Watchdog Agency Concludes Chlorine Used as Weapon in Syria

[pampango]

Source: New York Times

The conclusion, based on months of investigation by a fact-finding team, appeared to indicate that the Syrian government was continuing to use chemical weapons in the country’s civil war, despite having agreed to forswear the weapons, surrender its arsenal and tear down its manufacturing plants.

The fact-finding team went to Syria in May to investigate the reports of chlorine attacks, but soon withdrew, after a convoy of vehicles carrying its inspectors was attacked with a roadside bomb and automatic weapons. The fact-finding team said it was continuing to investigate reports of subsequent chlorine attacks, including a spate of new allegations in August.

Unlike nerve agents, mustard gas or other specially developed chemical weapons, chlorine is a common substance with many civilian and industrial uses. The international treaty banning chemical weapons does not restrict the manufacture or stockpiling of chlorine, but it does prohibit using it or any chemical as a weapon.

The organization’s report adds weight to the finding of a United Nations panel investigating human rights violations in Syria, which released a report last month saying that chlorine attacks had been carried out.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/watchdog-agency-concludes-chlorine-used-as-weapon-in-syria.html

[brooklynite]

1. I have it on good authority that this is just neo-con propaganda spouted by the MSM...

...at least that's what I read here.....

[grahamhgreen]

2. You forgot about WMD in Iraq already????

[karynnj]

10. It is as much ignoring proof to say that chemical weapons were NOT used in Syria as to argue

there WERE WMD after investigations found none.

To argue that because Bush et al lied about WMD, all future claims of weapons - no matter what proof - are false is not a logical response. That we should be careful about claims - when there is no proof - would be a good lesson learned.

[grahamhgreen]

25. Not false, but suspect, to be sure.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Likely, we will continue to hear anti-Assad propaganda until we are at war with Syria.

Not that some of it won't be true....

[The Magistrate]

4. Real Heavy Duty Neo-Con Propaganda, Sir

http://opcw.unmissions.org/

http://www.opcw.org/

[grahamhgreen]

19. as I said, some will be true. I find it funny that I just posted

this comment yesterday, in which I predict anit-Assad propaganda to flow until we are engaged in an all out war against him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=5510076&pid=5510160

I also find it interesting that the rebels we will be backing in the new war are also implicated in the gas attacks in Syria:

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/04/14/was-assad-not-responsible-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-last-august/

[pampango]

6. I don't consider the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to be a propaganda source.

If you are saying that we should not post (or even believe?) information that is inconsistent with our chosen policy goal, I refer you to the climate change deniers on the right.

I hope liberals never self-censor to the extent, that we only post (and believe) investigations that confirm and support the policy that we have chosen.

As Mr. Krugman has said: "It’s not just facts that have a liberal bias; so does careful, open-minded analysis."

[grahamhgreen]

9. Whatever gets us to take out Assad.

[pampango]

11. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is not out to 'get' Assad.

It goal is to eliminate the use of chemical weapons. Is that not a liberal goal? Or does it depend on whose ox is being gored?

[grahamhgreen]

13. I agree. But let us remember that the neocon plan is to take out Assad, and the

last reports of Assad using chemical weapons is disputed.

It may well have been the rebels we armed, and now will be arming again who used the chemical weapons.

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/04/14/was-assad-not-responsible-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-last-august/

[KurtNYC]

15. +1 "truth is the first casualty of war"

from that link:

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, has recently reported that the Assad regime might not be responsible for the chemical weapons attacks in Syria. He stressed that the Obama administration and other senior level American officials knew this while they were making the case against Assad.

[pampango]

16. I appreciate you accepting the OCPC's motives. I doubt that many liberals support Assad either

though most do not support "taking him out".

I'm not sure if you are implying that all studies and investigations are flawed and political in nature and, as such, can and should be ignored when they reach the 'wrong' conclusion. It is certainly a good idea to point out the flaws in some past investigations.

If the OCPC study is objective and accurate, it should factor (if only in minor way) into decisions about policy. There are many much bigger factors than wether Assad has used prohibited chemical weapons. The war crimes on all sides and the civilian deaths caused by all, are so numerous that the use of a chemical weapon is a relatively minor killer and, as war crimes go, not as big as some others.

[Cayenne]

14. Why? For oil again?

[grahamhgreen]

17. It's all part of their "New World Order":

I beleive that Saddam & Assad represent a threat in that their Bathist party is essentially (flawed) socialism, and that does not fit in with the privatization of life sought by the oligarchs:

The Plan, "take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran" -- according to U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.)

Expect to hear anti-Assad propaganda repeated any day now til the deed is done.

