Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Vinnie From Indy

(10,820 posts) Tue Aug 27, 2013, 04:10 PM Aug 2013

There has not been ONE reason given for Assad to have used these weapons [View all]

beyond "he is a crazy mofo".

I have yet to read any speculation in the media as to why Assad would have used these weapons. It simply makes no sense considering that he made no strategic or tactical gain from their use. This is an existential fight for the Assad regime and it simply makes no sense to commit the very act that he was warned would cause western intervention on the side of the rebels.

It is telling that not a single major media outlet has speculated on WHY Assad would have used these weapons.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There has not been ONE reason given for Assad to have used these weapons [View all] Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 OP

The French are floating a "desperate attempt to stop 300 Supermen" theory..... Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #1

The media is always pro-war blazeKing Aug 2013 #2

I'm opposed to war with Syria Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #5

War sells a lot of beer and Cheetos when those dazzling cruise missles blow up stuff. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2013 #8

Assad supports what the military in Egypt is doing to the brotherhood JI7 Aug 2013 #3

To what end? Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #6

it's psychological also , i just don't find it hard to believe he would use it JI7 Aug 2013 #9

So, you are offering that Assad Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #12

the west has not responded , and if he was behind the use of these weapons the last time around JI7 Aug 2013 #16

Terror? wild bird Aug 2013 #11

I thought this right away. Puzzledtraveller Aug 2013 #4

Why did Saddam use them? Adrahil Aug 2013 #7

In my opinion, it was a combination of desparation and terrorism. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #10

Nonsense! Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #17

Well, the first is hubris. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #19

I also posted yesterday news from Al Jazeera that rebels have taken north/coastal syrian town KittyWampus Aug 2013 #22

Here's the thing. wild bird Aug 2013 #28

WHY Assad would have used these weapons for tactical reasons. rdharma Aug 2013 #13

He was winning the war. Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #18

You just might win faster if you use chemical weapons. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #23

No. Assad wasn't "winning the war". rdharma Aug 2013 #25

Gosh on CNN had a nice Freudian slip nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #14

Who would benefit from the use of chemical weapons? eissa Aug 2013 #15

Not true, I posted an interview below from an al jazeera analyst. But at this point, DU is an echo KittyWampus Aug 2013 #24

Yes, saw that eissa Aug 2013 #26

Yes. This is almost too good to be true for the rebels. It smells. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #20

I posted an Al Jazeera interview yesterday. So there are potential reasons, you just ignore them KittyWampus Aug 2013 #21

It makes no sense to kill your own people to send a message to Israel. this is BS kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #27

Assad doesn't consider the rebels "his people". And if you read the interview, he goes into why KittyWampus Aug 2013 #29

He'd be right eissa Aug 2013 #30

The fallacy here is that people think that Assad is thinking like a Western leader wild bird Aug 2013 #31

yes, and it's good to find different perspectives. It does help. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #34

Curveball...is that you? HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #33

If America attacks Syria it helps Assad Cicada Aug 2013 #32

Juan Cole on why it might have been Assad's forces muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #35