Here a couple of reasons:
1. There is no single rebel entity with a top down commando structure and a clear political agenda. With hundreds of „battalions“ and „brigades“ operating all around the country none can rule out that the other could have used chemical weapons
2. Rebel units mostly composed of Jihadis and/or foreign militants do not feel much affinity with ordinary Syrians. It might be that for them the end (removing Assad and establishing an islamist state) justifies the means (massacring pro- but also anti-regime civilians and blaming it on the government)
3. Why should a massacre with chemical weapons be „too barbaric“ to have been carried out by the rebels? After all these are the same people, who:
– have executed disarmed soldiers and pro-regime civilians (at times presenting the throat-cut bodies of victims as civilians killed by the „Shabiha“ while they had filmed the same people in another video as captured „Shabiha“ of Assad!)
– have killed state workers and bombed factories, railways, gas and oil pipelines, water supply infrastructure, power plants, etc.- have kidnapped people
– have tortured and beheaded civilian and military captives or kidnapping victims
– have cannibalized dead enemies
– shot children for being „blasphemous“
– fired at civilian airliners
– bombed and burned mosques, captured it on video and proudly celebrated it
– committed sectarian massacres on many occasions
– used poisonous gas against army soldiers (killing 16 of them) in Khan al Assal
– dehumanize their opponents by declaring them infidels and apostates whose blood can be spilled lawfully
Jahr: 2013
Why it´s unlikely the syrian army used chemical weapons
There are at least four valid reasons why the syrian army is unlikely to have fired chemical weapons:
1. The army has made gains in the last months and is in no desperate situation2. The UN inspectors have just arrived in Syria, at invitation of the government
3. If the alleged chemical attack is explained as „revenge for rebel massacres in Lattakia“ it would make much more sense to attack their strongholds far away from the capital such as Rastan, Azaaz or Anaden
4. The syrian government and army have undertaken at times extreme measures to avoid foreign intervention and subsequent annihilation. The best example is the army´s non-reacting to Israeli attacks that destroyed facilities and killed soldiers.
All this makes it appear quite unlikely that the army would attack mostly civilian areas close to the capital with weapons of mass destruction
Here some media quotes:
BBC: „the timing is odd, bordering on suspicious. Why would the Assad government, which has recently been retaking ground from the rebels, carry out a chemical attack while UN weapons inspectors are in the country?…The BBC’s Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen says many will ask why the government would want to use such weapons at a time when inspectors are in the country and the military has been doing well militarily in the area around Damascus.“
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201
The Independent: „there are questions as to why the regime would want to take recourse to WMDs at a time when it was making gains using conventional arms and with the knowledge that UN inspectors were present in the country“
„If you look at the way they have sought legitimacy through having the UN team there, in a carefully orchestrated fashion, with the help of the Russians and the Iranians, the use of chemical weapons does not make sense,“ said a Western European diplomat. Robert Emerson, a security analyst, added: „Assad has not been doing too badly in the publicity stakes with the excesses of Islamists among the rebels like the cannibal commander, et cetera. Deploying WMDs at this stage would be a hell of an own goal.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrias-darkest-day-opposition-says-up-to-1300-killed-inchemical-weapons-attacks-by-assad-forces-on-damascus-8777527.html
Maliki must be nuts if…
really avoids iranian weapons from reaching the syrian army.
How brazen and stupid is the american foreign policy, especially in person of John Kerry?
They keep demanding the Iraqi authorities to do everything to stop the Iranians from arming the syrian army. But why the hell should the Iraqis do that when the Syrians are fighting the same salafist/jihadist criminals who have killed thousands of (predominantly Shiite) Iraqis?
“The weapons provided to those killers in Syria have been smuggled to Iraq and those wolves that came from different countries to Syria are now sneaking into Iraq,” he [Maliki] said during a youth gathering.
Bahrain: The „international communities“ silence or why suppressing Shia muslims is OK
I don´t think that it is automatically wrong or illegitimate if a country is governed by a person belonging to the minority religious community, because religion itself should not be the benchmark for qualification.
The truth in Bahrain unlike all the lies told about and against Syria is that not only the Shia majority does not rule the country, it does not play a role at all in the higher political ranks, in the military and security services and the judiciary.
