Syria conflict: BBC shown 'signs of chemical attack'
Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: BBC
A BBC correspondent who visited the northern town of Saraqeb was told by eyewitnesses that government helicopters had dropped at least two devices containing poisonous gas.
The government has vehemently denied claims it has used chemical agents.
...
Doctors at the local hospital told the BBC's Ian Pannell they had admitted eight people suffering from breathing problems. Some were vomiting and others had constricted pupils, they said. One woman, Maryam Khatib, later died.
...
A doctor who treated Mrs Khatib said her symptoms corresponded to organophosphate poisoning and that samples had been sent for testing.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22549861
Video here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22550946
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Horrible - with no end in sight apparently.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)We could probably find someone to show us cattle mutilations done by aliens.
Trust No One! They all hate us.
Only our most trusted allies should get our rapid response. All else really need a great degree of scrutiny.
Too many 'Death to America rallies will get you that!
It's not perfect, but we pay the bills in every way. It's Americas call. It should be the UNs call but......
brooklynite
(94,384 posts)...met the people, even talked politics with some of them, do you mind if I make my own judgements?
1) It's a historical fact that the Government has used brutal repression on the local population in the past.
2) There's never been a "Death to America" rally; we were warmly welcomed by Shiites, Sunnis and Christians (yes, they have those too, and they get along with the Muslims).
We can argue about HOW to get involved, but unless you're planning to become an isolationist, you can't ignore what's going on.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)may we have YOUR credit card number?
We are broke!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who do share the 'death to America' agenda.
Like parasites.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)And since the USA Is not ready to move a single toe, they cannot shead tears when other kind of people react.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)What's that saying about when you lie down with dogs?
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Much like Stalin supported the involvement of the US in the early 40s.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Judging by the defection rate of the FSA, it could be argued that they're pretty much running the show.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Center for American progress the FSA has almost 10 times as many fighters as do the jihadis of Al Nusra.
Assad would argue that Al Nusra 'runs the show' but he has always argued that. It is part of the "support me or the terrorists" PR line that he has relied on since this started in March 2011. Dictators like to appeal to the West with "it's me or the terrorists". A generation ago it was "it's me or the communists". It's a tried-and-true PR strategy to get the West to line up behind a dictator when most of us are usually reluctant to do that.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2013/05/14/63221/the-structure-and-organization-of-the-syrian-opposition/
eissa
(4,238 posts)are largely not part of the opposition now. Yes, Syrians are a very welcoming and diverse population. The opposition -- not so much. And I believe we can ignore events in the region when it is unclear which side to support: a brutal (although secular) dictatorship vs. an equally brutal Islamic fundamentalist opposition. Pick your poison.
pampango
(24,692 posts)At the beginning of the popular protests in March 2011 the people ("warmly welcomed by Shiites, Sunnis and Christians (yes, they have those too, and they get along with the Muslims)) that the poster mentioned were probably those who filled the peaceful demonstrations. When Assad decided that negotiating with these people for a peaceful transition to a more open government was not good for his continued rule, the militarization of the repression began which has led, as I am sure Assad predicted, to the radicalization of the opposition.
At the beginning he could not realistically say to the West that we must choose between him and the terrorists. He know that, if his military could militarize and prolong the conflict long enough, radical and militant elements (it is the Middle East after all) would become part of the struggle - and they have.
About 6,000 of the opposition are "brutal Islamic fundamentalists". Not a group to be ignored by any means but they are not the entire opposition either.
The fact is that Assad is a nasty piece of work who will destroy Syria in order to remain in power. The fact is that there are many Syrians who do not want to live under a dictator or a theocracy. The fact is that the nasty side of the opposition gains strength as the civil war goes on. The fact is that Assad is a smart man who knows the Middle East and knew, when he decided to stay in power at all costs, this would happen if his army did not win a quick victory. The fact is that there is little we can do about any of this other than provide aid to refugees - anything else will make a terrible situation for the Syrian people even worse.
eissa
(4,238 posts)and that they get along with Muslims given that my family, who are Christians, live there. And I'll take their eye-witness accounts of the brutality of the rebels over western analysts. I'm not a supporter of Assad, but fail to see why he should have stepped aside when the opposition hardly has the support of the majority of Syrians. Even if half the country supported the opposition (which is doubtful), that is not enough for a government to step aside, especially when taking into consideration the fundamentalist/terrorist ties of the rebels.
John2
(2,730 posts)opposition is claiming atrocities by Government Forces and people supporting the Government is making claims against the opposition.
The allies supporting intervening is supporting the claims of the opposition and the allies supporting the Syrian government wants a political solution without preconditions.
