The "common-sense test" indicates Assad guilty.

Okay just saw this posted on the Live blog on Al jazeera, is this worth a threat? Not that much, however just wanted to point out the idiocy in how they try to convince they are right.

US President Barack Obama's top aide has pressed the case for ``targeted, limited consequential action'' to degrade the capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to carry out chemical weapons attacks as the White House mounted a major push to win support from a divided Congress and skeptical American public for a military strike.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough asserted on Sunday that a ``common-sense test'' dictates that the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that Obama says demands a US response. But he said the Obamadministration lacks ``irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence'' that lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week are seeking.

``This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way,'' White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said, part of a five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Assad.

``The common-sense test says he is responsible for this. He should be held to account,'' McDonough said of the Syrian leader who for two years has resisted calls from inside and outside his country to step down

blogs.aljazeera.com...
So I have never heard of this test before? Maybe its some kind of hidden formula that they use to determine if your a terrorist or not.


Bottom line is, we are talking about an attack on a sovereign nation, and they come out with these childish terms to support their claim.

Originally posted by Senduko
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough asserted on Sunday that a ``common-sense test'' dictates that the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that Obama says demands a US response.

So I have never heard of this test before? Maybe its some kind of hidden formula that they use to determine if your a terrorist or not.

Bottom line is, we are talking about an attack on a sovereign nation, and they come out with these childish terms to support their claim.

I think what they MAY mean, and I could be mistaken, is this. Concerning certain regulated weapons, allowing national security and protocol to be so lax that the weapons may be stolen and used, by anyone - regardless of whether the thief is the enemy or rogue forces inside your own regime, is the same thing as having used the weapons.

If someone is walking around your neighborhood drunk and firing a gun in every direction, even though he may not intend to kill anyone - his state of mind and protocol dictate that authorities treat him as a potential killer.

A state which does not have the command and control to be able to protect and deliberately control its WMD is the same as a state which has immediate intent to use the WMD.

reply to post by Senduko



Exactly. What they want us to ignore is that it doesn't matter. It's not our place, in any event, to "punish" the leader of a sovereign nation for anything. To do so is itself a WAR CRIME.

To our deep and everlasting shame, we've acquiesced to too many years of war crimes by our own government. And in the process have allowed them to allow the establishment of a police state that will show itself to be worse than any police state—including Syria—that has ever been known.

That is where we should be concentrating our efforts—not on the internal matters of another sovereign nation that constitutes no immediate or, probably, long-term threat to us....

But, if true, this also would mean that the Administration has changed their platform from one of "Assad employed chemical weapons" to that of "Assad is responsible for the employment of chemical weapons."

That would constitute a change in what they are contending; and imply that maybe the intelligence was not so good after all.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


That's well-stated, and very likely their exact strategy to bring all us strays on-board—as Obama claimed he would do....

The American Government talking about a common-sense test almost sounds like they've become a parody of themselves. Their attempts at trying to divert attention away from evidence is getting tiresome now.

If Putin has to openly challenge the US position, Putin's intelligence didn't have any conclusive evidence either.
Now our proof to go to war is 'common-sense test'

I see this way, yes governments are responsible for the well being of the nations citizens, but let remember something here, Assad regime has been under attack for two years with different factions funded by those that are behind the coup in that country so who is to blame for the use of weapons, those that are behind the coup and funded by foreigners or the government that find itself with their hand ties against the founding of this terrorist supposedly Rebels in the country.

This factions groups has been funded with weapons too, so if chemicals were used in the people and it was not by Assad government then the guilty ones are those that provided the means for the Rebels or terrorist in the country to be able to get their hands on such weapons.

The irony.

Even if Assad is guilty .... that doesn't mean anything to the USA.
It is a civil war. It doesn't effect us. We can't afford another war.
And most of all ... if we nail Assad then we are just helping the
Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda .. who are just as bad, maybe worse.

So ... Assad guilty or not ... the USA still shouldn't get involved.

As for the "common -sense test" it sounds to me like a oxymoron invented by morons themselves, the warmonger profiteers are trying to find any means to push their agenda regardless of what the people in our nation wants or not.

Sinking to new levels of the ridiculous.

