Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[Nage Waza]

I certainly care about who used the chemical weapons, but I think Itse is getting confused. If they were Assad's weapons then it is his fault regardless of who fired them. Assad should not have had them and he should bear the responsibility of any destruction they caused.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It seems so unfathomable and ridiculous. I can't believe someone would do the one thing that all but ensures they get their head on a pike. He was winning without the CW, wasn't he?

Well from what the latest round investigative analysis says, the CW attacks seem to correspond with a failed assassination attempt on Assad. He survived... more than likely this is a FU at most of the world/the attempts to rein in his violence and a message for the rebels that tried to kill him.
Link

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Rarely do I start hopping on the conspiracy train. And I don't think this is that much of a conspiracy but Assad can't possibly be this dumb?

Then again, why would the Taliban say "Yeah, we got the guys that blew those towers up. YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE US BROS?! HUH!? YOU THINK YOU GO-- oh we're dead."

It seems so unfathomable and ridiculous. I can't believe someone would do the one thing that all but ensures they get their head on a pike. He was winning without the CW, wasn't he?

It was mostly a stalemate. The largest city in Syria, Aleppo, is under rebel control. As are all the area's of Damascus that were hit with the chemical weapons.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I certainly care about who used the chemical weapons, but I think Itse is getting confused. If they were Assad's weapons then it is his fault regardless of who fired them. Assad should not have had them and he should bear the responsibility of any destruction they caused.

Fair view if they were fired by his allies. If they were fired by his enemis, then I don't think that's fair. If someone comes and takes the thing you're trying to protect by force and you try to protect it and fail, I don't think you're responsible for what happens after that.

I'd also like to remind that completely regardless of who did this, I am of the opinion that the FSA is propably the least of evils, and Assad bears the most blame for the situation deteriorating to a civil war in the first place.

I also think way too much focus is given to these attacks, which seem to be mostly propaganda attacks anyway, and thus fed by media attention.

Then again, the option of not giving attention to them...

Bleh. Frak war.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Well from what the latest round investigative analysis says, the CW attacks seem to correspond with a failed assassination attempt on Assad. He survived... more than likely this is a FU at most of the world/the attempts to rein in his violence and a message for the rebels that tried to kill him.
Link

That's such garbage.

Rebels are trying to kill him every single second of every single minute but one specific attack made him use chemical weapons?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Rarely do I start hopping on the conspiracy train. And I don't think this is that much of a conspiracy but Assad can't possibly be this dumb?

Then again, why would the Taliban say "Yeah, we got the guys that blew those towers up. YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE US BROS?! HUH!? YOU THINK YOU GO-- oh we're dead."

It seems so unfathomable and ridiculous. I can't believe someone would do the one thing that all but ensures they get their head on a pike. He was winning without the CW, wasn't he?

I doubt he gives two craps about international reaction, he had already killed people by the thousands before the chemical attacks, he was already crapped on by the international community.

A big part of it he could have been emboldened by the less then strong reaction by America the West and the allies, when Obama talked about the red line a long time ago after a suspected chemical attack and then nothing happened.

He was also probably told by Putin that "Bro we got your back on this" and decided to do what he wanted to do. He probably believes that any western intervention will not only be blocked by the UN but blocked by the Western countries own people who don't want to fight another war in the middle east.

Because of the above, I believe, its a theory, whatever, that he can punish his people for siding with the rebels in the most punitive manner possible.

I believe that the weapons were his, I believe he solely decided to deploy and have the weapons used.

Most of these middle east monster dictators believe themselves to be a later day Tamerlane with almost god like discretion over their own citizens.

We know that Syria had fairly large quantities of chemical weapons in multiple formats of nerve gas, and blistering agents.

He hit areas that were already under the control of the various rebel groups.

He has the systems to effectively deploy the weapons.

I don't know about the school bombing until more info comes out, it could have been everything from a bad drop to an intentional strike. I have not seen any stories about the Rebels having fighter jets in their inventory, I have seen stories of the Rebels seizing helicopters. Witnesses talked about a fighter jet leaving the area

Unless people are thinking the American's dropped the bomb on the school to incite UN reaction?

