U.S. official: 'High probability' Syria used chemical weapon

I'm surprised that so few Americans, on this anniversary of all others, seem to have developed so little critical reasoning and healthy skepticism about these things.

the other way. General Dempsey (Joint Chiefs Chair) said yesterday that we know less today about the situation there than we did a year ago and should proceed with caution. Kerry reiterated the non-lethal aid and chem weapons red line. Brennan is getting the CIA to assess rebels in Syria for profiling. Hagel is completely silent. I have no idea what is going to happen.

*sighs*

It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, but, likewise, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were false.

It looks like it was pesticides, not nerve agents, and the victims included Syrian soldiers and allied militiamen.

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153

Al Jazeera's Syria Live Blog, no friend to Assad, had this:

Syria about 10 hours ago
Ziad Haddad, a medic in Aleppo, told Al Jazeera several patients arrived in the emergency room earlier this morning with cases of suffocation and constricted pupils.
"Several of them died of respiratory inhibition," he said.

Haddad said the victims seemed to have been exposed to organic pesticides and not chemical weapons, like Sarin and VX nerve agents.

"Victims spoke of pungent smell. Chemical weapons are usually odourless."

“Moreover , the number of deaths is small compared to those who would have died had chemical weapons been used." He estimates that 25 people have been killed in the attack in Khan al-Assal.

Haddad said the casualties included Syrian regime soldiers and pro- Assad armed men.

Earlier, Sana state news agency on Tuesday accused rebels of launching "a rocket contains chemical materials" on Khan al-Assal.

I have heard that before. Not unpleasant, but possibly noticeable. But pungent chemical odor is suspect.

and regardless which side used such weapons the civil war will escalate as a result.

by the rebels to get us to jump in and help them win?

Edit: Conflicting reports are suggesting the death toll is a lot higher. If that is true then it may indeed by a nerve agent attack.

make a difference because this civil war is escalating out of control. I don't see how the U.S. can realistically secure these chemical weapon sites in a reasonable manner.

who we should trust and prop up. If rebels are playing games to get our involvement (at least arms), why should we do their bidding? The best on-the-ground scenario in the event of large scale chem warfare is...what? Our kids dying instead of their kids? Don't forget too, that Iran has said an attack on Syria is an attack on them. And what about Russia propping up the regime?

What are you referring to?

Assad?

Sitting ducks?

They make it sound like the US would never use weapons of mass causalities.

I would think when it comes to war, "all options are on the table". Right?

Let the UN take care of it. And let someone else pay the bill. Like Wall St. Let them go fight a war to enrich themselves. We're done doing it for them. Thanks.

and take care of it? Yeah... they were awesome in Rwanda.
Too many member countries are ruthless dictators. We shouldn't go in there at all. Let them solve the problem themselves.

There is no agreement within the security council for a resolution to intervene militarily in Syria. Some members are feeling a little burned after the Libyan intervention, which morphed from a no-fly zone into an overthrow Gaddafi thing.

of republican BS.

U.S. Ambassador to #Syria says so far no evidence to substantiate reports chemical weapons were used in Syria #breaking

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/314384153720262657

Ambassador: No evidence of chemical use in Syria

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. ambassador to Syria says the Obama administration has no evidence so far to support claims of chemical weapon use but is looking carefully at the conflicting reports.

Robert Ford made the comments Tuesday at a House hearing, one day after President Bashar Assad accused U.S.-backed rebels of using such weapons in Aleppo province.

The Obama administration disputed that claim, and a U.S. official said there was no evidence that either Assad forces or the opposition had used chemical weapons in an attack in northern Syria.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/house-intel-chief-us-time-act-syria

President Barack Obama has declared that the use, deployment or transfer of (chemical) weapons would be a "red line" for possible military intervention by the U.S. in the Syrian conflict.

But Syria has apparently requested that the UN launch an independent investigation into the matter.

So what if it turns out that the US-backed, Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist rebels were the ones to use chemical weapons? Would that still qualify as a "red line"....or not? Would the rebels continue to be our freedom-loving Damascus car bombers? Could we ever fall out of love with these guys? They'd still be fulfilling the Wolfowitzian dream of deposing Assad and cleaning up an old Soviet client-state, after all.

And then there is Kerry, who hasn't had a problem with any American military intervention since the Vietnam War, and by the day is making me regret voting for him in 2004.

The other day Kerry said that "Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda-related elements" are aiding Assad.

This even though Al-Qaeda in Iraq has clearly backed the rebels, an inconvenient fact acknowledged by US and other Western officials, particularly through its relationship with Jabhat al-Nusra, which the US has declared a foreign terrorist organization.

This is the sort of thing that could one day make me vote Green or Socialist, rather than Democratic.

it's always been just the rebel factions that had been associated with them. I think he got it backwards and was unaware of it, plain and simple.

But I'm afraid that the facts are being fitted to the policy, and like Clinton, Kerry wants to arm the rebels.

Very similar to the way Iraq went down.

It's a real image management problem for Kerry when the "good guys" set up Sharia courts, and wear ski masks and chant "Allahu Akbar" while executing prisoners.

he wants to do that now. Even if he did, Obama obviously isn't willing just yet--either on his own judgment, or someone else has his ear. At this point, with talk of no-fly zones and airstrikes from people like Levin and Feinstein, arming the rebels seems almost quaint. But I still think we shouldn't do it. As you say, it's really hard to control that sort of shit.