[dill_day]

If there's "every reason to believe" it's the opposition forces and not the Syrian government in control of and using chemical weapons, what good does it do for the Syrian government to "place its chemical arsenal under international control"? How can these two statements be reconciled?

Putin says:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.

Then later:

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction.

[cdash]

Maybe to satisfy the stupid Americans? I am not sure what you are getting at, offering up your chemical weapons when some country that can crush you is about to attack you because they suspect that you used them even if they don't provide any proof is not admitting guilt.

Its almost like you think people who plea guilty in court are actually always truly guilty.

[Demiurge]

I think you can reconcile them the same way as these two statements.

> I did not shoot anyone. > You can take the gun, so I won't be able to shoot anyone.

They don't need to be reconciled because they are not in conflict.

[jlgreco]

Assad has chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were used. Assad did not necessarily use chemical weapons.

[kbrwn]

1)The instability of Syria could cause the rebels to gain access to unsecured chemical weapons that the obviously incompetent Assad govt may have.

2) Some rebel groups may have chemical weapons and if they use them Assad might feel like he can use his in defense.