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

eissa

(4,238 posts)

26. Yes, saw that

Reply to KittyWampus (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:09 PM

Aug 2013

It's not 1988, Assad is not Saddam, and if consensus now means echo chamber, then so be it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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