Syria: What should the US do/not do?

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Opinions?

He's a grown man who believes in lizardpeople

Look, it's easy to bring that up and then to disregard anything he says.

You should do some research on the nature of reality (as David Icke has), and his theories actually may be more believable then.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

Look, it's easy to bring that up and then to disregard anything he says.

You should do some research on the nature of reality (as David Icke has), and his theories actually may be more believable then.

I have looked into it.. he's madder than a box of frogs.

esteve

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" (Eleanor Roosevelt)

I really dislike when people focus on the person, and not the content, it is such a weak way to utterly avoid what is being said.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

Look, it's easy to bring that up and then to disregard anything he says.

You should do some research on the nature of reality (as David Icke has), and his theories actually may be more believable then.

Using a gentleman who believes we are controlled by a reptilian spaceship called "the Moon" to make a point about mass media being controlled is probably not the best choice.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" (Eleanor Roosevelt)

I really dislike when people focus on the person, and not the content, it is such a weak way to utterly avoid what is being said.

Am tempted to respond to that with a 60 minute Mystic Meg video to make my point..

Let's see how you stick to your principles then

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

He's a grown man who believes in lizardpeople

Lizardpeople are more probable than a man in the sky, even though billions believe in that...

DarkDusk

Can we get back to topic please. Jonny7, you didn't comment on anything that was said in the video at all.

Jonny7

I'm sure you can summarise the points without having to steal 20 minutes of someone's life

ThreeBlindMice

Its quite unusual to see an article in the UK press slamming FSA Islamic terrorists atrocities.

"Horrific video shows Syrian Catholic priest being 'beheaded by jihadist fighters in front of cheering crowd"

Best Rated Readers Comments sum up the situation quite well and I think people are now beginning to realize who the real terrorists are in Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352251/Horrific-video-shows-Syrian-Catholic-priest-beheaded-jihadist-fighters-cheering-crowd.html

Be like Nutella

This is a white paper on what would actually be required to do the No Fly Zone thing in Syria.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/06/28/you-might-have-missed-u-s-humanitarian-interventions-syria-and-the-cheapness-of-ieds/

I've read it.... these are the main points if you've any interest.


p45
Overall, one estimate, then, is to expect at least 300 aircraft would be necessary for the initial counterair efforts to degrade Syrian air defense and air-to-air capabilities.

In the next section, I seek more precision in an estimate of the forces required for intervention in looking specifically at the number and types of aircraft required to defend safe havens in northwest Syria from the air.

p49
The Syrian Army is estimated at 220,000 active duty personnel, including an estimated 175,000 poorly-trained conscripts. An additional 280,000 compose the reserves. Although there have been reports of defections among the lower ranks, as well as a limited number of high-ranking officers, the majority of the armed forces appear to have remained loyal to the al-Assad regime. There are no reliable estimates of the precise sectarian composition of the active-duty Syrian Army, however it is widely assumed that al-Assad’s Alawite sect dominates the officer corps while Sunnis compose the majority of the Army’s conscript-dependent force. After demonstrations erupted in March 2011, the length of conscription was shortened from 21 down to 18 months, a possible indication of concern within the al-Assad regime about the reliability of Syria’s Sunni conscripts. One report, for example, suggests that of the 80,000 Syrian young men expected to report for their mandatory military service in 2012, “virtually none have responded.” This type of noncompliance appears to be a larger problem for the al-Assad regime than is the problem of soldiers defecting to the armed opposition. There have been no reports, however, of significant defections from members of al-Assad’s Alawite sect.

P51
Although units employing the heavy weapons described above operating on the outskirts of concentrated population areas are the only targets that aircraft could reasonably be expected to find, fix, and target from the air, it is also worth noting other forces participating in the crackdown. First and foremost are Syria’s intelligence and security services, including the Political Security Directorate, General Security Directorate, Military Intelligence, and Air Force Intelligence.179 These services have been deployed throughout the country since the outbreak of demonstrations, and have played a key role in quelling the protests, including with the use of lethal force.180 Thousands of plainclothes pro-government militiamen known as the shabiha have also participated in the crackdown.181 Although there are no reliable estimates of the total number of personnel employed by the security and intelligence forces or forming the shabiha, it seems reasonable to assume they number in the tens of thousands, with one report suggesting an estimate as high as 150,000 personnel in the intelligence services alone.182 Given their use of civilian means of transportation and their ability to infiltrate population areas, it is unlikely air power would be effective in alleviating that portion of Syria’s humanitarian situation attributable to the brutality of these forces. This would likely include horrific acts of violence such as the massacres of Syrian civilians at Houla and Qubeir in the spring of 2012, which survivors and opposition forces claim were largely carried out by shabiha militiamen

