Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[Cain]

-

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Thanks.

What a clusterfuck. */obvious*

[Junkenstein]

So the US now apparently has evidence. At least, it says it has evidence. As usual the idea of "showing" people this evidence is not forthcoming.

This bodes well.

[Junkenstein]

Also, remember Chemical weapons are bad, terrible things never to be used.

Err
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre

The film's primary themes are:
Establishing a case for war crimes against civilians committed by the United States.
Documenting evidence for the use of chemical devices by the US military.
Documenting other human rights abuses by American forces and their Iraqi counterparts.

Remember, just because you've converted a chemical to a weapon, this does not mean you are using chemical weapons. Somehow.

I mention this mainly as it will get forgotten in the drive to war. "Don't do as we do, do as we say".

[P3nT4gR4m]

So the US now apparently has evidence. At least, it says it has evidence. As usual the idea of "showing" people this evidence is not forthcoming.

This bodes well.

Newspeak dictionary: Evidence (noun) - "Cos we feel like it. Go fuck yourself!"

[Junkenstein]

I'm unsure of the source and reporting, but this seems to be a legit story slowly making the rounds. Not in western media of course, but still.

http://intellihub.com/2013/08/29/syrian-rebels-caught-sneaking-sarin-gas-across-border-may/

he evidence continues to mount proving that the Syrian rebels are in fact the ones who are using chemical weapons.

At this point there are various pieces of evidence indicating that the Syrian rebels are responsible for the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and not one piece of evidence linking the regime of Assad to the attacks.

While it is true that both sides of this conflict are brutal murderers, to accuse the regime in power of these crimes could be used to justify a full scale invasion of the country, making the predicament that much worse for the people who live there.

One piece of evidence yet to be discussed in the mainstream media is the fact that Syrian rebels were caught sneaking chemical weapons into the country this past may.

RT reported that "Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb."[1]

The report goes on to suggest that the bomb was intended to be set off in Turkey, but that wouldn't make any sense looking at the context of the past few months.  It is obvious that they were staying near the border inside of Turkey, just about to make their way to the other side of the border with Syria.

So this starts to look even sketchier.

Western media seems to be pushing for war (Despite the populations generally being against, at least according to polls) the main argument seems to be about who to attack. Claims that attacking Assad will "Strengthen Al-Qaeda" are probably correct. Someone else attacking your enemy usually does help you. No real consideration is given to the idea of helping Assad now, He used chemical weapons and must be badwrong guilty.

Let's adopt the stance of pro-war media for a moment. Sarin has been used. Sarin is bad and evil. Let's find out some more about Sarin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Sarin, or GB, is an organophosphorus compound with the formula [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F. It is a colorless, odorless liquid,[4] used as a chemical weapon owing to its extreme potency as a nerve agent. It has been classified as a weapon of mass destruction in UN Resolution 687. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 where it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance.
Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal within one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose, due to suffocation from lung muscle spasms, unless some antidotes, typically atropine or Biperiden and pralidoxime, are quickly administered to a person.[4] People who absorb a non-lethal dose, but do not receive immediate medical treatment, may suffer permanent neurological damage.

Sounds bad. So who are the evil fucks who have used it to date?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Use_as_a_weapon

1950s (early): NATO adopted sarin as a standard chemical weapon, and both the USSR and the United States produced sarin for military purposes.
1953: 20-year-old Ronald Maddison, a Royal Air Force engineer from Consett, County Durham, died in human testing of sarin at the Porton Down chemical warfare testing facility in Wiltshire, England. Ten days after his death an inquest was held in secret which returned a verdict of "misadventure". In 2004, the inquest was reopened and, after a 64-day inquest hearing, the jury ruled that Maddison had been unlawfully killed by the "application of a nerve agent in a non-therapeutic experiment."[23]
1956: Regular production of sarin ceased in the United States, though existing stocks of bulk sarin were re-distilled until 1970.
March 1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died.[24]
April 1988: Sarin was used four times against Iranian soldiers in April 1988 at the end of the Iran–Iraq War, helping Iraqi forces to retake control of the al-Faw Peninsula during the Second Battle of al-Faw. Using satellite imagery, the United States assisted Iraqi forces in locating the position of the Iranian troops during those attacks.[25]
1993: The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by 162 member countries, banning the production and stockpiling of many chemical weapons, including sarin. It went into effect on 29 April 1997, and called for the complete destruction of all specified stockpiles of chemical weapons by April 2007.[26]
1994: The Japanese religious sect Aum Shinrikyo released an impure form of sarin in Matsumoto, Nagano, killing eight people and harming over 200. (see Matsumoto incident)
1995: Aum Shinrikyo sect released an impure form of sarin in the Tokyo Metro. Thirteen people died. (see Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway)
1998: In the US, Time Magazine and CNN ran unconfirmed news stories alleging that in 1970 U.S. Air Force A-1E Skyraiders engaged in a covert operation called Operation Tailwind, in which they deliberately dropped sarin-containing weapons on U.S. troops who had defected in Laos. CNN and Time Magazine later retracted the stories and fired the producers responsible.[27] The producers, Oliver and Smith, were chastised but defended their position by putting together a 77-page document supporting their side of the story, with testimony from military personnel, which they claim confirms the use of sarin.
2004: Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155 mm shell containing binary precursors for sarin near a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spins during flight. The detonated shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded with age. Two United States soldiers were treated after displaying the early symptoms of exposure to sarin.[28]
21 August 2013: Suspected sarin deaths occurred on Wednesday, 21 August 2013, in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate of Syria during the Syrian civil war. Varying[29] sources gave a death toll of 322[30] to 1,729, and said that none of the victims had physical wounds.[31]

