Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Feuer Frei!]

New lows have been reached it seems.

Chemical weapons attacks have killed hundreds on the outskirts of Damascus, Syrian opposition activists say.
Rockets with toxic agents were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region early on Wednesday as part of a major bombardment on rebel forces, they say.

SOURCE

[Skybird]

Never really understood the outcry about chemical weapons here. Is burning crowds with white phosphorus or having them massacred by machine guns less heavy in blood toll? Or German outcry about drones: where is the difference about a missiles dropped on a target by a fighter, or a drone? Except that the latter saves own guys to put themselves at risk and denies the enemy to equal the score by having them shot, too.

War is war. It's always dirty. Massacre is massacre, it's always "low".

[Feuer Frei!]

So you are saying there is no distinction between using nerve gas or chemical weapons and machine gun bullets?

Apart from the fact that you can direct machine gun bullets and cannot direct the effects of nerve gas or chemical radiation, ie not discriminating and, like in this case, killing babies and children.

I think it says a lot, when a combatant choses to use cowardly methods to inflict losses upon the other.

In fact, what is the primary objective of the use of chemical warfare?

Certainly the answer is not indiscriminately killing off your enemy.

There are a raft of reasons why chemical warfare is frowned upon in the world.
A raft of reasons.

[Skybird]

I'm saying that a massacre not committed by chemicals but machetes or bullets is not any nicier.

In acts like here, bullets would be used without discriminating between civilian and combatant either. That's why we call such things not a battle, but a massacre.

So what i am pointing at is our hypocrisy when arranging ourselves with slaughtering done with bullets or machetes - but we yell when they use chemicals.

Some people in the West even want us actively supporting the so-called "rebels". But what if they have done this latest massacre, like they have done others before, like their counterparts in Assad's hordes? Not to mention that the majority of these "rebels" factions are ultra-fundamentalist and propose "values" that any civilised person would avoid at all cost to get associated with?

[Feuer Frei!]

The question of why the use of Chemical warfare, and let's stick with that one, because this is what allegedly happened here, is different than using a bomb has been asked many times.

Not many have answered it.

I think 2 words come to mind. Intimidation vs Eradication.

The use of chemical weapons is 2-fold.

Controversial and immoral.

Chemical weapons are classed as unconventional threats.

Stopping such activity is becoming increasingly more difficult with the continued development of chemical and biological weaponry by rogue parties and states.

Chemical bombs have the potential to reach far outside the impact zone, given the right weather conditions for example.

Compare that with the spray of a machine gun or even a nuclear bomb.

The use of weapons comes down to whether or not it is morally acceptable and ethically responsible. The destruction of human life is unacceptable – as should be the use of chemical and biological weapons.

[Skybird]

By your arguments you should be more concerned with the use of submunition bombs and cluster ammunition, as well as mines. These lay around for months and years after the fighting has been done. Chemical weapons that so far got used in wars have short living times only, the agents are gone after short time and are difficult to be brought to focused, amassed effect.

To me, the difference is made by targets selection (or no target selection):

The intended targeting of persons not supporting directly or indirectly the enemy and not participating in actual fighting and not being a member of the enemy force, or abusing them as human shields

versus

targeting enemy combatants, and non-combating but still supporting "helpers" and sympathizers, also mentioning here the victims falling to "collateral" damage where the victim is not targetted as the shot's objective but just unluckily happens to be in in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The weapon does not make the moral difference. The intention of aim, the purposes of a war - these make the moral difference.

What makes a difference is to intentionally bombard and mass-kill civilian crowds as a tool to terrorize them for the purpose of terrorizing them, or blaming the other side. In Rwanda, the genocide was committed by machetes (delivered by the Chinese). Whether children and women and men, old and young, get mutilated my machetes and blood to death, get burned to deathn by white phosphorus, get mowed down by machine guns, or get ripped apart by cluster ammunition- is that method of doing the killing really the standard by which to assess the severity of the event?

