Fuchs66
Ring a ding
And how would you solve this?
And next, Syria?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
albionism
A successful virus clinging to a speck of mud.
Well, it's not the usual way despotic regimes operate is it? I would think they would try their best to
conceal any chemical weapons they might have, not unleash them under the noses of U.N inspectors.
Not saying it wasn't Syria, but it just seems very odd indeed.
bi0boy
Power User
Well, we know they have stock-piled chemical weapons, presumably for use if the regime is under attack. I don't see why it's unusual for the regime to use them? They probably know Obama isn't about to make good on his threat to do something about it.
Also it's not really under their noses is it? What is the difference for the regime between using the weapons now and using the weapons when the inspectors are not in the country? Diddly squat it seems.
teqniq
DisMembered
In the absence of a UN decision the French are making noises about taking action "in other ways".
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
It might make no sense to you, or to me, but to a regime scenting victory it might seem just like the appropriate measure to take - even, or especially, to use on a despised "enemy in retreat".
I see from the Guardian live feed that some people are reporting being knocked unconscious, but not killed, by these weapons - is that consistent with Syria's known chemical weaponry capability?
albionism
A successful virus clinging to a speck of mud.
I was unaware that it was known for sure that they had chemical weapons.
JimW
支那暗杀团
in one report I read they'd had a weapons expert review what footage they had and he noted among other things a lack of blistering and other signs you'd associate with the main nerve agents they're presumed to hold, IIRC. Left me wondering about that scenario where perhaps e.g. conventional shelling caused a release of some industrial chemical. (All just speculation I realise)
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
Beware of experts!
Nerve agents do not produce blistering and the footage I saw (of course my own personal opinion and using caution as to whether the footage shown is actually related to the event described) certainly did seem to show signs and symptoms of nerve agent poisoning. Amongst which were heavy sweating, muscle twitching and convulsions, miosis and the use of drainage to remove excessive salivation.
E2A much has been made about the lack of cross contamination to those treating casualties, however in the footage shown there did seem to be a makeshift decontamination (hosepipes) set up outside the patient reception area which would have been of some help
JimW
支那暗杀团
Fair enough (and it may be me mangling the report).
Why would the Assad regime even think about using chemical weapons ? They are winning this war now by default given the splits in the rebellion, many of whom are coming back over to the regimes side and with elements of it turning, with some ferocity, against the extremist Islamic groups.In short it has no need to do anything much else than just maintain the status quo and it is going to win.
Using chemical weapons achieves nothing for it. Absolutely no strategic or propaganda gains to be had from it. Thats obvious.
Using chemical weapons achieves nothing for it. Absolutely no strategic or propaganda gains to be had from it. Thats obvious.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Lets look at the facts:
1. The Assad regime is prepared to commit atrocities against civilian populations. This has been documented again and again over the last two plus years.
2. At the time of the incident they were engaged in a "major offensive" against the areas where the incident took place. (their words)
3. They have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons.
The above are all indisputable facts.
So would the opposition gas its own people to force other countries to intervene against the Assad regime?
Serious question, can anybody think of an occasion in modern warfare where an army has deliberately committed atrocities against its own people on this scale with the sole purpose of forcing the hand of wider powers to intervene to tip the balance of war in its favour?
1. The Assad regime is prepared to commit atrocities against civilian populations. This has been documented again and again over the last two plus years.
2. At the time of the incident they were engaged in a "major offensive" against the areas where the incident took place. (their words)
3. They have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons.
The above are all indisputable facts.
So would the opposition gas its own people to force other countries to intervene against the Assad regime?
Serious question, can anybody think of an occasion in modern warfare where an army has deliberately committed atrocities against its own people on this scale with the sole purpose of forcing the hand of wider powers to intervene to tip the balance of war in its favour?
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Beware of experts, said the expert. All Cretans are liars, said the Cretan.
My understanding with Nerve gas was that if one drop got on your skin it was the Big Adios within seconds. Is that correct? And is that what we're seeing in this alleged incident?
Well its killed it own before in an attempt to score a propaganda coup.
Using chemical weapons is essentially a sign of desperation. The opposition are losing and from what I have been reading that fracturing is getting more and more obvious. There only hope is to get Western intervention and thus they have every reason to do it. What are the upsides for Assads regime ? A minor tactical victory at best and even then the downsides are akin to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Nah, this stinks of a side knowing it is close to defeat and looking for a final throw of the dice.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
The problem with saying "it would be irrational for the Assad regime to do this" is that no human institution, be it a government or anything else, is ever completely rational.
But are they that irrational ? Because using chemical weapons in this set of circumstances makes no sense what so ever. There is nothing to be gained from it at all. Assad has weathered an incredible storm and has fought his way not only back into the game but has now got the upper hand. Those are simple facts. Why on earth would he jepodise all of that for nothing ? And then do it under the very noses of a recently arrived UN inspection team ? It goes beyond irrational and becomes almost insanity to think that he would even consider such an option.
However for the opposition, then the sudden apperence of a chemical attack in those circumstances, now that takes on a logic. A horrible, nasty and foul one but still a logic.
JimW
支那暗杀团
You're making a good point but reckon the key question rather than all the specific conditionals you have is are any of the other actors sufficiently cavalier with civilian lives to contemplate something like this if they perceived an advantage and while not saying it's even likely, don't think you can rule it out entirely - there's the Salafists who've been suicide bombing for example.
