djones520 wrote:
Here you go Whembly.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm

 djones520 wrote:
Here you go Whembly.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm

Syria is significantly dependent upon outside assistance for all of its WMD programs. There have been reports over the life of the Syria program that Syria has obtained significant assistance from various states, significantly Russia and France.

Russian General Anatoly Kuntsevich was suspected of smuggling VX precursors to nerve gas for research purposes. The materials shipped to Syria were intended for the production of the Soviet/Russian version of the VX nerve agent - code-named Substance 33 or V-gas. Such a deal might have been made in the early '90s or late '80s during a visit to Syria by the then-commander of the Russian Chemical Corps, General Pikalov.

French support came in the form of pharmaceutical imports. In the early eighties, French companies provided an significant portion of pharmaceuticals imported by Syria. By the middle of the decade France provided nearly 1 quarter of pharmaceuticals coming into Syria. Certainly some of the imports were legitimate, but many were "dual use" items that could be directed to clandestine programs. In 1992 following French acceptance of the Australia Group, all exports became to be monitored for chemicals and equipment that could be directed to chemical and biological weapons programs.

 Jihadin wrote:
Is there a time line on when the chemical attack occur and when Assad forces moved in to occupy the area? From what I read it seems Assad forces moved in right after a "chemical" attack. I do not think Assad forces have full MOPP gear but maybe pro masks.

This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.

Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.

“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.

Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.

“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”

President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.

“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

WH making a case for war?

White House: Poison gas attack in Syria would threaten US national security

This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.

Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.

“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.

Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.

“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”

President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.

“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.

 Forar wrote:
After the last couple of decades, I could see it being very difficult to weigh an ongoing humanitarian nightmare and 'guys, we seriously do NOT have a quota of wars, police actions or other conflicts to be participating in'.

 whembly wrote:
WH making a case for war?

Spoiler:

White House: Poison gas attack in Syria would threaten US national security

This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.

Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.

“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.

Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.

“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”

President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.

“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
WH making a case for war?

Spoiler:

White House: Poison gas attack in Syria would threaten US national security

This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.

Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.

“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.

Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.

“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”

President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.

“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.

I really, really hate it when a headline is deliberately constructed to be provocative despite the existence of direct quote which would draw just as much attention. In this case the headline should have read: "White House: Poison gas attack in Syria has "significant implications" for US national security"

On topic, that doesn't sound much like a case for war. It is basically just the reiteration of the Administration's current position.

 whembly wrote:

I should've clarified...

It seems like they're "tipping their toes" in that direction... especially the "administration is weighing retaliatory options" line.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The evidence points to the rebels doing the attack on civilians.

The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.

The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.

Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.

This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:

a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.

b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.

c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.

d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.

e. Mouths are open and stay that way.

Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.

Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..


This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.

If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?

It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.

 VermGho5t wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The evidence points to the rebels doing the attack on civilians.

The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.

The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.

Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.

This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:

a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.

b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.

c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.

d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.

e. Mouths are open and stay that way.

Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.

Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..


This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.

If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?

It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.

Citations for all these claims that are being made in the quote? I think it is hard to definitively tell without verification by some manner of technical body.

 Orlanth wrote:

Which makes the most sense.

A
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.

B
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.

 whembly wrote:
Red-redline?

 Frankenberry wrote:
Apparently France, of all countries is demanding 'force' be used in response to the chemical attack. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23795088

Honestly I don't get the outcry for some other country to handle this whole nasty business. That whole section of the planet has been filled with hate and destruction for how long now? The only signs of change in that area has been increased violence and now, something as nasty as chemical warfare.

I say the civilized world stays out of this.

 whembly wrote:
Have at it France... we're not stopping ya.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The evidence points to the rebels doing the attack on civilians.

The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.

The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.

Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.

This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:

a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.

b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.

c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.

d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.

e. Mouths are open and stay that way.

Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.

Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..


This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.

If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?

It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?

The rebels could be desperate enough to gas their own people in order to force the US to send in the marines.

 Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?

Gung ho in the way little brothers with badass older brothers are, yeah.

The rebels could be desperate enough to gas their own people in order to force the US to send in the marines.

Allah help them if that really was their calculus, as it depends on having someone with a spine in the Oval.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The evidence points to the rebels doing the attack on civilians.

The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.

The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.

Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.

This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:

a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.

b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.

c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.

d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.

e. Mouths are open and stay that way.

Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.

Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..


This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.

If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?

It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.

Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms.

 xole wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Which makes the most sense.

A
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.

B
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.

The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Will western nations now have to rip up their play books on support and intervention given that democracy in the middle east and beyond is so muddled an enterprise.

