Syria - What should we do if anything?

Yes, there may be some makeshift lab been hit. Just like many ammo dumps, IED factories that were placed in civil houses or rebel positions in civil appartments.

Saw a video yesterday where terrorists placed a anti-air-site between appartments. Nice firework from the Syrian AF at the end, though.

Yeah, nice firework but after it many media outlets and civil rights observation groups start a craepstorm about bloody dictatorship that shells its own citizen just for lulz and destroys the houses of innocent civilians. Sure they don't say that this houses were converted to rebel positions.

did anyone ask what happened to these chemical storages overrun by rebels ? ...

also what happens if Syria army hit some 'rebel' chemical lab (w/o knowing about the improvized lab being there)

so many IF ...

Maybe it's a flase flag by aliens? See, anyone can have a good imagination. What Chemical weapon storage sites have been overun by rebels? The only thing I know of is a chemical factory at Aleppo that does not have the right chemicals or production processes to make 'nerve gas'. It's not easy to do and requires specialised expertise. According to the Russians the Syrian Army moved all chemical weapons to 2 sites near the coast at Tartus with the aid of Russian military advisors to convince Western Governments that the stockpiles were safe, so are the Russians lying about that?

The other thing you forgot is that there were multiple areas affected - so these rebels have secret chemical labs in multiple locations? Methinks you attribute them with capabilities they really don't have?

Just checked the weather for the region on 21/08/2013 and it shows 10kph/12kph - 2 on Beaufort scale - light breeze - the aerosol wouldn't travel far and a single attack wouldn't explain the pattern of exposure on the ground?

Well that's clearly a propaganda video designed to fool the stupid - science is no longer popular at school but anyone who has studied would be able to tell you that:

1. Potassium permanganate can't damage the nervous system, Sarin doesn't contain Potassium.

2. You can't make Sarin precursors in a glass beaker over a bunsen flame ROFL. The Hydrofluoric acid used in the process corrodes glass.

3. The store cupboard shown there doesn't contain the correct chemicals for precursor production.

4. If they were actually cooking up Sarin in that kitchen the lack of appropriate protective clothing would result in unconsciousness and death in minutes. You would need a possitive pressure suit and oxygen supply if you were handling Sarin and some of the precursors in a room like that, a respirator isn't enough, the guy in the video is wearing a raincoat and a paper dust mask like you use for protection during DIY jobs around the home.

5. My best guess is that the rabbits were killed by hydrogen cyanide, it's easy to make and the death looks similar. Of course you can't see them turn blue with all that fur lol. They are clearly adding a liquid (probably HCl, shown in large bottles) to a powder that is likely a cyanide salt. The initial white fumes are another indication of HCl.

What if I told you there's a way to debate without being rude? From where I come from you don't learn "science", its split up into different streams. I'm sorry if I didn't study Chemistry, there's no need to be condescending.

Anyway I don't know why you're bringing Sarin up, I explicitly state that I am not jumping to any conclusion since the UN report on which Chemical used isn't even out. I'm not gonna act like I'm an expert on Chemistry, I'm simply relaying quotes I have taken from pages describing Potassium Permanganate for the sake of convenient should anyone wonder what the bottle at the beginning is.

Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidising agent and is toxic when inhaled or ingested. Inhalation or ingestion may cause damage to the central nervous system. 10 gm is sufficient to cause death.

Source

Came across this new reading on the Institute for the study of war.

Link

Interesting, so Assad decides to use chemical weapons knowing full well that the west is looking for any excuse to start dropping bombs? I wonder why he would decide to do this now after gaining some important strategic wins, it's not like they are losing, possibly the opposite?

It is widely known that dictators like Assad are dumb enough to make such things. At leas that's how they are shown by the media.

It's far from being dumb. There is no way Assad can win today, apart from creating a massive regional conflict involving Iran.

Uhmm @ the topic title. "We" do not to get to choose anything, it´s the hand full of elites that start wars, not the people of the Western countries. The weapon manufacturers can´t make any money in Afghanistan anymore so they will force a new war/conflict that the West have to deal with.

It is extremely hypocrite to start a war cos of 500 deaths by nervegas (which is in some aspect is more humane then bullets and tank shells killing people) while with conventional weapons tens of thousands of people have been killed already, and not to forget tortured to death. If the West starts military actions it will have nothing to do with humanitarian reasons, but all with money and power of the elites.

It's far from being dumb. There is no way Assad can win today, apart from creating a massive regional conflict involving Iran.

I would have thought that more true for the other side? Apparently there was no way Assad was going to last a week when this all began.