[Purveyor]

5. How convienient, the timing on this 'report', indeed. Paging Judith Miller, paging Judith Miller.

[pampango]

12. Would some delay in its release resulted in better timing? When would have been a

better time for its release?

[KoKo]

21. NYT's and their Reporting "Sources (on WMD)" should always be viewed

with skepticism. NYT's reporting of Judith Miller/Michael Gordon and others led us into Iraq based on lies. Blood is on their hands.

One should never forget that.

[pampango]

31. True. Not so much the OCPC. n/t

[woodsprite]

7. Chlorine = the new yellowcake!

It can't be ignored, but it does make one wonder.

[pampango]

8. I believe the yellowcake was a Bush/Cheney invention never verified by any independent authority

(because it never existed). No so with the chlorine here.

[KurtNYC]

18. But they don't know WHO used it.

The report does not pin blame for the attacks on anybody,

Last year when Sarin was used it seems to have come through Turkey to the rebels.

Prosecutors in southern Turkey have alleged that Syrian rebel groups were seeking to buy materials that could be used to produce highly toxic sarin gas, Turkish media reported Friday.

An indictment issued in the southern city of Adana alleged that a Syrian national identified as Hytham Qassap, 35, was in Turkey trying to procure chemical materials for a pair of well-known Islamist rebel blocs, Al Nusra Front and the Ahrar al-Sham Brigades, the reports said. Washington has designated Al Nusra Front as a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913-story.html

[pampango]

20. "...its full report is understood to leave little doubt that the Syrian government was responsible."

The fact finders did not specify who had conducted the chlorine attacks. But its full report, which has been shown so far only to governments, is understood to leave little doubt that the Syrian government was responsible.

Michael Luhan, a spokesmen for the organization, said in a telephone interview that witnesses cited in the report saw bombs dropped from high-flying helicopters that released the gas on impact. Of all the combatants in the civil war, only the Syrian government is known to have the ability to conduct such an aerial attack.

[KoKo]

22. Responsibility in an area where Rebels had access to chemicals could also mean

that it was Syrian Governments "responsibility" to have protected chemicals from getting in the hands of rebels.

I don't know this organization and could spend time searching for their members backgrounds and funding sources.... maybe I'd find that I would be satisfied that they are not biased or funded by those who just might have an interest in overthrowing ASSAD.

But, I'm not trusting the NYT's reporting on anything to do with WMD and particularlyt just before Obama's address to the nation. Too close to Judith Milller/Michael Gordon and gullible Colin Powell for my taste.

[KurtNYC]

23. Luhan needs to make up his mind then because he said

"all of the chemical weapons and production facilities (in Syria), all of that is under international control"

[7962]

24. Yes, I'm sure we can trust them when they tell us they've given all of it to us.

[KurtNYC]

28. Luhan says his agency verified and confirmed it but now implies Assad used chlorine

so do you believe Luhan or not?

Meanwhile Turkey put the anti-Assad rebels on trial for trying to buy sarin materials:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913-story.html

[7962]

36. Its not whether I believe Luhan, its whether ANYONE can believe Assad

All we've heard from the start is "all declared weapons....". How do we know there arent any undeclared weapons?

[The Magistrate]

27. Apples And Oranges, Sir

The original stocks did not include weaponized chlorine. It is pretty old school as a poison gas weapon, being superseded even in the course of the Great War when it was initially employed, by more effective agents. It will certainly kill, in sufficient concentration, but no one in the modern day would normally bother to employ it as a munition. On the other hand, just about every country with much in the way of an industrial base will have the stuff available, and it can be readily put into action. The initial use in the Great War involved simply concentrating a mass of pressure cylinders full of it, and turning them on when the wind was right to blow the cloud over onto an enemy position. This developed into using smaller cylinders with lighter walls and a very small charge of explosive to rupture them, thrown in large quantities by what were called 'projectors' in those days but were basically simple mortars. Even less structural strength would be needed for something dropped from the air. Not much at all would be involved in putting something of this sort together.

[KoKo]

34. Sir...it might have been seen as WMD of a lesser resort..Primative..

But, for anyone who ever had a Bleach Accident doing their Laundry....the effects can be devastating...but hardly as harsh as White Phosphorus, Drone Bombs, or other more harsh WMD.

It can, indeed do damage if it is poured on person at full strength. But dropping and the fumes drifting is a different issue.
It could knock one out if you are close and could burn your skin and kill little children......but, if this is the Best they've Got...compared to the REAL/WMD....then it would beg the issue of the deaths of people from "dropped bleach bombs."