P54
The most difficult stage is detecting and identifying such targets in the first place. In Kosovo, for example, signals and imagery intelligence might have provided an indication of targets active in a particular area, but locating those targets was often accomplished using the pilots’ own eyes.191 This task was complicated by the persistent threat posed by mobile SAMs, which forced NATO aircraft to fly at altitudes that made visual identification even more difficult.192 Since Kosovo, however, greater use of Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets have reportedly led to significant improvements in detecting mobile targets and transmitting this imagery directly to strike aircraft using military data links.193 This has yet to be tested, however, in a truly hostile air defense environment. 54

Given the MQ-1 Predator’s ceiling of 25,000 ft., its survivability in a Syrian intervention is far from certain given the ubiquity of Syria’s mobile and man-portable SAMs.

P55
It is possible to generate very rough estimates of the number of strike aircraft required to provide 24-hour coverage over safe havens in northwest Syria and a humanitarian corridor linking them to the Turkish border using a simple model.…………… In reality, the number of aircraft deployed in any intervention would in large part be dictated by operational constraints, with the availability of nearby air bases being the key consideration.

While NATO aircraft could potentially fly from bases in Italy, Greece, or the Balkans, the use of bases in Turkey (e.g., Incirlik) and Cyprus (e.g., Akrotiri), and perhaps even Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would be most desirable given their proximity to Syrian territory. Their availability would depend on at least the tacit support of host governments for a NATO intervention, which may be more forthcoming in some cases than in others. Were basing scarce, such an intervention would require at least one, if not two, aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean…………………… In reality, basing would likely prove a serious constraint on the possibility of committing large numbers of aircraft to a Syrian intervention.

P65
Given that Kosovo is larger than either of the two engagement zones proposed here, but smaller than their combination, it seems plausible that defending safe havens in either engagement zone could require the 96 sorties calculated here, for a total of 192 daily strike sorties combined.

………. In any Syrian intervention, many more additional strike sorties targeting the Syrian IADS and other targets would be required beyond those calculated above. These figures therefore suggest that NATO operations in Syria to defend safe havens in the northwest could easily be the most substantial humanitarian intervention yet attempted by NATO forces.

P66
The United States and its NATO allies no doubt possess the capabilities required to achieve some measure of air superiority over northwest Syria and to maintain patrols over population centers to defend them from some incursions by Syrian forces equipped with heavy weapons. But as this analysis shows, an intervention to establish only three safe havens, in Homs, Hama, and Idlib, linked to each other and to the Turkish border via a humanitarian corridor, would be a substantial military undertaking. Given Syria’s air defense capabilities, the ubiquity of its tanks, artillery, rockets, and mortars, and tens of thousands of al-Assad-regime allies willing to carry out acts of repression, it does not require any heroic assumptions to suggest that such an intervention would require greater resources, face greater risks, and have a lower probability of success, than any of NATO’s previous air campaigns in response to humanitarian crises in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Libya.

P68
The original “low-risk” rationale for humanitarian intervention from the air simply would not apply to this particular form of a Syrian intervention.

P69
To hope for air power as a “low-risk” alternative to the use of ground forces in Syria or future humanitarian interventions would thus be to misunderstand the basis for air power’s relative success to date.

Main Takeaways
· 300+ aircraft required
· Bases in nearby countries absolutely required ... expected number of sorties required to be flown daily, to maintain the 3 expected safe zones 150-250 sorties per day – impossible to do from even 2 carrier groups
· Air power could never find and kill Shabiha in safe zones who could/would continue to kill/massacre as they have done til now
· Drones not likely advanced enough yet to survive the Syrian air defense environment
· would be a substantially larger NATO mission than Bosnia, Kosovo or Libya

Jonny7

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

Its quite unusual to see an article in the UK press slamming FSA Islamic terrorists atrocities.

