View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2025 10:50 am
Sarin gas used in Syrian conflict?
Author |
Message |
JohnSheridan
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:10 pm Posts: 1057
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22305444Are these the same 'intelligence people' who said Saddam had wmd's ? If so how can they expect us to believe a word they say? Even if Sarin had been used - which side used it? Syria supposedly has stockpiles all around the country - any one of which could have fallen into rebel hands. Me thinks this is being used, like in Iraq, as an excuse to intervene.
_________________
|
Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:46 am |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
Used - probably But by which side. Rebels have had access to the chemical weapons stores too.
|
Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:13 am |
|
 |
JJW009
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm Posts: 8767 Location: behind the sofa
|
Remember that a pressure cooker is a WMD now...
_________________jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly." When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net
|
Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:16 am |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
That makes the sarin issue less important. We need to get those idiots to reclassify pressure cookers as cooking utensils. By the current definition even a piece of pipe is now WMD, so we need to ban the transport of polish terrorist/plumbers? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:40 pm |
|
 |
MrStevenRogers
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm Posts: 4860
|
_________________ Hope this helps . . . Steve ...
Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ... HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...
|
Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:02 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
I'd be pretty surprised if they allowed chemical weapons to fall into enemy hands. Those sort of things are never handed over to conscripts of uncertain loyalty or weak training, and the troops who guard them are by definition the best armed in the entire conflict.
There may be many negatives things to be said about the Syrian regime, but militarily they must be sufficiently competent to at least maintain control of the most sensitive weapons in their armoury - otherwise they would be dangling from street lights already.
|
Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:22 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
+1 but unless it is confirmed then I doubt that anyone will be willing to go as far as intervening. It is possible that Sarin has been used but even then we have no idea of who used it.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:27 pm |
|
 |
ProfessorF
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm Posts: 12030
|

 |  |  |  | Quote: U.S. doubts on Syria lie in how sarin exposure occurred Intelligence agencies are confident the poison gas was released but are less sure about whether Bashar Assad's regime is responsible or even whether it was deliberate.
By Paul Richter, Ken Dilanian and David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times April 26, 2013, 9:11 p.m.
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agree that Syrians have been exposed to deadly sarin gas in recent weeks, but they are divided over how certain they can be that the Syrian regime is to blame, U.S. and congressional officials said Friday.
As the Obama administration weighs how to respond to the use of poison gas, intelligence officials say they are confident that sophisticated tests of tissue and soil samples and other evidence point to sarin. But reactions in the U.S. intelligence community have varied because of the possibility — however small — that the exposure was accidental or caused by rebel fighters or others outside the Syrian government's control, officials said.
Releases of poison gas could have occurred when soldiers loyal to the regime, which has been trying to secure and consolidate its dozens of chemical weapons sites, moved part of its stockpile, a U.S. Defense official said. Another possibility is that disloyal Syrian weapons scientists supplied chemicals to rebel fighters.
"The intel folks are taking a hard look at this, and they're not certain," the Defense official said, speaking anonymously to discuss intelligence matters. "There's no definite indication this was used against the opposition."
And the administration and its allies may never reach a clear conclusion, private experts and foreign diplomats say.
Gary Samore, who was the White House's top official on weapons of mass destruction until February, said that answering questions about the "chain of custody" would probably depend on highly sensitive intelligence that might not exist, or which the government would be reluctant to make public.
As a result, "I think there's always going to be doubt," said Samore, now with the Belfer Center at Harvard University.
After weeks of skepticism about reports that chemical weapons had been used, the Obama administration announced Thursday that the agencies making up the intelligence community had concluded "with varying degrees of confidence" that the Syrian regime had used sarin on a "small scale."
Before deciding on a response, the administration said, it wants definitive proof that the regime used the poison gas. It said it would work with the United Nations and allies such as France and Britain to find the answer.
On Friday, a top Syrian official flatly rejected any possibility of chemical weapons use.
"The U.S.-British and Western allegations in general on that issue do not have any credibility," Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoubi told Russian television during a visit to Moscow, Syria's close ally.
President Obama has declared since August that the use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad's regime would be a "red line," suggesting that it could trigger a military response from the United States. But administration officials, pointing to the intelligence community's blunder in declaring that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, said they needed more proof than the usual intelligence assessments.
U.S. officials haven't been willing to provide details on the attacks they have studied. But the British government, in a letter to the U.N. requesting an investigation, said it saw "limited but persuasive evidence" of chemical attacks, citing incidents March 19 and 23 in Aleppo and Damascus and an attack in Homs in December.
The British said dozens of people had been treated in Syrian hospitals for symptoms consistent with sarin exposure, including convulsions, shortness of breath and dilated pupils. They cited reports from rebels that 15 people had died in Aleppo and 10 in Damascus because of chemical attacks.
The U.S. Defense official said that at least some of the samples studied by the U.S. officials were collected in December.
The United Nations has been seeking to send a technical team into Syria since last month but has been blocked by the government, which has objected to the world body's demand for "unfettered access" to Syrian territory.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has continued to press for access, and U.N. officials say they could dispatch the team within a day or two once permission was granted. But many diplomats and outside analysts think Assad may never be willing to permit access to the U.N. group because the inspectors could reach a conclusion that would unite much of the world against him.
If the U.N. team continues to be blocked, the administration will have to rely on its own intelligence assessments and that of allies, which would not be nearly as convincing to the rest of the world. Greg Thielmann, a former U.S. intelligence analyst, said the intelligence agencies' conclusions would probably be less convincing to the public because the agencies are not likely to declare that they have reached 100% certainty.
"The Iraq WMD is looming over this, as it ought to be," a senior congressional official said. "How can you be more confident in the assessment here? These are questions we are all asking."
The official noted that the agreement of all 17 intelligence agencies on sarin use contrasted with the Iraq assessments of 2002, in which the State Department's intelligence unit disagreed that Hussein had restarted his nuclear weapons program.
|  |  |  |  |
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-chemical-weapons-20130427,0,4808295.story
|
Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:34 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
Consider the legend of the suitcase nuke - you will find little sympathy for the view that a terrorist who had such a device was just a guy with some luggage. Any bomb is really just a tin that goes bang. I think the WMD bit is the bang rather than the tin. If that guy in Boston had placed clam chowder in the vessel rather than a quantity of explosives that blew people's legs off, he would be in much less trouble than he is right now. Unless the chowder was incorrectly cooked of course, in which case he would have probably achieved a bigger death toll, and perhaps a more convincing charge of wielding WMDs.
|
Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:15 pm |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|

