'Strong' evidence of Syria regime chemical attacks: HRW

[oberliner]

Eyewitness accounts and evidence collected from northwestern Syria "strongly" suggest regime forces dropped toxic chemicals on civilians several times last month, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.

A high-ranking Syrian security official denied the claim, saying the accusations were "lies the insurgents say when they incur losses."

Human Rights Watch said the chemicals appeared to have been packed into crude explosives-filled barrels that were dropped by military helicopter on rebel-held areas during heavy fighting for the city of Idlib.

"Evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces used toxic chemicals in several barrel bomb attacks in Idlib governorate between March 16 and 31, 2015," the New York-based group said.

http://news.yahoo.com/strong-evidence-syria-regime-chemical-attacks-hrw-100612531.html

[kelliekat44]

1. More stuff to get us into war. You know, tear gas is "chemical weapon." nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Chlorine gas used as a weapon of war is not "tear gas" nor was"tear gas" mentioned or used.

You would have known that if you read the article.

Chlorine gas reacts with the water in the mucous/linings of the lungs, forms hydrochloric acid, which destroys thelung's ability to take in oxygen causing suffocation and death.

[betterdemsonly]

11. When these claims are investigated they

generally turn out false or the turn out to have been perpetrated by isis.

[mylye2222]

13. So now HRW is liars???!

[betterdemsonly]

15. Don't know about her personally but she does tend to believe neocon lies

like when she voted for IWR.

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. HRW is "Human Rights Watch." HRC is "Hillary Rodham Clinton." They are not synonymous. Links below:

Human Rights Watch


Hillary Rodham Clinton
(whitehouse.gov site is out of date.)

Now, you know the difference.

[betterdemsonly]

18. Human Rights Watch has a pretty bad record too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/03/human-rights-watch-hijacked-by-neocons/9698/

[LanternWaste]

20. Opposition to Freeman does not a "track record" make.

Opposition to Freeman does not a "track record" make. Knowing the difference between an "example" and a "track record" is the first step towards a more rational mind...

[betterdemsonly]

22. Human Rights Watch is already created a questionable track record in Syria itself.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22093-a-new-neocon-push-for-syrian-war

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. Pulling out a Jeffry Goldberg, eh. "Some of the most strenuous opposition to Freeman's appointment

Some of the most strenuous opposition to Freeman's appointment to the NIC came from Chinese dissidents, Human Rights Watch, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Is that the Freeman you are discussing?

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/charles_freeman_and_the_israel.html#ixzz3XIjWSPru
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When Mr. Goldberg travels to countries at war to bring food and medical supplies to refugees at great risk of his own life, I will reconsider his opinion.

[malaise]

2. Anything from them on the Depleted Uranium used

in Iraq by the West?

[oberliner]

5. Yes, they issued a report about that

Iraq: Grave Human Rights Violations during the War and Occupation in Iraq

http://hrn.or.jp/eng/activity/Iraq_HRC.pdf

[pampango]

3. Assad says his government does not drop 'barrel bombs'. I'm sure he will deny that there are

toxic chemicals in the 'barrel bombs' that his government is not dropping.

I appreciate that human rights organizations research and publish findings on issues that make us 'uncomfortable' at times in terms of policy implications. I suppose that conservatives feel the same way about environmental organizations that publish research on climate change. I would rather we fit our policies to the facts rather than, as many conservatives prefer, fitting the 'facts' to the policies we prefer.

[jamzrockz]

6. I would like to know who amongst us

would deny a president the use of chemical weapons if the likes of ISIS, Al Nusra were a few miles away from your family? You know these people will rape your wife and eat your sons? I cannot imagine a US presidential debate with the candidates saying that not everything is on the table when the voter's family he/she is courting is on the line. Yet we expect the same for Syria.

For the love of God, Assad use all you got and rid your country of this menace, the more you follow rules of war against an army that respects no laws, more of your people die and suffer. Remember, chemical weapons are no good when your daughters are being raped by these men or you just like Gaddafi is raped and lynched on the streets for listening to the west who just like the jihadists want you dead?

Before anyone starts telling me these rebels are citizens or human beings that deserve to be protected under some UN laws, just know that most of the rebels are foreigners and their claim to being human is only superficial. ISIS and the likes needs to be exterminated like the virus they are with every option being on the table

[oberliner]

7. Against civilians though?

That's kind of a different story, isn't it?

[jamzrockz]

9. Do you mean

against terrorists hiding in civilian areas? Because I cannot image why even an evil person would use his superior weapon on civilians when battle hardened Wahhabi jihadists are menacing and killing your country men. Its obvious any attack by the Syrian Arab army is targeting the jihadists and with the nature of war, civilians would always be caught up in the fighting.

