Syria Chemical Attacks - real, fake, premeditated?

[Infinite]

After listening to the 1 minute long news update on the radio about these attacks, one would assume that Syria bombed civilians in the suburbs with chemical weapons killing 1000+ and the US and UN ain't doing squat about it.

However after reading several news reports, it seems that thing are not so clear cut. The BBC did quite a good Q&A summary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23788674

A short list of some of the main points:

Real:
Syria in possession of chemical weapons
Unconfirmed past reports of their use
Used on areas associated with rebels

Fake:
No official confirmation, all speculation
Pictures and videos all faked to boost international intervention
Pictures show casualties being treat with water (contaminated?) and oxygen masks..
People treating them are not wearing protective clothing (seem unaffected)

Premeditated by rebels:
UN chemical inspector in town
Force international intervention to aid rebels

So what do you guys think? I'm leaning more towards rebels; it almost seems too convenient with weapon inspectors in town with the target of such a large suburban community with good communication to the outside world.

[pollaxe]

I vote real but it's almost impossible to say who did it, unfortunately. If it's contrived then I don't know how they got the young children to fake the symptoms of a nerve agent.

I hope the U.N. inspectors get access to identify the agent(s) used. That might help.

Whoever is responsible, it's an appalling atrocity.

[b0redom]

Is it any more appalling that people being massacred by bombs/bullets?

[pollaxe]

Is it any more appalling that people being massacred by bombs/bullets?

It's all appalling and it's hard to quantify suffering.

Question: Why not tell us what you think?

[TheAnimus]

Is it any more appalling that people being massacred by bombs/bullets?

The argument is that bombs and bullets are designed to clear infrastructure and push people back. Chemical weapons are designed primarily to kill without giving people the opportunity to retreat.

It is the difference between war and genocide.

[kalniel]

Even countries that shoot at each other with bombs/bullets *mostly* agree not to use chemical weapons, so yes, it's *even* more appalling.

[HalloweenJack]

USA used chemical weapons at Fullajah - but suddenly Syria *apparently* does the same thing and its wrong?


we need to stay well away from this one - we are fed the line the media want us to believe - and out of the sides involved , I actually think Assad is the better option - the others vary between rebels to al-qeada fruit cakes ; and that is the issue - the `rebels` were known to have overrun a Syrian army base which located chemical agents....

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its most likely that either a facility has been hit during the general fighting which has released toxic chemicals or the rebels did it themselves. Remember the "red-line" for foreign intervention(things like a no fly zone) was the verified use of chemical weapons. Moreover,the UN themselves and the Russians(IIRC) indicated that the rebels themselves probably have chemical weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Iraqi rebels were also implicated in a chemical weapons plot too with labs uncovered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...pons-plot.html

A number of the rebels support the Syrian rebel cause too.

People forget that the timing is "very" fishy indeed as only recently have UN inspectors entered Syria(under the invitation of the government) to investigate other claims of chemical weapons use in the past,and that the rebels are now starting to lose ground to the Syrian military anyway. Why would the Syrian armed forces launch massive chemical attacks,when it would mean direct foreign intervention which would destroy any advantage they had over the rebels??

One of these would be their air force which would be permanently neutralised by a no fly zone.

Edit!!

Another thing is that the attack is near Damascus which is where the many of Syrian senior officials are located including el presedente and family,which would mean that they would be potentially downwind of any chemical attack themselves.

[kalniel]

USA used chemical weapons at Fullajah - but suddenly Syria *apparently* does the same thing and its wrong?

USA using chemical weapons is absolutely wrong as well. No matter who uses them, they are banned by Geneva convention countries for a reason.

[Galant]

In addition to TheAnimus post, chem weapons can't be aimed precisely, they're indescriminate.

[TheAnimus]

USA used chemical weapons at Fullajah - but suddenly Syria *apparently* does the same thing and its wrong?

Back up? They did what? All I can see is they used White Phosphorous, which isn't a biological or chemical weapon by legal definitions, has the effect of been used for cover.

I would not compare the two.

However terrible use of it by the US forces it was.

[TheAnimus]

In addition to TheAnimus post, chem weapons can't be aimed precisely, they're indescriminate.

But neither can Cluster Bombs or Napalm / Agent Orange.

