Slashdot Mirror
Possible Chemical Weapons Use In Syria
Hugh Pickens writes "Mike Hoffman reports that Syria's Assad regime has accused the rebels of launching a chemical weapons attack in Aleppo that killed 25 people — an accusation the rebel fighters have strongly rebuked. A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack. The Russian foreign ministry says it has enough information to confirm the rebels launched a chemical attack while U.S. government leaders say they have not found any evidence of a chemical attack. White House spokesman Jay Carney says the accusations made by Assad could be an attempt to cover up his own potential attacks. 'We've seen reports from the Assad regime alleging that the opposition has been responsible for use. Let me just say that we have no reason to believe these allegations represent anything more than the regime's continued attempts to discredit the legitimate opposition and distract from its own atrocities committed against the Syrian people,' said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. 'We don't have any evidence to substantiate the regime's charge that the opposition even has CW (chemical weapons) capability.' President Obama has said the 'red line' to which the U.S. would send forces to Syria would be the use of chemical weapons. However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."
Finally there is a reason to monetize this otherwise wasted conflict. Don't let their suffering be in vain!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Britam was hacked recently and some of the emails (that they claim were fake) hinted this was in the works. http://www.infowars.com/hack-reveals-washington-approved-plan-to-stage-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/
Dallas Real Estate
slashdot has always posted significant political news stories. Now, i'm not sure this is important, but could be if it was used as an excuse for a military intervention in syria by the west.
Nerds like chemistry. In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.
First: wtf is this doing on tec.slashdot.org?
Second: this red line was crossed a long time ago: Syria used chemical weapons in Homs, US state department cables reveal It's just that the world won't care unless it was the scary beaded guys that did it, when Assad did it last December the world pretended it didn't happened
Third: don't pretend you care, the death toll is reaching 100.000, Assad launched everything in his arsenal from cluster bombs to SCUDs, about 1.000.000 people were displaced. Unless something spills over the Golan heights nothing will be done except strong worded letters to all parts involved
Bottom line: move along, nothing to see here
Nerds like chemistry.
In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.
Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
Or the east. Oh wait, the russians are already actively supplying assad with arms.
This was reported yesterday. Once upon a time, Slashdot was a great place to pick up news early. Not any more.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
We should finish celebrating the success of the last war to bring freedom, prosperity and democracy to Iraq first, I feel. It was a textbook example of government, intelligence services, armed forces and the media all working together towards a common goal - all funded by taxpayers who go squealing about 'civilian casualties' as soon as one of THEM gets injured.
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.
it wasn't working better.
hence the chaos that has ensued. the chaos was born from syrians - because the system was not working.
they're not great(saudi arabia and bahrain). they're waiting timebombs and quite frankly hellholes for having fun or saying your mind out loud. you want to bitch about one percenters, there it's on a whole different level.
Assad will probably label anyone who used the chems as rebels, he has to or say bye bye faster than otherwise. doesn't mean that they weren't fighting other rebels.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
>However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."
Come on... at this point, Assad's regime has zero credibility. Just like Putin's oligarchy. Both of these regimes are just dictators clinching to their power. Who gives a damn about their opinion.
Pallywood production.
I would agree, but then we need to stop making statements about a red line in the sand. Don't tell the world you're going to be the police and busy yourself up eating doughnuts when someone commits a crime. We shouldn't be the world police, and we should stop pretending that we are when we're not willing to follow through. All it does is build false hope and animosity.
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.
Unless you want to deploy the US military on US soil to do...something, then it is also worth noting that we can solve more then one problem at a time, and have different types of resources for different tasks.
The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military and can intervene to stop the blunt massacre of civilians and rise of a new dictatorship in Syria. If the US defunded most of it's military and put that money into say, trying to address domestic poverty, then that would be laudable too.
We might also recognize that most problems are inter-related and can't be fixed one at a time anyway, and it takes a collective effort on many fronts to make progress on any of them.
