Gas Attack in Syria

[Pint0 Xtreme]

U.N. Report Confirms Rockets Loaded With Sarin in Aug. 21 Attack

Rockets armed with the banned chemical nerve agent sarin were used in a mass killing near Damascus on Aug. 21, United Nations chemical weapons inspectors reported Monday in the first official confirmation by nonpartisan scientific experts that such munitions had been deployed in the Syria conflict.

Although the widely awaited report did not ascribe blame for the attack, it concluded that “chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale.”

The inspectors, who visited the Damascus suburbs that suffered the attack and left the country with large amounts of evidence on Aug. 31, said that “In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used.”

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who ordered the report, received it on Sunday and presented it to the 15-member Security Council on Monday in a closed-door session. “The findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale,” Mr. Ban told reporters at the United Nations afterward. “This is a war crime.”

He made no comment about who was to blame for the attack, but immediately after he spoke, the British and American ambassadors to the United Nations said the evidence cited in the report — the type of arms, the rocket trajectories, the quality of the nerve agent — made clear that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had carried out the attack.

“This was no cottage-industry use of chemical weapons,” said Sir Mark Lyall, the British ambassador. The evidence "confirms, in our view, that there was no remaining doubt that it was the regime" that used the chemical weapons.

The American ambassador, Samantha Power, concurred, saying: “The technical details of the U.N. report make clear that only the regime could have carried out this large scale chemical of weapons attack.”

The 38-page report carried the conclusions of a team of inspectors headed by Ake Sellstrom, a Swedish chemical weapons expert, under the auspices of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a Hague-based institution that monitors compliance with a 1997 treaty outlawing such munitions.

The report said the facts supporting its conclusion included “impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets, capable to carry a chemical payload,” which “were found to contain sarin.” The facts also included sarin-contaminated areas at the sites, more than 50 interviews given by survivors and health care workers, clear signs of exposure in patients and survivors, and blood and urine samples by those patients and survivors that were “found positive for sarin and sarin signatures.”

The consistency of the symptoms included “shortness of breath, eye irritation, excessive salivation, convulsions, confusion/disorientation and miosis,” or constriction of the pupils. First responders also became ill, the report said, “with one describing the onset of blurred vision, generalized weakness, shaking, a sensation of impending doom, followed by fainting.”

The report also found that the weather conditions on the morning of Aug. 21 may have increased the number of victims because the temperatures had been falling. The use of chemical munitions in such conditions, the report said, “maximizes their potential impact as the heavy gas can stay close to the ground and penetrate into lower levels of buildings and constructions where many people were seeking shelter.”

Although the report confirmed what the United States, its allies and Human Rights Watch had already concluded about the nature of the attack, it was nonetheless regarded as important as the first purely scientific and politically neutral accounting of the facts about the weapons that were used.

The report did not specify the number of people killed in the attack. The United States, which has accused President Bashar al-Assad’s forces of responsibility, said more than 1,400 people were killed, including more than 400 children. That would be the worst single death toll in the 30-month-old conflict, in which more than 100,000 people have been killed.

Mr. Assad and Russia, his principal foreign ally, have said Syrian insurgents were responsible.

The release of the report came as a separate panel of investigators from the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva said they were investigating 14 episodes of suspected chemical weapons use in the conflict and would use the report to help identify those responsible for the Aug. 21 attack.

Panel members and diplomats acknowledge, however, that gaining entry to Syria is essential to complete the investigation. Syria this month invited one member of the panel, Carla del Ponte, to visit “in her personal capacity,” said another member, Paulo Pinheiro, but any visit could take place only as a member of the commission. The four-member panel, he said, had asked that he also be allowed to visit.

Mr. Pinheiro’s commission, which relies on testimony and interviews with Syrian refugees and defectors, has been accused by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria of an inherent antigovernment bias in its quarterly reporting of rights abuses in the 30-month conflict. Mr. Pinheiro has argued that the government should allow it to enter Syria for that very reason.

The panel has said that abuses have been committed by both sides in the conflict but that the government is responsible for most of them.

He noted in a prefae to the report that the Syrian government had officially consented on Saturday to join the global treaty that bans chemical weapons, which he called “a welcome development.”

Mr. Ban also took note of the agreement reached on Saturday between the United States and Russia on a framework for eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile and he urged Syria to “implement faithfully all of its disarmament obligations.”

[CaptHawkeye]

If Syria turns into another "WEEE BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE SAVAGES" campaign it'll fail. The simple answer is that any aid from the west needs to come in the form of true assistance to Syrians. Not forcefully imposed doctrines based on popular buzzwords and smug one liners. Solutions needs to be worked from the bottom-up, and a system of accountability needs to be in place to ensure that everyone is doing their job honestly. I'm just not sure how likely this is though given latent western racism and repulsive perceptions of foreign culture.

