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."

16 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Finally by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know right? We got so much oil from Iraq and Afghanistan that gas is now back below $2 / gal and the world is a better place. Mission accomplished. Oh wait, you mean we didn't go for the oil?

    2. Re:Finally by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      I say I'm beginning to support the NSA's proposal to collect every post each person makes on Internet message boards, then hand-deliver the assembled quotations, in coffee table book format, to anyone said person later wishes to marry.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Finally by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why would you want low oil prices? You want high oil prices, and to own the wells. And, by 'you', I mean the friends of the ruling party who get the contracts for rebuilding Iraq...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Finally by c · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess I'm a nerd, because I'd just leave the door locked and call it "Schrodinger's peace negotiations".

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Finally by Looker_Device · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels?

      Because it's become clear that the rebels in Syria (as in most of the Arab Spring) are no more trustworthy than the Assad government, and just as willing to engage in atrocities. When you can't trust either side, you basically end up just ignoring both. It's pretty much impossible to tell the truth from the bullshit in Syria.

      --
      Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
    6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whether you're happy with it or not is irrelevant. It's a true answer. There's a reason they're always referred to as the "rebels in Syria" and not by some official name. There is no official name, because they're not organized. And unfortunately the best organized, most effective groups in the rebels are islamist, anti-western militants, generally foreign fighters of some sort, who are interested in the extreme side if middle eastern politics, namely impose Sharia and burn Israel to the ground. There is no good guys and bad guys in this fight.

      Unfortunately this is true throughout a lot of the Middle East. Look what's happened in the past 5 years.

      Iran - the Green movement which was lauded in Western media as a popular uprising against an oppressive regime and a "stolen election" in 2009. Unfortunately, turns out the Green movement was an extreme minority of educated urban youth, and it's difficult to claim a stolen election when the President won in a 62-33 and no evidence could be found of any voting irregularity. So the people of Iran voted back in the oppressive regime that the West didn't like.

      Egypt - protests rise up over the oppressive regime of Hosni Mubarek. Mubarek responds with violence from the police force (which he controls); the military stays put. Eventually the military moves in and removes him and... sets up a military junta to take over the government. The military delays setting up elections mainly because the leading candidate is one they don't like, but he gets elected anyways. The elected candidate is: the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and a heavy anti-Israeli, anti-Western islamist/Sharia kind of group. Since then the newly elected President has indicated that the peace treaty with Israel will need some serious reconsideration (suggesting yet another Egypt-Israeli war is in the future), he has pushed islamist policies,and at least one point attempted to gain a rule-by-decree power when the Egyptian Parliament wouldn't do what he wanted.

      Libya - The Arab spring leads to protests, and Ghadafi responds with force. The west supports the rebels, mainly at Europe's instigation but the primary command and control and a good half the forces involved were American despite not wanting to get involved (thanks NATO). Ghadafi is assassinated, and suddenly we realize there is no organized resistance, their only common ground was their hatred of Ghadafi, but now they're totally disintegrating. Meanwhile our ambassador there is killed and the place is becoming more hotly contested. Meanwhile, the mercenaries Ghadafi hired (Tuareg nomads from the desert) returned to their home country (Mali) and started a rebellion there, nearly overthrowing the whole country until France sent in troops to help. This is ongoing.

      The reality is that there is no group of good guys who want to overthrow the oppressive regime, if only they had the support. The good guys who were organized were all killed. The Syrian situation is just as complex; there's a reason we're not supporting the rebels. Who do you support? Who do you give weapons too? How do they not end up in the hands of militants who might use them later against Western forces? How do you keep things stable there? If Assad falls, who's there to rein in Hezbollah from attacking Israel and starting yet another invasion of Lebanon by Israel (three in the past 25 years)? If Assad falls, what's to stop the different groups of rebels from fighting each other? How do you keep that from spilling over into Jordan, which is barely maintaining control of it's own militant Palestinian population? All of those are valid questions with no answers.

    7. Re:Finally by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It seems that, just as when Russia was fighting in Afghanistan, the US is supporting the guys who include the Islamic fundamentalists against the people who believe in a more or less secular State. Assad may be unpleasant, but like Saddam he is trying to keep the lid on Shiite/Sunni warring.

      If the US arms the rebels, they will be supplying equipment to units of the Taliban who will, as sure as day, subsequently use them against the West. It is hard not to be cynical and think this is all about arms dealers staying in business.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  2. Coincidence? by mwasham · · Score: 3, Informative

    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/

    1. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, you had me right up until I saw the infowars link. There's left and right bias in the media, and then there's the drug addled bat shit fucking crazy morons that run conspiracy web sites like infowars.

  3. Re:Possible? by etash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Possible? by supertrooper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Possible? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Syrian maskirovka by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Zero credibility by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on... at this point, Assad's regime has zero credibility. Just like Putin's oligarchy.

    I find it convenient to just assume that both sides are lying sacks of shit. This is true whether it be international politics or a bunfight at the local schoolboard level.

    I'm rarely wrong, or disappointed, although sometimes I'll admit to being surprised about the kinds of things people are able to say with a straight face.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  8. Could have been a simple accident by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.