Oblig. Homer Simpson quote: "And we can't watch FOX because they have those chemical weapons plants in Syria..."
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.
Kinging O would encourage him.
It will take people's minds off of the black hole in America's treasury and the market which surprise, seems to have topped out and will probably work its way back again like it has been doing for the past almost 20 years or so, trading in more or less the same range. Funny, everyone on the street seems to be getting excited about the stock market again. I have a look at the calendar and think oh look, already 5 years since 2008... I give it a year or so. War would change this, send the price of oil up even more for a while, and make the 0.1% even richer. Soon we'll be seeing our first trillionaires. How much of all those freshly printed US dollars have made their way to your pocket though?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or actually trying to say that the invasion of Iraq was a "success"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
wtf is this doing on tec.slashdot.org?
Page hits. Slashdot is now a corporation and very much for profit. Political stuff like this gets page hits.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Note: it is Russia and China that have everyone afraid to intervene for the most part. What we have here is a clusterfuck of the current iteration of the Great Game causing political tensions that make most nations leery to the point that everyone refuses to take any action.
This is doubly so for America as you add in the Democrats knowing damned well that no matter how justified an intervention is they will be tarred even more by Republicans claiming it was simply warmongering (see Libya).
So those in power amongst the major powers are too busy glaring at each other while thousands and thousands of Syrians die and even more are displaced. You are right about apathy being a major problem as even if it seemed ineffectual, massive protests concerning inaction in Syria would force the news outlets to at least have to mention the issue rather than continuing to sweep the problem under the rug beyond the odd "shits still crazy in Syria" headline.
Ice Cream has no bones.
The invasion was a success. The cleanup has been a long waste of resources. Unfortunately, if we didn't waste those resources on the cleanup, we would've probably seen Iran invade.
Perhaps we should spend, oh, five times as much as the next ten countries and work on our 17 trillion dollars in debt. I mean, my flag flies proud on my porch and I'm happy to be an American. But what the fuck man.
"The Russian foreign ministry has said it has enough information to confirm the rebels launched the chemical attack." It must be true, then.
Those who are buying this should go look up this word: Iraq.
If we intervene and support the rebels, they will massacre the Alawates, Shiites, and Christians. All ensuring a fair election would do is accomplish this democratically. There is no good choice here.
In all likelihood, this is a maskirovka on the part of al-Assad's regime. There is clearly both a domestic and international motivation behind this: first of all, regime supporters will believe without question that it was undertaken by the rebels, which would in turn only harden even further their support-perhaps this was even an attempt to stem the flow of desertions, as supposedly within the past 2 weeksa brigadier general and several soldiers have defected to the opposition-while discrediting and demonizing the rebels. Internationally, this claim gives them percieved legitimacy for more open use of chemical weapons in a "retaliatory" response. They were probavbly also well aware that Russia would support them, and counter any claim made by the US, UK, and other pro-opposition states. Ultimately, they may be hoping to force unilateral action by the US: as long as al-Assad has Russia in his camp, he has de facto veto power in the UN Security Council. I think this is al-Assad's trump card: he is hoping the US is afraid to get embroiled in another Middle East war, and is bettig that he can keep himself from turning into another Gaddhafi.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Many western countries are already supplying the Syrian rebels with arms - the recent video showing rebels shooting down a Syrian forces helicopter showed them using a type of MANPAD which was not in the Syrian military's arsenal prior to the conflict, someone gave or sold it to the rebels.
what wrong with dousing the power and money grubbing scum running one's country into the ground with corrosive acrid poisons? Hmmmm, I know a place that needs that worse than Syria.......
You're making a BIG assumption that sending the US military will fix the problem.
Wars are necessarily complicated and messy. No one knows what will happen after the troops are sent in.
Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
Piss the world off when the US inserts itself in these sort of conflicts, piss the world off when the US doesn't get involved. Either way it is the fault of the big, bad, USofA. I am not going to be an apologist for the many dumb things the US has done in the world over the years, but the US does not have a corner on that particular market. Not all the bad things that happen in the world are our fault.