[Knife]

If Syria turns into another "WEEE BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE SAVAGES" campaign it'll fail. The simple answer is that any aid from the west needs to come in the form of true assistance to Syrians. Not forcefully imposed doctrines based on popular buzzwords and smug one liners. Solutions needs to be worked from the bottom-up, and a system of accountability needs to be in place to ensure that everyone is doing their job honestly. I'm just not sure how likely this is though given latent western racism and repulsive perceptions of foreign culture.

True assistance? Please explain.

[Patroklos]

Well its not the token delivery of chemical weapons defense gear Obama announced yesterday so he can pretend to be doing something. Forget that there is about a zero chance of it being used correctly, a small chance it is effective when it is, a smaller chance any of it would be in a location these small attacks (relative to possible places) might take place, and an even smaller chance the rebels will encounter chemical weapons again.

Hell, you could have just spent that money on a hundred pallets of lunchables and dropped them into a refugee camp and done infinitly more good. But its all about apperances with this lot, not effective action.

[CaptHawkeye]

True assistance? Please explain.

What Syrian's say they need, not what the west thinks they need.

[cosmicalstorm]

Yay lets help one side set the stage for a proper Rwandaing of the other. The former Syrian region will be lucky if this conflict ends with the expulsion of millions. And it seems pretty likely that it will be expulsion coupled with genocide.

[Knife]

True assistance? Please explain.

What Syrian's say they need, not what the west thinks they need.

Which is what?

[Maraxus]

More importantly, which Syrians are you referring to?

[CaptHawkeye]

The point i'm trying to get across is the western approach to relief aid and stabilization hasn't been working, and I more than suspect the reason it doesn't is because the west thinks it knows these countries better than they know themselves. Ultimately little can be done until the dust settles but somehow I doubt dropping JDAMs on anyone is going to help much.

More importantly, which Syrians are you referring to?

We won't know until the war's over, but i'm thinking...the poor?

Which is what?

Whatever people ask for. Establishing direct lines of communication to communities is a helpful example. That's just an idea though, because for all we know the Syrian and western definition of community and community leaders are not the same.

[Knife]

The point i'm trying to get across is the western approach to relief aid and stabilization hasn't been working, and I more than suspect the reason it doesn't is because the west thinks it knows these countries better than they know themselves. Ultimately little can be done until the dust settles but somehow I doubt dropping JDAMs on anyone is going to help much.

More importantly, which Syrians are you referring to?

We won't know until the war's over, but i'm thinking...the poor?

Which is what?

Whatever people ask for. Establishing direct lines of communication to communities is a helpful example. That's just an idea though, because for all we know the Syrian and western definition of community and community leaders are not the same.

So... you don't know exactly what it is they want, or who exactly is 'they'. So the whole line of thinking from you is vague and a gross generalization.

[CaptHawkeye]

What's vague about poverty relief? Would you prefer another detailed, step-by-step relief aid campaign from groups like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund? The elaborate planning and leviathan (as well as predatory) credit loans those groups dole out have been at best ineffective and often make bad situations worse. (Argentina)

[Maraxus]

It's vague because you manifestly have no idea whom you want to help, nor what you would do to help them. You don't have to write up a policy proposal that's ready for implementation, but it would help if you had the foggiest idea what you were talking about. From where I'm standing, the biggest problem in Syria isn't structural poverty or anti-Arab racism from the West. The biggest problem is that Syria has a political conflict that has rent the country into mutually exclusive factions, and one which defies political reconciliation. The mere fact that chemical weapons have been introduced into the conflict should tell you that this conflict will continue until one side is completely victorious or international efforts force a cease-fire. Considering how the last uprising against the Assad family went, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for reconciliation. Until the conflict stops, there's little anyone can do to alleviate poverty.

But more broadly, I think you just got caught with your pants down. I think you were trying to pad your postcount with, ironically, smug one liners. This talk about how "solutions need to be worked from the bottom up" and how there needs to be a "system of accountability" in place are utterly meaningless, as are your throwaway lines about "latent western racism" and "repulsive perceptions of foreign culture." You seem to forget that we're talking about a country that's in the midst of an incredibly brutal civil war, with large swaths of the country under the control of an utterly ruthless autocrat determined to hold onto power. How, pray tell, do we have any solutions to anything come from the bottom up in such a context? You couldn't even explain in any detail what "true assistance" means without throwing a dig against the "west" in there, and I find your "uh...the poor! Yeah them!" answer decidedly lame.

It's all well and good to hate on American foreign policy, but I don't think it's too much to ask that you know what you're talking about before you start shitposting. I don't know very much about the conflict in Syria, but I don't pretend to either. I don't post on this forum very often unless I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should do the same.

