Chemical weapons used in Syria

[inscribed]

“Yet while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.”

Obama said he has decided using force against Syria is necessary and does not require cooperation from other nations or the United Nations Security Council, which he said has been “paralyzed.”

“After careful deliberation I have decided the United States states should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said. “This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground. Instead our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior and degrade their capacity to carry it out.”

This sounds like he's only polling Congress to appeal to a few detractors, and that he has every intention of going with or without their approval.

Also, Ben Swann is also reporting that it was the rebels who used the chemical weapons, given to them by Saudi intelligence chief. Saudi Arabia is using the US to advance it's own agenda by getting Syria out of the way.

http://benswann.com/reports-saudi-prince-using-u-s-to-topple-assad-to-consolidate-own-power/

[Pali]

Swann's source is also just the mintpressnews article I linked to (edit: at least, regarding the claim that the Saudis gave the rebels chemical weapons).

Seriously, am I the only one here who checks sources?

[Aulian]

Just noticed your sig Pali - best series of books I've ever read (And by far my favourite) (Brandon Sanderson's stormlight archives a close contender)

[Pali]

Yeah, I can't wait for the third book. At some point I intend to re-read the story of Jax stealing the moon enough times to memorize it.

[mya]

My question is - who do you think used them? The Syrian government' date=' or the rebels?[/quote']

That is a good question.

I do not think that the Syrian government used them. For the reasons most of you already said.

It's most likely it was the rebels with seized chemical weapons form a raid to government ammunition storage, or were supplied from a foreign interest.

Or it was a complete black flag operation. This kind of stuff is not as unlikely as many of you think just remember the Lavon Affair.

And there was the "Britam Defence leaked email", which made everyone very cautious of the western narrative.

I think that we, the general public, will never know who did it.

But at least more and more people are starting to see the western narrative as what it truly is. Propaganda.

I for one have been forced to read the Russian information sites (read: propaganda) in order to gain access to the information that is simply not available in my western country. And to scourge forums online to get hints of what might actually be happening.

[inscribed]

Swann's source is also just the mintpressnews article I linked to (edit: at least, regarding the claim that the Saudis gave the rebels chemical weapons).

Seriously, am I the only one here who checks sources?

What's wrong with that source?

[Pali]

The Mintpressnews article? Nothing. You just wrote that Swann "also" is reporting that the rebels used Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, which to me implied another source of information - apologies if I misunderstood.

The only issue with the report is that it is based on hearsay. The only named source is relaying things his dead son told him. Two other sources are quoted, but unnamed, and their quotes are somewhat ambiguous. Reports like this are perfectly valid reporting, but it's hardly conclusive evidence that the rebels had the chemical weapons or that the Saudis supplied them - it provides good reason to further investigate the issue, but it should not be the basis of any conclusions.

[Imoutgoodbye]

There is, of course, the possibility that Obama is one of the first presidents in the last 60 years to wake up and realize that article one, section eight of the constitution grants Congress the sole power of declaring war. That would be nice, eh?

[MeleeCrazy]

There is' date=' of course, the possibility that Obama is one of the first presidents in the last 60 years to wake up and realize that article one, section eight of the constitution grants Congress the sole power of declaring war. That would be nice, eh?[/quote']

That seems highly unlikely

Of course he wouldn't be the first in sixty, George W. Bush sought congress approval to go to Afghanistan and iraq

[f0xx]

[Imoutgoodbye]

That seems highly unlikely

Of course he wouldn't be the first in sixty, George W. Bush sought congress approval to go to Afghanistan and iraq

Seek approval, yes. But he'd only be like W. if he seeks, gets refuted, and does it anyways (Iraq). I may be mistaken, but I think he got his approval for Afghanistan once the war machine started bringing in the money for special interests congressional members were tied to.

[MeleeCrazy]

That video is quite uplifting but some of it's imagery is distinctly un-American. I would support such a message if not surrounded be a anti American propagandizing subtext.

[Imoutgoodbye]

That video is quite uplifting but some of it's imagery is distinctly un-American. I would support such a message if not surrounded be a anti American propagandizing subtext.

I've watched it. I find nothing un-American about it. The definitions of what it means to be American is as simple as the fraction of a line between the terrorist and the freedom fighter.

1774, Samuel Johnson wrote: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Context applicable to how people throw the word patriot and American around today, as if the label should define the individual, when the individual should be reason the definition should not exist except to reflect an umbrella word under which each citizen can pursue his freedoms and liberties without being hit with these words as negative defamation of character.

[MeleeCrazy]

no congress voted for both Afghanistan and Iraq, many democrats voted for it as well, like senator Hillary Clinton.

I find the video un-American in that it shows a line up of our past few presidents while delivering it's harshest words. The Bias is implied if not right in your face. I do not believe America to be perfection by any means, but I hardly believe we are the route of all that is wrong with the world like so many people believe. Our people are just like everyone else in the world.

[Imoutgoodbye]

n congress voted for both Afghanistan and Iraq' date=' many democrats voted for it as well, like senators Hillary Clinton[/quote']

Voted, yes, but Bush was in Iraq for almost half a year before the vote came in.

[Pali]

There is' date=' of course, the possibility that Obama is one of the first presidents in the last 60 years to wake up and realize that article one, section eight of the constitution grants Congress the sole power of declaring war. That would be nice, eh?[/quote']

Even if he didn't, I'd prefer that he not feel he needs to rush into action on the issue of Syria, that he accept the fact that actual investigations that provide good answers take time. The administration's argument seems to essentially boil down to a) Assad has chem weapons, we don't know that the rebels did or that they could have used them even if they did, therefore c) Assad used them. This is TERRIBLE reasoning that any idiot should be able to tear apart... and if the administration has better intel or a better argument, I've not heard it and would like to (if anyone has, point me to it?). The last thing we need to do is rush to involve ourselves in another sectarian conflict in the Middle East that we don't know nearly enough about.