Hell, Putin seems hell-bent on restarting the cold war to rebuild the glory of the Soviet Union, I see no need to provide him with an excuse by getting involved in a proxy war in the middle east this time instead of southeast Asia..and asking the Chinese for the money to finance it.
Only 25 people. Chlorine, used for a wide variety of civilian and industry purposes, all legit and reasonable uses.
Guys trusting in allah to let their bullets find their targets are very likely to hit and puncture a lot of stuff that could leak.
That equals ho hum big deal, someone hit a tank of something, or some refrigeration unit, or whatever.
Wake me up when it's several hundred people and there's evidence it was a military deployment of some kind not just hearsay from two sides who are both obviously lying through their teeth about everything and anything.
Why does it have to be Western countries? The people with the most to gain from Assad falling are Turkey and Saudia Arabia, who both have substantial amounts of money and weapons. It's not always the usual demon "the West" that gets involved in these things, there are other actors in the world.
The West has been on the receiving end the problems of supplying weapons in the past; many of the weapons the Taliban used in Afghanistan were supplied in the 80's by the West to combat the Russians; suddenly they were used against us in the 2000's when we go in. I think most Western countries are really hesitant to go down that path again, and despite not being an Obama fan I doesn't seem to fit him to go down this path either. Non-weapons supplies, like food and medicine and all that, sure. But not weapons.
You could cancel the entire defense department and still be borrowing half a trillion or more a year.
Taxing 100% of the income of the rich won't do it, either. Nor will both together.
Finally, we are some 40 trillion short in unfunded liabilities. Even socking it to the middle class, which will not happen, will not save us from that one.
You see cowardly behabior by politicians who trade off power now for problems future politicians must solve.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/possible-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria
tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/
tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/
tech.slashdot.org/story/
tech.slashdot.org/
tech.
tech
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This is doubly so for America as you add in the Democrats knowing damned well that no matter how justified an intervention is they will be tarred even more by Republicans claiming it was simply warmongering (see Libya).
Yes, that great Republican Dennis Kucinich had constitutional objections. But that's okay we're "rushing to war" in Syrian, but since there is a Democratic president it will all turn out OK.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Because Democracy is better than tyranny. Learn to think long ball instead of small ball.
Well, the U.S. cared about Iraq and the echo chamber here resounded with "tut-tut, even WE know better". Personally, I think knocking over a tyrannical dictator is always a good think in the long run. In the short run, things get messy.
On a different note, the Arabs and Persians are killing each other in a civil war started in 600's when some relative of Muhammed got whacked long after the M boy scarpered to that Great Food Bowl in the Sky claiming (gee, who'd have guessed) "no prophet will arise after me". Nothing the U.S. or Europe can do will stop that civil war because both sides believe political power spews out of a religious book and not from the people for the people's sake. And that controversy is as old as the golden age of Greece. Even Israel is football in their civil war, both sides believe if they are the ones to solve Hilter's Jewish Problem, not only will they get 71 virgins who don't know what small means, they'll get to vanquish the other side.
In all fairness, we are also paying a bunch of scumbag mercenaries to help the religious fanatics, and they at least tend to be smart enough to make bank transfers.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Well, if it's the US military we have some pretty clear recent history to lay out a likely roadmap. The US will back the worst possible choice of factions, which will then proceed to slaughter its rivals with impunity. US soldiers will commit multiple atrocities, and only low level underlings who expose them will be punished. Torture will become more widespread and more blatant than ever before. Multinational corporations with ties to the Pentagram will clean up in a massive way, while eliminating local competition which could have done the same jobs better and cheaper. After several years of guerrilla warfare the Pentagram will claim victory and withdraw, leaving a power vacuum to be filled by former-allies which it armed who are now-enemies. Beyond that, yeah, no one knows what will happen.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Because Democracy is better than tyranny. Learn to think long ball instead of small ball.
