Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Defiant47]

Article

Doctors Without Borders says some 355 people who showed "neurotoxic symptoms" died following the suspected chemical weapons attack this week near Syria's capital.

The Paris-based humanitarian aid group said Saturday that three hospitals it supports in the Damascus region reported receiving roughly 3,600 patients who showed such symptoms over less than three hours on Wednesday morning.

A debate has ensued about who was behind the alleged gas attack on rebel-held Damascus suburbs that activists previously said killed more than 130 people. The attack has spurred demands for an independent investigation and renewed talk of potential international military action, if chemical weapons were indeed used.

The organization released a statement Saturday describing symptoms including convulsions, extreme salivation, contracted pupils and sight and respiratory problems.

The charity said many were treated with atropine, a drug administered to those with "neurotoxic symptoms."

'...the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.'—Bart Janssens, Doctors Without Borders

"[We] can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said the organization's Director of Operations Bart Janssens.

"However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events, characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent."

Anti-government activists accuse the Syrian government of carrying out the toxic gas attack on the eastern suburbs of Damascus and have reported death tolls ranging from 136 to 1,300.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/24/gas-attack-syria.html

Satire Piece

Who are we to say other countries' cultures are wrong? What right do we have to impose our beliefs and system of morality on others? If the Syrian government has decided that it is necessary to use chemical weapons on civilians, then we are no more qualified to judge them any more than Saudi Arabia's treatment of women.

Even if it is wrong to gas civilians in a civil war, we have no responsibility to these people. They are halfway around the world, and we have more important issues to deal with at home. Our standard of living and internal political strife is more important to address than the lives of Syrians.

If we intervened, we might end up screwing things up like Iraq and arguably Libya. It's better to let the government do whatever they want - gas civilians, bomb civilians; it's none of our concern and we can wash our hands of it.

Discussion

Naturally, the Syrian government is accusing the rebels, and honestly I wouldn't put it past the rebels to enact this to prompt outside intervention. But the noose is tightening and there seems to be increased international demands for an investigation.

A while back, Obama has promised to take drastic action if the Syrian government resorts to chemical or biological weapons. The American government has weaseled its way out of past reports of possible chemical attacks, probably because there wasn't enough basis for a casus belli. But this recent one seems to be steaming and unavoidable. So what's going to happen? Ultimatum on approving an investigation? Proof it was the Syrian government?

War with Syria?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I think Obama will do all he can not to get involved and if he has no choice he will do the best he can to limit US involvement.

I doubt the US will be going in alone if anything is decided.

We'll see in the coming days and weeks I suppose.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, so Assad cannot even hold his own capital without using chemical weapons? Last i heard the "rebels" (ie the 1000 nations of the terrorist empire) were losing on all fronts. What caused this sudden and massive change and now Assad needs to actually use chemicals against them, and moreover in his own capital?

TL: DR Yeah, it seems very legit that gas was used by Assad and his government.

Spoiler :

 

[dutchfire]

You all are convinced it was Assad then? I thought that wasn't so certain yet. Assad mainly lacks motive.

 

[Kyriakos]

You all are convinced it was Assad then? I thought that wasn't so certain yet. Assad mainly lacks motive.

No you got it wrong: The US (and puppets) only want to ask for a group of inspectors to go into Syria so as to examine the matter. I mean it's not that much to ask, there is a war going on but surely it can all be arranged in a polite and gentlemanly way.

If the request for the inspectors is rejected, though, the bombs will arrive instead.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You all are convinced it was Assad then? I thought that wasn't so certain yet. Assad mainly lacks motive.

I'm certainly not convinced.

I also didn't see what Assad's motive could possibly be the last time. And I think this one is even more dubious given the reports we have been hearing that the rebels are losing.

I think Obama made a huge mistake drawing this line in the sand. He made it all too tempting for the rebels to stage a false flag operation.

 

[Silurian]

Syria actually has chemical weapons so could retaliate if bombed.

It does seem very strange that Assad would use them in Damascus.

 

[REDY]

I think that US should offer help to Assad to defend country againist terrorists.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is just too bad there isn't some sort of neutral international peacekeeping organization which could independently investigate these sorts of incidents without bias. Just think what might have happened if such an organization had existed over 10 years ago when the US invaded a sovereign country on what later turned out to be intentional lies and deceit.

 

[Oruc]

I agree with your satire

 

[Tahuti]

It is just too bad there isn't some sort of neutral international peacekeeping organization which could independently investigate these sorts of incidents without bias. Just think what might have happened if such an organization had existed over 10 years ago when the US invaded a sovereign country on what later turned out to be intentional lies and deceit.

So what'll they do to baddies? Invade them with an army that doesn't exist? Impose economic sanctions they cannot enforce? Annoy them with empty moralistic moaning that doesn't mean anything in real-life? Okay, that might just be possible.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

You all are convinced it was Assad then? I thought that wasn't so certain yet. Assad mainly lacks motive.

I'm not totally convinced.

Assad does have some motive. Even if the current regime is winning the war, the longer the war goes on the worse for the country. The rebels are losing, but they aren't defeated. The war may go on for many more months if not years.

 

[Defiant47]

Refusal to allow and abide by an investigation should be treated as moderate evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[kramerfan86]

Honestly there is a high shock factor, but I dont really see why a 1000 people dying by gas is so horrible we simply MUST do something as though 100000 people dying by conventional arms was so much better.

If it were up to me, the US and west would do exactly jack squat in response. IF they insist on doing something since Obama made his dumb "red line" comment, the absolute most Id support is targeted strikes on chemical weapons depots. Either Assad is using them or Assad cant actually defend the stockpiles from rebels, either way destroying the stockpiles with cruise missiles wouldnt exactly be disagreeable.

 

[dutchfire]

What do you think happens when you bomb a chemical weapons depot?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

If it were up to me, the US and west would do exactly jack squat in response.

Well, if it makes you feel better, that's how Obama feels about it.

Obama did an interview a few days ago about this and he said something along the lines of: "We are considering our options in Syria, but we must consider our national interests first".

The US has little to gain from involvement outside of that warm feeling you get in your heart from helping people. Obama thought he could maybe pressure Assad not to use chemical weapons.

 

[Antilogic]

I think Obama made a huge mistake drawing this line in the sand. He made it all too tempting for the rebels to stage a false flag operation.

This is why "no red lines" should be a major political rule, like not wearing hats or something.

 

[red_elk]

What a coincidence, the attack happened a few days after a group of UN chemical weapons experts arrived in Syria. In Damascus, to be precise:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_18/UN-chemical-weapon-experts-arrives-in-Syria-7765/

Looks like Assad was really, desperately needed to kill a few hundreds of civilians using chemical weapons right under noses of these experts. To achieve.. don't know what.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Looks like Assad was really, desperately needed to kill a few hundreds of civilians using chemical weapons right under noses of these experts. To achieve.. don't know what.

Perhaps Assad is a little too confident that the US will not get involved.

 

[Defiant47]

Honestly there is a high shock factor, but I dont really see why a 1000 people dying by gas is so horrible we simply MUST do something as though 100000 people dying by conventional arms was so much better.

That's an argument for worldwide despotism if I ever heard one.

What a coincidence, the attack happened a few days after a group of UN chemical weapons experts arrived in Syria. In Damascus, to be precise:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_18/UN-chemical-weapon-experts-arrives-in-Syria-7765/

Looks like Assad was really, desperately needed to kill a few hundreds of civilians using chemical weapons right under noses of these experts. To achieve.. don't know what.

Perhaps he has been using chemical weapons in the past, given spurious reports thereof. This may merely be a continuation that finally got revealed more concretely.