These atrocities have been reported for 2 years. The rebels aren't one homogenous group.

It's almost a mirror of Iraq, the initial insurgency was conducted by Iraqis themselves, mainly Sunnis. As time went on more foreign brigades and groups joined the fray. In fact, the tactics of these new groups became so extreme that in some cases the Sunni fighters actually formed alliances with US forces to fight these foreign groups.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Am tempted to respond to that with a 60 minute Mystic Meg video to make my point..

Let's see how you stick to your principles then

Be my guest, im completely open to listen to the opinions on anyone, as ill focus on the content and that will be what i judge.

So, do you have such a video from Mystic Meg giving her opinion on Syria?!

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

Be my guest, im completely open to listen to the opinions on anyone, as ill focus on the content and that will be what i judge.

So, do you have such a video from Mystic Meg giving her opinion on Syria?!

Nope, I'm not that sadistic, but if you want you can watch that David Icke video.. on you go.

I've watched his videos and their like for the past few years, so I'll skip it.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope, I'm not that sadistic, but if you want you can watch that David Icke video.. on you go.

I've watched his videos and their like for the past few years, so I'll skip it.

Fair enough so, im not a huge fan of his, but he makes some interesting points about the situation in Syria.

I would welcome Mystic Megs opinion though, if only for enetertainment reasons.

Be like Nutella

Dempsey finally outlines options for U.S. military action in the Syrian conflict thanks to pressure by old man McCain:

The least involved — a train, advise and assist mission – would require no U.S. troops to be directly involved with fighting as they operated outside Syria and delivered supplies and training, Dempsey said. At an estimated $500 million annually, it could raise opposition fighters’ capabilities but carries a risk that extremists could gain access to U.S. weapons.

A second option, limited stand-off strikes, would target “high-value regime air defense, air, ground, missile and naval forces as well as the supporting military facilities and command nodes,” with strikes launched outside Syria. “Depending on duration, the costs would be in the billions,” Dempsey wrote. Although attacks would degrade Syrian regime capabilities over time, they could spark retaliatory attacks and endanger civilians, he wrote.

A third option, establishing a no-fly zone, would go further, taking out Syrian air defenses to control the skies throughout the country. Because U.S. aircraft would be required to fly over Syrian airspace, the risk to U.S. troops would be higher, Dempsey said. The no-fly zone would cost $500 million upfront and up to $1 billion a month to maintain, he said.

The most complex option Dempsey outlined — controlling chemical weapons — would require a no-fly zone, air and missile strikes and thousands of troops on the ground. Doing so would cost more than $1 billion a month, he said, adding: “Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added risk of U.S. boots on the ground.”

Be like Nutella

The message to Assad should be very simple:

We’re going in and we’re securing, destroying or otherwise putting out of action all chem weapon stocks in your country so clear away from those sites. If you attempt to defend those sites then your time is up.

This is a huge moment for the US to define itself and its character and what it stands for in the world. It talks a big game when its stealth bombing Kosovo from 10,000 feet and its very bitter that we're all not more grateful about their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth is, we don't blame the troops at all, its the feckin lies and BS that took them to Iraq. We expect the US to back up its talk of protecting freedom in the world and spreading democracy and defending innocents against Tyrants - so here's your time America - what you gona do to stop Assad form gassing fukin thousands of Syrian kids as they sleep? If the US does nothing now that Assad has Sarin gassed 1000+ men women and kids as they slept then it stands for nothing and Obama is chicken sh1t lier.

There are over 40 of the most battle tested special force units in history chompin at the bit to drop into Syria and secure those chem sites, they have chem site recon units, stealth bombers, f-22's.. feckin carrier groups to beat the band and a queue of countries willing to let them use their air bases in the region.

Assad needs to know right now the meaning of cause and effect. He jumped over Obama's red line and massacred innocents with Sarin gas. Obama needs to back up what he said July 2012 about the use of chem weapons.

Allowing Assad to do this means he WILL FOR 100% DEFINITE do it again and most likely on a larger scale.

We don't need another Srebrenitsa massacre or Kurdish gassing to act - the line has been crossed. Obama made the threat plain and simple 1 year ago - step over the line and we're coming in.. now he has to back it up or lose all credibility.

