Exclusive: U.S. total of Syrian gas deaths could include bomb casualties

[morningfog]

One of the most precise and dramatic details cited by the Obama administration as proof that Syrian forces used chemical weapons in an August 21 attack was the death toll, which an official U.S. government assessment put at 1,429 people, including 426 children.

The number, first released by the White House on August 30, was underscored by Secretary of State John Kerry in a fiery indictment of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing videos of what he said were victims of the attack, which Syria denies.

"Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad's gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate. The United States Government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children," he said.

Some U.S. congressional sources are now casting doubt on those figures.

Three congressional sources told Reuters that administration officials had indicated in private that some deaths might have been caused by the conventional bombing that followed the release of sarin gas in suburban Damascus neighborhoods. This disclosure undermined support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike Syria, they said.

A White House spokeswoman referred all questions about the death toll numbers - including a request for comment on whether controversy about the numbers was undermining support on Capitol Hill for administration policy - to intelligence agency spokespeople.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-syria-crisis-intelligence-idUSBRE98B1C220130912?irpc=932

[cthulu2016]

1. I have asked this question repeatedly about that total

"Are deaths from nerve agent, vs. conventional artillery, differentiated in the death toll?"

Don't recall ever getting an answer that they were, so I have been assuming that the number included some number of conventional weapon casualties.

Obviously a LOT of people were killed by Sarin. We have enough photo evidence to support an estimate of "lots." But this was a big mixed barrage, conventional and chemical, and it would take some real doing to come up with any precise cause-of-death numbers.

If anyone has information about this, it would be interesting to see. Thanks.

[morningfog]

2. It makes sense of the much lower numbers cited by France and Germany.

[Summer Hathaway]

3. So if the final death toll from sarin exposure

gets rounded down to everyone's satisfaction, the deaths-by-chemical-weapons might very well fall into the 'acceptable' category?

[cthulu2016]

4. If the number is irrelevant, why come up with a number?

Obviously the number matters.

For instance, what if it was 50? Do we expect to kill less than 50 people with 300 cruise missiles?

If we were going to kill more people as "a message" than were killed in the initial atrocity that would start to strike folks as perverse.

This was a very big attack. The number of Sarin deaths is surely the highest since at least the 1990s in Iraq.

But attrocity numbers do matter. That's what makes them attrocities. It's implied in the title Weapon of Mass Destruction.

[morningfog]

7. The other thing to consider is had 1400 been killed by conventional weapons, the US

would have done nothing. We can tolerate massacres, just not massacres with chemical weapons.

[Summer Hathaway]

8. I am arguing with the notion

that we should all hold our horses - because the numbers haven't been crunched yet.

I am hopeful that a military strike will be averted. I am not pro-strike, nor pro-war by any means.

But I do find it rather unbelievable that people are trying to crunch the numbers before deciding whether the sarin-gassed were too few, too many, or just the right amount.

[morningfog]

11. Obama accepted small numbers of sarin gassed killed.

Do you take issue with that?

[cthulu2016]

12. I would think for most the issue is credibility, not the count itself

Speaking for myself, I have no interest in minimizing the atrocity. I stipulate that it was a big enough attack to warrant serious moral attention, whether it was 400 or 1400.

But if the official USA number was known to be exaggerated when it was offered, that is something I would like to know about my own government.

In my experience, and probably everyone else's, the more deception it takes to make a case to do X, the less well X tends to work out.

[morningfog]

5. Lower number deaths from chemical weapon attacks have been 'acceptable' for the US.

This wasn't the first use of chemical weapons in this civil war. If it wasn't the number, what distinguishes it?

[cthulu2016]

6. Excellent point. Kerry said there have been 10+ previous attacks

[Summer Hathaway]

9. If you think the 'number'

is the important point in all of this, please proceed.

[morningfog]

10. It certianly is *an* important point.

It also goes to the overall credibility of the US's case. If they fudged the number killed by gas by a multiple of 3, who good is their "high confidence" of anything else?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. You sound so petty with this line of attack

Very similar to Jack Welch saying department of labor HAD to be fudging employment numbers. Like I said...very shrill and looking for anything to make a case against Obama and his team's assessment.

[cthulu2016]

16. Would knowingly putting out an exaggerated number be petty?

the WH putting out a padded number (if they did, which seems likely) isn't the end of the world, but it has to be more notable a thing than somebody being petty on the internet.

[morningfog]

19. This is no line of attack.

I look forward to your 2nd banning.

[Summer Hathaway]

15. As soon as you have some facts to show

that the "numbers were fudged" - especially by a multiple of three - please post them.

Are you REALLY saying that if the "numbers were fudged", those who are dead are less relevant, because the 'numbers' didn't match up? REALLY?

The True progressives TM are really showing their true colors on this one, aren't they?

"If the numbers don't fit, you must acquit."

[cthulu2016]

17. A lot of the "dead" would be alive, which would be quite relevant to them

Are you REALLY saying that if the "numbers were fudged", those who are dead are less relevant, because the 'numbers' didn't match up? REALLY?

"Those who are dead" are indeed relevant. That's why one would count them,

[morningfog]

18. Other nations have used 200-500. That times

three is around 1400. The article posted is evidence of the facts you seek.

The world and the US have already made it abundantly clear that the concern is death by gas rather than gun powder.

[cthulu2016]

13. If somebody thought it was important enough to exaggerate

then the question should go to them, as to why they think the number is so important.

The reasons one would exaggerate it are the reasons it is important. Because it matters to people, whether it should or should not.