Syria appears to be split between a bad ruling faction and bad rebels. Both sides alleged to have used Gas and have committed atrocities in the name of peace and security.

Egypt is at its core a state where the military has the last word, democracy or not. Democracy means banning a former ruling party.

Iran is doing nothing but supporting its brothers in arms in freedom.

Israel does what it wants because western hand wringing leaves them to their own devices.

Saudi Arabia spends upteen billions on supporting a sect of Islam that makes others seem positively enlightened.

Syrian troops find chemical agents in tunnels used by rebels: state TV
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian state television said soldiers found chemical materials on Saturday in tunnels that had been used by rebels, rejecting blame for a nerve gas attack that killed hundreds this week and heightened Western calls for foreign intervention.

The United States said it was realigning naval forces in the Mediterranean to give President Barack Obama the option for an armed strike on Syria and a senior U.N. official arrived in Damascus to seek access for inspectors to the gas attack site.

Syrian opposition accounts that between 500 and well over 1,000 civilians were killed by gas in munitions fired by pro-government forces, and video footage of victims' bodies, have stoked demands abroad for a robust, U.S.-led response after 2-1/2 years of international inaction on Syria's conflict.

In an attempt to strengthen the government's denials of responsibility for the chemical assault in Damascus's embattled suburbs, Syrian TV said soldiers came across chemical agents in rebel tunnels during an advance into the Jobar district.

"Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents," it quoted a "news source" as saying. "In some cases, soldiers are suffocating while entering Jobar. Ambulances came to rescue the people suffocating."

Soldiers discovered a cache of gas masks and imported pills used to ward off exposure to chemical attacks, it said, promising to air footage of "material and drums" later. The report could not be independently confirmed.

State television further accused the rebels of using poison gas "as a last resort after (government forces) achieved big gains during the last few days in Jobar".

Syrian opposition activists say President Bashar al-Assad's forces fired nerve gas projectiles into Jobar and other rebellious suburbs before dawn on Wednesday. Later in the week, activists crossed front lines around Damascus to smuggle out tissue samples from victims of the attack.

The Syrian government and the rebels blamed one another for several previous reported cases of poison gas attacks, both denying responsibility. No independent verification of details has been possible due to a lack of access to battle zones.

Damascus has said it would never deploy chemical weapons against its own citizens, and has suggested rebels may have carried out the latest attack themselves to provoke foreign intervention.

Obama has long been hesitant to intervene in Syria, wary of its position straddling fault lines of wider sectarian conflict in the Middle East, and he reiterated such reluctance on Friday.

INTELLIGENCE EVIDENCE

But, in a development that could raise pressure on Obama to act, American and European security sources said U.S. and allied intelligence agencies had made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by pro-Assad forces this week.

Major world powers - including Russia, Assad's main ally which has long blocked U.N.-sponsored intervention against him - have urged the Syrian leader to cooperate with a U.N. inspection team that arrived on Sunday to pursue earlier allegations of chemical weapons assaults in the civil war.

U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane arrived to Damascus on Saturday to press for a Syrian government green light for inspectors to examine areas of Damascus suburbs said to have been targeted on Wednesday.

Assad's government has not said whether it will grant such access despite increasing pressure from the United Nations, Western and Gulf Arab countries and Russia. If confirmed, it would be the world's deadliest chemical attack in decades.

"The solution is obvious. There is a United Nations team on the ground, just a few kilometers away. It must very quickly be allowed to go to the site to carry out the necessary tests without hindrance," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday during a visit to the Palestinian territories.

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle of Germany said it expected Russia to "raise the pressure on Damascus so that the inspectors can independently investigate".

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Assad's most powerful Middle East ally, acknowledged on Saturday for the first time chemical weapons had killed people in Syria and called for the international community to prevent their use.

Washington said on Friday it was repositioning warships in the Mediterranean, although officials cautioned that Obama had made no decision on any military move. A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the navy would expand its presence there to four destroyers from three.

U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS

Among the military options under consideration are targeted missile strikes on Syrian units believed responsible for chemical attacks or on Assad's air force and ballistic missile sites, U.S. officials said. Such strikes could be launched from U.S. ships or combat aircraft capable of firing missiles from outside Syrian airspace, thereby avoiding Syrian air defenses.

But the defense official stressed the Navy had received no orders to prepare for any military operations regarding Syria.

Obama called the apparent chemical attack a "big event of grave concern" and one that demanded U.S. attention, but said he was in no rush to get war-weary Americans "mired" in another Middle East conflict.

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it," he said on Friday. "The notion that the U.S. can somehow solve what is a sectarian complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated."

Obama's caution contrasted with calls for action from NATO allies, including France, Britain and Turkey, where leaders saw little doubt Assad's forces were behind the chemical attack.