So the burden of evidence required to kill hundreds and topple a government is less than that required to execute one man in a court of law? Is this what they are saying with a straight face?

No forensic evidence tying the accused to the crime. No credible motive. Other guy in the same room with obvious motive. But hell, convict anyway its common sense.

Yeah thats a recipe for a peaceful world. [sarc].

Of course Assad is a murderer.

50 years of family rule? That said let some other country try him for crimes against his people.


Like Russia.


Oh wait........

Actually I think the guy is 100% correct. We should use a simple, rational, common sense approach to the situation in Syria.....


Common sense tells me that when we have video of the Rebels testing chemical weapons on rabbits 2 months ago, it is not a leap to think they put that testing to use on people.

reply to post by justwokeup

I agree. "Common sense forensics". Is that a class they offer these days in Universities?

This has been devised by the same team that brought us, WMD's in Iraq and the heavy bombardment of rebels by a war criminal in Libya surely?

It's fabricated jargon used to condone intervening in a civil war. A civil war that was probably funded by Israel, the U.K, France and the U.S.

They started it, now they must finish it, if not then they will appear weak.

Regardless of what they decide, this will be a real turning point in history.

If there were any common sense left in America they would just bring everybody home. Let the world run itself. They did that long before we were ever around.

reply to post by MrWendal


I agree, we here in ATS have more common sense than the so call experts that are pushing for Syria attacks and regime change.

and we are not even making a penny for the rational thinking.

Common sense would indicate that the US is making up a case. No way the NSA et al do not know what went on. They can not show proof because it proves the wrong side did it.

The administration is really clutching at straw now.

reply to post by Senduko


I would love to know the details of this "common sense test," because the test of LOGIC says he is not responsible.

While the regime has the access to and possession of the weapons (known), and the means of deployment (known), they have no logical reason to use them.

Assad has NOTHING to gain by their use, and everything to lose, because he likely knows that the international community would not tolerate such a thing, and I don't think he's that stupid or desperate. Now, this does not speak of the fact that he *could* have used them and tried to pin it on the rebels, nor does it speak of the fact that possibly some rogue element within his regime acted without his authority or command. Those are two entirely different points of argument.

The extremists/rebels (I am using extremists/rebels to speak of TWO groups of people: the actual rebels and the extremists/al Qaeda within the rebel groups) have EVERYTHING to gain by their use. If they can use them and make it look as if Assad used then, they will garner international support for their "cause" as well as probable intervention, which will help tip the civil war in their favor, which they NEED because they aren't exactly winning, and which, since there is, I have heard, and estimated 25% al Qaeda rebels, tipping the war in their favor will solidify them more power (and possibly even more access to WMD stockpiled in Syria, at least for the extremists).

It is known that extremists will use WHATEVER means necessary to inflict damage and hurt innocent people. Why would they not do the same in Syria, for above stated reason? They have EVERYTHING to gain and have NO scruples about using them.

Reports and video have come out about that defense contractors have had something to with this, and knowing how they play both sides and work WITH extremists (see bin Laden circa 2001), this is not a far fetched possibility.

Reports and video have also come out of rebels claiming to have possession of the weapons. Since the rebels include extremists/al Qaeda, it is not unlikely they have or used them on innocent people to pin it on Assad's regime.

Now any attack on Syria, according to initial administration reports, ranges from punishment to taking out the means of deliver, and NOT to secure or destroy the chemical weapons themselves. Once again, anything that continues to destabilize the country by outside forces has a real possibility of making the weapons less secure, tipping the war in the favor of the rebels/extremists, and thereby giving them easier access to the chemical weapons, which al Qaeda would LOVE to have (and which is a valid argumentative point in expanded military intervention, and why in order to secure this there would likely HAVE to be "boots on the ground" in some fashion to secure the cache after everything is even more destabilized).

So, by LOGIC and everything outlined above, WHO benefits most from the use of chemical weapons?

It ain't Assad or his regime. It's the rebels, or at least the extremists within the rebels.

Common sense and logic dictate that Assad is NOT behind it, nor is he responsible.

I think this just proves how little respect they have. How can anyone expect to take them seriously when they use these kind of words.

Heck who needs proof when we have common sense, right?... Right?