Asaad's airforce has bombed their people and used incendiary bombs on the rebel groups, so to me again it goes back to motive, means and opportunity.

You have a banana head trying to ruthlessly tamp out a rebellion and leave an object lesson about what happens to his enemies.

You have a dictator who has a pair of powerful patrons who will never let anything pass the UN vote and are willing to stand up to the Yanks.

You have a dictator that owns a large stock or chemical weapons, advanced artillary, fighter planes and fighter bombers.

You have a dictator who even before this rebellion used his secret police to seize torture and murder people that might be a threat to him.

I believe that Asaad is doing whatever a ruthless middle eastern dictator will do when under threat of rebellion, and that's to ruthlessly destroy his enemies by any means possible and ensure that they won't rise again.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by Itse

Fair view if they were fired by his allies. If they were fired by his enemis, then I don't think that's fair. If someone comes and takes the thing you're trying to protect by force and you try to protect it and fail, I don't think you're responsible for what happens after that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The thinking is that if you possess certain types of weapons - mostly unconventional weapons - then you have a greater responsibility to ensure that they are secure. One of the biggest threats to international peace and security was the break up of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The fear was that weapons, primarily nuclear weapons, in both Russia and some former Soviet Republics, were in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Billions of dollars of western money went into programs like Cooperative Threat Reduction (based on the US legislation promoted by Senators Nunn and Lugar). CTR was hugely influential and successful in helping the Russians secure their arsenal. Had a rogue state or sub-state terrorist group got their paws on some old Soviet nuclear hardware, Russian culpability would have been clear and they would have been held to account. Simply saying that it wasn't their responsibility in what happens after the loss of such weapons would have been the worst thing they could have done outside of developing them in the first place. (see Graham Allison, et al. Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy).

Originally Posted by Itse

I also think way too much focus is given to these attacks, which seem to be mostly propaganda attacks anyway, and thus fed by media attention.

The use of chemical weapons in many circles constitutes a war crime, one that is underpinned in international law (customary, humanitarian and treaty), regardless if Syria is party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It has been 25 years since the last CW attacks in a combat situation and the perpetrators of that crime were never expressly held to account for what they did. While very few have an appetite for war, many in the international arms control and disarmament community see this as a watershed moment - a new Halabja. Simply standing by and watching events unfold is providing de facto legitimisation for future potential deliberate release of chemical agents. It is hoped that the mistakes made 25 years ago will not be repeated.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by NBC

One of the biggest threats to international peace and security was the break up of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The fear was that weapons, primarily nuclear weapons, in both Russia and some former Soviet Republics, were in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Billions of dollars of western money went into programs like Cooperative Threat Reduction (based on the US legislation promoted by Senators Nunn and Lugar). CTR was hugely influential and successful in helping the Russians secure their arsenal. Had a rogue state or sub-state terrorist group got their paws on some old Soviet nuclear hardware, Russian culpability would have been clear and they would have be held to account. Simply saying that it wasn't their responsibility in what happens after the loss of such weapons would have been the worst thing they could have done outside of developing them in the first place. (see Graham Allison, et al. Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy).

Just read this awesome report on a similar anti-proliferation project.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/...untain-Web.pdf

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I certainly care about who used the chemical weapons, but I think Itse is getting confused. If they were Assad's weapons then it is his fault regardless of who fired them. Assad should not have had them and he should bear the responsibility of any destruction they caused.

I agree

There are 2 rules for Chemical Weapons Club

1. Don't use your chemical weapons
2. Don't lose your chemical weapons

Unless someone is arguing that rebels produced or imported chemical weapons, Assad broke one of the rules of CW club

[Azure]

The rebels could possibly have stolen the weapons if they actually used them. The whole country is a giant ####storm. Wouldn't be surprising if Assad couldn't keep track of all his weapons.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by NBC

I'm not sure I agree with this. The thinking is that if you possess certain types of weapons - mostly unconventional weapons - then you have a greater responsibility to ensure that they are secure.

Fair argument.

I guess my difficulty in seeing that way comes generally considering wars as a competition in mass murder, with victims always being mostly civilians.

