Slashdot Mirror


Syrian Rebels Claim Hundreds Killed By Poison-Gas Attack

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Haroon Siddique reports for The Guardian that opposition activists have accused forces loyal to the Assad regime of using chemical weapons in towns in the eastern Ghouta. Accounts of the death toll vary wildly. The British based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights put the number killed at 'dozens.' Others put the figure much higher. The Local Coordination Committees said 'hundreds' were killed, the majority of them civilians. Graphic videos purporting to show the victims of the attack have been posted online (WARNING: graphic) showing chaotic scenes of people, including children, having seizures, being treated, and dead bodies lined up. 'Symptoms of the patients include nausea, hallucinations, suffocation, hard coughing, high blood pressure, seizures etc,' says the Syrian Revolution General Commission (SRGC). 'There is still no clue of the chemical weapon/toxic gas that was used by the regime's forces to target the innocent civilians.' Ake Sellstrom, the Swedish scientist who heads the U.N. inspection team in Syria, told the Swedish media that he had seen only the television images of the alleged attacks. 'But the high number of wounded and dead they are speaking about sounds suspicious,' Sellström told Swedish news agency TT, via telephone from Damascus. 'It sounds like something one should take a look at.'. The official Syrian news agency called the reports 'untrue' and designed to derail a United Nations inquiry into charges of chemical weapons in the conflict."

30 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Perfect timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The timing and location of the reported chemical weapons use - just three days after the team of U.N. chemical experts checked in to a Damascus hotel a few km (miles) to the east at the start of their mission - was surprising.

    "It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country," said Rolf Ekeus, a retired Swedish diplomat who headed a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s.

    "At the least, it wouldn't be very clever."

    1. Re:Perfect timing by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Precisely - why would Assad sign off on chemical weapon usage when that has already been declared a tripwire for foreign intervention by major countries? It sounds far too suspect, especially when both sides in the conflict have been alleged to have access to stockpiles, and we have already seen one side to have ideologically driven factions - driven enough to sacrifice civilians in a disputed territory (and thus have civilians which back both sides) in order to trigger an external intervention in their favour, much like in Libya?

    2. Re:Perfect timing by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assad may have done it for a variety of reasons

      - He's illogical
      - He thinks he is a God and can't possibly be affected by other countries. They've been letting this go on for a year now, it's not like Syria is going to be much easier for us to come into now.
      - He's so desperate that he's less worried about the international response than he is about surviving the week
      - He thinks that the rebellion will be crushed before the international community can arrive. Other countries probably aren't willing to depose him if there's nothing left to replace him
      - It may be part of a negotiation we're not aware of. "Rebel leader, surrender now or I'm going to start gassing. Okay, you didn't, time for the gas."
      - He may think he can scapegoat it on the other side or a rogue commander
      - He may have realized he can't win and just wants to kill as many people as he can out of spite

    3. Re:Perfect timing by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      The shock value isn't the problem, the number of casualties and the proportion of civilian casualties is the problem.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Perfect timing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely - why would Assad sign off on chemical weapon usage

      Just because the weapons where (allegedly) used, does not mean that Assad signed off on them. It is possible that the decision was made by an overly aggressive local commander, or even some individual soldiers about to be overrun.

      that has already been declared a tripwire for foreign intervention by major countries?

      Obama declared the use of gas to be a "red line", but has already backed away from that declaration. I don't think anyone any longer believes that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is any more of a "trip-wire" than the coup-that-is-not-a-coup in Egypt. It is unlikely that Europe is going to go in without American involvement, and America has decided that flexible ambiguity is more important than credibility.

    5. Re:Perfect timing by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      -He thinks he can get away with because external diplomatic issues will prevent anyone else from doing anything. (I tend to think he would/will be correct in that assessment, its been an on going humanitarian crisis for two years and squabbles between US, Russia, China, and other middle eastern powers have effectively stayed the hands of the interventionists so far)

      -He thinks not being an major oil exporter nobody will care.

      -He thinks the interventionists are worn out from their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan

      -He thinks the current pols feel they dogged a bullet in Libya and don't think they can keep the media going along with pretending that intervention has not make things worse for the average Libyan and the region less secure; if the propose going into Syria seriously.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Perfect timing by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Obama declared the use of gas to be a "red line", but has already backed away from that declaration. I don't think anyone any longer believes that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is any more of a "trip-wire" than the coup-that-is-not-a-coup in Egypt. It is unlikely that Europe is going to go in without American involvement, and America has decided that flexible ambiguity is more important than credibility.