How many gassed kids are worth going in? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?
What does this gas attack tell us about Assads mindset as of now and what can we predict about his further use of gas? You would HAVE TO say that should Obama not do anything that Assad will do it again and COULD do it on a massive scale as Sadam did to the kurds killing horrifically massacring 5,000 in one single day using crop spraying helicopters and that is exactly what Assad is going to do if the US chickens out of its own threats.

Whoever has the power to stop evil and defend hard fought for international norms like the ban on chemical warfare which killed 100,000 in World War 1 also has the out and out responsibility to do just that.

You can talk about war weariness and the US economy and all types of realist BS mumbo jumbo at the end of the day Obama has the balls to give the order or not to secure chemical sites that will definitely be used to massacre thousands and thousands of innocent Syrian men, women and kids.

Norwesterner

Have we seen any evidence Assad was responsible?
This may have been the terrorists trying to make Assad look responsible.
It may have been a foreign intelligence operation (take your pick) designed to make Assad look responsible.

I don't buy it one bit.

Amerika

I really don’t know if the US will do much of anything besides some token actions. The US is in a no win situation no matter who emerges the winner in the civil war. If we do anything at all, it will probably minimal at best, cost the least possible, and have no chances of US soldiers killed in the process. But I might be wrong.

During her confirmation to become US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power’s biggest qualification claims were her tireless work fighting genocide. But she skipped the United Nations emergency meeting on Syria due to new reports of chemical weapon use. She missed the opportunity to try and force the UN to take some form of action. Apparently she was on a "pre-arranged trip," and sent a lower level diplomat instead. During her confirmation hearing, she was adamant in her resolve that failure by the Security Council to act on Syria was a "disgrace that history will judge harshly." Because of her absence, the UN Security Council pretty much did nothing.

I’m not sure if Power was just being a loyal foot soldier, since the US stance on Syria seems to be mostly one of apathy; with little intention to intervene or even protest very loudly other than some rhetoric on the part of the POTUS. Or perhaps her absence was a form of protest against the administration and their lack of resolve, whom she works for.

Either way, my prediction is Assad wins.

Be like Nutella

I'm open to that if you have any arguments it wasn't Assads forces fire away

The experts are all saying it would be impossible to fake.

The think tanks are saying it is not like any of the terrorist orgs to do something like this.

Assad has done it before and was emboldened by nobody doing anything about it so... the burden it has to be said is on those who feel it was a false flag attack as you think?

I don't know - break it down and lay out who you think did it and how?

The video I saw on the news showed shells exploding at night giving off light as they exploded which showed a mist of gas dissimilar to other shell explosions seen during the Syrian war so far.

I'm open to opinions but ya gotta back them up best as possible? no point in just saying 'nah it wasn't Assad, most likely a terrorist group yada yada' that doesn't cut it round here

Norwesterner

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'm open to that if you have any arguments it wasn't Assads forces fire away

The experts are all saying it would be impossible to fake.

The think tanks are saying it is not like any of the terrorist orgs to do something like this.

Assad has done it before and was emboldened by nobody doing anything about it so... the burden it has to be said is on those who feel it was a false flag attack as you think?

I don't know - break it down and lay out who you think did it and how?

The video I saw on the news showed shells exploding at night giving off light as they exploded which showed a mist of gas dissimilar to other shell explosions seen during the Syrian war so far.

I'm open to opinions but ya gotta back them up best as possible? no point in just saying 'nah it wasn't Assad, most likely a terrorist group yada yada' that doesn't cut it round here

Well, there's been a precendent for starters.
Assad was previously accused of another chemical attack, and when it was investigated by the U.N it emerged the terroists were responsible.
The terrorists fired the chemical shell, then rang the media to blame the SAA.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130506-syria-un-del-ponte-chemical-weapons-gas-rebels-assad
So yes, excuse if I don't rush into WW3 with you, based on another dodgy report from dodgy sources.

Oh, and when has "Assad done it before"?

renegademaster

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The message to Assad should be very simple:

We’re going in and we’re securing, destroying or otherwise putting out of action all chem weapon stocks in your country so clear away from those sites. If you attempt to defend those sites then your time is up.