Not off the top of my head no, but does that itself prove anything? All that means is that this could be the first time. And it's worth pointing out that we're not dealing with an Army in the strictest sense of the term but a loose collection of militia's being backed by a variety of different groups, a coaltion that is unique in modern history. The situation in Syria is really unprecidented in a lot of ways so looking for precidents isn't going to be very helpful.
The rebels are losing the war and at this point trying to internationalise the conflict is their only hope of winning. Which is why it makes no sense for it to be the Assad regime that did this - why would they want to internationalise the conflict and do something that will run the risk of drawing the western powers into the country when they're winning the war? If they were losing, if the regime was on the verge of collapse, then this sort of desperate attack would be a logical thing to do, but they're not in that position. Why would they use chemical weapons when they still have an air force? An a coherent army that outnumbers and outguns it's opponents? And the support of much of the population? Why would they use chemical weapons in Damascus of all places, where there's pro-regime civilians living and who's support Assad needs to maintain to stay in power?
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Well, one case that may or may not be a precedent is the shelling of a market in Sarajevo during the siege of that city in the Bosnia war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markale_massacres#cite_note-10
It's also worth pointing out that in the last few months the government has forced outthe majority of the rebels from nearly every suburb of Damascus and the rebels, unable to hold territory, have been changing tactics and using suicide bombings and terrorist attacks instead.
The area that was gassed appears to be in the far eastern suburbs, which iirc is roughly where the Damascus international airport is, which is an area the rebels were trying to hold onto until last month or so, in an attempt to cut off central Damascus from the airport which is an essential lifeline for the regime. Exactly why the Assad regime would launch an attack on it's own civilians here of all places is beyond my reasoning, especially considering they'd been successfully driving the Islamist militia's out in the previous months and consolidating their control of the city.
I could see it if the regime was about to fall, Fisk mentioned that chemical weapons would probably only be used if the regime thought it's survival was at stake when he was asked about the first claims of govt using chemical weapons a while back, claims that were quietly dropped when it turned out that it was more than likely the Islamists who were responsible. He said they might want to use chemical weapons to internationalise the conflict, if they felt that starting WW3 was the only way to preserve themselves, or even worse the notion that "if we're going down we're taking half the middle-east with us" but they aren't in that situation, it's the rebels who are in that situation, facing near-certain defeat, restricted to the Turkish border and desert region neighbouring Iraq, unable to hold any of the key cities or population centre. Tactically it makes way more sense for the rebels to use chemical weapons, because that's the only way the West is likely to come and save them.
However I think there's been a change in heart in the west I don't think there's going to be any intervention, there isn't enough popular support for it and Obama doesn't want to do it. A no-fly zone of some sort might be imposed by the US, but even with that i can't see how that'll be enough to tip the balance. I would think the prospect of US led intervention is pretty slim, if there's going to be "boots on the ground" I can see it more to enforce as a UN backed ceasefire and partition of the country not as a fighting force, fighting side by side with Al-Queada.
Also we cannot rule out a disaffected local Syrian general wanting to throw his own hat into the ring to jockey for position or force outside intervention.
Being involved in constant conflict especially in civil war situations can throw up the most devastating and least expected of actions.
Being involved in constant conflict especially in civil war situations can throw up the most devastating and least expected of actions.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
No you followed the footage correctly, there was an individual, so-called expert who started blathering on about blisters, absolutely no idea and mixing symptoms of sulphur mustard with those of nerve agent. There are many people in this world who claim to have a theoretical knowledge of chemical warfare agents but very few with real hands on experience. (unfortunately the media tend to latch on to the wrong type)
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
I have never claimed to be an expert, and the toxicological data for most chemical warfare agents can be found online, however whether one drop will kill or not depends on a shedload of factors. Want to be more specific with the case you had in mind?
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Ah wisnae thinking of a specific case - though I was thinking back to what I read of nerve gas and its capabilities back in the cold war.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
Mostly based on scare propaganda from that period (there were also similar scare tactics used for Lewisite after the 1st World War that has been shown to be totally false), nerve agent is nasty don't get me wrong but there are many types (three main these days Sarin, Soman and VX) and their effects are dependant on many factors.
Perhaps as a brazen act of intimidation. Any future consolidated revolution will fail. We can do this when the world's watching. They will do nothing against us. There will be no outside help. know your place.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Fuchs66
is delivery capability a possible method of working out what happened?
i've not done any Chemical work since the YO course at Larkhill donkies years ago - but the main thing i remember was that getting enough Chemical agent onto a reasonably large, widespread target to have a significant effect was hard work even with the capabilities of a modern, cold war scale artillery componant.
my initial, ignorant, suspicion was that even if a Chem attack by the Syrian government was, as others have said, utterly illogical, only they have the heavy weapons capability to put enough agent into these towns/suburbs to actually produce these effects - is that reasonable, or have Chem agents/delivery moved on significantly since the early 90's?
is delivery capability a possible method of working out what happened?
i've not done any Chemical work since the YO course at Larkhill donkies years ago - but the main thing i remember was that getting enough Chemical agent onto a reasonably large, widespread target to have a significant effect was hard work even with the capabilities of a modern, cold war scale artillery componant.
my initial, ignorant, suspicion was that even if a Chem attack by the Syrian government was, as others have said, utterly illogical, only they have the heavy weapons capability to put enough agent into these towns/suburbs to actually produce these effects - is that reasonable, or have Chem agents/delivery moved on significantly since the early 90's?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Also, if the rebels do have the capacity to deliver these massive chemical attacks, why aren't they using them against the Syrian army or Assad and his cronies.
Similar threads
