Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Formaldehyde]

And I'm not. I choose to get my news from non-state sponsored actors. I am mindful of each source's agenda, but that's what you do in a democracy. It's my responsibility to filter and analyze the news, not take it whole from a mouthpiece.

In this particular case, it has also been stated by numerous sources.

Do you dispute the facts in the article? If not, what difference does it make where the facts came from?

 

[dexters]

In this particular case, it has also been stated by numerous sources.

Do you dispute the facts in the article? If not, what difference does it possibly make where it came from?

Again ,you're intervening in someone else's argument without understanding the context.

I object to this kind of 'thinking' from a source that is a state-mouthpiece and known den of spies.

What about some truth squad action from xinhua news?

And ReindeerThistle has been kind enough to clarify he doesn't consider my concerns a problem because apparently, as a marxist-lenisit, everything is propaganda anyways.

 

[Rashiminos]

I object to this kind of 'thinking' from a source that is a state-mouthpiece and known den of spies.

Still curious about what sources you use.

 

[Kaitzilla]

This is such a hot forum subject lately!

Some music to play in the background while you all post quotes and links



Link to video.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Capitalist countries want to go to war in Syria. Socialist nations do not.

War in Syria is the opposite of what Obama wants.


What socialist country, with a considerable amount of power, wants to avoid war in Syria?

If you're about to try and pass the Chinese off as socialist, just leave now.

The Chinese are an authoritarian-capitalist country.

I'd hope you don't define the Russians as socialists either. I don't think you are that silly.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Well, I think it was the Labour party that got Great Britain to back down last night.

They are kind of socialist aren't they?

 

[Borachio]

Why not send the Syrians gas masks, instead of bombs?

 

[Rashiminos]

War in Syria is the opposite of what Obama wants.

So that shot across the bow line is just talk?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Why not send the Syrians gas masks, instead of bombs?

Drop thousands of gas masks onto Syrians instead of bombs?

I hardly see how that could help stop the gas attacks.


Seriously though, do gas masks stop VX and some of the other stuff? I thought it went through the skin.

Maybe sneak a bunch in on the ground.


Did the doctors who treated the victims get sick from secondary exposure? Real military chemical weapons are pretty potent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again ,you're intervening in someone else's argument without understanding the context.

I "understand" the "context" quite well. You would rather attack the credibility of the poster instead of even trying to discuss the topic.

But, again, which facts from that article do you dispute?

Speaking of discussing the actual topic, here is a most excellent editorial just published by the San Jose Mercury News:

Eleven years ago, like today, the drums of war were sounding. Top U.S. officials confidently claimed proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. U.N. weapons inspectors, scouring Iraq fruitlessly to find evidence, were dismissed as irrelevant. International law was brushed off as a technicality.

The White House now says it has proof that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons. It has belittled U.N. inspectors in Damascus and has treated international law as an afterthought. Perhaps the only real difference between then and now is that even fewer voices in politics and the media are questioning the factual and legal justifications of a rush to war.

Have we learned nothing?

When I was a reporter in Baghdad before the U.S. invasion, I followed the U.N. teams on their inspection visits and found their work meticulous and professional. Then as now, those teams were composed of experienced weapons experts with the skills and technology to determine beyond doubt whether illicit arms activity had occurred. But they were in the field, not in front of TV cameras, so their work had little effect.

The U.N. inspectors in Syria are professionals and -- let's repeat -- they are actually on the ground in Syria. Their direct access as well as their expertise in chemical forensics and weapons analysis gives them a level of credibility that is unsurpassed by any other intelligence agency.

Rebels have claimed the Syrian army fired the chemical weapons, but given the rebels' extreme self-interest in ginning up U.S. military action, we must be wary of letting the tail wag the dog.

It has been widely reported that some of the rebel forces in the Damascus area are extremists with links to al-Qaida. The sniper fire and continued threats that blocked the U.N. team from inspecting chemical attack sites Tuesday may have come from those extremists. The Pentagon reported that al-Qaida used chlorine gas bombs in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, and in June of this year, the Iraqi military claimed it broke up an al-Qaida ring manufacturing sarin and mustard gas. So it is surely not inconceivable that al-Qaida, rather than the Syrian army, might be the responsible party for the recent attacks.

International law appears to be another casualty of the current war fervor.

The U.N. Charter clearly prohibits the international use of military force except in self-defense or upon authorization by the Security Council. The former is not relevant in this case, and the latter is likely to be blocked by Russia and China. The sole legitimacy of the Security Council to authorize war, even under the principle of "Responsibility to Protect," was reconfirmed in 2005 at the U.N. World Summit and by the U.N. General Assembly, with the United States voting in favor.

If solid proof of Syrian culpability were made public, the tables of international law would indeed tip in favor of a military response. Although neither Syria's government nor rebels are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, other international treaties ban chemical arms use. Russia and China, which say they condemn any such attacks, would find it hard to justify a veto in the Security Council if persuasive evidence were offered.

Proof is more than just the assertion that one has it. The American people and the international community deserve to be presented real evidence and legal authority before the drums sound and America's missiles once again fly off to war.

Robert Collier is a consultant on energy and climate policy. He was a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle in Iraq in 2002, 2003 and 2004, winning the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi prize for foreign correspondence in 2003. He wrote this for this newspaper.

 

[dexters]

I "understand" the "context" quite well.

