12

From Erdogan: Assad using chemical weapons in Syria at The Jerusalem Post:

Turkish Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Thursday that the regime of Syrian President Basher Assad has used chemical weapons in his fight against opposition forces, Turkish daily Hurriyet reported.

Is this claim that "the regime of Syrian President Basher Assad has used chemical weapons in his fight against opposition forces" based on decent evidence from unbiased sources?

I mean chemical weapons as in weapons of mass destruction, not tear gas and pepper spray.

Flimzy
  • 15,520
  • 14
  • 63
  • 132
  • 2
    What are you skeptical of, the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the use of chem. weapons by Assad's forces? – SIMEL May 02 '13 at 21:48
  • 1
    and define "chemical weapons". Tear gas is officially classified as one, so is pepper spray. By that definition most of the world's police forces use chemical weapons with surprising regularity. – jwenting May 03 '13 at 05:30
  • 1
    @IlyaMelamed I am skeptical of the statement "the regime of Syrian President Basher Assad has used chemical weapons in his fight against opposition forces". –  May 03 '13 at 06:54
  • 1
    @jwenting: The [UN's Chemical Weapons Convention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention) is the obvious source of the definitions when used in a military context. The convention doesn't prohibit their use by police forces outside of war, so that is less relevant. – Oddthinking May 03 '13 at 11:22
  • @Oddthinking I was referring to what people consider "chemical weapons". If the Syrian army uses tear gas to disperse a crowd, would you consider that a chemical attack? I'm sure the jihadis (and their friends in Turkey) would call it such... – jwenting May 03 '13 at 11:40
  • 2
    @jwenting: Yes, another definition could be used, but you requested a definition be provided and so I linked to the obvious one. Infringements against the convention are much more likely to trigger international condemnation and diplomatic action, which is why I think it is the relevant one. – Oddthinking May 03 '13 at 12:01
  • @Oddthinking We will need to know which definition Erdogan was using before we can tell whether his allegations actually are plausible (and even then we can't know if they're based on fact or a wish to stir up trouble for a neighbour Turkey's been at war with on and off for generations). – jwenting May 03 '13 at 13:12
  • "weapon of mass destruction", as in a cooking pot? :-P – vartec Sep 01 '13 at 14:34
  • BTW this is a mix of two quite different questions: if chemical weapons were used (there is little doubt about that), and who used them (which stirs up quite a controversy). – vartec Sep 01 '13 at 17:08
  • @vartec depends on who does the cooking... Want to try my father's cooking? – jwenting Sep 02 '13 at 04:21
  • I've added a time constraint to the title to distinguish it from the recent (April, 2017) Idlib attack. – SIMEL Apr 12 '17 at 09:32

3 Answers3

8

In short: The press was relatively cautious in reporting on this story. Finally (by June, 2013), limited ("small scale") use of sarin by the Assad regime against the rebels was confirmed by the US intelligence community. A lot is riding on the answer to this question at the moment (Western support for Syrian rebels for example), and I suspect it will be difficult to extricate facts from politics going forward.

Dan Roberts from the Guradian filed the following report on May 2, 2013:

Western intelligence agencies fear they can no longer prove for certain whether the Syrian government was responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks, because initial samples and evidence trails have degraded over time.

Instead, Britain and the US are likely to have to wait for fresh evidence from further attacks before deciding whether to take a military response against the Assad government.

On May 6th, 2013 BBC reported:

UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin.' Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said. Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

The BBC reported (April 23, 2013):

A senior Israeli military official has said Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against rebels several times. [...] He said photographs of victims foaming at the mouth and with constricted pupils and other unspecified symptoms "provide evidence that deadly chemical weapons have been used".

There has so far not been any confirmation that chemical weapons have been used during Syria's two-year-old conflict although there have been numerous accusations. [...] A UN team is waiting for permission from Syria to enter the country to investigate the claims.

On June 4th, 2013 Reuters reported:

The U.N. commission said it examined four reported toxic attacks in Syria in March and April but could not determine which side was behind them.

"There are reasonable grounds to believe that limited quantities of toxic chemicals were used. It has not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator," Paulo Pinheiro, who chairs the U.N. commission of inquiry, told a news conference in Geneva.

