world

Obama faces growing calls to act over Syria chemical weapons attack allegations

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Funny place America. They go to war to destroy WMD that don't exist but don't want to act when they really are deployed. That said, if they were to attack Syria's forces and the rebels win, does America end up worse off?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

And here is more evidence that the so-called rebels have chemical weapons facility:

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/08/22/226358-syrian-rebels-damascus-chemical-cache-found-by-assad-army-state-tv/

As I explained many times, it just does not make sense for the Syrian government to use these weapons; EVERYTHING points at the "rebels" being responsible for these heinous crimes.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Israel said it believed Syrian forces had used chemical weapons in the killing of hundreds of people in the rebel-held suburbs of Damascus

... Israel just wants another pro-Islamic country reduced to rubble. There's no real data indicating there are chemical weapons yet, and we're just going to have another repeat of the WMD fiasco. Anyone who falls for this a second time is a blithering idiot.

-4 ( +3 / -8 )

A lot of experts are calling the "evidence" into question, saying, for example, that the alleged video footage looks set up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Might as well save the money.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And here is more evidence that the so-called rebels have chemical weapons facility

Dude, bogus 'news' websites are hardly evidence.

“281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials” that they found at a cache belonging to rebels in the city of Banias. The chemicals included monoethylene glycol and polyethylene glycol.

Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari said that the chemicals were “capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country.”

Mr. Ja'afari might want to realize that antifreeze and chemical lubricants are not capable of destroying a whole city and much less so the whole country.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Might as well save the money.

I believe its time we start looking at these things not as conflicts but as valuable testing opportunities. No boots on the ground, no weapons or aid shipments, just a wide open theater to test the bugs out of our more advanced equipment. We haven't had to deal with anti-air capabilities in a while, lets see how the drones hold up under fire. Really put those Russian air-denial systems to the test.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Not much he CAN do. US already overstretched with its other missions to promote freedom and democracy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is exactly what Assad wants... for the U.S.A. to act rash. Obama made a mistake by announcing a red line. Don't make another mistake by stepping into Syria! The only country that would benefit from this war is Iran. Putin is too busy being concerned with bvtsex in his country to really care either way!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

" Funny place America. They go to war to destroy WMD that don't exist but don't want to act when they really are deployed. That said, if they were to attack Syria's forces and the rebels win, does America end up worse off?"

Simon, you're confusing the land and its citizens with the political elite. It's the pols that want to "do something", not themselves directly, but vicariously through ignorant children bred to be killers.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Should read:

Obama faces growing calls to act over Fukushima Daiichi

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Slumdog,

In providing the quote, you conveniently left out that it was about a previous find of a rebel chemical weapon facility. Other reports of that find provide greater details, such as:

Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari said the cache included about 280 containers filled with various toxic substances, such as ethylene glycol, ethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine.

And I found the following:

N-Ethyldiethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine and triethanolamine are Schedule 3 compounds under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Schedule 3 chemicals include those that have been produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical weapon, poses otherwise a risk to the object and purpose of the CWC because they possess such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as other properties that might enable it to be used as a chemical weapon

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

You know, I don't get it.

It's pretty clear now that there was a chemical attack - while not confirmed, this seems to be the expert consensus. Let's assume the regime is responsible; true, the timing is suspicious, but I'm still inclined to think it is more likely the regime is behind it rather than the rebels. But, in any case, for the sake of argument, let's assume Assad is responsible.

What difference does it make if the regime kills 1000 people with a cocktail of sarin and riot agents, or kills them with conventional rockets and mortars? Or, for that matter, abducts, tortures, and executes them?

Are they any more or less dead?

This whole "red line" on chemical weapons is BS. You either believe the regime is slaughtering its own citizens, or you don't. The method, no matter how horrific, shouldn't be the issue.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Triumvere

Very good point. All I can think of is that poisonous gas is so indiscriminate that it's necessarily an attack on civilians when it's used, which makes it a different level of warfare, regardless of the number of casualties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere, they are called weapons of mass destruction for a reason.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

US Government hypocrisy in a nutshell. I agree that to some extent it doesn't matter how Assad army or rebels kill each other. but USchose to draw line in sand over WMD (and went to war allegedly because Iraq had them) and now just watches as they are deployed in Syria (by whoever). Obama's ethics once again shown to be dodgy at best.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Triumvere, they are called weapons of mass destruction for a reason.

Enlighten me.