It might be time to look at a new Geneva Convention, but sadly, I don't think it will get signed, drone strikes are considered surgical despite the collateral damage that often happens.

[Saracen]

But neither can Cluster Bombs or Napalm / Agent Orange.

It might be time to look at a new Geneva Convention, but sadly, I don't think it will get signed, drone strikes are considered surgical despite the collateral damage that often happens.

Yeah, well "surgical", in that context, is almost as obnoxious as "collateral damage".

But I guess if something's going to be bombed, it's better to do it in a way that kills fewer innocents rather than more. But it begs the question, if some states, like the US had to drop loads of bombs and kill hundreds or thousands to hit one target, whether it'd be acceptable, to the public, to do it at all? So, minimused collateral damage might result in some innicents getting killed, as oppised to none. Either way, the dead innocents are just as dead, so it being "surgical" probably isn't much consolation.


As for the supposed gas attack in Syria ..... true or fake? Oh, probably true. The limited video I saw certainly looked convincing. When, and where, though, are far harder to be sure, short of independent expert inspection of the target area ... which hopefully, we will get shortly.

As for who did it? Absolutely no idea. I can see a rationale for it having been done by either side.

[TheAnimus]

There is also the possibility of an accident of some form.

A miss placed shell, hell even just one tracer round can create a situation where a factory or some industrial process that is normally safe, can end up becoming a little toxic chemical disaster.

However, I don't understand people's reactions to this, the more I think about the people calling the use of white phosphorous a chemical weapon the more I think they have a very incorrect view of war.

The sad thing is, a lot of the people I know who are now worried about Syria / Egypt were the exact same ones championing the Arab Spring thing. The devil you know and all that.

All we know is that some more people have died in an area of fighting in which many people have died. We really don't want to get too involved in this as it is ultimately a vendetta grade religious war. Allowing them to fight it in a manner which has the balance of killing the least number of non-combatants, whilst not having to engage in full piece keeping (watch how quickly both sides would decide they didn't like us!) is probably going to be the fewest overall deaths.

I forget the name of the gentleman, but he was an advisor to Kissinger, he used some very flawed economic analysis to support escalation of the Vietnam American war. It was the worst kind of statistical analysis, picking some numbers to fit the view you already have, and never questioning and challenging that view. Syria has a problem that it is also symbolic in the changing of the dominance of global powers, Russia is telling the US that Team America: World Police is no more. I think these factors are really helping fuel the lets keep the hell out of this one attitude, especially when people then look at the situation with an economic slant. (one where all deaths are considered bad).

[b0redom]

It's all appalling and it's hard to quantify suffering.

Question: Why not tell us what you think?

To be honest I don't know. I don't buy the fact that chemical weapons are worse because they kill more innocents than conventional weapons. The regime was already lobbing conventional shells into heavily populated areas. Does it matter whether the people who died died from respiritory failure, being blown to pieces, being crushed under rubble and left to starve/bleed out/die of thirst?

I would assume that chemical/biological are banned by the Geneva convention as they're weapons of mass destruction which cannot be targetted. As TheAnimus says though, you could extrapolate that to napalm (which appears to fit the bill for chemical weapons), cluster (or indeed any large) bombs, rockets, shells etc.


TL;DR

Do I think it's awful that innocent people including children are being killed? Yes.
Is the use of chemical weapons more shocking than conventional weapons? Not sure. The end result is the same.
Do I think it was the rebels or the regime or an accident? I think the timing is a bit too suspicious for the regime to have authorised it.

[HalloweenJack]

Back up? They did what? All I can see is they used White Phosphorous, which isn't a biological or chemical weapon by legal definitions, has the effect of been used for cover.

I would not compare the two.

However terrible use of it by the US forces it was.

article 5 of the CWC defines using WP as chemical weapon when used direct in *the usa termed* shake and bake missions; eg when used as a direct action weapon and not for a smoke screen

US Army's Field Artillery Magazine dated arpil 2005 , from 3 US Army sources state WP was used from mortars against enemy positions combined with HE rounds

also the US Army report states:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...31050_91r.html

the 1991 Iraq action against the kurds using WP - was a chemical attack.


so as allways with the USA its do as I say not do as I do.


edit:

I would also remind you that Israel did the same thing - using WP in direct attack against a HOSPITAL


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...osforgroot.jpg


again a case of `do as I say not as I do`