "truthers" (as in the OP) because they have looked at the evidence, or lack thereof, and come to a different conclusion, doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

[Barack_America]

111. Motive doesn't give the rebels ability.

Only Assad's forces had the ability.

[pampango]

74. Human Rights Watch, Sanders, Warren and Grayson are all convinced that Assad's forces are guilty.

None of them are anywhere near being "war mongers". They have seen more evidence than I have seen or will ever see.

Sometimes a person does not want to believe something because it is inconsistent with their worldview and policy preferences. Sanders, Warren and Grayson were open minded enough to look at the evidence and reach fair conclusion, even though they did not and still do not approve of authorizing a strike.

My guess is that if the UN determines that Assad's forces are guilty, some will still not "know" what happened. By the same token a "birther" can never "know" that Obama was born in the US; there is no amount of evidence that will convince a climate change "sceptic" that the phenomenon is real.

[sulphurdunn]

79. What is that no matter

how many times one says it, some people don't get it. Whether or not the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its civil war does not legally justify unilateral military intervention by the US unless Syria poses an immanent threat to US security or such an attack is undertaken with UN authorization. Those are the rules of international law. We signed onto them, and Syrian violation of international law does not justify breaking it by Barack Obama any more than it did by GW Bush.

[truebluegreen]

83. + a million

[avaistheone1]

86. Absolutely correct.

[Cha]

84. Of course, assad continues to deny it.. he's a brutal dic-tator. What's

he going to say? I'm sorry?

From your link, wyldwolf..

"None of this has prevented the letter from finding a larger audience among opponents of U.S. involvement in Syria. Michael Moore has posted it on his website. The far-right World Net Daily has given it favorable coverage. And Pamela Geller is promoting its claims. What the letter lacks in verifiable sources, it makes up for in its ideological serviceability."

[ocpagu]

89. Oh... so you started with the "call it a conspiracy theory" bullshit already.

They are not "new truthers", because first you would have to need a "established" truth to be contested.

And so far responsability over the attacks has not been established. So, no "truthers" in here. Unless the word "truther" applies also to the Americans who deny the rebels used chemical weapons.

[woo me with science]

94. How incredibly sad, that the propaganda is now consistently at this level

of flat-out lying, smears, and misrepresentation.

What a sickening statement about the level of corruption we now face in politics.

[Sand Wind]

97. K&r

Thanks, great post !

[Deep13]

101. "Syria" did not use chemical weapons.

Syrians were the victims of poison gas. Someone, probably Assad's army, used chemical weapons, but the Syrian people generally did not.

[geek tragedy]

112. Kick for the UN report.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014595978

[wyldwolf]

113. Obama secretly did it to justify our entry into the conflict

heh... heh heh...