[Broomstick]

If someone were to ask me what the west should do about the situation in Syria, if I had to answer, I'd suggest helping the countries now inundated with refugees to feed, shelter, clothe, provide medical and options for emigrating elsewhere should they choose to do so. I don't see how anyone outside Syria can really do anything about their civil war, but perhaps we can do something for those who are clearly opting out of the conflict.

I would hate to see those people stagnate in tents for years as has happened elsewhere in refugee camps.

[Knife]

What's vague about poverty relief? Would you prefer another detailed, step-by-step relief aid campaign from groups like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund? The elaborate planning and leviathan (as well as predatory) credit loans those groups dole out have been at best ineffective and often make bad situations worse. (Argentina)

Maraxeus pretty much summed up my thoughts on this. Being a snarky ass tossing out veiled insults to the 'west' isn't going to help out these people and it's a lame shield against being called on it.

[Patroklos]

I don't see how anyone outside Syria can really do anything about their civil war, but perhaps we can do something for those who are clearly opting out of the conflict.

We could certainly send one side over the top with relative ease, and that would be good. But since we seem to believe all civil wars have to end with singing in locked hands in a circle and signal the end of all strife whatsoever we would prefer to let the civil war rage on...and then end up with said strife afterward anyway.

If you don't want to intervene fine but be honest with yourself (a general comment, not directed at Broomstick) that you are not doing it out of any humanitarian feeling. There is little if anything that could result worse that what is currently happening in that regard.

[Broomstick]

If there was one faction in the civil war that is would be in the best interests of my nation to support I might be willing to consider intervening on their behalf but I don't see where any of these people are or will ever our friends. In which case let someone else get involved this time. I don't see where any involvement by the US in the mess would be good for anyone.

[Patroklos]

One is going to win, and one is a worse choice than the other even if both are bad. In this case the last two years the better choice is getting worse and worse the longer the war drags on. Is allowing that in our best interests? To simply wait until the result is as catastrophic as possible and the choice made for us?

[Broomstick]

Sometimes you just can't fix something.

This war, aside from whatever strong man his cabal that rise to the to, will, in the end, be in no one's interest. Yes, I understand the urge to put a band-aid on the boo-boo but it just won't work in this case. Foreign intervention isn't going to resolve this in a week or whatever. Most likely, it will prompt an alliance between various factions against the "invasion", after which they'll simply fall on each other again. If intervention can't help then it shouldn't be done.

At this point, the only good I see is helping the refugees, the people who've decided to leave rather than fight, and the nations now having to deal with a sudden influx of population.

[Irbis]

If there was one faction in the civil war that is would be in the best interests of my nation to support I might be willing to consider intervening on their behalf but I don't see where any of these people are or will ever our friends. In which case let someone else get involved this time. I don't see where any involvement by the US in the mess would be good for anyone.

How about the secular groups? So that the popular uprising doesn't become hijacked by Wahhabi scum funded by Taliban-level fanatics who do send money and volunteers?

And to everyone who opposes the intervention, let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe man who is willing to kill hundred thousand people and displace millions to keep power is qualified to rule? Why should he be allowed to stay in power? Because he stays within arbitrary lines drawn by English/French idiots disregarding reality of a region on a map with ruler a century ago?

It's easy to ignore struggle of people under dictatorship when you sit in comfy chair in country that doesn't need to fight for that. I wonder, any of you read a poem by certain Niemöller? He questioned what right to liberty or democracy one has when one sits idly and let others suffer from their absence because "I have mine, leave me alone". The answer was, and still is: none.

Anyway, feel free to still criticize Syrian people for disturbing your comfy state of apathy with their struggle, instead of just giving up, just spare others the embarrassment of pure hypocrisy dripping from statements like "how dare they become radicalised when only fundamentalists help them! Inconceivable! The nerve!".

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

If there was one faction in the civil war that is would be in the best interests of my nation to support I might be willing to consider intervening on their behalf but I don't see where any of these people are or will ever our friends. In which case let someone else get involved this time. I don't see where any involvement by the US in the mess would be good for anyone.

How about the secular groups? So that the popular uprising doesn't become hijacked by Wahhabi scum funded by Taliban-level fanatics who do send money and volunteers?

And to everyone who opposes the intervention, let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe man who is willing to kill hundred thousand people and displace millions to keep power is qualified to rule? Why should he be allowed to stay in power? Because he stays within arbitrary lines drawn by English/French idiots disregarding reality of a region on a map with ruler a century ago?

It's easy to ignore struggle of people under dictatorship when you sit in comfy chair in country that doesn't need to fight for that. I wonder, any of you read a poem by certain Niemöller? He questioned what right to liberty or democracy one has when one sits idly and let others suffer from their absence because "I have mine, leave me alone". The answer was, and still is: none.

