Thread: At least 100 dead in suspected chemical attack

Leith Abou Fadel, the editor of a pro-government news site, citing military sources, wrote that the Syrian military had bombed a weapons factory belonging to insurgents, causing the release of the chemicals.

Now this I believe.

Yes, and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and 'we just can't wait for the mushroom shaped cloud'.

Yes, chemicals are despicable weapons - but are children any less dead when people, ourselves included, lob bombs indiscriminately at cities?

Bombing a weapons factory where there are chemical weapons - same thing as using them.

Deadly chemical attack shows US can’t trust Assad — or Putin

By Benny Avni
April 4, 2017 | 7:26pm | Updated

Bashar al-AssadAP

MORE FROM:

BENNY AVNI



Sorry -- US involvement is the only way to reduce civilian casualties


Team Trump is already kicking butt at the United Nations


Is this the end of Turkey's (bad) marriage with Europe?


How North Korean threats are nudging Japan to re-militarize


To annihilate ISIS, Trump will have to cross Putin


Tuesday’s deadly chemical attack in Syria is a cautionary tale.
The latest horrifying images from Idlib province depict piles of dead children covered in gray dust and sweat, their mouths foaming. Dozens of people were killed by sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent banned under international law.

That ban was extended in 1997 to cover more chemical-weapons-related activity. Syria signed on in 2013.

And yet, the Idlib attack was reportedly conducted by four warplanes. Since the government of President Bashar al-Assad has air superiority in Syrian skies, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it conducted the horrific attack. (Israeli intelligence sources claim Moscow green-lighted this latest atrocity by Assad, Russia’s ally.)

But wait: Didn’t Syria rid itself of chemical weapons after signing on to the ban? Let’s review.

The watershed moment came during one weekend in late August 2013. Damascus had just crossed President Barack Obama’s famous “red line” by conducting a chemical attack that killed nearly 1,500 people. America, it seemed, was about to jump into the Syrian civil war, if only to punish and deter Assad from crossing that line again.

Then on Aug. 30, a Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry boomed: “History would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction.” American, French and British jets warmed their engines.

Then came the U-turn: Over the ensuing weekend, Obama decided his nascent negotiation with Assad’s allies over the Iran nuclear deal was more important than his own red line. The president didn’t want to upset Tehran.

So we didn’t bomb even one remote Syrian sandhill.

SEE ALSO


White House blames Obama for 'heinous' gas attack in Syria


Instead, Obama fell for an attractive offer by Russian President Vladimir Putin: Syria would join the international chemical-banning convention and, with United Nations oversight and American financing, it would rid itself of all chemical stockpiles and the means to weaponize them.

Although chemical warfare was cardinal to Syria’s defense doctrine, Obama bought into Assad’s sincerity: A UN-led operation, he believed, would clean Syria of its most dangerous arms without the United States having to fire a single shot.

By September 2014, Sigrid Kaag, the head of a UN committee charged with overseeing the disarming process, declared that 96 percent of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile was destroyed in the “unique” operation. (Kaag, currently the UN representative in Lebanon, is now rumored to become the next point-woman on the UN-led efforts to find a political solution to the Syria war.)

Meanwhile, history, as Kerry predicted, is still judging us harshly.

That’s because Assad continued to attack opponents periodically with chlorine — useful as a toilet cleaner or swimming pool disinfectant, but banned as a war weapon.

And now, sarin. Unlike chlorine, Syria’s sarin was supposed to be destroyed. Except, evidently, it wasn’t. Instead, it was used Tuesday on an Idlib hospital.

“These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution,” the White House said Tuesday. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Russia and Iran “bear responsibility” and called on them to “guarantee that this sort of horrific attack never happens again.” But that won’t do.

SEE ALSO


Dozens killed in suspected gas attack in Syria

Even before the attack, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley called Assad a “war criminal,” adding, “Right now, he’s not our No. 1 person to talk to.”

Yet President Trump hasn’t excluded the prospect of negotiations with Assad (though, to be fair, he hasn’t yet presented a strategy for ending the Syrian civil war aside from crushing ISIS).

On the plus side: Despite the political hullabaloo over collusion between Moscow and his campaign, signs are that Trump is cooling off on his early admiration for Putin.

Tuesday’s act may force him to decide. Trump can wash his hands of the whole Syria mess. Or, preferably, he can get the US more involved and thus ensure Washington has a seat at the table for any war-ending talks.