Let's round up and call that around 10,000 people. Since 1950. What this seems to confirm is that no one gives a shit unless it's a large event. Googling "Kills 10,000 annually" brings up a range of things from lightning to automotive accidents.

The other interesting thing here is willing to use it. The list seems restricted to:

A japanese cult
The UK's RAF
US Army
Insurgents

Something really fucking stinks here and I can't quite grasp it. I'm thinking it may have to do with Sarin already being in the public mind to a certain degree from the above incidents. It may also be that it's relatively unknown, sounds scary and seems like a good reason to go to war. You wouldn't trust a dictator with a jar of anthrax, would you? This is totally the same.

Also, that destruction by April 07, does anyone really believe that both the US and Russia have destroyed all stockpiles? I could easily imagine either of those arming their group of choice with it and sending them off to do God's Work.

Rambling now, but I bet that you'll learn a lot more about Sarin this week, especially how super evil it is. Just remember when someone tells you how bad something is, the fact they don't mention their involvement says a lot.  So yes, meet the new weapon, just like the old weapon.
2003 - WMD's
2013 - CW's
2023 - TAKING BETS

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I also see Obama has generously allowed Congress to vote on military action in Syria.  How big of him.

Couldn't find the time for Libya though, hey? 

Looks to me like Obama has painted himself into a corner with all his tough "red line" talk and now he sort of has to do something, but he doesn't want to do it. Especially not with all the arms flailing around in Russia and China, and without the UK. So he's tossing it to Congress, banking on them being unable to agree on anything, or at least making it a public debate so, he can sneak out the back door while nobody's looking.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Also, what the hell kind of threat of military action takes this long to materialize? Especially when it's just a few punitive missile strikes. Bill Clinton did this shit in his sleep to distract people from Monica Lewinski. Dubya would be standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier dressed like an Air Force Ken doll by now. Assad has probably moved his entire operation six miles underground now, or at least he should have since the US has been unable to do much more than ponder incoherently and out loud like someone's sadly senile old grandpa trying to order Chicken McNuggets.

I really feel for Obama, but ever since his first inauguration he's struck me as a complete amateur at this politics stuff.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I really feel for Obama, but ever since his first inauguration he's struck me as a complete amateur at this politics stuff.

You're assuming that his motives have anything at all to do with Syria.

Think about it:  He can't be reelected.  He isn't going to get impeached over this.  So what's he hiding with this fucking circus?  Everyone's watching the magician's stage babe, and maybe the hand he's flourishing in the air.  What's the other hand doing?

[Junkenstein]

Think about it:  He can't be reelected.  He isn't going to get impeached over this.  So what's he hiding with this fucking circus?  Everyone's watching the magician's stage babe, and maybe the hand he's flourishing in the air.  What's the other hand doing?

The bold should be asked about any leader pushing for war. It seems to be the way in modern times to give people the Colosseum, streamed live to your home. The circus provided these days is much more bloody and soon to be in FULL GLORIOUS 3D. Offer monkeys blood or X and most tend to go for blood.

What's he hiding? What isn't he hiding? Start with Guantanamo and the rest of the election (and re-election) promises and you've got a bit of a list. Throw in any current affairs (Snowden/NSA for one, the Russia angle is probably not too popular) andit's almost impossible to determine. There's too many things to distract people from. A big bold "humanitarian intervention" is needed sooner or later. The home front isn't as important when there's troops to support. You're not one of those commies who hate our troops are you?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Think about it:  He can't be reelected.  He isn't going to get impeached over this.  So what's he hiding with this fucking circus?  Everyone's watching the magician's stage babe, and maybe the hand he's flourishing in the air.  What's the other hand doing?

