| Slimebeast said: Wow, really? Forbidden by whom? This is bizarre. It sounds like a set-up, not only by the rebels but by a much larger conspiracy to legitimize Western removal of Assad. And media is still portraying the conflict as good rebels versus evil dictator. And giving room for these warmongers like William Hague to manipulate the public into accepting a Western strike that will ultimately lead to regime change. |
Maybe "forbidden" is slightly misleading, I really don't know. Many articles I've read during the last couple of days have clearly stated that the inspectors' mandate is limited to finding out IF chemical weapons have been used, not WHO is behind a particular chemical weapons attack. I was surprised when I first read that, because I somehow considered this to be one of, if not the most important question in an independent investigation.
So maybe it's not exactly "forbidden" - but they've been made clear that it's not their job to answer the question of responsibility, so in practice they won't comment on responsibility at all, even if they have strong presumptions. One might say that it's the professional attitude required for such a responsible job that forbids them to comment on or even investigate the question of responsibility, because they've been made clear that this question is not within the boundaries of their specific mandate.
I've tried to find more information on how the details of the UN chemical inspectors mandate was decided upon, but unfortunately I didn't find much so far. So far pretty much all I found out is that the syrian government themselves ordered the UN chemical weapons investigation back in march, shortly after a chemical weapons attack in Aleppo, where even independent sources believed the rebels rather than the government to be behind the attack.
