Syria deploys Sarin gas

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.

**BaronIveagh**

Andrew1975 wrote:

AQ could just say it is an American plot to discredit them, the people that support them would easily buy into that.

The important people who do wouldn't. You seem to think that it's just the uneducated and ignorant who support AQ (a misconception that the media is mostly to blame for) . In reality, quite a few middle eastern politicians and even entire governments have ties to AQ, providing support or merely a blind eye, and while some are simply more overt about it than others, this support is very important to the continued existence of AQ, and they seek to expand that support base. They're gunning very hard for Syria to be the next nation to support them, and the level of risk involved with using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians is simply too great. First of all the 'the Americans are trying to discredit us' angle doesn't really work. Too many people would know. Sarin takes a dedicated supply chain to manufacture, it's not something that just falls off a truck, and make no mistake, this stuff most likely not the missing Iraqi stockpiles, simply because those would have long since become useless. Further, it requires large amounts of chemicals and people who know how to correctly manufacture them to work.

And they're doing this in the middle of a war zone? I doubt it.

VEVAK is about the only one's I could see carrying out a false flag operation like this, if it were one, and even then the risk of being caught is too high compared to the payout.

**Andrew1975**

The big wigs that support the terrorists only care what the people will buy, the people will buy that it is a US conspiracy.

**BaronIveagh**

Andrew1975 wrote:
The big wigs that support the terrorists only care what the people will buy, the people will buy that it is a US conspiracy.

Well, it's true, I suppose, that there is a sucker born every minute. After all, Americans have bought, not once, not twice, but three times, that death camps are in the national interest, but at the same time decrying it when other nations do it.

However, no, what the big wigs are concerned about is their various rivals finding out that they supported AQ in butchering civilians and exploiting that involvement to their own ends. With the sudden outburst of democracy all over the place, the 'big wigs' are much more concerned with the actions of their rivals than previously.

**Andrew1975**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
The big wigs that support the terrorists only care what the people will buy, the people will buy that it is a US conspiracy.

Well, it's true, I suppose, that there is a sucker born every minute. After all, Americans have bought, not once, not twice, but three times, that death camps are in the national interest, but at the same time decrying it when other nations do it.

However, no, what the big wigs are concerned about is their various rivals finding out that they supported AQ in butchering civilians and exploiting that involvement to their own ends. With the sudden outburst of democracy all over the place, the 'big wigs' are much more concerned with the actions of their rivals than previously.

Supposing that you could ever prove that AQ did anything. There is almost no way to pin something on AQ unless they admit to it. They pretty much have carte blanche to do whatever they want. AQ and the people that support them know that AQ is to slippery to be able to be pinned down with evidence, and even if they did they can just deny it and all the people who follow them will believe that, in fact it strengthens the cause. That strength means the people that support AQ don't really care.

**BaronIveagh**

Andrew1975 wrote:

Supposing that you could ever prove that AQ did anything. There is almost no way to pin something on AQ unless they admit to it. They pretty much have carte blanche to do whatever they want. AQ and the people that support them know that AQ is to slippery to be able to be pinned down with evidence, and even if they did they can just deny it and all the people who follow them will believe that, in fact it strengthens the cause. That strength means the people that support AQ don't really care.

I'm guessing you have never had any direct dealings with terrorists and the men who back them. You seem to assume that none of them are intelligent, educated, men and women.

**Alfndrate**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

Supposing that you could ever prove that AQ did anything. There is almost no way to pin something on AQ unless they admit to it. They pretty much have carte blanche to do whatever they want. AQ and the people that support them know that AQ is to slippery to be able to be pinned down with evidence, and even if they did they can just deny it and all the people who follow them will believe that, in fact it strengthens the cause. That strength means the people that support AQ don't really care.

I'm guessing you have never had any direct dealings with terrorists and the men who back them. You seem to assume that none of them are intelligent, educated, men and women.

So you fraternize with terrorists >_>

The black vans are on their way.

And for the most part I don't believe Andrew1975 is stating that terrorists aren't intelligent, but simply that their followers might believe the words that they say. You know how people keep saying, "because 'MURICA" for justification of owning large guns, etc... here in the OT? Why couldn't terrorists get away with something like that? "This is a plot to discredit us and to make us seem like the bad guy. Why you ask? because 'MURICA! ALIENS! and TERRORISTS!"

**Andrew1975**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

Supposing that you could ever prove that AQ did anything. There is almost no way to pin something on AQ unless they admit to it. They pretty much have carte blanche to do whatever they want. AQ and the people that support them know that AQ is to slippery to be able to be pinned down with evidence, and even if they did they can just deny it and all the people who follow them will believe that, in fact it strengthens the cause. That strength means the people that support AQ don't really care.

I'm guessing you have never had any direct dealings with terrorists and the men who back them. You seem to assume that none of them are intelligent, educated, men and women.