Uhmm @ the topic title. "We" do not to get to choose anything, it´s the hand full of elites that start wars, not the people of the Western countries. The weapon manufacturers can´t make any money in Afghanistan anymore so they will force a new war/conflict that the West have to deal with.

It is extremely hypocrite to start a war cos of 500 deaths by nervegas (which is in some aspect is more humane then bullets and tank shells killing people) while with conventional weapons tens of thousands of people have been killed already, and not to forget tortured to death. If the West starts military actions it will have nothing to do with humanitarian reasons, but all with money and power of the elites.

Finally, some logical words in this thread ...

What if I told you there's a way to debate without being rude? From where I come from you don't learn "science", its split up into different streams. I'm sorry if I didn't study Chemistry, there's no need to be condescending.

Anyway I don't know why you're bringing Sarin up, I explicitly state that I am not jumping to any conclusion since the UN report on which Chemical used isn't even out. I'm not gonna act like I'm an expert on Chemistry, I'm simply relaying quotes I have taken from pages describing Potassium Permanganate for the sake of convenient should anyone wonder what the bottle at the beginning is.

Source

I used the term science because all 3 major disciplines plus many others are involved with this, not just Chemistry. I'm being a little rude because it's not really acceptable to spread silly propaganda videos like that, is it? Even if you don't know anything about chemistry - the silly DIY protective gear gives it away.

Congrats on finding 1 safety data sheet that states your case - most don't. Not too long ago people used KMnO4 as a cure for athlete's foot. To poison someone with KMnO4 you would have to make them swallow it or force their head into smoke containing the fumes at a high concentration - it's a bad choice for mass poisoning, even if you put it in the water supply at the correct concentration, it would dye the water purple, people would notice. It is unlikely to damage the CNS and that isn't a primary effect.

I really don't think rebels have access to the kinds of chemicals or the quantities involved to affect approx 3500 people. To create an aerosol or fumes successfully to poison and kill that many people over a wide area is very difficult. You need something with the right characteristics that is either highly toxic (small quantity, large effect) or a very large volume of something toxic. It's very difficult to do.

@Katipo - it is an odd time to do this but then came denials, refusals to allow the UN to inspect this 'hoax', then when the UN were allowed in their investigation was disrupted by Assad's men who ordered them to leave. It's a funny way to go about proving your innocence? I agree with JeffersPang - wait for the UN report.

@B00tsy - memory problems?

On 4 October 2011, Russia and China vetoed a Western-drafted resolution which would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions if it continued military actions against protestors.

They have vetoed everything else since that time which prevented any resolutions or effective UN measures, the West's objections on humanitarian grounds were clear from the start, however, they require legal authority to act. I wouldn't say that chemical weapons are more humane than conventional weapons - that is why they are subject to international agreements and restrictions which 188 nations have signed. Chemical weapons affect the biosphere and if used in significant quantities would destroy all life in a given area:

Syria is party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in war.

There is why Obama drew his red line at CW's - this gives him the legal authority. The Protocol is now considered a part of customary international law.

Uhmm @ the topic title. "We" do not to get to choose anything, it´s the hand full of elites that start wars, not the people of the Western countries. The weapon manufacturers can´t make any money in Afghanistan anymore so they will force a new war/conflict that the West have to deal with.

It is extremely hypocrite to start a war cos of 500 deaths by nervegas (which is in some aspect is more humane then bullets and tank shells killing people) while with conventional weapons tens of thousands of people have been killed already, and not to forget tortured to death. If the West starts military actions it will have nothing to do with humanitarian reasons, but all with money and power of the elites.

Never seen so many Bits and Bytes wasted that hard. You could've saved a tree with sparing this.

If you promise not to kick someone while fighting him, and you still kick him, the referee will jump in because it's illegal.

Replace kick with use gas and referee with NATO.

However, I still see no reason why Assad should use nerve gas and provoke a NATO Attack when he's clearly on the winning side right now. Especially with Irans and Hezbollahs support.

Oh and it's pleasant to see that more people here start thinking that Assad is not just mad dictator and things are more complex than it is told by media.

Eh, still don't like him. Maybe not mad, but still a dictator, and hardly a pleasant character.

Regardless, the recent WMD story stinks. As has been pointed out, why do it now, knowing that the US administration is looking for any excuse to intervene? And if still going ahead with it, why on such a small scale? 350 fatalities when using sarin in a heavily populated area is hardly much. And the fact that al Qaeda groups have been fighting and been very close to taking bases known to contain WMDs recently is rather well known, just like how it's well known that they attempted to use gas in some of their terror attacks in Iraq.

