Hundreds (allegedly) dead in Syrian chemical weapons attack

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201

The hellhole that is Syria keeps on delivering. On my phone, so can't post it here for the work-blocked ATM.

**whembly**

Red-redline?

**Dreadclaw69**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201

The hellhole that is Syria keeps on delivering. On my phone, so can't post it here for the work-blocked ATM.

Chemical weapons attacks have killed hundreds on the outskirts of Damascus, Syrian opposition activists say.

Rockets with toxic agents were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region early on Wednesday as part of a major bombardment on rebel forces, they say.

The Syrian army says the accusations have been fabricated to cover up rebel losses.

The main opposition alliance said that more than 1,000 people were killed by the attacks.

Activist networks also reported death tolls in the hundreds, but these could not be independently confirmed.

It is also not clear how many died in the bombardment of the sites and how many deaths were due to any exposure to toxic substances.

Video footage showed dozens of bodies with no visible signs of injuries, including small children, laid out on the floor of a clinic.

Ghazwan Bwidany, a doctor treating the injured, told the BBC the main symptom, especially among children, was suffocation, as well as salivating and blurred vision.

"We don't have the capability to treat all this number of people," he said.

"We're putting them in mosques, in schools. We are lacking medical supplies now, especially atropine, which is the antidote for chemical weapons."

In a statement, the army described the accusations of chemical weapons use as grave, and stressed the military's right to fight what it described as terrorism in Syria.

It accused the opposition of fabricating the accusations to divert attention from the huge losses its forces had suffered recently.

United Nations chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Syria on Sunday with a mandate to investigate three locations where chemical weapons were allegedly used, including the northern town of Khan al-Assal, where some 26 people were killed in March.

The US, UK and France have all called for the inspectors to examine this latest incident, and an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting is under way.

"The United States is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.

"We are formally requesting that the United Nations urgently investigate this new allegation. The UN investigative team, which is currently in Syria, is prepared to do so, and that is consistent with its purpose and mandate."

The alleged attack comes a year after US President Barack Obama warned the Syrian government that using chemical weapons would cross a "red line".

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said that if confirmed the attacks would mark a "shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria".

The Arab League and European Union have echoed the call for the inspectors to go to the site.

"The EU reiterates that any use of chemical weapons, by any side in Syria, would be totally unacceptable," said a spokesperson for EU foreign affairs head Catherine Ashton.

But the Russian foreign ministry noted that the reports had emerged just as the UN chemical weapons inspection team had arrived in Syria, saying that "this makes us think that we are once again dealing with a premeditated provocation".

'Convulsions'
The attack took place as part of a heavy government bombardment of the region surrounding Damascus, where government forces have been trying to drive out rebel forces.

Casualties were reported in the areas of Irbin, Duma and Muadhamiya among others, activists said.

Footage uploaded to YouTube from the scene by activists shows many people being treated in makeshift hospitals.

The videos show victims, including many children, having convulsions. Others are apparently immobile and have difficulty breathing.

The number of casualties is much higher than in previous allegations of chemical weapons attacks

The official Syrian Sana news agency said the reports of the attack were "baseless", quoting a "media source".

The reports were "an attempt to divert the UN chemical weapons investigation commission away from carrying out its duties", Sana said.

'Horrific' footage
The BBC's Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen says many will ask why the government would want to use such weapons at a time when inspectors are in the country and the military has been doing well militarily in the area around Damascus.

Some will suspect that the footage has been fabricated, but the videos that have been emerged would be difficult to fake, he adds.

Prof Alexander Kekule, of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at Halle University in Germany, told the BBC that one of the videos - although of poor quality - was consistent with the aftermath of an attack with a chemical agent.

But he added that none of the patients showed typical signs of sarin or other organophosphorous nerve agents, or signs of blistering agents.

"It also cannot be totally excluded that the whole video is a political staging. In this case, however, it would be a very good one," he said.

"Taken together, the best guess is that this is an authentic video of the aftermath of an attack with some incapacitating chemical agent."

Both the rebels and government forces have accused each other of using chemical weapons during the conflict.

It has not been possible to independently verify the claims.

In July 2012, the Syrian government implicitly admitted what had long been suspected - that Syria had stocks of chemical weapons.

Experts believe the country has large undeclared stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin nerve agent.

Damascus said the weapons, stored and secured by the armed forces, would never be used "inside Syria", but could be used against an external attack.

Chemical weapons claims

Khan al-Assal, 19 March 2013 - Syrian state media accuse rebels of killing 31 people with rockets containing "chemical materials". Rebels blame the army for the attack.
Al-Otaybeh, 19 March 2013 - Opposition activists allege an attack in which six people are reported dead, apparently in reprisal for gains made by rebel forces.
Adra, 24 March 2013 - The LCC activist network say two people are killed in an attack.
Sheikh Maqsoud, Aleppo, 13 April 2013 - At least three people are killed in an attack; internet footage of the victims shows symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve gas.
Saraqeb, 29 April 2013 - Eyewitnesses say canisters containing a poisonous gas are dropped from a helicopter above the town. Eight people are injured, one of whom later dies.

**whembly**

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

**Dreadclaw69**

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

Once they can convince the US to get involved I'm sure that the UN's 191 other countries will gladly send a token force.

**djones520**

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.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

djones520 wrote:
... and the UN won't take action as long as it's largest member continues to act insane.

Pansies

**Jihadin**

Putin insane? No way. He invented insanity so sayeth the KGB

**Disciple of Fate**

The West should stay out of it. Seeing as both sides have just devolved into plain murdering people who dont share their views. The time for intervention was 1 or 2 months after the fighting started, now its way too late. It doesnt matter who wins anymore, if we get involved we get the short end. Helping Assad? No way thats going down well. Helping the rebels? Few months later fundamentalists will have taken over, as is already happening. Libya should be the example. We helped and they were gratefull for about a few weeks, before turning against the West again.

Also this chemical attack can make a man paranoid. Did the government really do it, because why would anyone think the would ever do such a thing with UN observers so close by, who is going to believe that, right? Or the government didnt do it and the rebels faked it to get Western support. Or they didnt fake it and used it on people that they viewed as Assad supporters or didnt share their views. To many random factors, why at 3 in the night, why not follow up with a miitary offensive (if its goverment work), why does it seem so random (tide seems to be turning against the rebels, so why start using chemicals now)?

**Jihadin**

Obama is not making anymore waves about Syria and Egypt. I hope he stays away from both. I will though say nail Assad Syrian forces to be nailed to the cross if they out right went ahead in full fledge chemical attacks. Once started where/when will it end if it is not stopped by NATO (Turkey being next door) or UN Peace Keeping troops.
As for Egypt I'm in favor of the Egyptian military to handle their internal government issue. I wouldn't say a word if the US starts supplying them with rubber bullets and tear gas rounds at a outstanding discount.

**Grey Templar**

I say we let them duke it out till nobody is left. Let the anarchy take hold. No skin off our backs.

And give Obama a slap on the wrist for being an idiot with his Redline comment. His bluff got called, hard.

**Relapse**

Jihadin wrote:
Putin insane? No way. He invented insanity so sayeth the KGB

He will no doubt ride shirtless on a white horse to the forfront of battle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
The West should stay out of it. Seeing as both sides have just devolved into plain murdering people who dont share their views. The time for intervention was 1 or 2 months after the fighting started, now its way too late. It doesnt matter who wins anymore, if we get involved we get the short end. Helping Assad? No way thats going down well. Helping the rebels? Few months later fundamentalists will have taken over, as is already happening. Libya should be the example. We helped and they were gratefull for about a few weeks, before turning against the West again.

Also this chemical attack can make a man paranoid. Did the government really do it, because why would anyone think the would ever do such a thing with UN observers so close by, who is going to believe that, right? Or the government didnt do it and the rebels faked it to get Western support. Or they didnt fake it and used it on people that they viewed as Assad supporters or didnt share their views. To many random factors, why at 3 in the night, why not follow up with a miitary offensive (if its goverment work), why does it seem so random (tide seems to be turning against the rebels, so why start using chemicals now)?

Agreed.

**whembly**

I saw something like this on my twitter feed that's pretty good.

Going to war (you know, blowing things up and killing people) is an act of extremely serious moral dimension. We should not even consider this engagement unless we are satisfied that one of the two is true:

1) That such action is so manifestly in our own selfish interests that we can be forgiven for taking the violent action.

2) That the action is so manifestly in the interests of general altruistic good we would scarcely forgive ourselves if we didn't take the violent action.