I agree with that but why don't we hold everyone to the same standard then? Why don't we tell Saudis: hey, either you become a democracy or else? Then we have a shiny example of how we removed a dictator Sadam, to make Iraq a better place. Is it really a better place? How much money US has spent on that war, and who benefited?
Don't send in the troops. Enforce a no-fly zone and take away the government's big force multiplier against the rebels.
Maybe punitive drone strikes against artillery and rockets which are sighted shelling civilian areas?
Or just go in with drones with the express mission of removing chemical weapon stockpiles.
There are lots of options which aren't "Iraq 2.0" and Libya should demonstrate that the US military is easily capable of broad-restraint when the neo-cons aren't running the show.
One side is not a cynical villain eating puppies while stroking his white cat on a chair, whereas the other are the heroes rebel helped by Mr Bond. The way I see it, both side are likely to use any advantage they can , and on the rebel side using the chemical weapon has the advantage that people like you will automagically assign the blame on Assad. If rebel of that country are like rebel of any other country, a good fraction is probably made of thugs in for the possibiltiy of looting , raping, and murdering.
The US can easily afford to keep borrowing every single year provided the rate of borrowing over time does not exceed the rate of increase in the GDP. Provided that remains true, the US government will always be able to afford the interest payments on debt and refinancing (that's not to say holding massive debts is not problematic, but it's a problem with volatility to market fluctuations) since tax receipts will increase to offset interest payments.
Keep the rate of borrowing below the increase in GDP, and over time the debt inflates away and reduces as a % of GDP.
There isn't a "we need to somehow eliminate all debt now!" crisis. There is a "stop spending on stupid shit which doesn't produce a return".
Presuming we have to do something in Syria to prevent a big crisis (which might embolden other actors - no matter how you slice it, Israel bombing Iran will be bad for everyone's interests since retaliation will hit the oil companies in the region), then the big thing would be "don't get tied up on the ground" - much like Libya - which worked out pretty well in the end, and was useful in the interests of keeping personnel combat-experienced in real operations.
Paying for that by cutting money from the speculative bullshit projects would be a decent trade.
The first casualty in war is the truth - doubly so in a 'civil' war.
To be honest, Russia doesn't care about which asshole is in charge in Syria, so long as he's a-ok with the Russian naval base in Tartus. Of course, the mujis would never allow that (what with ongoing jihad against Russia for the establishment of "Caucasus Emirate"), so Assad it is.
Democracy is only better so long as it is self-sustaining. If it's not, you basically get a short period of democracy during which people vote a new dictator into power and transfer all authority to him. If that new dictator is worse than the old one, the end result is just bad, period.
Of course, that presupposes that the rebels are even fighting for democracy. Some rebel groups are, like FSA. Some are not, like Al-Nusra Front. The problem is that those that aren't, are better at fighting. Once Assad is out, they'll turn onto each other, and mujis will win because they're better organized and more willing to fight and die for their beliefs.
First: wtf is this doing on tec.slashdot.org?
I am glad to see this on slashdot.
im often glad to see what may on their face seem like 'not slashdot' material posted because people on slashdot often offer insight and info that just doesnt appear anywhere else.
i've not seen it yet on this story but this is the EXACT type of story that some slashdot user will geek out on and bust out all kinds of chemistry stuff about how a certain chemical reacts on the body and how effective they are when used in certain places.. in certain ways..
I think some people often want the stories to be tech related miss something.... a thing that we see on nearly every article.. that people dont read the fuckin article.. we read the comments, because thats where the real good stuff is.
the users who know things, and we have a varied community here, can make even the most mundane story a tech/science related thing that as a geek.. keeps me coming back.
He was obviously being sarcastic.
The US military is really good at blowing things up - nobody does it better. As long as that's how you use them things go just fine. The problem is that when your tool is blowing things up and your goal is to establish a government with liberty and justice for all, things don't always work out well.