      Fearless leader here in the US, has lost pretty much all credibility in the world. You thought Bush was bad...well, Mr. Obama has proven worse.

      At least with Bush and past Presidents, even if you disliked them, if they drew a line in the sand in the world forum, and it was crossed, you could count on action that was threatened.

      That is no longer the case and the world knows it.

      I don't wanna go into Syria, and frankly, if it isn't directly in the interest of the US, I don't see us needing to be in the middle east at all.

      Like I said in another post, I do NOT want to go into Syria....sad, but it is not our fight. However, the problem is, our president makes threats and draws lines in the sand, and now..does nothing to follow up on them.

      I guess the rest of the world now gets to also enjoy all the "Hope and Change" that was promised to us by this presidential candidate.

      At this point, I'd prefer a president with more credibility and consistency..... like Charlie Sheen.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Perfect timing by bitt3n · · Score: 2

      "At the least, it wouldn't be very clever."

      or it would be very, very clever

    8. Re:Perfect timing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The shock value isn't the problem, the number of casualties and the proportion of civilian casualties is the problem.

      Another problem is that the use of chemical weapons leads to tit-for-tat retaliation while providing no decisive advantage. Just like in WWI, they will add to the carnage while doing nothing to break the stalemate. Even Hitler understood this. Nazi Germany had large stockpiles of chemical weapons, but refrained from using them even during the last days before their unconditional surrender.

  2. Because that makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The side that's winning decides to piss off everyone by using poison gas on civilians/rebels. I guess now all the bleeding hearts will be chanting for Chairman Obama to "liberate" and "freedomize" the nation of Syria from their secular ruler so we can gain a level headed theocracy in it's place.

    1. Re:Because that makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who says "muzzies" is a fucking idiot.

    2. Re:Because that makes sense by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      . . .and considering that "Pallywood" setups of faked massacres, or at least showing much larger events than actually happened are well documented in the recent past (google "Green Helmet Guy" or "White Coat Guy". . .), the claims of a chemwar massacre just after an observer team arrives, requires special scrutiny. Not saying it DIDN'T happen, but there's a record of activists staging sites to make things look far worse than actually happened. The classic example is a single older Palestinian woman, claiming her house was destroyed by Israeli attacks. At three separate sites. All within the same month. . .

  3. Having watched the... by Assmasher · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...video linked supplied, there's no chaos, and despite the insinuation of more than one person, including children, having seizures - I saw one guy whose legs were trembling. I've seen shock victims trembling worse.

    I'm not saying this didn't happen, I am just saying that the video basically shows nothing (and maybe there's something wrong with me, but I didn't think it was 'graphic' in the slightest.)

    Maybe they linked the wrong video.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Having watched the... by vivaoporto · · Score: 2

      OK, if that's not enough of a shock here is a playlist with at least 100 videos showing the incident and its aftermath (warning: graphical) including the dead, the dying, the struggling and the symptoms of a chemical attack.

      DISCLAIMER: I didn't made the videos, I didn't made the playlist and I don't support or oppose any sides. I'm only posting this to help clarifying parent's point.

    2. Re:Having watched the... by Shoten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...video linked supplied, there's no chaos, and despite the insinuation of more than one person, including children, having seizures - I saw one guy whose legs were trembling. I've seen shock victims trembling worse.

      I'm not saying this didn't happen, I am just saying that the video basically shows nothing (and maybe there's something wrong with me, but I didn't think it was 'graphic' in the slightest.)

      Maybe they linked the wrong video.

      I'll go one step further...but first, let me give context to forestall anyone claiming I'm a fan of Assad and his pals. I most emphatically am not, and never have been. Nor do I support the purposes of Iran, which uses Syria as a fulcrum, most specifically in the Levant (Lebanon and surrounding area). This isn't about me supporting Syria, just about what I see when I look at this one video. In fact, I think that at this point both sides in this conflict have been thoroughly populated with people whose aims are not "good."