I'm not quite seeing it right now for either 1 or 2.

**sebster**

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

Not really. The UN was conceived in the end days of WWII, and was designed by two world leaders who could see that unless something was done, their two countries would likely end up in a war that was just as bloody. As such, the priority of the organisation was really about protecting sovereign borders, ensuring that the wars of expansion and aggression such as those of Germany, Japan and (to a much lesser extent) Italy would never happen again.

Things evolved over time, of course, as over time the fear of global war lessened, and the idea of forcible intervention in other countries to prevent human rights abuses became stronger. But the basic foundations set up all that long ago means that, basically, it isn't what the UN is there for, and they don't really have the set up to do it (no standing army, formation of a taskforce dependant on general consent of member nations instead of being automatic under some code etc).

**Easy E**

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

Once they can get past the veto power of Russia on the Security Council. Oh wait, there is no way to do that unless Russia decides to abstain, walk out, or changes their vote.

**Mr. Burning**

The garnet line has been crossed. Obama will not stand by and let the actual red line be crossed.

**Wyrmalla**

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

Once they can get past the veto power of Russia on the Security Council. Oh wait, there is no way to do that unless Russia decides to abstain, walk out, or changes their vote.

Its China, Iran and Russia that are the ones vetoing any intervention. =/

The situation right now seems to be the UN saying, "if you're innocent then you've got nothing to hide". However, as the Syrian government is obviously up to something by not allowing the UN to confirm who deployed the weapons its the case that those who've drawn red lines can't prove that they've been crossed. Hey maybe someone will slip up, but any military support right now from outside Syria would have to be done separately from the UN at the moment, which isn't going to happen.

**xole**

Obama done goofed.

People don't like it when America intervenes? Ok. We won't intervene. It's only a few thousand people. Saves us some money.

Unless they have oil, of course.

**Frankenberry**

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.

**Jihadin**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Its China, Iran and Russia that are the ones vetoing any intervention. =/

Great. But Iran has no veto power.

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.

After Mali and Libya it seems the French have a taste for foreign intervention. Seeing as Syria was once under French mandate maybe they could take point on any intervention

**whembly**

Have at it France... we're not stopping ya.

**djones520**

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

Personally I'd be ashamed that France would have the morale fiber to step in to combat such evil, and we wouldn't.

**Jihadin**

Well since France is not part of NATO any longer....seeing how their French Foreign Legion works....I say let them have a go at it 8) We lead two major conflicts in the Middle East. Third time is not the charm for us

**Grey Templar**

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.

Or they just don't care.

Although IIRC the gas in question dissipates fairly quickly but I could be wrong on that.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Putin insane? No way. He invented insanity so sayeth the KGB

not only that, but shirtless, horse riding insanity!

Seriously though, it sucks to be Syrian right now. I hope they sort their gak out soon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Once they can get past the veto power of Russia on the Security Council. Oh wait, there is no way to do that unless Russia decides to abstain, walk out, or changes their vote.

Those countries are countries outside of the UN. They can always form up the First Pan Galactic Alliance and get caught up in the Syrian quagmire. But hey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are already doing their parts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

They need our transport. Evidently no one on the planet ever built freight hauling aircraft but the US....ever...
Awfully convenient. Hey Jean Luc...buy some freaking Airbus's already.

**whembly**

Are we all buying that Syria had Chemical Weapons to begin with?

(there's a case of missing chemical weapon stockpiles in the last decade or so)

**xole**

whembly wrote:
Are we all buying that Syria had Chemical Weapons to begin with?

(there's a case of missing chemical weapon stockpiles in the last decade or so)

Would it really be that hard to make chemical weapons?

**MrDwhitey**

Insert comment by Frazzled about Texan/Mexican(they're the same thing to be honest) cuisine here.

**whembly**

xole wrote:
whembly wrote:
Are we all buying that Syria had Chemical Weapons to begin with?

(there's a case of missing chemical weapon stockpiles in the last decade or so)

Would it really be that hard to make chemical weapons?

Making chemical/nerve stocks? No... that's easy.

The hard part is weaponizing them AND delivering them. That's what I'd call requiring some "madz skilliz".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Insert comment by Frazzled about Texan/Mexican(they're the same thing to be honest) cuisine here.

heresy!

TexMex is different than authentic mexican!