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

So you are saying there is no distinction between using nerve gas or chemical weapons and machine gun bullets?

Apart from the fact that you can direct machine gun bullets and cannot direct the effects of nerve gas or chemical radiation, ie not discriminating and, like in this case, killing babies and children.

I think it says a lot, when a combatant choses to use cowardly methods to inflict losses upon the other.

In fact, what is the primary objective of the use of chemical warfare?

Certainly the answer is not indiscriminately killing off your enemy.

There are a raft of reasons why chemical warfare is frowned upon in the world.
A raft of reasons.

The whole fear of poison gas is an irrational fear from an earlier era.

I can understand how, in the trenches of WWI, you would wet yourself at the sight of a gas slowly drifting towards you, knowing that it would kill you.



But in this day and age, chemical weapons are not too hard to come by, especially when you can see things like this:

http://gizmodo.com/5847985/feuding-w...-of-a-wal+mart


truth is, small scale chemical weapon creation is easily doable in your home, its arguably easier to create chlorine gas in small scales than it is to create gun powder.

With a few trained chemists and a chemicals facility (ex. a fertilizer factory). Its not too difficult to create a wide variety of chemical weapons. it is probably easier to convert a chemical factory into a factory for chemical weapons than it is to convert a manufactory into artillery production.

The use of poison gas is just like the use of any other weapon with an area of effect, and should not be feared as the end of the world.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

I'm thinking little or nothing Jim.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Jim, BO is golfing. Please leave a message.

I feared/thought as much

[eddie]

I'm sure BO is aware of what has happened over there. We've been fighting so damned long in the ME already, why should we get involved. We have spent trillions on the ME, isn't that enough? We've lost a lot of soldiers and have thousands of wounded, isn't that enough?

Unless of course you are part of that crowd who says war is good for business. American Defense Contractors are just waiting to get going into Syria, the sick bastids! They know where they can go, as far as I'm concerned!

[mapuc]

Every one have his believe in things and every one picks the words that is said in a news program a.s.o. Every one also collect what he or she sees on the news.

Now that it is said I continue

Heard an expert on a danish radio show today

and he said something interesting.

Take a look at some of the victims from Saddam's attack on the Kurds in the 80'ies and then take a look at the victims from Syria- you will see a huge different.

He also said: It would be wrong things to do by Assad, now that he has good fortune on the battlefield.

So this is those words I picked up.

I doubt that there have been used chemical weapons in this attack

Markus

[Wolferz]

I'm with Markus.

If it was actually Sarin, they would all be dead.
If it was mustard gas, the victims would be choking on their own bodily fluids and would show signs of chemical burns on their skin.

The reports are a false flag manipulation attempting to make Assad look guilty. If that's even possible the way that scum bag has been acting.

There are a number of scenarios that could be at work here. Each as unlikely as the next.

[Packlife]