The bold should be asked about any leader pushing for war. It seems to be the way in modern times to give people the Colosseum, streamed live to your home. The circus provided these days is much more bloody and soon to be in FULL GLORIOUS 3D. Offer monkeys blood or X and most tend to go for blood.

What's he hiding? What isn't he hiding? Start with Guantanamo and the rest of the election (and re-election) promises and you've got a bit of a list. Throw in any current affairs (Snowden/NSA for one, the Russia angle is probably not too popular) andit's almost impossible to determine. There's too many things to distract people from. A big bold "humanitarian intervention" is needed sooner or later. The home front isn't as important when there's troops to support. You're not one of those commies who hate our troops are you?

I'm just a bitter Socialist, but I still think you're giving Obama way too much credit. I don't see any trickery here, I see a guy who is uncomfortable with his place in history being kicked around between his advisers like a hacky sack, trying desperately to have a strong legacy but always being distracted and pulled down into all this menial "what's actually happening in the world" shit. He waits until the last minute to do anything about anything, and then approaches it like an afterthought. He's wishy-washy to a fault. "What happened in Egypt isn't technically a 'coup,' but we'll bomb Syria even when there's at least as much evidence that Assad isn't really behind the attacks as there is that he is," etc. He likes to make big speeches because he wants to be known as the intellectual progenitor of some new American quasi-socialism, but truth be told he's not really that good at it and doesn't really live up to all the comparisons between him and JFK or MLK.

He's a Constitutional Law professor who doesn't seem to understand what the 4th Amendment says (or the 2nd, for that matter). He waits until the polls tell him what to do, and then he goes on TV or on one of his "charm offensive" tours like a rock star, and acts like it was his idea all along. He's trying to capture a wave of popular momentum that just isn't there anymore. He alienates his liberal base by making their dreams the first thing he gives away in any negotiation (often before even being asked to do it), which only emboldens the conservative opposition to continue pushing him to backpedal and cave in, which he always does.

When it comes to the situation in Syria, he made a calculation that Assad would never use chemical weapons, and he felt safe trying to sound tough when he called it a red line. America has to seem like it has at least one shred of moral decency left, after all. But it wasn't a serious threat, it was "well, that would make us respond, but that'll never happen. I mean, nobody ever gases their own people, right?" And then it happened, and now he's probably making frantic phone calls to John Kerry, John, McCain, probably Hillary and a seance or two with the ghost of MacArthur, asking them "What do we do now, guise!?" He goes on TV trying to keep a straight face, while the rest of the Executive Branch falls over itself making official statements on TV talk shows and radio.

And he'll the whole thing drag on for what will probably be weeks or months, giving Assad all the time he needs to prepare and giving the Russians and the Chinese plenty of time to position themselves for maximum deterrence, rhetorically and militarily. In the end, what could have been done by now is still the top news story. Is it there to hide something? I would like to think so, I just can't imagine Obama being the mastermind of anything much more than really successful election campaigns.

[Junkenstein]

Vex, Thanks for that it's just occurred to me that I've not really looked at Obama in detail for a while. Almost certainly time for a re-assessment.

[Junkenstein]

France says the chemical attack near Damascus last month "could not have been ordered and carried out by anyone but the Syrian government".

A report presented to parliament by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault says the assault on 21 August involved the "massive use of chemical agents".

It concludes that at least 281 deaths can be attributed to the attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23928871

281 minimum seems a far cry from the initial reports of 1000 or more. Massive understatement or massive initial misinterpretation of initial intel? Or massive body moving operation?

Either way makes things look even shittier. This thread alone has been running since april with constant back and forth attacks. Death toll at 100,000 and likely higher and it takes at least 280 killed by chemicals to make people give a shit. You might as well just tell people straight that you don't care about the other 99,719 because they were killed by the right weapons.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He's a Constitutional Law professor who doesn't seem to understand what the 4th Amendment says (or the 2nd, for that matter).

Now you're giving him WAY TOO LITTLE credit.

Because the strongest possibility is that he DOES understand, but doesn't CARE.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

He's a Constitutional Law professor who doesn't seem to understand what the 4th Amendment says (or the 2nd, for that matter).

Now you're giving him WAY TOO LITTLE credit.

Because the strongest possibility is that he DOES understand, but doesn't CARE.

Say it isn't so!

You are right of course, but I still think the Obama Administration is 20% Obama trying to crystallize somekimd of old-school Lincolnesque legacy and 80% experts telling him what to do in the meantime.