On June 13th, NPR reported:

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that an estimated 100 to 150 Syrians have been killed in attacks using sarin gas, although the figure "is likely incomplete." "Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year," Rhodes said in a statement. "Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information."

Barring further major developments contradicting the above, I consider this question resolved in the affirmative: according to reputable (American) sources Assad used chemical weapons against his opposition in 2013.

Community
  • 1
denten
  • 10,781
  • 4
  • 55
  • 77
  • 2
    yes, if the jahidis use sarin and it blows back on them, they themselves get killed and no doubt use that as propaganda to claim that the government used it (and the same in reverse, though I'd venture that trained troops are less likely to make that mistake). And any evidence gathered after the fact can only show it was used and someone was killed, but not who used it. – jwenting May 07 '13 at 05:48
  • 6
    @jwenting: Big claim. Any evidence to support it? – Oddthinking Jun 15 '13 at 05:04
  • @Oddthinking I'm claiming nothing, except pointing out that it's impossible to determine who used the stuff if you weren't there to witness it. Molecules of chemicals in the soil or air don't tell you who distributed them, where they came from, only that they are there. – jwenting Jun 17 '13 at 09:05
  • @jwenting we could find out who was in possession of unused or used chemical weapons. – Andrew Grimm Aug 29 '13 at 04:58
  • 1
    @AndrewGrimm how are you ever going to find out whether AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, or some other dilute group hiding out in mountain caves had a few stolen grenades weeks ago? No, the only thing you can find out is that yes, the government has the infrastructure to produce the stuff. – jwenting Aug 29 '13 at 05:19
  • "... I consider this question resolved."- Resolved how? What was your answer, yes, no, a “the answer is unknown” ? – daniel Apr 12 '17 at 13:46
  • @daniel "use of sarin by the Assad regime against the rebels was confirmed by the US intelligence community." Confirmed is the key word. I made the conclusion bold and repeated it in the last sentence to clarify. – denten Apr 12 '17 at 23:54
  • This is actually surprising to me, as I was lead to believe that a U.N investigation had actually concluded this to have happened. And even more surprised of your conclusion at the end, given that none of your sources confirm it. – dan-klasson Apr 14 '17 at 13:30
  • 1
    @denten Whether the US intelligence community confirms something doesn't, as we already perfectly know, mean anything. You cannot possibly draw any conclusion from that. Their credibility at this point is comparable to that of a snake oil salesman. – dan-klasson Apr 14 '17 at 13:46
  • @dan-klasson not sure what you are saying here. Are you surprised that "U.N investigation had actually concluded this to have happened" and US sources confirm? Best we can do is give the official time-line of events as they were reported. You are welcome to doubt the integrity of the sources (that is why I included them), but this is as close as we are likely to come to the truth for now. If you have other specific information related to the question please feel free to include links and I will update the answer. – denten Apr 15 '17 at 18:03
  • 1
    @denten Nowhere in your answer do you support the claim that _"U.N investigation had actually concluded this to have happened"_. What I was referring to was that you seem to post the _opinion_ of the U.S intelligence community as proof of something. Yeah please update that answer. – dan-klasson Apr 28 '17 at 10:56
  • "our [US] intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons" supports your UN claim. There is no UN in the original claim. The UN commission I cite did not come to definite results. I write "it will be difficult to extricate facts from politics." We are unlikely to have better sources than these commissions + the reporting. Major newspapers & intelligence agencies are credible in so far as the rules of this site. The best thing to do is to list the coverage, conclusions, & sources. The answer was updated to indicate that the affirmative conclusion was American. – denten Apr 29 '17 at 17:23
  • "Confirmations" of anything by the US intelligence community are essentially irrelevant. First, because the US government is an interested party - funding and equipping some of the rebel forces; second, because of its terrible record of claims regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq; third, because of the longer record of the US using questionable or false claims to justify intervention abroad. In other words - "reputable (American [government]) sources" is a contradiction in terms. -1. – einpoklum Aug 20 '19 at 19:03
  • @denten: I didn't suggest US intel sources are irrelevant, just that _confirmations_ by them are irrelevant. – einpoklum Aug 20 '19 at 20:16
  • There you go, fixed it for you: No @einpoklum, US intel s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ confirmations aren't "irrelevant." They represent a legitimate response from known institutions. Of course, as is the case with any s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶ statement they're also biased and cannot always be trusted. That's why a journalist or a skeptic is best served by citing multiple independent perspectives. I compiled such views for you here. That's the best we can do in any situation, particularly one that involves warfare and politics. There are no perfect sources. But that doesn't mean facts cannot be established. – denten Aug 22 '19 at 15:41
  • @denten: Well, if you believe the US intel confirmation of Iraq having WMDs were "legitimate response from known institutions", then that phrase does not mean much. It's not like any other source; it's not just bias. There is a track record of, well, lies and deceptiveness. Obviously, some other states' intelligence communities may also be extremely untrustworthy, but still. – einpoklum Aug 22 '19 at 18:29
2