But I guess there are significant nuances even in mass murder.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

The rebels could possibly have stolen the weapons if they actually used them. The whole country is a giant ####storm. Wouldn't be surprising if Assad couldn't keep track of all his weapons.

wouldn't you think that Asaad would be screaming from the roof if that was the case?

It would give him an elegant out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Pretty thin presentation by Kerry today. We know they did it, we really can't tell you how we know, but do your own research.

It sounds a lot like the Iraqi justification WMD speech.

I don't see a lot of other nations except the French and the Turks and the Arab League flocking in to aid the American's militarily.

I do see Russia blocking anything in the UN based on this. If there was something concrete presented the Russian's would be put in a tough spot.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I agree

There are 2 rules for Chemical Weapons Club

1. Don't use your chemical weapons
2. Don't lose your chemical weapons

Unless someone is arguing that rebels produced or imported chemical weapons, Assad broke one of the rules of CW club

Doesnt this beg the question, why even have these weapons? Why do we even allow them to exist if no one is allowed to use them? Same with Nuclear and Bio weapons. If the deterent is the arguement, then each nation (under the treaties) should be able to have ONE of each. If you lose or use one, everyone would know who did because you wouldnt have anymore.

"We didn't use that weapon!"

"Well you had one, and now you have zero, sooooo"

/hippy thoughts

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

wouldn't you think that Asaad would be screaming from the roof if that was the case?

It would give him an elegant out.

Or perhaps he doesn't have as much control as people think.

[Azure]

Well you need two weapons in CASE you lose one.

Not sure why they need thousands though. After 500 it doesn't make much of a difference anymore.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

wouldn't you think that Asaad would be screaming from the roof if that was the case?

It would give him an elegant out.

Did he warn that they may have obtained some months ago?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well you need two weapons in CASE you lose one.

Not sure why they need thousands though. After 500 it doesn't make much of a difference anymore.

Too bad so sad. Protect the stuff that can wipe cities/nations off the map. If you lose yours, you better hope your buddies still have theirs.

In fact if you lose yours you shouldn't be able to hold them again.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Did he warn that they may have obtained some months ago?

The jihadists have had access to a factory that according to the Assad regime could make chlorine gas, yes. This link suggests the place might have had more stuff than that, but doesn't name sources, so you know, speculative essentially.

"Late Saturday night, it was reported that FSA fighters captured a Syrian chemical factory used to make toxic chlorine. Some reports suggested that the chloride factory at Al-Safira, southeast of Aleppo, is a also a chemical weapons depot and research station with chemical tipped scud missiles. The town, along with the factory has reportedly been overrun by jihadists who are purportedly fighting the Syrian government. The jihadists are members of al Nusra, a terrorist group associated with al-Qaeda."

Jihadists have previously used chlorine attacks against the US in Iraq and by some reports against Assad in Syria already. (Not very effectively apparently.)

"Syria believes the chemical involved was a relatively small amount of chlorine gas, namely CL17 which was dissolved into saline solution in a home-made rocket. Two separate military sources have confirmed to Channel 4 News that it was a rocket and not a shell.
"All in all weapons experts would consider chlorine as a not particularly effective chemical weapon in terms of effect, but one ideally suited to home-made weaponising because of factors like its stability and availability."

Basicly it seems to be a fact that the jihadists have the ability to make chlorine attacks, and really there's little reason to believe they wouldn't, since they've already used it in Iraq. (This is of course highly inconvenient for the US, now that the jihadists are fighting on the same side as the US backed FSA.)

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

wouldn't you think that Asaad would be screaming from the roof if that (rebels taking control of chemical weapons) was the case?

It would give him an elegant out.

Good question. I can think of one speculative answer.

If we assume that Assad is actually worried about the possibility of a western intervention, he might not want to talk about jihadist mercenaries stealing advanced chemical weapons from him. Putting together words "Al-Qaeda" and "VX" might get Obama a carte blanche to storm Syria. And if something like that happened some time ago and they didn't talk about it then, it's a little too late to bring it up now.

Pure speculation of course, but not too crazy I think.

[sureLoss]

CNN has obtained footage of kids with chemical burns and peeling skin... very graphic warning:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...ttack.cnn.html