The US and UK should be ashamed for their silence on Bahrain:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/journalists-arrested-in-bahrain-as-shia-population-protests-its-sunni-monarchy-8760125.html
Iraqs Shia (and also some Sunni) are constantly targeted by Wahhabi-minded Jihadists
4000 dead in Iraq in 2013, 670 alone in Ramadan. This is both a catastrophy and a shame, but it´s too convenient to just blame the Americans and their unjustified war against Iraq. The islamic world should have the courage to blame the Saudi and Kuwaiti Sheikhs and the al-Qaradawis, too, who for years have been agitating against Shias and inciting hatred against them.
The killings in Iraq are almost entirely sectarian motivated and have nothing to do with „Saddam regime remnants“ who after ten years still want to take revenge for the loss of power.
The anti-Shia violence is strongly related to the one in Syria and vice versa. It is fueled by Saudi/Kuwaiti/Qatari money and Wahhabi/Salafi ideology rained down on the middle eastern arab audience through dozens of hate mongering arabic satellite channels, and it is carried out by (Iraqi and non-Iraqi) Jihadists, collectively called „Al-Qaeda“.
While it is true that the iraqi Shia have also had their share in anti-Sunni violence, a sizable portion of the Sunni victims were Sunni soldiers or „Sahwa“ members who were targeted by the Jihadists for supporting the „infidel Shia regime“.
Homs: The massacre that did NOT take place
Sarkozy once pressed for an intervention in Syria when „Assads army“ was pounding the rebel-held Baba Amr district. Sarkozy warned that unless the „international community“ intervenes (militarily) Assad would commit a massacre just as Gaddafi would have done in Benghazi if Nato had not attacked his forces.
Now, warning of a massacre by pointing to a massacre that never occurred is itself ridiculous, but those who have followed the utterances of the likes of Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and co. since the Iraq war (2003) at latest are used to brazen lies and bizarre comparisons.
Now, it seems that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Syrias regular army – which contrary to incorrect mainstream media reports – is predominantly Sunni (including many high ranking commanders such as the defense minister) is „making key gains in Homs“:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23483717
Homs was given the title „Heart of the revolution“. It is Syrias 3rd largest city with a population between 600.000 and 1,2 million people, predominantly Sunni.
Taking into account these facts and assuming as a „fact“ the rebels claim that they represent the (will of the) majority of (especially Sunni) Syrians, one could (and should) expect two things to happen:
a) (almost) the whole population should rise up in support of the rebels and push back the army, if not even inflict heavy casualties on it
b) the allegedly sectarian SAA will commit against the „civilian population“ the massacre it did NOT commit in February 2012 when it retook Baba Amr
Instead rebel spokesmen are lamenting the purported participation of Hezbollah fighters on the side of the SAA as a major reason for the latters strength. Why and how should a few hundred to few thousand Hezbollah fighters matter when the rebels not only themselves are relying (increasingly) on all kind of arab and non-arab „foreign combatants“ but also supposedly enjoy the backing of Homs´Sunni majority?
The Saudis in Yemen: Deadly (definitely non-humanitarian) intervention
In case anybody forgot this, one of the main arguments of the Saudis against Assad is that he is crushing the opposition and „killing his own people“.
Well, the Saudis are better: they crush opposition in other countries and kill other countries people:
„Saudi warplanes have fired some 1,011 missiles on the borderline with Yemen where the Shia population is already under heavy state-led and US-aided bombardment. “
http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-warplanes-rain-1-011-missiles-on-yemen/16629
„Among the damaged or destroyed civilian buildings photographed are what it says are market places, mosques, petrol stations, small businesses, a primary school, a power plant, a health centre – and dozens of houses and residential buildings.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/charity-reveals-scorched-earth-yemen-images-1938207.html
BBC article about bombing of Christians avoids blaming the rebels
This article about the killing of christian Syrians in Damascus does everything to not denounce the rebels:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23086213
Look at this:
First it says „Rebel sources confirmed the number of dead, but said the attack was caused by a mortar bomb.“
Then: „No-one has claimed responsibility for the attack.“
So, what does this article want to tell us? That their are any serious doubts about the rebels being responsible for this killing? That the regime „staged“ this?
