Everyone in Syria is Using Chemical Weapons on Everyone Else

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


It’s entirely possible that someone in Syria is using chemical weapons on someone else. Or maybe not. Both sides in the Sunni-Shiite Syrian Civil War have really big propaganda networks and have been putting out viral videos accusing each other of using chemical weapons for months now.

While it’s entirely possible that either the government or the Turkish\Qatari-backed Sunni fighters are actually using chemical weapons on each other, the lack of a serious death toll would suggest that they aren’t very good at it.

When Saddam used chemical weapons in Halabja, thousands of civilians died in distinctive ways. We have yet to see that kind of death toll coming out of any Syrian attack. The current death toll for what both sides in the Syrian Civil War are claiming was a chemical attack is 26. You can kill 26 people with conventional shelling, which is what this probably was.

It’s not impossible that this was a case of the Jihadists experimenting with some looted mustard gas, which is potentially serious, but the only real evidence of that comes from the Syrian regime, which, like the rebels, spends most of its time lying and making up stories. It wouldn’t be terribly hard for them to dump a bunch of asthma patients in a bed and invite foreign reporters to look over them.

The United States is pretending that nothing happened. The Russian government is warning of doom. But that’s to be expected since we are allied with the Sunni Jihadists and they are allied with the Shiite Jihadists and neither the Russian Foreign Ministry nor the State Department is worth believing on any subject involving the Syrian Civil War.

That alone is a sad state of affairs. Sadder than if chemical weapons are being used in the Syrian Civil War.

The one useful thing Obama Inc. should have done is grabbed up Syria’s WMD stockpiles. Instead it’s hanging around, flirting with the rebels and then backing away, while angry Washington Post keyboard warriors insist it should be giving the rebels every aid before they join Al Qaeda, if they haven’t already.

Our only conceivable national interest in Syria is not letting Al Qaeda get its hands on weapons of mass destruction. If we want to score some humanitarian points, we can set up visas for Christian refugees, instead of taking in more Syrian Muslims, who will do almost as much damage as the Somalis and the El Salvadorans have.

So what does all this mean? Maybe something, maybe everything, maybe nothing. Our leaders are stuck on their own incompetence and can’t move forward or backward. Sooner or later, chemical weapons probably will be used in Syria or worse still will fall into the hands of terrorists.

In Iraq, the people now in power claimed there were no WMDs. Now in Syria even they admit there are WMDs. But they’re willing to wait around to see who captures them in the civil war and what they do with them.

Mission accomplished.

  • Raymond in DC

    "The one useful thing Obama Inc. should have done is grabbed up Syria’s WMD stockpiles."

    The course the US has taken is a potentially dangerous one. They're training opposition forces, many of which are no doubt Islamist, to "secure" – that is, take position of – Syria's chemical weapons stocks. Will they then turn them over to a responsible outside party to properly dispose of them? I doubt it.

  • Edward Cline

    It's interesting that we trained the Taliban to fight the Soviets, and aided the Taliban with money and materiel. Now we're doing it with the Syrian "rebels." As what went around came back around on us in Afghanistan, that military training and aid will kick us in the pants again. But, all this is in the cause of spreading "democracy" among the Huns.

  • Ar'nun

    The funniest thing that could ever happen is Obama calls for sending troops to Syria in order to secure the WMD's, and by the time they get there Syria ships them all off to Turkey or Lebanon or even back to Iraq.

    • Howard

      And then ,of course, everyone on the left will deny that Asad's military ever had WMDs and claim that if they ever did have WMDs they got them from the Americans? Nah, this is the Obama administration so that won't happen. Because no evil can be attached to "he whose middle name we dare not speak".