MSF confirms Syria 'chemical deaths'

[Surya Gayatri]

Source: BBC News

Medecins Sans Frontieres says it has treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" in Syria, of whom 355 have died.

It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals it supports in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels.

It appears to be the first confirmation that chemical weapons were used.

Western countries have accused the government. Damascus accuses rebels.



Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23827950

---

MSF (Doctors Without Borders) is an unimpeachable and irrefutable source. Their report will certainly up the stakes in this deadly war game.

Link to announcement on MSF site:
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-thousands-suffering-neurotoxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported-msf

[philosslayer]

1. Horrible

And not our fight. Haven't we bombed enough Middle Eastern countries? How has that worked out so far?

[Taverner]

13. Agree 100%

[Surya Gayatri]

19. But, from a purely humanitarian viewpoint, can the international

community stand by while Assad chemically massacres his own people?
Really tough call...

[Arctic Dave]

2. "unimpeachable and irrefutable source"?

That is quite a pedestal you put them on.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Thats only with regard to the occurence

not with respect to who was responsible.

Obama having used his line in the sand ploy I take it as read that if it were to become apparent the insurgents did this then the US will help the Syrian government wipe out them out.

[Arctic Dave]

5. I agree that a chemical agent of some kind was released.

Who what, where and why have yet to be determined.


I do find it very strange and more then coincidental that Obama gives a specific "line in the sand" and within a month or two that very thing happens.

I going completely theoretical here but would it be unconceivable that it was known that the rebels had seized some gas from government stockpiles before Obama made that statement (not saying that he knew about it). But it was a talking point given to him much like the famous "sixteen words"

In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words."[3] The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry.[5]

[Surya Gayatri]

10. "Obama draws a line in the sand on Syria"...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4412172.html
6 December 2012
"America has stepped up its rhetoric on Syria precisely because it doesn't want to get involved in any intervention there, writes Adam Lockyer."
.../
"As some have done, it is tempting to view these comments as a "precursor" to an imminent American intervention in the Syrian conflict. However, the opposite is true. Washington has been watching the Assad regime's increasing use of artillery, mortars and attack aircraft in populated areas and interpreted this as desperation. They believe that the regime is in its death throes, frantically seeking to take any advantage.

Therefore, when intelligence reports emerged that the regime's forces were preparing Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons (including, reportedly, sarin, mustard and VX nerve gas) for deployment, the United States was understandably concerned. This was partly due to genuine humanitarian fears. But the motivation probably comes more from the Obama administration having done all that it can to not be sucked into the conflict. The use of chemical weapons would make that impossible."

It would appear that the "line-drawing" goes back much further than you imply.

[Arctic Dave]

20. I'm not following you.

In this story it says that the "government is in its last throes".

The rebels by this time have captured bases and military equipment. Knowing that that CW have been compromised it would make senense to move the other stockpiles. Which was reported was the a likely scenerio.

So, give Obama his version of the"sixteen words" so it locks him in to military involvement.

[Surya Gayatri]

22. Merely pointing out the dubious nature of your suggestion that

Obama's "line in the sand" and the present incident are chronologically suspect.

"I do find it very strange and more then coincidental that Obama gives a specific "line in the sand" and within a month or two that very thing happens."

[Arctic Dave]

23. Why?

Did I say Obama was involved? No.

Quite the opposite, as I stated in my other post.

I think he knows he is being lied to and is trying his best to not be played.

[Surya Gayatri]

25. December 6, 2012 vs. "within a month or two"...

Slight time lapse there (six months, to be exact). Simple as that.

[Arctic Dave]

29. Is that really your defense.

You knew that without having to google it? Not likely.

But it does still show the akwardly coincidental timing of it all.

[Surya Gayatri]

35. When I read your "month or two" statement, something

sounded faux, so I did look it up.

Why would I need a "defense"? From what?

[Arctic Dave]

37. Exactly, you looked up the exact dates.

That's good.

Like I posted before, an awkwardly coincidental timeline.

[GeorgeGist]

49. Your defense is childish.

You spout ignorance and then get offended when called on it.

[Arctic Dave]

53. LOL. I am not offended in the least.

Thanks for your input.

[karynnj]

11. Using chemical weapons has been given as something beyond the pale for a long time -

going back to WW1. If anything, it would have been said to deter it being done. The fact is that there have been accusations of chemical weapons since early spring. However, the fact that there is no current viable alternative government has itself been a deterrent to US involvement.

That makes this almost the OPPOSITE of your example. Obama cited a horrendous action --- and if anything backed away from his implied threat. Bush, on the other hand, took info that they knew was suspect and jumped to war.

[Arctic Dave]

21. Right. I think I'm following you.

Bush would have had us in a mess long ago but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't being played.