Nowhere in the report a syrian government is quoted. Neither is a Christian is quoted while one could assume that any Christian being interviewed would have very probably blamed the western-backed rebels.
It gets „better“: „There have been consistent but unverified reports of violence directed against Christians in Syria..“
The word „unverified“ is used to put doubt on any reports of anti-christian violence. Plus, the text deliberately avoids to associate this violence to the rebels, creating the impression that the government could have been behind the reported cases of anti-christian violence as well.
The last text passageis the highlight: „They were at first reluctant to take sides in the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad but have gradually been drawn into the conflict on both sides.“
So, one could assume the rebels have no more committed violence against the Christians than the government, which is of course utter nonsense since the mostly better-off Christians had little reason to side with Islamists trying to topple a secular arab government.
Salafis slaughtering Shias and moderate Sunnis
All over the middle East militant Salafis affiliated with the Wahhabi „branch“ of Sunni Islam, which is a radical minority interpretation within Sunni Islam, are killing Shias but also moderate Sunnis whom they accuse of tolerating or supporting Shias.
The rise of these clearly sectarian killings is a direct result of more and more disturbing anti-Shia and anti-Iran fatwas by radical Sunni clerics in Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, among them some high profile people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The incitement towards hatred and violence against Shias is happening with full knowledge and approval of western supported arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Hardly any criticism is coming from western politicians, let alone any sanctions. Instead the very same hatemongering jihadist supporting countries are appeased and „rewarded“ with more and more western weapons contracts.
16 lebanese soldiers killed:
This is not the first time armed loyalists of Salafi lebanese cleric al-Assir have killed lebanese soldiers claiming that they are neutral towards Hezbollah:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23025136
Egypt mob attack kills four Shia Muslims near Cairo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23026865
Attack on Iraq Shia mosque near Baghdad kills 14
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23017518
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22999668
Suicide bomb attack on Pakistan Shia mosque ‚kills 14‘
Western and (gulf) arab attempts to explain or even justify the growing anti-Shia/anti-Iranian violence by pointing towards the role of Hezbollah in Syria and complaining about Irans alleged or real interference are embarassing and invalid considering the fact that the slaughtering of Shia civilians in Pakistan and the continuing deliberate killings of Shia civilians in Iraqi mosques, restaurants, market places and even funeral ceremonies started long before the syrian conflict. In Syria Hezbollah entered the scene long after thousands of salafi or otherwise radical Jihadists had flocked into the country to fight the Syrian army and loyal civilians on purely sectarian grounds.
Below article may help to understand the role of Hezbollah in Syria:
http://radioyaran100words.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/what-hezbollah-is-doing-in-syria-iii/
Kurze Analyse der „Freunde Syriens“
USA, UK, Frankreich…Saudi Arabien, Qatar.
Wenn man sich diese „Freunde“ anschaut stellt man fest, dass diese
- Ex-Kolonialisten sind, die vor noch nicht allzu langer Zeit Araber bzw. Muslime zu Hunderttausenden ausgebeutet und getötet haben (Frankreich und UK)
- der „Koalition der Willigen“ angehören, die bei 2 Kriegen und 12 Sanktionsjahren in Syriens Nachbarland Irak Millionen in den Tod, Armut und Flucht trieben und einen tödlichen Bürgerkrieg auslösten, in dem weiterhin monatlich Hunderte Menschen sterben (USA, UK, Frankreich)
- Länder sind, die a) bei sich selbst demokratische Willensbildung nicht zulassen, seit Jahrzehnten von Familienclans beherrscht werden, entweder eigene Minderheiten unterdrücken oder sogar in Nachbarländer einmarschieren, um dort sogar die Mehrheit zu unterdrücken (Saudi Arabien und Qatar)
- Mitleid für die Sunniten Syriens vorheucheln (Saudi Arabien und Qatar), während ihr Mitleid mit den Sunniten Palästinas nie so weit ging, dass sie ihren Einfluss geltend machen, die USA und die Europäer dazu zu bringen, Druck auf Israel auszuüben, damit der Nahostfriedensprozess endlich mehr wird als eine Dauerfarce
radioyaran 