One Finite Planet

One Finite Planet

Syria: Why Assad did not use chemical weapons to kill Syrian citizens

Date Published:

The proposal that Asad used chemical weapons in order to kill Syrians depends on the following steps, from the almost certain through steps with less and less certainty

  • it was chemical weapons that were really to blame for deaths in the recent attack
  • chemical weapons were in fact launched by forces supporting Assad, and not opponents
  • chemical weapons were launched by Syrian government forces
  • chemical weapons were launched by Syrian government forces under the direction of president Assad
  • chemical weapons were launched by Syrian government forces under the direction of president Assad in order to kill a group of ‘rebel citizens’

The problem with the last step, is that chemical weapons are very evidently no more effective to kill the people in question than conventional bombing, as previous bombing raids have shown. So if all you want is to attack those people, why go to the trouble of using expensive and troublesome chemical weapons?It could be that Assad is simply stupid, or else……. actually any other ‘or else’ comes back to the premise that if it was Assad, there was a motive beyond the resulting fatalities. Any ‘else’ requires something more than ‘using chemical weapons to achieve a military goal’ .

So what is the agenda? Angering the US? Changing Russia’s role? The army taking the action itself to damage Assad? Russia being more involved than is obvious?

What can be ruled out?

Yes, intelligence sources were adamant Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and now we are not so certain.  But I believe this time ,evidence is sufficient to be confident chemical weapons were used.  I also do not believe that the victims or their allies were in any way involved.  This was done by not only ruthless people, but also people who do not fear the truth being revealed. Russia has made statements the rebels themselves released these chemicals to bring the condemnation, but although there clearly is a twist, I simply cannot see that is that real twist.

Facts to consider.

Yes, this attack also killed children.  It was a horrible attack.  However, the reality is, bombs are no more selective in being able to avoid killing children, and even babies. It is simply not like this attack represented a standout horror in a war without many rival horror stories. There are statistics in many places, for example Wikipedia, on casualties from the war. Of course the recent chemical attack was horrific, but is dwarfed by the overall level of causalities, horrific maiming and shattered lives.

In many ways, one of the biggest differences is that this attack crosses a line that triggers international condemnation. Why cross that line that has such international impact without a bigger impact within Syria itself?


The logic breaks down on those steps at the top of this post at some stage. Is someone, perhaps even Assad, drawing the USA into this picture?  Or is that the game of someone else?

Table of Contents


Flawed Australian voice of Indigenous People referendum: The irony of a voice campaign that failed to listen.

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn’t those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring” “No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!” Was it just that there was no willingness to listen?

Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly “I am not a racist” by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing.

The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes “yes” voters being encouraged to also be racist.

This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity.

Perhaps it little more work could bring things together and offer a fresh enough perspective to move beyond just another well-intentioned patronising racism failure like the stolen generations?

Read More »

Crime: A litmus test for inequality?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups.

Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being “tough on crime”, thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups?

This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is “damaged people” in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?

Read More »