This is a huge moment for the US to define itself and its character and what it stands for in the world. It talks a big game when its stealth bombing Kosovo from 10,000 feet and its very bitter that we're all not more grateful about their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth is, we don't blame the troops at all, its the feckin lies and BS that took them to Iraq. We expect the US to back up its talk of protecting freedom in the world and spreading democracy and defending innocents against Tyrants - so here's your time America - what you gona do to stop Assad form gassing fukin thousands of Syrian kids as they sleep? If the US does nothing now that Assad has Sarin gassed 1000+ men women and kids as they slept then it stands for nothing and Obama is chicken sh1t lier.

There are over 40 of the most battle tested special force units in history chompin at the bit to drop into Syria and secure those chem sites, they have chem site recon units, stealth bombers, f-22's.. feckin carrier groups to beat the band and a queue of countries willing to let them use their air bases in the region.

Assad needs to know right now the meaning of cause and effect. He jumped over Obama's red line and massacred innocents with Sarin gas. Obama needs to back up what he said July 2012 about the use of chem weapons.

Allowing Assad to do this means he WILL FOR 100% DEFINITE do it again and most likely on a larger scale.

We don't need another Srebrenitsa massacre or Kurdish gassing to act - the line has been crossed. Obama made the threat plain and simple 1 year ago - step over the line and we're coming in.. now he has to back it up or lose all credibility.

How many gassed kids are worth going in? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?
What does this gas attack tell us about Assads mindset as of now and what can we predict about his further use of gas? You would HAVE TO say that should Obama not do anything that Assad will do it again and COULD do it on a massive scale as Sadam did to the kurds killing horrifically massacring 5,000 in one single day using crop spraying helicopters and that is exactly what Assad is going to do if the US chickens out of its own threats.

Whoever has the power to stop evil and defend hard fought for international norms like the ban on chemical warfare which killed 100,000 in World War 1 also has the out and out responsibility to do just that.

You can talk about war weariness and the US economy and all types of realist BS mumbo jumbo at the end of the day Obama has the balls to give the order or not to secure chemical sites that will definitely be used to massacre thousands and thousands of innocent Syrian men, women and kids.

'merika!! hell yeah!! bollox is what it is, plain and simple

renegademaster

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The experts are all saying it would be impossible to fake.

The video I saw on the news showed shells exploding at night giving off light as they exploded which showed a mist of gas dissimilar to other shell explosions seen during the Syrian war so far.

I'm open to opinions but ya gotta back them up best as possible? no point in just saying 'nah it wasn't Assad, most likely a terrorist group yada yada' that doesn't cut it round here

really?? at this late stage of proven western propaganda and false flag operations like

clairefontaine

I doubt Assad wants the US involved. What makes sense to me is some Saudi backed group did this to trigger US getting more involved.

BuilderPlumber

Assad is not a good man and he has done awful acts in his own country to his own people. The sad fact is that there is no viable alternative. The goodnatured rebels are poorly equipped and weak. The evil rebels are full of al Qaeda and are powerful and would violently control a post-Assad Syria.

History shows US intervention in countries in the Middle East has not helped. Obama is right to be cautious. Bush's Iraq war has lead to chaos in that country and a global financial crisis. Saddam was not a good man either but is Iraq and the world a better place without him? No, it is in fact much worse!

The last thing the world needs now is another Iraq-style war. Syria especially is so strategically located that not only would it create chaos within its own borders but no doubt in its already volatile neighbours (Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon) too. It could also not help its more stable neighbours Turkey and Jordan.

Assad kind of knows he can do what the hell he likes because of this. As much as the West say otherwise, they know Assad is the only game in town at present. They probably will try to contain him akin to Bush 1 and Clinton regarding Saddam.

Jonny7

renegademaster wrote: »

really?? at this late stage of proven western propaganda and false flag operations like

Veering into conspiracy territory there really. Apart from Russian and Iranian press, the reporting from Syria has been pretty much uniform from the rest of the world. I'm not sure what the "false flags" might be.

A Primal Nut

DarkDusk wrote: »

Nothing would come of the US getting involved with Syria. Look around the world, where has the US actually succeeded in bringing peace to a country? Exactly, no where. Look at the resultant of the US' interference with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (EU also). Soon it will probably be Syria.

Bosnia and Kosovo are two examples of where NATO (led by US) helped to stop more massacres from occurring and indeed many people say they should have got involved sooner and that the Srebenica Massacre may have been prevented.

