Syrian Rebels Claim Hundreds Killed By Poison-Gas Attack 222
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Haroon Siddique reports for The Guardian that opposition activists have accused forces loyal to the Assad regime of using chemical weapons in towns in the eastern Ghouta. Accounts of the death toll vary wildly. The British based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights put the number killed at 'dozens.' Others put the figure much higher. The Local Coordination Committees said 'hundreds' were killed, the majority of them civilians. Graphic videos purporting to show the victims of the attack have been posted online (WARNING: graphic) showing chaotic scenes of people, including children, having seizures, being treated, and dead bodies lined up. 'Symptoms of the patients include nausea, hallucinations, suffocation, hard coughing, high blood pressure, seizures etc,' says the Syrian Revolution General Commission (SRGC). 'There is still no clue of the chemical weapon/toxic gas that was used by the regime's forces to target the innocent civilians.' Ake Sellstrom, the Swedish scientist who heads the U.N. inspection team in Syria, told the Swedish media that he had seen only the television images of the alleged attacks. 'But the high number of wounded and dead they are speaking about sounds suspicious,' Sellström told Swedish news agency TT, via telephone from Damascus. 'It sounds like something one should take a look at.'. The official Syrian news agency called the reports 'untrue' and designed to derail a United Nations inquiry into charges of chemical weapons in the conflict."
Perfect timing (Score:4, Insightful)
The timing and location of the reported chemical weapons use - just three days after the team of U.N. chemical experts checked in to a Damascus hotel a few km (miles) to the east at the start of their mission - was surprising.
"It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country," said Rolf Ekeus, a retired Swedish diplomat who headed a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s.
"At the least, it wouldn't be very clever."
The US should stay out of it (Score:5, Insightful)
US meddling in mid-east affairs is a guaranteed disaster for the US.
Help one tribe, and the opposing tribe will hate you forever. Then the tribe you help will soon hate you also. Bottom line: Muslims must hate infidels, it is a key part of their religion.
No matter who the US helps, the US involvement will be called an "invasion." The US will be accused of using the US military to steal mid-east oil. It happens every time.
Sadam, Osama, and the Muslim Brotherhood, were all the good guys, and our buddies, at one point. Now, even Kuwait hates us.
There is no way to win in a mid-east conflict. The only winning move is not to play.
Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east. Let the crazies kill each other, if that is what they want to do. It is part of their culture, I guess.
Not to be a jerk... (Score:2, Insightful)
So what's new? (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember when Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies out ot incubators in Kuwait, and there were mass graves of hundreds of thousands of people in Kosovo.
Evidence at this point is secondary (Score:1, Insightful)
Track record is key at this juncture. The rebels can say anything atrocious they want about Assad's supporters/regime and it will seem plausible. I have no significant evidence one way or the other, but at this point, the rebels' claims seem more credible than the denials.
Re:Because that makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who says "muzzies" is a fucking idiot.
Re:The US should stay out of it (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, you do understand that there were a large number of Jews who were already living there, and had lived there for a long, long time? Also that the Arabs basically didn't care much for that area originally, as it was sort of an insignificant backwaters area- until it was given to the Jews? Didn't think so.
Re:The US should stay out of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east.
Naive isolationism has such a weird attraction to Americans. Buying oil is not like going to a supermarket and buying milk. It is the most strategic resource there is and whoever controls it controls the world. US pulling out of the middle east means a free for all, with Saudi and Iran (at least) going nuclear, and all the small oil producing countries aligning themselves with whoever replaces the US. Russia, China and others taking over the oil industry that we built. How would you like us to be a bitch to an oil cartel and whatever major powers (FAR worse than us in every way) are behind them, with power to screw with our economy any time they want? Some day we may not be dependent on the middle east oil, and may that day come soon, but it is not here yet.
Btw, the public perception of US military is completely opposite from the truth. It is not a weapon we swing around to intimidate and oppress countries. Our military power is an asset that we trade (with Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Israelis, Japanese, Koreans, Australians, Europeans, and countless other countries that we protect) just like any other asset. In exchange for it, we get less than we spend on it directly, but indirectly we get far more in terms of stability, free commerce, access to essential resources and allies in the UN and other organizations. It doesn't take much imagination to picture a world in which US pulls out, and the chaos that would result.
Re:So what's new? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perfect timing (Score:4, Insightful)
- He's illogical
- He thinks he is a God and can't possibly be affected by other countries. They've been letting this go on for a year now, it's not like Syria is going to be much easier for us to come into now.
- He's so desperate that he's less worried about the international response than he is about surviving the week
- He thinks that the rebellion will be crushed before the international community can arrive. Other countries probably aren't willing to depose him if there's nothing left to replace him
- It may be part of a negotiation we're not aware of. "Rebel leader, surrender now or I'm going to start gassing. Okay, you didn't, time for the gas."
- He may think he can scapegoat it on the other side or a rogue commander
- He may have realized he can't win and just wants to kill as many people as he can out of spite
Re:The US should stay out of it (Score:2, Insightful)
If you have new scholarship that presents a different ancestral homeland of the Jews, then by all means let's hear it.
Re:Perfect timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely - why would Assad sign off on chemical weapon usage
Just because the weapons where (allegedly) used, does not mean that Assad signed off on them. It is possible that the decision was made by an overly aggressive local commander, or even some individual soldiers about to be overrun.
that has already been declared a tripwire for foreign intervention by major countries?
Obama declared the use of gas to be a "red line", but has already backed away from that declaration. I don't think anyone any longer believes that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is any more of a "trip-wire" than the coup-that-is-not-a-coup in Egypt. It is unlikely that Europe is going to go in without American involvement, and America has decided that flexible ambiguity is more important than credibility.
Re:Perfect timing (Score:3, Insightful)
The shock value isn't the problem, the number of casualties and the proportion of civilian casualties is the problem.
Another problem is that the use of chemical weapons leads to tit-for-tat retaliation while providing no decisive advantage. Just like in WWI, they will add to the carnage while doing nothing to break the stalemate. Even Hitler understood this. Nazi Germany had large stockpiles of chemical weapons, but refrained from using them even during the last days before their unconditional surrender.