I mean, we already know that Assad has chemical weapons, so this is not like trying to prevent NK or Iran from obtaining a nuke. The chances of these weapons falling into, say, the hands of terrorists - whether because Assad gives them out, or because Assad falls and the rebels get their hands on them - is unaffected by whether or not the regime decides to gas a few suburbs in Damascus. So what's the difference? Certainly, chemical weapons are banned in large part due to their indiscriminate nature. But Assad has been more than happy to indiscriminately bombard civilian areas... If securing WMD is the goal, that goal is either served by intervening or it isn't. This incident does not change that calculus. (I suppose it might make a difference to someone who had been previously unconvinced of the regime's horrific behavior; ie, it would serve as proof of a previously disbelieved claim. But the actors we are talking about - the US, NATO nations - were already convinced to begin with.) Does a convulsing child dying from nerve agent exposure on a hospital gurney deserve more sympathy than one expiring from blood loss due to shrapnel or a sniper's bullet?

Honestly, I think our reaction in the West has been hypocritical and self-serving. It has more to do with our own fear, horror, and disgust than it does sympathy or principle.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What!?

The rebels are on video killing a rabbit with poison gas and threatening to use poison gas on the Alawites.

The rebels have been found by Russia and the UN to have carried out previous poison gas attacks.

At least twice, government forces have found rebel poison gas facilities.

The rebels are losing badly and they know that the use of poison gas will get the west to provide desperately needed help.

Assad is beating the crap out of these mainly-foreign terrorists; he knows that he will win as long as he does not use poison gas.

So let’s assume the rebels are responsible.

The best thing the west can do is to stop helping these so-called rebels.

-18 ( +0 / -18 )

Go ge-dem Obonaparte!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"This whole "red line" on chemical weapons is BS. You either believe the regime is slaughtering its own citizens, or you don't. The method, no matter how horrific, shouldn't be the issue."

Yes it should. Chemical weapons have a tendency to leave the battlefield and kill civilians, or poison the battlefield for decades right through peacetime. Or result in deformities in children.

In fact, WMD allows a minority of villains to poison and kill masses of civilians without even needing to try and convince soldiers to do the slaughter. Allowing WMD removes a vital layer of protection for soldiers and civilians alike. There is no way in hell that layer should be let go. Its bad enough everyone is laying down on the concept of murder by remote control. Things like sarin do not just harmlessly evaporate. When a bullet hits the dirt, it becomes harmless instantly.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Triumvere: Does a convulsing child dying from nerve agent exposure on a hospital gurney deserve more sympathy than one expiring from blood loss due to shrapnel or a sniper's bullet?

Well you could argue that lighting them on fire produces the same result so we shouldn't see a difference between that and a bomb. Maybe I won't be able to find the right words to explain the difference in my mind but it's there.

Adding to Calvin's message, there's no way to turn off chemical weapons. You can stop the bombing or shooting instantly. Chemical weapons are released and you're left waiting for nature to decide what will happen next. The only control you have is the amount. Maybe using fire is somewhat of an analogy. If you light a city on fire you can only stand back and see what happens; you can't turn it off.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In providing the quote, you conveniently left out that it was about a previous find of a rebel chemical weapon facility

Let me get this straight, you are blaming me for the content of what you linked? All I did was quote from your link. It said the find was made on July 7th. It makes no mention of anything more recent. It also makes no mention of:

ethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine.

Also, it should be needless to say that you should avoid any website that has article headlines such as 'The Zionist-Nazi Collaboration'.

Perhaps you'd care to try again with some reasonable sources of information?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It also makes no mention of: ethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine

I admit that the article I linked to did not include this. I did state that I found that detail elsewhere, I never blamed you for this omission.

I provided the link because of the video it contained from RT, I guess I should have linked directly to the video.

Anyway, here is a link of a July 9 article that is more trustworthy than my previous one:

http://english.farsnews.com/print.aspx?nn=13920418001300 "Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari said the cache included about 280 containers filled with various toxic substances, such as ethylene glycol, ethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine."

Its clearly not just antifreeze they were stocking up on.

I thought it was quite interesting that I could not find this information from any western media. Did the Syrian ambassador not speak? Why would western media ignore his comments?

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

I never blamed you for this omission.

Yeah, you did. You blamed me quite clearly when you suggested that I 'conveniently left out' something that was not in the article. You should be more careful in future.

In providing the quote, you conveniently left out that it was about a previous find of a rebel chemical weapon facility.

As to Fars News, even Egyptian President Morsi sued them for printing a false interview he never made with them.

Care to try again with something actually reasonable?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Slumdog,

"Care to try again with something actually reasonable?"

This is the poster that claimed repeatedly claimed for the first few months of this depressing conflict that Blackwater agents at the behest of the CIA along with foreign soldiers were "slipping over the borders" to foment the violence, after all.

What happened there Bluescript, I thought America "couldn't wait to invade"? I'm not sure where you have been getting your information all this time but it has been proven time and time again to be wrong, and let's be fair here, often ludicrous.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If Obama foolishly involves any US forces, it'll be his own personal Vietnam.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

My question is who are these people "abroad" calling for the US to do something? Why can't they just do it themselves? We can tell our government, "No let them destroy themselves because they made their bed like this and its not the US' responsibility."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If Obama foolishly involves any US forces, it'll be his own personal Vietnam.