The reports are the opposition is losing steam because they are out gunned by government forces. The only event will turn the tide is if they got a U.S. led force to intervene but Russia, China,Iran and North Korea oppose it. Notice I added in North Korea because they are an ally of Hezbullah and Iran which for some reason is left out of the Western Media.
As far as the claims about chemical use of weapons by Turkey and all the other allies of the opposition, it is not believable, whatever claims they manufacture. It is not believable or logical militarily. The reasons why is because Assad has very little motive to use them when the opposition is already outgunned and apparently losing. Another reason is ,the only victims seems to be a few civilians for the opposition making claims and no fighters as victims. Why would the Syrian Government need to use chemicals on a few unarmed civilians? Then there is the nature of chemical warfare and the arsenal Syria possesses. The use of chemicals cause not a few deaths or casualties but massive deaths. Why would Syria just drop a couple of cannisters from helicopters if they were going to use chemicals. See the War with Saddam Hussein or any other War involving chemicals. Not only that, both Syrian personnel and the opposition would require protective gear. Syria has enough chemicals to actually wipe the opposition out if they really wanted to.
1) Opposition Is not loosing steam, we just forget that they cant stand ground, only control the country. As the Assad airport are destroyed one after the other, he loose his grip. The FSA are still winning, slowly, but certainly. No government on earth can succed against 70% of his population who Is no more affraid and Is ready to take arms.
2) There Is a lot of reasons for the Syrian Army to use some little drop of chimical, the fact that you can see them, means nothing. Make more research on the subject. I will give you an example : maybe Putin, who Is well inform, suggest that could be a good way to embarass Obama. Its a fact now that nobody trust no more what Kerry could say since we know that all that red line blabla, was just blabla: Iran Is laughting, and even the Hezbollah dare to say stupid stuff. And Israël know now that they are almost alone against the Iran Nuclear devlopment, so they try to speak to the russians.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)When this started, I remember Nir Rosen writing that about 30% supported Assad, 30% wanted to overthrow him, and 40% wanted reforms but not revolution.
Two years in and 100,000 dead later, Assad is still there and gaining ground in recent weeks. If you read dispatches from reporters on the ground there, you hear increasingly how people are disillusioned and disgusted with the rebels, the lawlessness, the kidnappings. And all the death and destruction without victory.
Your glorious Free Syrian Army is really hundreds of armed gangs.
If I were a Syrian, I would not be happy to see the FSA, or worse yet, Al Nusra, coming to my neighborhood. Not only would I be subject to their arbitrary and capricious application of sharia, I would be waiting for the Syrian Army to rain death and destruction down on the FSA and anyone else in the neighborhood. They should stay away.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Of the stanilists and the republican guards.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Not Pravda, not RT, not Press TV. The Washington Post.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)to admit that fact!
When pigs fly.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)those two questions should be asked every time these stories come up and should be the end of the discussion.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)When Times come hard.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Sorry.
Are you saying we SHOULD be the worlds police?
Let's hand out American flag shirts with a bullseye on them.
It won't be the politicians or the wealthy who get fragged! Just us regular people.
Yeah, like Boston!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)It's also a question of whether Russia is right to continue arming Assad's military, for instance. If your outlook on the world is "does this threaten me? End of discussion", then you'll have a poor, stunted view of humanity.
eissa
(4,238 posts)Why is it ok for one, but not the other? Maybe Russia is (rightly) concerned about having yet another fundamentalist regime in the neighborhood. I don't necessarily trust the Russians on everything, but I'd trust them over the Saudis any day.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Saudi Arabia is, however, just a few miles from Syria (closer than Cuba to the USA, say), so they have some reason to be involved; if DUers think that Americans just talking about what is happening in Syria is not worth it, then surely Russia shouldn't be piling arms in for the regime, when it's not close to Russia.
eissa
(4,238 posts)We send aid and get involved in countries all over the world, why shouldn't the Russians? Likewise, the Saudis have spent billions spreading their brand of Wahabism all over the world. Do you actually think the Saudis or Qatar are interested in any country in the region establishing a democratic or secular form of government? Bahrain had an uprising as well, and the Saudis backed the government in their brutal repression. Why? Because it was the Shiites protesting. In Syria's case, the fact that a minority (or "heretic" according to the fundamentalists) is ruling a country of predominantly Sunni Muslims has been a thorn in the eye of the Saudis for decades.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)You say miles are irrelevant. The use by either side of chemical weapons - which are purely designed to affect civilians when used like this, because they don't affect materiel, and they were just dropped in a town - seems OK to you as well. You're OK with Russia arming a side, and you're OK with the USA arming one too.