While the West accused Assad of a cover-up by preventing the U.N. team from heading out to Damascus suburbs, Russia said the rebels were impeding an inquiry and that Assad would have no interest in using poison gas for fear of foreign intervention.

Igor Morozov, another senior pro-Kremlin lawmaker, told Interfax news agency: "Assad does not look suicidal. He well understands that in this (chemical attack) case, allies would turn away from him and ...opponents would rise. All moral constraints would be discarded regarding outside interference."

Alexei Pushkov, pro-Kremlin chairman of the international affairs committee in Russia's lower house of parliament, said: "In London they are ‘convinced' that Assad used chemical weapons, and earlier they were ‘convinced' that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's the same old story."

Russia said last month that its analysis indicated a deadly projectile that hit a suburb of the Syrian city of Aleppo on March 19 contained the nerve agent sarin and was most likely fired by rebels.

More than two years into a civil war that has divided the Middle East along sectarian lines, the contrasting lines taken by Western governments and Russia on this week's chemical attack highlighted once again the international deadlock that has foiled effective outside efforts to stop the bloodshed

All indications Syria behind chemical attack: France
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday that all indications show that Syria's government was behind a "chemical massacre" near Damascus that the opposition claims killed hundreds.

"All the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the Bashar regime is responsible," Fabius said on a visit to Ramallah in the West Bank.

Opponents of Bashar al-Assad said the president's forces killed 1,300 people when they unleased chemical weapons east and southwest of Damascus in the attacks on Wednesday.

UN Under Secretary General Angela Kane arrived in the Syrian capital on Saturday for talks aimed at establishing the terms of an enquiry into the alleged attacks, an AFP journalist said.

"We ask that the UN team that is there can be deployed very quickly and make the necessary inspections," Fabius said.

"The information which we have shows that this chemical massacre is of such gravity that it obviously cannot pass without a strong reaction," he added.

The Syrian government has strongly denied accusations it carried out the attacks, but so far it has not said whether it will let UN inspectors visit the sites.

Fabius arrived early Saturday on a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories aimed at encouraging recently resumed peace talks, his office said.

He met Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas and prime minister Rami Hamdallah at their headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Saturday.

In Israel on Sunday, he will meet with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Israel's negotiator in the talks.

"This visit will be an opportunity for the minister to encourage these Palestinian and Israeli negotiators to continue direct negotiations in favour of peace," French foreign ministry deputy spokesman Vincent Floreani said.

The French side would also express "determination to support these efforts," he added.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators formally resumed direct peace talks earlier this month after a hiatus of nearly three years, thanks to an intense bout of shuttle diplomacy by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Palestinians said Friday they have "serious doubts" about Israel's commitment to the peace talks, but they remain committed to taking part in the negotiations.

"We do not have high expectations of the negotiations so far because we know in advance the official position of the Israeli government," foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said on visit to Quito, Ecuador.

 xole wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Which makes the most sense.

A
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.

B
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.

The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Seeing as Syria was created by Britain and France in the first place, you could argue that there is a 'historical' debt to sort out the place. I've said this before, but when it comes to empire building, the Americans are amateurs compared to Britain. Unfortunately, some of the world's problems are as a result of people standing around a room in London drawing lines on a map. It's not always America's fault!

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?

They won't. The US's waffling on everything has the worlds response in a tizzy. We threw in with Libya, but then ignored Syria. We cheered when a pro-US administration was overthrown in Egypt, and then condemned Egypt when they tossed out the totalitarian regime that all but endorsed attacking religious minorities among other things. Our policy in the middle east over the last few years has been insane, and the UN won't take action as long as it's largest member continues to act insane.

 Orlanth wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Which makes the most sense.

A
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.

B
Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.

The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).

You misread this.

t makes little sense for Assad to drop gas, the solitary exception is if an enclosed rebel position is discovered, like a cave hideout, it makes perfect sense for rebels to drop gas on kids and blame Assad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Seeing as Syria was created by Britain and France in the first place, you could argue that there is a 'historical' debt to sort out the place. I've said this before, but when it comes to empire building, the Americans are amateurs compared to Britain. Unfortunately, some of the world's problems are as a result of people standing around a room in London drawing lines on a map. It's not always America's fault!

Its not necessarily the UK's fault either.

There was a plan to partition the Ottoman empire on tribal grounds, this was backed by a number of Brtiish civil servants and fronted by T.E. Lawrence. The French insisted things were done differently, with arbitrary borders, so the Sykes Picot agreement was signed instead.

Most of the border feth ups caused by the British were in Africa, and again in conjunction with other European powers.