I'm not sure they were more concentrated than ordinary Clorox pool supplies..and possibly they were....but it seems more a "Separatist/Rebel" action than an ASSAD action where he had access to much more devastating WMD than "Clorox Bombs" (even more concentrated that they may have been..but, we don't know) .....so it's still hard to take this report as something to go to MORE WAR FOR....when ASSAD did agree to get rid of his more Lethal Chem Weapons (and USA said he Did) and so it would seem the Rebels/Separatists might be using "Pool Supplies stolen from their Wealthy (Chlorine Bleach stored in some warehouse to service the wealthy) to be used as bombs. How did they get them in the Air to drop....? I don't know...

But....I don't trust this report........to be "TRUTH" given the huge USA DISINFO MACHINE. CHLORINE BLEACH? Give me a Break....

If anyone else has another view about "Use of Chlorine Bleach as WMD in Concentrated form with Massive Deaths" then I'd like to read it...

[The Magistrate]

35. It Has Been Used As a Weapon Of War In The Past, Ma'am

I am generally inclined to accept United Nations reports....

[7962]

37. Back to being the US thats at fault, huh? It never ends around here.

[KoKo]

38. It's reading information from various points of view and not just USA MSM...

But....realize it takes time....and people don't have time for much of that these days. Those of us who do...try to post what we read to help out here on DU...for those who don't have time who are Democrats.

[arcane1]

26. Wasn't chlorine one of the thngs that sanctions banned Iraq from having?

I seem to recall reading something about them being unable to sterilize their water during the sanctions period, years ago.

[karynnj]

30. I don't think so

I think the water problem was that the industrial process that cleaned all the water and distributed it needed parts that the US would not allow importing.

[happyslug]

29. Chlorine as a Warfare GAS???? Who went to a Swimming pool and tried to steal the cylinders?

If you understand the history of Chlorine as a Warfare Gas (described below) you quickly come to the conclusion any Chlorine was probably produced when someone tried to steal some cylinders and accidentally punched a hole in one in an enclosed space. That is where Chlorine is at its best as a gas, something rare in the combat in Syria.

Chlorine was suggested as a weapon during the US Civil War, but the North decided against using it. The main problem was chlorine, while it does seep into trenches, requires a solid concentration to be effective. It is hard to achieve that level of Concentration except by using tubes to provide the gas i.e. Chlorine is pumped from a cylinder then flows into the trenches of your opponent.

Unlike Mustard and the WWII era Nerve gases, Chlorine is a difficult gas to use effectively in combat. Thus after WWI rarely used (and even during WWI, dropped out of favor within a year of being used).

The main problem is the level of Chlorine needed to kill, about "Chlorine required a concentration of 1,000 parts per million.

Compare to Cyinde which is fatal at 226 parts per million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

But Nerve gas (Sarin) is 26 times as deadly as Cyanide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

i.e. Sarin is deadly at 10 parts per Million, 100 times more deadly then Chlorine.

A Second problem, related to the first, is how do you get the concentrated needed? During WWI, that was done with tubes. The Germans built tubes right up to the British Lines and unleashed the Chlorine gas that then rolled to the British lines. It took 168 TONS of chlorine to achieve the effect, but it was an effect that was NOT long lasting.

The third problem is Chlorine gas can be removed by breathing throw a wet rag. The Chlorine reacts to the water, staying in the wet rag held over your month while you breath in Oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine#Use_as_a_weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I

For these reasons no one used Chlorine after WWI, The use of Chlorine after WWII has tend to be home ground terrorists NOT anyone doing actual fighting (Who tend to have access to better weapons, such as a rifle and in the minds of some experts on Gas Warfare, using a shovel would be more effective then using Chlorine Gas).

In 1915 the Shock value of Chlorine Gas was tremendous, but that was over within days once the limitations of Chlorine were known.

Thus I can NOT see Syria using Chlorine Gas. It is most effective against dug in positions with people who have no access to water or any form of first aid kit. Worse you can see it coming, it is NOT a colorless gas like other gases, it has its own distinct color thus easy to spot and stay out of.

Could someone being using Chlorine Gas? Yes, but I just can NOT believe anyone with any knowledge of Gas Warfare using it given its limitations.

[pampango]

32. "Thus I can NOT see Syria using Chlorine Gas." Believe what you will. The OCPC disagrees with you.

They may be wrong and you may be right. But it's not like they don't know what they are doing.

[The Magistrate]

33. In Short, Sir

Employed against people driven to shelter in cellars and such, some useful effects could be achieved. Some might be sickened, even killed, some might be driven out into better reach of artillery or machine-gun fire. If the object, as it often is in Syria, is simply to wreak havoc on areas where the populace supports the other side, it could be worth using.

[KoKo]

39. It comes down to this, then. Who would you see replacing Assad...who was just re-elected?

How would he be replaced and with whom would he be replaced....?