Anyway, feel free to still criticize Syrian people for disturbing your comfy state of apathy with their struggle, instead of just giving up, just spare others the embarrassment of pure hypocrisy dripping from statements like "how dare they become radicalised when only fundamentalists help them! Inconceivable! The nerve!".

Let me answer your question with a question: Do you think the U.S. is qualified to choose who replaces Assad? Because that's what we'll be doing if we intervene.

At this point in time, given that the rebels have already been radicalized, which side do we bomb into the ground? Two years ago, we might have been able to do something useful, maybe, but I doubt it, we didn't have any more credibility in the region then than we do now.

Speaking of hypocrisy, aren't you one of the people who constantly criticizes the U.S. for interfering with other nations and playing world cop? Now you see something ugly and want the world cop U.S. to step in and interfere?

We should do something to help with the refugees, yes. Wading into yet another Middle Eastern quagmire with unclear goals and dubious allies? Fuck all that noise, been there, done that, got the bombed out rubble.

[Broomstick]

How about the secular groups? So that the popular uprising doesn't become hijacked by Wahhabi scum funded by Taliban-level fanatics who do send money and volunteers?

I am not aware of any secular groups involved in the fighting. If you are please do enlighten me with the details.

And to everyone who opposes the intervention, let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe man who is willing to kill hundred thousand people and displace millions to keep power is qualified to rule? Why should he be allowed to stay in power?

No, I don't believe a man who is willing to commit mass murder of civilians with outlaw weapons is fit to rule. I also don't think my nation is fit to determine who should replace him. I am not opposed to him leaving power, either alive or dead, but I don't think one nation should be judge, jury and executioner of Assad. Either the UN needs to get off their collective asses and make some decisions to intervene or no one should because the outcome of unilateral action is typically no better and at times even worse than leaving a dictator in place. Or are you willing to argue the current mess in Iraq and all their dead is an improvement over a contained Saddam?

I don't see a mechanism for outsiders to remove Assad that will result in a good outcome. Again, if you are aware of some such please share the details with us.

It's easy to ignore struggle of people under dictatorship when you sit in comfy chair in country that doesn't need to fight for that. I wonder, any of you read a poem by certain Niemöller? He questioned what right to liberty or democracy one has when one sits idly and let others suffer from their absence because "I have mine, leave me alone". The answer was, and still is: none.

Considering that the European branch of my family was exterminated less than a century ago, that's a highly condescending statement on your part.

Absolutely we should fight injustice, but indiscriminate bombing doesn't do that.

Tell me, are YOU willing to go to Syria to fight and die? Are you willing to spill YOUR blood, that of YOUR family, YOUR friends, YOUR neighbors to right this injustice? Because if you aren't, if this is yet another case of someone asking someone else to do the dirty work, shut the fuck up.

Anyway, feel free to still criticize Syrian people for disturbing your comfy state of apathy with their struggle, instead of just giving up, just spare others the embarrassment of pure hypocrisy dripping from statements like "how dare they become radicalised when only fundamentalists help them! Inconceivable! The nerve!".

While I am horrified at the death and destruction in Syria I am not perturbed that some of the factions are radical fundamentalist Muslims. In fact, I'd be very surprised if that contingent wasn't involved, given the region of the world we're talking about.

Again, I'm not "giving up", but I am refraining from promoting actions that are unlikely to do any good, and may well cause further harm. Let the Syrians settle their own civil war. If you think one or more factions should be assisted name those factions and your reasons for supporting them. Help the refugees and the nations hosting them. Encourage other nations to allow immigration of those same refugees so the burden is more evenly spread.

[Rogue 9]

How about the secular groups? So that the popular uprising doesn't become hijacked by Wahhabi scum funded by Taliban-level fanatics who do send money and volunteers?

I am not aware of any secular groups involved in the fighting. If you are please do enlighten me with the details.

The Free Syrian Army, commanded by defected General Salim Idris, is the primary group of secular rebels, composed mainly of defected Syrian military personnel. They aligned with the original demonstrators at the outset of the civil war and at least claim that their only goal is the removal of Assad from power, that they have Alawis who oppose the regime in their ranks, and that they will conduct no reprisals in the event of victory. Whether they're truthful remains to be seen, but at least they talk the talk.

[Broomstick]

Thank you, that is interesting. I may be doing some research on them this weekend.

[K. A. Pital]

The FSA isn't exactly a secular force in the true sense of the word (although god knows who is in the ME)... Most of their commanders are islamists (Muslim Brotherhood). Not the most batshit islamists, granted, but they are not secular.

Problem is, Al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham are vastly more successful, have more manpower etc. The Islamists are the real boots on the ground. There is no way (short of another civil war in the middle of a civil war or after it) to avoid them getting power in the aftermath either the creepy way (Muslim Brotherhood) or the Salafist crazy way (Syrian Islamic Front). Either way the republic with female and minority rights probably said good bye on the day first shells were fired.