69 million page views

Evidence of Rebels' using chemical weapons

Reader comment on item: 12 Years since 9/11, 3 Weeks since the Chemical Weapons Attack

Submitted by matt Cusumano (United States), Sep 23, 2013 at 23:43

The Russians have just recently produced some very convincing analysis of the UN's "evidence". The UN was quick to point out that the missiles used to deliver the chemical weapons were of USSR origin, and the implication being that since the weapons were of "Russian" origin, that means only Assad could have launched the attack. Most the world saw it this way, myself included. That is until someone in the Russian Office of Foreign affairs actually researched the weapon in question. The serial numbers provided by the UN actually provide a wealth of information. The weapon in Question was designed in the early 1950's. It was being phased out of use by Soviet Bloc countries by the mid 1960's, and production ceased in the late 1960's. This particular weapon was produced in the spring of 1967.

The Grad missile system was designed in 1961 and replaced the weapon in question entirely by the mid 1970's.

Syria did not produce it's own chemical weapons until the mid 1990's, when it built chemical production facilties in Damascus, Hama, and near Allepo.

The Syrian chemical weapons program was designed around modern weapons. The Syrian chemical weapons program did not utilize the weapon that was found in E. Ghouta. They developed much more modern delivery systems, and the 50 year old weapon found in Ghouta was never a part of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.

If Assad wanted to use chemical weapons in Damascus (which is doubtful, seeing that the chance of poisoning the citizens who support him in central damascus would be high, and also...Assad lives in Damascus, so would he use chemical weapons that close to his own house, where his children play outdoors?), they would certainly use modern, more reliable weapons, than a 52 year old hulk of rust that was found in E. Ghouta. He would've used the Grad system. Why would he pass on modern weapons in favor of using 50 year old weapons?

Who would use that old weapon? Perhaps the rebels found it, and made some home-brew Sarin, like the Japanese religious nuts who launched Sarin in the Tokyo underground in the mid 1990's. They were living on Mt. Fuji in the most primitive conditions, and they succeeded in making very effective Sarin gas, and militarizing it. No question the "rebels" could do it. The "rebels" have Bandar Bin Sultan, prince of death on their side. I'm sure the Turkish military could provide the "rebels" with the old weapon, because it probably wouldn't be missed.

Let's use a little common sense before we pronounce Assad guilty of such a foolish use of chemical weapons. I say foolish, because Assad certainly had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons in Damascus, and he's very clever. He's the master of propaganda, and the master of managing images. Why would he make such a rookie mistake.

Assad had nothing to do with the chemical attack in E. Ghouta. Just like he didn't have a part in the massacre in Hama that was blamed on him (and later attributed to the "rebels", but that wasn't reported in the US much...it was reported though..back page type thing)


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)