eissa
(4,238 posts)I said miles have not made a difference in countries involving themselves in the internal matters of other nations. That wasn't an endorsement of us getting involved. I've stated in numerous posts that this is not our fight and we should not be getting involved. I'm certainly not ok with chemical weapons being used, but fail to understand why it falls on us to do something about it. Is Finland too busy? How about Argentina? Germany, perhaps? No, they'd rather use their resources for their own country, something we should consider doing for a change.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Whether it falls to other countries to do something about the use of chemical weapons depends on what 'something' is. We can call for a blockade, for instance. Now you mention it, Finland is indeed trying to stop arms being sent by Russia to Syria. So, Finland can see that it's bad for more arms to be sent there. Can DU? Or do you think DU should say "all foreigners are the same, let them arm each other and kill each other"?
eissa
(4,238 posts)to stop shipping arms, I fail to see the balance in any of this. Ideally, no country would be supporting a civil war. Sadly, that's not the case. If certain countries want to call on the Russians to stop aiding their ally (the same we have done/would do for our allies) then the same call should go to the countries financing the rebels.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)How is Russia arming Assad worse than some of the nasty people our government has in the past and continues to arm to this day?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)"are they a threat to us? End of discussion". I don't think you do.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Syria was on the list. And what is going on there is remarkably similar to how we destabilized the government of Afghanistan in the 80's, tried to do so in Nicaragua, and have recently done in Libya.
We are not going around starting humanitarian wars. We are looking after certain business and strategic interests that are intertwined, as is Russia, China, Iran, and any country big enough to have influence outside their own borders.
If you don't believe that, read Steven Kinzer of the New York Times' book OVERTHROW or John Perkins' CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN and come back and try to say with a straight face we are doing any of this for altruistic reasons.
Russian geopolitical aims in the region are obvious: they don't want their Southern flank completely owned by the US and NATO, nor do they want their pipeline business to be taken over by the same.
Neither Russia or China would be wise to let us directly or indirectly control all the major oil reserve countries and pipeline routes in the region since that would give our oil companies the power to set the price at will and control our competitors access to oil.
Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”
He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”
Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)It's your head-in-the-sand, only-a-threat-to-Americans-is worth-discussing myopic view of the world that is the problem.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)at a time when schools are closing here and the president is proposing cutting Social Security benefits, shouldn't we be a little less cavalier about spending money on killing foreigners?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Have you posted in the wrong thread by mistake? Remember, you said the only question, for this or similar situations, is whether it's a danger to the USA or Europe, and that should be the "end of discussion". Did you mean to post that in a different thread all along? Did you mean to attack someone completely different?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Especially in the Middle East?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)You came into this thread to say we shouldn't discuss it if it wasn't a threat to the USA or Europe. You don't get to censor what we post on DU.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)You said if it didn't threaten the US or Europe, "end of the discussion".
Wolf Frankula
(3,598 posts)And if we do intervene what will happen? Whoever wins won't be grateful more than five minutes. Whoever loses will be embittered terrorists, and we'll be the targets. They'll have a free election, it will be one man, one vote, one time and a new dictatorship will follow. They'll slap women in veils, persecute religious minorities.
Let the Syrians sort this out themselves. It's their country, not ours.
Wolf
socialsecurityisAAA
(191 posts)
rjones2818
(1,273 posts)...against the opposition. Look back to the last couple of weeks when a UN inspector debunked such a claim. Until there is solid proof, treat such claims as war propaganda.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)and have sent samples out of Syria to multiple countries for confirmation. The UN inspector has not debunked that.
socialsecurityisAAA
(191 posts)Meanwhile you are correct, all evidence proves the Foreign fundamentalist Rebels have used chemical weapons.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sometimes when there is internal strife like that, neither side wears white hats. I have a sense that is the case in Syria.
Sanity will not prevail, and if we side with one group or another, we will be making a big mistake.
Our aid should be limited to humanitarian help. If Assad wins, he will be strengthened and that is bad. But if the rebels win, who even knows who among them will prevail in the end. I say we keep out.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)President Barack Obama has said the US has seen evidence of chemical weapons being used in Syria.
However, speaking after meeting Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan, he insisted it was important to get more specific details about alleged chemical attacks.
Earlier, residents of a north Syrian town told a BBC reporter how government forces had dropped poisonous gas canisters on them from helicopters.
>
The videos are impossible to verify.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22562372
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
daleo
(21,317 posts)In these scenarios, they are too easily created as propaganda. There were eyewitness reports in the buildup to both Iraq wars that were later shown to be fraudulent propaganda - babies thrown from incubators and a fellow code named curveball.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)or blew up pesticides stored on the ground?
No human is going to be dropping deadly stuff like sarin by hand from helicopters.
Anyway all those heles should be shot down from the skies and any ground tanks firing those missiles should be droned away.. Russia sold them that stuff, Russia should pay and assist with the clean-up.