This is what I would like to know from you and others who want him gone.

Would he be replaced like Libya and Egypt's Dictators were replaced?

How have the replacements in Libya and Egypt performed for the PEOPLE? Have they been good replacements? Are the PEOPLE in both countries better off today than they were before the replacement?

Can you help me out here so that I understand where you are coming from?

To Repeat:

WHO SHOULD REPLACE ASSAD if we BOMB HIM OUT?

[The Magistrate]

40. I Expressed An Opinion On The Utility Of Chlorine As a Weapon, Ma'am

I think it could serve the purpose of turning people out of shelters below ground level to make them vulnerable to other weapons. I expect that is what it is being used for.

I have consistently been of the opinion the United States should take no overt action, and especially no action with our armed forces, against Assad. This is because, as the situation developed, it is clear whichever side wins will massacre its defeated opponents. If you have ranged yourself behind the side which wins, you are hung with responsibility for the massacre; if you have ranged yourself behind the side which loses, you are revealed to be a weak ally who cannot protect a client. Either way loses considerable prestige. A sound argument could have been made for strong intervention in the very early stages, when Assad was conducting a campaign of torture and murder against civil dissent without much of anything by way of armed resistance, but that moment has long passed.

Attacks on I.S.I.L. targets within the borders of Syria will not involve Assad's forces, unless he is so foolish as to direct his people to attempt to engage our aircraft. He is clearly unable to exercise governmental authority there, sufficient to prevent the armed forces there from aggression against a neighboring state. That state, and its allies, are entitled to take action they consider necessary to deal with that aggression

[KoKo]

42. You've not always been clear on your opinion....

So, I appreciate your clearly stating your view.

It is a large point of disagreement between us that you see US Govt. Policy as so much purer than those of the Dictators that "We in the West" have sustained for years and whose Governments we recently have been in the process of overthrowing with our Think Tank Marketed "Color Coded Revolutions" and "Springs" largely funded and helped along by our NGO's and organizations "Promoting Democracy" which are front groups for "Policy Ops of the Think Tanks."

Our intervention has caused, and is continuing to cause, the killing and maiming of children, elderly and other innocents with the use of torture, bombs, drones, depleted uranium munitions & white phosphorus. Plus the continuing death, destruction, dislocation of families who have lost their homes, businesses and livlihoods who have had no part in the politics of it all. Our policies of "Regime Change" dictated by the influence of "Special Interest Think Tanks" (some now revealed as Foreign Funded), Wall Street and Global Investment interests are WMD of another kind and they are paid for with our tax dollars and in our name.

So...we will disagree about who has the worst WMD and has used them on innocents. And I mean "Western Interests" not just USA...but our "Coalitions of The Willing" and it goes all the way back to rule of the British Empire whose influence we still suffer the consequences of.

But, always interested to hear other view points and yours. No hard feelings with fellow DU'ers unless they are rude or participating in uninformed personal attacks. 's to you.

[The Magistrate]

44. Events, Ma'am, Are Not So Organized As All That

It is not so much a case of my seeing U.S. policies as 'pure', as of my seeing them as not too different from those of anyone else in a similar position throughout history. We sustained dictators, as what the ruling element here considered the best policy of containing and over-coming the Soviet Union and Communism. The Soviet Union maintained dictators, as what its ruling element considered the best policy for over-coming the United States and Capitalism. I think we made a good many poor choices in fighting the Soviets, but the opposition to Soviet totalitarianism was not a mistake.

States will act in furtherance of their interests, or perhaps more precisely, in furtherance of what their rulers conceive to be their interests. A more powerful state may be able to do this more effectively than a weaker state, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind. No state behaves in a particularly moral way, though a state may well find it advantageous to act in ways that many can perceive as moral, and its leaders would do well to remember that actions which are morally unsupportable usually turn out in time to have been bad politics. I do no expect anyone to behave better than the general run of humanity, and I will not judge the practice of one side against the ideal view of another.

[freshwest]

41. It's a horrible death. A tanker spilled in my hometown on the freeway. The survivors ended living

the rest of their lives at home in iron lungs. There may be a better solution now, but with the damage to the lungs and bronchial tubes, well, there you go. Of course some people in the cars nearby didn't survive the incident. Iran is still caring for people suffering from Saddam's chemical attacks. It's long term disability no ability to resist after that. Almost as sure as a bullet. But anyone can do this. We should all think about it.

[Sunlei]

43. cheap and used a lot in all countries. They've used chlorine before to kill people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine

[daleo]

45. So, is the idea to fight Assad and IS simaltaneously?

Because that would be a tall order.