A quick side note- If the FRENCH are calling for action you know it's bad really really bad lol. Ok now my 2 cents on this. I've been watching the Syrian revolution since it kicked off w/ Assad's troops shooting an beating peaceful protesters in the street. This guy would have somebody's head cut off behind a curtain an tell you that they just stubbed their toe. Now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, it's not the same as machine guns, artillery, etc like somebody said earlier, they say bullet has no name but gas/nerve agent's simply have "to whom it may concern" meaning everybody, I've heard even some of Assad's troops got hit w/ it when the wind shifted an brought it back on some of them. Gas/nerve agent's represent's the nastiest an ugliest side of war seeing people bent in wrong directions foaming at the mouth unable to breath will scar you deep, it did today when I saw video's of lines of dead kids not a scratch on them flat dead, I watched a little boy try to take 2 breaths before he died. That is not war it's murder an its butchery an should not be tolerated period. An what's worse is innocent women an children can't tell the difference between the regular Monday morning shelling an a Monday morning "special" shelling from good ol uncle Assad. These people do that natural thing when they hear incoming rounds or airstrikes an take cover in their basement's, an before they know it their basement is filling up w/ gas. There's of right after the shells hit an you can see the gas cloud taller than the buildings an was probably a city block or two long moving w/ the wind, it wasn't some home made recipe it was BIG. If these attacks were small in scale I'd say ok maybe it could be some hardcore rebels but seeing how big this attacked look an the casualties were 3,600 affected an 355 died from it, that came from doctors without borders. Assad's troops don't care who they kill. I watched a little documentary called the battle for Syria, w/ english subtitles and a english speaking narrator. One of the rebel leader's described the normal tactics of the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) since the rebel's have RPG's an some other anti-armor weapons the SAA started pulling their tank's way back an sending sniper's in large number's, line's of sniper's as the leader said. The snipers take out as many rebel soldiers as possible then the tanks move up an then the snipers move ahead of them again. They took the camera man to one of these area's by a park an showed pointed in the direction from where the sniper's fire from. A second later a bullet rips right over the camera mans head, the rebel's though they had cleared them all out. These snipers target every an anybody, 1 sniper killed a cleric an would shoot at anybody who tried to retrieve the body. An this rebel leader had been an officer in the SAA, an was explaining how hard it is to fight their revolution since he doesnt have soldiers, he has regular people taxi drivers plumbers, an he explained they dont listen to directions he said if they followed even 15% of what their told to do it's a success. To me it's amazing how long the rebels have been able to hold out against a professional army, not too mention the Hezbollah fighters that have been coming in from Lebanon helping Assad, Hezbollah is actually the reason the rebels have been loosing ground, but we all know that Iran has trained a majority of Hezbollah's fighters in urban warfare. You can go on youtube an find all kind's of video's of the fighting. I've heard some say or its a civil war let both sides work it out, but is it still a civil war considering that Russia is providing Assad w/ all kinds of goodies, Hezbollah is providing fighters, an Iran is providing some kind of aid as well doesn't really seem like a civil war to me. Now I'm not calling for boot's on the ground, but why can't we do what we did in Libya?? Send in jets an tomahawk missiles, take out Assad's air power, an carve out a area for a no fly zone so that innocent civilians have somewhere to go w/ out having to leave the country, as of right now there are 1.9 million refugees an 1 million children refugees, an god knows how many are dead. What worries me most is something like Al-Qaeda coming in an linking up w/ the rebels that want to turn Syria back into a more old school religious traditional country. An Al-Qaeda would have a new warm cozy home to fester an grow strong again, an their payment would be those chemical weapons an a lotta pissed off people who will end up mad that the US didn't come an help them. America is suppose to be the country that sticks up for the little guy, personally I think we've let this thing get way out of hand. It would be one thing if it was an even type match an the rebels could win it on their own, but w/ these gas attacks, an Hezbollah fighters coming in an Russia giving Assad all kinds of equipment takes it in a whole new direction. Sorry if it seemed like I rambled some but I cant stand seeing innocent people being butchered

[Skybird]

Israeli minister for strategic affairs, Juval Steinitz, is quoted in German news that the Mossad says the attack has been carried out by Assad's troops.

France indirectly has threatened French intervention even without green light from the UN.

The UN - does what it usually always does. Nobody is as competent in doing that as the UN.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'm hoping the west don't get involved and especially the UK.

Cameron says the austerity measures currently in place are here for at least another two years so where would the hundreds of millions come from to fund British intervention?

I suspect it would fall on the shoulders of the tax payer and cause even more closures of vital services.

Same here, why can't we stay out of these regional squabbles. The US has no real interests here.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Same here, why can't we stay out of these regional squabbles. The US has no real interests here.

Exactly. There is nothing to gain, but alot to lose, even if we win.

I get Afghanistan, and kinda get Iraq, but feel we really need to stop and go back to pre WW1 isolationism, alot of social issues at home not being addressed, yet we can sell 8 helos to indonesia for 500 mil, and do nothing for the people who built and bought those things (taxpayers)