Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[Suu]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/23/syria-chemcial-weapons-israel/2105609/

TEL AVIV -- The Syrian government has used chemical weapons on rebels, Israel's top military intelligence official said at a security conference on Tuesday.

Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the head of research and analysis in Israeli military intelligence, said that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons multiple times.

"Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used," he said.

He said sarin, a lethal nerve agent, was probably used. He also said the Syrian regime was using less lethal chemical weapons, and that Russia has continued to arm the Syrian military with weapons such as advanced SA-17 air defense missiles.

His assessment echoes similar findings from British and French officials.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said here Monday that chemical weapon use would cross a "red line" and that the Pentagon had contingency plans to deal with it.

[Junkenstein]

Just posted the BBC Spin on events.

I threw up a link yesterday about the EU now being willing to buy oil from the rebels "to ease the suffering of the people"

This comes out the next day. No connection.

[Suu]

I feel like they're trying to bait the US into caving.

[Cain]

Syrian rebels have also used chemical weapons.

But then, Israel's not exactly making a deal out of this because of their abhorrence of chemical warfare and war crimes, are they?

[Suu]

Syrian rebels have also used chemical weapons.

But then, Israel's not exactly making a deal out of this because of their abhorrence of chemical warfare and war crimes, are they?

Why would they do a thing like that?

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22297569

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has said American intelligence believes "to some degree of varying confidence" that Syria has used chemical weapons.

During a visit to the United Arab Emirates, he said it was suspected that sarin gas had been used against rebels.

Mr Hagel said the use was "small scale" and did not specify where or when.

The White House has warned chemical weapons use would be a "red line" for possible intervention, but says this intelligence does not represent proof.

Speaking to reporters in Abu Dhabi on Thursday, Mr Hagel said "our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin".

In a letter on Thursday to lawmakers, Miguel Rodriguez, White House director of the office of legislative affairs, said: "Given the stakes involved, and what we have learned from our own recent experiences, intelligence assessments alone are not sufficient - only credible and corroborated facts that provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making."

The letter was sent to powerful US senators John McCain and Carl Levin.

In response, Senator McCain told reporters: "It's pretty obvious that red line has been crossed."

He recommended arming the opposition, a step the White House has been reluctant to take. He also urged taking steps to ensure that Syria's chemical weapons did not fall into the wrong hands.

"It does not mean boots on the ground," the Arizona senator added.

Point the first - The link. Business news. War is now officially seen as brewing business by the BBC. An oddly open turn of events. Or I may not have noticed before. From a major arms supplier point of view I suppose it is.

Point the second, this "line has been clearly crossed" by using actual WMD's not cooking appliances, apparently. And he's acting hesitantly why? Not to be seen as warmongering? Could it be the US is not keen to expose troops to curtail actual WMD use? What kind of message would you take from this if you were, say, a rogue dictator looking to not be invaded?

Cain, on a scale of FUCKED, how bad is this going to be?

[deadfong]

From what I understand, Obama is hesitant because there are several unanswered questions about the evidence, including things like the exact provenance, the circumstances of the alleged attack, and so forth.  The last time we acted precipitously on intelligence about WMDs didn't end up going so well.

I don't doubt, also, that Obama would rather not get involved in another Mid-East altercation, though I've always assumed that our response to Syria crossing the line would consist of arming the rebels and/or bombing Syrian chemical weapon supplies.  But if it turns out the evidence is solid, Obama will have to act, in order to deter other states from developing and deploying chemical weapons, regardless of whether he himself wants to or not.

[Cain]

Syria's not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Amusingly, neither is Israel.

The idea that chemical weapons represent a "red line" is an entirely abribtrary one, presented mostly by Neocons, whose alleigance to international law is entirely in line with how they can use those laws to promote interventions around the globe.

If anything, an intervention would make it more likely that Syrian chemical weapons would fall into the hands of transnational jihadist groups.  75,000 troops would be needed to secure those weapons alone...and quite frankly, I wouldn't be so sure that elements within the Pentagon or CIA wouldn't let a few cannisters go missing.

Besides, it's not even clear that chemical weapons have been used.  And if they have, it's just as likely the rebels deployed them as the government.  More likely, in fact, if people are running around screaming about "red lines."  I'm sure the rebels would love the US to do the heavy lifting for them.

[von]

I don't know if this is relevant in any way, but this is supposedly a leaked email from a defense contractor called "Britam" concerning deploying chemical weapons in the guise of russians...seems fanciful, but I see no harm in passing it around. It's been in the rumour mill for about 3 months now...

[Cain]

Doubtful.  Bitram sued the Daily Mail group, which settled out of court, for presenting such claims as true.

Furthermore, if anyone would be looking to send CW to Homs it would be Saudi Arabia.  Qatar is angling for a brokered deal to end the insurrection, allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take power.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, wants to see a smoking crater where Damascus now stands.

[von]

Doubtful.  Bitram sued the Daily Mail group, which settled out of court, for presenting such claims as true.

Furthermore, if anyone would be looking to send CW to Homs it would be Saudi Arabia.  Qatar is angling for a brokered deal to end the insurrection, allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take power.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, wants to see a smoking crater where Damascus now stands.

I figured it was "less than true"...never saw it posted here so I figured it be a fun wrench to throw...


unrelated, but goddamn cain, your knowledge of international politics, war and why it is fought, and terrorism is something I envy...you seem like the type to be able to produce a "how does WWIII start" conversation that leaves everyone's mouths gaping....

[Cain]

I studied at a fairly prestigious place for the topic.  It's what my MA was in, and hopefully my PhD, should I ever decide to do one.

I also have friends in lots of places, and a whole bunch of feeds where I know I can get reliable, incisive information from.  And spare time.  And an e-library to rival the Library of Congress.  But mostly spare time.

[von]

Well, then simply to move things along:

I'm unfamiliar with the politics of the region; why would the saudis like to see syria's destruction?

[Cain]

Syria is the cat's paw of Iran.  The road to Tehran lies through Damascus.

Taking out Syria would remove a regional ally of the Iranians, it would undermine the position of Hezbollah in Lebanon (contrary to popular belief, Hezbollah are not an extension of the Iranian national will, but they are in an alliance with the Iranian state), improve the security of Israel, put the eastern mediterranean in a more pro-US context (and there are a lot of mineral resources in that region) and would provide a friendly government in control of the Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, they've managed to destroy the minaret of the Great Mosque of Aleppo, which was built in 1090 CE.

Well done, lads.

Ever have one of those days, where everything goes wrong?
\