You would be correct, I have never directly had any dealing with terrorists. Have you?

I don't believe they are stupid, in fact I believe they are pretty smart, which is why I can see them doing this. I believe that most of the people you see burning US flags would more than happily believe that the US was setting up AQ or other terrorist groups, we have enough tin hat looneys here that believe that 911 was a US operation.

**BaronIveagh**

Alfndrate wrote:

So you fraternize with terrorists >_>

The black vans are on their way.

Aye, and even have downed a pint with them and the his honor, the mayor of Pittsburgh at the same time, so...

Andrew1975 wrote:
You would be correct, I have never directly had any dealing with terrorists. Have you?

Yes, yes I have. Gerry Adams being the most famous of them.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't believe they are stupid, in fact I believe they are pretty smart, which is why I can see them doing this. I believe that most of the people you see burning US flags would more than happily believe that the US was setting up AQ or other terrorist groups, we have enough tin hat looneys here that believe that 911 was a US operation.

Well, yes, there is always the idiot fringe. But they're not the most important supporters of a given terrorist group, just the most useful as meat for the grinder. Let me turn that around on you: how many people who matter believe that bit about 9/11 being an inside government job?

**Dreadclaw69**

In case anyone hasn't seen this yet;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Syria crisis: UN's Del Ponte says evidence rebels 'used sarin'

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve gas agent, sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.

Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons, but said she had not seen evidence.

The US and UK have said their inquiries suggest the government has used them.

British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the evidence was quite compelling last week, but that it would need to be incontrovertible before the case for an international response could be made at the UN.

On Monday, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said it was "deeply concerned by signs that world public opinion is being prepared for possible military intervention" in Syria.

On the question of whether chemical weapons had been used, he called for an "end to the politicisation of this issue" and to the "whipping up of an anti-Syrian atmosphere".

'Stupefied'
On Monday, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria issued a statement saying it wished to clarify that it had "not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict".

"As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," it added.

The statement came a day after Ms Del Ponte, one of its commissioners, told Swiss-Italian TV: "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.

"According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

Sarin, a colourless, odourless gas which can cause respiratory arrest and death, is classed as a weapon of mass destruction and is banned under international law.

Ms Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did not rule out the possibility that troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad might also have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was needed.

"I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition," she said.

Ms Del Ponte gave no details of when or where sarin may have been used.

The UN Commission of Inquiry was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian conflict since March 2011. It is due to issue its latest report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next month.

Ms Del Ponte's comments might also complicate matters for the US Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his visit to Moscow this week, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.

If Mr Kerry was hoping to cite fears that the Assad regime was now using chemical warfare as a reason why the Russians should shift their position, that argument will not be so easy to make, our correspondent adds.

Mutual accusations
A separate United Nations team was established to look specifically into the issue of chemical weapons.

It is ready to go to Syria but wants unconditional access with the right to inquire into all credible allegations.

Both the Syrian government and the rebels have in the past accused each other using chemical weapons.

The US and the UK have said there is emerging evidence of Syrian government forces having used sarin, with Washington saying it had "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been deployed.

President Barack Obama called in April for a "vigorous investigation", saying the use of such weapons would be a "game changer" if verified.

President Assad's government says the claims do not have any credibility, denouncing them as "lies".

Israeli raids
Ms Del Ponte's allegations concerning the use of sarin by rebels came after Israel carried out a series of air strikes on Syrian military targets early on Sunday.

The Israeli government made no official comment, but security sources said the strikes were aimed at preventing the transfer of advanced Iranian-made missiles to Lebanon's Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah.

The Syrian government said the Jamraya military research centre, north-west of Damascus, was hit.

A later statement gave more details, saying military positions in the Jamraya area were struck along with other facilities at Maysaloun, near the Lebanese border, and a military airport at Dimass.

The statement said there was massive damage at those locations and nearby civilian areas with many people killed or injured. It also denied that the targets had included missiles for Hezbollah.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad said the Israeli air strikes amounted to a "declaration of war" and threatened retaliation.

The New York Times quotes an unnamed senior Syrian official as saying dozens of elite troops stationed near the presidential palace had been killed. The AFP news agency quoted the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group, as saying 42 soldiers had died and another 100 were unaccounted for.

Images on state TV showed large areas of rubble with many buildings destroyed or badly damaged

The Arab League condemned the raids and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon expressed concern.

He said all sides should "exercise maximum calm and restraint" and "act with a sense of responsibility to prevent an escalation of what is already a devastating and highly dangerous conflict".

Russia's foreign ministry warned that the "further whipping-up of armed confrontation" sharply increased the risk of "pockets of tension" in Syria and Lebanon, and along their shared border.

**djones520**

So basically... it's a big cluster feth over there.

Can we turn the country into a glass parking lot yet?

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
So basically... it's a big cluster feth over there.

