Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria

[Zwinmar]

Reuters

(Reuters) - Syria's government and rebels accused each other of launching a deadly chemical attack near the northern city of Aleppo on Tuesday in what would, if confirmed, be the first use of such weapons in the two-year conflict.

U.S. President Barack Obama, who has resisted overt military intervention in Syria, has warned President Bashar al-Assad that any use of chemical weapons would be a "red line". There has, however, been no suggestion of rebels possessing such arms.

Syria's state television said rebels fired a rocket carrying chemical agents that killed 25 people and wounded dozens. The pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict, said 16 soldiers were among the dead.

The most notorious use of chemical weapons in the Middle East in recent history was in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Halabja where an estimated 5,000 people died in a poison gas attack ordered by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 25 years ago.

No Western governments or international organizations confirmed a chemical attack in Syria, but Russia, an ally of Damascus, accused rebels of carrying out such a strike.

Syria's deputy foreign minister, Faisal Meqdad, said his government would send a letter to the U.N. Security Council "calling on it to handle its responsibilities and clarify a limit to these crimes of terrorism and those that support it inside Syrian Arab Republic".

He warned that the violence that had engulfed Syria was a regional threat. "This is rather a starting point from which (the danger) will spread to the entire region, if not the entire world," he said.

The United States said it had no evidence to substantiate charges that the rebels had used chemical weapons.

U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said it was not in a position to confirm the reports, adding that if either side used such weapons it would be a "grave violation of international law".

Britain said its calculations would change if a chemical attack had taken place. A Foreign Office spokeswoman said it would "demand a serious response from the international community and force us to revisit our approach so far".

BREATHING PROBLEMS

A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack.

"I saw mostly women and children," said the photographer, who cannot be named for his own safety.

He quoted victims at the University of Aleppo hospital and the al-Rajaa hospital as saying people were dying in the streets and in their houses.

The revolt against four decades of family rule started with peaceful protests two years ago but descended into a civil war after Assad's forces shot and arrested thousands of activists and the opposition turned to armed insurgency.

Assad is widely believed to have a chemical weapons arsenal.

Syrian officials have neither confirmed nor denied this, but have said that if it existed it would be used to defend against foreign aggression, not against Syrians. There have been no previous reports of chemical weapons in the hands of insurgents.

Information Minister Omran al-Zoabi said rebels fired "a rocket containing poison gases" at the town of Khan al-Assal, southwest of Aleppo, from the city's southeastern district of Nairab, part of which is rebel-held.

"The substance in the rocket causes unconsciousness, then convulsions, then death," the minister said.

But a senior rebel commander, Qassim Saadeddine, who is also a spokesman for the Higher Military Council in Aleppo, denied this, blaming Assad's forces for the alleged chemical strike.

"We were hearing reports from early this morning about a regime attack on Khan al-Assal, and we believe they fired a Scud with chemical agents," he told Reuters by telephone from Aleppo.

MILITANT GROUPS

Washington has expressed concern about chemical weapons falling into the hands of militant groups - either hardline Islamist rebels fighting to topple Assad or his regional allies.

Israel has threatened military action if such arms were sent to the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah group.

Zoabi said Turkey and Qatar, which have supported rebels, bore "legal, moral and political responsibility" for the strike - a charge dismissed by a Turkish official as baseless.

Zoabi told a news conference that Syria's military would never use internationally banned weapons.

"Syria's army leadership has stressed this before and we say it again, if we had chemical weapons we would never use them due to moral, humanitarian and political reasons," he said.

Syrian state TV aired footage of what it said were casualties of the attack arriving at one hospital in Aleppo.

Men, women and children were rushed inside on stretchers as doctors inserted medical drips into their arms and oxygen tubes into their mouths. None had visible wounds to their bodies, but some interviewed said they had trouble breathing.

An unidentified doctor interviewed on the channel said the attack was either "phosphorus or poison" but did not elaborate.

A young girl on a stretcher wept as she said: "My chest closed up. I couldn't talk. I couldn't breathe ... We saw people falling dead to the floor. My father fell, he fell and now we don't know where he is. God curse them, I hope they die."

A man in a green surgical mask, who said he had been helping to evacuate the casualties, said: "It was like a powder, and anyone who breathed it in fell to the ground."

"PINK SMOKE"

A rebel fighter in Khan al-Assal, about 8 km (5 miles) southwest of Aleppo, said he had seen pink-tinged smoke rising after a powerful blast shook the area.

Ahmed al-Ahmed, from the Ansar brigade in a rebel-controlled military base near Khan al-Assal, told Reuters that a missile had hit the town at around 8 a.m. (0600 GMT).