      I saw a lot of people lying down. Not really indicative of one thing or another. No cyanosis or signs of skin irritation, nor signs of labored breathing or choking really. But hey, the absence of solid proof is not proof of absence and I don't think anyone said what kind of "poison gas" it was, so it's not particularly clear. But then I saw the "convulsing guy." He was twitching from the waist down...but his head was calmly, smoothly lolling from side to side? He was having a convulsion with his lower body, but not anywhere else? Hm. I don't believe that nerve agents turn people into MC Hammer. Nerve agents (cholerinterase inhibitors, specifically) make your whole body go apeshit...that's how you die. And it's not that one half of one person would be trembling and everyone else would look like they were taking a nap...anyone who was dead would look horrific and anyone who wasn't dead would not exactly look calm either. I call bullshit on this.

      The rebels have made disproven claims in the past about chemical warfare attacks. They know that the Obama administration has stated that use of chemical weapons would result in direct US involvement, and they have a decided incentive to report on any that do happen, but also to fabricate evidence of one if they think they can pull it off. Furthermore, there's less of a penalty for a false claim than there is benefit from successfully pulling off a hoax. Hell, they even know how one person...one single source...lying about WMD got us to invade Iraq and demolish an entire nation.

      And as stated above, UN chemical weapon inspectors had JUST shown up a few kilometers nearby. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Assad would deploy such a weapon within easy reach of the very people who would be there to investigate.

      And yes, the user name of the guy I'm quoting/responding to is "Assmasher," but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Let's stick to discussing this based the merits of what's said, guys :)

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    3. Re:Having watched the... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Looking at most of the clips and with a medical background I'm convinced that

      1) It's not staged. Too many people demonstrably dead and too many different clips. I don't think anyone has the wherewithall to stage manage that big of a hoax.
      2) Some sort of neurotoxin is involved. Despite Assmasher'''s assertion, some of the kids did seem to have tonic clonic seizure activity. The hysterical guy certainly could have been decompensating psychiatrically (ya think?) but there were too many other examples that were more classic. I did not see any pattern of symptoms that points to a particular agent but I'm hardly an expert in the field.

      Most disturbing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. The US should stay out of it by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US meddling in mid-east affairs is a guaranteed disaster for the US.

    Help one tribe, and the opposing tribe will hate you forever. Then the tribe you help will soon hate you also. Bottom line: Muslims must hate infidels, it is a key part of their religion.

    No matter who the US helps, the US involvement will be called an "invasion." The US will be accused of using the US military to steal mid-east oil. It happens every time.

    Sadam, Osama, and the Muslim Brotherhood, were all the good guys, and our buddies, at one point. Now, even Kuwait hates us.

    There is no way to win in a mid-east conflict. The only winning move is not to play.

    Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east. Let the crazies kill each other, if that is what they want to do. It is part of their culture, I guess.

    1. Re:The US should stay out of it by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Why couldn't we have resettled the WWII refugee Jews somewhere besides the craziest most blood thirsty place on the planet. Like say New Jersey or somewhere in Canada?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:The US should stay out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, you do understand that there were a large number of Jews who were already living there, and had lived there for a long, long time? Also that the Arabs basically didn't care much for that area originally, as it was sort of an insignificant backwaters area- until it was given to the Jews? Didn't think so.

    3. Re:The US should stay out of it by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east.
       
      Naive isolationism has such a weird attraction to Americans. Buying oil is not like going to a supermarket and buying milk. It is the most strategic resource there is and whoever controls it controls the world. US pulling out of the middle east means a free for all, with Saudi and Iran (at least) going nuclear, and all the small oil producing countries aligning themselves with whoever replaces the US. Russia, China and others taking over the oil industry that we built. How would you like us to be a bitch to an oil cartel and whatever major powers (FAR worse than us in every way) are behind them, with power to screw with our economy any time they want? Some day we may not be dependent on the middle east oil, and may that day come soon, but it is not here yet.
       
      Btw, the public perception of US military is completely opposite from the truth. It is not a weapon we swing around to intimidate and oppress countries. Our military power is an asset that we trade (with Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Israelis, Japanese, Koreans, Australians, Europeans, and countless other countries that we protect) just like any other asset. In exchange for it, we get less than we spend on it directly, but indirectly we get far more in terms of stability, free commerce, access to essential resources and allies in the UN and other organizations. It doesn't take much imagination to picture a world in which US pulls out, and the chaos that would result.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:The US should stay out of it by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      The Jews, the Hebrews, or the Israelites? Those are all different groups; it's important not to confer the expectations of rights on them equally.