Yup, we're right back to he-said-she-said. Giving us even less incentive to get involved in someone else's civil war.

**purplefood**

It's probably better to wait until the entire thing calms down then try to help the country rebuild...
Meanwhile helping refugees is probably the best thing we can do...

**Dreadclaw69**

By all means send food, medical supplies, temporary shelters etc. But sending in the troops could be like trying to put out a fire using a gas pump.

**Alfndrate**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By all means send food, medical supplies, temporary shelters etc. But sending in the troops could be like trying to put out a fire using a gas pump.

Wait... I thought we wanted more fire... Also the problem with sending food, medical supplies, etc... is that the people with the force and power to take them, are not the people we want to be helping. Which means we either send humanitarians, who likely become involved in this conflict in a way that they don't want to (i.e. hostages), or we send people to protect the humanitarians/food/medical supplies/etc...

The refugees need to get out of the country and in to one we can help them from, sadly this doesn't seem likely.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, no point in sending aid that's just going to get commandeered by the people we don't want to help.

If the Rebels are the ones that used the gas maybe that little red line wasn't crossed. Obama avoided this one by the skin of his teeth.

**Dreadclaw69**

Alfndrate wrote:
Wait... I thought we wanted more fire... Also the problem with sending food, medical supplies, etc... is that the people with the force and power to take them, are not the people we want to be helping. Which means we either send humanitarians, who likely become involved in this conflict in a way that they don't want to (i.e. hostages), or we send people to protect the humanitarians/food/medical supplies/etc...

The refugees need to get out of the country and in to one we can help them from, sadly this doesn't seem likely.

This is what I get for posting before coffee and I'm not awake enough to make myself clear

When I said send in food etc. I should have added that we send those supplies to friendly neighbouring countries that are dealing with the refugees from the conflict.

**Alfndrate**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Wait... I thought we wanted more fire... Also the problem with sending food, medical supplies, etc... is that the people with the force and power to take them, are not the people we want to be helping. Which means we either send humanitarians, who likely become involved in this conflict in a way that they don't want to (i.e. hostages), or we send people to protect the humanitarians/food/medical supplies/etc...

The refugees need to get out of the country and in to one we can help them from, sadly this doesn't seem likely.

This is what I get for posting before coffee and I'm not awake enough to make myself clear When I said send in food etc. I should have added that we send those supplies to friendly neighbouring countries that are dealing with the refugees from the conflict.

Lol, that's okay man!

The problem we would face though is finding a country that likes us well enough to let us in with a little food and supplies that aren't going towards their people (because let's face it, who couldn't use more of those things?)

**purplefood**

Turkey might do it...
Especially if it took the strain off of their own people...

**Dreadclaw69**

Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, that's okay man! The problem we would face though is finding a country that likes us well enough to let us in with a little food and supplies that aren't going towards their people (because let's face it, who couldn't use more of those things?)

Yeah I found out that I need my coffee or else I get crippling headaches and no energy, lucky me

As far as which country to send aid too I think that the best bet is Turkey. Its a NATO ally and is dealing with the refugees from the Syrian civil war already, and it does have a reasonable standard of living so its less likely that the aid would be misappropriated.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

As far as which country to send aid too I think that the best bet is Turkey. Its a NATO ally and is dealing with the refugees from the Syrian civil war already, and it does have a reasonable standard of living so its less likely that the aid would be misappropriated.

Jordan is also a solid, preemptive choice.

**Dreadclaw69**

Good point, as I recall the UK has long standing ties with Jordan too

**Mr. Burning**

So, do we commit to airstrikes and or military action against the Syrian rebels for using WMD's? I'm confused?

**Soladrin**

If you look at how it is right now. You'd have to bomb both sides.

**Grey Templar**

Mr. Burning wrote:
So, do we commit to airstrikes and or military action against the Syrian rebels for using WMD's? I'm confused?

Potentially, as the Syrians would be fighting an insurrectionist force that has deployed WMDs.

Frankly I don't like either side at this point so I'd be in favor of containment to let them beat each other up. Just commit air force to ensure the violence and the WMDs don't spill over to other regions.

**Dreadclaw69**

Mr. Burning wrote:
So, do we commit to airstrikes and or military action against the Syrian rebels for using WMD's? I'm confused?

Maybe some of our more interventionist posters could clear this up for us. After all there were some here who were very strongly in favour of intervening when Assad was alleged to have used them.

**Frazzled**

Suddenly Frazzled ranting "nuke em all!" takes on a whole different air...

**Grey Templar**

Indeed, Frazz is making sense. Obviously his account has been hacked by the wiener dogs.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Suddenly Frazzled ranting "nuke em all!" takes on a whole different air...

Middle Eastern food is generally not tasty when microwaved.

**Grey Templar**

I don't find it all that tasty anyway

**dogma**

You don't like shawarma?