That said, I don't think it will work so well in Syria. But sitting by and doing nothing would be an even worse scenario.

BuilderPlumber

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Bosnia and Kosovo are two examples of where NATO (led by US) helped to stop more massacres from occurring and indeed many people say they should have got involved sooner and that the Srebenica Massacre may have been prevented.

That said, I don't think it will work so well in Syria. But sitting by and doing nothing would be an even worse scenario.

These were a success and Clinton made the right decision to intervene (notice that Clinton (or Bush 1) did not ever try to take Saddam down as he was obviously informed that containing him was better than getting rid of him completely: Bush 2 made the total wrong decision wrt Saddam of course later whereas his father and Clinton could see the chaos that would unfold in Iraq post Saddam and that would herald a major financial meltdown). The problems in Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia was down to a few individuals who had largely lost the support of even the majority of ethnic Serbs. An extremist nationalist fringe took advantage of the fall of communism in the late 1980s but when they showed their true colours, most wanted rid of them. NATO launched a campaign that got rid of Mladic and his regime in Bosnia and then in 1999 got the Milosevic regime out of Kosovo. The rest then was done by the Serbs: Milosevic's gangster buddy Arkan was gunned down, Milosevic tried to rig an election in 2000 and the Serbian people uprose and got rid of him.

In Syria, that is not the situation. There is a sizeable anti-West element who are paranoid of Israel and 'zionist' intentions. Also, the opposition ranges from moderate democratic to al Qaeda thugs. As said before, the country borders some of the most sensitive hotspots of the Middle East like Israel and Iraq, and could spill over. Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, etc. never spilled over the former Yugoslav borders and never appeared it would.

I think now things are too late for Syria. You will either end up with Assad brutally retaking the country and setting up a North Korea style state or a very brutal post Assad civil war that would make what goes on there today appear mild by comparison, or else you could have a Western invasion that would also result in the brutal post Assad civil war and would be Iraq all over again. I think reason and wisdom should have been shown by all in 2011.

Cork boy 55

Norwesterner wrote: »

Well, there's been a precendent for starters.
Assad was previously accused of another chemical attack, and when it was investigated by the U.N it emerged the terroists were responsible.
The terrorists fired the chemical shell, then rang the media to blame the SAA.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130506-syria-un-del-ponte-chemical-weapons-gas-rebels-assad
(..)

You are producing misinformation and misdirection and you know this
as its pointed out to YOU elsewhere where YOU have produced it and yet you reproduce it here, Why?

Unfortunately this is not backed up by the official report the United Nations commission of which miss Del Ponte is a member. It reads:

This report documents for the first time the systematic imposition of sieges, the use of chemical agents and forcible displacement.

(...)

There are reasonable grounds to believe that chemical agents have been used as weapons. The precise agents, delivery systems or perpetrators could not be identified.

(...)

The Government has in its possession a number of chemical weapons. The dangers extend beyond the use of the weapons by the Government itself to the control of such weapons in the event of either fractured command or of any of the affiliated forces gaining
access.

It is possible that anti-Government armed groups may access and use chemical weapons. This includes nerve agents, though there is no compelling evidence that these groups possess such weapons or their requisite delivery systems.

(...)

It has not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator. Other incidents also remain under investigation.

As your link so aptly noted, the investigation, according to miss Del Ponte herself, was far from over at the time the press conference was held. Above I've quoted the official UN report published by the Commission a month after the press conference was held.

It would seem then that the investigation has (for now, at least) come to a different conclusion than the one you purported it did.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A-HRC-23-58_en.pdf

Be like Nutella

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said the foreign secretary, William Hague, on Friday. "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

William Hague today.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/assad-syria-chemical-attack

If Assad had nothing to hide and it was in his direct interest to prove he didn't do it then why wouldn't he bring the experts to the site immediately and prove the world wrong? Any opinions?

Be like Nutella

Russia standing by Assad

The Russian foreign ministry claimed in a statement, meanwhile, “a homemade rocket loaded with an unidentified chemical agent” was used in the attack which was “probably a provocation” by the opposition to implicate President Assad.

But the Kremlin failed to provide any further details to back up the charge.


Fine... where's the evidence?