If nothing else... here's a hypothetical scenario I threw to a coworker yesterday that fits all of the facts that I know of the situation, as well as granting as true claims that the Saudis provided the rebels chemical weapons. Setting: the Saudis have given the rebels chemical weapons. As the reported rebels interviewed by Gavlak and Ababneh claim, they were not provided with expertise or much training on how to use or store these weapons, and so they were hidden in tunnels. Now, Assad's forces are heavily bombarding the area these weapons are hidden in, and a random strike happens to hit one of the storage areas, releasing the gas in a manner almost indistinguishable from having been delivered by the weapon itself. Thousands die, and we're given the same picture we now have: Assad denying responsibility, the rebels denying responsibility, and the Western powers thinking Assad's lying because the Saudis never told us they were giving the rebels weapons and would look really bad admitting it now... but no one actually used the weapons. It is an accident. No war crimes are committed.

I do not want the US to get involved in another war and find out a few months from now that the above is what happened. EDIT: I also don't know enough about chemical weapons to know if the above is really plausible, so take it as it's intended - a hypothetical aimed at causing people to consider alternative possibilities, not my guess as to what happened. I don't know what happened - that's why I don't want to get involved.

[Atticus]

while everyone can sit around speculating, remember that its the US NAVY who's going out there to set **** right. Regardless if the rebels seized them from a magazine, or it was the outrageous government over there. They shouldn't have chemical weapons on tap- so I say a couple well placed AGM-114K/B on their asses with some suppressive gau-21 fire while a seal team wreaks havoc like Rath the Lich does- all the while we can have some shells dropped from the Destroyers. Game and Match.

[f0xx]

This is also quite a possible scenario...

Real problem here is that noone really knows what happened, and certain sides seem to want to use this chemical incident as excuse to intervene. There is probably a lot of pressure on Obama from Turkey and the Saudis to launch an attack. He might be using this vote as a means to remove responsibility from himself before the sides that want the strike.

[edit] Lol Atticus....

[inscribed]

while everyone can sit around speculating' date=' remember that its the US NAVY who's going out there to set **** right. Regardless if the rebels seized them from a magazine, or it was the outrageous government over there. They shouldn't have chemical weapons on tap- so I say a couple well placed AGM-114K/B on their asses with some suppressive gau-21 fire while a seal team wreaks havoc like Rath the Lich does- all the while we can have some shells dropped from the Destroyers. Game and Match.[/quote']

So you admit you have no clue which faction actually used chemical weapons, but you're going to lump them all together and promote the slaughtering of all of them. In no way are you the kind of person who should be representing the US military.

[Pali]

while everyone can sit around speculating' date=' remember that its the US NAVY who's going out there to set **** right. Regardless if the rebels seized them from a magazine, or it was the outrageous government over there. They shouldn't have chemical weapons on tap- so I say a couple well placed AGM-114K/B on their asses with some suppressive gau-21 fire while a seal team wreaks havoc like Rath the Lich does- all the while we can have some shells dropped from the Destroyers. Game and Match.[/quote']

So, bomb the whole area. And this would accomplish... what, exactly? How does this course of action improve the standing of the US on the world stage? How does it help the people living in Syria, most of whom are completely innocent bystanders to a civil war with multiple sides, all of which claim to represent those bystanders but none of which probably actually do? In what way does your foreign policy recommendation differ from a Michael Bay movie?

[f0xx]

There's some official info:

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s

Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

Whole 4 pages of undisputed evidence.

The clock is ticking.

[Pali]

Foxx, I assume you meant to say a whole four pages of unsourced mostly vague claims.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from

Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the

regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element

prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization

of gas masks.

This is the most detailed piece in the entire thing, unless I misread parts of it - and given my current state of inebriation, this is an entirely possible scenario, so I encourage checking of my reading. However, my limited bit of google searching hasn't found anything to corroborate this - again, something I'm happy to encourage others to do a better job of, because I simply don't care enough to at the moment.

But we, the public, are left with a simple dilemma - trust the report, or not. I can't. I can't, not because I am convinced it is lying, not because I know it to be wrong, but simply because it provides very little supporting evidence to justify its very significant claims. There is not enough here for me to conclude that Assad or his forces were the cause, because there simply is nothing there beyond "trust us, we know".

[MeleeCrazy]

I don't think Atticus meant "kill'em all" with his statements hence his words WELL-PLACED:)

The US, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all on board, though the Saudis are now throwing around words about our president like "paralyzed and weak" "that we are proving that the region should never have let it's security be so closely tied to any one foreign nation". Quoted from the Wall Street Journal

The only US action I could whole heartedly be in favor of is a strike that would target the chemical weapons themselves and perhaps sites that make such weapons. I believe Israel has done this in the past with success. I do believe that any action could lead to a much greater overall conflict between several nations and that is something we do not want or need. However some would say that such a conflict is inevitable.

[mya]

Can't bomb the chemical stockpiles. The risk of potential chemical fallout on civilians to great. Yes, most of it could be destroyed, but the backlash from a small cloud of deadly gas hitting civilians would be to great for the US weakened reputation.

[MeleeCrazy]

I thought we may have had weapons able to consume the chemicals upon strike. as I stated I thought Israel has done this before