What we can’t do is trust Assad, deal or no deal. That goes for Russia and Iran, too.

Diplomacy with thugs is only as good as the will to enforce it and retaliate when agreements are broken and lines are crossed. It’s a lesson Obama never learned, but Trump must.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/04/deadly-...ssad-or-putin/

Syria didn't do this. The chemicals were in a weapons factory owned or controlled by the rebels and Syria bombed the warehouse to take it out. Syria didn't do a gas attack. People are so uninformed, they don't even know how a real gas attack works.

Chlorine bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the small, crude homemade explosive device. For the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq to disperse chlorine gas as a chemical weapon, refer to Chlorine bombings in Iraq.

A chlorine bomb is a small explosive device which uses the pressure of chemically produced chlorine gas or other chlorine-containing gases such as hydrogen chloride to produce an explosion. It is made with an airtight container part-filled with different types of chlorine tablet and other reagents. The reaction produces an expansive increase in pressure, eventually rupturing the container. Usually, such a device is not made on a large scale, often being manufactured from common house objects.

Such a device is a more toxic and acidic alternative to a dry ice bomb, but likewise typically made by young people for amusement and recreational use rather than with any intent to harm.[1] However, exposure to chlorinous gases and the reactive substances involved can cause respiratory problems from inhalation and also cause injury to other mucous membranes, similar to tear gas. Most injuries relating to these devices involve bruised hands, blinding and other eye injuries.

Pastor's Terrorism and Public Safety Policing outlines how "Cprogram" is emphasizing lessons learned in Iraq regarding chlorine bomb use on American soldiers. This exposure has provided police departments like the NYPD with incentive to amend current policing models from Community Policing to a Public Safety Policing model that emphasizes risk aversion via public/private policing partnerships through metropolitan arenas.[clarification needed] Moreover, the chlorine bomb and other weapons systems in its class achieve this because they are easy to manufacture and thus represent a more fluid weapons delivery model for domestic and international terrorists.[2]

Contrary to the opinion of chemical laymen and public security experts,[3] chlorine is not generated by the reaction of hydrochloric acid with ammonia but ammonium chloride. Also chlorine is not formed by the reaction of chlorine bleach with ammonia. The reaction of bleach with ammonia forms chloramine, nitrogen trichloride and a number of other toxic and explosive products depending on the circumstances of the chemical reaction, but not pure chlorine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_bomb

See? This isn't something that Syria would use. This is something the rebels would use. It's a home-made thing and that's what they were storing in the warehouse. Look at the pictures, no one has any vision problem. It's all fake. These rebels are very savvy with their propaganda video making.

Originally Posted by Judy

Syria didn't do this. The chemicals were in a weapons factory owned or controlled by the rebels and Syria bombed the warehouse to take it out. Syria didn't do a gas attack. People are so uninformed, they don't even know how a real gas attack works.

So you would rather believe the probable lies coming from Assad's government?

Leith Abou Fadel, the editor of a pro-government news site, citing military sources, wrote that the Syrian military had bombed a weapons factory belonging to insurgents, causing the release of the chemicals.

Obviously Assad's regime is going to say whatever is necessary to deny culpability. Assad is no rookie when it comes to using chemical weapons. He's used chlorine attacks on numerous occasions in the past. Unfortunately though, it appears he chose to utilize a more powerful gas this time.

I think I'll choose to believe Assad is just continuing something that he has done repeatedly in the past instead of the propaganda being floated by his regime as a cover. Assad and Putin ....... what a pair of despicable murderers. Birds of a feather flocking together.

Trump blames Assad and Obama for chemical attack in Syria

• By VIVIAN SALAMA AND JOSH LEDERMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Apr 4, 2017, 7:03 PM ET

The Associated Press

White House press secretary Sean Spicer speaks during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, April 3, 2017. Spicer answered questions about the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump's salary and other topics. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) more +

Confronted by one of his first foreign crises, President Donald Trump on Tuesday split the blame for Syria's worst chemical weapons attack in years between its Russian-backed leader and former President Barack Obama, as the new American administration struggled to explain what it might do in response.

In a surprising statement, Trump called the assault in an opposition-held town in northern Syria "reprehensible" and one that "cannot be ignored by the civilized world," rhetoric that harkened back to Obama's criticism in 2013 of an earlier chemical attack ascribed to President Bashar Assad's forces. Trump said Assad was responsible for Tuesday's deaths, yet also targeted his predecessor's failed strategy to deter such attacks.

"These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution," Trump said.