I'm attacking the credibility of the source and requesting people use another source instead. And quote

It's not hard to go to huffpo or one of the left-leaning western media outlets to find opinion pieces and reporting that fits the anti-war/questioning narrative without stooping to using state propaganda as evidence that Assad maybe innocent of chemical weapons use.

You would rather attack the credibility of the poster instead of even trying to discuss the topic.

In what way? I was paraphrasing him from this post, almost word for word

But, again, which facts from that article do you dispute?

Did I question the facts? I don't recall doing so. I just have a problem with the worship of 'alternative' sources with adjectives like 'truth squad' of news just because its 'alternative' and in this case a state mouthpiece. In this case, I do have a problem with Xinhua as a source for anything. It doesn't really need to involve you but here you are.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm attacking the credibility of the source and requesting people use another source instead. And quote

Like Globe and Mail, the New York Times, or the Guardian?

 

[Borachio]

Drop thousands of gas masks onto Syrians instead of bombs?

I hardly see how that could help stop the gas attacks.


Seriously though, do gas masks stop VX and some of the other stuff? I thought it went through the skin.

Maybe sneak a bunch in on the ground.


Did the doctors who treated the victims get sick from secondary exposure? Real military chemical weapons are pretty potent.

I heard that the chemical was most likely sarin, judging from the symptoms.

The Israelis certainly seem to think that gas masks (and associated "kit") are worthwhile, though maybe theirs aren't as effective as they should be.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/gas-mask-kits-contain-no-antidote-for-nerve-gas/

The particulars surrounding Syria’s notorious chemical weapons stockpile are vague. In a hearing before a US Senate subcommittee in 2001, biological and chemical weapons expert Dr. Jonathan B. Tucker posited that ”Syria is believed capable of producing and delivering sarin and VX nerve agent, as well as mustard agent.” Both VX and sarin are treated with atropine, but mustard gases, according to the CDC, have no known treatment.

Until 2010, the gas mask kits distributed by the IDF contained a small auto-injecting syringe containing atropine sulfate, which the US Center for Disease Control recommends as one of the best ways to treat sarin gas toxicity. (If you ever saw the 1996 film “The Rock,” atropine makes a couple of cameos as the standard antidote to sarin and VX — delivered by a gigantic syringe to the heart.)

Sarin gas, the CDC notes, “can be absorbed into the body by inhalation, ingestion, skin contact, or eye contact,” meaning a gas mask provides only partial protection against the deadly agent. And atropine alone provides limited treatment for nerve gas symptoms. The CDC recommends a Mark I nerve agent antidote kit containing both atropine sulfate and pralidoxime chloride, which together provide the necessary dosage to counteract sarin or VX’s deadly effects.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

So that shot across the bow line is just talk?

No. Obama meant it. But does that mean that is what he wants?

The worst thing for the US in this situation is to do nothing, as much as we want to do nothing, it isn't good.

 

[Rashiminos]

No. Obama meant it. But does that mean that is what he wants?

Suppose he doesn't want it. How does an escalation of the conflict in Syria meet that goal?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm attacking the credibility of the source and requesting people use another source instead.

Yet in this particular case there doesn't appear to be anything about the article lacking in "credibility". Even I use Fox News as a source on occasion when they present the facts in a straightforward manner. And I am one of their biggest critics when they don't.

This particular story hasn't been getting much play from many of the mainstream news sources for some odd reason. So which ones are actually lacking in "credibility" and engaging in an "agenda" by leaving out critical facts in this particular case?

 

[Defiant47]

...

Beautiful break-down, thank you.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Suppose he doesn't want it. How does an escalation of the conflict in Syria meet that goal?

It doesn't. Obama isn't getting what he wants. He has no choice but to intervene at this point it seems.

He drew the red line in an effort convince Assad not to use chemical weapons.

Whether or not Assad used the weapons is useless, most Western governments have already condemned his regime.

Not intervening means the US loses face and the terrorists win.

And we don't want the terrorists winning, now do we?

 

[Borachio]

But wait. Are you suggesting the US intervene on the side of the terrorists?

 

[dexters]

Yet in this particular case there doesn't appear to be anything about the article lacking in "credibility". Even I use Fox News as a source on occasion when they present the facts in a straightforward manner. And I am one of their biggest critics when they don't.

This particular story hasn't been getting much play from many of the mainstream news sources for some odd reason. So which ones are actually lacking in "credibility" and engaging in an "agenda" by leaving out critical facts in this particular case?

I didn't think it was worth quibbling over it but since you can't let it go, it comes down to a bunch of still unsubstantiated claims by the Syrian government with no evidence of casualties. The Syrian government claim may also be interpreted as stalling for time as military action is not going to happen with UN staff on the ground.

It's not as if it's not reported, as you claim, it was mentioned this mornings news story I was reading at the cbc http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/29/syria-us-response-studied.html?cmp=rss

Buy neither the xinhua piece nor the Canadian piece have information that those attacks really happened , merely the Syrian government claim it happened.

When talking about agendas, perhaps it is also relevant to examine why you take accusations by the government of a supposed attack so seriously and claim it as a major underreported story when there's really not much there to report.

Perhaps because you feel like it justifies your preconceived position?

And let me be clear. I am perfectly willing to believe the Syrian government is telling the truth, but it's a tiny piece of a fast moving story that as of yet has no proof it even happened and as a stratagem is wholly beneficial to the government side as a pr piece and to buy time if the UN chooses to investigate.