And that is the point I'm trying to make. I think Obama knows he is being fed a pile of poop and is trying his to stop from being sucked onto another expensive and completely worthless military adventure.

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Hi neighbour! Thanks for adding the clarification. I thought

of including the same caveat, but too late.

[Surya Gayatri]

4. In the crucible of multiple combat zones, and over many years,

they have proved to be the next best thing to impartial but engaged humanitarians. Read up on them.
Link to announcement on MSF site:
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-thousands-suffering-neurotoxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported-msf

[felix_numinous]

7. Whoever produced and sold them these poisons

is equally as guilty. Arms and chemical warfare peddlers need to be outed, IMHO.

I know knives and home made bombs can be used by anyone with the will to murder someone, but these make it much easier.

Drones, poisons, cluster bombs, as well as nukes are just plain evil, and much of it is manufactured in this country.

I am all for outing everyone who participates in facilitating and profiting off of war, because it is a necessary first step to putting these people on the defensive instead of the offensive--and to draft regulations that ban them.

[Surya Gayatri]

8. "...just plain evil..." Word!

Excellent post, f_n. Why not repost this as an OP?

[RKP5637]

51. +++ 1,000 +++ n/t

[leveymg]

9. Yes, but the key question, "Who?" still comes down to "Who benefits?"

On its face, that is clearly not the government.

This raises another question: are we prepared to also bomb the Saudis and Qataris, if indeed it can be confirmed it was the opposition?

[Surya Gayatri]

12. What a "panier de crabes" (basket of crabs) as the French would call it...

I fear this Syrian sink hole will suck us all in eventually.

Cui bono? That is indeed the question.

[Igel]

31. It's a good question.

As long as you use the right understanding. You have to look at a sufficient time span for an act to play out and also to look at not who actually benefits but who thinks they'd benefit.

All kinds of cases could arise where I do something but somebody else benefits--perhaps immediately, perhaps I benefit in the very short-term but in the long run somebody else benefits.

Or perhaps I do something to hurt myself intentionally, knowing that by helping the other person they'll be suspected and eventually be hurt, allowing me to benefit.

So in this perhaps Syria benefitted quickly. But in the end the rebels benefit more. Did Syria miscalculate?

Or perhaps the rebels did it, knowing they'd suffer in the short-term but benefit in the long term.

Perhaps it was a faction of the rebels at odds with both Assad and the group controlling the area the attack occurred in, so they benefit twice--smear Assad, kill enemy faction folk, and still get the US drawn in.

Attack happened.

[Surya Gayatri]

33. Inextricably complex scenario. You're right about the

rebels. They are becoming more and
more splintered and disunified. Was this some rebel faction trying to smear another?

SNAKE PIT

[GeorgeGist]

50. Nice word salad.

[Scootaloo]

14. We would shake our finger at the Qataris, and bury any mention of the Saudis

As for who... well, it could be damn near anyone, really.

[christx30]

15. And how would Russia react to us going in there?

They have a vested interest in keeping this war going as long as possible, as the main supplier of the Syrian government's arms.

[Surya Gayatri]

16. If ever there was an international "tinderbox",

this is it.

[christx30]

39. There is nothing to be gained from going in there.

Best thing we can do is encourage talks between Assad and the rebels. Try to stop the fighting and save as many lives as possible.

[AverageJoe90]

42. I doubt it.

Though it is unfortunately possible that this could become a more regional conflict, I don't see it going any farther than that. Even Dubya wouldn't have taken it any farther, as much of an incompetent fuckup as he was.

[pampango]

17. Per Juan Cole, the government does benefit, if the dictator wants to terrorize his population.

If the regime did use gas, what are its motives? Iraq used gas in the 1980s because it had far fewer troops than Iran and wanted to level the playing field. Likewise, the Syrian army has shrunk through Sunni desertions to a shadow of its former self and so can’t control the whole country any more. Its recent advances in the Homs area were offset by losses around Aleppo in the north, including the fall of a major military air base. Weakened armies facing a demographically larger foe often resort to unconventional armaments.

Likewise, the regime clearly is seeking to terrify the population into submission. Again, Saddam Hussein tried that with the Kurds and Shiites. Mass killings of restive populations by a regime raise the cost of insurgency, the regime hopes to unacceptably high levels. Could the Baath have done this? This is the regime that slaughtered at least 10,000 at Hama in 1982, so sure.