      Really?

      I'd always considered the terms to all be synonymous...

      What's the difference between them...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:The US should stay out of it by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quran (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve

      Quran (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves

      Quran (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!

      Quran (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

      Quran (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness

      Quran (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement

      According to the Quran, non-believers...

      Eat like beasts 47:12
      Are apes 7:166, 5:60, 2:65
      Are swines 5:60
      Are asses 74:50
      The vilest of animals in Allah's sight 8:55
      Losers 2:27, 2:121, 3:85
      Have a disease in their hearts 2:10, 5:52, 24:50
      Are hard-hearted 39:22, 57:16
      Impure of hearts 5:41
      Are deaf 2:171, 6:25
      Are blind 2:171, 6:25
      Are dumb 2:171, 6:35, 11:29
      Are niggardly 4:37, 70:21
      Works shall be rendered ineffective 2:217, 47:1, 47:8
      Are impure 8:37
      Are scum 13:17
      Are inordinate 5:68, 78:22
      Are transgressors 2:26, 9:8, 46:20
      Are unjust 29:49
      Make mischief 16:88
      Are the worst of men 98:6
      Are in a state of confusion 50:5
      Are the lowest of the low 95:5
      Focus only on outward appearance 19:73-74
      Are guilty 30:12, 77:46
      Sinful liar 45:7
      Follow falsehood 47:3
      Deeds are like the mirage in a desert 24:39
      also...
      Allah does not love them 3:32, 22:38
      Allah forsakes them 32:14, 45:34
      Allah brought down destruction upon them 47:10
      Allah has cursed them 2:88, 48:6
      Allah despises them 17:18
      Allah abases them 22:18

  5. Not to be a jerk... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But why is this on Slashdot? This isn't a discussion on the engineering of the gas or the dispursement methods used, just a news article.

    1. Re:Not to be a jerk... by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      But why is this on Slashdot? This isn't a discussion on the engineering of the gas or the dispursement methods used, just a news article.

      Because "nerds" want the stories that the major news outlets will not carry or will gloss over for more entertainment and sports coverage.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  6. Hey.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you'd looked at goatse.cx as much as he had, nothing would seem graphic to you either :)

  7. Re:So what's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Massacres in Kosovo are well established fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War Although I don't know where you've got the exagerated numbers from.

  8. Re:Chemical wepons Obamas "red line" by PPH · · Score: 2

    "I have drawn a red line. Cross it and I shall draw another!"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. So what's a nerd, anyway? by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    This isn't a discussion on the engineering of the gas or the dispursement methods used, just a news article.

    Because nerds aren't all clinical sociopaths more interested in the method of killing than the fact of it.

    Plus, being a nerd is all about caring about some important, intellectual topic that the mainstream doesn't see the point in compared to who the latest pop star is sleeping with. Few things are nerdier than international policy, even though most of it is carried about by non-nerds. (Kind of like baseball.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  10. Fake by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. Not a single old person. It's either children (poor babies! think of the children!) or young men of combat age. With the occasional young woman thrown in. I guess there are no elderly at all in Syrian "civilian areas"? There are real dead people mixed in with living people, that much I'll grant you. However this chemical agent is "curiously selective" of its victims, and the cause of death is unknown and debatable until someone does an autopsy.

    2. No evidence of fasciculations. I see plenty of people having tonic clonic seizures that somehow permit them to still be aware of their environment and look at the camera-man (doesn't happen in a real seizure), or point their index finger in a religious sign to their God. Fasciculations however are involuntary. You can't fake them. They're a sign of lower motor neuron damage/blockade, the sort you'd expect with chemical weapons (especially organophospates and nerve agents like Sarin/Tabun and family). But since they can't be faked you won't see any.

    3. The timing, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is highly suspicious.

    That's my $0.02 worth. But most people will believe whatever they are fed. I mean there's video, so it has to be real, right? No one has ever faked a massacre before for the cameras, right?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. this cynicism bothers me immensely by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    because you do realize there are other options for the middle east than theocracy and autocracy

    like democracy

    you think that's funny? then you're part of the problem

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it