But would you answer my question. Other than use of nuclear weapons which will end up killing everybody, in what other ways would you restrict the fighting weapons of the president when ISIS is a few miles away from raping and killing your family? I am talking about people you love, your brother, sisters, parents and loved ones are just about to be at least enslaved and at worst raped and murdered by ISIS. Would you be ok with chemical weapons being taken off the table? Think of the people around you before answering that question.

Just the idea of chemical weapons being on the table could be what it takes to stop the foreign terrorists from advancing. I don't know about you but, I am ok with use of chemical weapons leaving it on the table.

[oberliner]

12. No I mean just deliberately targeting civilians

I think the Assad government has groups that it considers "enemies of the regime" and it can use the pretext of "support for ISIS" in as an excuse to commit war crimes against civilian populations.

I definitely think ISIS should be stopped by any means necessary - but it would certainly be preferable to attempt to do so while minimizing innocent civilian casualties.

[geek tragedy]

8. Chemical weapons in a populated area are an abhorrent war crime.

Assad's regime is every bit as malignant, sadistic, cruel, and evil as ISIS. It's just more pragmatic.

[jamzrockz]

10. I think the existence of ISIS

is a war crime. Just imagine if the world community had butted out and allowed the SAA to hit the jihadists hard and fast in the beginning, all these would be history. Maybe about 50k civilians would have lost their lives but it would have spared the nation billions in destruction and millions in lives and displaced people.

Its a hard question but would you spare the lives of a dozen peaceful and innocent people if it meant the death of 100k people who are just as innocent and peaceful?

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. I would. Chemical weapons dropped on Al Nusra or ISIS in Poway, California USA

would lead directly to the deaths of thousands of American citizens, and would constitute a crime against humanity.

It would also kill far more citizens needing to be rescued from a few terrorists than terrorists. I would prefer Marines at Miramar and Camp Pendleton, working with the police, handle ISIS in Poway.

I am sure giggling murderer's like a Drunk Cheney or a Confused Bush would go for it and say, "fur Amerikans" but this American would not.

[jamzrockz]

23. But what if the marines

are not enough? what if the ISIS forces keep on raping, pillaging and murdering their way towards your area? Would you still insist that chemical weapons not be used?

The problem is that the longer you wait to make the hard decision the bolder and stronger the terrorists get and the more people die while you wait. But the sooner you show the enemy and your people that you will do everything to win and protect them from pure unadulterated evil, the more you are to win.

Also any candidate that tells me that he/she wouldn't do all it takes to protect my family from barbarians at the gate is a candidate that will never get my vote. Safety and security is something I will not make a compromise for.

[Agnosticsherbet]

24. If I wanted someone to make those hard decisions, I would vote for a Bush, Cruz, Paul, or other

Republican dipshit. Hell, if I wanted that, I would seek out one of the "Boys From Brazil" and put them in charge.

There are things that are unacceptable, and killing me, my family, my neighbors, dogs, cats, fish, and everything else in my neighborhood "fur Amerika" is unacceptable.

[jamzrockz]

25. Look

I am as anti war as they get and I doubt anyone on DU is as anti war as me. I was against the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen., Pakistan, Kosovo etc etc. I am against all aggressive wars and it doesn't matter if a democrat or republican is waging it.

But even a person like me has a red line and that red line is a real armed groups on the march coming towards me and my family. I am talking about the way it is for most Syrians not the preemptive, imaginary, they are will come after me scenario imagined by Bush. When the treat is real and on the way, I am as pro war as you can get. Use everything you got plus the kitchen sink and thrown it at the enemy.

ISIS is no joke, they will eventually kill just about everything you were going to spare by not using chemical weapons on then and they will advance to new areas to kill and enslave new people. You want to kill them hard, fast and without mercy. And unfortunately, civilians will always be caught in the middle.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. ISIS is no joke. Using Chemical weapons on our own citzens in our own country would be a crime.

We have a heavily armed military, reserve, and police forces who have the job of stopping such a thing.

I am not anti-war.

I am anti-unnecessary-war.

Any American leader who uses Chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons upon our own people is the same as ISIS.


I would not elect Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to be President of the United States. I do not accept any President who acts as if he is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

[Jesus Malverde]

14. Who do you hate more Assad or ISIS?

Lulz

[oberliner]

16. Me personally or Human Rights Watch?

If you are asking me, I vote for ISIS as being the worst of the worst.

The Assad regime is pretty brutal, but ISIS is off the charts in their depravity.