Did they do it? Hard to tell this morning.. But if they did, it will increase pressure on a reluctant Obama to speed up promised shipments of weapons to the rebels. If Damascus is playing it this way, it is clearly calling Obama’s bluff. Lesson to Mr. Obama: don’t bluff and don’t set red lines unless you’re really committted to reacting if they are crossed.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/killing-hundreds-obamas.html

If the regime was afraid of the UN weapons inspectors, it would be different. Assad has delayed their entry into the country by months, restricted the sites they are allowed to visit and prohibited them from determining responsibility for the attacks. He knows he can prevent them from visiting the site of the most recent attack indefinitely. He has the UN team on a very short leash and is not afraid of them.

[Surya Gayatri]

18. Thanks for posting this discussion from Juan Cole. He's a pretty credible analyst.

"Weakened armies facing a demographically larger foe often resort to unconventional armaments."

The Syrian Army has been seriously degraded. Is this their latest repost in a war of attrition?

[Arctic Dave]

26. With that logic it would seem the rebels would use it.

They are being beaten on the battlefield and lost significant ground. The army was pushing them back and they are desperate.

Hmmm. How could they get more support from other countries when they are not seen as a competent organization?

Throw the Hail Mary.


Desperate and fanatical is a very dangerous combination.

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. That is a very risky calculation. Some benefits, huge possible blowback.

The Assad regime is not losing this war. While it is not completely crushing the rebels, by all accounts it has taken the upper hand in recent months. Why it would resort to a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs as UN inspectors arrive is more than a bit puzzling, especially knowing it would lead to heartfelt howls for intervention. Why try to prod the West into intervening?

The rebels, on the other hand, stand to benefit tremendously.

This is just too perfect. It smells like a set up to me. Perhaps one day we will know definitively what happened. Right now, I encourage Obama to not act rashly.

[branford]

46. Assad's purported gains do not equate with an expectation of victory any time soon.

Also, everyone keeps on making a questionable presumption in this debate - that Assad is in total control of all his forces. The Syrian military is fairly large, includes many mercenary forces, and it is not known for its discipline.

Even if Assad is winning, individual generals and local leaders may still be losing a great deal against the rebels. I would not be surprised if certain government or military factions in Syria used chemical weapons, even if it is contrary to the immediate interests or orders of Assad and the leadership in Damascus.

[leveymg]

28. Sorry, not buying that. Stakes are too great in keeping the US and NATO out. Assad isn't crazy or

stupid enough to do this to make some sort of statement.

This was, quite obviously, a false-flag attack, and if the US wants to restore its reputation as an honest broker, the CIA should be concentrating on finding exactly who really cooked this thing up.

When (and if) that is ever determined with any certainty, then we should put cruise missiles on target. Even if that's right through the top floor of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate or the Qatari* military intelligence service. There still hasn't been any real accountability for 9/11, and nationals working for the secret services of both countries** were deeply involved in that atrocity, as well.

* ** See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/02/940661/-Wikileaks-reveals-9-11-Team-B-hijack-team-got-away

[rdharma]

32. I agree with Juan Cole's assessment......

Damascus is desperate and thought it worth the risk of challenging Obama’s "line in the sand" ultimatum.

[leveymg]

34. Why? What do they have to gain/to lose? That calculation is essential.

Juan Cole, as much as I respect him on must things, is a deeply partisan on this issue.

[rdharma]

38. The Syrian govt. can not stop the rebels by conventional means.

So they resorted to the desperate use of chemical warfare.

Saddam did the same thing in Iraq when he was trying to terrorize the Kurds into submission.

[Comrade Grumpy]

40. Actually, the Syrian government has been making steady gains against the rebels.

It may well be that the rebels are the ones desperate enough to resort to such acts. They are the ones who stand to benefit from drawing the West in.

[David__77]

41. I have no idea who it was, but the US should not intervene either way.

Not in this instance, and not in any other hypothetical instance of "chemical weapon" use, real or not.

[rdharma]

45. Agreed. nt

[rdharma]

44. I don't know where you heard that. But the opposite is the case. nt

[branford]

47. As I mentioned in another post in this thread, Assad's "gains" are a far cry from victory.

[AverageJoe90]

43. Yep. There's no doubt that they have resorted to this as well.

It doesn't, TBH, discount the possibility that AQ has done the same.....but even if so, it doesn't negate the definite atrocities of the Al-Assad regime.

[madrchsod]

24. this was posted yesterday and no one noticed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3524356

so who do we choose? the sunni`s or the shiites?

what coalition of countries do we trust?


nothing has changed in the middle east for thousands of years. now it is over oil and gas.

[Surya Gayatri]

30. The Middle East reminds me of the snake pit scene from "Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark"...

[Supersedeas]

36. Wow...now that is some imagery

[RKP5637]

52. +1, n/t

[burnodo]

48. An interesting quotation from the article

when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels.

Opposition activists. Seems to be a lot of they said/they said going on.