"We were about 2 km from the blast. It was incredibly loud and so powerful that everything in the room started falling over. When I finally got up to look at the explosion, I saw smoke with a pinkish-purple color rising up.

"I didn't smell anything, but I did not leave the building I was in," said Ahmed, speaking via Skype.

"The missile, maybe a Scud, hit a regime area, praise God, and I'm sure that it was an accident. My brigade certainly does not have that (chemical) capability and we've been talking to many units in the area, they all deny it."

Ahmed said the explosion was quickly followed by an air strike. A fighter jet circled a police school held by the rebels on the outskirts of Khan al-Assal and bombed the area, he said.

His account could not be independently verified.

Ahmet Uzumcu, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said in Vienna he had no independent information about any use of such arms in Syria.

Fighting continued elsewhere, with rebels firing mortar bombs into central Damascus, residents and pro-Assad media said.

Security forces have reinforced the center of the capital - home to state offices and the residences of government officials - but rebels pushing into the outskirts of Damascus are staging increased attacks on districts in the heart of the city.

Syrian rebels said on Monday they had fired mortar bombs at the presidential palace, Damascus International Airport and security buildings to mark the second anniversary of the uprising that has left at least 70,000 dead.

A government-run station, Addounia TV, said "terrorists", a term Assad's supporters use for the rebels, fired bombs at "civilian areas of Damascus, including near the Saudi embassy". It said there were casualties but gave no details.

No comment at this time.

[Rogue 9]

This is being treated seriously, apparently, though Ambassador Ford says the United States still has no actual evidence that a chemical attack occurred.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Was the abundance of lead poisoning over the last 18+ months not significant enough to warrant serious thought, or are we now being mean to those who wish to commit their atrocities with weapons other than the tried and tested projectile thrower du jour? I certainly hope the UN follows through and corrects this gross misconduct and makes sure that only the finest artillery, iron bombs and bullets are used instead.

[Irbis]

Was the abundance of lead poisoning over the last 18+ months not significant enough to warrant serious thought, or are we now being mean to those who wish to commit their atrocities with weapons other than the tried and tested projectile thrower du jour? I certainly hope the UN follows through and corrects this gross misconduct and makes sure that only the finest artillery, iron bombs and bullets are used instead.

The point here is precedent. Chemical warfare was banned after WWI for a reason, despite being used as normal weapon in it. None of great powers are willing to let that genie out of a bottle again, and not responding to chemical weapons being used here will make protests in next case that comes along much weaker.

[Mr. Coffee]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

[Irbis]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Because it was right after USA pulled out of Iraq, making finding political or monetary capital to do anything about it problematic? Plus, there was such unimportant event as, oh, only the collapse of largest military structure on Earth going on in background, making everyone busy with that, and then there is the fact most important US ally in region, Turkey, cheered up any attempts to stomp on Kurds, making protests even more inconvenient.

Plus, it turns out shit was given after all, as Saddam, Chemical Ali, and a lot of their buddies were reminded about these events right before being sent to Allah.

[Gandalf]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

It's a post 11/9 thing. Now everything that happens in the Mideast is of prime importance to US politics.

[Mr. Coffee]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Because it was right after USA pulled out of Iraq, making finding political or monetary capital to do anything about it problematic? Plus, there was such unimportant event as, oh, only the collapse of largest military structure on Earth going on in background, making everyone busy with that, and then there is the fact most important US ally in region, Turkey, cheered up any attempts to stomp on Kurds, making protests even more inconvenient.

Plus, it turns out shit was given after all, as Saddam, Chemical Ali, and a lot of their buddies were reminded about these events right before being sent to Allah.

Still doesn't explain why we're suddenly supposed to give a shit. It's alright, Gandalf explained it.

[Knife]

Hmmm, from Syria killing own with WMD to the damn American's in under 7 posts. Fascinating.

[Gandalf]

Was that aimed at my post?

[Mr. Coffee]

Hmmm, from Syria killing own with WMD to the damn American's in under 7 posts. Fascinating.

Go back to the op and read the articles. The US is mentioned a few time and the even quoted Obama for shits and giggles.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Hmmm, from Syria killing own with WMD to the damn American's in under 7 posts. Fascinating.

The price of empire. I guess, thousands of years ago, any discussion between Germans eventually devolved into something about Rome as well.

[Simon_Jester]

That would be kind of sad and lame, so I'd hope not.


Honestly, this is an example of why trying to lump chemical and nuclear weapons together politically doesn't work too well. You can have an 'alleged' chemical attack where it's very unclear how much damage was done or even if the attack took place at all. That doesn't happen with plague bombs or nukes.

So while I do think it's worth enforcing a chemical weapons ban (since they're so indiscriminate), I also think we should be more ready to react the same way to mass killing of innocents using bullets or shells or civilians.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In related news, BBC Weather Twitter account is hacked to spread anti-rebellion sentiment.

[Knife]

Hmmm, from Syria killing own with WMD to the damn American's in under 7 posts. Fascinating.

The price of empire. I guess, thousands of years ago, any discussion between Germans eventually devolved into something about Rome as well.

Fair enough I suppose

[Rycon67]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Because it was right after USA pulled out of Iraq, making finding political or monetary capital to do anything about it problematic? Plus, there was such unimportant event as, oh, only the collapse of largest military structure on Earth going on in background, making everyone busy with that, and then there is the fact most important US ally in region, Turkey, cheered up any attempts to stomp on Kurds, making protests even more inconvenient.

Plus, it turns out shit was given after all, as Saddam, Chemical Ali, and a lot of their buddies were reminded about these events right before being sent to Allah.

The Halabja chemical weapons attack occured on March 16, 1988. This was about three years before Desert Storm, well before the invasion of Kuwait, and during the height of the Iran-Iraq war, and, I might add, at a time when the Soviet Union, though going downhill, was still a viable military threat to the US and NATO powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

At the time, the Kurds where also supportive of Iran, and the US wasn't too friendly with Iran at the time.

[Thunderfire]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Use a Google search with the following keyworks: obama red line syria chemical weapons

[Mr. Coffee]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Use a Google search with the following keyworks: obama red line syria chemical weapons

Which has nothing to do with why it is we suddenly care. We didn't give a fuck about it damn thirty years ago, so why the sudden change?

[Broken]

The fact we didn't give a fuck about the Kurds being gassed and the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war is one of the major reasons Iran is now pushing its nuclear program to the breakout point. They have seen how much international law and their enemies use of forbidden weapons protected them last time. If we want to keep the WMD genie as sealed as tightly as possible, world powers need to respond when that door cracks open. The fact Iraq's use was repeatedly ignored (didn't the US even veto a resolution in the UN condemning their use of chemical weapons?) for whatever political reasons makes that process all the harder.

[Flagg]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Use a Google search with the following keyworks: obama red line syria chemical weapons

Which has nothing to do with why it is we suddenly care. We didn't give a fuck about it damn thirty years ago, so why the sudden change?

Saddam was our ally at the time. And we cared enough to whine about it at the time without doing anything. Assad is not our ally and we want him gone, so using Chemweapons would be a decent excuse to start at least hitting some high value targets within Syria with airstrikes. REALPOLITIC!

[Rycon67]

Not to be an asshole, but we didn't actualy seem to give much of a shit when Saddam gassed 5000 or so Kurds, so why are we suddenly giving fucks about less than 100 Syrians?

Use a Google search with the following keyworks: obama red line syria chemical weapons

Which has nothing to do with why it is we suddenly care. We didn't give a fuck about it damn thirty years ago, so why the sudden change?

Probably because back in 1988 the Iraqi Kurds where seen as nominally allied to Iran, and at the time the US hated Iran a lot more than the US hated Iraq, and saw the weakening of the Kurdish position as a way of weakening the Iranian position during the Iran-Iraq War. Keep in mind also, in 1988 the Soviets where still a relevant force in the world, albeit on the decline at the time. The US couldn't make too big a deal of the situation then without potentially rocking the boat vis a vis the Soviets and anything they might do as a result. That and this was still a time when nuclear armaggedon with Soviet formations crashing over the West German border was a very really possibility still, what happened to a few thousand Kurds was peanuts compared to potential nuclear war.

Now, today, the US and NATO nations in Europe still have to deal with Russia, but not to the extent as in 1988, where if the US, Britain, and/or France want to take military action against Syria at some point, we don't have to worry too much about the possibility of such an intervention causing a Russian response and a potential larger war. If the US wanted to fire off a couple hundred Tomahawk missiles and send in a half dozen B-2 bombers, Russia might gripe at the UN for a few days and thats about it. 30 years ago such an action could have triggered a potential nuclear escalation.

There are also a lot of people who don't like the idea of Syria eventually turning into a Rwandan genocide version 2.0, and breaking out bio weapons and chemical weapons in great quantities against urban areas with little to no WMD protection is a good way to wrack up a very large body count in a very short amount of time, depending on what exactly is being deployed, and the means of delivery.