Maybe.
There is a suspicion that Turkey was behind it, in an effort to trick the US into destroying Assad's forces. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine reported on it. This is the same reporter who investigated My Lai and Abu Ghraib. It was ostensibly corroborated by testimony in Turkey. This stands against official conclusions to the contrary.

Mike Dunlavey
  • 1,059
  • 1
  • 9
  • 12
-3

It's confirmed by the US government

This is only true to the time of writing (June 14th). At this point in time, the US government has acknowledged that the Syrian Regime is using chemical weapons in a limited way, and, because of this, will be arming the rebels:

The US has said it will provide military support to the Syrian rebels after confirming it believes there is concrete evidence of nerve gas attacks by government forces against rebel groups.

The assessment that limited attacks have taken place, based on CIA tests on blood, urine and hair samples from dead or wounded rebel fighters, is the first time Washington has supported claims made by British and French intelligence services in recent weeks. Assad has repeatedly denied using any chemical weapons in the bitter civil war.

Sources: The Guardian and NBC.

As the reported source for the data is the CIA, I doubt that we will see the original data in the near future.

The Russians, on the other hand claim that they have seen the evidence and don't find it convincing enough:

At the same time, an aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow is unconvinced that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against rebels in the country's civil war, according to Russia's state-run news agency RIA Novosti.

Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters in Moscow that the United States had shown Russian officials data and information on this score but that it was "unconvincing," according to the news agency.

"The Americans tried to show us information about the Assad's regime using chemical weapons. But if I have to be direct, what we saw does not look convincing to us," Ushakov is quoted as saying.

Source: CNN

Of course one should remember that Russia still has active trade relations with the Syrian and is still, even in this time, selling them weapon systems:

So the Russians have a strong incentive to not acknowledge that chemical weapons are used so as to not enforce an embargo of weapons on Syria.

Community
  • 1
SIMEL
  • 29,037
  • 14
  • 123
  • 139
  • 2
    and of course the US government hasn't been looking for a plausible excuse to arm Al Qaeda in Syria for weeks, just like the EU... If they really had that evidence they'd have published it and got the world to cry foul. – jwenting Jun 17 '13 at 09:07
  • 1
    @jwenting, what are the US's and the EU's incentive to arm Al Qaeda and other opposition groups fighting in Syria? – SIMEL Jun 17 '13 at 10:12
  • 1
    beats me, but they (and the EU) seem intent on doing just that, just as they did in Libya and Egypt. "Apeacement" probably, hoping that by appearing to support them they'll stop them thinking of the west as "the great evil", which is hopeless but common in the EU at least. – jwenting Jun 17 '13 at 13:08
  • @jwenting, The US didn't intervene in Egypt, and didn't give arms to Lydian rebels. And if by "that" you mean "over through a dictator that will use any means to remain in power" than, yes, that is what the US is doing, once they got evidence that Assad is using Chemical weapons, they decided to help the local opposition. No conspiracy theory here, just helping some people overthrow a dictator using chemical weapons. – SIMEL Jun 17 '13 at 13:19
  • 2
    This quickly degenerated to unreferenced political claims. Time to take it to chat. – Oddthinking Jun 17 '13 at 15:34
  • 2
    "It's confirmed by the U.S government." That's laughable. They don't really have a track record for being truthful nor impartial. – dan-klasson Apr 14 '17 at 13:31