Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So...what? Was there a sudden mass outbreak of epilepsy captured on film?



Syria must have some damn good child actors...

Then enlight me here. What kind of nervgas has been used here? -If it has been used.

Markus

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Then enlight me here. What kind of nervgas has been used here? -If it has been used.

Markus

I'm not a weapons inspector, but those reactions are not those of conventional weapons are they? You don't see mass outbreaks of convulsions from a standard explosion do you?

EDIT: If I had to guess I'd say it was either Sarin or VX. Now bear in mind that most chemical agents are water soluble, that's why the US dumps their chemical stockpiles at sea. So, the weapon hits the area, effects a set number of people (last estimate was in the low thousands), some die within minutes, others on the outskirts get a lower dosage and develop symptoms of exposure. They spread out from the impact site and are taken by friends to a hospital, bear in mind that most of this footage is coming from either in a hospital or outside a hospital, NOT in the actual impact zone. Some of the victims are washed down with hose pipes, that lessens the amount of chemical residue on them. Some of the people who have been exposed to the survivors of this attack may well develop complications over the coming weeks, some will no doubt die.
Now, short of either some very good child actors, special effects and make-up, or perhaps some sort of massive shock-wave cannon, I do not see a way to create that many blood-less victims without using chemical weapons. If the casualties were purely adult, then I would perhaps be skeptical that they were paid to act like that, but when you get children that cannot be much more than four or five, then it becomes harder to create that level of authenticity.
Could it be a fake? There is a chance, I cannot deny it, and I'm sorry if my tone is hostile but you cannot watch that footage and not get a little emotional about it. Honestly though, what advantage would the West gain from making such footage? What advantage would we gain from overthrowing Assad? What advantage have we gained in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan? I don't think any of the Western governments particularly want to get involved in another war in the Middle East, because let's face it, all politicians care about is their popularity scores, and wars in the Middle East are a sure-fire way to sink your popularity, but I don't think that they can keep out of it, and whether this attack was the FSA trying to frame Assad to get the West to come to their aid, or Assad trying to break a stalemate in the area, I do not know, but I am very sure that some sort of chemical attack has taken place here, either that or this is some sort of elaborate ruse, far beyond the abilities of Syria, and if it is by the West then for what purpose would it serve? Another expensive war in a time of financial austerity that will sink their popularity and make them unelectable, and whilst it may remove a Russian ally, it won't remove the Russian base, it won't remove a threat to Israel, and it won't make the new Syrian government necessarily any more favourable towards the West, if anything it will probably just result in another breeding ground for Al'Qaeda. Not that the current situation in Syria isn't conducive to Al'Qaeda operations.
So why?

EDIT EDIT: It could equally be Chlorine gas, it's been used before and it doesn't have the longevity of modern gases but it's still potent and it doesn't necessarily kill straight away:

From the British Official History of the attack on Hill 60, 1915.

90 men died from gas poisoning in the trenches or before they could be got to a dressing station; of the 207 brought to the nearest dressing stations, 46 died almost immediately and 12 after long suffering

Furthermore it has supposedly been used in Syria already, by the FSA which means that it's likely that the Syrian army has it too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/24/wo...emical-weapons

http://world.time.com/2013/04/01/syr...emical-attack/

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm not a weapons inspector, but those reactions are not those of conventional weapons are they? You don't see mass outbreaks of convulsions from a standard explosion do you?

They have been hit by something, that for sure.

From what I know Syria has a huge amount of Saringas and if I'm not wrong a lot of mustard gas and none of these two seems to have been used here.

I'm like you not an expert on this.

We have to remember one important thing- The first victims in a war is the truth and the winner is the propaganda.

I say that we await the UN-report then we can discuss whatever our response should be.

It could be true(look at my post above)

Markus

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

They have been hit by something, that for sure.

From what I know Syria has a huge amount of Saringas and if I'm not wrong a lot of mustard gas and none of these two seems to have been used here.

I'm like you not an expert on this.

We have to remember one important thing- The first victims in a war is the truth and the winner is the propaganda.

I say that we await the UN-report then we can discuss whatever our response should be.