I'm afraid that's something of a simplification. While you're right in that the container is less important than the payload, the majority of things that would be classed as a WMD are not explosives and do not need to be in a bomb. In fact the majority are poisons of some sort and can be distributed in any number of ways. The only major act of terrorism I can remember using what is (under international law) regarded as a WMD is the sarin gas attack on the tokyo subway by Aum Shiryuko. The corollary of this is you don't need a bang for it to be a WMD - in fact you absolutely don't want one, as most WMD agents would be burned up in the detonation. WMD and bombs have pretty much nothing to do with each other the majority of the time. Have chemical agents been used in Syria? I have no idea TBH but it's possible - it's prettymuch assumed the regime has them and given the chaos the country has descended into, who knows whose hand they have come to. But it doesn't need a bomb to have been dropped for that to happen. And that's why it's utterly fatuous to describe the Boston bomb as a WMD. It simply wasn't. It's entirely missing the 'mass' part of it. If they'd used a couple of litres of Sarin sprayed at the crowd rather than a couple of kilos of nails every single person in that crowd would be dead, not just two very unfortunate individuals.
|
Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:33 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
Yes but it is the explosive rather than the container. A nuclear filled pressure cooker would be a WMD, though one with explosive? What they did was create a roadside bomb which is what the Taliban in Afghanistan are doing? Are we dragging them off to the US to face trial for WMD? No the same rule should apply to both. If the pressure cooker had biological threat ie undercooked then it could be WMD, as a biological weapon, but that would be down to the contents. It is the inconsistency that is annoying.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:36 am |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|

Well inconsistency is to be expected with ambiguous terms like WMD. The pot was used as a weapon, it was destructive. Was it mass destruction? From the perspective of the three people who got shredded, pretty much. Lots of other people sustained terrible injuries too. So it was surely a weapon of mass destruction, even if most of the things being destroyed on a massive scale were fingers and toes.
If you have a desire to specify WMDs as belonging solely to the class of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear weapons, then there is a special term just for that (CBRN) which you should use when being precise about these things. It's a better term for the things you inaccurately refer to as WMDs because it actually specifies types of weapon - which is the thing you are trying to prescribe - rather than being a vague reference to an outcome which can be achieved in many ways that don't meet your specification.
FWIW the term WMD was coined as "weapons adaptable to mass destruction" specifically to be vague. From the early 60s until 2009 the US DOD defined WMD as "high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons." (which had to be changed because Donald Rumsfeld made a fcuk up in 2005 and there was a risk of US soldiers being done for using mortars etc).
|
Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:53 am |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
A pressure cooker bomb is probably less destructive than a mortar grenade, so maybe we should charge soldiers who used mortars?. My definition would be based on area impacted. Sarin could cover a much larger area than say a pressure cooker or mortar, or even most air to ground weapons. The use of an aircraft loaded with fuel can definitely be WMD, as could an enhanced ballistic missile such as a scud with chemical or biological weapons. Fewer people were killed than in West, Texas when the chemical plant exploded or during the Virginia Tech shooting, so should guns be reclassified? While the US has large WMD such as the Daisy cutter or MOAB bombs, these have only being used against military targets. The truck bomb used in Oklahoma would also be WMD. Now US troops could be tried around the world for using WMD on this basis.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:54 am |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
You are completely missing the point. The problem is that the term itself is so utterly worthlessly vague that you can even bother to wonder which of those things meets your personal specification, and can't possibly expect general agreement. Any two idiots can have divergent but equally valid opinions about what a WMD is.
You can't properly define a catch all term because they are designed to include not to exclude. That's why people end up having moronic debates about whether golf or snooker is a sport, or Scientology is a religion.
The mistake is not the erroneous inclusion of an element within a category, but the assumption that the category itself is genuinely distinctive.
|
Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:47 am |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
If the term is deliberately vague then we should never go to war over WMD, unless we have specifics. Invading Belgium over pressure cookers is simply unacceptable. What happened in Boston is wrong but the response is also wrong. This only seems to be a way of racheting up the war on terror for the additional funding that will come. What happened was a domestic bombing, yet the Unabomber was not described as using WMD.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:55 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|