1) So the US has been denying having any evidence but suddenly an evidence was found only a day after an Israeli official asserted that chemical weapons were used in Syria and his evidence was pictures of people on the internet who were foaming on the mouth?
2) What is: “varying degrees of confidence,”? If one is confident, one is confident. How can one be of varying degrees of confidence? If I am of varying degrees of confidence that I can run a marathon under five hours, it means that one day I believe that and another day I don't? But if you are talking about an assertion that is of scientific nature, how can the confidence be of varying degrees? It can only mean that some intelligence agencies believe one thing and others believe another.
3) The White House is not even sure that it was used by the regime but does not even care to consider the possibility that the foes of the regime may have used it. Look at this sentence: "“We do believe,” the letter said, “that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.”" Very likely? The US may be going to war on the basis of an assertion based on "very likely"? Have you not seen this ugly film before in the Bush administration? And is that why Obama was heaping praise on Bush today, because he is resorting to his methods of deception and falsification?
4) This sentence in the New York Times is not true: "But that investigation has been hobbled because the United Nations inspectors have not been allowed into Syria." What I have read is that the Syrian government agreed to allow the UN to investigate provided that the UN also investigates the other side.
5) So the assessment is not even complete? "The United States is also conducting its own assessment, as are Israel and other countries."?
6) Here Martin Indyk has Israel in mind when he says "the region": "“But if they end up leaving the impression that the president is not willing to enforce his red line,” said Mr. Indyk, who is now at the Brookings Institution, “that will have consequences in the region."
7) Lastly, all US media talk about the use of chemical weapons in a few instances and "on a small scale" and in a "limited fashion". How is that? So the Syrian regime decided to use chemical weapons on two people instead of shooting them? For what reason? I mean, what is the purpose of using chemical weapons by the regime if it does not use them on a large scale? Unless the use is by the armed opposition, or unless the use is manufactured, yet again.
2) What is: “varying degrees of confidence,”? If one is confident, one is confident. How can one be of varying degrees of confidence? If I am of varying degrees of confidence that I can run a marathon under five hours, it means that one day I believe that and another day I don't? But if you are talking about an assertion that is of scientific nature, how can the confidence be of varying degrees? It can only mean that some intelligence agencies believe one thing and others believe another.
3) The White House is not even sure that it was used by the regime but does not even care to consider the possibility that the foes of the regime may have used it. Look at this sentence: "“We do believe,” the letter said, “that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.”" Very likely? The US may be going to war on the basis of an assertion based on "very likely"? Have you not seen this ugly film before in the Bush administration? And is that why Obama was heaping praise on Bush today, because he is resorting to his methods of deception and falsification?
4) This sentence in the New York Times is not true: "But that investigation has been hobbled because the United Nations inspectors have not been allowed into Syria." What I have read is that the Syrian government agreed to allow the UN to investigate provided that the UN also investigates the other side.
5) So the assessment is not even complete? "The United States is also conducting its own assessment, as are Israel and other countries."?
6) Here Martin Indyk has Israel in mind when he says "the region": "“But if they end up leaving the impression that the president is not willing to enforce his red line,” said Mr. Indyk, who is now at the Brookings Institution, “that will have consequences in the region."
7) Lastly, all US media talk about the use of chemical weapons in a few instances and "on a small scale" and in a "limited fashion". How is that? So the Syrian regime decided to use chemical weapons on two people instead of shooting them? For what reason? I mean, what is the purpose of using chemical weapons by the regime if it does not use them on a large scale? Unless the use is by the armed opposition, or unless the use is manufactured, yet again.