It could be true(look at my post above)

Markus

I agree (and apologise for the mass-editing of my post whilst you were typing your response) and there are certainly going to be inflated casualty figures and lots of lingering shots on dying children just before the family dinner time meal, it's the same sort of tactic used by charities for raising money for Darfur and places like that, but in both situations something has occurred, it's just how it's reported, and I am dubious whether Assad conducted this latest attack, because as you have stated, it doesn't make political sense, although given that the Syrian army started bombarding the same area the day after the incident then perhaps it was a prelude to an offensive to try and retake Ghouta.
There's been talk of 'Agent 15' or BZ being the chemical used in the attacks, certainly it does bear some of the marks of BZ, however the Syrian army is not known to possess BZ, so if it is BZ, and given the situation in Syria and the inability of the UN inspectors to do their job, we are likely to never know, then the question is where did they get it from?
One thing is for certain that it wasn't a Blister agent, since none of the victims had skin blisters, so it rules out Mustard gas, but IIRC Nerve agents do not create blistering.

[mapuc]

Have read your edited post and this one.

I agree in everything you wrote.

I myself will await the UN-report. If it comes.

Maybe we have to look at the informal channels to get the truth, ´cause I doubt that the UN gets the clearence to access this area(thinking of Russia and China blocking for a demand by UN)

Markus

[eddie]

Assad destroying the evidence?

http://news.msn.com/world/syria-bomb...hemical-attack

[mapuc]

Found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_agent

especially this caught my eyes

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Initial symptoms following exposure to nerve agents (like sarin) are a runny nose, tightness in the chest, and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim will then have difficulty breathing and will experience nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of his or her bodily functions, he or she will involuntarily salivate, lacrimate, urinate, defecate, and experience gastrointestinal pain and vomiting. Blisters and burning of the eyes and/or lungs may also occur.[2][3] This phase is followed by initially myoclonic jerks followed by status epilepticus. Death then comes via complete respiratory depression, most likely via the excessive peripheral activity at the neuromuscular junction of the diaphragm.[4]
The effects of nerve agents are very long lasting and increase with successive exposures. Survivors of nerve agent poisoning almost invariably suffer chronic neurological damage. This neurological damage can also lead to continuing psychiatric effects.[5]

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by eddie

Assad destroying the evidence?

http://news.msn.com/world/syria-bomb...hemical-attack

That wouldn't surprise me in the least....the west should push as hard as they can diplomatically to get inspectors in there (and I mean in short time...a month at most).

Failure to do so as a consequence of Syrian refusal then put a no fly zone in place similar to that in Libya previously and live by their morals....otherwise stop moaning and keep out of the whole affair.

Obama must be getting embarrassed by his previous 'red line' comments.

[Skybird]

It is counter-intuitive to think Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons now that weapon inspectors already are underway in Syria, although being held on a very short line by the Syrians. But does this really mean anything? He could as well just think that he nevertheless could get away with it if doing this publicity stunt right under the nose of the inspectors and the UN. And who would accuse him for assuming that? Obama and the EU and the UN all have so far given extremely weak reactions to the whole Syrian bloodshed, and Assad knows he has the Russians behind him. Probably also the Chinese. Even the Israelis have an interest to see him staying, instead of having to deal with a chaotic breed of several rivalling factions and ultra-fundamentalists who in case of victory will have access to those weapons.

I don't bet a cent on who committed that chemical strike. That the rebels did it, is as possible as that Assad ordered it. It even is possible that there was a break in the chain of command, or that local military commanders overstepped their responsibility. Heck, it is even possible that the strike was ordered from somebody in Assad's camp who wanted to struck the beloved Fuhrer from behind to improve his own cards when weakening or removing Assad, or to settle an open bill.

I still recommend to do the same as we did in reaction to the genocide committed by the Janjaweed, or the genocide committed in Rwanda, and so many other massacres that we witnessed: let's do nothing. We do that often, so what makes Syria so precious that now we should change it? Syria is not worth our tax money and the defense budget it finances, nor the health and life of our soldiers. In the thread on Egypt I recently linked an article "Nobody needs a democratic Egypt". What was written in that, in principle is true for Syria as well. Especially the part about the nature of mentality and ideological basis of those on whose behalf some now want to intervene.

And btw, in reality we do not have money anyway. What our nations have, is debts. Plenty of them. Implicit debts that are several, many times as high as our nations' yearly GDPs.

[mapuc]

Every military expert that I have seen on danish tv, say that it would be the most wrong thing by Assad to do, now that he have won a lot on the battlefield.

Have been thinking and I could be wrong.

Could it be that Assad is so coldhearted that he did it and knows that Russia and China is going to prevent any military intervention by the nato?

Just a thought.

Markus