Oh and it's pleasant to see that more people here start thinking that Assad is not just mad dictator and things are more complex than it is told by media.

Exactly, anyone who has been to Syria before the conflict should know that. At least if the person is not biased due to his or her religion/political view or what ever. I prefer a dictator who rules over a open-minded land with moderate laws and good education system to some mad islamists who, surprise surprise, already started fighting each other and try to install a religious law which prevents any progress in society and anything else.

EDIT: I know the Sharia was part of Syria before, it just wasn't practiced as hard as in other islamic countries.

The syrian war is planned by the USA because it will open them a way to attack the Iran.

The syrian war is planned by the USA because it will open them a way to attack the Iran.

That's a rather extremist view there :o Would you expand, please?

I used the term science because all 3 major disciplines plus many others are involved with this, not just Chemistry. I'm being a little rude because it's not really acceptable to spread silly propaganda videos like that, is it? Even if you don't know anything about chemi........

.......... that is why they are subject to international agreements and restrictions which 188 nations have signed. Chemical weapons affect the biosphere and if used in significant quantities would destroy all life in a given area:

Syria is party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in war.

There is why Obama drew his red line at CW's - this gives him the legal authority. The Protocol is now considered a part of customary international law.

You're right, god forbid me posting relevant videos and being as objective as possible so people can make an informed judgement. :rolleyes:

I will leave the chemical talk here, because since the UN report is coming out soon it'll be pointless to continue speculating whether this chemical or that or sarin etc.. was used

There is nothing to expand. There are about 7-8 years old books (written by ex-military officers) which explains all of these happenings. Well, there are not only the books, but a logical conclusions. US economy and army are alive because of wars. That's what they must do to be strongest in the world and control everything. Some will say that these which are creating the situations like that are the Masons, illuminats, etc. but these are just a things which are keeping USA alive, as I said.

I won't talk much in here and go in offtopic. I just said my opinion. :)

Syria is party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in war.

There is why Obama drew his red line at CW's - this gives him the legal authority. The Protocol is now considered a part of customary international law.

In war. But anti-terrorist operation within Syrian borders conducted by Syrian government may not be justified as war.

Exactly, anyone who has been to Syria before the conflict should know that. At least if the person is not biased due to his or her religion/political view or what ever. I prefer a dictator who rules over a open-minded land with moderate laws and good education system to some mad islamists who, surprise surprise, already started fighting each other and try to install a religious law which prevents any progress in society and anything else.

EDIT: I know the Sharia was part of Syria before, it just wasn't practiced as hard as in other islamic countries.

That same open minded dictator started this off by shooting unarmed protestors just as his father did before, remember the Syrian Uprising started with peaceful protests? The crazy gang wouldn't be in Syria if he had acted differently and responsibly. I once saw a documentary by Dom Joly retracing a family holiday he had in Syria as a child when he attended the International School in Lebanon. He was followed everywhere by a group of minders from the secret police as happens in North Korea. Strange that people who live in free and open democracies would find such a system acceptable. Assad also discriminates against those who are not Alawite. I'm not sure you can justify support for Assad as he has already killed more people and created a larger refugee crisis than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The majority of the country want Assad gone. He would be gone if there wasn't outside help from Iran and Russia.

Cameron and Hollande have stated that regime change is not their goal, they simply can't set a precident by allowing the use of Chemical Weapons to go unpunished.

United Nations Security Council resolution 612, adopted unanimously on 9 May 1988, after considering a report by the Special Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq, the Council condemned the use of chemical weapons in the conflict, contrary to obligations under the Geneva Protocol.

The Council reaffirmed the urgency of the strict observance of the Geneva Protocol, expecting both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons. It also urged Member States to continue to apply or establish strict control of checmical products in exports to Iran and Iraq, expressing its desire to further review the situation.

There is a resolution on Iraq/Iran - why is Russia and China blocking a similar censure on Syria?

@Spooky - it's Civil War, no avoiding that, There is precident for CW use in civil war to be judged as illegal under the convention - see international rulings Halabja.

1. if you wonder why Russia is interested in Syria, it's not just because of the Naval base they got there but also the long term military and trade relations

You know, we have our own snackbar guys in southern regions. And some of them are already involved in Syrian mess. They may return back, but not alone - with their new friends, after getting more experience, money and gear in Syrian mess. So the more snackbars die in Syria - the less of them will appear at my own neighbourhood. That's the fourth reason. Europe does not have jihadist rebellion (at least now), we do. And we have to do something with it - prevent other countries to become safe heaven for them for example.