The locals need to want true democracy before you can try to establish it. If this were about being the French and blockading the British so that the US revolutionaries could finish setting up a democracy that would be one thing. However, what this is more likely to turn into is providing for one particular religious faction so that they can wipe out all the other ones, then hold an election where a new dictator for life is selected. Maybe it will go slightly better, but there is a huge culture difference between the Middle East and the US/Europe. I guess they just haven't had enough time to get tired of all the Salem Witch Trials and Inquisitions and they still want to see if they work.
Boy, argument is easy when you can just make up your own facts as needed. This is, of course, not even remotely true. Yes, the US outspends everybody else on military matters by a good margin (41% of the world's military spending in 2012 was US). But not by this amount. In fact, the next ten countries together spend almost as much as the US.
Any news on the use of cluster bombs by Syria other than that from Human Rights Watch? They came out with a report four or five days ago stating that Syria has used them 156 times in 119 locations but that seems to be the only news about it. How reputable is Human Rights Watch?
Here, if this ameliorates your outrage then this link works as well:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/possible-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria
As does this:
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/possible-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria
And this:
http://diceholdingssucks.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/possible-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria
DNS wildcard fun!
Boy, argument is easy when you can just make up your own facts as needed. This is, of course, not even remotely true. Yes, the US outspends everybody else on military matters by a good margin (41% of the world's military spending in 2012 was US). But not by this amount. In fact, the next ten countries together spend almost as much as the US.
My mistake, you're right - it's more (by a few 10s of billions) then the next 10 countries put together.
And ~4-5x the amount China (as the next largest) spends.
As was my point though, which was that if you're going to spend that much then to be effective with it you commit yourself to some level of military hegemony because you need to exercise and test that aresenal under real-world conditions. US bases all over the world, for example, exist so the US can deploy commanders and troops in real combat conditions so if there ever is a big war you have people in your command-chain with experience of combat. Plenty of military disasters start with a large but untested fighting-force.
So, with that in mind, the US has an interest in intervening in Syria, beyond the obvious humanitarian concerns - especially in the wider tactical context, which is that the tempo and style of most operations the US would have to commit to will be these types of interventions, and not the Cold War style soviet-invasion of western europe.
Or as I was responding to, the US could choose to focus on domestic issues by choosing to reduce it's military funding to a level more commensurate with a force they don't plan to use, and relatively friendly borders.
All it does is build false hope and animosity.
Just like happens within the US when the government tells the public there is no need for one to be able to one's self, yet the police forces are under no obligation to actually protect anyone other than themselves.
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
If the US defunded most of it's military and put that money into say, trying to address domestic poverty, then that would be laudable too.
Do you mean actually doing something to reduce poverty or just spend additional taxpayer dollars subsidizing it? Because as a nation the US already spends more on nominal anti-poverty schemes (welfare, food-stamps, unemployment, medicare etc.) than defense anyway.
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
Maintaining a debt-state indefinietly is still a net drag on the economy. This is no different than a 20-something borrowing to maintain an extravagant lifestyle now based on their belief they'll get a promotion/raise before the debt comes due.
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
Maintaining a debt-state indefinietly is still a net drag on the economy. This is no different than a 20-something borrowing to maintain an extravagant lifestyle now based on their belief they'll get a promotion/raise before the debt comes due.
Actually it's very different, because a nation-state is functionally immortal and it's internal spending is more analogous to student loans.
Debt is not a net drag on the economy if the spending is invested in things which grow the GDP more then the debt.
Whereas cutting the debt can be a net drag on the economy if you cause GDP to contract in the process - which, it's worth nothing, is exactly what the sequestration is presently accomplishing via the cuts to various services such as customs inspections or inbound vehicles at the border or the more frequent closing of Yellowstone and the collapse of the tourist industries around there which depend on it.
The economies of nations are complex things which cannot be reduced to simple, paganistic morality plays.