Experts doubt that Syria has employed chemical weapons
Whether Syria crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons in its battle against a rebellion appeared murky on Wednesday, and both sides in the war blamed the other for an attack that Western nations are unsure even happened.
The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad blamed rebels for an attack on Tuesday in the village of Khan al-Assal that killed at least two dozen people, according to anti-Assad groups. Damascus asked the United Nations to investigate.
Syria's main opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, also demanded an investigation into claims that could not be independently verified because the area is largely sealed off from journalists.
The United States claims Assad has a huge store of chemical weapons but experts say the regime probably would not use them, and opposition forces could not use them.
“All we really have to go on are the claims of the regime and the opposition, neither of which are very credible,” said David Hartwell, Middle East analyst at IHS Jane's in London. “If you were looking at an attack with chemical munitions, you would expect an awful lot more casualties than the deaths yesterday.” IHS Jane's is an intelligence company.
Israel seemed convinced something had occurred. Yuval Steinitz, minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, said it is “apparently clear” that chemical weapons were used. A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.