It was a clear reference to four years ago, when Obama failed to deliver on his "red line" when he didn't authorize military action against Assad in response to a sarin gas attack that killed hundreds outside Damascus.

Obama aides declined Tuesday to comment on Trump's assignment of blame.

The political tone of Trump's statement took many U.S. officials by surprise. They noted that U.S. presidents have rarely attacked their predecessors so aggressively for events like a chemical weapons attacks that Democrats and Republicans both abhor.

Several officials involved in internal administration discussions said Trump's National Security Council had been preparing a different statement, until the president's closest advisers took over the process. The officials weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.

Trump left it to his top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to assign culpability to Russia and Iran, Assad's most powerful allies. Tillerson noted both countries signed up as guarantors to a recent Syrian ceasefire and said they must pressure Assad not to conduct more such attacks.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 58 people, including 11 children, died in the town of Khan Sheikhoun. Witnesses claimed Sukhoi jets operated by the Russian and Syrian governments were involved. Videos from the scene showed volunteer medics using firehoses to wash the chemicals from victims' bodies and lifeless children being piled in heaps.

"Russia and Iran also bear great moral responsibility for these deaths," Tillerson said.

The twin statements illustrated the competing forces pulling at the Trump administration. While Trump tries to show he's dealing with extremist groups in Syria more aggressively than Obama, his administration has suggested it could align with Russia, Assad's key military backer. And in recent days, top U.S. officials like U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley have suggested Assad's removal is no longer a U.S. priority.

But America's Arab and European allies oppose any accommodation with Assad. Tillerson, in Turkey last week, outraged some foreign partners when he said Assad's future was up to the Syrian people. And the idea of even an indirect alliance with a Syrian government that is gassing its own people will be a hard sell with a U.S. public appalled by the reams of footage of the six-year civil war's horror.

"It is at the least embarrassing to have Assad be massacring civilians with chemical weapons at the same time Trump is trying to make the case that they're potentially a partner," said Phil Gordon, Obama's top Mideast adviser from 2013 to 2015, including when the U.S. president declined to retaliate militarily against Assad.

Obama opted instead for a Russian-backed agreement to remove Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.

The chapter was seen internationally as a major blow to U.S. credibility and, for Obama's critics, a prime example of weak leadership. Syrian chemical weapons attacks continued after the deal with Russia and Syria.

Trump, Gordon noted, was facing the same dilemma and lack of solutions that plagued Obama's deliberations.

In 2013, internal debate focused on everything from so-called pinprick operations that would have negligible effect on Assad to a broader strategy to push him from power. But regime change had its drawbacks, too, because it would require significant U.S. military force and potentially leave a vacuum that could be filled by al-Qaida-linked and other extremist fighters among the opposition.

The Islamic State group's later emergence only hardened Obama's resistance to intervening. By the end of his tenure, the Obama administration had largely abandoned its pressure, first advocated by the president in 2011, for Assad to immediately leave power.

"President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a 'red line' against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing," Trump's statement said. But while Trump called the latest attack "intolerable," he offered no suggestion of what he would now do.

It was a far different view than one Trump took at the time. Among his tweets on the matter, he urged Obama in all caps, "DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA — IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN."

Asked how Trump might respond now, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday, "I'm not ready to talk about our next step but we'll talk about that soon."

Both Trump and Tillerson referred flatly to chemical weapons usage, rather than a "suspected" or "reported" attack. The lack of restraint suggested the U.S. had reached a high degree of confidence about what transpired and who was responsible.

U.S. officials said there were some indications nerve gas had been used, though they suggested it could also be another in a series of chlorine gas attacks by Assad's military. Chlorine isn't a banned chemical substance, though it cannot be used as a weapon of war.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...syria-46570444

The United States blamed the Syrian government and its patrons, Russia and Iran, on Tuesday for one of the deadliest chemical weapons attacks in years in Syria, one that killed dozens of people in Idlib Province, including children, and sickened scores more.

A senior State Department official said the attack appeared to be a war crime and called on Russia and Iran to restrain the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from carrying out further chemical strikes.

Britain, France and Turkey joined Washington in condemning the attack, which they also attributed to Mr. Assad’s government. The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to be briefed on the attack on Wednesday.

@ Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad

Originally Posted by artist

Bombing a weapons factory where there are chemical weapons - same thing as using them.

It's what you do in war to stop an enemy from using them on you. Assad was right to bomb the chemical weapons factory of ISIS/Rebels.