Why the "if"? The "Arab Spring" in Syria is HIS project. Whether to invade, as done in Vietnam, or achieve the goal using proxies and practicing murderous shams is only a tactical matter.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I am skeptical of the reports for a very simple reason:

The use of chemical weapons would necessitate a great response by the US. Thus far, the Obama administration has prudently avoided becoming to embroiled in, no matter how one feels about it, an admitedly complex and complicated diplomatic challenge. Simply put, none of the neighboring Arab nations are particularly excited about yet another US invasion of the Middle East. The "Arab Spring" has turned to winter.

No one in Europe or North America, save, of course, the ever-gun-ready "neo-conservatives" want a war. And, naturally, the American isolationist -- Tea Bagger Republicans and the old anti War Democratic base -- would find common ground and scream bloody murder about any foreign adventurism/"Imperialism." Finally, the Republicans would, no matter what transpired, use every opportunity, no matter how trivial, as the new Watergate. BENGHAZIIIIIIII!!!!!

In short, for both international and domestic political reasons, US intervention in Syria is fraught with too many perils to make it worthwhile, and really does not advance US interests all that much either. BUT....

if Syria has used chemical weapons, it is the US's job to police that. Yeah, many in Europe like to complain about the US military, but notice how just as many demand us power be used when it advances 'humanitarian' causes....

For all this, I am skeptical that Syria would hand the US the pretext it needs to invade. Or, rather, force the US to act.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

US intervention in Syria is fraught with too many perils to make it worthwhile, and really does not advance US interests all that much

Well.....if a friendly government is put there next....lots of upside, especially when dealing with Iran.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Friendly? Y' mean like in Iraq? Or Kabul?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is the poster that claimed repeatedly claimed for the first few months of this depressing conflict that Blackwater agents at the behest of the CIA along with foreign soldiers were "slipping over the borders" to foment the violence, after all.

Care to prove that? I was very skeptical from the very start, but I do not recall mentioning that Blackwater was involved.

BTW, it has been well established that the so-called rebels were mainly (80% perhaps) foreigners.

For all this, I am skeptical that Syria would hand the US the pretext it needs to invade. Or, rather, force the US to act.

Exactly, Assad is beating the crap out of these terrorists and he knows that he will win as long as he does not use poison gas. The rebels are losing badly and they know that the use of poison gas will get the west to provide desperately needed help. And the rebels are on video killing rabbits with poison gas and threatening to use poison gas on the Alawites. Furthermore, the rebels have been found by Russia and the UN to have carried out previous poison gas attacks and a significant rebel poison gas facility has been uncovered by the Syrian forces.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

Friendly? Y' mean like in Iraq? Or Kabul?

Or unable to project power, either way works I suppose. If you can't flip the card in your favor you can at least take it off the table. Welcome to Geopolitics Poker, where everybody cheats and if you cry foul you probably shouldn't have been playing in the first place.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Other than humanitarian aid, thru UN agencies, the US should not get involved in Syria's civil war. Regardless of whether chemical weapon are used. This conflict is an extension of Sunni-Shi'ite rivalries that have existed for generations Let the combatants resolve their issues without US involvement. If France, Syria's neighbors, etc., want to get involved, let them have at it. E.g., Saudi Arabia and Qatar have air forces that could enforce the no-fly zone that some want the US to enforce.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Syria used to be the calm and stable home of various ethnic and religious groups, who used to coexist peacefully for decades. That situation ended abruptly when operation "Arab Spring" was launched. It was launched by America, which did not like the Assad government and wanted to capture some further land at the southern tip of Syria, and its satellites (namely the European powers, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and their ilk). Some elements within the Syrian society, which were promised that they will enjoy heaven after the regime change, as well as lots of riffraff from all around the Moslem world, were mobilized and recruited.

The operation began. The expectation was that the objective, a regime change in Syria, would be achieved swiftly. It was expected that the Syrian population would cry as one "Hurray America! Hurray the land of liberty! Hurray Saudi Arabia! Hurray Qatar!" and remove their government immediately and without any further consideration. But from some reason this did not happen.

Now what do we do? Hmm... It's complicated... Ah! Here is the ultimate solution! It works as follows:

1) We murder a few hundreds, or a few thousands, or a few tens of thousands of citizens using gas.

2) The whole world cries as one "Assad is a murderer! Assad must be removed!"

3) We invade Syria, for the sake of humanity.

4) Mission accomplished.

Isn't it a brilliant solution and a brilliant operation?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Right on YGHome3

Serbia

Rinse and repeat

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites